Obama to overturn funding ban on embryonic stem-cell research
posted at 12:25 pm on March 9, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Saying that he wants to restore science to its rightful place in government, Barack Obama will reverse the executive order signed by George Bush banning federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. Ironically, the hEsc research has proven much less fruitful than the efforts on adult stem cells, which have yielded dozens of therapies and have demonstrated the ability to become as pluripotentiary as hEsc cloning:
President Barack Obama will reverse the U.S. government’s ban on funding stem-cell research today and pledge to “use sound, scientific practice and evidence, instead of dogma” to guide federal policy, an adviser said.
Harold Varmus, co-chair of a science advisory group to the President, said Obama will ask the White House Office of Science and Technology to create guidelines to incorporate ‘scientific integrity’ into decision-making by U.S. agencies. The action on stem cells, which can grow into any kind of tissue, may help speed research into cures for major illness.
Academic laboratories, led by Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and companies already using stem-cell technology, led by Geron Corp., of Menlo Park, California, could gain tens of millions of dollars in funding because of the decision. A “significant amount” of $10 billion given the National Institutes of Health in Obama’s stimulus plan will go to this area of research, Varmus said.
“We view what happened with stem-cell research in the last administration as one manifestation of the failure to think carefully about how government use of scientific advice occurs,” said Varmus, a Nobel prize winner who is president of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, in a conference call with reporters yesterday. “Public policy must be guided by sound, scientific advice.”
Obama’s move hardly surprises anyone, and likely would have happened in a John McCain administration. McCain promised to reverse the Bush restrictions as well during the campaign and spent the last few years criticizing Bush for restricting federal funding. This was one of several points of near-agreement between Obama and McCain during the campaign.
The advocates of this policy cheer the supposed triumph of science over politics, but in truth, it’s the reverse. Over a year ago, researchers found a way to unlock adult stem cells to have the same flexibility as hEsc lines, ie, the ability to transform into any kind of tissue. Bush’s policy in effect pushed the government-funded research in that direction, which prompted the breakthrough. With that process available, we have no need to grind up our offspring to cure diseases, especially since grinding up our offspring has yet to result in even one therapeutic result, despite billions of dollars of research into hEsc. A scientific approach would dictate that we follow success instead of failure.
In fact, the market has done just that. While some states (California being one) have provided public funds for hEsc research, most of the private money goes towards adult stem-cell research. Why? It’s a proven technology. That’s one of the reasons hEsc researchers are so desperate to overturn Bush’s ban on federal funding — they can’t compete for any other funding any longer.
This decision places politics ahead of science. People demand government funding for hEsc not because it works, but because it’s popular. Pro-abortion activists want it as an endorsement of abortion as some sort of mechanism for scientific advance, and they’ve managed to sucker the rest into thinking that we’ll all die unless we start destroying embryos to keep us alive. No one has offered a single scientific reason to have the federal government fund hEsc research.
Update: Science Daily reported last week on why hEsc funding is even more unnecessary (via Third Base Politics):
Mount Sinai Hospital’s Dr. Andras Nagy discovered a new method of creating stem cells that could lead to possible cures for devastating diseases including spinal cord injury, macular degeneration, diabetes and Parkinson’s disease. The study, published by Nature, accelerates stem cell technology and provides a road map for new clinical approaches to regenerative medicine.
“We hope that these stem cells will form the basis for treatment for many diseases and conditions that are currently considered incurable,” said Dr. Nagy, Senior Investigator at the Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute of Mount Sinai Hospital, Investigator at the McEwen Centre for Regenerative Medicine, and Canada Research Chair in Stem Cells and Regeneration. “This new method of generating stem cells does not require embryos as starting points and could be used to generate cells from many adult tissues such as a patient’s own skin cells.”
Yet another scientific reason why federal funding should go elsewhere.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
This sort of rhetoric from the POTUS is really getting on my nerves.
Restore science…gov’t
Restore our standing in the world at large
Restore this, restore that…
I don’t want some things restored. And some things he’s calling restored are misrepresentations of what he really means anyway…
bluelightbrigade on March 9, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Anti-abortionist’s fantasies of eight cell human beings are not widely accepted. I wonder why Obama even took this long to end medical funding by superstition.
thuja on March 9, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Why should the govmint use our tax dollars to fund this research?
Shouldn’t this be a private sector venture?
Kini on March 9, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Thanks for the clarification. It wasn’t obvious whether the exclusion was intentional or not.
We’ll see what the future holds. The advancements of other stem cell research are going so fast they’ve left ESC behind:
Benefits of Stem Cells to Human Patients
Adult Stem Cells v. Embryonic Stem Cells
INC on March 9, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Maybe the people who support the death penalty should use the argument that there “might” be some medical advances if we reinstated the death penalty everywhere and used the dead bodies for lots of research? Imagine how much experience the next generation of doctors would get if they had unlimited access to cadavers.
katiejane on March 9, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Because of you right-wingers I’m having to grow my new brain without any taxpayer money. thank you very much.
DarkCurrent on March 9, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Yes. It should. When there is a large conservative movement demanding a stop to the Mars program, we’ll take this arument seriously.
radiofreevillage on March 9, 2009 at 1:39 PM
…by pro-abortionists.
Who’da thunk it!?
CDeb on March 9, 2009 at 1:40 PM
I don’t quite follow your logic, I was simply showing that saying ESC research must be ungodly because it hasn’t cured a disease yet is laughable (and will be more laughable if a discovery does come out because that must mean that god is now pro-ESC research).
I don’t believe anyone is sacrificed for ESC research and that’s most likely where we disagree.
jonknee on March 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM
I’m looking forward to the day when babies are produced only to provide organs and tissue for the rest of us.
Won’t that be a great, fetus-factories in every city, churning out the raw material for Pelosi’s plastic surgery.
Bishop on March 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM
It would be interesting to see how many cures have been found thanks to government funding (other than perhaps through the military) compared to cures found thanks to private sector capital.
neuquenguy on March 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM
It is less of a stretch than you might imagine. Checked only perhaps by the success of adult steam cell research.
neuquenguy on March 9, 2009 at 1:43 PM
That, or we’ll be defending Zion from the Matrix in a few years.
the_souse on March 9, 2009 at 1:43 PM
While he claims that we will not allow human cloing, I think that quietly, the plan is to clone Obama.
We could have hundreds, thousands of Obamas and they could run each and every branch of government and hold all the seats in all the legislatures.
Obama could be president for life without ditching the constitution.
myrenovations on March 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Actually, the academic medical community does have pretty much unlimited access to cadavers which are donated with living wills to medical schools.
The problem with ESCR for the socons is that it negates the personhood-at-conception meme which is supposedly an argument for overturning Roe (see Nebraska’s Handmaid’s Tale bill).
ie, if diploid oocytes are….umm….people, we can’t exactly experiment on them.
strangelet on March 9, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Doctor, to patient: “I have good news and bad news. The good news is that advances in stem cell research have led to a treatment for your life-threatening illness.”
“And the bad news?”
“We socialized the medical industry, so stem cell therapies and other expensive treatments are now off-limits to you. Only those holding office of US Senator or higher are eligible for these interventions.”
innominatus on March 9, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Invest in TelePrompters now!
zmdavid on March 9, 2009 at 1:46 PM
I read something that someone commented on about Obama.. can’t remember where, it was as follows “Everybody wants him (Obama) to fix everything right now, and he just can’t get to everything right away, give him a break”…
I say QUIT TRYING to fix everything because his fixes need fixed… I think he needs to go on vacation for awhile maybe a long while, as commented “give him a break”.
kthomas8268 on March 9, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Conservative Christians now MUST PAY with our tax dollars for INFATICIDE…
Jesus crys…
as…
America dies…
Mark Garnett on March 9, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Well.. on the bright side, production should be fun… ;)
Skywise on March 9, 2009 at 1:49 PM
ROFL
neuquenguy on March 9, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Strange how that works, isn’t it? Politics is always the driving force. I recall the GOP willingness to initiate federal action in the Schiavo case.
a capella on March 9, 2009 at 1:50 PM
To be fair, adult stem cells have had the benefit of Federal research dollars so it’s not exactly an equal race. Your link was interesting, but also quite biased. I prefer my science from sources that weren’t created out of a special interest (one way or the other, I’d have no interest in a pro-ESC rag either). I have no ethical qualm with ESC research, but I am not in favor of one over the other. It’s not a zero-sum game–the more cures (and general knowledge) the better.
jonknee on March 9, 2009 at 1:50 PM
If the pot of money is fixed, then funding must be “deallocated” from someplace else to go where Obama wants it to go — and where he wants it to go is implicit in his rescision of Bush’s executive order. If the order was political, than its abrogation must be political too. Everyone here understands that equation.
Only in the USA has this restriction been in place, and then only with respect to Federal funding. Britain has had quite the opposite policy with respect to hESC — underfunding autologous research in favor of embryonic research — see here and here, and last but certainly not least, here.
From a science standpoint, embryonic stem cells are the equivalent of laetrile therapy for cancer — lots of smoke but negative fire — the fire being negative because the funding came from places which had shown promise, and the result was lost lives.
To get the sense of the matter, take a look at Britain’s leadership position in hEsc research — and the advances which have occurred in that area. Then look at the corresponding autologous science and compare. To make the long story short, hEsc shows results in petri dish experiments, while autologous techniques are in the human trials stage. That dichotomy is certainly not because the US Government is not funding, because the rest of the world (Britain and California included) has been pushing money into hEsc at a high rate and has little to show for it.
The morality question is merely icing on the cake — in the end the question will come down to whether you want to take immunosuppressent drugs for the rest of your life for your hEsc produced kidney, or no drugs at all for your autologous kidney. In the world of medicine, the latter outcome wins hands-down. In ObamaWorld, the former wins, regardless of what’s right both morally and for the patient.
unclesmrgol on March 9, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Why should the govmint use our tax dollars to fund this research?
Shouldn’t this be a private sector venture?
Kini on March 9, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Of course it should. But lefties think the private sector is just full of fat rich white guys holding back the cancer cure until it costs 800 billion dollars.
Speedwagon82 on March 9, 2009 at 1:53 PM
The crux of this is that some (a lot?) of people view the funding of this research as being accessory to murder. I don’t think I’m going to go in with that view, but it is reasonable enough that I will not support forcing it on them.
(No comparisons to the unreasonable demands of the anti-military crowd, please)
Count to 10 on March 9, 2009 at 1:53 PM
I grow to despise this administration and PeBO more and more each day.
Putting aside whether gov’t should be in the business of funding this research, when reading that statement, I don’t know if I should cry, laugh, or scream in anger at the top of my lungs.
If he weren’t so calculating in his deceptions and his own dogma, I would think PeBO is a ‘tard.
Mallard T. Drake on March 9, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Most oral contraceptives don’t prevent conception, they prevent implantation. I’ve often wondered how many anti ESC couples use them.
a capella on March 9, 2009 at 1:54 PM
I’m inclined to agree only with the basic point that any research which requires federal funding is, by definition, a waste of money. All federal funding of that kind is inescapably political and ideological.
However, I’m glad that Bush didn’t force people to pay for abortions and experiments on human embryos, like Obama is. “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” – Thomas Jefferson
JohnJ on March 9, 2009 at 1:55 PM
These are pre-existing 8-cell frozen embryos, not infants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Embryo,_8_cells.jpg
There are much more important things to freak out about than an 8-cell popsicle.
jonknee on March 9, 2009 at 1:56 PM
I doubt it. It would be more likely to involve a hypodermic needle or a tissue sample than…messy recreational activities.
Count to 10 on March 9, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Here’s their main page which links directly to articles from many, many sources. The accusation of quite biased doesn’t hold.
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/
Their news links indicate this:
Groundbreaking Paper Publishes Long Term Results of a Successful Phase I Clinical Trial Using Autologous Neural Stem Cells to Treat Parkinson’s Disease
(PR Newswire)
Report: Fetal stem cells trigger tumors in ill boy
(AP)
Stem Cells From Skin Cells Can Make Beating Heart Muscle Cells
(ScienceDaily)
Stem-cell transplant wipes out HIV
(Nature News)
Louisville test will try to regrow heart muscle
(Courier-Journal)
Treating MS Symptoms With Stem Cells
(CBS News)
Single factor converts adult stem cells into embryonic-like stem cells
(PhysOrg)
INC on March 9, 2009 at 1:56 PM
What are you going to find vivisecting liberals that you couldn’t find in any random pile of trash? Get real.
DarkCurrent on March 9, 2009 at 1:57 PM
At Ta-nehesi’s we were talking about things that caused an exodus from the GOP…..Schiavo was one of the most commonly named precipitating events.
Everyone above a certain IQ gradient knew the Lady Was A Carrot, and the anti-federalist machinations of the administration was a definite turn-off for many.
strangelet on March 9, 2009 at 1:58 PM
Really? I thought they prevented ovulation.
…not that I am particularly well informed on the matter…
Count to 10 on March 9, 2009 at 1:58 PM
..
Oh.
:(
( ;) )
Skywise on March 9, 2009 at 1:58 PM
This is from the American Academy of Medical Ethics.
This is from a paper they did regarding ESC research.
Cell biology:
INC on March 9, 2009 at 1:59 PM
You are wrong — the game is in many respects “zero sum”. If the pot of money is fixed, then funding must be “deallocated” from someplace else to go where Obama wants it to go — and where he wants it to go is implicit in his recision of Bush’s executive order. If the order was political, than its abrogation must be political too. Everyone here should understand that equation.
Only in the USA has the hEsc funding restriction been in place, and then only with respect to Federal action. Both Britain and California have had quite the opposite policy with respect to hESC — deliberately underfunding autologous research in favor of embryonic research — see here and here, and last but certainly not least, here.
From a science standpoint, embryonic stem cells are the equivalent of laetrile therapy for cancer — lots of smoke but negative fire — the fire being negative because the funding came from places which had shown promise, and the result was lost lives.
To get the sense of the matter, take a look at Britain’s leadership position in hEsc research — and the advances which have occurred in that area. Then look at the corresponding autologous science and compare. To make the long story short, hEsc shows results in petri dish experiments, while autologous techniques are in the human trials stage. That dichotomy is certainly not because the US Government is not funding, because the rest of the world (Britain and California included) has been pushing money into hEsc at a high rate and has little to show for it.
The morality question is merely icing on the cake — in the end the question will come down to whether you want to take immunosuppressent drugs for the rest of your life for your hEsc produced kidney, or no drugs at all for your autologous kidney. In the world of medicine, the latter outcome wins hands-down. In ObamaWorld, the former wins, regardless of what’s right both morally and for the patient.
unclesmrgol on March 9, 2009 at 1:59 PM
This is from the AAME regarding Human Personhood: (their emphasis)
INC on March 9, 2009 at 2:00 PM
No, the idea that a lump of cells more primitive than a brain of a fly has a soul, is totally unscientific. There’s nothing reasonable about it.
radiofreevillage on March 9, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Kind of the pertinent point. Regardless if you believe in God, one can have different values about what constitutes “valid sacrifices”.
For some it’s embryos.
For some it’s Monkeys/Rats
For some it’s Jews.
For some it’s the Tuskegee Airmen…
Skywise on March 9, 2009 at 2:01 PM
I promise that that research has the possibility of curing cancer, AIDS, heart disease, diabetes, paralysis, poverty, hate, closed-mindedness, bigotry, and all the ills of the world if only Obama would overturn the federal ban on funding for it.
JohnJ on March 9, 2009 at 2:02 PM
That’s unfair. Don’t burden “pro-choicers” with science. In order to support this monstrosity they need to be able to think of it as a clump of cells with no connection to anything human.
neuquenguy on March 9, 2009 at 2:03 PM
From another paper from AAME: The Woman and the Physician Facing Abortion: The Role of Correct Science in the Formation of Conscience and the Moral Decision Making Process:
One of the most urgent yet least discussed dilemmas concerning the woman, the physician, and a host of others facing abortion today, is access to the correct basic scientific information regarding the human embryo — scientific information which demonstrates empirically that normally every human being begins at fertilization as a single-cell embryo, the zygote. Without this correct scientific information we are all precluded from forming our consciences correctly or making morally correct decisions about abortion, human embryo research, human embryonic stem cell research, cloning, formation of interspecies chimeras, germ-line DNA recombinant gene research and therapy, and other related current medical and scientific issues. The use of the correct science is indeed the starting point for thinking about all of this, short of Divine Revelation…
Every individual human being produced via normal sexual reproduction begins as a human embryo at fertilization– when normal pregnancy actually begins– or in in vitro fertilization, with the initial fusion of the sperm and the oocyte. This is not just a “faith position”, a “personal opinion”, or a “pro-life radical’s” misguided fantasy. This is an objective scientific fact – Biology 101 – agreed to by every human embryologist around the world. Like 2 + 2 = 4.
At fertilization the matter is “appropriately organized”, and this single-cell human zygote – in vivo or in vitro – is an already existing human being, with his or her own unique genetic composition (from both the mother and the father), genetically already a girl or a boy. Immediately this tiny human being directs his or her own growth and development. The embryo grows continuously from a single-cell zygote, to the 12-16 cell morula stage, to the 5-6 day blastocyst stage, and on. The whole embryonic blastocyst is the human embryo (the human being), not just the cells from the inner cell layer. Specifically human proteins and enzymes are produced, and later specifically human tissues and organs are formed – long before some isolated “pure rational soul” might be “infused” to try to direct such operations and functions. All biologists know empirically that function does follow being (or form). Therefore these specifically human functions and activities could only be produced by a human agent, a human being (i.e., who must possess a human rational form – which form itself cannot be divided, or exist separately from the body). We also know empirically that carrot and frog enzymes, proteins, tissues and organs are not produced, and that carrots and frogs do not produce specifically human enzymes and proteins, organs and tissues!
If there is a human being there, which the correct basic science surely demonstrates, we can reason directly from these correct objective scientific facts to the realist philosophical conclusion that there must be simultaneously a human person present as well – whole soul, body and esse in ONE single composite human being. There is no such thing as a pure “rational soul” alone; the rational soul must always contain virtually the sensitive and vegetative powers, and must always exist in one composite with the material body. If the vegetative powers are empirically observable, which they are, then the sensitive and rational powers must also be present as well…
INC on March 9, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Well.. on the bright side, production should be fun… ;)
Skywise on March 9, 2009 at 1:49 PM
What, standing over a tray of test tubes and transferring cells to the growing vats?
I suppose if one of the lab techs is a hottie, other than that, not much.
Bishop on March 9, 2009 at 2:03 PM
:-)
INC on March 9, 2009 at 2:04 PM
The idea that anything has a soul it totally unscientific.
So the killing of anything should just be a rational/reasonable value of the person to the state… correct?
Skywise on March 9, 2009 at 2:04 PM
You do realize we fund research of pig farts?
Ed is correct.
There has been great success with everything from umbilical cord stem cells to altered adult stem cells. These types of cells also hold the benefit of being genetic matches to the individual.
There has been little to no success with embryonic stem cells – and there is a fear of rejection. But by all means let’s rush to destroy life for our own Frankenstein research kicks.
Mr Purple on March 9, 2009 at 2:04 PM
My point of bias being this group exists to promote alternatives to ESC. Sure, they might be awesome, but they are definitely biased. Their mission statement starts off:
I understand that some people have a moral objection to ESC research. That’s OK, voice it. But that’s not a good reason to try and make it seem like ESC is a waste of money. It comes off very disingenuous. You think it’s immoral and thus try and downplay its significance.
As I have no moral issues with it, I am fine letting the scientists who want to research go ahead and do so. If they don’t find anything useful, we move on. That’s how science goes.
(It seems a bit analogous to groups that claim marijuana has no medical significance. But then you find out they are against research to that effect and the whole anti-medical thing was a smokescreen for diffusing an argument against legalization.)
So bottom line in my opinion, if you’re morally against something, just go ahead and say it. That’s a lot more respectable than trying to have a war on science.
jonknee on March 9, 2009 at 2:04 PM
No, the idea that a lump of cells more primitive than a brain of a fly has a soul, is totally unscientific. There’s nothing reasonable about it.
radiofreevillage on March 9, 2009 at 2:00 PM
When exactly does that lump of cells acquire its “soul”?
Bishop on March 9, 2009 at 2:05 PM
ErinF on March 9, 2009 at 1:27 PM said:
As pro-lifer who went through IVF, I must disagree. I asked God many times to help show me the way when I was going through this, and I never got the feeling I was doing something wrong.
Without going into the details our problem, we were VERY careful not to make too many embryos, and our doctor was very helpful in that vain. Our first attempt did not work, but we had two embryos that were viable enough to be frozen after our first try.
I worried for three months (that’s how long we had to wait to try again) that something would happen to those embryos, such as equipment failure or being accidentally destroyed. One of those embryos eventually became my daughter. If I had more in storage, I would use them, too. I could no more donate them to science than I could donate my daughter.
What people don’t understand is that even during the natural way, many embryos are created that are never meant to be children and either never implant or end up as early miscarriages. Once they come together, it is a chemical process that allows the sperm and egg to start dividing, but it is God’s hand that makes it become a child.
Kel-C on March 9, 2009 at 2:06 PM
When Planned Parenthood says so.
neuquenguy on March 9, 2009 at 2:06 PM
I’m morally against it and I believe I’ve said that. However, your statement implying that I have a war on science is precisely why I do the science links..
INC on March 9, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Dude, the contention that anything “has a soul” is totally unscientific.
Any developmental stage at which you draw a person/non-person line is going to be arbitrary and inherently fuzzy. The contradiction is that we assign special status to various arrangements of elementary particles in the first place–it works well as an approximation in most circumstances, but it looses its predictive power in these extreme limits.
There is going to be error–which side should the federal government, with its coerced tax revenues, error?
Count to 10 on March 9, 2009 at 2:07 PM
No. In Obama world those types of scientific questions are left to researchers and program directors, and not to the President of the US.
He’s simply more conservative (and therefore more right) on this issue.
radiofreevillage on March 9, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Bishop,
You might be interested in reading that long quote I linked to which is a discussion by the AAME that All biologists know empirically that function does follow being (or form).
INC on March 9, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Yes, and up is down and down is up.
INC on March 9, 2009 at 2:09 PM
I disagree with this opinion of yours. I think up is up.
radiofreevillage on March 9, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Orwell would agree.
INC on March 9, 2009 at 2:11 PM
I cannot agree with you on a philosophical basis but I understand and respect your struggle and your experience.
neuquenguy on March 9, 2009 at 2:11 PM
And the media, even FOX, uses language that indicates President Bush had banned any federal money for embryonic stem-cell research or flat out ALL STEM cell research. When he only banned spending on more lines of embryonic stem-cell research. The State of Maryland also continues to spend money on embryonic stem-cell research when private money has moved to adult stem cells with, last I checked, 77 different therapies utilizing adult stem cell breakthroughs with none from embryonic stem-cell research. The liberals are spending money driven by ideology and they say that conservatives are hard headed and won’t accept change.
amr on March 9, 2009 at 2:12 PM
The promise is great and the potential benefit to mankind unbounded. I vote Yea!
DarkCurrent on March 9, 2009 at 2:15 PM
I say every decision that a program director at NIH or elsewhere makes should be approved by a guy in a pointy hat. This will make the process be devoid of any ideology.
radiofreevillage on March 9, 2009 at 2:16 PM
It’s a totally conservative position. Yes, the problems will be solved eventually or alleviated considerably if the government removes artificial obstacles.
radiofreevillage on March 9, 2009 at 2:18 PM
No more Robert Byrd jokes.
zmdavid on March 9, 2009 at 2:18 PM
It’s always refreshing to have faithful voluptuaries of the Church of Global Warming come bouncing out of their latest revival meeting and lecture the rest of us about letting religious faith interfere with science, isn’t it?
So, let’s see if I’ve got this straight: withholding federal funding from embryonic stem cell research is an unreasonable, Neanderthal denial of science, but we can’t spend a nickel on nuclear power because of a thirty-year-old movie and the fever dreams of a pack of hippies?
Doctor Zero on March 9, 2009 at 2:20 PM
don’t see a problem with ESC research, and the allocation of Federal funds for research IF such path leads to results. These are embryos that would have been destroyed anyway for in vitro fertilization. Unless you have a problem with the latter too, I think you don’t have much of a moral argument against ESC research.
haner on March 9, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Okay, so be it. Have one female scientist and 1 male scientist from the labs do their thing and then slice and dice it under the microscope. If they can’t murder their own offspring- don’t ask others to do it.
journeyintothewhirlwind on March 9, 2009 at 2:24 PM
If there is no justification to destroy a life to save a life and it’s murder.What is collateral damage?
mags on March 9, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Obama has stated in 10 years or whatever he wants to cure cancer. How does he expect to do this when Embryonic Stem cells more often than not turn into tumors?
Rbastid on March 9, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Agreed. This is also a good standard to apply when deciding whether or not to allow brain surgeries. Can you open the skull of your own child? Well, don’t ask others to do it.
radiofreevillage on March 9, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Yeah, that sounds about right.
txaggie on March 9, 2009 at 2:27 PM
So I guess the Bush War on Science is over.
Constantine on March 9, 2009 at 2:30 PM
There never was a “Bush War on Science.” The research was never stopped or outlawed, just not federally-funded.
Of course, under Buttcrack Ovomit’s Administration EVERYTHING is federally-funded.
His statement was that medical miracles do not happen by accident. Considering the discovery of penicillin was exactly that – perhaps he needs (yet another) history lesson.
PJ Emeritus on March 9, 2009 at 2:33 PM
From the Science Daily link you provided:
So the discovery you tout in the update never would have occurred if not for embryonic stem cells. What further discoveries might be rooted in continuing research into embryonic stem cells? If you had your way, we’d never find out.
In fact, if the far right had their way, Dr. Nagy would have never made the very discovery which you are lauding.
orange on March 9, 2009 at 2:34 PM
neuquenguy on March 9, 2009 at 2:11 PM said:
There are many aspects of IVF that I philosophically don’t agree with either. Too many couples enter the process with only the goal in mind — they want a kid and whatever happens along the way is just a means to an end. And too many of the doctors are more than willing to accommodate them.
It pains me to think that if it weren’t for these types of IVF couples, there wouldn’t be discarded embryos for scientists to destroy. The discussion would be a whole different ballgame then.
Kel-C on March 9, 2009 at 2:37 PM
True or False. Dr. Nagy’s embryonic stem cell discovery was accomplished via funding by the US.
Skywise on March 9, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Uh huh. Sure you will. That’s why you appointed John Holdren as your Science Adviser:
Some critics have noted Holdren’s penchant for making apocalyptic predictions that never come to pass, and categorizing all criticism of his alarmist views as not only wrong but dangerous. What none has yet noted is that Holdren is a globalist who has endorsed “surrender of sovereignty” to “a comprehensive Planetary Regime” that would control all the world’s resources, direct global redistribution of wealth, oversee the “de-development” of the West, control a World Army and taxation regime, and enforce world population limits. He has castigated the United States as “the meanest of wealthy countries,” written a justification of compulsory abortion for American women, advocated drastically lowering the U.S. standard of living, and left the door open to trying global warming “deniers” for crimes against humanity. Such is Barack Obama’s idea of a clear-headed adviser on matters of scientific policy.
Buy Danish on March 9, 2009 at 2:43 PM
I appreciate your comments and sincerity. At times there appears to be inconsistency on both sides of the argument. I struggle with that.
a capella on March 9, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Agreed. This is also a good standard to apply when deciding whether or not to allow brain surgeries. Can you open the skull of your own child? Well, don’t ask others to do it.
radiofreevillage on March 9, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Surgery is based on saving the patient under the blade and the patient/parent/relatives knows and accepts the risk.Doctors learn from each surgery whether it is successful and saves the patient or the patient dies. Embryonic research is taking one life researching on if it is possible to save another- but the patient is FORCED to die. Big difference.
journeyintothewhirlwind on March 9, 2009 at 3:10 PM
I’m guessing it was not funded by the US. Surely you dont want the US to depend on other countries to make important scientific discoveries, correct? Dont we want to encourage Americans to continue to lead the way in scientific advancement, as we did throughout the 20th century?
orange on March 9, 2009 at 3:12 PM
You do understand that a greater “US” exists beyond the federal government don’t you?
DarkCurrent on March 9, 2009 at 3:25 PM
So you don’t know but yet you can make a statement like this?
The fact of the matter is that the US never funded ANY stem cell research until Bush-43 signed the order. Not Clinton. Bush.
In fact, Embryonic stem cell research funding was allowed using existing embryonic lines under Bush’ order.
And yet Obama wants to ban cloning and not allow the “politicization of science” but only fund those global warming studies that show the amount of damage caused by global warming or how fast it’s occuring… NOT if it actually exists.
Who’s more pro-science here?
Skywise on March 9, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Surely you agree that if the far right had their way, there would be no embryonic stem cell research anywhere, correct?
orange on March 9, 2009 at 3:52 PM
BetseyRoss on March 9, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Can we officially start calling the Democratic party the party of reactionary longing for the past?
hawksruleva on March 9, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Sorry Skywise. Must appologize. I meant to add that you are abslolutely correct in your comment. The rest is my reaction to the thread.
BetseyRoss on March 9, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Though it is interesting that between fertilization and implantation that God’s hand causes such a large number of embryos to die off.
dedalus on March 9, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Sure. But if the US government can fund good scientific discoveries, I’m for it. If you’re against it, fine.
The point is that Mr. Morrissey was lauding the discoveries of Dr. Nagy without recognizing that those discoveries would never have come about without “grind[ing] up our offspring”.
orange on March 9, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Not the Tuskeegee Airmen. You are thinking of the Tuskeegee Study.
With that change, I’d say your statement is completely accurate. In order to do these things, step one is to deny or subvert the humanity of your test subject.
The science of DNA gives the truth.
unclesmrgol on March 9, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Yes, biological life. No, no life comparable in value to a born human. I mean, let me bite it. I would have problem giving a fertilized egg, conceived my my wife and I under the assumption that it’s been an accident.
If I want a kid, then of course I will not give up a chance to have him. This has nothing to do with a lump of cell being equivalent to a human, and everything to do with my unwillingness to wait more and try again.
If for some reason my wife miscarriages, it’s a bummer because we both wanted a kid (in this hypothetical example), but I’m not gonna mourn a dead human. This is stupid.
So if your argument was that all people would have moral objections to using their own embryo for research, then by all means convince yourself that it’s on this blog that you finally met The Worst Person In The World.
radiofreevillage on March 9, 2009 at 4:55 PM
I would have NO problem giving…
radiofreevillage on March 9, 2009 at 4:56 PM
This is such a terrible mistake — what if this research produces nothing? What if no valuable breakthroughs come of it? They have had years to demonstrate its validity, only to have not much to show for it.
Adult stem cell research has yielded big dividends…pour more money into that research.
President Obama should be ashamed.
Richard Romano on March 9, 2009 at 5:13 PM
I agree with both McCain and Obama on this issue.
AnninCA on March 9, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Each one of us was an embryo at one time; we didn’t come from one. And at that stage, each of us had our own genetic code that is different from our parents’, yet blended from both. In other words, we were the human beings that we are today — just in an earlier, perfectly normal, absolutely essential, stage of development. Killing embryos for research is indeed killing human beings. Or are some of you folks saying that you somehow skipped that stage of development?
I have a question for my fellow Christians and Jews here: God commands us not to covet anything that belongs to our neighbors. I have a chronic disease that will probably take my life someday, but I do not covet the stem cells of human embryos, if taking the cells would kill them. Even if I would not be the beneficiary of research that resulted from the killing of embryos, do I have God’s permission to want them to be killed for the sake of others? The embryos have no choice in the matter and do not willingly end their lives. Aren’t we coveting everything they have — their few cells, their very lives? I could take all the money my next door neighbor has and give it to charity, but it still would be coveting and taking what is his.
The same kind of question has bothered me about what I call fatal organ transplants — the “harvesting” of people’s hearts and other organs without which they can’t live. I once heard the mother of a young child admit on TV, “I know that I’m hoping for someone else’s child to die, so mine can live.” Is that coveting? She wants her child to live – a natural and worthy feeling — but is hoping that someone else’s child (whom she does not know and love) will suffer a terrible accident and be taken from his/her mourning family.
I think a lot about these issues — seems to me a whole lot of coveting is going on these days. I’m not saying that I wouldn’t feel the same way as that mother, but my feelings aren’t the standard for right morality.
Just wondering.
KyMouse on March 9, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Sorry, it is immoral for the state to fund the killing off of unborn life. I realize that McCain would have done the same as the filthy liar but that doesn’t make such a move any more defensible.
highhopes on March 9, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Then you are equally immoral.
How is killing life ever the right choice? Hitler liked being around children while attempting to kill off an entire ethnic group and experimenting on some of them in the process. You, McCain and the filthy liar in the White House are no more morally justified in your position than Hitler was in his. And, yeah, I really mean the Nazi reference to describe morally reprehensible comments like yours.
highhopes on March 9, 2009 at 5:30 PM
The filthy liar is too arrogant to even understand the concept of shame.
highhopes on March 9, 2009 at 5:31 PM
You obviously don’t know anything about stem-cells. I know McCain doesn’t. Obama knows better. Sleaze.
Agrippa2k on March 9, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »