’)Another reason we voted for Barack Obama.
When President Obama lifts restrictions on funding for human embryonic stem cell research today, he will also issue a presidential memorandum aimed at insulating scientific decisions across the federal government from political influence, officials said yesterday.
‘The president believes that it’s particularly important to sign this memorandum so that we can put science and technology back at the heart of pursuing a broad range of national goals,’ Melody C. Barnes, director of Obama’s Domestic Policy Council, told reporters during a telephone briefing yesterday.
It’s a sign of how far we strayed under Bush that President Obama has to even write this up. It’s like saying that the United States doesn’t torture. Oh, wait…
This is really sad. The headlines make it sound that nothing in the stem cell research has been done, but that is wrong. With a diabetic child I’ve been following some research done in this area. Wonderful advancements have actually happened in using ADULT stem cells. No need to kill embryos to advance disease research. They have great hope to cure diabetes and several other diseases. They are hoping to go to human trials within 5-10 years. Yet the news says nothing of these advancements. Unfortuantely the research I’ve read about has actually had problems with Embryonic stem cells, such as tumors developing in the mice they tested on. Look around, there is work being done but money-grubbing people can only see through their tunnel vision glasses. Forget baby cells, lets really use science and focus on what it really promising -Adult Stem Cells = no death involved!
Those embryos are GOING TO BE THROWN OUT ANYWAY, why not get some value from them for a few cells. Also, Adult Stem Cells have some use, but for many things they can’t do the job.
Since the embryos are not yet living beings, there’s no death involved there, either.
Unfortuantely the research I’ve read about has actually had problems with Embryonic stem cells, such as tumors developing in the mice they tested on.
Because there haven’t been new lines of stem cells suitable for research for 9 years. Those cell lines must be getting tired by now.
Unfortuantely the research I’ve read about…
And where was that, pray tell? The New England Journal of Medicine? The Johns Hopkins Medical Review? Nature? You may wish to source that.
Mel: Unfortuantely the research I’ve read about has actually had problems with Embryonic stem cells, such as tumors developing in the mice they tested on.
If that is true then a reliance on actual Science would, as you note, naturally move research away from using embryonic stem cells. Yet another argument for relying on science and not ideology.
OW: Those embryos are GOING TO BE THROWN OUT ANYWAY, why not get some value from them for a few cells.
Exactly. Ask those opposed to using stem cells which would otherwise be thrown in the trash how they feel about organ donation.
In the modern Republican party’s defense, Science has a well known and well documented Liberal Bias.
The opposition to this just dumbfounds me. I get the abortion thing, but if the embryos are already getting roundfiled, what’s the deal?
Even if you DO believe abortion is murder, if somebody was murdered and something on their body could save somebody else’s life, who’d say no?
How does one rationalize Obama’s call for “Politics-free science” with his ban on human cloning? I mean, if the Science is there, what’s the harm?
Farris thats quite simple….
Do we really need another T.O., McCain, Palin, Hillary Clinton, etc.
Banning cloning would prevent the recreation of the worst the world has to offer.
Shorter Farris: Look, over there!
Sean wishes Scientific Ethics weren’t a valid question, but wishing doesn’t make it so. If you base your decisions purely on science, with no regards for ethics, you wind up with Mengele and Tuskeegee.
There’s a reason that the phrase “cruelty-free” even exists, and it isn’t because people put science first.
Actually, Sean wishes Farris didn’t have such a track record of ignoring the topic at hand to bring up some straw man from left field. It would make it easier to consider whether he actually may be making a point.
Dammit, Farris, there’s a world of difference between embyronic stem-cell research and human cloning. And Obama never claimed that ethics ought not to be a consideration when in the pursuit of science. No one, NO ONE thinks that. It’s the reason I have to deal with the Animal Research Committee at my university to assess the merits of my work relative to the discomfort/invasiveness of my experimental procedures on rats and pigeons. It’s the reason that every reputable scientific institution that does human testing has to go through an intensive review process to get permission to do their work.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Sean wishes Scientific Ethics weren’t a valid question, but wishing doesn’t make it so. If you base your decisions purely on science, with no regards for ethics, you wind up with Mengele and Tuskeegee.
There’s a reason that the phrase “cruelty-free” even exists, and it isn’t because people put science first.
Nobody said Scientific Ethics weren’t a valid question, straw boy. But nice try. Invoking “cruelty-free” is pretty rich from a torture endorser.
So SF: you pro-Stem Cell Research, or anti?
You’re arguing cruelty to embryos? Seriously?
Oh and by the way,