FDA OKs First Human Trials of Embryonic Stem Cells

[mugs]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: mugs
There is no indication that Bush held up this approval or that Obama is responsible for the approval.

There is no indication that Bush cooked the books on Iraqi WMDs either.

But why play dumb when you don't have to?

If Bush was forcing the FDA to delay approval for the trial, why didn't Bush force the FDA to reject the trial?

 

[Sedition]

Originally posted by: AFMatt

Originally posted by: Sedition

Originally posted by: AFMatt
I saw that one the news earlier and thought it was great news.
As far as blame for all the slow progress in stem cell research, this guy doesn't agree with placing it all on Bush:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredsci...01/embryonic-stem.html

A Blog? Well there's a valid source for information.

I know.. And it's the same blog the article that started this thread is posted on. Who knew Wired.com worked that way? Craziness!

The source of the information is William B. Hurlbut, M.D. ( http://www.stanford.edu/~ethics/Site/Main.html ). It was merely reported on Wired.com.

IMO Blog = Opinion. Maybe someday it will be an acceptable form of presenting information, but until that day I will skip it every time. There is no accountability, not to mention it makes you one of those "blog readers". /shudder.

 

[AFMatt]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: mugs
There is no indication that Bush held up this approval or that Obama is responsible for the approval.

There is no indication that Bush cooked the books on Iraqi WMDs either.

But why play dumb when you don't have to?

If Bush was forcing the FDA to delay approval for the trial, why didn't Bush force the FDA to reject the trial?

My guess is because nothing Bush said or did gave any indication he prohibited this type of trial. Just a guess...
The only thing Bush did concerning stem cells dealt with limits on federal funding.

 

[umbrella39]

This is a great step in the right direction. :thumbsup:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: charrison
Like it or not there are moral issues that go along with embryonic stem cells.

Not with me, I think it's great.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: AFMatt

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Last week, Bush, the Dark Ages for scientific research.

This week, Obama, we're on the cutting edge again.

Nice :thumbsup:

This procedure is the result of a decade of research, was submitted to the FDA last April, and the time taken since then has been used to determine it's safety. It has nothing to do with Obama being in office.

No, it doesn't, however there's no way the FDA would have approved this under the Bush Administration. Further, Bush's ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research has certainly slowed the research, although I note California passed a bill that funded it at the state-level and there were likely other private efforts...

And you also must realize that there have been significant progress in adult stem cells which renders would significantly reduces the need for embryonic stem cells.

Like it or not there are moral issues that go along with embryonic stem cells.

Do you feel the same about IVF?

And no, I don't believe that adult stem cell research has rendered embryonic stem cell research pointless . . . there are distinct advantages to using embryonic stem cells and distinct disadvantages in using adult stem cells.

IMO, the objection always boils down to a religious one, and you know how I feel about that. It's fine that you have your beliefs, however they should not influence policy.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: AFMatt

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Last week, Bush, the Dark Ages for scientific research.

This week, Obama, we're on the cutting edge again.

Nice :thumbsup:

This procedure is the result of a decade of research, was submitted to the FDA last April, and the time taken since then has been used to determine it's safety. It has nothing to do with Obama being in office.

No, it doesn't, however there's no way the FDA would have approved this under the Bush Administration. Further, Bush's ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research has certainly slowed the research, although I note California passed a bill that funded it at the state-level and there were likely other private efforts...

And you also must realize that there have been significant progress in adult stem cells which renders would significantly reduces the need for embryonic stem cells.

Like it or not there are moral issues that go along with embryonic stem cells.

Do you feel the same about IVF?

And no, I don't believe that adult stem cell research has rendered embryonic stem cell research pointless . . . there are distinct advantages to using embryonic stem cells and distinct disadvantages in using adult stem cells.

IMO, the objection always boils down to a religious one, and you know how I feel about that. It's fine that you have your beliefs, however they should not influence policy.

It is not moral issue, not a religious issue. Even if you dont believe in God, these embryos are life. Since it is sticky moral question, it should not receive federal funding, just like many other sticky moral issues should not receive federal funding either.

If people want to donate their leftover embryos from IVF or donate money to the cause I have little problem with it. However people should not be forced to donate time and resources to things they object to.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: AFMatt

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Last week, Bush, the Dark Ages for scientific research.

This week, Obama, we're on the cutting edge again.

Nice :thumbsup:

This procedure is the result of a decade of research, was submitted to the FDA last April, and the time taken since then has been used to determine it's safety. It has nothing to do with Obama being in office.

No, it doesn't, however there's no way the FDA would have approved this under the Bush Administration. Further, Bush's ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research has certainly slowed the research, although I note California passed a bill that funded it at the state-level and there were likely other private efforts...

And you also must realize that there have been significant progress in adult stem cells which renders would significantly reduces the need for embryonic stem cells.

Like it or not there are moral issues that go along with embryonic stem cells.

Do you feel the same about IVF?

And no, I don't believe that adult stem cell research has rendered embryonic stem cell research pointless . . . there are distinct advantages to using embryonic stem cells and distinct disadvantages in using adult stem cells.

IMO, the objection always boils down to a religious one, and you know how I feel about that. It's fine that you have your beliefs, however they should not influence policy.

It is not moral issue, not a religious issue. Even if you dont believe in God, these embryos are life. Since it is sticky moral question, it should not receive federal funding, just like many other sticky moral issues should not receive federal funding either.

If people want to donate their leftover embryos from IVF or donate money to the cause I have little problem with it. However people should not be forced to donate time and resources to things they object to.

going by your logic, ants and trees are life too, should we cut funding to National Parks?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: alien42
[

going by your logic, ants and trees are life too, should we cut funding to National Parks?

I fail to see you jump in logic.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison
It is not moral issue, not a religious issue. Even if you dont believe in God, these embryos are life. Since it is sticky moral question, it should not receive federal funding, just like many other sticky moral issues should not receive federal funding either.

Bush created the Office of Faith Based Initiatives, spending our tax dollars on all sorts of religious orgs that I disagree with. So he seemed quite content blowing our collective funds on moral issues that he agreed with and cutting off funds for ones he didn't.

If people want to donate their leftover embryos from IVF or donate money to the cause I have little problem with it. However people should not be forced to donate time and resources to things they object to.

People object to the government spending on a range of issues and projects. (Go ask a libertarian, or Ron Paul supporter, if you have any doubts) I think the litmus test should be, does this help us collectively as a people? As a country?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
It is not moral issue, not a religious issue. Even if you dont believe in God, these embryos are life. Since it is sticky moral question, it should not receive federal funding, just like many other sticky moral issues should not receive federal funding either.

Bush created the Office of Faith Based Initiatives, spending our tax dollars on all sorts of religious orgs that I disagree with. So he seemed quite content blowing our collective funds on moral issues that he agreed with and cutting off funds for ones he didn't.

You right and It ticked quite a few people off. But this is exactly the point I am getting at.

If people want to donate their leftover embryos from IVF or donate money to the cause I have little problem with it. However people should not be forced to donate time and resources to things they object to.

People object to the government spending on a range of issues and projects. (Go ask a libertarian, or Ron Paul supporter, if you have any doubts) I think the litmus test should be, does this help us collectively as a people? As a country?

And yet there is lots we can agree upon....

 

[sandorski]

When Velociraptors roam the streets, will we be chearing then??

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

IMO, the objection always boils down to a religious one, and you know how I feel about that. It's fine that you have your beliefs, however they should not influence policy.

Lol. I'm sorry but that is a rather ignorant statement. Of course peoples' beliefs are going to influence policy. YOUR beliefs influence the policy you want pushed through. Did you vote for Obama because you thought he was good looking or because you agree with him politically (i.e. your beliefs about certain issues are similar)? People want policy pushed through because it agrees with their beliefs. You are no different than the religious person who pushes for policy that is aligned with their beliefs, except that the religious person espouses their beliefs openly while you try to hide behind the cover of what you deem "rational thinking".

 

[ProfJohn]

Did the entire world have a ban on embryonic stem cell research, or just the US??

And if it was just the US then why aren't we hearing about amazing medical break throughs in other parts of the world?

Perhaps it is a little more complicated than "Bush=bad, Obama=good"??? Perhaps the people who point out that there are dozens of 'real world' applications for adult stem cells and none for embryonic stem cells have a valid point?

Finally, in order to create an embryonic stem cell we have to create an embryo (life) and then destroy that embryo, doesn't that fact bother anyone??

 

[AFMatt]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Did the entire world have a ban on embryonic stem cell research, or just the US??

And if it was just the US then why aren't we hearing about amazing medical break throughs in other parts of the world?

Perhaps it is a little more complicated than "Bush=bad, Obama=good"??? Perhaps the people who point out that there are dozens of 'real world' applications for adult stem cells and none for embryonic stem cells have a valid point?

Finally, in order to create an embryonic stem cell we have to create an embryo (life) and then destroy that embryo, doesn't that fact bother anyone??

We dont have a ban on embryonic stem cell research, we have a ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research for any stem cell lines obtained after Aug 2001 (when Bush passed it).

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Did the entire world have a ban on embryonic stem cell research, or just the US??

And if it was just the US then why aren't we hearing about amazing medical break throughs in other parts of the world?

Perhaps it is a little more complicated than "Bush=bad, Obama=good"??? Perhaps the people who point out that there are dozens of 'real world' applications for adult stem cells and none for embryonic stem cells have a valid point?

Finally, in order to create an embryonic stem cell we have to create an embryo (life) and then destroy that embryo, doesn't that fact bother anyone??

from my understanding, most of the embryos are from invertro fertilization leftovers and would have been discarded anyways. They were not created specifically for this research.

And no it wouldn't bother me any more that eating an egg.

 

[frostedflakes]

Yeah I don't know if I agree with creating embryos simply for the purpose of harvesting stem cells, but some right wing nuts are even against using embryos that would otherwise be discarded. I've never understood the logic behind that.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Last week, Bush, the Dark Ages for scientific research.

This week, Obama, we're on the cutting edge again.

Nice :thumbsup:

 

[smokeyjoe]

A step forward for the good who want to help fight disease and baldness and for the bad who support eugenics.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: charrison
Like it or not there are moral issues that go along with embryonic stem cells.

Not with me, I think it's great.

X2

Embryo != life until born. Prior to birth it is a parasite living off the host (i.e. mother) IMO.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Did the entire world have a ban on embryonic stem cell research, or just the US??

And if it was just the US then why aren't we hearing about amazing medical break throughs in other parts of the world?

Perhaps it is a little more complicated than "Bush=bad, Obama=good"??? Perhaps the people who point out that there are dozens of 'real world' applications for adult stem cells and none for embryonic stem cells have a valid point?

Finally, in order to create an embryonic stem cell we have to create an embryo (life) and then destroy that embryo, doesn't that fact bother anyone??

As others have said, it's not like a couple get preg and they take that embryo for it's stem cells. As I have said I don't believe a child is a unique life until after birth, but that doesn't have any significance to this topic because they use embryos that would be discarded.

 

[Xavier434]

Awesome!

 

[polarmystery]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Did the entire world have a ban on embryonic stem cell research, or just the US??

And if it was just the US then why aren't we hearing about amazing medical break throughs in other parts of the world?

Perhaps it is a little more complicated than "Bush=bad, Obama=good"??? Perhaps the people who point out that there are dozens of 'real world' applications for adult stem cells and none for embryonic stem cells have a valid point?

Finally, in order to create an embryonic stem cell we have to create an embryo (life) and then destroy that embryo, doesn't that fact bother anyone??

Nope

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Did the entire world have a ban on embryonic stem cell research, or just the US??

And if it was just the US then why aren't we hearing about amazing medical break throughs in other parts of the world?

Perhaps it is a little more complicated than "Bush=bad, Obama=good"??? Perhaps the people who point out that there are dozens of 'real world' applications for adult stem cells and none for embryonic stem cells have a valid point?

Finally, in order to create an embryonic stem cell we have to create an embryo (life) and then destroy that embryo, doesn't that fact bother anyone??

There are rejection issues with embryonic stem cells that have to be overcome that are not present in adult stem cells. It is generally accepted that they have more potential, but it is harder to harness. There has also been a shortage of funding for embryonic stem cell research. (gee, I wonder why). So what exactly would your point about adult vs. embryonic cells be? If we have a problem that we think can be fixed by looking in box A (adult cells) or in box B (embryonic cells), you don't pick one or the other... you open both.

Also, doesn't it bother you that in order to create a baby (life) we create dozens or more embryos that are eventually thrown out? Wouldn't it make you feel better if those were used to help other human beings?

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: alien42
GERN, BTIM, ACTC = $

GERN +15% (gapped up pre-market)
BTIM -7%
ACTC +81%

Obama still has not reversed GWBs ban on Federal funding of stem cell research.