Source: Obama to reverse limits on stem cell work

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
I'll never understand the reason behind defending the 'rights' of embryos that were likely to end up in the trash bin with the rest of the medical waste. This decision is long overdue. It's a shame we can't get back the 8 years of research that was lost.


Link

WASHINGTON ? Reversing an eight-year-old limit on potentially life-saving science, President Barack Obama plans to lift restrictions Monday on taxpayer-funded research using embryonic stem cells.

The long-promised move will allow a rush of research aimed at one day better treating, if not curing, ailments from diabetes to paralysis ? research that crosses partisan lines, backed by such notables as Nancy Reagan and the late Christopher Reeve. But it stirs intense controversy over whether government crosses a moral line with such research.

Obama will hold an event at the White House to announce the move, a senior administration official said Friday. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the policy had not yet been publicly announced.

Embryonic stem cells are master cells that can morph into any cell of the body. Scientists hope to harness them so they can create replacement tissues to treat a variety of diseases ? such as new insulin-producing cells for diabetics, cells that could help those with Parkinson's disease or maybe even Alzheimer's, or new nerve connections to restore movement after spinal injury.

"I feel vindicated after eight years of struggle, and I know it's going to energize my research team," said Dr. George Daley of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and Children's Hospital of Boston, a leading stem cell researcher.

But the research is controversial because days-old embryos must be destroyed to obtain the cells. They typically are culled from fertility-clinic leftovers otherwise destined to be thrown away.

Under President George W. Bush, taxpayer money for that research was limited to a small number of stem cell lines that were created before Aug. 9, 2001, lines that in many cases had some drawbacks that limited their potential usability.

But hundreds more of such lines ? groups of cells that can continue to propagate in lab dishes ? have been created since then, ones that scientists say are healthier, better suited to creating treatments for people rather than doing basic laboratory science.

Work didn't stop. Indeed, it advanced enough that this summer, the private Geron Corp. will begin the world's first study of a treatment using human embryonic stem cells, in people who recently suffered a spinal cord injury.

Nor does Obama's change fund creation of new lines. But it means that scientists who until now have had to rely on private donations to work with these newer stem cell lines can apply for government money for the research, just like they do for studies of gene therapy or other treatment approaches.

The aim of the policy is to restore "scientific integrity" to the process, the administration official said.

"America's biomedical research enterprise experienced steady decline over the past eight years, with shrinking budgets and policies that elevated ideology over science. This slowed the pace of discovery and the search for cures," said Sean Morrison, director of the University of Michigan's Center for Stem Cell Biology.

Critics immediately denounced the move.

"Taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for experiments that require the destruction of human life," said Tony Perkins of the conservative Family Research Council. "President Obama's policy change is especially troubling given the significant adult stem cell advances that are being used to treat patients now without harming or destroying human embryos."

Indeed, there are different types of stem cells: So-called adult stem cells that produce a specific type of tissue; younger stem cells found floating in amniotic fluid or the placenta. Scientists even have learned to reprogram certain cells to behave like stem cells.

But even researchers who work with varying types consider embryonic stem cells the most flexible and thus most promising form ? and say that science, not politics, should ultimately judge.

"Science works best and patients are served best by having all the tools at our disposal," Daley said.

Obama made it clear during the campaign he would overturn Bush's directive.

During the campaign, Obama said, "I strongly support expanding research on stem cells. I believe that the restrictions that President Bush has placed on funding of human embryonic stem cell research have handcuffed our scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations."

He said he would lift Bush's ban and "ensure that all research on stem cells is conducted ethically and with rigorous oversight."

"Patients and people who've been patient advocates are going to be really happy," said Amy Comstock Rick of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research.

The ruling will bring one immediate change: As of Monday, scientists who've had to meticulously keep separate their federally funded research and their privately funded stem cell work ? from buying separate microscopes to even setting up labs in different buildings ? won't have that expensive hurdle anymore.

Next, scientists can start applying for research grants from the National Institutes of Health. The NIH already has begun writing guidelines that, among other things, are expected to demand that the cells being used were derived with proper informed consent from the woman or couple who donated the original embryo.


 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
What purpose does the government serve in spending this money? There were never any limits on stem cell research
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: spidey07
What purpose does the government serve in spending this money? There were never any limits on stem cell research

Purpose: That's a stupid question. I guess we should stop all (gov't funded) medical research. No purpose, right?

Limits: Read the article again.

Edited for clarity
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Good decision. New we can get back to using science, not political witchcraft based on religion.


 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: spidey07
What purpose does the government serve in spending this money? There were never any limits on stem cell research

Purpose: That's a stupid question. I guess we should stop all (gov't funded) medical research. No purpose, right?

Limits: Read the article again.

Edited for clarity

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for stem cell research and any other medical research. But not with gubment money. From the article -

"Work didn't stop. Indeed, it advanced enough that this summer, the private Geron Corp. will begin the world's first study of a treatment using human embryonic stem cells, in people who recently suffered a spinal cord injury. "

<cue up Christopher Reed breaking open fetuses and drinking the stem cells>
:)
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: spidey07

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for stem cell research and any other medical research. But not with gubment money.

I'm not getting you wrong, but you are wrong. One thing government can and should do is support and, when it's to our collective advantage, underwrite projects that offer promise of major benefits for our entire society.

This is especially true when the immediate profit return would not necessarily be sufficient to attract private capital or where it would be contrary to public interest to allow a single commerical developer to control the price and availablity of such technology.

Many other nations who have, until recently, had more intellectually sentient leadership, are already supporting stem cell research. The promise is great, and the last thing we need is to allow this vital research to be further delayed or to allow it to become the exclusive property of a single business entity seeking to milk it for every penny from the wealthy by charging as much as possible for it.
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
Good decision. Bush's choice to prohibit this was one of the more annoying things about his presidency.
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: spidey07
What purpose does the government serve in spending this money? There were never any limits on stem cell research

Purpose: That's a stupid question. I guess we should stop all (gov't funded) medical research. No purpose, right?

Limits: Read the article again.

Edited for clarity

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for stem cell research and any other medical research. But not with gubment money. From the article -

"Work didn't stop. Indeed, it advanced enough that this summer, the private Geron Corp. will begin the world's first study of a treatment using human embryonic stem cells, in people who recently suffered a spinal cord injury. "

<cue up Christopher Reed breaking open fetuses and drinking the stem cells>
:)

NIH/NSF funds more basic science research which helps to understand these cells a lot better. Private research is more concerned about therapeutic advancements. Very rarely will you see a private firm fund basic science research.

They work in concert, not against each other.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: Kadarin

Good decision. Bush's choice to prohibit this was one of the more annoying things about his presidency.

Rather, it would have been had he and his gang not committed treason, murder, torture, crimes against humanity, war crimes and war profiteering and shredded the rights guaranteed to every American citizen by the U.S. Constitution.

Once you get past those, yes, Bush was a turd for stopping stem cell research.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
NIH/NSF funds more basic science research which helps to understand these cells a lot better. Private research is more concerned about therapeutic advancements. Very rarely will you see a private firm fund basic science research.

They work in concert, not against each other.

Well I'm just trying to dispel the myth that Bush prevented stem cell research or made it somehow illegal.

I was rightfully pissed at his move on this issue. But hey, Obama promised to cure cancer!
<tips back a fetus for the stem cells. South Park is way ahead of it's time>
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Kadarin

Good decision. Bush's choice to prohibit this was one of the more annoying things about his presidency.

Rather, it would have been had he and his gang not committed treason, murder, torture, crimes against humanity, war crimes and war profiteering and shredded the rights guaranteed to every American citizen by the U.S. Constitution.

Once you get past those, yes, Bush was a turd for stopping stem cell research.

OK Mr. Constitution...

Please show me where it says the gubment can and should use public money to fund medical research?

I'd love to smack you around with The Constitution because you haven't fucking read it.

And don't give me any preamble interpretation shit.
 
Dec 10, 2005
28,404
13,339
136
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Kadarin

Good decision. Bush's choice to prohibit this was one of the more annoying things about his presidency.

Rather, it would have been had he and his gang not committed treason, murder, torture, crimes against humanity, war crimes and war profiteering and shredded the rights guaranteed to every American citizen by the U.S. Constitution.

Once you get past those, yes, Bush was a turd for stopping stem cell research.

OK Mr. Constitution...

Please show me where it says the gubment can and should use public money to fund medical research?

I'd love to smack you around with The Constitution because you haven't fucking read it.

And don't give me any preamble interpretation shit.

The Constitution also doesn't expressly forbid the spending of money on medical research.

Who will fund basic medical research (mechanisms of action for cell differentiation, etc)? There is no immediate profit or drugs marketable for private industry to latch onto and there is not nearly enough private donations available to fund major research expenditures. The government doling out grants for basic research is a good way to go about funding research.

Certainly better spending the money on basic research than spending it on farm subsidies or other useless expenditures the Fed likes to take on.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Kadarin

Good decision. Bush's choice to prohibit this was one of the more annoying things about his presidency.

Rather, it would have been had he and his gang not committed treason, murder, torture, crimes against humanity, war crimes and war profiteering and shredded the rights guaranteed to every American citizen by the U.S. Constitution.

Once you get past those, yes, Bush was a turd for stopping stem cell research.

You have seriously gone off the deep end. You contribute nothing to this forum other than your macros. Sure, a lot of people troll sometimes (myself included) but I can't think of anything remotely serious you've posted in a long time other than your macro. Why not just create a sticky with your macros at the top of the forum and just GO AWAY. At least McOwen posted something diffent other that BUH BUH TRAITOR TRAITOR MURDER TORTURE WAR CRIME every post.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Back on topic... :)

I think this is a great 'change' of direction for our country and something most of us approve of even if we don't agree with some of Obama's policies/decisions. What I don't understand is, if you're against this decision, why are you against it? IMO the argument about destroying life is invalid because the embryos are destroyed when they're not needed and thrown away. As long as embryos aren't being made just to be harvested I don't see an issue. I can understand questioning money spent on research in these tough times but if this research has the possibility of becoming a 'miracle cure' someday I think it's money well spent (until it's *proven* ineffective).
 

railer

Golden Member
Apr 15, 2000
1,552
69
91
Originally posted by: Harvey


and his gang not committed treason, murder, torture, crimes against humanity, war crimes and war profiteering and shredded the rights

and etc....

Just FYI, you sound like a partisan tool every time you repeat your little mantra. You're exactly like the liberal version of Rush Limbaugh. Bush isn't in office anymore; stop pointing fingers and move on.

 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Kadarin

Good decision. Bush's choice to prohibit this was one of the more annoying things about his presidency.

Rather, it would have been had he and his gang not committed treason, murder, torture, crimes against humanity, war crimes and war profiteering and shredded the rights guaranteed to every American citizen by the U.S. Constitution.

Once you get past those, yes, Bush was a turd for stopping stem cell research.

OK Mr. Constitution...

Please show me where it says the gubment can and should use public money to fund medical research?

I'd love to smack you around with The Constitution because you haven't fucking read it.

And don't give me any preamble interpretation shit.

My belief is that the government should help fund medical (and other kinds of) research. This refers to research of the type that isn't necessarily going to result in short-term gains.
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
Originally posted by: Robor
Back on topic... :)

I think this is a great 'change' of direction for our country and something most of us approve of even if we don't agree with some of Obama's policies/decisions. What I don't understand is, if you're against this decision, why are you against it? IMO the argument about destroying life is invalid because the embryos are destroyed when they're not needed and thrown away. As long as embryos aren't being made just to be harvested I don't see an issue. I can understand questioning money spent on research in these tough times but if this research has the possibility of becoming a 'miracle cure' someday I think it's money well spent (until it's *proven* ineffective).

yea, I never really understood the argument surrounding the ban. Some cells are okay but others are not? Plus, these aren't even cells that will become fetuses, they are frozen glycerol stocks that are destined to be destroyed.
 

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Kadarin

Good decision. Bush's choice to prohibit this was one of the more annoying things about his presidency.

Rather, it would have been had he and his gang not committed treason, murder, torture, crimes against humanity, war crimes and war profiteering and shredded the rights guaranteed to every American citizen by the U.S. Constitution.

Once you get past those, yes, Bush was a turd for stopping stem cell research.

You have seriously gone off the deep end. You contribute nothing to this forum other than your macros. Sure, a lot of people troll sometimes (myself included) but I can't think of anything remotely serious you've posted in a long time other than your macro. Why not just create a sticky with your macros at the top of the forum and just GO AWAY. At least McOwen posted something diffent other that BUH BUH TRAITOR TRAITOR MURDER TORTURE WAR CRIME every post.

I find it funny for YOU to say that... Other than this ONE post, I would have said the exact same to you... check your sig for example. =)

On the bright side, I would hope you can take some positive aspects of what you wrote in your own post and apply it to yourself.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Good decision. New we can get back to using science, not political witchcraft based on religion.
No kidding. I'm glad "exorcising the Parkinson's and other diseases through prayer" is no longer considered a valid medical technique.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Kadarin

Good decision. Bush's choice to prohibit this was one of the more annoying things about his presidency.

Rather, it would have been had he and his gang not committed treason, murder, torture, crimes against humanity, war crimes and war profiteering and shredded the rights guaranteed to every American citizen by the U.S. Constitution.

Once you get past those, yes, Bush was a turd for stopping stem cell research.

You have seriously gone off the deep end.

I know you're familiar with "deep ends" because your head is so far up your own. :laugh:

My reply was in direct response to Kadarin's post that prohibiting stem cell research was "one of the more annoying things" about your EX-Traitor In Chief's presidency. That might have been true if he were an otherwise run of the mill bad President, but he wasn't. As short sighted, narrow minded and just plain stupid as blocking stem cell research was, George W. Bush and his gang committed far more egregious, heinous crimes against the American people and our Constitution and against humanity. :|

You contribute nothing to this forum other than your macros.

You contribute nothing to the world.

Sure, a lot of people troll sometimes (myself included)...

In your case, that's ALL of the time.

... but I can't think...

That could be the most truthful statement you've ever posted. :thumbsup: :cool: