View Full Version : Obama to reverse restrictions on stem cell work
updated 32 minutes ago
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.
Whole story here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29554619/)
Birka
03-10-2009, 09:12 PM
Ombongo said he wanted to get politics out of science. As a libertarian, I want to know why government is now in science? Why is my tax money going into biological research? Isn't free market capitalism the means for this to be done? So, if my tax dollars help find a medical cure, will I then get free treatment? Right.
That's a very good point that's not considered by many people. The public sees this as a glorious gesture towards science, but it doesn't mean everyone wants to pay for it. It's just a prime example of Democracy, when 51% of the people can control the other 49%
Frigga
03-15-2009, 02:53 PM
The cure for diabeties is not with stem cell research. You get diabeties from overloading your body with more sugar then the cells need. When that happens, your cells become insulin immune. It's called being in a metabolic state, and it's basically like being in a constant state of inflammation. The cure for diabeties is in the diet. If you're diabetic, cut out all sugars, and simple starches, and eat your butter, and your eggs. Some things could benefit from stem cell research, but trying to find a cure for a diease that is already treatable is a waste of efficiency.
Red Skull
03-15-2009, 03:18 PM
Still better than restricting the research. Politics shouldn't meddle with science, but rather politics than religion (Bush). And this wouldn't be considered 'meddling' per se, rather the fact that restrictions have been removed. I disagree with Obama being the President of an entity that should be governed by our own kind, but that doesn't mean he's always making bad decisions.
Reductio ad Hitlerum, anyone?
Birka
03-15-2009, 03:44 PM
Still better than restricting the research. Politics shouldn't meddle with science, but rather politics than religion (Bush). And this wouldn't be considered 'meddling' per se, rather the fact that restrictions have been removed. I disagree with Obama being the President of an entity that should be governed by our own kind, but that doesn't mean he's always making bad decisions.
Reductio ad Hitlerum, anyone?
I understand your point, but we have a Constitution that governs (or is supposed to govern) how or federal system works. Nowhere in that document is there the power of government to take our money and fund any kind of research. By saying politics is slightly better than religion meddling with science, is still choosing the lesser of two evils. I, and fellow libertarians choose neither, and I have the Constitution to back me up.
Red Skull
03-15-2009, 03:51 PM
As a National Socialist I am pro the kind of research that will improve us as human beings. That is why I support this reversal. Funding research that will speed up our evolution by making us more resistant or immune to diseases cannot be a negative act. The ends justify the means.
And I don't give a damn about choice. I only care about what is good. There is a difference. Choice is not always in the best interest of everyone. The masses are unable to rule themselves, so I do not approve of parliamentarism, liberalism, libertarianism or democracy.
Frigga
03-15-2009, 04:06 PM
Well, I just think that it shouldn't be funded by tax-payers dollars. It shouldn't be banned. But, I don't think that it should be government funded. I think that too much is funded by the government. And, I still think that too much effort is being wasted on researching dieases which can be cured by following a good diet. Most modern dieases are from nutritional deficiencies. Research what makes a good diet, and you will cure most of the leading causes of human death.
Birka
03-15-2009, 05:50 PM
As a National Socialist I am pro the kind of research that will improve us as human beings. That is why I support this reversal. Funding research that will speed up our evolution by making us more resistant or immune to diseases cannot be a negative act. The ends justify the means.
And I don't give a damn about choice. I only care about what is good. There is a difference. Choice is not always in the best interest of everyone. The masses are unable to rule themselves, so I do not approve of parliamentarism, liberalism, libertarianism or democracy.
Do you approve of freedom?
BTW, Show me the source that the masses cannot rule themselves.
The previous administration had pretty much banned it altogether. At least the ban has been removed. I'm always for the advancement of science, even using government money for it.
Scientific knowledge/research should never be restricted.
Birka
03-15-2009, 10:40 PM
The previous administration had pretty much banned it altogether. At least the ban has been removed. I'm always for the advancement of science, even using government money for it.
Scientific knowledge/research should never be restricted.
The research was going on the whole time, just by private capitalist investment. Bush just did not have the federal government pay for it (OMG, he actually followed the Constitution on this one!!!) When government pays for science, it is tainted, and the scientists will show whatever the government agency wants them to show (see....global warming). This results in "poli-science", politics and science indistinguishable from each other.
Jägerstaffel
03-15-2009, 10:49 PM
Yes, the research was continuing even during the Bush years but only for a few lines of stem cells.
The Bush Administration had it's boot firmly planted on the scientific community, I'm glad they are removing that boot.
As for whether this will taint the science, I'll believe that when I see it. I don't go for conspiracy theories.
On Wednesday, President Obama signed a law that bans federal funding of any research that leads to the destruction of human embryos just two days after lifting Bush-era restraints on it.
President Obama may have abolished contentious Bush-era restraints on federal funding of stem cell research on Monday, but a legislative obstacle still remains for scientists seeking more money.
A spending bill that Obama signed on Wednesday explicitly bans federal funding of any "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death," language that pertains to creation of new stem cell lines.
This provision, known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, was included in the 465-page omnibus spending bill that will fund government agencies through September. The amendment is a measure Congress has included in spending bills in every fiscal year since 1996.
Bush's executive policy additionally had limited researchers receiving federal aid to just 21 stem cell lines created before August 2001. Obama's reversal allows them to use hundreds of other stem cell lines already in existence.
Source (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/14/obamas-approval-stem-cell-research-needs-congressional-action/)
Interesting..
Scientific knowledge/research should never be restricted.
Agreed.
When government pays for science, it is tainted, and the scientists will show whatever the government agency wants them to show (see....global warming).
This is what is happening within the pharmaceutical industry.
Birka
03-15-2009, 11:54 PM
This is what is happening within the pharmaceutical industry.
Could you explain? Last year, the FDA approved the fewest new medications in the last 10 years. That does not sound like too close a relationship to me.
Could you explain? Last year, the FDA approved the fewest new medications in the last 10 years. That does not sound like too close a relationship to me.
Research Center Tied to Drug Company (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/health/25psych.html?_r=2)
Is Drug-Company Money Tainting Medical Education? (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1883449,00.html?imw=Y)
Drug Maker Accused Of Paying Ghostwriters To Pen Journal Articles (http://consumerist.com/5108661/drug-maker-accused-of-paying-ghostwriters-to-pen-journal-articles)
Rent-a-Researcher Did a British university sell out to Procter & Gamble? (http://www.slate.com/id/2133061/)
Is Industry-Funded Science Killing You? (http://www.reason.com/news/show/122020.html)
Drug companies will throw money at any academic/researcher willing to say what they want to hear. And the FDA is just as corrupt, they look the other way on far too many thing.
Birka
03-16-2009, 12:38 AM
So I was wrong, the FDA approved the fewest drugs since 1983. 25 years. Guess the pharmaceutical companies are not doing so well with their bribery.
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/01/08/fda-approves-fewest-drugs-since-1983/
How do you explain that fact if the FDA does whatever the Pharma industry wants? The pharmaceutical is in the worst shape financially that they have ever been in. The pharma stocks index are well below the Dow or S&P 500. Guess they need a new bribery team.
SouthernBoy
03-16-2009, 03:18 AM
Scientific knowledge/research should never be restricted. There are thousands of torturous and inhumane things that have been done in the name of "scientific research." :rolleyes:
Jägerstaffel
03-16-2009, 03:22 AM
There are thousands of torturous and inhumane things that have been done in the name of "scientific research." :rolleyes:
And thank GOD for them.
So I was wrong, the FDA approved the fewest drugs since 1983. 25 years. Guess the pharmaceutical companies are not doing so well with their bribery.
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/01/08/fda-approves-fewest-drugs-since-1983/
How do you explain that fact if the FDA does whatever the Pharma industry wants? The pharmaceutical is in the worst shape financially that they have ever been in. The pharma stocks index are well below the Dow or S&P 500. Guess they need a new bribery team.
I'm not really against what you are saying, just saying that these private capitalists industries are doing that same thing that people fear the government would do. My feeling is that with something like the medical industry there needs to be much more oversight from the government or a powerful private watchdog group. Something to keep them in line.
Pharma stocks are down, along with everything else. Plus, prescription prices have always been ridiculously high, in this economy people would probably rather spend that money on food than a bottle of pills.
The problem isn't the government in science, it's money and greed in science. So basically, this problem isn't going away anytime soon. :shrug:
Birka
03-16-2009, 05:56 PM
Hey I agree with you about the greed aspect. I guess there will never be a way to take greed out of a capitalist system. It is ingrained in human nature and there are some who cannot resist it, and humans are involved with capitalism. I guess we have to understand that with great freedoms come great responsibilities, but too many work against the responsible course and veer towards greed, power, revenge, etc.
BTW, for good or bad, the pharmaceutical industry is the MOST regulated industry by government, and nothing else is even close. Galloglaich has suggested that an independent review board (or several of these) of doctors, pharmacists and research scientists would be a better alternative, especially in a perfect libertarian system. I agree, anything that takes power away from government and gives it back to citizens is much better.
Æmeric
03-16-2009, 07:15 PM
The previous administration had pretty much banned it altogether. At least the ban has been removed. I'm always for the advancement of science, even using government money for it.
Scientific knowledge/research should never be restricted.
Yes, the research was continuing even during the Bush years but only for a few lines of stem cells.
The Bush Administration had it's boot firmly planted on the scientific community, I'm glad they are removing that boot.
As for whether this will taint the science, I'll believe that when I see it. I don't go for conspiracy theories.
There is a misconception by many persons regarding stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research was never illegal during the Bush administration. The issue is funding for the research. Federal funding was restricted to those stem cell lines on embryos that already be destroyed for research. No further federally funded research was allowed on additional stem cell lines. This never prevented private groups from doing their own research. The funding - provided for by Uncle Sam - will pay for research at the major univiersities. The major research universities - Harvard, Yale, Princeton -have tens of billions of dollars in endowments that the could use to fund this kind of research, if the chose to do so. They would rather have the public pay for it. I repeat: Embryonic stem cell research has never been illegal in the US! The issue is about wealthy, greedy, marxist controlled colleges, demanding that taxpayers pay for their research.
A list of the largest college endowments in the US. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._colleges_and_universities_by_endowmen t) The latest figures for 2008 are from last June. Since then there has been on average about a 23% decline but these colleges are still wealthy & could afford to do this research on their own.
Red Skull
03-22-2009, 06:52 PM
Do you approve of freedom?
Define freedom.
BTW, Show me the source that the masses cannot rule themselves.
History of Mankind.
Birka
03-22-2009, 07:40 PM
Define freedom.
History of Mankind.
Freedom is the opposite of authoritarism.
The History of Mankind shows that no leader has effectively led the people. All leaders fail their people at some time. The people are better off ruling themselves, not strong total authoritarian control.
Red Skull
03-22-2009, 09:00 PM
Freedom from stupid decisions from the masses is what I would prefer. In a class/military hierarchy in society where the elite is serving blood and soil, you will be granted freedom from excessive materialism, from foolish desires and distractions from the important matters at hand. Freedom from a system where 51% of dumb people can rule over the bright 49% minority, and freedom from a system where the contemporary solution to the aging question is the importation of 50 million Africans.
The temporarily elected officials have an allegiance to an ideology (socialism, liberalism, etc) instead of an allegiance to the folk. Their allegiance lies in their peers, the voters which grant them power. A system where the essential feeling and collective task is the well-being of the Folk, Nation, Race if you will, would rid us of this parliamentary charade of "freedom."
Birka
03-23-2009, 01:22 AM
Oh yeah, I am just going to wait around for elites to grant me freedom and liberty. :confused:
Stalin was an elite. Lot of freedom in Eastern Europe under Uncle Jo wouldn't ya say. Mao Zedung was a great elite and just admired for his freedom loving ways.
God save me from elites.
Jägerstaffel
03-23-2009, 04:21 PM
Personally I agree Red Skull. I'm all in favour of enlightened despotism as well.
Common sense is not common and I don't see much will to rise above, overcome, or guide others in my neighbors or other common folk.
A leader is what a kingdom needs, the masses cannot rule.
I'd support a leader in the form of a Good King as opposed to a communist tyrant, though.
Birka
03-23-2009, 04:34 PM
Personally I agree Red Skull. I'm all in favour of enlightened despotism as well.
Common sense is not common and I don't see much will to rise above, overcome, or guide others in my neighbors or other common folk.
A leader is what a kingdom needs, the masses cannot rule.
I'd support a leader in the form of a Good King as opposed to a communist tyrant, though.
If you can demonstrate a fool proof method of keeping the Good King from turning into the authoritarian tyrant, you will have good leadership. (at least as long as the Good King rules, stays uncorrupted, but who knows how his spoiled sons turn out)
I am part of the masses. So are you. Are you not capable of governing yourself? For centuries the elite classes kept the peasant classes uneducated, and therefore they needed to be ruled. Today, many of the "peasant" class may know more about their countries and the world than the people in charge of them. Thanks to the internet and forums like this. Why do you think China is trying to restrict the internet to their masses?
Jägerstaffel
03-23-2009, 04:43 PM
It's a flawed notion, there is no way of knowing who could be a good king for their whole rule or what his seed would do with the kingdom.
And that is why I hate politics, there is no way to guarantee it to work, especially with the size of society nowadays. I have a romantic ideal of tribalism or feudalism but even they would not be foolproof.
I am aware that we are both part of the masses. I just put little faith in the common man. I am certainly capable of ruling myself, but am I capable of ruling you and making decisions that you would agree with?
Take this forum for an example; there are so many different ideologies on this forum that if we had 'democracy' rather than our Good King Loki - it would be anarchy.
Birka
03-23-2009, 05:17 PM
Take this forum for an example; there are so many different ideologies on this forum that if we had 'democracy' rather than our Good King Loki - it would be anarchy.
Good King Loki.....I like it. Maybe he should change his name, not Beorny.:)
To be a libertarian you have to learn to trust your fellow man. It is hard. You still have to keep your defensive radar up all the time. You cannot make life choices for your neighbors. Now if that choice hurts you or yours, that is different.
BTW, I am all for tribal government. I think libertarianism comes closes to it.
Jägerstaffel
03-23-2009, 05:24 PM
I suppose I trust my fellow man in small communities.
I just see the human population as ungovernable in its current state and any attempts at it are misguided, false or impossible.
Pessimism! :)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.