By Barb Shelly, Kansas City Star editorial page columnist
President Obama appears ready to lift his predecessor's irrational funding restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research.
Lest we forget, thousands of human embryos created through fertility measures are either frozen for possible future use or destroyed. But President Bush refused to allow federal funding for scientists who want to extract cells from those embryos in order to search for cures to diseases.
If Obama reverses that executive order Monday, as expected, scientists can apply for money to pursue that potentially life-saving research.
Scientists have made progress on stem cell research despite Bush's restructions and opposition from politicians, including some in Missouri. One promising method avoids using embryos. Yet scientists say they need to pursue multiple channels of stem cell research to discover which methods work best.
It will be up to the National Institutes of Health to come up with rules to make sure embryonic stem cell research is conducted ethically. But it's great to see a president trust scientists enough to enable them to do important work.









Delicious
Digg
If you love fashion,you must
If you love fashion,you must konw abercrombie and fitch
and you are a abercrombie manor
abercrombie womensand
hollister clothingis also very fashion.
And you know RuehlNo.925
I also like abercrombie outlet,and you?
a triumphant victory for science and ethics over politics
Now, let's get cracking on some serious research, unhobbled by the politically-motivated restraints that the Bush administration saddled the issue with.
A Sad Victory of Politics Over Science and Ethics
Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, today called President Obama's executive order on embryonic stem cell research "a sad victory of politics over science and ethics." Under the order, for the first time in U.S. history, federal tax dollars will be used to encourage researchers to destroy live human embryos for stem cell research. Cardinal Rigali also cited a January 16 letter in which Cardinal Francis George, president of the USCCB, urged President-elect Obama not to issue such an order. Cardinal Rigali's statement follows:
"President Obama's new executive order on embryonic stem cell research is a sad victory of politics over science and ethics. This action is morally wrong because it encourages the destruction of innocent human life, treating vulnerable human beings as mere products to be harvested. It also disregards the values of millions of American taxpayers who oppose research that requires taking human life. Finally, it ignores the fact that ethically sound means for advancing stem cell science and medical treatments are readily available and in need of increased support.
"In his January 16th letter to President-elect Obama, Cardinal George, writing as President of the USCCB, cited three reasons why such destructive research is 'especially pointless at this time':
'First, basic research in the capabilities of embryonic stem cells can be and is being pursued using the currently eligible cell lines as well as the hundreds of lines produced with nonfederal funds since 2001.
'Second, recent startling advances in reprogramming adult cells into embryonic-like stem cells – hailed by the journal Science as the scientific breakthrough of the year – are said by many scientists to be making embryonic stem cells irrelevant to medical progress.
'Third, adult and cord blood stem cells are now known to have great versatility, and are increasingly being used to reverse serious illnesses and even help rebuild damaged organs. To divert scarce funds away from these promising avenues for research and treatment toward the avenue that is most morally controversial as well as most medically speculative would be a sad victory of politics over science.'
"If the government wants to invest in hope for cures and promote ethically sound science, it should use our tax monies for research that everyone, at every stage of human development, can live with."
Twas_was--the first dose is cheap
I've never done the sandhill crane migration, but the drive along the Platte is a hoot. North Platte is where you SHOULD stop, but the Sand Hills are, in a word, hallucinatory. State 97 from Tryon to Mullen across the Dismal River, the Nebraska State Forest, Cody, Valentine, Chadron, Hay Springs (and be sure to watch for the Hay Springs Monster)--and suddenly you realize that you're still in Nebraska, and you're seven hundred fifty miles from Kansas City. It is entirely possible that not only do you not know anyone who's toured the Sand Hills, but that you don't know anyone who knows anyone who's toured the Sand Hills.
There is no, repeat no, shopping in all of Nebraska. However, Wikipedia begins the Sand Hills section on Ecology thusly: "As the largest and most intricate wetland ecosystem in the United States..." Life is about choices.
Sounds cool
I'd like to go up to the Platte River and see the sandhill cranes. My wife would not get into that unless there was some shopping nearby. Have you been up there?
I had a revelation...
Coots are negative Shmoos.
In any case there was a modest contingent of snow geese, which were out in huge numbers at Squaw Creek two weeks ago, and a startling variety of stragglers of several species. Hard to see on all that flat water, but standing on the observation platform there were strange, distinct cries coming quietly from every direction, like standing in the middle of a poorly-attended punk-rock air guitar concert. No more than three or four other vehicles there on all fifty thousand acres.
Edith - Which migratory
birds were there?
As opposed to the modest and self-effacing SLA6789
"If you haven't heard my objections it's because so many of you damn libs just aren't listening. You are so selfish and egotistical that you can't stand the thought that you aren't the center of the universe and that there is an authority higher than you."
I apologize profusely for being so selfish and egotistical, in all my libishness, that I haven't heard your objections. Your objections are clearly so brilliant and well-reasoned that anyone with the sensitivity of a Cadbury chocolate should certainly log them, study them, and treasure them, George, and make them my own.
Good afternoon, twas_was. For the record, Cheyenne Bottoms was brilliantly clear and gorgeous yesterday, and absolutely worth the five hundred mile round trip. A national treasure.
Just for the record..
I am, and always have been opposed to any and all fertility treatments that create embryos outside a womans body, or cause more than the natural number of eggs to be released in a single cycle. If you haven't heard my objections it's because so many of you damn libs just aren't listening. You are so selfish and egotistical that you can't stand the thought that you aren't the center of the universe and that there is an authority higher than you. It's wrong to kill or cause the death of an embryo for any reason whatsoever other than a situation where the ONLY alternative is the death of both mother and child. In that case you save the life you can. I would be 100% in favor of outlawing creating embryos in a lab. So far as those already created, well there are programs where they can be "adopted". That is a much better solution for a problem that was created by wrong minded people so selfish that they could not accept that they could not have children naturally and so egotistical that they refuse to adopt.
Welcome back, Edith
Your buddy, Interface needed you as his backstop.