President Obama advanced the causes of medical research and good sense on Monday.
He reversed President Bush’s illogical executive order that limited federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to just a few cell lines.
Bush’s order held back research that scientists believe will lead to a better understanding of diseases — and eventually to treatments and cures.
Bush said the government should not pay for research that involves the destruction of human embryos.
But the embryos in question are the products of fertility procedures. If not used for those procedures, they are either frozen indefinitely or destroyed.
Jim and Virginia Stowers, founders of Kansas City’s Stowers Institute for Medical Research, witnessed Obama’s signing of his executive order in the White House on Monday. The invitation to them was a fitting tribute to their commitment to seeking cures.
Researchers at the institute primarily use endowment monies, not federal grants. But because researchers build upon one another’s work, Stowers’ scientists will benefit from the increased opportunities created by Obama’s order.
Even after Monday’s positive developments, more work is needed to remove barriers to medical research.
Because of a 1996 law, scientists still can’t use federal funds to initiate a line of cells from an embryo created in a fertility clinic. They must work with lines created by private companies or other governments. That’s a serious impediment.
Researchers are barred by the same law from using federal money to create embryos through a laboratory procedure called somatic cell nuclear transfer.
Those restrictions will continue to hinder scientists in their quest for discoveries.
The 1996 law was an overreaction to the threat of human cloning. The creation of a human baby through cloning should assuredly be banned. But the law should be rewritten so it doesn’t encumber meaningful medical research.
Even as researchers in Missouri applauded Obama’s action, they worried about efforts by some groups and legislators to overturn a state constitutional amendment which says that all scientific research that is legal under federal law should also be legal in Missouri.
Without that protection, the state and its research institutions would miss out on opportunities that will be made available by a more supportive administration in Washington. Sensible politicians and citizens must make sure that doesn’t happen.
Delicious
Digg
Human Capital
Come on, mengele, eichmann, and adolf, the obvious motivation is profit, yet you liberals who wage war on corporations, including health care institutions, insurance agencies, and pharmaceutical manufacturers, look the other way when potentially, truly "obscene" profits by companies are the clear motives behind Obama's eagerness to grant Federal permission to his loyal Democrat friends for their "research".
Lezzle, let me be the first to point out..
...that you're now babbling incoherently. Please come back when you're capable of forming complete thoughts and after you've wiped the spittle from your chin.
Sputtering
The difficulty lies not in complex higher ordered composition but in your limited comprehension.
Edith - wasn't Mengela a scientist too?
And SPERMATAZOA - are they a living being without the ovum?
Exactly
Joseph Mengele was a physician (not an experimental scientist) operating entirely at the behest of politicians. That's what letting politicians run the show in science gets you.
And once you find a useful distinction between a spermatazoon, an ovum, a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, and a cute little cuddly baby in terms of each of their humanness, blease advise.
perhaps a more useful distinction
would be in terms of each of their personhood, since I'm assuming that each is in fact genetically human.
A baby's definitely a person. An embryo's a clump of cells that has the potential to be a person, under the absolutely right conditions, but no, it's not a person.
As the National Institute of Health describes it:
"Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Specifically, embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body. The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four or five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst. The blastocyst includes three structures: the trophoblast, which is the layer of cells that surrounds the blastocyst; the blastocoel, which is the hollow cavity inside the blastocyst; and the inner cell mass, which is a group of approximately 30 cells at one end of the blastocoel."
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
Sorry, but a blastocyst in a lab dish simply ain't a person, and if cells harvested from that clump of cells may save the life of an actual person, this is an ethical no-brainer in my book.
The master of the no-brainer
Interface, when it comes to "no-brainer", you are the master, without a doubt.
If your concern is the alleviation of human suffering, why not stop posting?
Now be sure to do what you typically do--hurl and insult, name-call--anything that can look like it takes the place of a genuine thought.
Interface
Your book is the "book of death". Why is it that liberals are all about "death" until it comes to capital punishment? Then you claim that person has a right to life?
sorry
but your post was nonsense, though I'm sure you know that.
Once again the libs lie
and once again the Star has been deleting posts. I have multiple times now put out here that MANY people, myself included, are 100% against in-vitro or any other outside aided process. This only supports my theory that either Interface or Edith secretly works for the Star and comes out here and deletes posts they do not agree with. We'll see how long it takes for it to dissappear THIS time. Last night it was about 10 minutes.
Interface, you make long for
Interface, you make long for retroactive abortion.
Anti-abortion activists are very sincere
in their belief that embryos are human beings and must be afforded the same kind of protection. Therefore, it behooves these activists to press for legislation which would mandate the preservation of all unused embryos in perpetuity. To do any less, would condone murder. Fertility clinics would undoubtedly return unused eggs to their original donors, rather than bear the expense, probably embedded in some device simllar to an ice cube, for ease of storage. They could then be brought out for special occasions such as family reunions and weddings. They might even be sent into outer space to populate some barren planet. Just think, maybe that's how earth was originally populated. The possibilities are endless, unless some myopic guest makes an error and puts one of those special ice cubes in a glass of lemonade. Would that be manslaughter?
Inconsistencies
I think that to make sure there is no embryonic stem-cell research, there shouldn't be ANY embryos. Of course if right-to-lifers would take this stand, women everywhere would fight back.
But if they want to have the courage of their convictions then they should be lobbying aginst this pregnancy procedure.
The religious right is nothing if not inconsistent always. They don't like abortion but also don't like any kind of family planning.
They don't like embryonic stem-cell research but don't object to IVF. Get real!
yep
until then, it's hard to take them seriously.
Obama Pattern
Obama's decision on stem cell research is typical of his other decisions: It is a chance to overthrow a Bush Program thus throwing red meat to his supporters, but then he leaves the really important work to a bunch of unelected bureacrats who can then take the heat. This stem cell decision was not one of science, it was a moral decision on where to draw the line in stem cell research. On this he punted to the NIH. Think what you may about this decision and stem cell research, at least GWB went to the rouble of considering the issues and taking responsibility for deciding where to draw the line.
seems like Kenny's
upset that Obama's delegating scientific decisions to, well, scientists.
Ethics and Science are ESSENTIALLY compatible
The scientists I know welcome the oversight of bioethicists. You are suggesting that ethical considerations are moot from a scientist's perspective. You couldn't be more misguided. Ethics must undergird all behavior, particularly when an experiment is based on profitability rather than the protection of the essence of all humanity. You have been tricked into thinking that embryonic stem cell research alone is key to the cures for diseases such as Parkinson's. You have been misled by ignorant bloggers, reporters and newscasters who do not understand the complexity of scientific research as it applies to this serious discussion. At least GWB had foresight to be extra vigilant where human embryonic stem cell research is concerned. Obama has sold out to his financial backers. Would someone please report on the contributions from researchers who stand to financially benefit from this abominable decision?
not at all
I'm suggesting that it's long overdue that scientific and ethical considerations don't take a backdoor to the type of blatant political pandering to the religious right that Bush and co. engaged in over the past eight years. I commend President Obama for following through with his promise to open the doors for research and to take a stand against the ignorant rhetoric with which we've been bombarded for too long.
We certainly don't know whether stem cell research will garner the results we may hope for, but we should not let the right-wing misinformation campaign stand in the way of the possibility of alleviating human suffering.
And the scientists I know
Detest being overseen by politicians and self-styled bioethicists.
Aren't blind, unprovable assertions fun and useful?
AND WHAT ABOUT THE SPERMATAZOA, LEZZLE? DYING BY THE BILLIONS UNMOURNED, LIVING, SENSITIVE CREATURES, RESPONSIVE TO HEAT AND COLD, EACH A POTENTIAL NOBEL PRIZE WINNER--THE HORRIFYING HOLOCAUST GOES ON AND ON AND ON.
Jeez.
More Obama Unity
Interface, I understand your limited view of life and morality, but the Obama decision was not about science. It was about politicizing stem cell research, throwing stones at the Bush decision, and rewarding his base.
Obama's decision will promote a whole new industry of embryo creation and destruction, including the creation of human embryos by cloning for research in which they are destroyed. It forces American taxpayers, including those who see the deliberate taking of human life in the embryonic stage as profoundly unjust, to be complicit in this practice.
Lastly, Obama's claim about taking politics out of science is in the deepest sense antidemocratic. The question of whether to destroy human embryos for research purposes is not fundamentally a scientific question; it is a moral and civic question about the proper uses, ambitions and limits of science. It is a question about how we will treat members of the human family at the very dawn of life; about our willingness to seek alternative paths to medical progress that respect human dignity.
There is no doubt that human life begins at conception
Simply because the alternative is to accept some arbitrary standard for convenience's sake: the quickening, viability, when labor begins, when the crown of the baby's head appears.
Thus we must take full responsibility for protecting innocent human life, otherwise millions of babies will fall by the wayside, unmarked and abandoned, as they are now. There is no question that every woman of childbearing age must be asked to present herself for monthly testing of her status. When the state detects a new human being, that child's life must be protected and preserved, as a citizen and child of God.
To the present day, the debate has taken place as to what the moral course is after the mother gives visible indication of pregnancy. Those who believe that aborting that pregnancy is termination of a human life and thus murder have been content to accept the mother's account of whether she is pregnant, or the evidence of their own eyes.
Clearly this is insufficient. The new citizen of the state within is equally a baby whether the mother knows she is pregnant or not, or whether she chooses to inform the world or not. Our duty is clear: above all, protect the children. Now that we have the means to do so simply and economically, test every fertile woman every month. The cost will be more than offset by the productivity of the future citizens who will live rather than die, and more importantly we will know that we have done the only right, proper, and moral thing.
I'm Sorry, I'm Confused
Sometimes I get confused about what "conservative" means. I always thought it meant was about freedom from Government intrusion into one's personal life, and not spending money and raising taxes to pay for social programs.
What you describe is an incredibly intrusive program that requires women to meekly submit for their monthly test. How much more intrusive can you get? And make no mistake, it is a social program, it's just a social program that is designed to assert control over women and bend them to your will. I don't think that is right, proper, or moral. And you're talking about testing probably 100 million women each month. Do you have any idea how much that is going to cost? Where are you getting the taxes to take away personal freedom going to come from? I thought it was supposed to be liberals who were into taxing and spending.
You insult the term "conservative."
I read it as
satire.
The costs are repaid through investment
And that investment is the preservation of millions of lives otherwise lost, and those saved babies become productive adults.
I see this as a decidely liberal program, in that it places all women on an equal footing as regards the responsibilities of pregnancy. One of the hoariest objections to banning abortion is that the daughters of the rich can afford to leave the country to dispose of an unwanted baby, while the daughters of the poor must live with the consequences of their choices. With one bold stroke we dismiss that objection forever.
Maybe
To be good satire, it has to be so extreme that it couldn't be confused with the real thing. If this is satire, it sure fooled me. It's way too close to what we hear every day from the "conservatives."
horse poop
Bush politicized the science of stem cell research, pandering to his base and setting us back years.
Obama is simply doing as he promised, separating science from the pull of partisan politics, freeing our researchers to search for lifesaving cures for suffering individuals -- by using byproducts from fertility treatments that would otherwise be simply discarded.
This move away from the politics of fear and misinformation is respectful of human dignity, and embraces the possibility of alleviating suffering of living, breathing human beings.
No surprise
That Babs and Sanchez are in favor of killing babies, that is their main purpose in life, supporting abortion.
And the slaughter of the innocents continues
Apop and Interface, aka Mengela and Adolf, are bound and determined to prove that there is nothing inherently wrong with human experimentation for the mass production of patented (money producing) genomic mutations.
Yea, Lezzle
The only life they value is their own.
The title should be: Obama promotes culture of death.
Everything Obama has done in this are makes me physically ill. That I am being forced to pay for it - even more so. I can also pretty much guarntee that this will allow a cloned embryo to be implanted and allowed to mature to birth, despite these people saying "it won't happen". It will, it's almost guarnteed with BO promoting cloning for the purpose of killing. Once you are promoting the death of unborn children I doubt you will stop there.
Wow!
A Falling Star columnist likes a decision made by a Democat. What are the odds?
Live long enough
and you will see plenty of suffering. The intent of medical research should be, indeed, to save lives. Adult stem cells offer the opportunity to advance medical science without the deliberate cultivation of human beings for the sake of harvesting their mutations. Why are are liberals so stubbornly insistent that adult stem cell research is inadequate for the purposes they so emotionally defend?
Oh this fairy tale again
So please tell us. Are women being kidnapped so their eggs can be harvested without their permission?
Because embryonic cells are better
Embryonic cells are compatible with any body part. Adult stem cells are not. So there is much more to be gained from research with embryonic cells.
By the way, you do know that 'embryonic' means 'early' and not 'baby', don't you?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/embryonic
but it's not
Embryos used for research for lifesaving cures are clumps of cells that are leftover from fertility treatments that would otherwise be thrown away.
APOP
No one who has respect for life is suggesting tossing human beings into the garbage. Are you suggesting that these embryos, like other aborted human infants, should be unceremoniously discarded? Embryos that are deliberately produced by harvesting eggs from young women to be manufactured into genetically mutated body parts (to market to those that can afford them) the products of modern scientific research, which the Star claims are the benificence, the altruistic gifts, of deviously self-serving industrialists whose patents on these new products will certainly become the source of even greater new wealth...geez...is that what YOU are suggesting? You must have a heart of stone if you think that the altnernative to embryonic cloning, mutilation and experimentation is disposing human life as nothing more than disgusting trash. That's the way too many liberals profess is their preferred method of disposal of a human being...just dump bodies in the ground, who cares about some old grandma.
Do your homework Lezzle
Embryonic stem cells are cells that the woman who donated the eggs no longer needs. They have been thrown away every day for the last 8 years all over the US because of the ban on research.
Since every liberal I know is in favor of embryonic stem cell research, we absolutely will not take responsibility for disposing of potential human beings. That lies with you so-called 'pro-lifers' who don't approve of the research.
You may want to study up on this issue before you post any more.
you do realize
that an embryo, at this stage, is simply a clump of cells, don't you?
Sorry, I don't buy your presumption that a clump of cells in a laboratory dish is to be valued above a living, breathing, suffering human being whose ailment may be cured from those cells.
Victory of Politics over Science and Ethics
A point of view not considered by the KC Star:
WASHINGTON—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."
So I will ask my question once again
WASHINGTON—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."
Is it better to throw these embryonic stem cells in the trash? Because if they are not used for research, they end up in the garbage. So I will ask you again if you approve of throwing these potential babies in the trash? Or would you rather use them for life saving research?
Trash or saving lives? Which do you prefer?
ya
Ya but anyone w/ a brain knows that adult stem cells are going to end up the most useful.
This is 100% political. Congrats libs, you won the ability to research something that other countries have already deemed useless.
wow.
what a dumb statement.
you to
what a dumb statement.
What a smart statement. lol. You got anything else douche waffle?