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
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.
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?
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.
yep
until then, it's hard to take them seriously.
Interface, you make long for
Interface, you make long for retroactive abortion.
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!
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."
I read it as
satire.
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."