Stem Cell Research
Depot
The ModFather Join Date: 2002-11-09 Member: 7956Members
The ModFather Join Date: 2002-11-09 Member: 7956Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">The President may exercise a veto</div> <a href='http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html' target='_blank'>Remarks by the President on Stem Cell Research </a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->8:01 P.M. CDT
<b>THE PRESIDENT:</b> Good evening. I appreciate you giving me a few minutes of your time tonight so I can discuss with you a complex and difficult issue, an issue that is one of the most profound of our time.
The issue of research involving stem cells derived from human embryos is increasingly the subject of a national debate and dinner table discussions. The issue is confronted every day in laboratories as scientists ponder the ethical ramifications of their work. It is agonized over by parents and many couples as they try to have children, or to save children already born.
The issue is debated within the church, with people of different faiths, even many of the same faith coming to different conclusions. Many people are finding that the more they know about stem cell research, the less certain they are about the right ethical and moral conclusions.
My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos. A large number of these embryos already exist. They are the product of a process called in vitro fertilization, which helps so many couples conceive children. When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are planted in the mother. Once a couple successfully has children, or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories.
Some will not survive during long storage; others are destroyed. A number have been donated to science and used to create privately funded stem cell lines. And a few have been implanted in an adoptive mother and born, and are today healthy children.
Based on preliminary work that has been privately funded, scientists believe further research using stem cells offers great promise that could help improve the lives of those who suffer from many terrible diseases -- from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's, from Parkinson's to spinal cord injuries. And while scientists admit they are not yet certain, they believe stem cells derived from embryos have unique potential.
You should also know that stem cells can be derived from sources other than embryos -- from adult cells, from umbilical cords that are discarded after babies are born, from human placenta. And many scientists feel research on these type of stem cells is also promising. Many patients suffering from a range of diseases are already being helped with treatments developed from adult stem cells.
However, most scientists, at least today, believe that research on embryonic stem cells offer the most promise because these cells have the potential to develop in all of the tissues in the body.
Scientists further believe that rapid progress in this research will come only with federal funds. Federal dollars help attract the best and brightest scientists. They ensure new discoveries are widely shared at the largest number of research facilities and that the research is directed toward the greatest public good.
The United States has a long and proud record of leading the world toward advances in science and medicine that improve human life. And the United States has a long and proud record of upholding the highest standards of ethics as we expand the limits of science and knowledge. Research on embryonic stem cells raises profound ethical questions, because extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo, and thus destroys its potential for life. Like a snowflake, each of these embryos is unique, with the unique genetic potential of an individual human being.
As I thought through this issue, I kept returning to two fundamental questions: First, are these frozen embryos human life, and therefore, something precious to be protected? And second, if they're going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?
I've asked those questions and others of scientists, scholars, bioethicists, religious leaders, doctors, researchers, members of Congress, my Cabinet, and my friends. I have read heartfelt letters from many Americans. I have given this issue a great deal of thought, prayer and considerable reflection. And I have found widespread disagreement.
On the first issue, are these embryos human life -- well, one researcher told me he believes this five-day-old cluster of cells is not an embryo, not yet an individual, but a pre-embryo. He argued that it has the potential for life, but it is not a life because it cannot develop on its own.
An ethicist dismissed that as a callous attempt at rationalization. Make no mistake, he told me, that cluster of cells is the same way you and I, and all the rest of us, started our lives. One goes with a heavy heart if we use these, he said, because we are dealing with the seeds of the next generation.
And to the other crucial question, if these are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for good purpose -- I also found different answers. Many argue these embryos are byproducts of a process that helps create life, and we should allow couples to donate them to science so they can be used for good purpose instead of wasting their potential. Others will argue there's no such thing as excess life, and the fact that a living being is going to die does not justify experimenting on it or exploiting it as a natural resource.
At its core, this issue forces us to confront fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science. It lies at a difficult moral intersection, juxtaposing the need to protect life in all its phases with the prospect of saving and improving life in all its stages.
As the discoveries of modern science create tremendous hope, they also lay vast ethical mine fields. As the genius of science extends the horizons of what we can do, we increasingly confront complex questions about what we should do. We have arrived at that brave new world that seemed so distant in 1932, when Aldous Huxley wrote about human beings created in test tubes in what he called a "hatchery."
In recent weeks, we learned that scientists have created human embryos in test tubes solely to experiment on them. This is deeply troubling, and a warning sign that should prompt all of us to think through these issues very carefully.
Embryonic stem cell research is at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards. The initial stem cell researcher was at first reluctant to begin his research, fearing it might be used for human cloning. Scientists have already cloned a sheep. Researchers are telling us the next step could be to clone human beings to create individual designer stem cells, essentially to grow another you, to be available in case you need another heart or lung or liver.
I strongly oppose human cloning, as do most Americans. We recoil at the idea of growing human beings for spare body parts, or creating life for our convenience. And while we must devote enormous energy to conquering disease, it is equally important that we pay attention to the moral concerns raised by the new frontier of human embryo stem cell research. Even the most noble ends do not justify any means.
My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs. I'm a strong supporter of science and technology, and believe they have the potential for incredible good -- to improve lives, to save life, to conquer disease. Research offers hope that millions of our loved ones may be cured of a disease and rid of their suffering. I have friends whose children suffer from juvenile diabetes. Nancy Reagan has written me about President Reagan's struggle with Alzheimer's. My own family has confronted the tragedy of childhood leukemia. And, like all Americans, I have great hope for cures.
I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our Creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your President I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world. And while we're all hopeful about the potential of this research, no one can be certain that the science will live up to the hope it has generated.
Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue research offered great hope for cures and treatments -- yet, the progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations. Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril. So I have decided we must proceed with great care.
As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research. I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made.
Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line, by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.
I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord placenta, adult and animal stem cells which do not involve the same moral dilemma. This year, your government will spend $250 million on this important research.
I will also name a President's council to monitor stem cell research, to recommend appropriate guidelines and regulations, and to consider all of the medical and ethical ramifications of biomedical innovation. This council will consist of leading scientists, doctors, ethicists, lawyers, theologians and others, and will be chaired by Dr. Leon Kass, a leading biomedical ethicist from the University of Chicago.
This council will keep us apprised of new developments and give our nation a forum to continue to discuss and evaluate these important issues. As we go forward, I hope we will always be guided by both intellect and heart, by both our capabilities and our conscience.
I have made this decision with great care, and I pray it is the right one.
Thank you for listening. Good night, and God bless America.
END 8:12 P.M. CDT <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is using an embryo for the purpose of Stem Cell Reaearch morally wrong?
Will the President exercise his right to veto regarding this?
Discuss ...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->8:01 P.M. CDT
<b>THE PRESIDENT:</b> Good evening. I appreciate you giving me a few minutes of your time tonight so I can discuss with you a complex and difficult issue, an issue that is one of the most profound of our time.
The issue of research involving stem cells derived from human embryos is increasingly the subject of a national debate and dinner table discussions. The issue is confronted every day in laboratories as scientists ponder the ethical ramifications of their work. It is agonized over by parents and many couples as they try to have children, or to save children already born.
The issue is debated within the church, with people of different faiths, even many of the same faith coming to different conclusions. Many people are finding that the more they know about stem cell research, the less certain they are about the right ethical and moral conclusions.
My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos. A large number of these embryos already exist. They are the product of a process called in vitro fertilization, which helps so many couples conceive children. When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are planted in the mother. Once a couple successfully has children, or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories.
Some will not survive during long storage; others are destroyed. A number have been donated to science and used to create privately funded stem cell lines. And a few have been implanted in an adoptive mother and born, and are today healthy children.
Based on preliminary work that has been privately funded, scientists believe further research using stem cells offers great promise that could help improve the lives of those who suffer from many terrible diseases -- from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's, from Parkinson's to spinal cord injuries. And while scientists admit they are not yet certain, they believe stem cells derived from embryos have unique potential.
You should also know that stem cells can be derived from sources other than embryos -- from adult cells, from umbilical cords that are discarded after babies are born, from human placenta. And many scientists feel research on these type of stem cells is also promising. Many patients suffering from a range of diseases are already being helped with treatments developed from adult stem cells.
However, most scientists, at least today, believe that research on embryonic stem cells offer the most promise because these cells have the potential to develop in all of the tissues in the body.
Scientists further believe that rapid progress in this research will come only with federal funds. Federal dollars help attract the best and brightest scientists. They ensure new discoveries are widely shared at the largest number of research facilities and that the research is directed toward the greatest public good.
The United States has a long and proud record of leading the world toward advances in science and medicine that improve human life. And the United States has a long and proud record of upholding the highest standards of ethics as we expand the limits of science and knowledge. Research on embryonic stem cells raises profound ethical questions, because extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo, and thus destroys its potential for life. Like a snowflake, each of these embryos is unique, with the unique genetic potential of an individual human being.
As I thought through this issue, I kept returning to two fundamental questions: First, are these frozen embryos human life, and therefore, something precious to be protected? And second, if they're going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?
I've asked those questions and others of scientists, scholars, bioethicists, religious leaders, doctors, researchers, members of Congress, my Cabinet, and my friends. I have read heartfelt letters from many Americans. I have given this issue a great deal of thought, prayer and considerable reflection. And I have found widespread disagreement.
On the first issue, are these embryos human life -- well, one researcher told me he believes this five-day-old cluster of cells is not an embryo, not yet an individual, but a pre-embryo. He argued that it has the potential for life, but it is not a life because it cannot develop on its own.
An ethicist dismissed that as a callous attempt at rationalization. Make no mistake, he told me, that cluster of cells is the same way you and I, and all the rest of us, started our lives. One goes with a heavy heart if we use these, he said, because we are dealing with the seeds of the next generation.
And to the other crucial question, if these are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for good purpose -- I also found different answers. Many argue these embryos are byproducts of a process that helps create life, and we should allow couples to donate them to science so they can be used for good purpose instead of wasting their potential. Others will argue there's no such thing as excess life, and the fact that a living being is going to die does not justify experimenting on it or exploiting it as a natural resource.
At its core, this issue forces us to confront fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science. It lies at a difficult moral intersection, juxtaposing the need to protect life in all its phases with the prospect of saving and improving life in all its stages.
As the discoveries of modern science create tremendous hope, they also lay vast ethical mine fields. As the genius of science extends the horizons of what we can do, we increasingly confront complex questions about what we should do. We have arrived at that brave new world that seemed so distant in 1932, when Aldous Huxley wrote about human beings created in test tubes in what he called a "hatchery."
In recent weeks, we learned that scientists have created human embryos in test tubes solely to experiment on them. This is deeply troubling, and a warning sign that should prompt all of us to think through these issues very carefully.
Embryonic stem cell research is at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards. The initial stem cell researcher was at first reluctant to begin his research, fearing it might be used for human cloning. Scientists have already cloned a sheep. Researchers are telling us the next step could be to clone human beings to create individual designer stem cells, essentially to grow another you, to be available in case you need another heart or lung or liver.
I strongly oppose human cloning, as do most Americans. We recoil at the idea of growing human beings for spare body parts, or creating life for our convenience. And while we must devote enormous energy to conquering disease, it is equally important that we pay attention to the moral concerns raised by the new frontier of human embryo stem cell research. Even the most noble ends do not justify any means.
My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs. I'm a strong supporter of science and technology, and believe they have the potential for incredible good -- to improve lives, to save life, to conquer disease. Research offers hope that millions of our loved ones may be cured of a disease and rid of their suffering. I have friends whose children suffer from juvenile diabetes. Nancy Reagan has written me about President Reagan's struggle with Alzheimer's. My own family has confronted the tragedy of childhood leukemia. And, like all Americans, I have great hope for cures.
I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our Creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your President I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world. And while we're all hopeful about the potential of this research, no one can be certain that the science will live up to the hope it has generated.
Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue research offered great hope for cures and treatments -- yet, the progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations. Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril. So I have decided we must proceed with great care.
As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research. I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made.
Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line, by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.
I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord placenta, adult and animal stem cells which do not involve the same moral dilemma. This year, your government will spend $250 million on this important research.
I will also name a President's council to monitor stem cell research, to recommend appropriate guidelines and regulations, and to consider all of the medical and ethical ramifications of biomedical innovation. This council will consist of leading scientists, doctors, ethicists, lawyers, theologians and others, and will be chaired by Dr. Leon Kass, a leading biomedical ethicist from the University of Chicago.
This council will keep us apprised of new developments and give our nation a forum to continue to discuss and evaluate these important issues. As we go forward, I hope we will always be guided by both intellect and heart, by both our capabilities and our conscience.
I have made this decision with great care, and I pray it is the right one.
Thank you for listening. Good night, and God bless America.
END 8:12 P.M. CDT <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is using an embryo for the purpose of Stem Cell Reaearch morally wrong?
Will the President exercise his right to veto regarding this?
Discuss ...
Comments
*edited in a more thoughtout response since this was lacking even by my standards.
Is it morally wrong?
I don't believe it is, considering a single embryo(which isn't going to be born anyway) could potentially save dozens if not hundreds of lives.
2. Will he use his veto power?
Yes, he will. Will the congress be able to get the 2/3rds to over-rule it, I hope they do. If not North Korea will be leading the field of biomedical reserach and we shall become dependant upon them to save those who so desperately need this research.
Also
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research. I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good enough for me, at least for the time being.
I never thought I'd say it, but I am actually content with this policy. Not overjoyed, of course; $250 million seems like a paltry sum to spend on something so important. Research will proceed smoothly, however, combined with private research and states' contributions.
Also, I happen to be doing my senior speech on stem cell research, focusing on the apparent struggle between morality and scientific progress....I was thinking about making this topic just to pick the collective brain of this forum for ideas, but this speech makes for an even better discussion.
Leon R. Kass, M.D., Ph.D., is the Addie Clark Harding Professor in the Committee on Social Thought and the College at the University of Chicago (on leave of absence) and Hertog Fellow in Social Thought at the American Enterprise Institute.
A native of Chicago, Dr. Kass was educated at the University of Chicago where he earned his B.S. and M.D. degrees (1958; 1962) and at Harvard where he took a Ph.D. in biochemistry (1967). Afterwards, he did research in molecular biology at the National Institutes of Health, while serving in the United States Public Health Service.
Shifting directions from doing science to thinking about its human meaning, he has been engaged for more than 30 years with ethical and philosophical issues raised by biomedical advance, and, more recently, with broader moral and cultural issues. From 1970-72, Dr. Kass served as Executive Secretary of the Committee on the Life Sciences and Social Policy of the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences, whose report, Assessing Biomedical Technologies, provided one of the first overviews of the emerging moral and social questions posed by biomedical advance.
He taught at St. John's College, Annapolis, MD, and served as Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., Research Professor in Bioethics at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University, before returning in 1976 to the University of Chicago, where he has been an award-winning teacher deeply involved in undergraduate education and committed to the study of classic texts.
His numerous articles and books include: Toward a More Natural Science: Biology and Human Affairs (1984); The Hungry Soul: Eating and the Perfecting of Our Nature (1994); The Ethics of Human Cloning (1998, with James Q. Wilson); Wing to Wing, Oar to Oar: Readings on Courting and Marrying (2000, with Amy A. Kass); Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics (2002); and The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis (2003).
His widely reprinted essays in biomedical ethics have dealt with issues raised by in vitro fertilization, cloning, genetic screening and genetic technology, organ transplantation, aging research, euthanasia and assisted suicide, and the moral nature of the medical profession.
In 2001, President George W. Bush appointed Dr. Kass Chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics.
Dr. Kass is married (43 years) to Amy Apfel Kass, Senior Lecturer in the Humanities at the University of Chicago (on leave of absence) and Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute. The Kasses have two married daughters and four young granddaughters.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.law.duke.edu/features/news_kass.html' target='_blank'>Leon Kass (Speech on Cloning)</a>
Not as right wing as his judge appointments, but still a bad idea for those that wish to help people who think that excess embyros are going to waste in fertility centers. (Because they are.)
American science is slowly turning into one big laughing stock of the scientific community.
This is an especially tough issue for me since, I wouldn't be alive if it weren't for modern medicine. But there is a distinct line between "helping" and using science to benefit your own desires. While this research may begin to "help" it may turn into a nightmare of astronomical proportions.
Furthermore, I thought President Bush handled this issue very well; the only reason to complain that he may not be intelligent would be coming from your own bias, Cyndane.
~ DarkATi
In-vitro fertilisation is playing God as well, why not ban that? If you ban embryonic stem cell research on these grounds, it can very well be said that you should ban in-vitro fertilisation for exactly the same reasons.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But there is a distinct line between "helping" and using science to benefit your own desires. While this research may begin to "help" it may turn into a nightmare of astronomical proportions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How? Actual FACTUAL reasons for how this could turn into a nightmare.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"...it is ridiculous for people who have already decided that it is moral to kill babies in the womb to show some squeamishness about destroying human embryos in a petri dish. Hell, man, once you decide to become a child-killer, their ages no longer matter. Or the numbers. Damnation of your soul is completed with the first one." Charley Reese
"...research involving human pluripotent stem cells...promises new treatments and possible cures for many debilitating diseases and injuries, including Parkinson's disease, diabetes, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, burns and spinal cord injuries. The NIH believes the potential medical benefits of human pluripotent stem cell technology are compelling and worthy of pursuit in accordance with appropriate ethical standards." National Institutes of Health news release.
"Cal Thomas' article against stem cell research....is not particularly useful, because it does not deal with his fundamental belief that human personhood begins at conception. Similarly, articles by medical groups that promote stem cell research are not helpful, because they do not touch on their fundamental belief that embryos are not human persons. If there is to be any hope of resolving these issues, we must debate when human personhood begins. If we can reach a near consensus on this, then abortion, in-vitro fertilization, stem cell research and other debates will neatly resolve themselves." Comment letter to the Jewish World Review
The web site of CovenantNews.com on 2001-AUG-28 featured articles about stem cell research. Headings were:: "Murder by Abortion," "Get Your Human Sacrifice Grant Here," The file name is murder.htm. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Overviews</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A stem cell is a primitive type of cell that can be coaxed into developing into most of the 220 types of cells found in the human body (e.g. blood cells, heart cells, brain cells, etc). Some researchers regard them as offering the greatest potential for the alleviation of human suffering since the development of antibiotics. Over 100 million Americans suffer from diseases that may eventually be treated more effectively with stem cells or even cured. These include heart disease, diabetes, and certain types of cancer.
Stem cells can be extracted from very young human embryos -- typically from surplus frozen embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization procedures at fertility clinics. There are currently about 100,000 surplus embryos in storage. However, a minority of pro-lifers and a majority of pro-life organizations object to the use of embryos. They feel that a few-days-old embryo is a human person. Extracting its stem cells kills the embryo -- an act that they consider murder. Stem cells can now be grown in the laboratory, so (in a pinch) some research can be done using existing stem cells. No further harvesting needs to be made from embryos. However, existing stem cell lines are gradually degrading and will soon be useless for research.
Stem cells can also be extracted from adult tissue, without harm to the subject. Unfortunately, they are difficult to remove and are severely limited in quantity. There has been a consensus among researchers that adult stem cells are limited in usefulness -- that they can be used to produce only a few of the 220 types of cells in the human body. However, some evidence is emerging that indicates that adult cells may be more flexible than has previously been believed.
Research using embryo stem cells had been authorized in Britain, but was initially halted in the U.S. by President George W. Bush. He decided on 2001-AUG-9 to allow research to resume in government labs, but restricted researchers to use only 72 existing lines of stem cells. By 2003-MAY, most of these lines had become useless; some of the lines are genetically identical to others; only 11 remained available for research. By 2005-MAY, all are believed to be useless for research.
Research continues in U.S. private labs and in both government and private labs in the UK, Japan, France, Australia, and other countries. On 2002-SEP, Governor Davis of California signed bill SB 253 into law. It is the first law in the U.S. that permits stem cell research. Davis simultaneously signed a bill that permanently bans all human cloning in the state for reproduction purposes -- i.e. any effort to create a cloned individual.
Following former president Ronald Reagan's death due to Alzheimer's in 2004-JUN -- a slow, lingering disease that took a decade to kill him -- Nancy Reagan and all of her family, except for Michael Reagan, have mounted a campaign to encourage President Bush to relax restrictions on embryo stem cell research. Fifty-eight senators, almost all Democrats, sent a letter to President Bush, urging the same action.
A federal bill passed the House on 2005-MAY-24 to allow government funded research on embryonic stem cells extracted from surplus embryos in fertility clinics. It is expected to be passed by the Senate and to be vetoed by the President.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Stem cells represent natural units of embryonic development and tissue regeneration. Embryonic stem (ES) cells, in particular, possess a nearly unlimited self-renewal capacity and developmental potential to differentiate into virtually any cell type of an organism. Mouse ES cells, which are established as permanent cell lines from early embryos, can be regarded as a versatile biological system that has led to major advances in cell and developmental biology. Human ES cell lines, which have recently been derived, may additionally serve as an unlimited source of cells for regenerative medicine. Before therapeutic applications can be realized, important problems must be resolved. Ethical issues surround the derivation of human ES cells from in vitro fertilized blastocysts. Current techniques for directed differentiation into somatic cell populations remain inefficient and yield heterogeneous cell populations. Transplanted ES cell progeny may not function normally in organs, might retain tumorigenic potential, and could be rejected immunologically. The number of human ES cell lines available for research may also be insufficient to adequately determine their therapeutic potential. Recent molecular and cellular advances with mouse ES cells, however, portend the successful use of these cells in therapeutics. This review therefore focuses both on mouse and human ES cells with respect to in vitro propagation and differentiation as well as their use in basic cell and developmental biology and toxicology and presents prospects for human ES cells in tissue regeneration and transplantation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wobus AM, Boheler KR. Embryonic stem cells: prospects for developmental biology and cell therapy. Physiological Reviews. 2005 Apr;85(2):635-78.
A good start I think, a good start (note the idea of proving concepts in animal models first).
I do think stem cell research is alright though, especially the kinds that don't involve killing fetuses (or zygotes or whatever they are called). I know there is stem cells which can be taken from the blood of the placenta and some adult versions among other things.
I believe they have great potential, and to deny the US research into that is wrong, though at least initially, anything involving killing (of anything for the most part) should not be considered, merely because it would be a waste of time trying to pass legislation on it, at least for the next few years.
Why aren't people researching it? I imagine it's because there's not much money in it. It's a simple process, which has already been done, to take someone's adult stem cells from their nose and inject it into specific areas of the body. The only thing that needs to be researched is how to increase the count of adult stem cells.
The US government has done experiments on adult humans with the purpose of hurting others. Stem cell research could help millions, I think he needs to let up.
QFT, my friend, QFT.
I feel like throwing in a rethorical question too, for good measure: If you had a child which, despite great potential, CHOSE to remain at a preschool level instead of developing, wouldn't that worry you?
Scientific research is not the embarressment for America, America's leader is it's embarressment.
I'd say we would quickly become a world wide joke if this isn't able to get the 2/3rds needed to pass it over his veto.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research. I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made.
Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line, by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.
I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord placenta, adult and animal stem cells which do not involve the same moral dilemma. This year, your government will spend $250 million on this important research. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seems to me thta he's going to approve stem cell research with limits, namely to not "kill" anymore stem cells, and to only allow research on lines of cells already dead to rights. What do you expect, he's a politician, he's gotta try to please everybody. If anything, we should be more frustrated with the conservatives in this country he's trying to please.
I'd like to mention theclam, that you pretty much nailed my thesis statement with this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is so stupid. They can just use embroys from invitro fertilization that would have been thrown away or permanently frozen anyway. That means that it is more morally right to use those as stem cells. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So....yay. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
They are not going to use the excess embryos left over from invetro. This bill says it is ok to use those that are going to be disposed of already. Which the president is going to veto, and I hope it goes back to congress with a big "WTH" response so they can over-rule it.
When he talks about current stem cell research it is from adults and placenta/umbilical cord. Which while it is a good thing, those stemcells lines are going to run dry and we will not have a viable supply without this bill being passed.
Any scientist in the country can go cut open an embryo and start doing Stem Cell research on it, today. The question under debate is whether the government ought to be <i>paying</i> for it or not. And thats a very different question. The moral standard for something to be legal is far lower than the moral standard for something to be government-funded. If this is government funded, that means that <i>everyone</i> is paying for it, both those that support it and those that think its morally wrong, through tax dollars. If it remains under private funding, then people who think the research is worth doing can go donate money to it themselves, and those who think it immoral can channel their money to other purposes.
And as has already been pointed out, the goverment funding into Stem Cell research in general is a fairly paltry sum anyway, so does it really matter that it is restricted to only preexisting stem cell lines?
Any scientist in the country can go cut open an embryo and start doing Stem Cell research on it, today. The question under debate is whether the government ought to be <i>paying</i> for it or not. And thats a very different question. The moral standard for something to be legal is far lower than the moral standard for something to be government-funded. If this is government funded, that means that <i>everyone</i> is paying for it, both those that support it and those that think its morally wrong, through tax dollars. If it remains under private funding, then people who think the research is worth doing can go donate money to it themselves, and those who think it immoral can channel their money to other purposes.
And as has already been pointed out, the goverment funding into Stem Cell research in general is a fairly paltry sum anyway, so does it really matter that it is restricted to only preexisting stem cell lines? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the government should be doing funding into medical research of any kind, then it should be funding research on stem cells. As was already pointed out by me, stem cell research is moral. Stem cell research is a very promising field of study that warrants funding. Therefore, the government should put some of its medical research funding into stem cell research.
No, I think he's being a politician, and trying to please everybody. Even if we had a really open-minded president in office, he would probably still restrict stem cell research <i>somewhat</i>, just because it's such a touchy subject (mostly because it's unfairly clumped with abortion whenever anyone discusses it; case in point, that quote from that religioustolerance site). The way I see it is, he's caved a bit in the favor of the group <i>opposing</i> his main support block, so we shouldn't be complaining that much. You see it as a stupid restriction, I see it as a step in the right direction.
Just because you say something is moral doesn't make it so. This is a hot topic issue - and there are many people in the US who don't think it is moral who don't think the government should be funding it.
Also - your "why it is moraly right" argument is flawed. In that the embryos are going to be thrown out anyway - that is morally wrong. However, at that point it is presumably a privatly funded embryo... and the moral responsibility of the individual / institution in charge. Once publically funded by the government, that embryo becomes all of our responsibility - and all of our moral deliema. And while I can activley not support a private institution without breaking a law - I can't actively not support the government without breaking a law.
@cyndane
The presidents intellegence has absolutly nothing to do with this debate. He was voted into office by the people of this country - obviously many people agree with his position on this. Just because his position differs from yours doesn't mean he is stupid. I just perfer to think of you as intollerant.
Cwfx got it right... the issue is about government funding... and frankly - judging from the election, about 52% of the people don't believe the government should fund stem cell research. If you don't like it - go win an election or two. Or donate your own money.
The president made a wise choice. For those of you who fail to see the wisdom, try not being blinded by your own world view for once.
1. He is already throwing the 250million in government funding towards our current supply of stemcells, <b>before</b> this bill.
2. This new bill would allow us to collect the stemcells from <b>embryos that are going to be tossed out anyway</b>.
3. If he does not support this bill he is basically throwing all of our current research down the perverbial toliet, as our current supply of stemcells are running out.
Is that clear enough for you now?
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The presidents intellegence has absolutly nothing to do with this debate. He was voted into office by the people of this country - obviously many people agree with his position on this. Just because his position differs from yours doesn't mean he is stupid. I just perfer to think of you as intollerant.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
His <b>intelligence</b> is exactly why I didn't want him in office in the first place, however since my state is about the most republican of any in the nation,(not to mention the fact we have only one electoral vote) I could have voted for Mickey Mouse/Kermitt/Ms Piggy[insert random cartoon/muppett character] and made just as much of a difference (I didn't vote for bush).
And don't use "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock" as a counter-arguement.
Just a quick note, since I've seen you say something similar to this before - you could only say that <i>everyone</i> who voted for Bush doesn't support Stem Cell research if - and only if - there were no other factors. Clearly, that's not the case. Anyway, all the polls I've seen on Stem Cell research in recent years indicate that more people support it than don't (usually something like 50-60 versus 25-35, the rest unsure).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...For those of you who fail to see the wisdom, try not being blinded by your own world view for once.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is priceless. There are moments on this forum that I wish I could grab and compress into a book, so that in future, I can open it up and experience it all over again. Reading this comment was one such moment.
And now, do you really expect that people will accept this? "Oh right, my tax money didn't pay for it, it's only fair that I have to sell my house now to afford a treatment." No they won't. They'll sue the living crap out of me for not sacrificing myself and my company and everything I've worked for the greater (i.e. their) good.
So what's in it for me? You're asking me to sow at my own cost, but when it comes to the reaping, you will demand a slice of the pie. If you want a slice of pie, pay your share of the price for the ingredients.
When stem cell research yields concrete, applicable results (and if we go on with it, it's pretty much inevitable that it will), everybody will want to benefit from them. It's only fair, then, that everyone pay for the research. The easiest way to make sure that everyone pays their share is to fund the research through taxes.
Just a quick note, since I've seen you say something similar to this before - you could only say that <i>everyone</i> who voted for Bush doesn't support Stem Cell research if - and only if - there were no other factors. Clearly, that's not the case. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was just about to say something to this effect. If you don't believe it's possible to vote for a politician while NOT supporting every single one of his views on important issues, I just don't know what to tell you Pepe. Proof of this fact: my mom voted for Bush last election, not because of his stances on stem cell research, or abortion, or **** marriage, or anything else you seem to think his election validates. She voted for him simply because we were at war, and Kerry didn't seem like a strong enough individual for that. If anything, she's against Bush's views on these hot topic issues, and I'm sure there are many, many more people who voted like she did.