Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Stem Cell Research is a concept that requires a leap of faith -- President Bush has little vision on this matter. How President Kennedy ever convinced anyone that we'd go to the moon by the 'end of the decade' is beyond me. What's the fear on stem cell research anyway? That we're using babies to create Frankenstein monsters or something?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "It is really silly to see (once again) people bashing the president because he sees things differently than they do. Bush isn't doing this to punish or snub anyone. What a ridiculous comment." Sure he is. if not, then don't make the call. It's a really simple choice. What's ridiculous is that we have a President who has turned a democracy into a theocracy. What's ridiculous is that Bush has allowed his religious beliefs to guide his political decision making. Bush's religious beliefs have absolutely NO PLACE in this equation. We are no better than the countries we like to ridicule, like practically every country in the Middle East, for the way they govern and allow their religious beliefs to get in the way of commonsensical governmental actions. Moreover, like the political factions that have no sovereignty but let their fanatical beliefs guide their every move, like Hamas, Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, to name three. What's ridiculous, hypocritical and dishonest is that on one hand we have gay marriage, and a president who has said the people have spoken and their will should be honored (albeit unconstitutionally) by banning it, but on the other hand, the same president ignores the will of the people, both in polling and the Republican controlled Congress, for crying out loud, who easily passed this bill, by vetoing it based solely on his own religious principles. Were you lying then George when you said we should ban gay marriage because the people want it or are you lying now saying despite what the people want, you are going to ban federal funding for embryonic research. These are cells that are otherwise never going to be used. They'll sit in a freezer somewhere until destroyed. They could be put to magnificent use, by helping to cure the sick and infirmed, by re-affirming life, not killing it. This veto is indefensible. I don't care if Bush personally puts a bullet in bin Laden's head and "conquers Radical Islam" all by himself. This makes him a political dead man. Just watch come November.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008675" target="_blank">http://www.opinionjournal.com/ best/?id=110008675</a> >>On balance, we suppose we're inclined to support the legislation. But the tone of the debate gives us second thoughts--in particular, this October 2004 quote from John Edwards: "We will stop juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and other debilitating diseases. . . . People like Chris Reeve will get out of their wheelchairs and walk again with stem cell research." When people who claim to be speaking out for science talk like faith healers, they risk discrediting the entire enterprise. By contrast, President Bush's approach to the question, as we noted five years ago, is nuanced and thoughtful. Further, Bush's foes and the press frequently misstate his position, referring to a "ban on stem-cell research." In fact, the Bush policy places no restrictions on any kind of stem-cell research that does not receive federal money, or on federal funding of adult stem-cell research. It does limit federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research to those cell lines that were in existence at the time the policy was initiated, in August 2001, but prior to then there was no federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, so that the policy actually liberalized the conditions for federal research grants. Supporters of research subsidies are asking for a further liberalization, not a reversal of a "ban." We won't pretend to be shocked, shocked that politicians are engaging in demagoguery and dishonesty. We're cynical enough to realize that is what pols do when they think they have a winning issue, and that's why we haven't totally turned against the pro-funding position. We do wonder, though, if this really is as winning an issue as Bush's foes think it is. Of the five Republican senators generally considered vulnerable in November, only Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted "yes." Jim Talent of Missouri, Conrad Burns of Montana, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania all voted against the bill, as did Jon Kyl of Arizona and George Allen of Virginia, whom the most optimistic Democrats also think they have a chance of defeating. Only one Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, voted "no," and he also is up for re-election this year and is regarded as vulnerable. It may be that these opponents are acting on principle, heedless of political considerations, or it may be that their vulnerability makes them more inclined to be responsive to their pro-life base, though even the latter explanation suggests the politics are somewhat complicated. And if the politics are complicated, it is because, as even the left-wing magazine Mother Jones acknowledges, the morality of destroying embryos is fraught: Aanis Elspas is a mother of four. Unlike most parents, she had three of her children simultaneously. The nine-year-old triplets were born in 1997 after Elspas underwent a series of in vitro fertilization treatments for infertility. . . . The problem is that Elspas also has 14 embryos left over from the treatment that produced her 10-year-old. The embryos are stored in liquid nitrogen at a California frozen storage facility--she is not entirely sure where--while Elspas and her husband ponder what to do with them. Give them away to another couple, to gestate and bear? Her own children's full biological siblings--raised in a different family? Donate them to scientific research? Let them . . . finally . . . lapse? It is, she and her husband find, an intractable problem, one for which there is no satisfactory answer. So what they have done--thus far--is nothing. Nothing, that is, but agonize. . . . Elspas is by no means alone, either in having frozen human embryos she and her husband must eventually figure out what to do with, or in the moral paralysis she feels, surveying the landscape of available choices. Mother Jones, not surprisingly, quotes one expert who "believes that with better patient counseling and logistical coordination between fertility clinics and research labs, many more unused embryos could be directed toward stem cell research, and that many patients would be happy to know that their embryos are being used to find a cure for afflictions such as Parkinson's disease and juvenile diabetes." That may be true, and many people (including this columnist) find it hard to credit the absolutist pro-life position that destroying an embryo is tantamount to killing a person. But Aanis Elspas's anguish suggests also that one doesn't have to be a pro-life absolutist to be troubled by the idea that human embryos are disposable.<<
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "We will stop juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and other debilitating diseases. . . . People like Chris Reeve will get out of their wheelchairs and walk again with stem cell research." I see nothing wrong with this. Too bad it's too late for Reeve.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "President Bush's approach to the question, as we noted five years ago, is nuanced and thoughtful." Hardly. And talk about your oxymorons.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "We do wonder, though, if this really is as winning an issue as Bush's foes think it is. Of the five Republican senators generally considered vulnerable in November, only Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted "yes." Jim Talent of Missouri, Conrad Burns of Montana, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania all voted against the bill, as did Jon Kyl of Arizona and George Allen of Virginia, whom the most optimistic Democrats also think they have a chance of defeating. Only one Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, voted "no," and he also is up for re-election this year and is regarded as vulnerable." This is a good thing. Seven no's up for re-election. Only four of them need to go to override the veto.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer So Scientists CAN do embryonic Stem Cell research, as much as they want to with folks who decided to donate them to scientists, or if they use the stem cell lines that were created prior to August 2001, they can even get federal funding. The issue is can Scientists use new lines of embryonic stem-cells and then get federal money. The veto keeps the scientists getting federal tax dollars. I would like to see the Federal Government cut back spending in a lot of areas..... But I am all in favor for a private non-profit group doing something similar to the MDA telethon, where they go out and raise money for the research. Those that want to support the research can make the decision individually.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "So Scientists CAN do embryonic Stem Cell research, as much as they want to with folks who decided to donate them to scientists, or if they use the stem cell lines that were created prior to August 2001, they can even get federal funding." Yeah, with all that cash. What we have is a president that has gone on record as disapproving it, which has a tremendous chilling effect. Of course, in a theocracy, who cares, right?
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6604" target="_blank">http://www.newscientist.com/ar ticle.ns?id=dn6604</a> * 14:25 01 November 2004 * NewScientist.com news service * Celeste Biever The stem cell lines available for federally-funded research in the US have characteristics which mean they may never be used for medical treatments in humans, a new study suggests. Fred Gage at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California and Ajit Varki at the University of California, San Diego, US, have shown that human embryonic stem cells (hESC) cultivated on a scaffolding of mouse “feeder†cells take on the properties of the rodent cells. Consequently, if implanted in a human they would provoke an immune response that would kill the hESCs, they say. The finding reinforces calls by US stem cell researchers for their government to free up federal money to research fresh lines of human ESCs, grown on non-biological scaffolds. Stem cell research in the US is currently limited to 22 lines, following a policy introduced by President George W Bush in 2001. These lines were derived before August 2001 and all of the cells were grown on a scaffolding of mouse cells. “It’s a new twist on why it can’t be done,†says Richard Hynes, a biologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences’ committee on guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research. =========== “It’s always been known that these would not be ideal candidates for clinical trials,†says Evan Snyder, director of the Stem Cell and Regeneration Program at the Burnham Institute in La Jolla. But up until now the main fear was that pathogens from the mouse could pass to humans. “I don’t think anybody is even thinking of putting these cells into people,†adds Hynes. So privately-funded US scientists are actively searching for non-biological alternatives to the mouse cell scaffolding. Contenders include a jelly-like matrix, and human muscle or blood cells. But because Bush-approved research is limited to the older lines, federally-funded scientists cannot take advantage of newer stem cells grown on alternative scaffoldings. This “significantly†limits the value of the federally-funded research, says Snyder. “It renders [the government-approved cells] incredibly suspect. All work should be done with fresh lines,†he says. A second unpublished study by Carol Ware at the University of Washington, Seattle, US, also revealed that cells derived from five of the 22 lines were so difficult to grow and separate that they may not be clinically useful.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger >>What's ridiculous, hypocritical and dishonest is that on one hand we have gay marriage, and a president who has said the people have spoken and their will should be honored (albeit unconstitutionally) by banning it, but on the other hand, the same president ignores the will of the people, both in polling and the Republican controlled Congress, for crying out loud, who easily passed this bill, by vetoing it based solely on his own religious principles. << Game, set, match.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad I am not sure why I am even posting this, perhaps to maybe spark some insight into someone else's brain, but ... I honestly don't have the education to make an informed decision on how I really feel about this issue. It is FAR from a black and white issue.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<Game, set, match.>>> Yeah, I'll bet that is what the President was saying as he signed the veto. Honestly, I wish I knew more about stem cell research, but I have no PhD nor even a MS in the field. My inclination is that the research should continue, but that is far from an informed opinion.
Originally Posted By RandySavage Beaumandy, can you read?. If so, go to the library and get the July 2005 National Geographic (<a href="http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0507/feature1/" target="_blank">http://www7.nationalgeographic .com/ngm/0507/feature1/</a>) on stem cells. You may learn some actual, non-partisan facts on the subject. Embryonic SC hold far more promise than adults stem cells. The governments and private sectors in Japan and the EU are throwing billions towards developing them. The US private sector would as well, but there aren't that many available here (thanks to your hero). On the subject of stem cells (as with every other subject on which he posts) Beaumandy offers little more than false information and irritating, repetitive anti-"liberal" rants. The way he spouts off clueless comments in order to incite negative emotions in the majority of the thoughtful people of this online community makes me ashamed to be his compatriot. Since he is able to post every five minutes, this guy clearly doesn't have a job; that, or he is a lazy student. It would be nice for him to find a hobby besides spewing his venom here.
Originally Posted By ecdc Count me in for post 42, all the way. I voted for Bush in 2000. I supported him through 9/11. But I can also think for myself. I can change my mind when I see the results (hey, call me a flip-flopper - it's a badge I'll wear with pride). With each passing moment I'm just more and more embarrassed that the man is the President. Time and time again he's shown himself to be obsessed with so-called moral issues, while his ineptitude fails us miserbly when it comes to real moral issues. We're treated to failure in Iraq, failure in Hurricane Katrina, failure in our civil liberties, failure in immigration, failure in the safety of our country, all while we watch the President embrace ludicrous issues like stopping stem cell research, intervening in a private matter like Terri Schiavo, endorsing abstinence only education, pandering shamelessly to homophobes, and otherwise doing whatever his kind of religionists want. Morality isn't boys kissing, stem-cells that'll be trashed anyway, or interfering in private family issues. It's keeping young people alive and out of Iraq, feeding our poor and hungry, supporting scientific research for the well-being of those already living, it's jobs and support for the majority of Americans, not just the rich. George W. Bush is a miserable failure as a President. I'm just ashamed.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I must admit... of all the U.S. Presidents during my lifetime, George W. Bush is the first one that I am truly embarrassed by (though Jimmy Carter came close).
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Darkbeer has a very good point. Every time Bush or even state politicians vote against funding one program or another, people (stupid people mostly, I think) get all up in arms and claim that some politician is cancelling some program and it will never see the light of day. All Bush is doing is saying that he doesn't think the federal government should be funding a particular program. So, if it's a great, promising program, private industry will jump in so fast it will make our heads spin. But, so far they haven't, and I happen to be one who thinks the federal government has no business in medical research at all.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I happen to be one who thinks the federal government has no business in medical research at all.>> You've just eliminated every significant medical development of the last 50+ years. Sorry, but I don't want to live in your world.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Don't be silly, Road Trip. Are you claiming that every significant medical development of the last 50+ years was funded solely by federal dollars? I sincerely doubt it.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Don't be silly, Road Trip. Are you claiming that every significant medical development of the last 50+ years was funded solely by federal dollars? I sincerely doubt it.>> Look into it and you will find I am correct. The vast majority of medical research is done by American Universities; and the vast majority of that research is funded by various Federal agencies. I work for a University. I know.
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy I dunno much about the issue, but my instinct is to be annoyed with Bush (this is so radical for me as I don't even *do* politics, lol) and be pro-research. I mean, *if* the embryos are going to be destroyed *anyway*, use 'em for medical research to help those who need it! At least that's the line of thinkin' of someone who avoids politics...
