More science and politics news, and this time it’s heartening: as promised last week, Obama has signed an Executive Order today reversing the ban on federal funding of stem cells. You may recall he promised to do this during his campaign, and made a point of it in his answers for Science Debate 2008.
He even went further, adding to the Order a section to protect scientific research against political influence:
Although officials would not go into details, the memorandum will order the Office of Science and Technology Policy to "assure a number of effective standards and practices that will help our society feel that we have the highest-quality individuals carrying out scientific jobs and that information is shared with the public," said Harold Varmus, who co-chairs Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
That is very, very good news. I wrote extensively over the past few years on how the Bush Administration unduly influenced the progress and release of scientific research due to what was clearly partisan and ideological beliefs. Again, Obama promised to do this in the Science Debate 2008 answers, and he has again followed through.
The hard work will begin soon, enforcing this policy and making sure narrow ideological beliefs do not impede our investigation of reality. But that’s work I bet a lot of people will be eager to undertake.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:56 am
This is horrible news!!! What’s going to happen to all the oil industry scientists who guided our global warming policies during the Bush administration?
March 9th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
It pains me to think about the progress that could have been made in these years had Bush not stood in the way.
Alex Perry
Boulder, CO
March 9th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
An excellent beginning. Now let’s see if this policy holds up under the slings and arrows it is bound to attract. It is hopeful that two such distinguished scientists as Steven Chu and Harold Varmus, both Nobel laureates, are on the team.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
@SLC, that’s an interesting quote to excerpt:
”
…
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?
…”
William Shakespeare, Hamlet
I think we could all use some more outrageous fortune — although I suspect that nearly 100% of the people who read and comment on this blog have it better than the bottom 33rd percentile of the rest of the world.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Ultimately I think it will have to succeed. Hypothetical zygote souls are one thing, but life-extending medical technology is quite another.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Hooray! 3 cheers for common damn sense!
March 9th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Can stem cells get rid of the demons I need exorcised? Where’s Bobby Jindal when you need him?
March 9th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Bush only restricted federal spending on fetal stem cell research. He did not prohibit private funding. Adult stem cell research has proven to be more effective anyway. Consider the research for EB. Several children have been cured completely.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Fos, you’re full of it; he couldn’t prohibit private funding as he had no authority to do so (stem cells are not protected). What he did was poke science in the eye. And let’s be clear about “adult” stem cells; we would have no clue how they worked if it was not for the study of embryonic stem cells. And no, adult cells are not more successful; they have to be reset so to speak, and this can lead to unpredictable results such as cancer. Care to cite the source of the completely cured children? I’m not sure what you’re referring to, but am always willing to read.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
@fos
“He did not prohibit private funding.”
Yeah, we sure are lucky we didn’t elect him dictator! Or perhaps more to the point, he was more concerned with destroying a citizen’s right to privacy than dismantling other portions of the Constitution. You know, like the parts that allow private organizations to use their money as they wish. Something I’m guessing you wish the President could control?
March 9th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Wow kash, you can read fos’s mind? Were you born with this ability or can I acquire it too?
March 9th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
The problem I have with this is that we must now have human cloning. There are not enough IVF labs in the world to keep up with the demand of stem cells. If cures are discovered then this problem will be even worse. We will need to have basically cloning farms set up just to produce the stem cells which will be needed to treat the millions of people who would fall ill to a disease which can be treated by stem cells.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
I think the best thing he said after signing the EO and the memorandum was:
“Now, this order is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America. But let’s be clear: Promoting science isn’t just about providing resources — it’s also about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about letting scientists like those who are here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient — especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”
Fact based science? How refreshing!
(Off to enjoy that Cuban Cigar!)
March 9th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Women are going to have abortions, scientist are going to experiemnt on aborted infants, I cannot stop that. I just don’t want to fund it with my tax dollars
March 9th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
I really don’t feel like having my tax dollars used to bomb innocent civilians…so who did I need to see about that?
March 9th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
This is great news!!! What’s going to happen to all the scientists who guide our global warming policies during the Obama administration?
March 9th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
First, I’m not sure what you mean by human cloning here. For example, I believe embryonic stem cells are already clones, namely fetal cells from blastocysts that have cloned themselves during development (and not yet differentiated). And on the other hand these cells aren’t used to develop human clones – in fact, you could make an argument that the preceding IVF rejection prevents many cases of making human clonal twins. (I assume IVF eggs can twin as ordinary eggs.)
Second, aren’t you discussing potential future use?
There is a huge difference between using stem cells in basic and clinical research, and using them for clinical procedures. Googling it I find the following uses:
- Elucidating development, especially how undifferentiated cells become differentiated. (Ties in to cancer and birth defect research.)
- Understanding genetic and molecular controls, for development as well as ordinary cell division.
- Test new drugs.
- To develop cell based therapies.
AFAIU the more immediate uses are plenty supplied by IVF rejects.
Mostly the later potential future clinical use in therapies would need massive amounts of stem cells. And at that time one would hope that the work on reversing adult cells has matured. It would also be beneficial against rejection of the material, wouldn’ it?
And as far as I can see the only sense which those are clones are in the same sense as for the fetal cells. (I.e. after reversion they differ from the differentiated adult cells (so they aren’t clones of those), nor are they used to develop human clones.)
March 9th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
This is a real nonstarter; vestigial, and another place to put money that we don’t have right now. There has been nothing stopping private funding of this research, which is good, but this is little more than deflecting the fact that nothing else good is being done by gov’t right now. Fail.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Oops, I cut off the argument there. (And I dunno why neither I nor the spell checker caught the misspelling.) I mean, using the patients own cells for the therapy would ease or remove potential rejection problems.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Government directed science! Government direction clearly works so well I’m so glad we got some more of it.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
I don’t get it. Those taxpayers who don’t want their money to fund stem cell research because a ball of cells might become a human are mute when it comes to sacrificing mature, thinking, loving, reproducing, real human life by sending them to war.
Kim
March 9th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Lawrence,
That’s why Al Gore invented the internet, so you can google it.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Robbie, you mean like the last 8 years when scientists either had to start private coomapnies or stop doing research. Or having to make sure equipment that was bought by goverment money is not used in stem cell research. Really Bush was more guilty in directing science.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Davidlpf: “Robbie, you mean like the last 8 years when scientists either had to start private coomapnies or stop doing research.”
Oh no they had to start private companies! The horror.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
@Robbie it takes away from doing research. Think about it, every minute they spend on paperwork is on less minute doing research to try to save peoples lives.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Another thing the money spent on adminstrators and other support staff could of gone to hiring researchers.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Davidlpf you think all of that money isn’t spent on those things anyway? It just appears in researchers bank accounts? What about all of the money and time wasted on lobbying and dealing with bureaucrats?
March 9th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
You mean the bureaucrats that make sure the money is not spent on stem cell research.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Great news today nationally with President Obama’s decision, but we in Georgia have to put up with our local government taking a further step to the ideological right with the State Senate imposing more restrictions on stem cell research.
The Senate Health and Human Services Committee approved a measure that would prohibit the creation of human embryos for research as well as ban human cloning.
Sen. Preston Smith who chaired a subcommittee on the measure says the bill has nothing to do with the Obama administration.’
http://wsbradio.com/localnews/2009/03/ga-lawmakers-restrict-stem-cel.html
March 9th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Folks, folks. Robbie is clearly a troll. They only go away if you stop feeding them.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Although this is stated;
But it is quiet unclear after reading this. And these policies are never clear.
March 9th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
We’re just replacing one ideology with another. We had a Republican war on science, to hear those who lean a certain direction politically tell it, now we have a Democrat war on science.
March 9th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Obama is god sent…Bush was and still is devil in carnation
March 9th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
What’s to prevent a future President from reversing this decision? Bush signs an executive order cutting off funding; Obama signs one restoring it. Is there a way to make these kinds of decisions permanent?
March 9th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
You see that’s a big problem! Science being under attack by some scumbrained political slow-minds who happen in power! This world could use more presidents like him!
March 9th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
What I don’t like is that the executive has the power to tell congress what it can and can’t fund. Is anyone questioning this? It’s just as bad as the war powers act when it comes to the imbalace of powers between the three branches. Maybe I am just crazy.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Let’s first discuss how broken a system is, if a wretch like G.W. can be elected, twice, and govern like a dictator for eight years. Repair the system.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:40 am
tod Says:
March 9th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Obama is god sent…
He sent a liberal?!?!?! rofl
March 10th, 2009 at 3:58 am
Just so you know, Obama’s signing of the Executive Order is big news over here in Britland too. The press and TV media are reporting it in a very positive light, not just for science and the potential gains for society, but also in terms of righting wrongs.
Justin Webb, BBC America correspondent wrote:
“The stem cell decision is indeed a repudiation of a Bush policy but it is more: the strange death of socially conservative America, which began in the mid-terms in 2006, continues apace. The repudiation is of a policy but also of a way of life, that puts faith above science”.
BigBob
March 10th, 2009 at 6:51 am
Chris A.: “Folks, folks. Robbie is clearly a troll. They only go away if you stop feeding them.”
No we don’t. I stand by my opinion as stated.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:03 am
This person at the Cato Institute says it better than I can here:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/03/10/mr-president-if-youre-involved-its-already-politicized/
March 10th, 2009 at 7:49 am
Stonez,
What would be good about farming human embryos for scientific experiments?
Is a cloned human an individual being with rights or property of the large corporate entity that created it?
Kim Poor,
Who said I was mute on war? You are making an assumption, and you were once a ball of cells.
Chris A,
Why is Robbie a troll, because he does not agree with you?
March 10th, 2009 at 7:55 am
Very little mention here of recent advances in using stem cells derived from adult tissues.
And hasn’t Congress also each year since 1996 forbidden the use of federal financing for any experiment in which a human embryo is destroyed?
What? Congress, not Bush?
March 10th, 2009 at 7:57 am
Sorry–link is http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/science/10lab.html?_r=2&ref=science
March 10th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Interesting quote:
March 10th, 2009 at 8:58 am
You folks have pretty high opinions of yourselves.
Charles Boyer Says: “although I suspect that nearly 100% of the people who read and comment on this blog have it better than the bottom 33rd percentile of the rest of the world.”
and
Todd Says: “Obama is god sent…Bush was and still is devil in carnation.”
So how much actual research was not accomplished because of the Bush ban? Did the private sector get any research done? I don’t know. I do know that in our democracy there were some questions about ethics. So some labs were shut down. Democracy works that way. But ethics! come on! There was a debate about ethics! That’s a good thing right?
And all this talk about “W” being a dictator. Of course you bright-bulbs know that if you overuse strong words, like dictator or whatever, that word suffers from a loss of impact.
I hate to break it to you kids, but Bush is gone. He was here for eight years, did a yeoman’s job and now he has left the building. He was not run out on a rail. No coup. His contract expired and he left. For information on dictators see Stalin and Hitler. Those folks had a tendency to stay past their expiration dates. Chavez for example, aspires to dictatorial heights.
Bush was here, he did some bad stuff and some good stuff and now the new boss is cleaning out the file cabinets. Democracy. Good. You folks who claim to have seen evil-incarnate through the Bush years have not seen anything of the real world. You’ll know evil dictators when you see ‘em but you’ll have to come up with new words to describe them because you wasted all the really good ones on Bush. But why should I care? You’ll be too scared to use your new words anyway.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:10 am
[...] Hurray for Science! Even though I’m not american, its very nice to see a smart person who cares about the advancement of science, instead of relaying on misticism and superstition. Check out the details in badastronomer. [...]
March 10th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Excellent, now if we can just find the rube who said, and I quote, “[Human cloning research] is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society,”endquote, and get his morality-driven agenda out of Science! I’ll bet Mr. Obama will be the first to repudiate such interference… oh, wait. Nevermind.
March 10th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
While I agree with the reversal of the stem cell policy, I’m dismayed that people are portraying this as a victory for science and objectivity. That somehow, this is the advancement of “fact-based” science.
The debate was *never* about science, but about ethics. We have all kinds of ethical rules on scientific research involving human and/or animal experimentation and no one claims these rules are “anti-science”. The Bush people didn’t restrict research because they thought it would summon the devil or something. They did it because they thought that was an ethical violation. And while I disagree, it’s a view I’m sympathetic to. Where do we draw the ethical line? It has to be drawn somewhere, no?
Even if you disagree that embryos should have protections similar to fully grown human beings, can’t you at least respect that some people think differently and not deride them as superstitious fools?
March 10th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
@Greg C: My “war”comment was not directed at you, but if the shoe fits….You continue to remain mute. Yes I was once a ball of cells, but the argument could also be made that I was an organic molecule on a comet, or a primeval cloud of hydrogen.
A microscopic ball of cells has no awareness, feels no pleasure or pain. Surplus embryos (and it’s a stretch to call a blastocyst an embryo) are summarily “executed” anyway, unless you’re Octomom. The only thing that separates a human from a platypus is human DNA. Do you masturbate, Mr. C.? Then you’re guilty of killing millions of potential humans. Where does it stop?
And what about the promising young man or woman who is painfully killed in a war that never gets the chance to create a new human life?
Incidentally, scientists discovered a way in 2008 to harvest embryonic stem cells from blastocysts. My argument still stands.
without harm to the “human”
KP
March 10th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Stem Cells
Yesterday, Barack Obama lifted the Federal ban on research in new stem cell lines. That means research labs using Federal money are no longer restricted to the 20 or so so-called “Presidential lines” of embryonic stem cells that existed bef…
March 10th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Mike @ 4:25 PM,
I know your comment wasn’t directed at me, since I haven’t commented here before, but I’ll take a stab at answering the question you posed in your last paragraph.
I realize that not all people who think that embryos should have protections similar to fully grown humans believe that way for superstitious (religious) reasons. For that reason I don’t categorize people with such beliefs as superstitious fools, until and unless they reveal themselves to be superstitious. I do, however, categorize them as fools, of a non-superstitious type, if they put the value of a tiny cluster of cells over the value of a fully developed sentient human being, and then use their beliefs to try and prevent others from using aforementioned clusters of cells to help improve the lives of aforementioned fully developed humans.
Maybe not all people with such beliefs are foolish; it’s possible some are just evil, or ignorant, or mentally challenged. I don’t know.
So let me ask you this, in all sincerity:
Think about the person you are closest to; your spouse or child or parent perhaps. What if this person had a deadly illness that could be directly cured by a treatment that had been developed through the study of embryonic stem cells, but the powers-that-be denied your loved one that treatment due to their objection to the fact that embryos had been destroyed during the development of that treatment. Would you still be sympathetic to their point of view? If you would be, you’re a much more understanding person than I.
Although I’m not in that situation now, I can see the big picture. One day I may have a loved one who may be helped by this research. Even if I don’t, I still feel compassion for strangers who may be helped. I feel hope that people I don’t even know who are suffering unimaginable pain may one day find relief. I don’t even have to wait for it to hit close to home. And if you take into consideration what I outlined in my previous paragraph, maybe you’ll begin to understand why some of us who support stem cell research deride those who oppose it as fools.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:01 am
Actually, I do have relatives who could benefit from stem cell research. In fact, I have relatives who preserved cord blood from their children in case they passed on their conditions.
The danger here is that you potentially create a demand for embryos, for creating a class of life — whether or not embryos are sentient or have right or not, they are living — that exists only to benefit other people. While I agree with continuing stem-cell research, that potential bothers me.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:18 am
@Mike
So, kinda like creating a class of life (virus and bacteria strains) that exist only to benefit other people (via vaccines and other biologic medicines). Shall we then work to reduce the demand for viruses and bacteria, just because they are living? What about animals raised solely as food? And if we work to decrease demand for food-animals, simply because they are living, then what about plants grown solely as food or medicine? What is it that makes a small collection of cells more deserving any kind of protection than any other collection of cells, or even single cells?
And while such a demand is a potential, it is not guaranteed. Research into embryonic stem cells may lead to other avenues that eliminate reliance on such lines before we even reach any sort of mass-production or clinical benefit from stem cells.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:29 am
Here is the unpleasant truth no one wants to face: millions of fertilized eggs are flushed out by sexually active women every single month during the regular menstrual cycle ; that’s just how it works, folks. Millions. Saving the ones that happen to be in a petri dish is pointless.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:31 am
@amethyst–
How nice of you to regard those who disagree with you as just fools. It is possible for people to have very different views on ethical issues and not be fools.
You disregard the fact that using stem cells that ARE NOT derived from embryonic tissues are a viable alternative (see the article I referenced above). Using these cells eliminates the ethical question involved. It would be different if that was the only line of research that was useful. It is not.
It is interesting that Obama seems to be okay with this, but is decidedly against the issue of cloning. Why is that? Is there an ethical issue involved there? Are people who disagree with him fools also?
And Todd W., most bio-ethicists recognize the difference between human life, and that of bacteria and viruses, as it relates to medical research.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:37 am
@Daffy–
I am assuming that your reference to “millions” of fertilized eggs lost each month is some kind of world wide figure.
I don’t think the issue here is the background spontaneous abortion rate.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:45 am
@David D
Oh, I quite agree that they recognize the difference between a human being and viruses and bacteria. But we’re talking about a collection of cells. At what point is it “human”? What is the argument? And what about the questions I raised about animals and plants?
Without being arbitrary, where does one draw the line(s)?
March 11th, 2009 at 7:55 am
@Todd W–
To be honest, I don’t know. And a lot of folks way smarter than me (and probably you) don’t really know either. The line most likely has to be drawn arbitrarily in some fashion, hopefully guided by ethical principles.
That collection of human cells (you forgot the “human” part) will NOT EVER develop into a virus or a bacteria. And being composed of cells that originated from humans (not dogs or cats or E. coli) is important. It is a collection of human cells; whether or not it should be accorded the rights and status of a human being is obviously a difficult question to answer.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:01 am
David,
Yes, worldwide.
Please explain to me why you are concerned about fertilized eggs in a dish, and yet you are (apparently) unconcerned about the many millions more who fail to implant on the uterine wall? Are they not entitled to rights? If not, why not? Life begins at “conception” according to people like yourself.
(Oh, btw, even conception is a multi-stage process. The “Life begins at conception” argument is a vague term with no real meaning.)
March 11th, 2009 at 8:10 am
@David D
Ah, but some of those cells could have flaws that make them virus-like in that they become cancerous, or they attack other cells, destroying them (rampant killer cells). Yes, they will have human DNA, rather than dog, cat or E. coli DNA, but they can behave in a similar fashion to the cells of other living things.
I read several essays on the question, but more as it relates to abortion, and, yes, every line or definition was arbitrary. Moreover, no definition or line was applicable to all cases, except for the line being drawn at birth. I’ll admit, too, that I have no clue where to draw the line, but I have given it a great deal of thought and still nothing. Suffice to say, nothing of what I’ve read or heard has been convincing to me.
I guess the point is that if someone is going to question the ethics of using blastocysts for stem cells, then we must demand of them an explanation of why they argue the way they do. I would hope the reasoning extends well beyond “Because it’s wrong”.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:20 am
@Todd–
Regardless of how they will behave, they are human cells, and no matter what they act like, will never be virus cells.
This is a difficult issue. I agree with you that my readings on the subject have not been very enlightening. I hope that there is something more than the “because it’s wrong” statement. But the same reasoning would apply to Obama’s pronouncement against cloning, wouldn’t it?
@Daffy–
I never said that life begins at conception, nor do I necessarily believe it. Careful there.
There is a background miscarriage rate, that we probably can’t do much about, once all of the medical aspects of this phenomenon are addressed (infection, autoimmune diseases, etc.). This argument is not about that issue.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:27 am
@David D
Re: Obama’s cloning statement
Yep. The same “why” questions should be asked.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:35 am
David,
It has NOTHING to do with miscarriage. A sexually active woman, flushes out fertilized eggs pretty much any month that she is sexually active and an egg does not implant. That is NOT a miscarriage.
And these are fertilized eggs: by your definition humans with rights; and neither you or anyone else seems to care, because they have not implanted on the uterine wall. Well guess what? Neither have eggs in a petri dish.
You are right about one thing: this is not what the debate is about. It IS about controlling women. It was NEVER about anything else.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:43 am
@Daffy–
A sexually active woman, flushes out (usually) one ovulated egg each month. Most of the time, only one egg is ovulated each cycle. The egg is not necessarily fertilized. If it is and does not implant, than it IS by definition a miscarriage, in this case a subclinical pregnancy. I don’t think you have your medical facts straight here. How do you define spontaneous abortion?
Fertilized eggs are not necessarily humans with rights; again I have never claimed that as my own opinion. That’s twice you have put words in my mouth. Pay attention.
And if you think the whole embryonic stem cell ethical issue was all about controlling women . . .
March 11th, 2009 at 9:03 am
David,
Check your facts regarding the menstrual cycle and fertilized eggs. But, no matter what number you come up with, fertilized eggs ARE being flushed out. And neither you or anyone else seems to care.
Your words: “That collection of human cells (you forgot the “human” part) will NOT EVER develop into a virus or a bacteria. And being composed of cells that originated from humans (not dogs or cats or E. coli) is important. It is a collection of human cells; whether or not it should be accorded the rights and status of a human being is obviously a difficult question to answer.”
No, it is not difficult to answer. Those cells (just like the ones flushed out each month) have the POTENTIAL to become humans. Caring about the ones in a dish while ignoring the others makes no sense whatsoever. Do we care less about a human who slips and falls and dies (a “natural” occurrence), than we do about one who is shot? Why aren’t right-to-lifers holding fake funerals for the “spontaneous abortions?” Are they less human?
The whole debate is nonsense from the get go.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:49 am
@Daffy–
I think I am actually well-versed in the facts regarding the menstrual cycle and fertilized eggs–it is my profession, if you will. You have demonstrated a lack of understanding about human female physiology.
I honestly don’t know where you are coming from with this argument about miscarriages vs. “petri dish” cells. I don’t think anyone has ever had an ethical issue with spontaneous abortions, either in the ethical field or in the Catholic church. It’s not a question about “caring.”
However, I’m glad that you have the answer to this complicated debate. It must feel good to know that you have the insight that nearly everyone else lacks.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Todd W.: “But we’re talking about a collection of cells. At what point is it “human”? What is the argument? And what about the questions I raised about animals and plants?
Without being arbitrary, where does one draw the line(s)?”
Isn’t that the point of it all? Any line is arbitrary because the science is not there yet. No one on earth knows when the collection of cells becomes human. So isn’t it wrong to draw any lines since they’re arbitrary? If you do draw arbitrary lines what sort of precedent does that set? More importantly, what kind of precedent are you following when you do draw the arbitrary lines? I think the answer to that last question lies in history and a long string of disaster, holocaust, murder, war, and genocide.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:51 am
@David D. & Daffy
My point seems to be overlooked in this interesting debate STEM CEELS CAN BE HARVESTED
WITHOUT DAMAGE TO THE BLASTOCYST
This would have not been discovered without experimentation on embryonic cells. No doubt, a few “humans” were “murdered” in the process.
KP
March 11th, 2009 at 11:03 am
@Robbie
Yeah, and it was the point of my posts. Semi-rhetorical question. The point that I was trying to make is that there currently cannot be a rational reason for prohibiting embryonic stem cell research. Lots of emotional reasoning, sure, but nothing rational. And even more, those arguments put forth seldom, if ever, take the future into consideration and how prohibitions may affect other areas beside stem cell research.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Todd W.: “The point that I was trying to make is that there currently cannot be a rational reason for prohibiting embryonic stem cell research.”
And how can there be rational reason for allowing embryonic stem cell research by the same guidelines? You’re drawing arbitrary lines. Is that rational?
March 11th, 2009 at 11:29 am
@Robbie
First, see Kim Poor’s last post. It is possible to do ESC research without damaging the “human”.
Second, there is potentially life-saving medicine that can benefit millions of people (and possibly even extensions of the concepts into veterinary medicine) currently living and yet to be born.
Third, many of the stem cell lines derived from blastocysts are from those cell clusters that would normally have been tossed in the trash, so to speak. In a way, it is similar to bison in early North American history. European settlers killed bison and just left the carcasses to rot. By contrast, native peoples made extensive use of the bison: meat, hides, bones. Rather than let these clusters of cells go to waste, derive some benefit from them. The use of these clusters, therefore, has no ethical dilemmas associated specifically with them.
None of these reasons for pursuing stem cell research is arbitrary, insofar as I can see. I am, however, willing to be shown in what way they are.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Todd W.: “First, see Kim Poor’s last post. It is possible to do ESC research without damaging the “human”.”
Sorry, there were a lot of posts and that slipped my mind. That is a good point and I’ll be sure and look into this new (to me, anyway) area of the science. Much of the rest of his/her post was garbage.
Todd W.: “Second, there is potentially life-saving medicine that can benefit millions of people (and possibly even extensions of the concepts into veterinary medicine) currently living and yet to be born.”
I find this “ends justify the means” line of thinking disturbing. And your analogy betrays what you said before about not knowing where human life begins. Your analogy compares what may or may not be human life to a bison. Unlike my argument, which is from the side that says no one has the power over human life.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
David D. said, “How nice of you to regard those who disagree with you as just fools. It is possible for people to have very different views on ethical issues and not be fools.”
Why do you take such issue with the fact that some people view others as fools? It’s a rather unimportant point in the grand scheme of things, but you seem quite up in arms about it. I won’t belabor the point of whether or not they technically fit the definition of “fools”. Instead, I’ll say this: My personal opinion of anyone who values a tiny cluster of cells over a sentient human being is very, very negative. But why should you care that I or anyone else thinks negatively of them? Is this really an important point?
You also said: “You disregard the fact that using stem cells that ARE NOT derived from embryonic tissues are a viable alternative”
No, I didn’t disregard that assertation, it’s that I don’t believe that it’s necessarily true. No, I’m not a scientist, but I do know that not all scientists agree with you on that point.
I don’t know Obama’s personal reasons for being against human cloning. You asked if people who disagree with him on that point are fools. I can’t guess at Obama’s thoughts, I can only tell you mine. If cloned body parts (non-sentient) can be produced that will be beneficial to sentient humans, then I’m all for it. Clone my heart and store it in a dish for later use if necessary, and I’ve got no problems with that. Avoiding the use of the word “fool”, I’ll just say that I would have a very negative opinion of anyone who disagrees with that.
As for cloning that results in sentients beings: whatever my opinion of people who disagree with me on that debate may be, it’s certainly not as negative as my opinion of people who value clusters of cells over sentient beings. The stem-cell debate is one of the value of cells vs the value of sentient beings. The debate over cloning is a debate regarding sentient beings vs sentient beings. See the difference?
March 11th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
@Kim Poor–
Interesting observation. It is also possible to do stem cell research without using stem cells from embryos. See my reference to an article above. Maybe you overlooked my observation. Boo hoo.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
@David D
There are limitations to stem cells derived from other sources, though. They can only be reset so far back and have limited potential. This may change as we learn more about embryonic stem cells, but, well, that requires research into embryonic lines.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
@Robbie
I realized my analogy was not perfect, in that we know that a bison is a bison, whereas a blastocyst might be a “human” and it might not be. But that was not the point of my comparison. My point was: they will be destroyed regardless of whether or not they are used for stem cell research. Since they will be destroyed, make use of them before that point so that some benefit to humanity can be gained.
My “ends justify the means” point must be taken in context with the rest of my points, rather than simply cherry picked out of the bunch and taken in isolation.
Beyond what I mentioned already, I have no other concrete reasons to allow embryonic stem cell research. However, unless there is some compelling argument made, based on sound reasoning rather than emotional (or religious) appeals, there is no justification for banning it.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
@Todd W–
From the article I referenced:
“The Japanese biologist Shinya Yamanaka found in 2007 that adult cells could be reprogrammed to an embryonic state with surprising ease. This technology “may eventually eclipse the embryonic stem cell lines for therapeutic as well as diagnostics applications,” Dr. Kriegstein said.”
March 11th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
@Amethyst–
You can regard me as a fool if you like (I don’t really care), but you are going to have to get in a very long line.
You may choose to look at the world any way that suits you. I find it interesting that when you meet someone whose opinion is different than yours or makes you feel uncomfortable, your default position is to assume that they are intellectually inferior to you. Maybe there’s a different way to interact with others without having to denigrate them.
“My personal opinion of anyone who values a tiny cluster of cells over a sentient human being is very, very negative.” Again it’s not whether those cells have value OVER that of someone else, it’s whether they have rights/autonomy at all.
“You also said: “You disregard the fact that using stem cells that ARE NOT derived from embryonic tissues are a viable alternative”
No, I didn’t disregard that assertation, it’s that I don’t believe that it’s necessarily true. No, I’m not a scientist, but I do know that not all scientists agree with you on that point. ”
Well, I also ask that you read the article that I mentioned above. Whether you believe me or not, there are quite a few scientists working in this area. Maybe you will believe them.
“The stem-cell debate is one of the value of cells vs the value of sentient beings. The debate over cloning is a debate regarding sentient beings vs sentient beings.”
I think the stem cell debate involves the question of what defines our humanity, of when we become human. Maybe the cloning debate involves the same question. So I disagree with you somewhat–and hey, I don;t think you are foolish at all!
March 11th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
@ Mike:
First, it is hopefully a moral behavior we are discussing, not theoretical ethical guidelines, well meaning or not.
Second, there isn’t any moral concern in stem cell research besides understanding and alleviating killing or disabling diseases as quickly as possible. Other moral concerns come if you start growing humans (for parts or other functions), something which is done today by parents of, say, sick kids whether we like it or not.
@ David D:
Eh? It happened 1951, when researchers found that cervical cancer cells taken from the dead Henrietta Lacks cloned themselves indefinitely. (Look up HeLa cells; these human cell clones have been used for research for nearly 60 years.) It has also happened several times in dogs and tasmanian devils, where cancer cells are spread by contact infection – and in the case of the devils are driving them to extinction:
“The study also found that the facial cancer was genetically identical in every animal and had originated from a single contagious cell line, spread throughout the population by biting during fights for food and mates. The Tasmanian Devil faces extinction in 10 to 20 years due to the facial cancer, the report said. The research by Sydney University, the University of Tasmania, the Australian Museum and the Tasmanian government was published online by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.” [Published 2007. I'm not linking, mainly because I don't like the delay and it is easy to google, but also since the picture of an affected devil were NSF children or sensitive adults. But these are the very diseases that stem cell research tries to alleviate!]
It is very hard to analyze biological research if one doesn’t take the biology into consideration. (Well, duh!) Here that sexually procreated eukarian cells can nevertheless easily and observably revert to single cell clonal life style at any time.
Most biologists wouldn’t think more of the cells used and destroyed for stem cell research than the many skin and other cells we use and discard every day to maintain our bodies. Probably less, since the cells used in research will never constitute a being, even less a mindful being. And they are the experts, as Phil likes to remind us of. (”I’m an elitist.”)
March 11th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
@David D
I don’t mind at all if you do indeed think I am foolish, which is my entire point regarding that issue. What you think of me is irrelevant, as is what I think of you. I only care what kind of real influence people have. If someone has a negative opinion of me, that doesn’t affect me. If that person has the power to hinder research that could improve the quality of my life or the lives of others, that does affect me and I care about it very much.
I don’t see how it matters if I assume that I am intellectually superior to anyone who disagrees with me. In fact I don’t make that assumption, but even if I did, who cares when it is just a thought inside my head? When it comes to interacting with others, I do my best to give people the benefit of the doubt, to treat them with respect even when I don’t respect their views, and to not hurt anyone’s feelings if it can be avoided.
As for your opinion (and the opinion of some scientists) that adult stem cell research is adequate and that embryonic stem cell research is not necessary: I am unconvinced at this time that that is true, so, until I am convinced that embryonic stem cells don’t need to be used, I will support their use, since I don’t personally have any objection to their use. If there’s a chance good will come of it, I can’t in good conscious object to it. I haven’t been given any compelling reason to object to it.
I understand that some people see the stem cell debate as a debate about when we become human (I suppose there wouldn’t be much of a debate at all if everyone was in agreement on that). For the sake of argument, let’s say that I agree that a blastocyst is human, rather than just human cells with the potential to grow into a human. That still doesn’t make it a black and white “blastocysts shouldn’t be destroyed in the effort to develop new treatments” issue for me. It doesn’t settle anything for me to look at them as human, for I still have to grapple with the question, “What is more important, a tiny cluster of non-sentient cells, or a sentient human being?” I can’t for the life of me place a higher importance on the non-sentient cells. That’s what it boils down to for me.
What if you became convinced that adult stem cells weren’t an adequate substitute for embryonic stem cells? What if, through some research in the future, it was discovered that a life-saving treatment could only be developed through the use of embryonic cells? Would you still oppose the use of embryonic stem cells?
March 11th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
@amethyst–
I take it you didn’t read the article. Whether or not adult stem cell research is “adequate” or embryonic stem cell research is more “adequate ” may not be answerable at this time, but there is EXTENSIVE research being done on non-embryonic stem cell lines. The article discusses this in some detail, and I think it is worth your time.
You also seem to be caught up on the sentient vs non-sentient issue. What evidence do you have that the blastocyst is non-sentient?
If in the hypothetical future a treatment was developed that necessarily required the use of embryonic stem cells, I would probably change my feelings about them. If it becomes clear, as it seems to be less hypothetcially that adult stem cells are just as good if not better, would you change your views?
March 11th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
@ David
Yes I read the article. I’m aware that extensive research is being done on adult stem cells, but there are still significant hurdles to overcome in the use of adult stem cells. If we discontinue use of embryonic stem cells right now, precious time in the development of treatments could be lost while we are attempting to overcome those obstacles. I support research using both kinds of cells, as both seem to have advantages.
Of course I’m “caught up” in the sentience issue; while I appreciate the fact that a blastocyst has the potential to one day be a fully developed human, and I wouldn’t go around destroying them for fun, given the choice to save a fully formed human or a blastocyst, I will save the fully formed human. No, it’s not fun or pleasant that a choice should have to be made, but life isn’t always pleasant. Life is choices. Sometimes we don’t like those choices. Until there is significant scientific evidence that that choice doesn’t have to be made, I will choose to support research using embryonic stem cells. I don’t think I can explain it any better than that (blame my terrible communication skills), so if you’re still baffled by how I can see things that way, then maybe you should just resign yourself to regarding me as foolish. You, too, can get in line
I have never seen any evidence that a blastocyst is sentient. Do you have evidence that it is?
Yes, if it just so happens that it turns out that adult stem cells are just as good as embryonic cells, and there was no further reason to use embryonic cells, then I would be fine with the idea that only adult cells be used.
(I apologize if this comment seems at all terse. I’m pretty PO’d and frustrated at myself and my damn laptop (sigh) because I wrote out what I thought was a pretty good reply and then hit the wrong button and made it all disappear.)
March 11th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
@ David:
I would, but that’s just fantasy. While adult stem cells, reprogrammed, amniotic, or cord blood show promise, they’ll never reach the potency (differentiation-ness) of ESCs because they represent the earliest appearance of SCs. ESCs are the “gold standard” by which other types of SCs are measured. That won’t change, IMHO.
I went to China for a month in 2006 to get stem cell treatments. (I have an incurable neurological disease) They injected 5 treatments into my lumbar region, and followed it up with Nerve Growth Factor. They were “donated” cord blood SCs, and had a transient effect on some symptoms, verified by a UCLA neurologist, but they seemed to work better on spinal cord injuries, and children.
If there was an adult SC treatment that worked on some ailments, then great; it’ll Probably be cheaper, anyhow. But “adult”cord blood SCs tend to become muscle or blood cells, though some can be coaxed into nerve cells. They have been proven to be useful in leukemia patients. I suspect mine only worked for awhile because 1) the disease is too deep, and marinating the brain in SC-laden spinal cord fluid was not enough and 2) ESCs were not used.
My only hope (eight years behind) is that a treatment using ESCs is developed soon. I’ve tried the alternative. (my China blog is HERE . Many of the improvements can be attributed to the placebo effect, but that’s equivalent to results if you have a progessive, incurable disease.
Give me the gold. Sentient or not.
KP
March 12th, 2009 at 5:48 am
@David D
Actually, despite your reading of that article, reprogrammed adult stem cells, as far as I understand, approach, but do not match, embryonic stem cells. I just heard a bit of information about stem cell research the other day from the head of the Department of Regenerative Medicine at the hospital in which I work. Using the analogy of a ball rolling down a hill, he stating pretty clearly that adult cells can only be pushed so far up the hill, leaving some paths inaccessible, while embryonic stem cells are at the very “top” of the hill, having all potential paths open to them.
So, I stand by my comment that there are limitations to stem cell lines derived from non-embryonic sources.
Also, Torbjörn, thanks for posting that info about human cells becoming viruses.
March 12th, 2009 at 7:34 am
@ amethyst–
I appreciate your thoughtful reply. Again, ESC research is not being halted and was not halted during the last 8 years. Although Obama’s reversal of Bush’s policy will make it easier to do the research, there are still Congressional restrictions which will need to be overcome.
I do not know if the blastocyst possesses sentience or not. It is an interesting concept to regard “sentience” as a definition of our humanity.
@Kim Poor–
I wish only the best for you in your disease. I hope that a treatment is found somewhere, ESC or otherwise.
As far as Torbjorn’s comments on the HeLa cell line, those cells did not become viruses. They were cervical cells which became infected with an oncogenic strain of the human papilloma virus which initiated their transformation into cancer cells. They did not become viruses.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:55 am
This is an interesting read:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/obamastemcells2.html
March 13th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
@ David:
It has no nervous system. (Duh!)
Read again – they aren’t cancer cells any longer, they are free-living eukaryotic cells, bacteria if not Bacteria.
@ Todd:
No, not viruses, see above. To evolve from a cellular life form to a viral life form will take some doing, the usual route is probably that viruses are derived selfish gene assemblies. But some viruses are complex as cells, has AFAIU a full complement of metabolic pathways and look suspiciously as if they evolved as more of a whole from cells, see Mama and Mimi viruses. And famously Mama viruses can be infected by a virus, hence their name.
OTOH human cells contain viruses and can presumably spawn viruses more directly by that route. Elements from retroviruses that have become “stuck” in the germ cell line can potentially become “unstuck” again, before they are destroyed by mutation. Dunno if it has been tested yet. (But see Greg Bear’s “Darwin” series, “Darwin’s Radio” and “Darwin’s children” for a novelization of such a pathway (with some tossed in speculation about extensive gene regulation AFAIU).)
March 16th, 2009 at 10:48 am
@Torbjörn Larsson
Okay, thanks for the clarification.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Obama Signs Law Banning Federal Embryo Research Two Days After Signing Executive Order to OK It… funny how the more things change, the more they stay the same.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44943#
March 17th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Zahobia– it’s not clear to me that this will reverse what he signed earlier. The embryos would have been discarded anyway, and were not created for research. Also, what Obama signed was a big funding act, and the ban is an amendment to that, so the headline is misleading. Finally, as the article states, the amendment has been included every year since 1996, and is well-known. It’s possible this was done on purpose to force the amendment to be revisited, as it appears many congressmen on both sides the aisle wish to do.