Typical liberal response:

"My meme, my meme...."

The problem with vetoing embryonic stem cell research is the same problem faced by the neorads whenever ANY action is taken which acknowledges the ethical problems of taking any human life at any stage.

The true underlying issue here is not research into how stem cells can help cure disease---it is how forbidding the destruction of embryos for research conveys (to the Left) human status to them. (We already know they are human.) It is this assignment of value to the unborn that bothers the Left.

They have a fit when a pregnant woman, who desperately loved and wanted her baby, wants the man who killed it when he assaulted her to be tried for murder. They don't want that unborn child to ever be given human status, because to them this is the slippery slope that might end in dealing with the ethical issues of making arbitrary decisions about at which stage of development that life is considered expendable.

It looks like the Server Error black hole swallowed up this post, so I'll try again.

I come at this stem cell debate from, I suspect, a little different perspective than most of you (both Liberals and Conservatives). My youngest grandson was born with defective kidneys, and 3-1/2 years ago he received a transplant of one of his dad's kidneys. My grandson is now 5 and pretty normal except for the anti-rejection drugs he takes, resulting in a lower than normal functioning immune system. The best hope is that the transplanted kidney will last till he's around 30, at which time the best permanent solution would be for him to be able to grow a new kidney of his own. To that end, stem cell research plays the key role. I probably won't be around to see it happen, but I have no doubt that it WILL happen.

All that said, my son-in-law, who is one of the most brilliant people I know (perfect score on his graduate math boards, presented his dissertation on artificial intelligence before a large international conference) has read every scrap of information he can find on stem cell research, both embryonic and adult. His comment to me recently was that the embryonic stem cell researchers are going to have to come up with something -- anything soon, or even private funding will dry up.

One of the comments on the previous thread (about Bush's potential veto of federal funding) compared ESC research efforts to our efforts nearly 40 years ago to land a man on the moon, something, BTW, that we accomplished on the first attempt. Based on conversations with my son-in-law and extensive reading on my own, I'd have to say that the current state of ESC research would be akin to having failed on the first 1,000 attempts to put a man on the moon. How many people, at that point, would have told NASA, "keep trying if you want, but don't fund it with my tax dollars"?

Let me add that I'm not opposed to ESC research. If the option for frozen embryos is to throw them in the trash or use them for research, that, to me, is a no-brainer, as long as it's OK with the person or persons to whom they belong. My big problem is with government-funded research, and it has nothing to do with religion; it has to do with accountability, or lack thereof.

(We already know they are human.

Almiranta, you do know that the umbilical cord and placenta these stem cells would be harvested from are destroyed don't you? I think they incinerate them. Are you not going after that?

Are you not going after that?

So are you a Canuck or what?

Reverend Scaramonga,

I think some of the commentors are confusing Ash with axis. They both have the same liberal views and the two could easily be confused. Based on several of Ash's previous posts and responses to and from others, however, Ash "appears" to be in Colorado -- although, I put most things on the Internet in the "noted" category until I am sure it is true or learn to the contrary.

Posted by Ash -- May 9, 2006 12:24 AM: "BTW I came to Colorado because of its liberal leanings. You want conservative values? Go to Missouri, which I left because it was so backward. They came close to make Christianity the official religion of the state. They gave the country John Ashcroft. Need I go on?"

Axis, on the other hand, "admitted" to being a Canadian a few months ago when I caught him saying something about being in Canada. Prior to that time, he gave the impression he was American. He also said something about "we" being "Canadian and American." That, plus differences in styles of some of his posts, plus the name "axis", plus a couple of other things leads me to think that "axis" could be more than one person, possibly with others feeding input to him. That's just speculation on my part for now though.

I haven't seen much of axis lately; although, I don't have a chance to read all of the posts on all of the topics. Perhaps he is busy with other blogs, on vacation, or doing other things. I wonder too if axis is undergoing an "identity crisis" and will emerge with a new identity to overcome the "credibility" issue of posting as a Canadian, which has become an issue.

AAR

Science has out run the moral mindset of the people -a deadly situation as we apparently never learned from Nazi Germany.

I think some of the commentors are confusing Ash with axis.

Thanks for the info. So Ash-can't is just another sorry-assed liberal, who lives in Colorado? Well, somebody has to live there since John Denver died, I guess.

Stem cell research is the future, and until the administration realizes that its job is not to protect Bush's morals, but to look out for the ultimate good for the people of the United States, we are in serious trouble and will fall desperatley behind other countries in terms of medical research.

I personally think that funding medical research goes under the "providing for the general welfare" goal of our government as stated in the preamble of the constitution.

You know what... if this doesn't deserve federal funding, then no medical research should. Imagine how much government revenues would go up if we stopped federal funding of Cancer and AIDs research! WOW!!!

I personally think that funding medical research goes under the "providing for the general welfare" goal of our government as stated in the preamble of the constitution.

Then why didn't they put it there, I wonder? The right to bear arms is there...

Well, they didn't put the government as the protector of the judeo-christian concept of a traditional family either.

Also, I don't think that there was much medical research going on in the 1780's.

Almiranta said: "The true underlying issue here is not research into how stem cells can help cure disease---it is how forbidding the destruction of embryos for research conveys (to the Left) human status to them. (We already know they are human.) It is this assignment of value to the unborn that bothers the Left."

While that may be true, I don't understand why essentially no one, particularly those on the right, has a problem with invitro fertilization (IVF). I mean for goodness sake, if the destruction of human embryos is morally reprehensible, how is it possible to condone a procedure like IVF which essentially guarantees the creation of unused human embryos whose only fate, by and large, is eventual destruction? IVF has already created vast quantities of frozen embryos, and the vast majority will be destroyed one way or another. That's a fact, and there is no way to get around it, no matter how inconvenient. Given that, I agree with Spook when he said, "If the option for frozen embryos is to throw them in the trash or use them for research, that, to me, is a no-brainer, as long as it's OK with the person or persons to whom they belong."

As for your other comment, Spook -- the one about failures in ESC research, I don't know. Perhaps your son-in-law has better information than I. But from where I stand, I wouldn't characterize ESC research as ready to go down the crapper. In fact, the article cited in the topic of this thread was all about an ESC-derived therapy that is planning to go into clinical trials. That would not be possible, of course, if it weren't for the successes using similar therapies in mice and rats. The very first announcement of successful isolation of human ESC only occurred in 1998, and then it took another year or so to figure out how to successfully colonize them. And since that time ESC research has been hampered by a relative lack of funding. Bush's decision in 2001 was actually an improvement in the previous state of affairs, wherein congress had enacted a complete ban on federal funding for human ESC research. Up to that time ALL human ESC research was funded privately. You compare it to the moon program, and claim that we got to the moon "on the first try". Well, that kind of ignores the 9 years or so of manned space flight (not to mention the billions and billions of dollars invested) that built up to that "first try". So far, total federal funding for human ESC research has amounted to about $90 million. To put that in perspective, that's about how much we are currently spending in Iraq every 8 hours (assuming Iraq is costing about $2B/wk).

For those who may be interested, NIH has a whole section on progress in NIH-funded stem cell research -- all types of stem cells, from fetal to adult, both human and infrahuman. It's very interesting and worth a read. One impression I get from sifting through the studies summarized there is that it may turn out to be the case that "fetal" stem cells (that is, ESCs actually derived from fetuses) may turn out to be necessary for only a limited period of time because other cells from other sources may be able to be coaxed to act like true ESCs.

Also for those interested, NPR ran an interview between Terri Gross and bioethicist Christopher Thomas Scott that aired back in February, but is still available on-line. That interview provides a pretty good overview of the biology and the ethics involved in the stem cell issue. One point Dr. Scott made (which I tried to make in a previous post but didn't do very well) is this: embryonic stem cell research is just one part of a larger picture. Without an understanding embryonic stem cells a lot of information about adult stem cells may be lost. In other words, you can't fully appreciate the whole picture if part of it is missing.

Dr. Scott also makes this point: when Bush imposed the restrictions on existing fetal stem cell lines available for federal funding there were about 70 different lines worldwide. Since then the number of usable lines has dwindled to about 10 - 20. Those that remain are good for research purposes, but none of them are usable for therapies. Perhaps in light of the article cited in the topic of this thread, Dr. Scott may want to rethink that point, because obviously Geron, Inc seems to think they've succeeded in developing a therapy. Be that as it may, the article cited in the topic of this thread also stated that Geron has THE ONLY master cell bank of human embryonic stem cells that are fully qualified for human use. They were derived from two of the Bush-approved cell lines. The article makes it sound like Geron produced their colonies by purifying previously contaminated precursors, which is a hopeful sign. But then again there are issues pertaining to the existing approved cell lines besides contamination. For example, replication errors are unavoidable as time goes on, and there is also an overall dearth of variability in the approved lines. Those issues weren't discussed in the article. I would like to know Dr. Okarma's take on them.

The issue is one of greater good and this grey area of morality that too many people try to divide as black and white. Was any innocent life taken by bombs when we invaded Iraq? That was ostensibly for the "greater good" and we regret it, it wasn't intentional, yet we knew it was certain to occur if we carried out a military solution. Still, it was deemed necessary for the greater good. Would you risk a guilty prisoner avoiding justice to avoid executing an innocent man? If yes, then abolish the death penalty to be certain that innocent life is never taken. If no, then you do not place the value on innocent human life you claim. After all, you consider killing in the name of justice more valuable than a human life and a human life (by the broadest definition) more valuable than research that could potentially save or ease the suffering of thousands.

Yes we have other lines of stem cells. They have never been proven to be as versatile or reliable as embryonic stem cells about which we have 20 years of study to draw from. The stem cells will be destroyed if not used.

President Bush commented, "The bill would compel all American taxpayers to pay for research that relies on the intentional destruction of human embryos for the derivation of stem cells" which seems to imply that taxpayers who believe it is morally wrong to do this should not be compelled to pay for it through federal funding. By that same logic, an atheist who believes that religious institutions should not be compelled to support faith based organizations with federal funding.

The stemcell bill just passed 63-37

I think it was HR-810

I think it was HR-810

The bill passed 63-37, four votes short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override Bush's veto. The president left little doubt he would reject the bill despite late appeals on its behalf from fellow Republicans Nancy Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The vote to override, should it come, will be even less than 63. This was window-dressing. The Republicans (except for a couple) knew Bush would veto and that gave them the cover for their own political purposes. Now when W vetoes it, they'll just say, "Whattyagonnado?" and it will be done with.

I have to ask again (I'll go back and re-read the old thread's replies to my question) but would this veto make it illegal to do Embryonic Stem Cell Research? As far as I understand it all it does is doesn't provide federal funding for these projects. How many other "Greater Good" projects are there out there that aren't getting federal funding? Zero Point Energy? Nuclear Fusion? Organic Oils? I don't know do you?

If it wasn't for the "moral argument" I think this issue wouldn't be anywhere near as "in your face" as it is. It strikes me as one of those "this will be cool if" type technologies. I'm actually more interested in Food Vats than this technology. (The ability to grow just the meat of an animal faster and cleaner than raising an animal.) Though again, is it crying out for federal funding or is it trying to make a case for private investment? *Shrugs*

I'm with Spook on this one, the technology will probably appear at some time in the future, but does a constantly failing program deserve funding?

but would this veto make it illegal to do Embryonic Stem Cell Research?

No, just no tax dollars would be used to fund it.

Gozer said: "I have to ask again (I'll go back and re-read the old thread's replies to my question) but would this veto make it illegal to do Embryonic Stem Cell Research?"

Okay, I'll give it a whack. But first of all, I want to state that the thing that makes ESC research radioactive is a presumed "moral dilemma". As I have tried to show, we have already crossed that Rubicon in the form of IVF. Given that IVF has ALREADY produced hundreds of thousands of "extra fetuses", the question becomes, what to do with them? The inconvenient truth of the matter is that they will be destroyed one way or another. So the true moral issue surrounding ESC research DOES NOT involve destroying fetuses. The REAL question is for what purpose -- is it better to wait for freezer burn to set in and just throw them away, or is it better to allow them to be used in research which has the potential to alleviate illnesses which themselves destroy life?

Some people see a moral dilemma in that choice, and would still prefer that the "refuse" produced by IVF simply be thrown away. I don't agree, but it is a valid opinion as long as people that feel that way understand the real issue. Some people find organ transplants morally reprehensible too (although it was a bigger issue 20 years ago than it is now). I don't have a problem with organ transplants either, but I understand the moral question some people have with that.

The bottom line is... at least be honest and consistent in your moral outrage.

Okay, so now that the question is properly framed, let me answer your question about federal funding. The answer is that Bush's decision did not make ESC research illegal. It just stipulated that no research involving ESCs extracted from any source other than the lines on the official registry could be federally funded. Thus, if you develop a lab, and decide that an ESC line developed from any other source offers the best potential to answer the questions you are interested in, you can never apply for federal funds. You are locked into other funding sources. Likewise, if you start out with federal funding and government approved cell lines, and at some point decide that they are inadequate to complete your research inquiries, you have to stop what you're doing and either start a new lab or find some other way to answer the questions you feel the need to ask. Remember, much of the equipment in your existing lab was probably purchased with federal funds. If it was, you can't use it. Because then your research would be federally funded. That stuff ain't cheap. So basically, the first problem with the ban in place is that it creates a huge wall of separation for labs doing such work that presents severe practical limitations.

Second, private sources tend to be relatively unreliable, and heavily biased in terms of lines of inquiry that are likely to provide a pay-off in the relatively near future. So if your research looks promising at first, then hits a difficult technical hurdle you didn't forsee, your lab runs the risk of losing funding. And because the wall exists, that's a big problem.

Third, research derived from private sources are not subject to the kind of scrutiny that federally funded research is. There is no requirement for peer review, for example. And even if there was, because you are probably using cell lines derived from unapproved sources, there is no way that most of your peers could ever check your work. Thus, the potential for fraud is heightened. Look what happened in South Korea.

Fourth, considering all these obstacles, say you're a young scientist, the smartest of the smart, and you're trying to decide how to form your career. Are you going to go into a field filled with such uncertainty? That's the long-term problem. Promising scientists will not go into the field. And if they do they may not stay in the US. We have, in effect, created a "reverse brain drain".

As far as why ESC research should be funded as opposed to some other technology, well, that's a matter of opinion. But to my mind, once you properly consider the moral issue involved (which IMHO has been hyped far beyond reality), one's opinions should be based on purely on merit. If you think Zero Point Energy, Nuclear Fusion, Organic Oils, or food vats hold greater promise, then by all means advocate them. But do it on their intrinsic merits, not some political hyperbole.

Personally, I don't think ESC research is a "constantly failing program", and I have provided reasons and citations in a previous comment on this thread to support my case. I can't claim to be the smartest guy in the world (I only scored 1530 on my GREs, so I obviously missed a couple of questions on the math portion, and besides, that was a long time ago), but then again I never rely on smarts alone. I back it up with evidence and logic. My (business) partner finished college at 16, did ace his math GREs, got his PhD at 18 (the first one anyway), but sometimes he has SUCH a hard time seeing the forest for the trees. I'm sure he feels the same way about me, lol!

Gozer said: "I have to ask again (I'll go back and re-read the old thread's replies to my question) but would this veto make it illegal to do Embryonic Stem Cell Research?"

Okay, I'll give it a whack. But first of all, I want to state that the thing that makes ESC research radioactive is a presumed "moral dilemma". As I have tried to show, we have already crossed that Rubicon in the form of IVF. Given that IVF has ALREADY produced hundreds of thousands of "extra fetuses", the question becomes, what to do with them? The inconvenient truth of the matter is that they will be destroyed one way or another. So the true moral issue surrounding ESC research DOES NOT involve destroying fetuses. The REAL question is for what purpose -- is it better to wait for freezer burn to set in and just throw them away, or is it better to allow them to be used in research which has the potential to alleviate illnesses which themselves destroy life?

Some people see a moral dilemma in that choice, and would still prefer that the "refuse" produced by IVF simply be thrown away. I don't agree, but it is a valid opinion as long as people that feel that way understand the real issue. Some people find organ transplants morally reprehensible too (although it was a bigger issue 20 years ago than it is now). I don't have a problem with organ transplants either, but I understand the moral question some people have with that.

The bottom line is... at least be honest and consistent in your moral outrage.

Okay, so now that the question is properly framed, let me answer your question about federal funding. The answer is that Bush's decision did not make ESC research illegal. It just stipulated that no research involving ESCs extracted from any source other than the lines on the official registry could be federally funded. Thus, if you develop a lab, and decide that an ESC line developed from any other source offers the best potential to answer the questions you are interested in, you can never apply for federal funds. You are locked into other funding sources. Likewise, if you start out with federal funding and government approved cell lines, and at some point decide that they are inadequate to complete your research inquiries, you have to stop what you're doing and either start a new lab or find some other way to answer the questions you feel the need to ask. Remember, much of the equipment in your existing lab was probably purchased with federal funds. If it was, you can't use it. Because then your research would be federally funded. That stuff ain't cheap. So basically, the first problem with the ban in place is that it creates a huge wall of separation for labs doing such work that presents severe practical limitations.

Second, private sources tend to be relatively unreliable, and heavily biased in terms of lines of inquiry that are likely to provide a pay-off in the relatively near future. So if your research looks promising at first, then hits a difficult technical hurdle you didn't forsee, your lab runs the risk of losing funding. And because the wall exists, that's a big problem.

Third, research derived from private sources are not subject to the kind of scrutiny that federally funded research is. There is no requirement for peer review, for example. And even if there was, because you are probably using cell lines derived from unapproved sources, there is no way that most of your peers could ever check your work. Thus, the potential for fraud is heightened. Look what happened in South Korea.

Fourth, considering all these obstacles, say you're a young scientist, the smartest of the smart, and you're trying to decide how to form your career. Are you going to go into a field filled with such uncertainty? That's the long-term problem. Promising scientists will not go into the field. And if they do they may not stay in the US. We have, in effect, created a "reverse brain drain".

As far as why ESC research should be funded as opposed to some other technology, well, that's a matter of opinion. But to my mind, once you properly consider the moral issue involved (which IMHO has been hyped far beyond reality), one's opinions should be based on purely on merit. If you think Zero Point Energy, Nuclear Fusion, Organic Oils, or food vats hold greater promise, then by all means advocate them. But do it on their intrinsic merits, not some political hyperbole.

Personally, I don't think ESC research is a "constantly failing program", and I have provided reasons and citations in a previous comment on this thread to support my case. I can't claim to be the smartest guy in the world (I only scored 1530 on my GREs, so I obviously missed a couple of questions on the math portion, and besides, that was a long time ago), but then again I never rely on smarts alone. I back it up with evidence and logic. My (business) partner finished college at 16, did ace his math GREs, got his PhD at 18 (the first one anyway), but sometimes he has SUCH a hard time seeing the forest for the trees. I'm sure he feels the same way about me, lol!