Obama to reverse stem cell research ban

[MurcieOne]

CNN has learned that President Obama is planning to sign at least one executive order on Monday that will overturn Bush-era policy that limited the types of embryonic stem cell research that can receive federal tax dollars, according to administration officials familiar with the deliberations.

 

Thank goodness Bush's silly policy will be overturned. This is the best move Obama has made as POTUS by far. I'm glad that he took action quickly and didnt let the ban linger for longer than it should have.

 

Now about that spending bill.... well thats a different thread.

[kapkomet]

Jumps in to say as one who doesn't like Obama policy:

 

This is one I agree with Obama as well - ONLY if the research is being done in such a way that the embryos were not going to be used anyway (in other words, these embryos aren't "harvested" for research - and I think most people would agree with that).

 

There are so many stem cell research projects that could overall boost health care.

 

[mr_genius]

I approve. good job Barack

 

[StrangeSox]

Great move.

[EvilMonkey]

Jumps in to say as one who doesn't like Obama policy:

 

This is one I agree with Obama as well - ONLY if the research is being done in such a way that the embryos were not going to be used anyway (in other words, these embryos aren't "harvested" for research - and I think most people would agree with that).

 

There are so many stem cell research projects that could overall boost health care.

But why do they have to be federally funded? If this is such a promising field, why isn't there more private money going there?

[StrangeSox]

But why do they have to be federally funded? If this is such a promising field, why isn't there more private money going there?

 

Because if you do this research, you're cut off from ALL federal funding since money is fungible. Big labs can't afford that.

[Balta1701]

But why do they have to be federally funded? If this is such a promising field, why isn't there more private money going there?

There certainly already is a lot of money going in to that research. it's fairly easy to find examples of it on the google. What's important to understand though is how the dividing line between what public spending and what private spending does in these sorts of research projects. The reality is though that applications of embryonic stem cell research are still fairly far off, the processes for creating them and using them are still poorly developed, etc. There's still good amounts of money put in, but private funding just doesn't do the basic research that allows you to understand things like what causes a stem cell to assume a certain function. The government tends to pick up the funding for that research because it's not directly going to go towards a profitable treatment in the near future, but long-term it could lead to dozens of uses if its developed.

[HuskyCaucasian]

This is one I agree with Obama as well - ONLY if the research is being done in such a way that the embryos were not going to be used anyway (in other words, these embryos aren't "harvested" for research - and I think most people would agree with that).

I have an interesting perspective on this and especially that last statement. As many of you know, I work for a church and school... a very conservative church and school. embryonic stem cell research is constantly demonized and spoken out against often from the pulpit (by often, i mean a few times a year). They constantly say that adult stem cells are better and embryonic stem research is the murder of innocent life... we believe life starts at conception (or artificial fertilization)

 

For the longest time. I too was against embryonic stem cell research.... until i did a little digging. I got to thinking: "what is our stance on artificial insemination?" Because, if we are against embryonic stem cell research, then we clearly must be against artificial insemination because often the "leftovers" are stored until they degrade or thrown out. So, clearly that is the murder of innocent life.

 

So, i did a little digging into what our church body stands for with regards to artificial insemination. Much to my surprise... we are in favor of it! But of course they warn about the "leftovers" and how they should be cared. So my thought was, if we are going to just let them die, shouldn't they be put to good use? People often donate their body to science after they die, or they take experimental drugs if they have little chance to live. How is this different?

 

Every day, I get close and closer to saying it's ok. I wouldnt object.

Edited March 7, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000

[kapkomet]

I have an interesting perspective on this and especially that last statement. As many of you know, I work for a church and school... a very conservative church and school. embryonic stem cell research is constantly demonized and spoken out against often from the pulpit (by often, i mean a few times a year). They constantly say that adult stem cells are better and embryonic stem research is the murder of innocent life... we believe life starts at conception (or artificial fertilization)

 

For the longest time. I too was against embryonic stem cell research.... until i did a little digging. I got to thinking: "what is our stance on artificial insemination?" Because, if we are against embryonic stem cell research, then we clearly must be against artificial insemination because often the "leftovers" are stored until they degrade or thrown out. So, clearly that is the murder of innocent life.

 

So, i did a little digging into what our church body stands for with regards to artificial insemination. Much to my surprise... we are in favor of it! But of course they warn about the "leftovers" and how they should be cared. So my thought was, if we are going to just let them die, shouldn't they be put to good use? People often donate their body to science after they die, or they take experimental drugs if they have little chance to live. How is this different?

 

Every day, I get close and closer to saying it's ok. I wouldnt object.

In general, that's my stance too. I think that embryonic stem cell research allows certain types of cells to be researched that are not present at a full term baby forward. There's so much we don't know. As I said, where DO have a problem with it is if humans just make these embryos for testing purposes... I have a HUGE problem with that. If the government is going to fund that, I have serious issues.

[HuskyCaucasian]

In general, that's my stance too. I think that embryonic stem cell research allows certain types of cells to be researched that are not present at a full term baby forward. There's so much we don't know. As I said, where DO have a problem with it is if humans just make these embryos for testing purposes... I have a HUGE problem with that. If the government is going to fund that, I have serious issues.

Agreed

[lostfan]

In general, that's my stance too. I think that embryonic stem cell research allows certain types of cells to be researched that are not present at a full term baby forward. There's so much we don't know. As I said, where DO have a problem with it is if humans just make these embryos for testing purposes... I have a HUGE problem with that. If the government is going to fund that, I have serious issues.

I agree with this. I sort of agreed with Republicans in principle on their opposition to it like you just said, but Bush's ban was too strict and it was annoying the hell out of me. It felt like an arbitrary symbolic ban that prevented so many potentially good things from happening, and prevented reasonable compromises.

[clyons]

As others have said, its one thing to create and then destroy embryos merely for research, and another thing entirely to perform potentially life-saving research on existing embryos that, for one reason or another, will never be given a realistic chance at "life" to begin with. Sadly, there are thousands of embryos sitting in infertility labs that will remain frozen forever or ultimately be discarded, and this research allows them to be put to a greater good.

 

My wife and I went through IVF, and it was important to us that all of our embryos be given a chance at life. Rather than do an "Octomom," we froze half and used them in two stages. Different people make other choices (and that's fine), but I know for a fact that many embryos are never placed in a woman's womb.

 

As I understood the Bush policy, these embryos could remain frozen or be "discarded," but could not be put to potentially beneficial research purposes where federal money was involved. That never made sense to me, and I'm glad this has been changed.

[Chet Lemon]

I agree with this. I sort of agreed with Republicans in principle on their opposition to it like you just said, but Bush's ban was too strict and it was annoying the hell out of me.

 

It wasn't even that many Republicans were bringing the opposition. Lott, Burr, Hatch, McCain, etc. all supported funding. Bush vetoed that bill twice. Then, you saw a lot of those Republican Senators who opposed the funding get the boot from voters (e.g. Talent, DeWine, Allen, Sunnuu, etc).

 

 

[lostfan]

It wasn't even that many Republicans were bringing the opposition. Lott, Burr, Hatch, McCain, etc. all supported funding. Bush vetoed that bill twice. Then, you saw a lot of those Republican Senators who opposed the funding get the boot from voters (e.g. Talent, DeWine, Allen, Sunnuu, etc).

True enough. I really should've said "social conservatives" instead of Republicans. Generally I cannot stand social conservative talking points in national politics (it directly clashes with the logic of "limited government," though that's another topic) but I agreed with that one, that we shouldn't be creating stem cells solely for the purpose of research. But there was a very reasonable middle ground and Bush's opposition to it just didn't make any sense.

[jasonxctf]

barack, i thank you as does my uncle who died in part from Parkinson's back in 2002, thanks you.

[SoxFan1]

I approve. good job Barack

 

 

 

Great move.

For some reason, these posts made me imagine Obama as a GM and the US as his team.

[StrangeSox]

Here's a quick description of how Bush's policy resulted in a de facto ban on ESC research:

 

"This ban enacted under GWB was far more reaching than most people would imagine. It was to the point where even if you had found private funding, if you had a lab that had previously purchased equipment using NIH funding, you couldn't do your research. Researchers had to go out and buy all new equipment [especially like flow cytometers which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, even though they already had one], buy or lease new lab space, and pay more people to do work they could have already done. What a wonderful idea, take away access to cells AND cripple them financially. Awesome."

 

And here's a Wired article explaining why private funding often falls short when it comes to basic scientific research (Bell Labs just closed down their basic research division last year):

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2006/12/72206

A favorite argument as to why the federal government should not fund embryonic stem cell research is that the science is unproven. It has not led to any cures or FDA-approved treatments.

 

That happens to be true. But that doesn't make it a good argument. In fact, most of the science funded by the federal government is not successful yet, since proven science doesn't usually need funding.

 

Scientists say people who argue against funding unproven stem-cell research miss the point. Science takes time. Almost every major advance in health care took decades of research -- often using millions in federal funding -- before being declared safe and effective in humans. Years are spent on research that is, by definition, unproven, if not far-fetched and hypothetical.

 

Addressing an audience at the conservative Heritage Foundation in 2005, biotech consultant and cellular pharmacologist Kelly Hollowell said embryonic stem cells were a medical bust and deserved no federal research funding.

 

"There are no human trials -- despite all the hype of media," she said. "After 20 years of research, embryonic stem cells haven't been used to treat people because the cells are unproven and unsafe."

 

But what if the government had adopted that attitude when it came to the cancer drug paclitaxel? In 1970, researchers at the National Cancer Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health (the country's clearinghouse for medical research funding) discovered the compound. The NCI spent $700 million developing Taxol (paclitaxel's brand name), and clinical trials dragged on through the 1980s before the drug was approved in 1992. It has since saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

 

Also in the 1980s, NIH scientists spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing unproven vaccines for rotavirus, which kills half a million children every year, and human papilloma virus, which causes cervical cancer and annually kills more than 250,000 women. Commercial versions of both vaccines only appeared in 2006.

 

"It's a mistake not to fund the long-term research," said Elisa Eiseman, a senior scientist at the nonprofit RAND Corporation. "It's that blue-sky, high-risk research that yields very amazing discoveries."

 

Private-sector scientists tend to focus on quick payoffs, so it's up to the NIH to support research that may take decades to yield results. And while many scientists say too much NIH money goes to safe, short-term research, there's still enough left over for the cutting edge. Much experimental work involves making new tools for inspecting living bodies at the cellular level, where processes remain mysterious.

 

Below is a summary of promising science that, like stem cell research, is utterly unproven. The difference is the federal government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to find out if one day it might ease pain or bring cures to suffering patients.

Proteomics

 

The 10-year, $600 million Protein Structure Initiative is another so-called high risk project. Scientists have identified the structures of more than a thousand proteins whose functions are not yet understood. With luck, a few might end up signaling the presence of a disease before it emerges, as with a telltale Alzheimer's compound found this year by National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute researchers. Of course, they might not -- but scientists say the only way to find out is to try.

 

National Cancer Institute researchers also used an artificial intelligence program to analyze the protein patterns of finger-prick blood samples for early signs of ovarian cancer -- an endeavor that private companies wouldn't likely have the luxury of pursuing. Commercial scientists typically concentrate on leads provided by government-funded scientists, said Ken Dill, a University of California, San Francisco, biophysicist.

 

"It's academics who explore the biology," Dill said. Experimental research into the human genome is another heavily-funded NIH field. Scientists now study gene expression at levels of complexity hardly imagined a decade ago.

 

"The paradigm for the last 20 or 30 years has been to choose one particular protein or one gene and follow it," said Alan Schechter, chief of molecular medicine at the National Institute of Diabetes & Digestive & Kidney diseases. "Now we appreciate that these processes are the results of interactions of dozens or hundreds of proteins and genes. One's guess is that, ultimately, these kinds of approaches will give us a new level of thinking about biological and medical processes. But, right now, the methods are controversial."

Gene Therapy

 

Another $200 million in NIH funding goes to the unproven but promising field of gene therapy. The long-anticipated technique has progressed slowly for more than 20 years, and could take decades more to become common. But gene therapy recently started showing potential. "It was in the same place that embryonic stem cells are now," said Eiseman. "It was hypothetical, pie-in-the-sky. But many trials are coming to fruition."

 

NIH-funded scientists have used gene therapy to treat serious diseases and disabilities in animals, and in August reported success using gene therapy to treat two people with cancer. Research on humans slowed after the death of Jesse Gelsinger, and remains shadowed by serious safety concerns, but early clinical trials are ongoing.

Next-generation Imaging

 

"Standard imaging isn't good enough to see microscopic detail in the human body," said Alan McLaughlin, director of applied science at the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioEngineering, which spent $2.6 million this year on next-generation imagers. "We'd like to look at the chemical information in a tumor or special kind of cell, such as beta cells in the pancreas," McClaughlin said. "(They) are important to diabetes, but only present in the islets of Langerhans, which are about 100 microns wide. We can't look at that resolution now."

Nanotechnology

 

The NIH also spends nearly $200 million annually on nanotechnology and nanomedicine, which involves the atom-scale design of molecules that might someday repair or deliver drugs into cells. Again, no one knows if it will work.

 

Whether many of these advances will turn into cures or treatments remains to be seen. But scientists say that history counsels patience.

 

"With these kinds of approaches, one has to have the perspective that practical applications are likely to take decades," said Schechter. "The short-term results of new technologies are generally much less than people expect, but the long-term effects are greater."

[Soxy]

Just in time for all the researchers to apply for the stimulus NSF and NIH grant monies. Excellent move.

[jasonxctf]

Under fire from congressional Republicans for lifting restrictions on stem cell research, President Barack Obama got a powerful endorsement for his move Monday from Nancy Reagan, the former president’s wife.

 

“I’m very grateful that President Obama has lifted the restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research,” she wrote in a statement released shortly after Obama reversed the Bush administration limits. “These new rules will now make it possible for scientists to move forward. I urge researchers to make use of the opportunities that are available to them and to do all they can to fulfill the promise that stem cell research offers."

 

Nancy Reagan has been an outspoken advocate of stem cell research — and scientists hope that the research could someday lead to a cure for Alzheimer’s disease, which afflicted her late husband, Ronald Reagan.

 

Her statement also illustrates how support for the research crosses party lines, even though many in the anti-abortion movement strongly oppose the research on moral and ethical grounds.

 

Reagan continued, “Countless people, suffering from many different diseases, stand to benefit from the answers stem cell research can provide. We owe it to ourselves and to our children to do everything in our power to find cures for these diseases — and soon. As I’ve said before, time is short, and life is precious.”

 

[RockRaines]

Anyone who has been personally touched by diseases that could be helped by this research thanks you Obama.

[HuskyCaucasian]

The push-back begins.

 

I wont post the text of the article due to it's length.

 

[Balta1701]

The push-back begins.

Now that the restrictions are gone, this will be forgotten about as an issue for years for 95% of the population until either someone from the other side takes office and tries to reinstate the ban or actual cures start being produced.

[BearSox]

Well, no surprise Obama has little regard for human life. What a load of crock this is. We have some other alternatives for stem cell research, but of course we have to allow these "scientists" who want only the best for man kind to use murdered babies for their research.

 

What a huge load of s***. Anyone who buys this needs to stop drinking the koolaid. This is a disgusting and vile move by Obama, and he using this false hope of saying this will drastically help in the development of making cures for all these diseases more imminent as cover for his sickness. Perhaps one day stem cells will yield results, but you don't have to use dead babies to do so. This is just another way of getting garbage organizations like planned parenthood more money, and making these "good hearted" scientists even richer.

 

How long until Obama allows 3rd term abortions? Probably soon, and he can use the excuse that more developed embryos are better for stem cell research.

Edited March 10, 2009 by BearSox

[kapkomet]

Well, no surprise Obama has little regard for human life. What a load of crock this is. We have some other alternatives for stem cell research, but of course we have to allow these "scientists" who want only the best for man kind to use murdered babies for their research.

 

What a huge load of s***. Anyone who buys this needs to stop drinking the koolaid. This is a disgusting and vile move by Obama, and he using this false hope of saying this will drastically help in the development of making cures for all these diseases more imminent as cover for his sickness. Perhaps one day stem cells will yield results, but you don't have to use dead babies to do so. This is just another way of getting garbage organizations like planned parenthood more money, and making these "good hearted" scientists even richer.

 

How long until Obama allows 3rd term abortions? Probably soon, and he can use the excuse that more developed embryos are better for stem cell research.

Holy s***, dude. I got news for you. The ONLY thing that changed today was that it went from private money to public money doing this, and there's some pretty conservative groups out there that actually support this. I'm personally against abortion, and while I may not like this (exactly), I can see the reasons why and "pass" on it as something that I can understand why there are now public funds being directed toward it.

 

Question: how many embryos just "die" because of in vitro? I don't know what those numbers are, but as I said, the only change in today's move is changing the funding. So what did it really change? Nothing.

 

If these embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, then I can understand the medical use of doing research.

 

 

 

 

[BearSox]

Holy s***, dude. I got news for you. The ONLY thing that changed today was that it went from private money to public money doing this, and there's some pretty conservative groups out there that actually support this. I'm personally against abortion, and while I may not like this (exactly), I can see the reasons why and "pass" on it as something that I can understand why there are now public funds being directed toward it.

 

Question: how many embryos just "die" because of in vitro? I don't know what those numbers are, but as I said, the only change in today's move is changing the funding. So what did it really change? Nothing.

 

If these embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, then I can understand the medical use of doing research.

 

This only promotes it, and it is sickening to think that the government is funding this crap.