We've all seen in movies, learned in history classes, how superstition and religious intolerance got in the way of science in the Middle Ages, even during the Renaissance.
It's hard to believe that we were just inhabiting a 21st century Dark Ages regarding stem cell research. True, it wasn't banned, but funding was withheld by a President, guided by ignorance. Who knows how many lives might have been saved, could have been saved in the future, by research into stem cells and their organ-building capacities, research that was not conducted due to a lack of funding these past eight years.
Thank goodness, that's over now. When historians look back at our time, and cite the best things done by Barack Obama, his lifting of the stem cell research Federal funding ban today will be high among them. On the one hand, it's unfortunate that excellence has to be highlighted by the bad policy it replaces. On the other hand, it's gratifying that the democratic process works - in the Middle Ages, there was little that could be done to remedy the rulings of an unschooled king.
Stem cell research is about saving and improving life. Its consequence is that more people will live, and live healthier lives. Today, in other words, is not only a victory for science and democracy, but for life.
30 comments:
Paul,
Please excuse my inclusion of a link to my blog here. It is related to the subject of this post and serves as a previously written comment to this post.
If you care to read it:
http://malignantlibiocy.blogivists.com/2009/03/07/whats-with-obamas-hatred-of-the-unborn/#more-205
I think "better life" and "unschooled" might be in the eyes of the beholder here. Are we extending life only to prolong its agony (helping diabetics & smokers live longer, but at a significantly "different" living standard, for example). Or sacrificing some (fetuses, moral integrity of our children, animals) so that others (a superior class?) can live longer? At least with euthanasia, the person is hopefully choosing to do it for themselves. And there is warranted debate that even it should be difficult- to keep money-grubbers or children who just don't want to deal with parents - from "talking them into it."
Do you know that there are other ways of obtaining stem cells besides using fertilized embryos? For example, from dermoid cysts taken from young women (at an increasingly alarming rate, I might add) and cord blood, for example. Why do you want to force taxpayers, who very strongly oppose the use of what they view as human beings, into paying for this type of research. I guarantee Michael J. Fox & others have raised millions for buying embroyos from fertility clinics - I don't agree, but at least I wasn't being forcibly coerced into paying for it & supporting it.
To me, you are only a hair's- breadth away from sanctioning the life work of Dr. Mengele- it was all in the name of science, done against the will of the human test subjects, and for what? So others can live a more comfortable existance & have the government protect their morality by sanctioning it?
That you would choose to force members of society to a way of behaving that is utterly against their morals is surprising, at the least. And, your choice of words for your last sentence is astonishingly ironic. I think you meant "my life."
Sam - no problem with posting relevant links (whatever their point of view) - that's one of the great benefits of blogging.
GJ: Since embryos are not yet fully human, there is no meaningful comparison to Mengele. I assume you also know that many of the embryos are unviable, and could not develop into full humans in any case.
Also, most of the viable embryos would otherwise be discarded and destroyed if not used for stem cell research.
Paul you are wrong on just about every point here.
"We've all seen in movies, learned in history classes, how superstition and religious intolerance got in the way of science in the Middle Ages, even during the Renaissance."
Although that is the story that is told, it is actually at odds with history.
"How knows how many lives might have been saved, could have been saved in the future, by research into stem cells and their organ-building capacities"
This is incorrect. Adult Stem Cells are progressing by leaps and bounds and are actually used in treatments, while embryonic stem cells have just kept running into problems. So it is likely by diverting funds to a dead end like ESCR (and human cloning) that that will cost more lives in the long run.
"research that was not conducted due to a lack of funding these past eight years."
What was stopping you and others who believe this funding is worthwhile digging into your pockets and putting the money up for research ? The VC's wont touch it because they know it is all hype.
"On the other hand, it's gratifying that the democratic process works"
How do you figure ? There is wide spread support for banning human cloning (a requirement for making ESCR work as a medical treatment) and people are quite negative towards it when told honestly what is going on. You must be using a new definition of democracy that amounts to "ignoring the will of the majority".
"Stem cell research is about saving and improving life."
Adult Stem Cell research is, ESCR is about some strange sort of desire to play God.
"Its consequence is that more people will live, and live healthier lives."
Not based on its current track record Paul. Quite the opposite.
"Today, in other words, is not only a victory for science and democracy, but for life."
Actually it is a victory for the continued politicizing of science, the lobbying of lying special interests and what the Pope rightly called the Culture of Death.
But Paul, it seems you like Obama has mastered NewSpeak.
War is Peace, Slavery is Freedom, Killing is Life.
Finally, after almost a decade of limiting taxpayer money for research president Barrack Obama has lifted the restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research today.Let's think of how many Americans are suffering from ailments and what this research can do for them. I'm sure everyone reading this knows someone important to them that is affected by one of these maladies. thevoice@voicedup.com
Jason, don't forget: politicizing" means depoliticizing. Can you send some links to your data?
Paul- Libertarians believe in an extremely limited government. You will probably argue that they do believe in government insofar as it protects lives. This is too controversial of an issue & forcing other people to adhere to your "scientific" beliefs over their "moral" beliefs contradicts the freedom that the libertarian party so strongly believes in supporting. Libertarians would be ok with this being a private endeavor, especially since the "protecting of lives" could be argued either way. And especially since there is a means to your ends through other methods.
Jason, you're the one who's wrong on every point.
Here, for example, are two:
1. The Church forced Galileo to recant on his heresy that the Earth was not the center of the Universe - that's part of the history I had in mind.
2. The adult stem cell research benefits from embryonic stem cell research. If the goal is to get adult cells to do what embryonic cells do, then the embyronic cells need to be studied.
Leave your talking points for a few minutes, and open a book - or do a little research online.
G.J.: I'm not forcing people to do anything - and neither is the government. Obama's policy calls for the donors of the embryos deciding what they think should be done with them.
Voicedup: good to have your post here!
Most of the articles I read said this plan "funds" or "removes federal funding restraints" on embryonic stem cell research. That's using my money to do something I feel is morally repugnant - and its forced unless you think illegally taking my job underground wouldn't get me thrown in the slammer. Did you like it when Bush sent funding to religious non-profits?
I didn't like it, and I worked hard to get the Republicans out of office - that's the way democracy works.
Stem cell research is the next big step in the evolution of science. each stem cell has an enormous potential in giving us clues on almost absolutely every disease. It´s a great day. I congratulate you, people of the united States of America, for having a President with the courage to do such a thing.
"1. The Church forced Galileo to recant on his heresy that the Earth was not the center of the Universe - that's part of the history I had in mind."
You need to look at that history more closely. Galileo got in trouble centrally for challenging Ptolemaic Astronomy (so not heresy) and his beef with the Church has more to do with his lampooning of the Pope (who was initially favorable to his ideas). Not as clear cut as you suggest. I notice the Protestants in the North who published his ideas get no credit for the advance of science on this one either.
"2. The adult stem cell research benefits from embryonic stem cell research. If the goal is to get adult cells to do what embryonic cells do, then the embyronic cells need to be studied."
The only thing they have really got embryonic stem cells to do is cause tumors. Plus, to make it worse, the ban on funding was for the creation of embryo lines, not on research on existing lines (important difference). Given the creation of embryos and their destruction for research purposes required many human eggs to be workable it is unlikely to ever yield a useful therapy. But the Bush ban on funding for the creation of embryo's for destruction did yield a number of useful advances in developing other (actually practical) ways of deriving embryonic stem cells. Research that is unlikely to have gotten done without the ban on funding of embryo lines destined for destruction.
"Leave your talking points for a few minutes, and open a book - or do a little research online."
I've done plenty Paul, you are the one working with outdated information.
Jason - you're the one who needs to look at history - check out the references on Galileo available everywhere. He was called to account by Cardinal Bellarmine, who convinced Galileo to soft-pedal his theories. Bellarmine died, Galileo resumed publicizing his ideas - with new books - and was brought to trial in Rome, where he recanted. But his theories won, anyway, because his books, in print, easily survived his recantation. Pick up a copy of my book, The Soft Edge: A Natural History and Future of the Information Revolution, if you'd like references and further details. (His relationship with the Pope was a minor factor. And, in fact, you have that wrong, too.)
Your point about stem cell research is also gibberish. The reality is: the embryo cells have the capacity to develop into numerous kinds of cells. The adult cells do not. Scientists won't understand how to get adult cells to so this - short of sheer luck - until they know more about embryo cells.
Those are the facts - in both cases - and your disrespect for the truth does not change that.
Kid Entropia - it's a great day indeed! Thanks for your comment!
Finally! Great decision by Mr. Obama. Even if it could save 1 human life a year it would definitely be worth it. Stem cell research is just another way how to save more lives and help people. I don't see anything wrong with it, in the moral or religious way, and it definitely doesn't mean that people are trying to play god. I don't understand the arguments of people who are against this kind of research. There is so many other worse research projects in the world but yet everyone is focused on this topic, where there is no harm done to anyone. Talks about murders and genocide, thats just rubbish.
Take care, Julie
Thanks for the post, Julie.
The best argument against embryonic stem cell research is that it is destroying one kind of human life (embryos) on behalf of another (humans who benefit from the medical treatments).
But the argument fails, because an embryo is not fully human. So what is being destroyed is a potential for human life, on behalf of saving actual human life.
Human cloning anyone? Oh no, of course not, nothing to see here!
How about the fact that embryonic stem cell research was happening all along, just without federal funding and creation of additional embryos for the sake of experimentation on the taxpayers' dime? How about the advances in other types of stem cell (other than embryonic?) This is about appeasing the "choice" crowd and not acknowledging the travesty of experimentation on and intentional destruction of human embryos. Anyone that doesn't see that is dishonest or naive.
The fact that stem cell research has been conducted all along, without Federal funding?
That's like saying, here's a possible cure for a slew of deadly illnesses, but let's not put all the money we can to facilitate its development.
In fact, that is exactly what you're saying.
From Dr. Kelly Hollowell:
"The United States Congress received the answer that life begins at conception most definitively in 1981. At the April 1981 hearings on the Human Life Bill (S. 158), held by the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Separation of Powers Subcommittee, internationally renowned scientists Dr. Micheline Mathews-Roth (Harvard Medical School), Dr. Jerome Lejeune (the father of modern genetics), Dr. Hymie Gordon (chairman of the Mayo Clinic), and Dr. Landrum Shettles (the father of IVF) all testified that life begins at conception. This, as far as the medical and scientific community is concerned, is not an issue. The debate is in the legal and political realms.
Today’s medical technology enables us to affirm what we have known for decades: that life does begin at conception. From conception, we are biologically alive. We are genetically human, we are genetically distinct, we are sexually distinct, and we have the ability to direct our own growth. Twenty-four hours after conception, the new life splits into two cells, and eight days later, pregnancy officially begins."
From David Weldon (2006):
"Adult stem cells and, in particular, cord blood stem cells are going to be the sources for the regenerative, miraculous medicine in the future. Embryonic stem cells are just a pipe dream. I have been challenging my opponents in this debate for years: Show me your data. But embryonic stem cell research is just not getting good research results. In a few years, the researchers working with embryonic stem cells are probably going to give up because they’re just not getting good results, whereas the adult stem cell work and, in particular, the cord blood work is just phenomenal. I think we’re up to 10 kids that have been cured, maybe more, of sickle cell anemia, and as a clinician who used to take care of kids with sickle cell anemia, to be able to cure people with sickle cell anemia is just huge. That’s the reason why the whole Black Caucus is on this Cord Blood Bill; they realize what’s going on here.. . .
You might ask: Why are all these researchers pounding on the doors of all these Senators and Congressmen, saying that embryonic cells are the best way to go and we really need to fund this research, when all the scientific data show that the cord blood and the adult stem cells are much, much better? Why are these researchers doing this?
Number one, some of them just do not want to be told they can’t get funding for this. They look through a microscope, and it looks just like a cow embryo, so what is the big deal? In other words, they have no belief in the sanctity of human life. They have absolutely no qualms in exploiting it, throwing it in the trash. They have some sort of secular humanist worldview that takes them to that place. . . .
I think our prohibition on federal funding in this area is the proper way for us to go, since we have a divergence of opinion in the population. There is no prohibition on private funding. There is also state funding. The state of California has moved forward. They’re going to be able to fund millions of dollars of embryonic stem cell research. I think their taxpayers, in time, will regret that decision when they see absolutely no good cures coming out of it."
More from Weldon:
". . . What they want to do is to make a clone of you and then get the embryonic stem cells from your clone. They call that therapeutic cloning. . . . There’s no animal model for it. There’s not even an animal model of successfully treating an animal disease with embryonic stem cells. They’ve got a couple of papers; there’s a suggestion that it may work; but there’s really not a good study.
. . . Will the pressure from the outside world ultimately cause the United States to get off dead center? . . . one of the issues that will come up is that the United States is to the left of the rest of the world. This is a human life issue, and we claim to be the great champions of human rights and the sanctity of human life, but in reality, we’re way to the left.
I want to read to you a fascinating quote from William Haseltine, the CEO of Human Genome Sciences, Inc., of Rockville, Maryland and a leading advocate for embryonic stem cells: “The routine utilization of human embryonic stem cells for medicine is 20 to 30 years hence. The time line to commercialization is so long that I simply would not invest. You may notice that our company has not made such investments.”
What’s going on in California, with the taxpayers funding embryonic stem cell research, is that the taxpayers are funding what the venture capitalists will not fund. They know what is going on, and they won’t fund it. That is exactly what is going to happen in Washington: People are going to be trying to get the federal taxpayers to fund what the venture capitalists will not fund."
GJ: Your first quote conveniently does not address the point I (and many others) make: which is that the embryo is a potential human life, not a human life. Of course the embryo is alive - what's at issue is whether it is an actualized _human_ life.
Your second and third quotes (from the same source) are in the severe minority among scientists - see, for example, the sources cited in the Wikipedia article on stem cell research.
My first quote conveniently begins a discussion wherein human embryos are one stage in the cycle of our lives. People who want to arbitrarily pick a characteristic which defines human life .. . well, by that logic, I could say anyone who doesn't yet communicate (because communication = human) is not human, etc.
Where in those articles does it state these "quotes are in the severe majority?" You have made this type of comment several times with no substantiation. Wikipedia did not take a stance, although I did note that they barely touched on portions of the debate related to patent rights, exploitation of poor women, or significant overestimates of embryos available to researchers.
A. I would hardly call 50 -60% an overwhelming majority opinion.
B. Its interesting to note that this "majority" came about after Obama was elected (are they supporting the man or the issue?)
C. Popular does not = morally right
This is all a mute point, however, because the government should not be forcing Americans to pay for practices they find morally abhorent. They let conscientious objectors get out of serving in the military, so how do I opt out of paying for this? I want to put my money on green engineering, wildlife conservation, anti-poverty initiatives and alzheimers research (which, btw, they do not think stem cells can help with) but I'll do that privately through investing & charitable giving, if Obama leaves us any money, that is. Government has no place here!
Right, majorities of people at large (popular majorities) should not decide what is medical fact and what is not. The way science has worked, and brilliantly for more than 150 years, is that majorities of scientists decide - until and/or if new facts emerge. Take a look at Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery more on this. My point is that a vast majority of biologists and other relevant scientists think embryonic stem cell research is a highly promising path.
As to your first point, you're confusing disabilities (for example, inability to communicate) with definition of humanity. A deaf human being is a human being.
In contrast, an embryo is not yet a human being - surely you see the difference.
Actually, I was referring to an infant's physical inabililty to communicate & picking an arbitrary marker of "maturity to humaness," like heartbeat or brain function to determine at what point we are actually human. Heck, why not choose the ability to do algebra- then we could exploit "non-human life forms" all the way up to their teens!
As far as majority of scientists, we could go back to the point when the majority of some definition of scientists believed that eugenics was a good thing, blood letting was a good thing, lobotamies were a good thing, or any number of other things they were wrong about. (see debates on "Technocracy") I'll see if I can check out Popper's book, but again, I'd like to hear your opinion on Crighton's "State of Fear."
Diane Riehm also had a very good piece on the issue yesterday, which you can hear on her website for anyone interested. At least some of the other issues were brought up in her show, its current & there were multiple points of view on display.
Speaking of humanity & decency, check these facts out:
"Note the irony: Liberals who support the governmental redistribution of income are apt to deride conservatives as selfish, yet these liberals are far less likely than conservatives to donate their own time and money to help the poor and needy. Of course, there are subsets within both groups: For example, religious liberals are a lot more generous than secular conservatives."
"According to tax returns for Biden and his public schoolteacher wife, in 2006, their total income was $248,459; in 2007, it was $319,853 -- putting the couple in the top 1 percent of all earners in the U..S. "
"The national median household income was $48,201 in 2006 and $50,233 in 2007."
"According to their tax returns, in 2006 and 2007, the Obamas gave 5.8 percent and 6.1 percent of their income to charity. I guess Michelle Obama has to draw the line someplace with all this "giving back" stuff. The Bidens gave 0.15 percent and 0.31 percent of the income to charity."
"Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591, $212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236, $31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year.
For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million -- more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 -- but they both gave about the same amount to charity.
That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. The following year, in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama's. Maybe when Obama talks about "change" he's referring to his charitable contributions."
"As the great liberal intellectual Bertrand Russell explained while scoffing at the idea that he would give his money to charity: "I'm afraid you've got it wrong. (We) are socialists. We don't pretend to be Christians.""
For full articles:
http://www.lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Columnists/Leishman_Rory/2007/08/04/4393041.html
http://www.anncoulter.com/
No lies there.
I haven't read Crighton's "State of Fear," so can't specifically comment on it.
If you're talking about his view that politics and science should never mix, I've already said that I don't think scientific and medical truths should be decided by popular votes. But public policy has to be informed by the best current scientific views.
As for Cheney's et al's charity: personal charity does not excuse public abuse.
And regarding Bertrand Russell - I don't agree with his socialism. As I've made clear in my I'm A Progressive Libertarian, I'm in favor of limited government, with the exceptions I enumerate (which include health care, and stepping in to help in crises).
Back to Popper: his whole point is that science is always wrong to some extent, and (as Kuhn later elaborated upon) in a continual state of revolution. That's precisely why it's so important that research in all areas be continued to the maximum. So, yes, we may well have the equivalent of blood-letting in our current medical treatment - and the best way of discovering that is to maximize research (which is why government funding of this is good).
I'll definitely listen to Diane Rehm's show in the next few days - thanks for the pointer.
Paul,
I suggest you really research and hear what you are writing above because ....you are a 'scary' mind if you think that embryos "are not fully human" Let me ask you this...
What makes a person, a person then? Do you have "specific" ideology of it? Do you look to science or to "appearance" and "preference"?
You know....you argue that you have.."learned in history classes, how superstition and religious intolerance got in the way of science in the Middle Ages, even during the Renaissance."
Yet you cant even accept "science" itself when it points out in absolute "clarity" with proof, and evidence (crystal clear) that at conception a 'new human life' is completed....it only takes the care and environment to support that life into growing and 'living'. So what point do you not understand that is human?
Id like to comment on your thinking, that in fact you may be exactly what you are pointing is a ludicrous way of thinking (superstition, religious intolerance) because you and all those who want to create human beings and Kill them for the sake of making another's life more comfortable and less painful, is EXACTLY what the Nazi's did in the holocaust. To you, it seems that human life is only "human" in your own "idea" and "perception" of it. Rather, "science" herself has proven, not only that conception marks the beginning of a completed human life, but that adult stem cells are the answer to providing cures for those same people who are desperate for a cure with the use of stem cells. Adult stem cells are the ethically correct form of practice. Not "using" new human life as a means to serve another's purpose...by destroying it.
So...in the end, HOW many lives are lost because of ignorance and superstition as you clearly are showing and following?
Let me as you a question, then: Is a daisy seed the same as a daisy? It has no petals, no stem, nothing in common with a daisy except when planted, and nurtured, it will develop into a daisy.
Or, here's another question: is a recipe for a cake the same as a cake?
An embryo is a little further along than a seed or complete human DNA package which, when in the womb, or in appropriate external artificial settings, can develop into a human being. An embryo has already begun to develop into a human being. But it is obviously at the very beginning of that process.
When exactly does an embryo become a human being? At some point, the embryo develops a brain, which is the home of the mind, soul, psyche. You can transplant any organ from a human being, other than the brain, and the person will still be the original, same person. If you were to put in a new brain, the original person would be gone.
I don't know, and science doesn't know, exactly when in the maturation of the embryo the mind appears. But it is certainly not in the tiny embryonic stage in which embryos are used for stem cell research.
Post a Comment