PDA

View Full Version : Obama did THIS right!


Preacher
03-09-2009, 03:59 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama says human cloning is "dangerous, profoundly wrong" and has no place in society. Obama made the comments as he was signing an executive order that will allow federal spending on embryonic stem cell research.
Some critics say the research can lead to human cloning. Obama said the government will develop strict guidelines for the research because misuse or abuse is unacceptable.

He said he would ensure that the government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction.



Thank You Mr. President. Of course, embryonic stem cell research is reprehensible.

But at least the wall to cloning is left intact.





http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96QJLPO0&show_article=1

steelreserve
03-09-2009, 04:18 PM
Thank You Mr. President. Of course, embryonic stem cell research is reprehensible.

But at least the wall to cloning is left intact.

I can't tell whether you're being serious about that part or not, though I suppose it's more than likely given your occupation. I'll just say that if so, I disagree, but on the other hand, anyone but an idiot ought to know cloning people isn't cool.

Dino 6 Rings
03-09-2009, 04:22 PM
so what does this new rule allow? Government Funding for Stem Cell research to grow organs outside of actually growing an entire host body?

Like growing human organs off the backs of lab animals?

Does this law allow for abortion clinics to make a profit by selling aborted fetuses to Labs that work with stem cells?

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
03-09-2009, 04:25 PM
so what does this new rule allow? Government Funding for Stem Cell research to grow organs outside of actually growing an entire host body?

Like growing human organs off the backs of lab animals?

Does this law allow for abortion clinics to make a profit by selling aborted fetuses to Labs that work with stem cells?

That's what scares me.

Though I was watching FOX (gasp! :chuckle:) today and a doctor said they are working on a technique to "reprogram" adult skin cells to work as stem cells :thumbsup:.

Preacher
03-09-2009, 04:27 PM
I can't tell whether you're being serious about that part or not, though I suppose it's more than likely given your occupation. I'll just say that if so, I disagree, but on the other hand, anyone but an idiot ought to know cloning people isn't cool.

Yes, I am serious. I know that quite a few disagree with me... it stems from the understanding of life that the abortion debate stems from.

But you are absolutely right concerning cloning.

I say, give props where they are due. Since Obama made the right stand, I give him props for it.

Preacher
03-09-2009, 04:32 PM
That's what scares me.

Though I was watching FOX (gasp! :chuckle:) today and a doctor said they are working on a technique to "reprogram" adult skin cells to work as stem cells :thumbsup:.

We had a geneticist that addressed us for a weeks lecture series when I was in college. He was an evangelical Christian and a top biologist in the U of Washington.

He told us then about all these things. He was saying how they were taking fleas, and turning on cells to grow eyes on the top of fleas.

Fact of the matter is, 15 years ago, they knew that ANY cell carries within it the biological and genetic material to become ANY PART of the human body. He told us about cancer cells in the stomach that when they were taken out, human fingers were found as teh cells were mutated to create fingers naturally.

So the "embryonic stem cell" debate had always rang hollow to me, when they already have information that embryonic stem cells are NOT necessary.

It is just more of political/cultural agendas and science intermixing.

Dino 6 Rings
03-09-2009, 04:34 PM
I wouldn't mind having a clone that I could harvest body parts from, as long as it was brain dead and grown from my own cells.

Then I could just drink and smoke as much as I wanted and just have my clone give up the organs when I needed them. I mean, a Clone doesn't have a spirit right?

(um...being sarcastic in a sick kind of way)

steelreserve
03-09-2009, 04:42 PM
Does this law allow for abortion clinics to make a profit by selling aborted fetuses to Labs that work with stem cells?

That's the part a lot of people get hung up on, but stem cell research really has nothing to do with abortions. They get stem cells from in-vitro fertilization clinics.

If you don't know how that works, when a woman goes for fertility treatment, what they'll do is fertilize, say, 30 of her eggs at once and implant a few of them at a time until one "takes" and turns into an actual baby. Once that happens, there's no use for the rest of the eggs, so you can either use them for research or just throw them out. If you're talking about a waste of human life, i can't think of a bigger waste than that -- at least if they use them for research, they can potentially do some good for someone else.

I don't think they could even use cells from aborted fetuses for this. Because they want cells that are, you know ... alive. Not dead.

But unless you want every woman who goes to the fertility clinic to turn into the Octomom, there are going to continue to be tens of thousands of embryos a year that are just thrown away if they don't use them for this.

Hammer Of The GODS
03-09-2009, 04:46 PM
Agreed Obama has made the right call here. Kudos. BUT, even though I am for stem cell research I think there are more pressing issues that should have taken precedence BEFORE this issue. I don't know maybe fix this clusterfuct economy crisis!

As for the people who are against stem cells........... well I am not going to get into an arguement with them because they will most likely allow religion to cloud thier higher reasoning.

Preacher
03-09-2009, 06:11 PM
Agreed Obama has made the right call here. Kudos. BUT, even though I am for stem cell research I think there are more pressing issues that should have taken precedence BEFORE this issue. I don't know maybe fix this clusterfuct economy crisis!

As for the people who are against stem cells........... well I am not going to get into an arguement with them because they will most likely allow religion to cloud thier higher reasoning.


Well I for one, am against stem cell research specifically because of my reasoning and cognitive functions.

It is about remaining consistent across the board. It is tantamount to the same reason I don't beleive in "hate crimes." The hate crimes laws are inconsistent with the rest of the laws of the country.

ShutDown24
03-09-2009, 07:44 PM
I'm definitely in support of this decision by President Obama. Now, lets make some more good decisions, eh?

xfl2001fan
03-09-2009, 08:35 PM
Agreed Obama has made the right call here. Kudos. BUT, even though I am for stem cell research I think there are more pressing issues that should have taken precedence BEFORE this issue. I don't know maybe fix this clusterfuct economy crisis!

As for the people who are against stem cells........... well I am not going to get into an arguement with them because they will most likely allow religion to cloud thier higher reasoning.

I hope that you're not waiting for Obama to fix the economy. That's (at least) 4 years...unless we are pulled under far sooner.

Dino 6 Rings
03-09-2009, 08:41 PM
That's the part a lot of people get hung up on, but stem cell research really has nothing to do with abortions. They get stem cells from in-vitro fertilization clinics.

If you don't know how that works, when a woman goes for fertility treatment, what they'll do is fertilize, say, 30 of her eggs at once and implant a few of them at a time until one "takes" and turns into an actual baby. Once that happens, there's no use for the rest of the eggs, so you can either use them for research or just throw them out. If you're talking about a waste of human life, i can't think of a bigger waste than that -- at least if they use them for research, they can potentially do some good for someone else.

I don't think they could even use cells from aborted fetuses for this. Because they want cells that are, you know ... alive. Not dead.

But unless you want every woman who goes to the fertility clinic to turn into the Octomom, there are going to continue to be tens of thousands of embryos a year that are just thrown away if they don't use them for this.

Thank you for the clarification.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
03-10-2009, 08:33 AM
Stem cell research can help many disabilities..... I think its a great thing that we should look into and research

HometownGal
03-10-2009, 08:56 AM
Stem cell research can help many disabilities..... I think its a great thing that we should look into and research

I have no problem with stem cell research on the whole. My problem with it is harvesting stem cells from embryos.

MasterOfPuppets
03-10-2009, 09:08 AM
I wouldn't mind having a clone that I could harvest body parts from, as long as it was brain dead and grown from my own cells. safe bet ......:laughing: (j/k)

revefsreleets
03-10-2009, 09:34 AM
The more I've been reading, the more I'm discovering that Obama screwed up the embryonic stem cell reversal. Not for any religious reasons, but simply because it's not bearing any fruit.

The private funding has all been funneled towards the adult stem cell research because that's the area that has shown the most promise, so, effectively, Obama is now asking the public to fund research that just doesn't show much future upside. This is not much different than the government giving grants ONLY to scientists that find human impact to be the major cause of climate change.

Bottom line, the government shouldn't be funding things that show no promise...

Godfather
03-10-2009, 10:05 AM
Well, since we're now paying for the research, I'm sure we'll get a reasonable price on any resulting treatments, right?

Preacher
03-11-2009, 04:22 AM
The more I've been reading, the more I'm discovering that Obama screwed up the embryonic stem cell reversal. Not for any religious reasons, but simply because it's not bearing any fruit.

The private funding has all been funneled towards the adult stem cell research because that's the area that has shown the most promise, so, effectively, Obama is now asking the public to fund research that just doesn't show much future upside. This is not much different than the government giving grants ONLY to scientists that find human impact to be the major cause of climate change.

Bottom line, the government shouldn't be funding things that show no promise...

Now you have to ask "why" this move has been made.

They answer? IMO, it is a hedge for the pro-choice crowd. Even though abortion itself doesn't really enter in to the debate, the ramifications do. By allowing fertilized eggs to be used in stem cell work, the government has (again) established that life doesn't begin at conception. Thus, abortion, at least at somepoint within the first trimester, is ok.

In order to overturn abortion, now stem-cell research also falls into the picture.

In the end, it is nothing more than a way to interweave and thus, solidify voting blocs.

hindes204
03-11-2009, 06:46 AM
Private funding was doing fine, why should my taxes fund something that i may find morally wrong

revefsreleets
03-11-2009, 09:55 AM
Now you have to ask "why" this move has been made.

They answer? IMO, it is a hedge for the pro-choice crowd. Even though abortion itself doesn't really enter in to the debate, the ramifications do. By allowing fertilized eggs to be used in stem cell work, the government has (again) established that life doesn't begin at conception. Thus, abortion, at least at somepoint within the first trimester, is ok.

In order to overturn abortion, now stem-cell research also falls into the picture.

In the end, it is nothing more than a way to interweave and thus, solidify voting blocs.

Oh, there is no doubt this decision has nothing to do with saving lives or advancing science: It's 100% political. AND it has the added effect of being a rare case where he breaks entirely with Bush, because his supporters (The ones who admit that he has adopted a ton of Bush policies wholesale, none of whom apprently post on THIS message board) are all over him for being too Bush-like.

steelreserve
03-11-2009, 11:20 AM
The more I've been reading, the more I'm discovering that Obama screwed up the embryonic stem cell reversal. Not for any religious reasons, but simply because it's not bearing any fruit.

The private funding has all been funneled towards the adult stem cell research because that's the area that has shown the most promise, so, effectively, Obama is now asking the public to fund research that just doesn't show much future upside. This is not much different than the government giving grants ONLY to scientists that find human impact to be the major cause of climate change.

Bottom line, the government shouldn't be funding things that show no promise...

Not really. Everything I've ever read about stem cell research indicates that working with adult stem cells is more difficult and has more potential problems. Embryonic stem cells are easy to work with; they can be developed into any kind of specific cell, and you can grow an unlimited supply of them. Adult stem cells are mostly specialized already into specific cell types, so they're harder to reprogram and you mostly have to get the specific type you're looking for ahead of time. And they die out, so you have a hard time getting enough of them.

Probably most importantly, they have a very hard time getting adult brain or nerve stem cells (for obvious reasons), which sets back their efforts to cure a lot of the worst diseases and injuries they'd been hoping to use stem cells for. So far they THINK they can do a lot of the same things as embroyonic stem cells with bone marrow or umbilical cord cells, but so far they just THINK that and again, there's a limited supply.

Bottom line, if I was paralyzed from a spinal cord injury and you told me that even though we could do two kinds of research to try and find a cure, you thought we should shut down one kind of research because you're religious and have a problem with "destroying" embryos that were going to die anyway, I would tell you you'd be serving society better if you took your ignorant, self-important ass out into the street and walked it into oncoming traffic.

Not you in particular, and I know your argument wasn't about religion. It's just that the scientific AND religious arguments against it are both stupid, and you hear a lot more of the religious arguments because they can't actually be proven scientifically wrong.

revefsreleets
03-11-2009, 11:49 AM
This isn't the point. There has never been any directive from the US Government to block PRIVATE funding of stem cell research. Private companies will pour money into research that seems more promising, and so far, no real breakthroughs have been derived from embrionic stem cells, while there have been myriad developments from adult stem cell research.

The VAST majority of private funding (which, bear in mind, can go in either direction at the discretion of the funding entity, which naturally stands to profit from results) has been funneled toward adult stem cell research. Now we are UNNECESSARILY pouring public money that is desperately needed elsewhere into funding things that the market has already decided isn't worth investing in.

As for the drawbacks of adult stem cells, I found this from an op/ed piece by Kathleen Parker:

The insistence on using embryonic stem cells always rested on the argument that they were pluripotent, capable of becoming any kind of cell. That superior claim no longer can be made with the spectacular discovery in 2007 of "induced pluripotent stem cells" (iPS), which was the laboratory equivalent of the airplane. Very simply, iPS cells can be produced from a skin cell by injecting genes that force it to revert to its primitive "blank slate" form with all the same pluripotent capabilities of embryonic stem cells.
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/fromcomments/283747.php
(I use the existing article because it's succinct).

The religious angle is silly to me, of course, but it's a good argument that just because religious people make a lot of whacky assertions doesn't mean that they are never right...

steelreserve
03-11-2009, 12:24 PM
Look, if it really is only about science, I think you're being way too quick to write off the chances of embryonic stem cells doing any good. Especially when research on them has been constricted for basically the entire time we've had the technology to do useful things with them. In fact, I'm not surprised there have been more advances in the adult line of research, since there's been more available to work with there. I'm not surprised that more private money goes toward it either, since there are less restrictions and a better "support network" there; you don't have to risk the government and others butting in on whatever you do.

Yes, they've made a few important discoveries with adult stem cells, but a lot of the "breakthroughs" people are excited about did nothing more than get adult stem cells to do the same kinds of things that embryonic stem cells do already with no special inducement. And there's nothing indicating that any future discoveries, especially with equal attention and access to funding, are going to be limited to one line of research or the other. If you're interested in pure science, or in doing the most public good, it's never smart to eliminate options unless they've been proven wrong. And in this case neither one has been.

Could adult stem cells be the answer someday? Sure. But there are also problems. One thing that comes to mind immediately is that cells can only divide so many times (about 30) before they die or stop functioning properly; that's why people get old and die themselves. So for a lot of applications related to the elderly, there's a potential huge setback because if you're working with their own adult stem cells (the preferred way to do it), those cells would just die themselves in short time. As far as I know, no one has figured out how they're going to overcome that. And that's just one issue as an example; I am sure there are plenty of others on both sides.

Point is, while the book is still open -- and in this case there's little doubt that it is -- you can't assume what's going to happen and you can't decide one part of the field should be killed off. Could you have predicted 10 years ago where stem cell technology would be today? Probably not. It'll be the same way 10 years from now too.

TeeJay
03-11-2009, 04:03 PM
Maybe if Obama had turned up several years ago, I wouldn't have wasted money on watching Star Wars Episode II - Attack of the Clones. That was just wrong on so many levels of wrongness.

And yep, I have nothing intellectual to add to this debate (no change there then!) 'cause I don't really care either way. Whatever I say/think/do will have absolutely no bearing on the outcome whatsoever - And let's be honest.......there are a lot more pressing matters around at the moment.

But I'll leave you with Dolly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_(sheep)

That's just some scarey sci-fi sh*t right there.

Maybe cloning an honest banker would be a good start in todays world.......but then, you'd have to find an honest one to kick start proceedings......and that'll be harder than watching a good Lucas movie in the last 10 years.

revefsreleets
03-12-2009, 03:24 PM
Here is my point: Using government (i.e. taxpayer) money to fund something the private investors shy away from (for a reason) is foolish. It's throwing good money after bad.

And Obama did this SOLELY for political reasons. He's kowtowing to his liberal base, ostensibly because he's alienated them so much by being such a "Bushie".

cubanstogie
03-13-2009, 06:40 PM
I can't tell whether you're being serious about that part or not, though I suppose it's more than likely given your occupation. I'll just say that if so, I disagree, but on the other hand, anyone but an idiot ought to know cloning people isn't cool.

The guy approves of partial birth abortion ,its not safe to assume anything about him. I guess we now know where his line is drawn for the time being anyway. I am sure he could be swayed for the right price.

Dino 6 Rings
03-15-2009, 11:38 AM
So what did he do exactly?

Obama's Stem Cell Policy Hasn't Reversed Legislative Restrictions
On Wednesday, President Obama signed a law that bans federal funding of any research that leads to the destruction of human embryos just two days after lifting Bush-era restraints on it.

President Obama may have abolished contentious Bush-era restraints on federal funding of stem cell research on Monday, but a legislative obstacle still remains for scientists seeking more money.

A spending bill that Obama signed on Wednesday explicitly bans federal funding of any "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death," language that pertains to creation of new stem cell lines.

This provision, known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, was included in the 465-page omnibus spending bill that will fund government agencies through September. The amendment is a measure Congress has included in spending bills in every fiscal year since 1996.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/14/obamas-approval-stem-cell-research-needs-congressional-action/

revefsreleets
03-15-2009, 12:10 PM
Wait a second....if I'm reading that right, he reversed Bush's "failed policy", then turned around two days later reversed his own reversal, meaning that he is.....um.....once again parroting more Bush policies.

Really?

Really...

hindes204
03-15-2009, 01:02 PM
:rofl: :doh:

Dino 6 Rings
03-16-2009, 11:37 AM
Wait a second....if I'm reading that right, he reversed Bush's "failed policy", then turned around two days later reversed his own reversal, meaning that he is.....um.....once again parroting more Bush policies.

Really?

Really...

Yes, you read that correctly, only the Coverage of the first Reversal was huge, there was no media coverage of him undoing his reversal of Bush's policy. So he gets Media Points for making the change and the reality is hushed up because it doesn't fit into the Agenda of changing everything that Bush ever did.

steelreserve
03-16-2009, 12:23 PM
Here is my point: Using government (i.e. taxpayer) money to fund something the private investors shy away from (for a reason) is foolish. It's throwing good money after bad.

And Obama did this SOLELY for political reasons. He's kowtowing to his liberal base, ostensibly because he's alienated them so much by being such a "Bushie".

Thing is, I think you're wrong about the "reason" there's been little private investment. It probably had a lot to do with the government taking an official stance against embryonic research. So the fact that the private money didn't go toward it was really a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Let me put it this way: If you were in charge of investing research dollars at a company or a university, how would you decide to give them out if someone gave you a choice between two projects? The first one is non-controversial, government-approved and eligible for all kinds of grants and matching dollars. The second one is only slightly different, but you have to "go it alone" for funding, the government doesn't support it, and it comes packaged with an ignorant but very vocal opposition among religious freaks. What's more, since government policy can change on a whim, there's always the chance that your project could be banned entirely while you're still in the middle of it.

Tell me, which one would you decide to spend your money on? Do you really seriously think the government's stance had no effect on that?

Still too early to decide whether one method is better than the other from a science standpoint -- and you can't draw any conclusions whatsoever from how the private money was spent, since other, non-science factors heavily influenced how it was allocated.

revefsreleets
03-16-2009, 01:29 PM
Yeah, I do. It was widely known in the scientific community that private dollars were okay. It's not like the scientific community had any kind of respect or loyalty to Bush or anything.

IMO this line of reasoning is a real reach. With the iPS discovery, all the advantages of embryonic stem cell research were wiped out.

You're left with adult stem cells that can do EVERYTHING embryonic stem cells can do, a line of research that has borne fruit compared to one that has not, and Occam's Razor prevails. The money went where the results were.

Even Obama realizes this...why else very quietly reverse his own reversal? This was a political move, pure and simple. Given all this, the argument FOR embryonic stem cells becomes largely irrelevant.

steelreserve
03-16-2009, 01:43 PM
Yeah, I do. It was widely known in the scientific community that private dollars were okay. It's not like the scientific community had any kind of loyalty to Bush or anything.

Loyalty to Bush, no. Fear that the government would start meddling, yes -- whether it was because we had a Jesus-hugging president, or just because the government goes off on a tangent and interferes with things sometimes.

IMO this line of reasoning is a real reach. With the iPS discovery, all the advantages of embryonic stem cell research were wiped out.

You're left with adult stem cells that can do EVERYTHING embryonic stem cells can do, a line of research that has borne fruit compared to one that has not. The money went where the results were pure and simple.

Actually, you're about as close to absolutely wrong as it's possible to be. For example, take this from the FAQ at the University of Michigan's stem cell research lab:

" * What is an iPS (induced pluripotent stem) cell?

iPS cells are adult cells reprogrammed to behave like embryonic stem cells. While iPS cells are an exciting discovery, these cells could never be used in patients because the use of viruses to reprogram these adult cells predisposes the cells to cancer. As a result, these cells cannot replace the use of embryonic stem cells. There is widespread agreement among leading stem cell researchers, including the scientists that developed iPS cells, that research must continue on all types of stem cells including those derived from embryos."

So, basically .. whoops. See what I mean?

The money went where the results were pure and simple.

Maybe. Not really likely, though. The very next paragraph after the one I just quoted seems to provide a little insight into that:

"Some of the work announced in November 2007 was done at the University of Wisconsin by James Thomson. Early stages of this work used embryonic stem cells derived from leftover in vitro fertilization (IVF) embryos. This work would have been illegal in Michigan, illustrating how restrictions under Michigan state law stifle discovery and impair Michigan scientistsí ability to participate in critical research."

Seems to me that it's more like, for the past decade, only the most dedicated and tenacious scientists were able to get anything done with embryonic stem cells because of the whole maze of regulations and bureaucracy you have to wade through. Not to mention the fact that they had to ignore the threat that all of their work could be brought crashing down with one stroke of a pen. It's no surprise that the money went toward the path of least resistance too.

Do you even have any proof that most of the private money went toward adult stem cells? That seems to be the focal point of your argument, but I haven't really seen any evidence of that at all.

revefsreleets
03-16-2009, 02:07 PM
Again, with Obama's reversal, I see no point in carrying on this debate. You obviously for some reason seem to be the standard bearer for embryonic stem cell research. More power to ya...

As for the private vs. public funding, I did a quickie search and found this. I've read it in several magazine articles as well as some stuff on line, though. It's no secret that the private sector is reticent to spend money on stuff that may (and only may) take decades to pan out.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163272,00.html

steelreserve
03-17-2009, 11:27 AM
Again, with Obama's reversal, I see no point in carrying on this debate. You obviously for some reason seem to be the standard bearer for embryonic stem cell research. More power to ya...

It's not so much that, as it was just a point worth debating. If someone had said, "Obviously they're making more advances in hydrogen-powered cars, so we should stop all research on electric cars because no good will ever come of it," people would probably argue against that for a while too.

And with stem cells, most people are even less informed than that. You seem to actually grasp the scientific concepts, but for most people, the arguments are akin to would be more akin to, "I think we should stop research on electric cars because electricity is evil," or "I think we should stop all research on electric cars because I'm scared."

Preacher
03-17-2009, 04:52 PM
It's not so much that, as it was just a point worth debating. If someone had said, "Obviously they're making more advances in hydrogen-powered cars, so we should stop all research on electric cars because no good will ever come of it," people would probably argue against that for a while too.

And with stem cells, most people are even less informed than that. You seem to actually grasp the scientific concepts, but for most people, the arguments are akin to would be more akin to, "I think we should stop research on electric cars because electricity is evil," or "I think we should stop all research on electric cars because I'm scared."


There is also a difference between these arguments and legitimate ethical questions. One thing that has been lost in the scientific debates lately is the question, "Does being able to mean we should?"

The ethic debate HAS to be part of the scientific questioning and research.