Holy hell, Bush does know about veto power

[Deputy Nutz]

I want something clarified here. Is the research illegal? If public funding isn't provided, could the research go on with private donations? I'm just trying to figure out if this is similar to public funding of abortion rights groups. Some folks that aren't against this or abortion may be against the public funding of these things, so I'd like this clarified.

Right now it is legal but without public funding

[Joemailman]

I haven't heard anyone suggest that the research should be made illegal. The issue seems to be government funding. Anyone know anything different?

[HarveyWallbangers]

That's what I thought, and I think people get confused on this. You could be all for the research, but against the public funding for this. Are there private entities researching this? I imagine if a breakthrough is found with this research, there stands to be a lot of money to be made.

[Deputy Nutz]

University of Wisconsin is so close. Madison could be not only the national leader in stem cell but a world leader.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Is it true that the research that they've done on embryonic stem cells has produced much on results--while the results seem to be coming from the adult stem cell research?

[Deputy Nutz]

Shit I don't know

[MJZiggy]

I'm starting to think that if the adult stem cells produced decent results, it wouldn't be worth it to them to go through all this controversy to get funded for embryonic. I will qualify that by saying that it is an impression as I am certainly no expert here.

[HarveyWallbangers]

It's an argument that those that are opposed to the research make, so take it with a grain of salt. I'd like to have some independent opinion on it. Personally, this seems like a hot button item that has been really blown out of proportion. Those that are for the research tend to make it seem like we are really close to a breakthrough, but if you read more about (with an open mind), it seems like that a lot of researchers feel that there's little benefit for researching embryonic stem cells over adult stem cells. Again, this is all about the PUBLIC FUNDING of this research--not on the legality of the research itself. As a Libertarian, I tend to be for the government keeping its nose out of things like this. As far as I know though, we could be close to a breakthrough and a little public funding is all that it would take. I'm not an expert. I get the feeling that's not the case though.

[hoosier]

Those that are for the research tend to make it seem like we are really close to a breakthrough, but if you read more about (with an open mind), it seems like that a lot of researchers feel that there's little benefit for researching embryonic stem cells over adult stem cells..

The NIH doesn't say there's little benefit in researching embryonic cells. They say pretty much the opposite:

"There are currently several limitations to using adult stem cells. Although many different kinds of multipotent stem cells have been identified, adult stem cells that could give rise to all cell and tissue types have not yet been found. Adult stem cells are often present in only minute quantities and can therefore be difficult to isolate and purify. There is also evidence that they may not have the same capacity to multiply as embryonic stem cells do. Finally, adult stem cells may contain more DNA abnormalities—caused by sunlight, toxins, and errors in making more DNA copies during the course of a lifetime. These potential weaknesses might limit the usefulness of adult stem cells." (http://stemcells.nih.gov/StemCells/T...uest#wherefrom)

[HarveyWallbangers]

From that same article:

Scientists have only been able to do experiments with human embryonic stem cells (hESC) since 1998, when a group led by Dr. James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin developed a technique to isolate and grow the cells. Moreover, federal funds to support hESC research have only been available since August 9, 2001, when President Bush announced his decision on federal funding for hESC research.

Apparently, they've only had federal funds to support their research since the summer of 2001--when Bush opened up federal funding for this. Funny that you didn't hear massive outcries in the three years prior while Clinton was in office--when federal funds weren't made available.

Individual states have the authority to pass laws to permit human embryonic stem cell research using state funds.

Since the reseach is not illegal, states (and private donors) have the right to fund the research. Again this is about FEDERAL FUNDING of this research. It's not about the legality of doing this research.

In the third quarter of 2004, there are 22 human embryonic stem cell lines that federally supported researchers may purchase. This number is up from only one or two lines in Spring 2002.

More lines of embryonic stems cells have been opened up since federal funding was opened up for this.

Again, I'm sure there's other sides of the story, but it seems to me that this issue has been massively overblown.

[hoosier]

Again, this is all about the PUBLIC FUNDING of this research--not on the legality of the research itself. As a Libertarian, I tend to be for the government keeping its nose out of things like this. As far as I know though, we could be close to a breakthrough and a little public funding is all that it would take. I'm not an expert. I get the feeling that's not the case though.

Isn't saying that the government should stay out of things like this putting the cart before the horse? You can't really expect the private sector to fund research that doesn't yet have practical uses and a profit waiting to be realized. That's where the state comes in. And if it doesn't come in, then research never has the chance to make the leap from speculation to practical applications. Or it has to go elsewhere (Europe, Asia) to make that leap.

[Joemailman]

[quote="HarveyWallbangers"]From that same article:

Scientists have only been able to do experiments with human embryonic stem cells (hESC) since 1998, when a group led by Dr. James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin developed a technique to isolate and grow the cells. Moreover, federal funds to support hESC research have only been available since August 9, 2001, when President Bush announced his decision on federal funding for hESC research.

Apparently, they've only had federal funds to support their research since the summer of 2001--when Bush opened up federal funding for this. Funny that you didn't hear massive outcries in the three years prior while Clinton was in office--when federal funds weren't made available.




The Clinton legacy
President Bush's stem cell decision, like the many state measures, is part of a long history of lawmakers grappling with the ethics of human embryo research. In fact, since the advent of in vitro fertilization, which produced the first "test-tube" baby in 1978, the federal government has avoided funding any work with human embryos. Many scientists say that this has hobbled research into infertility, birth defects, cancer, and methods for diagnosing genetic disease in embryos.

In one sense, Bush's administration is a turning point. He has presided over the first flow of federal funds to a promising area of research that relies on destroying human embryos. And yet Bush's repeated claims to be "the first president ever to allow funding" for human embryonic stem cell research (made, for instance, during the second nationally televised presidential debate in fall 2004) are not accurate. Here, he lays claim to a stem cell legacy that isn't his. Truth is, Bush's immediate predecessor, Bill Clinton, was a far greater supporter of human embryonic stem cell research.

Recall the political context. In 1993, with something called the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act, Congress and President Clinton gave the NIH direct authority to fund human embryo research for the first time—ushering in what seemed like a new era. In response, the NIH established a panel of scientists, ethicists, public policy experts, and patients' advocates to consider the moral and ethical issues involved and to determine which types of experiments should be eligible for federal funding. In 1994, this NIH Human Embryo Research Panel made its recommendations—among them, that the destruction of spare embryos from fertility clinics, with the goal of obtaining stem cells, should receive federal funding. Embryos at the required stage are round balls no bigger than a grain of sand.

The Dickey-Wicker Amendment
President Clinton rejected part of these recommendations and directed the NIH not to allocate funds to experiments that would create new embryos specifically for research. But for the Gingrich-era Congress that took up the matter in 1995, funding any work with human embryos was going too far, and the recommendations created an uproar. Within a year, Congress had banned the use of federal funds for any experiment in which a human embryo is either created or destroyed. Known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment for its authors, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, and Representative Roger Wicker, Republican of Mississippi, the ban passed as a rider attached to the appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. Congress has actively renewed that ban each year since, thus relegating all human embryo research to the private sector.

Such was the state of affairs when, in 1998, using—by necessity—private funds, James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin successfully created the first human embryonic stem cell lines. Clinton's NIH knew the historic nature of that achievement. "This research has the potential to revolutionize the practice of medicine," Harold Varmus, director of the NIH, testified at a Senate hearing that year. New treatments for conditions like Parkinson's, heart disease, diabetes, and spinal cord injury now appeared possible. But the research needed years of federal support in order to flourish—and the Dickey-Wicker Amendment stood squarely in the way.

Or did it? In January of 1999, Harriet Rabb, the top lawyer at the Department of Health and Human Services, released a legal opinion that would set the course for Clinton Administration policy. Federal funds, obviously, could not be used to derive stem cell lines (because derivation involves embryo destruction). However, she concluded that because human embryonic stem cells "are not a human embryo within the statutory definition," the Dickey-Wicker Amendment does not apply to them. The NIH was therefore free to give federal funding to experiments involving the cells themselves (what Republican Senator Sam Brownback, of Kansas, called a bit of "legal sophistry.")

The NIH, with input from the National Bioethics Advisory Commission and others, went on to develop guidelines outlining the types of human embryonic stem cell research that would be eligible for federal funding. These Clinton Administration guidelines, published in August of 2000, forbid the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos to derive stem cells (because of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment), but permitted research with stem cells that other, privately funded scientists had already derived from spare embryos slated for destruction at fertility clinics.

President Clinton strongly endorsed the new guidelines, noting that human embryonic stem cell research promised "potentially staggering benefits." And with the guidelines in place, the NIH began accepting grant proposals from scientists. Thus, it was the Clinton Administration that first opened the door to federal funding.

Bush's restrictions
When President Bush took office in January of 2001, by contrast, he began to shut that door. First, his HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson ordered a review of Rabb's legal decision. Then, the Bush Administration told the NIH to cancel its plans to review grant applications—pending completion of the HHS review. If the Bush Administration had done nothing, the NIH would have proceeded to review the applications and to finance those that were successful. Instead, that process was halted, a decision that saddened, angered, and frustrated supporters of human embryonic stem cell research.

On August 9, 2001, Bush went further. He announced that federal funding would now be restricted to a limited number of stem cell lines already created by that date—a decision that denied support to many promising avenues of biomedical research in an effort not to "sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos." Three months later, his administration ordered an official withdrawal of funding guidelines that Clinton had authorized. And with that withdrawal, Bush became the first president to reduce—below what his predecessor had authorized—the amount of human embryonic stem cell research eligible for federal funding. (Reports issued by Bush's own President's Council on Bioethics, which he established by executive order before appointing all of its members, confirm these events in detail.)



It would appear that Clinton did what he could to support funding for this research. Obviously, funding for this research is more acceptable to Congress than it was then.

[jack's smirking revenge]

Don't those who support the war in Iraq justify the killing of tens of thousands of innocent civilians on the basis that the war will lead to a better society in the future?

You were okay with Saddam Hussein killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians? I find this argument pretty illogical. Having problems with the war is fine, but this is a pretty weak argument IMHO. I'm not going to make a case for or against the war. At this point nobody is on the fence--although I hope everybody wants it turn out succesfully. However, this statement is right out of the left-wing fringe playbook. Playing to emotion rather than logic.

It's seems pretty hypocritical to me that many of the same people that make this argument also want us to stop the genocide in Sudan. People in both political parties are very inconsistent on this issue. It's really rather disingenuous.

Funny how all of these debates revolve around the issue of the "freedom to take life", even though that freedom is contrary to the majority of stated religions in the world. As a nation, we've made it OK to kill Iraqis in the name of OUR cause. Israelis and Lebanese fighters are now killing each other for their cause. Protestants during the Reformation killed for their cause. Catholics during the crusades. Christians purified through inquisitions. Killing for a cause has happened throughout history. Humans are good at killing each other. One could argue that we are entertained by it.

I agree Harv that there is much inconsistency across the board on these issues. Stem cell application may lead to the death of a fetus, but it all boils down to the concept of "taking life". The bottom line is that we're killing in Iraq for a cause/policy (coincidentally, with the intent of saving lives) and yet Bush took a stand on a moral/religious issue, however you want to spin it, that could also save lives.

To me, his veto decision is the perfect example of hypocrisy--his action speaks to the belief that it is OK to kill fellow human beings when the cause aligns with religious politics, but not OK when it doesn't.

tyler

[Partial]

Funny how all of these debates revolve around the issue of the "freedom to take life", even though that freedom is contrary to the majority of stated religions in the world. As a nation, we've made it OK to kill Iraqis in the name of OUR cause. Israelis and Lebanese fighters are now killing each other for their cause. Protestants during the Reformation killed for their cause. Catholics during the crusades. Christians purified through inquisitions. Killing for a cause has happened throughout history. Humans are good at killing each other. One could argue that we are entertained by it.

I agree Harv that there is much inconsistency across the board on these issues. Stem cell application may lead to the death of a fetus, but it all boils down to the concept of "taking life". The bottom line is that we're killing in Iraq for a cause/policy (coincidentally, with the intent of saving lives) and yet Bush took a stand on a moral/religious issue, however you want to spin it, that could also save lives.

To me, his veto decision is the perfect example of hypocrisy--his action speaks to the belief that it is OK to kill fellow human beings when the cause aligns with religious politics, but not OK when it doesn't.

tyler

hit the nail square on the head

[HarveyWallbangers]

Isn't saying that the government should stay out of things like this putting the cart before the horse? You can't really expect the private sector to fund research that doesn't yet have practical uses and a profit waiting to be realized. That's where the state comes in. And if it doesn't come in, then research never has the chance to make the leap from speculation to practical applications. Or it has to go elsewhere (Europe, Asia) to make that leap.

You and I have different ideas for what the federal government is for.

The first issue to get resolved is whether the federel government should even be involved with this. State governments can do whatever they want. (We do live in a Republic.) I guess it goes back to how stringently you follow the Constitution. The federal government was given very little power by the founding fathers, and the onus was on state governments to do as they see fit.

Would you want the federal government to publicly fund abortions? Personally, I lean towards the federal government staying out of hot button issues like this, but I'm also against the federal government strong-arming states over abortion rights, drinking ages, and speeding limits also. I'm all for as little federal involvement as necessary--unless it has to do with the defense or possibly education.

If private entities see great potential in something like this, it will get researched. Is most drug/health research funded by the government, or is it funded by private entities? Are you saying that nothing can get researched without federal funding?

I don't know. It's a tough question, and it's not as black and white as one would think.