Obama Overturns Bush Policy on Stem Cells

Obama Overturns Bush Policy on Stem Cells

www.cnn.com

President Obama signed an executive order Monday repealing a Bush-era policy that limited federal tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research.

Obama's move overturns an order signed by President Bush in 2001 that barred the National Institutes of Health from funding research on embryonic stem cells beyond using 60 cell lines that existed at that time.

Obama also signed a presidential memorandum establishing greater independence for federal science policies and programs.

"In recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values," Obama said at the White House.

"In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research -- and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly."

(visit the link for the full news article)

This really doesn't do much to reverse Bush's policy other than give public funding to embryonic stem cell research.

I am sure that this will upset a lot of people, but stem cells need to be studied. Both adult and embryonic stem cells need to be studied.

Just think of all the things that could be cured or eliminated....

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Absolutely right, I am very happy with the decision to fund this side of science that has been so controversial.

Still once the research is done big private interest step in and treatments will no be so easily available to regular people.

Unless people goes for trials those can not be denied as they are pay by tax payer money.

I very much agree with the President's decision on this matter. It has been too long that we have neglected to allow the studying of stem cells to their full extent.

These cells have the possibility of providing us with many cures and or treatments for a variety of diseases that affect millions of people all over the world.

It may upset some people because of their nature, but we need to look to the future on this subject and cannot stop funding of vital projects because of outdated ideology.

~Keeper

First let me say this, yes this needs to be studied.

Let me tell you why I disagree with this, $$$$$ -- we don't have any. The national deficit just got increased again.

The executive order Bush wrote really didn't hinder it that much the biggest thing is that the fed gov didn't fund it.



[edit on 9-3-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

That human life begins at conception is not an "outdated ideology" it is an immutable fact, not least scientifically. President Obama continues to offer to his "base" these ideological crumbs.

President Bush did not ban embryonic stem cell research, he inhibited the federal funding that could be used in such research. Now those who have well founded moral concerns about embryonic stem cell research will be forced to fund it through their tax contributions.

Science has no right to be easy or convenient and the restrictions on such research were bringing some quite extraordinary results in research into adult and placental stem cells and the extraordinary work being carried out by The International Stem Cell Corporation which had:

found a way of producing embryonic-like stem cells from unfertilised eggs. The egg is chemically stimulated to create a group of cells that form a non-viable (and unfertilised) “embryo”. This, explains Kenneth Aldrich, the firm’s boss, is something that could not be implanted into a woman’s womb and produce a child. Nonetheless, the cells it contains have the same characteristics as stem cells.

Besides any ethical advantages this procedure may have, it could also have medical ones. Because lines of stem cells created in this way have only one parent, they are immunologically simpler than normal embryonic cells—in other words they have a smaller variety of the proteins that trigger rejection. That lack of variety, says Dr Aldrich, means it might be feasible to create a bank of stem-cell lines that could be matched to every immune type in the human population, rather as a blood bank carries blood of all the different groups (A, B, O and so on). Replacement stem cells might then be ordered off the shelf.

The Economist, Jan 29th 2009

Now, despite this being an issue above his pay grade, President Obama has made another decision which continues this civilization's habit of disrespect for human life.

I have a great degree of compassion for those who suffer from illnesses which stem cell research might benefit, I support stem cell research but cannot and do not support embryonic stem research which is using human life for an end other than that intended - which is life. His move is ideological and makes "easy science" which is not always the best kind of science.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Dude the money is fake, I understand why you would say that fundamentally, but seriously our money is as really as Monopoly money and Hasbro probably has more solvency then the US anyways.

That is unless some of the researchers in the US here can do something with the aforementioned funny-FED-money in the field of said stem cell research that could help many people and increase all kinds of commerce and education endeavors.....but NOooooo because the FED is playing games with the American people in the interest of the Central Banking System, we're supposed to keep letting people die, let technology be stifled, & societal progress inhibited...because of paper the FED would be all too happy to "loan" to us?



Oh yeah but I forgot the "conservative" & "moral" voters seem to have a problem with "when life begins". All of a sudden they turn into the scientists & spiritual leaders some how; the same people who have sent thousands off to die in needless wars based on rhetoric and lies that many will still defend. Sure fight your ground against the sick and needy, they're easy to kill anyways: and don't do abortions, that's less people you can send to die in wars!

Not to mention for some reason every time anything "abortion" comes up "conservative" people automatically think every one is talking about forcing women to have abortions and sucking 8 month old babies out of their stomach. No one is talking about rewriting how those laws work, and people abort anyways whether you like it or not. It's legal, get over it. It was going to go in the trash anyways (if it was early), why not allow them to donate the fetus to science and maybe save a crap-load of lives....but that's "evil" somehow still I'm sure.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Shakesbeer]

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

It may upset some people because of their nature, but we need to look to the future on this subject and cannot stop funding of vital projects because of outdated ideology.

~Keeper

Does that include harvesting of fetal stem cells? Ironic that you would call those opposing the harvesting of fetal stem cells basing themselves in outdated ideology, especially when it comes to late term or partial birth abortion. If a fetus can be delivered and survive on it's own, wouldn't it be murder to terminate that life, regardless of whether it sits in a womb or not?

reply to post by sos37


I can agree with you're view and in no way condone the murdering of babies in the name of science. But with that being said, I can't possibly condone the stopping of research that could lead to major breakthoughs with diseases that as I said, affect millions upon millions of people.

I can understand how people who are very much pro life, would not want to have their tax money pay for such things, and if in their position I would completely agree.

Since I am pro choice on the matter as I am a man, and really since I will never give birth or know what it is to carry a life within me, I don't feel I have the right to tell women to not make their own decisions.

~Keeper

All I'm saying is there are a variety of places to harvest stem cells that don't include the fetus. I agree though that stem cell research is important. Personally I'm against abortion when it reaches the point of late term or partial birth. I'm still on the fence otherwise. There ought to be exceptions, but I don't want to derail the thread any more than I already have.

I would have rather seen tax money have gone toward stem cell research than paying for overseas abortions, however.

This is a triple tragedy: we will destroy human lives; we will waste recession-era tax dollars; and two years after science developed better technology for obtaining the pluripotent cells needed for cures and treatment, we will redirect spending to an obsolete mode of research--hESCR.

- Ellen Barrosse, President, A Rose and a Prayer Inc.

hESCR is human embryonic stem cell research.

i cant get past a life for a life- but if this is going to continue it does not need to be in the hands of the government it needs to be privatized.

the us has a long and sorted history of spending money on projects and never finishing anything.

let someone else do all the work and spend the capital.

Originally posted by Supercertari

Now, despite this being an issue above his pay grade, President Obama has made another decision which continues this civilization's habit of disrespect for human life.

I have a great degree of compassion for those who suffer from illnesses which stem cell research might benefit, I support stem cell research but cannot and do not support embryonic stem research which is using human life for an end other than that intended - which is life. His move is ideological and makes "easy science" which is not always the best kind of science.

The embryos to be used come from women who instead of becoming Octo Moms decided to donate their embryos for research. If these embryos aren't used for stem cell research they will be discarded, so why not use them to help lives?

Originally posted by Leto
The embryos to be used come from women who instead of becoming Octo Moms decided to donate their embryos for research. If these embryos aren't used for stem cell research they will be discarded, so why not use them to help lives?

Indeed such are the consequences of the seperation of sex from procreation where human lives become possessions not of the self but of others which are then commodified and donated for experimentation or disposed of as "medical waste."

I do not support IVF programmes for this very reason - the fruits of it in the children allowed (in some cases selected) to go to full term and enjoy life are. like all human beings, a blessing to those who they will know and love. However, the cost in the other human lives disposed of and the reality of the vast numbers of "unwanted" children willfully aborted cannot justify it.

reply to post by Supercertari


Abortions aren't the only places to get embryonic stem cells. Many of these cells are readily available in the umbilical cord at birth. The baby certainly does not need them, and otherwise the cord will just get thrown away. There are exactly how many live births at hospitals in this country alone every day?

The argument against stem cell research is flawed. It's flawed in the fact that embryonic stem cells don't always have to be harvested from aborted fetus tissue.

I was very pleased to hear about this decision.

A federal science program is a wonderful thing. For too long, our government has been acting like science is the enemy.

And like Leto said, these embryos would either be thrown away or used for scientific research. It's a no-brainer, IMO.

Originally posted by whatukno
Abortions aren't the only places to get embryonic stem cells. Many of these cells are readily available in the umbilical cord at birth. The baby certainly does not need them, and otherwise the cord will just get thrown away. There are exactly how many live births at hospitals in this country alone every day?

The argument against stem cell research is flawed. It's flawed in the fact that embryonic stem cells don't always have to be harvested from aborted fetus tissue.

This is a good point. If embryos/fetuses were not used, I'd stand behind the idea one hundred percent both as a believer and a scientist. Until it is refined however to include only the stipulation you've presented here, it won't get any support from me.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
If embryos/fetuses were not used, I'd stand behind the idea one hundred percent both as a believer and a scientist.

You'd rather have them thrown in the trash? These are embryos that women were using for IVF and then didn't need. They got pregnant before using them all. So these embryos are going to "die" anyway.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You'd rather have them thrown in the trash? These are embryos that women were using for IVF and then didn't need.

The fact that there is excess denotes an inefficiency in the process. This isn't a video game, we don't have a need for 'extra lives' to throw away.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
They got pregnant before using them all. So these embryos are going to "die" anyway.

All of us are going to "die anyway". This does not diminish the value of each of our lives.

It comes down to the economic law of supply and demand with of course being money as the root. More demand for these cells by scientific corporations means suppliers seeking out ways to meet that demand. Companies making beaucoup dollars off of baby parts which is the driving incentive to generate the means of harvesting them. All supply companies have to do is make a few extra zygotes under the guise of 'just in case' for IVF knowing full well any extras means more money. The bio-factory is now in effect.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by saint4God]

Big to Obama here, again. He is slowly, but surely, overturning many of the idiotic changes the Bush administration began hurting this country with.