Obama to lift Stem Cell Research restriction

[Grommet]

Bush actually liberalized the rules for stem-cell research. Before the Bush administration, no federal funds were available for embryonic stem-cell research at all; before Bush, there indeed was a "ban" on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research -- signed into law by Bill Clinton. Bush changed the rules to make some funds available.

There never was been a ban, even under Clinton, on stem-cell research, or a ban on non-governmental funding for stem-cell research, or a ban on embryonic stem-cell research, though there were restrictions against federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, although Bush actually relaxed those rules.

I suppose it is fine to argue that Bush should have liberalized the funding rules even further, but please, remember the state of the law before he came into office. If you don't think that Clinton's ban on all federal funding for all ESC research made Clinton anti-science (and you probably shouldn't), then how can folks accuse Bush, who relaxed that ban, of being anti-science?

[Akucaen]

Mitch be trollin'

[thatwasnifty]

Just briefly, the Dickey Amendment (which banned federal funding for creation of embryonic stem cells) was passed by a Republican Congress. And when a Democratic Congress tried to relax those limitations and allow federal funds to be used to create stem cell lines from leftover IVF embryos, Bush vetoed. Don't pretend that this is all Clinton's fault and that Bush is inculpable.

[Tristam]

Bush actually liberalized the rules for stem-cell research. Before the Bush administration, no federal funds were available for embryonic stem-cell research at all; before Bush, there indeed was a "ban" on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research -- signed into law by Bill Clinton. Bush changed the rules to make some funds available.

There never was been a ban, even under Clinton, on stem-cell research, or a ban on non-governmental funding for stem-cell research, or a ban on embryonic stem-cell research, though there were restrictions against federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, although Bush actually relaxed those rules.

I suppose it is fine to argue that Bush should have liberalized the funding rules even further, but please, remember the state of the law before he came into office. If you don't think that Clinton's ban on all federal funding for all ESC research made Clinton anti-science (and you probably shouldn't), then how can folks accuse Bush, who relaxed that ban, of being anti-science?

You kinda whiffed on this. What Clinton signed into law in 95 was that embryos couldn't be destroyed by federally funded labs. Then in 98 the first ES lines were derived using private funds, then right afterwards he signed a law allowing federal research dollars to be used for stem cell research since the cells themselves are exempt from the 95 ruling (stem cells != embryo). This meant effectively that private companies could derive stem cells, and NIH funded researchers could research them.

For two years researchers could submit grant proposals to the NIH, until Bush shut them down. And before anyone says "Oh but the existing cell lines were grandfathered" I think you should go do some tissue culture and see how long you can keep a cell line going before it gets infected, contaminated, killed, or differentiates into a non-ES line. (This goes double for precious and easily perturbed cultures). To say nothing of the face that each time you split and flash freeze cells their viability diminishes.

To get an idea of how detrimental this was for science in the US, look at the timeline I've just pointed out, it encompasses little more than a decade, and for 8 years some of the best US researchers got effectively shut out (the NIH, NSF, and DARPA absolutely dwarf any other funding agency in terms of dollars spent). This, of course, dosen't even address the potential loss of brainpower due to labs packing up and moving to more science-friendly pastures.

[Acturus]

I'm not much of a Washington Post reader, this editorial makes a very good point about the dangers of putting politics in charge of our science. The author makes the case that politicians (and the people in general) tend to not understand enough about high level science to make truly informed decisions, but obviously it doesn't stop them from making policy about such sciences.

It's certainly not meant for Obama alone, since this thread has already detailed issues with the last two presidents in this capacity, but it is something to chew on.

I will say that, if you skip to the end and read the blurb about the author first, you'll note he was noted as the executive director of the President's Council on Bioethics from 2003 to 2005, so he could be just a right-wing monkey who's a little butthurt. I dunno.

Sorry if I'm just stirring the shit-pot, carry on...

washingtonpost.com

The Temptation in Obama's Stem Cell Policy

In announcing his policy on federal funding of stem cell research, President Obama inadvertently cast a bright light on a dangerous temptation in science policy that ought to give Americans pause.

What you think of his policy depends on what you think of the moral status of embryos. If (as modern biology informs us) conception initiates a human life, and if (as the Declaration of Independence asserts) every human life is equally deserving of some minimal protections, government support for the destruction of human embryos for research raises profound moral problems. But if you think an embryo is not quite a person, or that its immaturity or inability to suffer pain or its other qualities mean that destroying an embryo does not amount to taking a life, the promise of stem cell science might well outweigh any doubts.

That legitimate dispute underlies the stem cell debate. But that is not the ground on which the president made his case yesterday. He argued that to deny free rein to stem cell science is to ignore and reject the promise of science as such. In a barely concealed swipe at his predecessor, he pledged that his administration would "make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

The executive order Obama signed omits any mention of ethical debate. The entirety of the case it makes for itself is that "advances over the past decade in this promising scientific field have been encouraging, leading to broad agreement in the scientific community that the research should be supported by Federal funds." And while Obama promised that his policy would be bound by ethical guidelines, he left it to the scientists of the National Institutes of Health to define the rules. The issue, he suggested, is a matter of science, not politics.

But science policy is not just a matter of science. Like all policy, it calls for a balancing of priorities and concerns, and it requires a judgment of needs and values that in a democracy we trust to our elected officials. In science policy, science informs, but politics governs, and rightly so.

There are, of course, different ways for politics to exert authority over science. To distort or hide unwelcome facts is surely illegitimate. But to weigh facts against societal priorities -- economic, political and ethical -- in making decisions is the very definition of policymakers' duty. And to govern the practice of scientific techniques that threaten to violate important moral boundaries is not only legitimate but in some cases essential.

It is also difficult, and American policymakers have long been inclined to cede control of science policy to technical experts. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy put plainly the case for this technocratic temptation:

"Most of us are conditioned for many years to have a political viewpoint, Republican or Democratic, liberal, conservative, moderate. . . . [But] the fact of the matter is that most of the problems, or at least many of them, that we now face are technical problems, are administrative problems. They are very sophisticated judgments which do not lend themselves to the great sort of 'passionate movements' which have stirred this country so often in the past. Now they deal with questions which are beyond the comprehension of most men."

By this logic, an increasing proportion of public concerns must be kept beyond the reach of democracy and be handed over to scientists or other experts to manage. This view is powerfully displayed in some of our prominent science debates, especially regarding stem cells.

In a prior iteration of that debate, while he was serving in the Senate, Obama told reporters that "the promise that stem cells hold does not come from any particular ideology; it is the judgment of science, and we deserve a president who will put that judgment first." This is a concise articulation of the technocratic temptation in science policy, reaffirmed by the president's remarks yesterday. It argues not for an ethical judgment regarding the moral worth of human embryos but, rather, that no ethical judgment is called for: that it is all a matter of science.

This is a dangerous misunderstanding. Science policy questions do often require a grasp of complex details, which scientists can help to clarify. But at their core they are questions of priorities and worldviews, just like other difficult policy judgments.

Modern science offers tremendously powerful means of knowing and doing. It is the role of elected policymakers to consider the knowledge that science offers and the power it gives us, and to balance these with other priorities -- be they economic as in the case of environmental policy, strategic as in the case of nonproliferation or moral as in the case of embryonic stem cells. In all these areas, politics ought to govern, with science merely its handmaiden. Science is a glorious thing, but it is no substitute for wisdom, prudence or democracy.

Yuval Levin, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, was executive director of the President's Council on Bioethics from 2003 to 2005. He is the author of "Imagining the Future: Science and American Democracy."

[thatwasnifty]

What bullshit. He starts off with a lie: scientifically speaking, life doesn't begin at conception. Life is a continuum, as sperm and egg cells are alive, after all, and so is a zygote. The question is when does this thing become a distinct, autonomous organism and not an extension of the parents, and that's not a question with a single undisputed scientific answer.

The problem is that he's confusing morality and ethics with religion, as that was the sole basis for Bush's policy. He offered no evidence except for some vague definition of a "soul" in defense of his position, and that is certainly less acceptable than making a decision just on science and not other social and economic repercussions.

[Tankjr]

2 terms plz

[Neosutra]

2 terms plz

God damned straight. I had my doubts about him getting shit done at first, but jesus, the good times just keep coming.


Looking forward to 7.5 more years of conservatives SCREAMING bloody murder at how obama is destroying the country.

[Mizango]

What bullshit. He starts off with a lie: scientifically speaking, life doesn't begin at conception. Life is a continuum, as sperm and egg cells are alive, after all, and so is a zygote. The question is when does this thing become a distinct, autonomous organism and not an extension of the parents, and that's not a question with a single undisputed scientific answer.

^ This.

I hate that argument so goddamn much.

[Grommet]

Just briefly, the Dickey Amendment (which banned federal funding for creation of embryonic stem cells) was passed by a Republican Congress.

And signed, not vetoed, by Clinton. Which is exactly what I said. I love how you can blame Bush for a veto but refuse to blame Clinton for a non-veto! That's amazing how you can bend double like that.

And when a Democratic Congress tried to relax those limitations and allow federal funds to be used to create stem cell lines from leftover IVF embryos, Bush vetoed. Don't pretend that this is all Clinton's fault and that Bush is inculpable.

Not pretending anything. Just stating facts. You're welcome to put another gloss on it, but facts are facts.

As to "culpable" and "fault": you're assuming I share your view on policy and (thus) agree that someone is "culpable." I don't. I favored the Clinton and Bush policies and largely oppose Obama's, mostly because there is no demonstrated benefit to using ESCs over non-E SCs at this point. Nor has there ever been a ban on ESCR; rather, the federal government has limited ITS funding of ESCR to a limited array of existing lines. ECSR has been going on anyway, without any limitation as to lines, albeit with private and other non-federal (e.g., California) funds.

[Grommet]

Mitch be trollin'

Doyal be bein' completely unable to respond to anythin' substantive and thus be labelin' a post he be disagreein' with as "trollin."

[Neosutra]

And signed, not vetoed, by Clinton. Which is exactly what I said. I love how you can blame Bush for a veto but refuse to blame Clinton for a non-veto! That's amazing how you can bend double like that.



Not pretending anything. Just stating facts. You're welcome to put another gloss on it, but facts are facts.

As to "culpable" and "fault": you're assuming I share your view on policy and (thus) agree that someone is "culpable." I don't. I favored the Clinton and Bush policies and largely oppose Obama's, mostly because there is no demonstrated benefit to using ESCs over non-E SCs at this point. Nor has there ever been a ban on ESCR; rather, the federal government has limited ITS funding of ESCR to a limited array of existing lines. ECSR has been going on anyway, without any limitation as to lines, albeit with private and other non-federal (e.g., California) funds.

So you disagree with allowing federal funding for this life saving research?

[Tristam]

As to "culpable" and "fault": you're assuming I share your view on policy and (thus) agree that someone is "culpable." I don't. I favored the Clinton and Bush policies and largely oppose Obama's, mostly because there is no demonstrated benefit to using ESCs over non-E SCs at this point. Nor has there ever been a ban on ESCR; rather, the federal government has limited ITS funding of ESCR to a limited array of existing lines. ECSR has been going on anyway, without any limitation as to lines, albeit with private and other non-federal (e.g., California) funds.

wow, even I don't know the details regarding the differences between IPS and ES lines, and I keep up with the literature. One thing that is certain is that there are in fact differences. I'm not even sure people have figured out how to remove the effects of the transcription factors used in reprogramming the IPS lines. Still dosen't even address that the existing lines were made using old techniques and were vastly inferior to more recently developed lines.

You also don't get how the grant process works. When these labs didn't get funded, it's not like they could just ho-hum reapply for private funds. There simply aren't close to enough private granting institutions to support a fraction of the labs affected by the ban. People lost jobs, staff, time, and equipment due to this ban; and it supports a climate where people worry about religion dictating what research they can and cannot do.

You also don't understand what legislation Clinton signed into law.

[Enkidu]

So you disagree with allowing federal funding for this life saving research?

I do, because there is better "life saving" research to fund...

[Penthesilea]

elaborate please? because the broad scope of ESC research will probably impact that life saving research in some way

[Tristam]

I do, because there is better "life saving" research to fund...

Cuz' you can't approach a problem from multiple angles

[Saphirea]

The text of Section 509 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, reads as follows:

SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for—(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)). (b) For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘human embryo or embryos’’ includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.

So he apparently just unsigned everything with signing of the omnibus spending bill. Either he didn't read it or he doesn't understand it. Either which way I'm happy to see that at least until September, my tax money won't go to the killing of embryos.

[Tristam]

The text of Section 509 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, reads as follows:

SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for—(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)). (b) For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘human embryo or embryos’’ includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.

So he apparently just unsigned everything with signing of the omnibus spending bill. Either he didn't read it or he doesn't understand it. Either which way I'm happy to see that at least until September, my tax money won't go to the killing of embryos.

Yeah the news media once again drops the ball on the science front, although in this case it's more along the lines of history. /sigh.

Anyways the Dickey-Wicker poses no legal barrier to the use of ES lines. The only thing it mandates is that the cell lines are generated with private funds, and then they can be used by publicly funded labs. I think I already said this earlier in the thread, but it appears to need repeating.

NOVA | scienceNOW | Dispatches: The Politics of Stem Cells | PBS

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 derived from spare embryos slated for destruction at fertility clinics.

[Devek]

Surprised no one has this as this sig yet..

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/7542/obamablltw6.gif

[thatwasnifty]

And signed, not vetoed, by Clinton. Which is exactly what I said. I love how you can blame Bush for a veto but refuse to blame Clinton for a non-veto! That's amazing how you can bend double like that.

The amendment was also a rider to another bill (an appropriations bill to HHS), and the only way to not sign it into law would have been to veto the whole thing which Clinton was apparently not prepared to do. Argue against the concept of legislative riders all you want, but this isn't necessarily what Clinton's plan was. If my only options are to put roadblocks before a specific type of research or fuck over the department responsible for all health issues, I'll regrettably take the former.

As to "culpable" and "fault": you're assuming I share your view on policy and (thus) agree that someone is "culpable." I don't. I favored the Clinton and Bush policies and largely oppose Obama's, mostly because there is no demonstrated benefit to using ESCs over non-E SCs at this point. Nor has there ever been a ban on ESCR; rather, the federal government has limited ITS funding of ESCR to a limited array of existing lines. ECSR has been going on anyway, without any limitation as to lines, albeit with private and other non-federal (e.g., California) funds.

Clearly you don't understand how scientific research actually works, as Tristam has noted. Just researching iPSCs and ASCs is at best irresponsible because scientists don't know whether any one will be better therapeutically than another.