Some props for Bush on Stem Cell research

[cutthemdown]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/featur...,5831820.story

WASHINGTON - 'If human embryonic stem-cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough.'

-- James A. Thomson

A decade ago, Thomson was the first to isolate human embryonic stem cells. Last week, he (and Japan's Shinya Yamanaka) announced one of the great scientific breakthroughs since the discovery of DNA: an embryo-free way to produce genetically matched stem cells.

Even a scientist who cares not a whit about the morality of embryo destruction will adopt this technique because it is so simple and powerful. The embryonic stem-cell debate is over.

That allows a bit of reflection on the storm that has raged ever since the August 2001 announcement of President Bush's stem-cell policy. The verdict is clear: Rarely has a president -- so vilified for a moral stance -- been so thoroughly vindicated.

Why? Precisely because he took a moral stance. Precisely because, as Thomson puts it, Bush was made "a little bit uncomfortable" by the implications of embryonic experimentation. Precisely because he therefore decided that some moral line had to be drawn.

In doing so, he invited unrelenting demagoguery by an unholy trinity of Democratic politicians, research scientists and patient advocates who insisted that anyone who would put any restriction on the destruction of human embryos could be acting only for reasons of cynical politics rooted in dogmatic religiosity -- a "moral ayatollah," as Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) so scornfully put it.

Bush got it right. Not because he necessarily drew the line in the right place. I have long argued that a better line might have been drawn -- between using doomed and discarded fertility-clinic embryos created originally for reproduction (permitted) and using embryos created solely to be disassembled for their parts, as in research cloning (prohibited). But what Bush got right was to insist, in the face of enormous popular and scientific opposition, on drawing a line at all, on requiring that scientific imperative be balanced by moral considerations.

History will look at Bush's 2001 speech and be surprised how balanced and measured it was, how much respect it gave to the other side. Read it. Here was a presidential policy pronouncement that so finely and fairly drew out the case for both sides that until the final few minutes of his speech, you had no idea where the policy would end up.

Bush ended up doing nothing to hamper private research into embryonic stem cells and pledging federal monies to support the study of existing stem-cell lines -- but refusing federal monies for research on stem-cell lines produced by newly destroyed embryos.

The president's policy recognized that this might cause problems. The existing lines might dry up, prove inadequate or become corrupted. Bush therefore appointed a President's Council on Bioethics to oversee ongoing stem-cell research and evaluate how his restrictions were affecting research and what means might be found to circumvent ethical obstacles.

More vilification. The mainstream media and the scientific establishment saw this as a smoke screen to cover his fundamentalist, obscurantist, anti-scientific -- the list of adjectives was endless -- tracks. "Some observers," wrote Rick Weiss of The Washington Post, "say the president's council is politically stacked."

I sat on the council for five years. It was one of the most ideologically balanced bioethics commissions in the history of this country. It consisted of scientists, ethicists, theologians, philosophers, physicians -- and others (James Q. Wilson, Francis ***uyama and me among them) of a secular bent not committed to one school or the other.

That balance of composition was reflected in the balance in the reports issued by the council -- documents of sophistication and nuance that reflected the divisions both within the council and within the nation in a way that respectfully presented the views of all sides. One recommendation was to support research that might produce stem cells through "de-differentiation" of adult cells, thus bypassing the creation of human embryos.

That Holy Grail has now been achieved. Largely because of the genius of Thomson and Yamanaka. And also because of the astonishing good fortune that nature requires only four injected genes to turn an ordinary adult skin cell into a magical stem cell that can become bone or brain or heart or liver.

But for one more reason as well. Because the moral disquiet that Thomson always felt -- and that George Bush forced the country to confront -- helped lead him and others to find some ethically neutral way to produce stem cells. Providence then saw to it that the technique be so elegant and beautiful that scientific reasons alone will now incline even the most willful researchers to leave the human embryo alone.


Looks like we won't be needing dead babies to lengthen our lives. Good news no?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Looks like we won't be needing dead babies to lengthen our lives. Good news no?

This ignorant statement on stem cell research shows the collective thought process from the right in a nutshell.

[Bronco Bob]

This is what the "baby" that would be "murdered" looks like.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

This ignorant statement on stem cell research shows the collective thought process from the right in a nutshell.

Yep.

Just another example of the kind of willfull ignorance that makes so many people easy marks for con men like Bush and the right-wing lie machine.

[Garcia Bronco]

I don't have a problem with stem cell research, and niether does the President. that doesn't mean the government has to fund it.

"Bush ended up doing nothing to hamper private research into embryonic stem cells and pledging federal monies to support the study of existing stem-cell lines -- but refusing federal monies for research on stem-cell lines produced by newly destroyed embryos."

[Breaker]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

I don't have a problem with stem cell research, and niether does the President. that doesn't mean the government has to fund it.

"Bush ended up doing nothing to hamper private research into embryonic stem cells and pledging federal monies to support the study of existing stem-cell lines -- but refusing federal monies for research on stem-cell lines produced by newly destroyed embryos."

Yea, he didn't legislate against private companies to do it, he just said that the government shouldn't give money. Besides, if anyone has ever gotten a federal grant for a project they know how much extra time and resources are used complying with all of the Federal laws, accounting, and third parties looking over your damn shoulder. Keeping federal money out of it probably made the entire research more efficient.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

I don't have a problem with stem cell research, and niether does the President. that doesn't mean the government has to fund it.

Incorrect.

------------------------------------------------------

"These boys and girls are not spare parts," President Bush said in July 2006.




The Japanese team, of course, had little reason to care what Mr. Bush said or did.

And now James Thomson, the senior scientist on the American team, has scotched the notion that Mr. Bush stimulated his work and instead chided the President for slowing stem cell research.

According to a recently released transcript of a November 20 teleconference with reporters, Dr. Thomson said he was not trying to avoid ethical controversy when he devised the new techniques, but simply seeking a “more practical approach” to deriving useful stem cells.

[epicSocialism4tw]

There have always been other ways to approach this problem.

It's great that someone finally paved the way to move onward with this science outside of the abortionand fertility industries, who have a very powerful lobby.

Now, if only we could have a similar breakthrough in the current energy crisis.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

This is what the "baby" that would be "murdered" looks like.

Sorry dude. Ethics win out. More proof that you dont have to blindly surge forward without measured consideration over issues that could lead to the degredation of the moral and ethical pillars of our species.

I wonder if today's secularist American would be averse to the Nazi experimentation in WWII? It was ultimately for the betterment of all of us, no?

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by angryllama

There have always been other ways to approach this problem.

It's great that someone finally paved the way to move onward with this science outside of the abortionand fertility industries, who have a very powerful lobby.

Now, if only we could have a similar breakthrough in the current energy crisis.

The technology is already there. It's just a matter of the infrastructure and manufacturing base to catch up. In the long run to build cars that don't run on oil it will take our own research and development which will in turn eventually be better for the economy.

Coal liquefaction, using micro organisims to eat co2 that comes out of power plants, injecting Co2 back into the earth, turning Co2 into baking soda and storing it in it's solid form in landfills, nuclear energy, hydrogen powered cars, electric cars, high speed magneto driven trains, it's all there waiting to become part of our lives!!!!!!!!!

We are going through an adjustment period where oil has to go and we will have to suffer a bit through it. In 15 years I think things will be very, very different.

We need to build high speed bullet type train that connect like Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Denver, San Fran, Phoenix, etc etc all the way to NY. The are super effecient, go 300 mph on avg, and won't add to global warming in the least. We could get tons of planes out of the air and make traveling on a plane something only for hopping the pond.

[cutthemdown]

The big breakthrough will be using helieum 3 in fission but that is probably 50 years away or more. In the meantime we should use what is alredy out there. The problem is the oil/auto/aerospace lobbies don't like these changes.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by angryllama

There have always been other ways to approach this problem.

It's great that someone finally paved the way to move onward with this science outside of the abortionand fertility industries, who have a very powerful lobby.

Now, if only we could have a similar breakthrough in the current energy crisis.

These embryos were never implanted in a womb in the first place
so knock off the anti-abortion propaganda crap.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

These embryos were never implanted in a womb in the first place
so knock off the anti-abortion propaganda crap.

Look a little more.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by angryllama

Sorry dude. Ethics win out. More proof that you dont have to blindly surge forward without measured consideration over issues that could lead to the degredation of the moral and ethical pillars of our species.

I wonder if today's secularist American would be averse to the Nazi experimentation in WWII? It was ultimately for the betterment of all of us, no?

as a parent who has been through More Births then you can shake a stick at , you dont know what in the hell you are yapping about ........

[TheDave]

Originally Posted by angryllama

Sorry dude. Ethics win out. More proof that you dont have to blindly surge forward without measured consideration over issues that could lead to the degredation of the moral and ethical pillars of our species.

I wonder if today's secularist American would be averse to the Nazi experimentation in WWII? It was ultimately for the betterment of all of us, no?

You know where i'm going...

If this is really how you feel then you better start picketing those godless in-vitro clinics

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by TheDave

You know where i'm going...

If this is really how you feel then you better start picketing those godless in-vitro clinics

You know as well as I do that those are two distinct issues.

[TheDave]

Originally Posted by angryllama

You know as well as I do that those are two distinct issues.

How? In-vitro clinics create viable zygots...errr.... babies and then discard them. According to you, that makes them part of the abortion industry. Like I've said in the past... just be consistent

[Stormontheplains]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

This is what the "baby" that would be "murdered" looks like.

You're a sick bastard!!! When you work harder to save the environment than children you have some issues. I'm not even anti-abortion, but just the length you will go to prove a point is very disappointing.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by Stormontheplains

You're a sick bastard!!! When you work harder to save the environment than children you have some issues. I'm not even anti-abortion, but just the length you will go to prove a point is very disappointing.

Is this supposed to be some sort of a joke?

[TheDave]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

Is this supposed to be some sort of a joke?

That one lost me too...

maybe...pictures of 6 cell zygotes are disturbing to him...maybe

[cutthemdown]

It doesn't matter why the doctors figured out a new way. Bush deserves credit because he said science can find another way and he was right. The fact they found another way so quickly is just icing on the cake. This technology however is still a long ways away from helping the avg Joe but it is a great breakthrough. All of us regardless of what position you take on abortion realize that if the parts coming from those dead fetuses are valuable the world will exploit that and it will become a dirty biz.

[TheDave]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

It doesn't matter why the doctors figured out a new way. Bush deserves credit because he said science can find another way and he was right. The fact they found another way so quickly is just icing on the cake. This technology however is still a long ways away from helping the avg Joe but it is a great breakthrough. All of us regardless of what position you take on abortion realize that if the parts coming from those dead fetuses are valuable the world will exploit that and it will become a dirty biz.

First off, this new "way" is a long ways from being a proven substitute for normal embryonic stem cells... On top of that I refuse to pat this idiot on the back for making it impossible for collecting stem cells from zygotes on their way to the trash can.

And by the way why do people who oppose this research need to make up stories that involve dead fetuses?

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by TheDave

First off, this new "way" is a long ways from being a proven substitute for normal embryonic stem cells... On top of that I refuse to pat this idiot on the back for making it impossible for collecting stem cells from zygotes on their way to the trash can.

And by the way why do people who oppose this research need to make up stories that involve dead fetuses?

You really dont believe yourself, do you?

[TheDave]

Originally Posted by angryllama

You really dont believe yourself, do you?

I'm listening...

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by TheDave

First off, this new "way" is a long ways from being a proven substitute for normal embryonic stem cells... On top of that I refuse to pat this idiot on the back for making it impossible for collecting stem cells from zygotes on their way to the trash can.

And by the way why do people who oppose this research need to make up stories that involve dead fetuses?

Actually all ways are a long ways away from being used on people. It's only just beginning really. The problem with saying you can use cells headed for the trash can is like saying any whales caught for scientific purposes can be sold as meat. What happens is now you have tons of scientific ships killing whales for meat under the guise of science.