WaPo Sees No Social Liberals: Obama Aims 'To Shield Science From Politics' on Embryo Killing

Photo of Tim Graham.
  • Bookmark and Share

The Washington Post covered President Obama’s decision to allow federal subsidies for embryo-destroying stem cell research with the gloss of Science triumphing over politics. The headline on page A-2 was "Obama Aims to Shield Science From Politics: Memo to Accompany Stem Cell Action." Or does Obama aim to shield science from ethics, or shield science from debate? The Post certainly did, quoting no opponent of Obama's "science" agenda or embryo-destroying research. In paragraph eight, reporter Rob Stein made a quick reference to opposition:

But the research is highly controversial because the cells are obtained by destroying embryos, which some consider to be immoral. On Friday, officials confirmed that Obama would fulfill a longtime promise to lift those restrictions today, thrilling supporters but stirring intense criticism from opponents, who argue that there are alternative approaches free from ethical concerns.

The story carried two quotes from White House aide Melody Barnes and three from Harold Varmus, an Obama science advisor. Liberals five, conservatives zero. The official Obama view dominated, including the first paragraph:

When President Obama lifts restrictions on funding for human embryonic stem cell research today, he will also issue a presidential memorandum aimed at insulating scientific decisions across the federal government from political influence, officials said yesterday.

The idea that liberals aren’t ideological came across in this sentence: "The decision by President George W. Bush to restrict funding for stem cell research has been seen by critics as part of a pattern of allowing political ideology to influence scientific decisions across an array of issues, including climate change and whether to approve the morning-after pill Plan B for over-the-counter sales."

Just isolate that sentence: how is it not a political or ideological conflict when liberals want to make an over-the-counter abortifacient drug easily available to teenagers trying to hide a new pregnancy from their parents? Science is only a part of our struggle over how sexuality is debated in our culture.

The bias in the Bush sentence should be obvious. It could read: "Bush’s policies were seen by liberal ideologues as a pattern of letting ideology to influence scientific decisions." The Post wants to assist the liberals in associating liberalism with Science and an utter lack of ideology. 

The Post shouldn’t be so attached to the liberal movement that it can’t consider the possibility that some liberal social and medical policies are driven by liberal ideology as well as scientific concerns. It ought to at least let conservatives make that case. What if embryo-killing research does not provide cures? Then won’t it look like the fervent hope for a cure was driven by ideologues who "knew" anything conservatives opposed must be a scientific breakthrough in the making?

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Shield Science from Politics

... then remove James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for political comments unbecoming a goverment official.

"Obama Aims 'To Shield

"Obama Aims 'To Shield Science From Politics' on Embryo Killing"

 Where have you heard logic like this before?

Kinda weird. . .

that a politician is shielding science from politics.  Gosh, that seems downright oxymoronic.

Well, morality aside, let's

Well, morality aside, let's list the cures and treatments derived from embryonic stem cell research (ESCR):

Um...

There should be some...

Wait, that's right...

There are no viable cures or treatments from ESCR.  Nada.  Zippo.  Zilch.

Unless you count mutated cells (read: cancer) as a breakthrough.

Adult stem cell treatment, including cord blood, has, on the other hand, been extremely successful.  I know someone personally who had such treatment for cancer with very pleasing results.

But - more to the point - isn't one of the goals of Obama to reduce medical costs?  I know stem cell research and therapies (the successful ones) are extremely expensive.  In the words of his former choice for HHS, Tom Daschle, shouldn't people diagnosed with illnesses treatable by stem cells just learn to accept negative diagnosis?  You know, like they do in England and Canada?

Wouldn't that save a lot of money?  What's the point of having medical research if only a select few are going to be "allowed" to have procedures - the rest being waitlisted to death or denied treatment because they're not "worth" it?

Wait...maybe that is the point.  They're not aborting undesirables fast enough, so the best way to create a master race is to kill off even more people.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

Here: http://www.stemcellr...

Here:

http://www.stemcellr...

Conditions treatable with ADULT stem cells:

    Cancers:

  1. Brain Cancer
  2. Retinoblastoma
  3. Ovarian Cancer
  4. Skin Cancer: Merkel Cell Carcinoma
  5. Testicular Cancer
  6. Tumors abdominal organs Lymphoma
  7. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
  8. Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
  9. Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
  10. Acute Myelogenous Leukemia
  11. Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia
  12. Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia
  13. Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia
  14. Cancer of the lymph nodes: Angioimmunoblastic Lymphadenopathy
  15. Multiple Myeloma
  16. Myelodysplasia
  17. Breast Cancer
  18. Neuroblastoma
  19. Renal Cell Carcinoma
  20. Various Solid Tumors
  21. Soft Tissue Sarcoma
  22. Ewing’s Sarcoma
  23. Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia
  24. Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis
  25. POEMS syndrome
  26. Myelofibrosis
  27. Auto-Immune Diseases

  28. Diabetes Type I (Juvenile)
  29. Systemic Lupus
  30. Sjogren’s Syndrome
  31. Myasthenia
  32. Autoimmune Cytopenia
  33. Scleromyxedema
  34. Scleroderma
  35. Crohn’s Disease
  36. Behcet’s Disease
  37. Rheumatoid Arthritis
  38. Juvenile Arthritis
  39. Multiple Sclerosis
  40. Polychondritis
  41. Systemic Vasculitis
  42. Alopecia Universalis
  43. Buerger’s Disease
  44. Cardiovascular

  45. Acute Heart Damage
  46. Chronic Coronary Artery Disease
  47. Ocular

  48. Corneal regeneration
  49. Immunodeficiencies

  50. Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Syndrome
  51. X-linked Lymphoproliferative Syndrome
  52. X-linked Hyper immunoglobulin M Syndrome
  53. Neural Degenerative Diseases and Injuries

  54. Parkinson’s Disease
  55. Spinal Cord Injury
  56. Stroke Damage
  57. Anemias and Other Blood Conditions

  58. Sickle Cell Anemia
  59. Sideroblastic Anemia
  60. Aplastic Anemia
  61. Red Cell Aplasia
  62. Amegakaryocytic Thrombocytopenia
  63. Thalassemia
  64. Primary Amyloidosis
  65. Diamond Blackfan Anemia
  66. Fanconi’s Anemia
  67. Chronic Epstein-Barr Infection
  68. Wounds and Injuries

  69. Limb Gangrene
  70. Surface Wound Healing
  71. Jawbone Replacement
  72. Skull Bone Repair
  73. Other Metabolic Disorders

  74. Hurler’s Syndrome
  75. Osteogenesis Imperfecta
  76. Krabbe Leukodystrophy
  77. Osteopetrosis
  78. Cerebral X-Linked Adrenoleukodystrophy
  79. Liver Disease

  80. Chronic Liver Failure
  81. Liver Cirrhosis
  82. Bladder Disease

  83. End-Stage Bladder Disease 

 Conditions that can be treated with embryonic stem cells:

...

...

...

...

We're still waiting for ONE. 

There are Moral Issues Galore

Regarding Embryonic Stem Cell Research there are Moral Issues Galore. It is a topic full of competeing moral issues regarding denying reseach that could benifit those with serious Health Concerns. I just want to bring up an issue that is hardly mentioned but should be. If Embryonic Stem Cell thearapy is ever to work Human Cloning will have to be included. The reason that several treatments have been used with Adult Stem Cells is that there is no rejection by the body with those treatments because cells from ones own body are used in order to make whatever treatment is used.

The supposed advantage of Embryonic Stem Cells is that those cells have not been imprinted and can basically grow into whatever tissue is needed. This does not address the issue of rejection. Researchers know this. This is just the first step. In order to develope any successful Embryonic Stem Cell Treatment the Stem Cells must be Gentically Identical to the person being treated. This will require that the person being treated have an embryo that is genetically identical and the only way to accomplish this is Human Cloning.

If there is some other way they are going to accomplish this why don't they say so. The researchers are not being honest with us. They just hope that no one connects the dots. They hope that Cloning will be common place by the time this sticky issue needs to come up. We must question those researchers on this issue. Most people have an aversion to Human Cloning as they do not want to go down that path.

All I want is that all the facts are put on the table. If either side tries to misslead by leaving out crucial information it is a lie of ommission. That particular lie is the worst, as it is the hardest to find.

I don't disagree about the

I don't disagree about the morality.  I think ESCR is vile, and a natural abusive outgrowth of "science" freed from morality.

However, so many on the left bristle when you bring up morality - Gasp!  You can't talk about morals when my life is at stake!  Kill others to save meeeeee! that it's interesting to remove the moral aspect and ask them bluntly:

WHAT HAS ESCR ACCOMPLISHED?

We've been throwing money at ESCR for a while, with no viable or desirable cures or treatments being derived from the research.

Now, let's pretend that an experimental surgery was researched in order to "save" lives, except that the procedure either wasn't successful or killed the patient.  How long would it take for that experimental procedure to be verboten (and rightly so)?  Not very.

Yet we keep coming back to ESCR.

Which leads me to believe the motivation behind ESCR is not cures, but a coordinated effort to make the destruction of embryos "normal" and "acceptable" in order to deny the humanity of embroys and continue abortion.  Because, ultimately, both have the same purpose: the immoral destruction of one life (the embryo and unborn child) to save another life (be it from illness or from the responsibilities associated with parenthood).  Both are self-serving.

It's especially telling since other lines of stem cells that don't destroy embryos (adult, cord blood) are successful and hold a wealth of possibilities for treatments.  Why not put more money there rather than waste it on ESCR which is a failure?

Liberals aren't stupid in this.  You acknowledge ESCR is a failure and stop it, you give validity to the argument that it's wrong to destroy a developing human being.  They're terrified people might connect the dots.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

Human embryos as a

Human embryos as a commodity.

Does this not set off screeching alarm bells???????

I guess eugenics is OK if the "right" people are doing it for the "right" reasons?

 

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson

  Besides being all the

  Besides being all the things we know Obama is (underqualified, low-class, communistic, etc) it seems that he is going out of his way to place himself in the category of "evil" whenever good and evil are on the table.  This is just one more time where he comes in for HIS master, and I think we all know who that is...

 

Father of lies

Father of lies ring a bell?

 Jesus Loves You

Didn't The Nazis Free Science From Ethics?

The persuit of knowledge that destroyes life is no virtue.  How many other evil actions can and have been justified when science is freed from ethics and religious sensibilities?  The Nazis come to mind when they did experiments on Jews. 

BlueCollarTodd

  Have you ever been to the Holocaust Museum in DC?  I went with my family several years ago, and one of the rooms had a video that wasn't allowed to be viewed by children (for obvious reasons) that showed the "experiments" they did on the Jewish children.  I had nightmares for weeks after seeing that.  It is so frightning that the world is refusing to learn from history and so seem destined to repeat it.

sheryl

Your post gave me shivers. 

I had a wonderful friend (she passed last July) who lived with her Army Officer husband in Germany for about six years.  One Christmas, they went to Dachau (don't ask me why).  It was deserted....spookiest damned video I have ever seen in my life.

So both your & BCTodd's point is very, very well made.

 

I hope he fails, too.

 

 

The NAZIs were the first

To recognize how science could be perverted, bent and twisted to help the state control the people.The current global warming hoax the perfect example of that -- Bring about energy taxes and energy rationing, to save the earth.

Might want to remember what  Vladimir Lenin said … A couple of his more famous quotes:

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." -- Vladimir Lenin 

“Fascism is capitalism in decay.” –  Vladimir Lenin

“The goal of socialism is communism.” –  Vladimir Lenin

My favorite Marx quote:

"The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism." -- Karl Marx

Not the first. The

Not the first.

The Anarchists of the 19th Century were no better.  Nor were the Radical Republicans of Revolutionary France.  The only things that mitigated their villainy were the former failed to gain control of a state and the latter lacked sophisticated means to exterminate their enemies, being limited to one beheading at a time.  You do have to admit the French Radicals had a flair for the dramatic, conducting their murders as a public spectacle.

Why waste a perfectly good

Why waste a perfectly good baby?

Don't throw it in the garbage can, cut it up and use it for research. The baby won't sue.

Heil Present Obama.

Jesus Loves You

What science?

Can someone please tell me which science was ignored for politics?

  1. Global warming? Proven to be a hoax.
  2. Embryonic stem cells? Don't work.
  3. Plan B? Approved for OTC use by FDA last August. 

#1 and #2 are the science that are being ignored for political reasons, and it is by the leftists!

Yucca Mtn.

As well as the global warming con as some have pointed out, our Liar-in-Chief has also cut funding for Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage. I guess that the million-years-safe target that the facility can now meet isn't good enough for our asshat-in-chief.

Stem cells from embyo's now funded by me!?!

I read a few news site posts on this subject this morning...

I can't explain without using explatives how I feel about having my provided tax money thrown at something like this.

I'm hoping someone can please help me. - I need a link to all the great things the government has helped through taxpayer funded research...

 PS: I will not be holding my breath. 

A man should be upright, not be kept upright - Marcus Aurelius

It was either Hannity or

It was either Hannity or Levin that played a soundbite last week, but I believe harry reid said that our taxpayer system is completely voluntary!  I'm going to not pay my taxes this year and tell the irs that I didn't pay because I don't approve of how they are spending my money.  If they are going to cut military funding by 10% AND kill innocent beings for research proven to fail, then I'll find something better to spend my money on.

 

obama's notion of bi-partisanship is telling conservatives to shut up and do what he wants.

Now don't you worry about

Now don't you worry about the $$$.  We are just bursting at the seams with money to blow on human experimentation!

 

And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall.   -- Edgar Allan Poe

I repeat from an earlier

I repeat from an earlier post.  There has never been anything cured from embryonic stem cells. 

More to the point, if this was such a sure fired cure all, why isn't private industry flocking to undertake all of the cost associated with it?  Surely, if it were the be all to end all, there would be stockholders chomping at the bit to get at it. It isn't and there isn't. Why?  Because only the government is concerned with killing babies.  They do it for a living.  They are the only one who get's away with it.

Lest we forget, it is Obamas ideology that brought forth the legal sanctions for killing babies.  It is his ideology that brought forth eugenics.  His is the ideology of assisted suicide.  Unless you are a young fit adult, with no obvious diseases, Obama's ideology does not want you seen or around to be a "burden" on society.  You see, in Obama's ideology, society is all that matters.  There is no room for this individuality crap.  I'll bet they'd like to get their hands on Trigg Palin, the sick bastards.  

This is just the beginning.  How much more? 

"Shield science from

"Shield science from politics", Just another way of saying that he’s avoiding politics with this executive order. “which some consider to be immoral”, only the unscrupulous would consider it “moral.” I read somewhere that stem cells even caused problems when they were used. Is this medical science that we even should be pursuing, or will it cause more problems, even without considering the moral considerations?  Will we find that this was a wrong road to go down in the first place?

Obama wants us to keep up with other countries

How well is their nationally funded embryonic stem cell research going?

An interesting column on

An interesting column on why ESCR is obsolete.  Some tidbits:

Even for strong backers of embryonic stem cell research, the decision is no longer as self-evident as it was, because there is markedly diminished need for expanding these cell lines for either patient therapy or basic research. In fact, during the first six weeks of Obama's term, several events reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells, once thought to hold the cure for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and diabetes, are obsolete. The most sobering: a report from Israel published in PLoS Medicine in late February that shows embryonic stem cells injected into patients can cause disabling if not deadly tumors.

The report describes a young boy with a fatal neuromuscular disease called ataxia telangiectasia, who was treated with embryonic stem cells. Within four years, he developed headaches and was found to have multiple tumors in his brain and spinal cord that genetically matched the female embryos used in his therapy.

...

Even as the future of embryonic stem cells has dimmed, adult stem cell research has scored major wins evident just in the past few months. These advances involve human stem cells that are not derived from human embryos. In fact, adult stem cells, which occur in small quantities in organs throughout the body for natural growth and repair, have become stars despite great skepticism early on. Though this is a more difficult task, scientists have learned to coax them to mature into many cell types, like brain and heart cells, in the laboratory. (Such stem cells can be removed almost as easily as drawing a unit of blood, and they have been used successfully for years in bone marrow transplants.)

To date, most of the stem cell triumphs that the public hears about involve the infusion of adult stem cells. We've just recently seen separate research reports of patients with spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis benefiting from adult stem cell therapy. These cells have the advantage of being the patient's natural own, and the worst they seem to do after infusion is die off without bringing the hoped-for benefit. They do not have the awesome but dangerous quality of eternal life characteristic of embryonic stem cells.

A second kind of stem cell that has triumphed is an entirely new creation called iPS (short for induced pluripotent stem cell), a blockbuster discovery made in late 2007. These cells are created by reprogramming DNA from adult skin. The iPS cells are embryonic-like in that they can turn into any cell in the body—and so bypass the need for embryos or eggs. In late February, scientists reported on iPS cells that had been transformed into mature nerve cells. While these cells might become a choice for patient therapy in time, scientists are playing this down for now. Why? These embryonic-like cells also come with the risk of cancer.

...

The ban Bush became famous for restricted the use of federal research dollars just to adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells already in existence at the time of his executive order. Lifting this ban so that researchers can use frozen embryos that would otherwise be discarded—they've been donated by couples who have had in vitro fertilization treatments—has drawn wide and bipartisan support from Congress. It's an easy lift.

The more ethically charged decision—less understood by the public and one Congress has avoided—involves the ban on creating human embryos in the laboratory solely for research purposes. In fact, President Clinton is the one who balked at allowing scientists to use government money for embryo creation and research on stem cells harvested from such embryos; Bush only affirmed the Clinton ban. The scientific community has been able to attract nonfederal money for such work, and it is going on all the time in stem cell institutes. Scientists want relief from the inconvenience and expense of keeping that work and the money that supports it separate from federal dollars.

Reversing the executive orders of two prior presidents on embryo creation, which even the Congress has been unwilling to tackle, is a far bigger issue than lifting the ban on the use of IVF embryos slated for destruction. Obama stands for transparency, and it's important for him to make sure the public understands his decision, including that all stem cells are not the same or created equally.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/heart-to-heart/2009/03/04/why-embryonic-stem-cells-are-obsolete.html

So, once again, this has little to do with "science" and everything to do with politics.  ESCR is fast approaching dead-science status, yet Obama's going to encourage it.

The body count keeps rising.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

That f***ing idiot obama

That f***ing idiot obama and his minions have absolutely no idea what the hell they are doing.  I hope you jacka** trolls are happy. 

Affirmative action at it's best here folks.  No skills other than talk real purdy, not sure if you're even a natural-born citizen, etc.  No matter!  You're of the right color! And a communist liberal too??  Wow this is historic!

I've said it before and it needs repeating:

F*** obama and the horse he rode in on.  F*** congressional democrats and RINOs too.

 

obama's notion of bi-partisanship is telling conservatives to shut up and do what he wants.

An interesting column on

An interesting column on why ESCR is obsolete.  Some tidbits:

Even for strong backers of embryonic stem cell research, the decision is no longer as self-evident as it was, because there is markedly diminished need for expanding these cell lines for either patient therapy or basic research. In fact, during the first six weeks of Obama's term, several events reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells, once thought to hold the cure for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and diabetes, are obsolete. The most sobering: a report from Israel published in PLoS Medicine in late February that shows embryonic stem cells injected into patients can cause disabling if not deadly tumors.

The report describes a young boy with a fatal neuromuscular disease called ataxia telangiectasia, who was treated with embryonic stem cells. Within four years, he developed headaches and was found to have multiple tumors in his brain and spinal cord that genetically matched the female embryos used in his therapy.

...

Even as the future of embryonic stem cells has dimmed, adult stem cell research has scored major wins evident just in the past few months. These advances involve human stem cells that are not derived from human embryos. In fact, adult stem cells, which occur in small quantities in organs throughout the body for natural growth and repair, have become stars despite great skepticism early on. Though this is a more difficult task, scientists have learned to coax them to mature into many cell types, like brain and heart cells, in the laboratory. (Such stem cells can be removed almost as easily as drawing a unit of blood, and they have been used successfully for years in bone marrow transplants.)

To date, most of the stem cell triumphs that the public hears about involve the infusion of adult stem cells. We've just recently seen separate research reports of patients with spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis benefiting from adult stem cell therapy. These cells have the advantage of being the patient's natural own, and the worst they seem to do after infusion is die off without bringing the hoped-for benefit. They do not have the awesome but dangerous quality of eternal life characteristic of embryonic stem cells.

A second kind of stem cell that has triumphed is an entirely new creation called iPS (short for induced pluripotent stem cell), a blockbuster discovery made in late 2007. These cells are created by reprogramming DNA from adult skin. The iPS cells are embryonic-like in that they can turn into any cell in the body—and so bypass the need for embryos or eggs. In late February, scientists reported on iPS cells that had been transformed into mature nerve cells. While these cells might become a choice for patient therapy in time, scientists are playing this down for now. Why? These embryonic-like cells also come with the risk of cancer.

...

The ban Bush became famous for restricted the use of federal research dollars just to adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells already in existence at the time of his executive order. Lifting this ban so that researchers can use frozen embryos that would otherwise be discarded—they've been donated by couples who have had in vitro fertilization treatments—has drawn wide and bipartisan support from Congress. It's an easy lift.

The more ethically charged decision—less understood by the public and one Congress has avoided—involves the ban on creating human embryos in the laboratory solely for research purposes. In fact, President Clinton is the one who balked at allowing scientists to use government money for embryo creation and research on stem cells harvested from such embryos; Bush only affirmed the Clinton ban. The scientific community has been able to attract nonfederal money for such work, and it is going on all the time in stem cell institutes. Scientists want relief from the inconvenience and expense of keeping that work and the money that supports it separate from federal dollars.

Reversing the executive orders of two prior presidents on embryo creation, which even the Congress has been unwilling to tackle, is a far bigger issue than lifting the ban on the use of IVF embryos slated for destruction. Obama stands for transparency, and it's important for him to make sure the public understands his decision, including that all stem cells are not the same or created equally.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/heart-to-heart/2009/03/04/why-embryonic-stem-cells-are-obsolete.html

So, once again, this has little to do with "science" and everything to do with politics.  ESCR is fast approaching dead-science status, yet Obama's going to encourage it.

The body count keeps rising.  How long before other people deemed unnecessary by Obama are imprisoned and their organs harvested for the "greater good"?

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

An interesting column on

An interesting column on why ESCR is obsolete.  Some tidbits:

Even for strong backers of embryonic stem cell research, the decision is no longer as self-evident as it was, because there is markedly diminished need for expanding these cell lines for either patient therapy or basic research. In fact, during the first six weeks of Obama's term, several events reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells, once thought to hold the cure for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and diabetes, are obsolete. The most sobering: a report from Israel published in PLoS Medicine in late February that shows embryonic stem cells injected into patients can cause disabling if not deadly tumors.

The report describes a young boy with a fatal neuromuscular disease called ataxia telangiectasia, who was treated with embryonic stem cells. Within four years, he developed headaches and was found to have multiple tumors in his brain and spinal cord that genetically matched the female embryos used in his therapy.

...

Even as the future of embryonic stem cells has dimmed, adult stem cell research has scored major wins evident just in the past few months. These advances involve human stem cells that are not derived from human embryos. In fact, adult stem cells, which occur in small quantities in organs throughout the body for natural growth and repair, have become stars despite great skepticism early on. Though this is a more difficult task, scientists have learned to coax them to mature into many cell types, like brain and heart cells, in the laboratory. (Such stem cells can be removed almost as easily as drawing a unit of blood, and they have been used successfully for years in bone marrow transplants.)

To date, most of the stem cell triumphs that the public hears about involve the infusion of adult stem cells. We've just recently seen separate research reports of patients with spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis benefiting from adult stem cell therapy. These cells have the advantage of being the patient's natural own, and the worst they seem to do after infusion is die off without bringing the hoped-for benefit. They do not have the awesome but dangerous quality of eternal life characteristic of embryonic stem cells.

A second kind of stem cell that has triumphed is an entirely new creation called iPS (short for induced pluripotent stem cell), a blockbuster discovery made in late 2007. These cells are created by reprogramming DNA from adult skin. The iPS cells are embryonic-like in that they can turn into any cell in the body—and so bypass the need for embryos or eggs. In late February, scientists reported on iPS cells that had been transformed into mature nerve cells. While these cells might become a choice for patient therapy in time, scientists are playing this down for now. Why? These embryonic-like cells also come with the risk of cancer.

...

The ban Bush became famous for restricted the use of federal research dollars just to adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells already in existence at the time of his executive order. Lifting this ban so that researchers can use frozen embryos that would otherwise be discarded—they've been donated by couples who have had in vitro fertilization treatments—has drawn wide and bipartisan support from Congress. It's an easy lift.

The more ethically charged decision—less understood by the public and one Congress has avoided—involves the ban on creating human embryos in the laboratory solely for research purposes. In fact, President Clinton is the one who balked at allowing scientists to use government money for embryo creation and research on stem cells harvested from such embryos; Bush only affirmed the Clinton ban. The scientific community has been able to attract nonfederal money for such work, and it is going on all the time in stem cell institutes. Scientists want relief from the inconvenience and expense of keeping that work and the money that supports it separate from federal dollars.

Reversing the executive orders of two prior presidents on embryo creation, which even the Congress has been unwilling to tackle, is a far bigger issue than lifting the ban on the use of IVF embryos slated for destruction. Obama stands for transparency, and it's important for him to make sure the public understands his decision, including that all stem cells are not the same or created equally.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/heart-to-heart/2009/03/04/why-embryonic-stem-cells-are-obsolete.html

So, once again, this has little to do with "science" and everything to do with politics.  ESCR is fast approaching dead-science status, yet Obama's going to encourage it.

The body count keeps rising.  How long before other people deemed unnecessary by Obama are imprisoned and their organs harvested for the "greater good"?

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

An interesting column on

An interesting column on why ESCR is obsolete.  Some tidbits:

Even for strong backers of embryonic stem cell research, the decision is no longer as self-evident as it was, because there is markedly diminished need for expanding these cell lines for either patient therapy or basic research. In fact, during the first six weeks of Obama's term, several events reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells, once thought to hold the cure for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and diabetes, are obsolete. The most sobering: a report from Israel published in PLoS Medicine in late February that shows embryonic stem cells injected into patients can cause disabling if not deadly tumors.

The report describes a young boy with a fatal neuromuscular disease called ataxia telangiectasia, who was treated with embryonic stem cells. Within four years, he developed headaches and was found to have multiple tumors in his brain and spinal cord that genetically matched the female embryos used in his therapy.

...

Even as the future of embryonic stem cells has dimmed, adult stem cell research has scored major wins evident just in the past few months. These advances involve human stem cells that are not derived from human embryos. In fact, adult stem cells, which occur in small quantities in organs throughout the body for natural growth and repair, have become stars despite great skepticism early on. Though this is a more difficult task, scientists have learned to coax them to mature into many cell types, like brain and heart cells, in the laboratory. (Such stem cells can be removed almost as easily as drawing a unit of blood, and they have been used successfully for years in bone marrow transplants.)

To date, most of the stem cell triumphs that the public hears about involve the infusion of adult stem cells. We've just recently seen separate research reports of patients with spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis benefiting from adult stem cell therapy. These cells have the advantage of being the patient's natural own, and the worst they seem to do after infusion is die off without bringing the hoped-for benefit. They do not have the awesome but dangerous quality of eternal life characteristic of embryonic stem cells.

A second kind of stem cell that has triumphed is an entirely new creation called iPS (short for induced pluripotent stem cell), a blockbuster discovery made in late 2007. These cells are created by reprogramming DNA from adult skin. The iPS cells are embryonic-like in that they can turn into any cell in the body—and so bypass the need for embryos or eggs. In late February, scientists reported on iPS cells that had been transformed into mature nerve cells. While these cells might become a choice for patient therapy in time, scientists are playing this down for now. Why? These embryonic-like cells also come with the risk of cancer.

...

The ban Bush became famous for restricted the use of federal research dollars just to adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells already in existence at the time of his executive order. Lifting this ban so that researchers can use frozen embryos that would otherwise be discarded—they've been donated by couples who have had in vitro fertilization treatments—has drawn wide and bipartisan support from Congress. It's an easy lift.

The more ethically charged decision—less understood by the public and one Congress has avoided—involves the ban on creating human embryos in the laboratory solely for research purposes. In fact, President Clinton is the one who balked at allowing scientists to use government money for embryo creation and research on stem cells harvested from such embryos; Bush only affirmed the Clinton ban. The scientific community has been able to attract nonfederal money for such work, and it is going on all the time in stem cell institutes. Scientists want relief from the inconvenience and expense of keeping that work and the money that supports it separate from federal dollars.

Reversing the executive orders of two prior presidents on embryo creation, which even the Congress has been unwilling to tackle, is a far bigger issue than lifting the ban on the use of IVF embryos slated for destruction. Obama stands for transparency, and it's important for him to make sure the public understands his decision, including that all stem cells are not the same or created equally.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/heart-to-heart/2009/03/04/why-embryonic-stem-cells-are-obsolete.html

So, once again, this has little to do with "science" and everything to do with politics.  ESCR is fast approaching dead-science status, yet Obama's going to encourage it.

The body count keeps rising.  How long before other people deemed unnecessary by Obama are imprisoned and their organs harvested for the "greater good"?

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

An interesting column on

An interesting column on why ESCR is obsolete.  Some tidbits:

Even for strong backers of embryonic stem cell research, the decision is no longer as self-evident as it was, because there is markedly diminished need for expanding these cell lines for either patient therapy or basic research. In fact, during the first six weeks of Obama's term, several events reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells, once thought to hold the cure for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and diabetes, are obsolete. The most sobering: a report from Israel published in PLoS Medicine in late February that shows embryonic stem cells injected into patients can cause disabling if not deadly tumors.

The report describes a young boy with a fatal neuromuscular disease called ataxia telangiectasia, who was treated with embryonic stem cells. Within four years, he developed headaches and was found to have multiple tumors in his brain and spinal cord that genetically matched the female embryos used in his therapy.

...

Even as the future of embryonic stem cells has dimmed, adult stem cell research has scored major wins evident just in the past few months. These advances involve human stem cells that are not derived from human embryos. In fact, adult stem cells, which occur in small quantities in organs throughout the body for natural growth and repair, have become stars despite great skepticism early on. Though this is a more difficult task, scientists have learned to coax them to mature into many cell types, like brain and heart cells, in the laboratory. (Such stem cells can be removed almost as easily as drawing a unit of blood, and they have been used successfully for years in bone marrow transplants.)

To date, most of the stem cell triumphs that the public hears about involve the infusion of adult stem cells. We've just recently seen separate research reports of patients with spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis benefiting from adult stem cell therapy. These cells have the advantage of being the patient's natural own, and the worst they seem to do after infusion is die off without bringing the hoped-for benefit. They do not have the awesome but dangerous quality of eternal life characteristic of embryonic stem cells.

A second kind of stem cell that has triumphed is an entirely new creation called iPS (short for induced pluripotent stem cell), a blockbuster discovery made in late 2007. These cells are created by reprogramming DNA from adult skin. The iPS cells are embryonic-like in that they can turn into any cell in the body—and so bypass the need for embryos or eggs. In late February, scientists reported on iPS cells that had been transformed into mature nerve cells. While these cells might become a choice for patient therapy in time, scientists are playing this down for now. Why? These embryonic-like cells also come with the risk of cancer.

...

The ban Bush became famous for restricted the use of federal research dollars just to adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells already in existence at the time of his executive order. Lifting this ban so that researchers can use frozen embryos that would otherwise be discarded—they've been donated by couples who have had in vitro fertilization treatments—has drawn wide and bipartisan support from Congress. It's an easy lift.

The more ethically charged decision—less understood by the public and one Congress has avoided—involves the ban on creating human embryos in the laboratory solely for research purposes. In fact, President Clinton is the one who balked at allowing scientists to use government money for embryo creation and research on stem cells harvested from such embryos; Bush only affirmed the Clinton ban. The scientific community has been able to attract nonfederal money for such work, and it is going on all the time in stem cell institutes. Scientists want relief from the inconvenience and expense of keeping that work and the money that supports it separate from federal dollars.

Reversing the executive orders of two prior presidents on embryo creation, which even the Congress has been unwilling to tackle, is a far bigger issue than lifting the ban on the use of IVF embryos slated for destruction. Obama stands for transparency, and it's important for him to make sure the public understands his decision, including that all stem cells are not the same or created equally.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/heart-to-heart/2009/03/04/why-embryonic-stem-cells-are-obsolete.html

So, once again, this has little to do with "science" and everything to do with politics.  ESCR is fast approaching dead-science status, yet Obama's going to encourage it.

The body count keeps rising.  How long before other people deemed unnecessary by Obama are imprisoned and their organs harvested for the "greater good"?

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

I'm in favor of stem cell

I'm in favor of stem cell research: ADULT stem cell research. Those are the only stem cells that have given any results. There have been no positive results from embryonic stem cells as of yet.

The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy

"The official Obama view

"The official Obama view dominated, including the first paragraph"

I don't know about anybody else here, but this statement leaves me unsettled.  When only one "Official State" ideology is promulgated via mass media, well, you fill in the dots....

 

And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall.   -- Edgar Allan Poe

No Science To It

This issue is very simple, cut&dried.

 The embryonic stem cell issue has nothing to do with "science". It is about money, political power and control of the masses. Period.

Bush banned nothing but public funding. The propaganda machine of the Left made twisted it into what most of the cattle in this country perceive it as today.

This is no different than the global warming hoax; A money grab and a campaign for a beehive society.