Obama decision on stem cells cheers scientists

cecilia

Active Member
Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
7,598
Reaction score
2,544
By SETH BORENSTEIN and BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's decision to lift the contentious Bush-era restraints on stem-cell research came with a larger message for all scientists: Follow the data, not political ideology.

"Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values," Obama declared as he signed documents changing U.S. science policy and removing what some researchers have said were shackles on their work.

"It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology," Obama said.

Researchers said the new president's message was clear: Science, which once propelled men to the moon, again matters in American life...

...In a crowded East Room, there were more scientists in the White House than Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, had seen in his 30 years in Washington. "More happy scientists than I've seen," he added.....

....Scientists focused on a new sense of freedom.

"I think patients everywhere will be cheering us on, imploring us to work faster, harder and with all of our ability to find new treatments," said Harvard Stem Cell Institute co-director Doug Melton, father of two children with Type I diabetes who could possibly be treated with stem cells. "On a personal level, it is an enormous relief and a time for celebration. ... Science thrives when there is an open and collaborative exchange, not when there are artificial barriers, silos, constructed by the government."...

..human reproduction." Such cloning, he said, "is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society or any society."

In addition to the stem cell order, Obama issued a memo designed to ensure openness about scientific research and give whistle-blower protection to scientists.

Promoting science "is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient — especially when it's inconvenient," Obama said.

Many scientists and environmental activists complained that the Bush administration had censored and marginalized science. That's a perception that Bush science adviser John Marburger repeatedly called untrue and unfair.

In 2006, the White House edited out congressional testimony about public health effects of global warming by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Julie Gerberding. A 2003 EPA global warming document was edited by nonscientists at the White House. A NASA political appointee tried — and failed — to silence the agency's top climate scientist.

When Surgeon General Richard Carmona resigned in 2006, he complained about White House interference on global health issues. "The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds," he said.

Obama advisers contend that all has changed. The government has already put on hold rules about scientific input on endangered species, reinstating advice that had been excised during the Bush administration.

Public policy must "be guided by sound scientific advice," said Dr. Harold Varmus, the Nobel Prize-winning co-chairman of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. The memo Obama signed is "mainly a way of trying to prevent tampering with any advice," Varmus told MSNBC.
 
It's like coming out of the Dark Ages into a new Renaissance.
 
Glaucus said:
It's like coming out of the Dark Ages into a new Renaissance.
Good question IMO is will the scientists return? The notable one's in the US doing this work moved to the UK and other countries. Will they want to move back?
 
faethor said:
Glaucus said:
It's like coming out of the Dark Ages into a new Renaissance.
Good question IMO is will the scientists return? The notable one's in the US doing this work moved to the UK and other countries. Will they want to move back?
Good question. I was kinda hoping for Canada to take the lead there, but we probably couldn't spend the same kinda cash the UK could.
 
I remember hearing about a few alternatives to embryonic stem-cells, some of which appeared more promising than stem-cells.

Hopefully research on these won't be forgotten about because scientists now have a new toy they're allowed to play with.
 
Some of you love to push the myth that people opposed to stem cell research are anti-science. I doubt many people are against it outright, what people oppose is where some of the stem cell come from.

I'm not against stem cell research, but I have issues with where some of them are harvested from. We all know what I am talking about, but if I mention it there will be lots of yelling and screaming and Wayne will claim I am the pope :shock:
 
Umbilical cords are very rich in stem cells, so I can't see any problem with that.
 
redrumloa said:
I'm not against stem cell research, but I have issues with where some of them are harvested from.

There's a little wrinkle in the moral fabric of stem cell research. If we can obtain pluripotent cells from the human body other than the ultimate pluripotent cell, the zygote, then we are verging on cloning. If we can clone from a pluripotent cell then such cells are potential people. If we can reset any cell to pluripotency then ALL cells are potential people - therefore all people who shed skin cells at about the rate of 30,000 a minute are mass murderers.
 
I dunno. I was under the impression no one cared about stem cell research from strains that came from umbilical cords, but rather ones taken from aborted fetuses. Supposedly stem cells are better from aborted fetuses? I can't see objections to umbilical cords.

Cloning? Stem cells are a far cry from cloning.
 
No idea, actually. I was under the impression that most stem cells mostly came from umbilical cords or from day-old embryos, and that it's the Bible-bashers on your side of the pond that belives that everything even closely related to it was sinful. So much for unbiased EU media. :roll:
 
redrumloa said:
I'm not against stem cell research, but I have issues with where some of them are harvested from. We all know what I am talking about, but if I mention it there will be lots of yelling and screaming and Wayne will claim I am the pope :shock:
Some stem cells come from zygotes. I support the free selection of the owners of this material, aka parents, to choose to throw the unwanted zygotes in the incerator (nearly 100%), store forever + then some (unlikely), or possibly enhance others.

If you are morally opposed to stem cells you are also free to live by your morals. When you arrive at a medical condition which stem cells related therapy or treatment is an option, then simply reject the treatment.

And no Red stem cells do not come from aborted fetuses. Instead they are zygotes which are never implanted and therefore cannot be aborted nor can grow to be a fetus.
 
Back
Top