We've been through this once before, and my original post is repeated below. However, this time I specifically would ask you to think about the fact that studying embryonic stems cells is about more than curing diseases. There are fundamental developmental processes we would never understand if we do not study them. Furthermore, adult stem cells have as much capacity to become a person as embryonic stem cells, and it is no more or less wrong to use them.

My original post from the judge's first ruling:

I'm sorry, but as a grad student in molecular bio I have to tell you that is not factual. Neither (adult stem cells or embryonic) has been proven effective at anything yet. And yes, IPS (induced pluripotent stem) cells have been created from adult somatic cells and that avenue should be thoroughly and completely explored. However, it would be cruel of me to say that either method has yet created any cures to diseases and that you should put your hope into them in the near future. The truth of the matter is that we need to press forward on both fronts because we don't understand the basic biology behind what we observe.

For example, IPS cells are completely man-made (not found in humans during their normal life). As a result, they exhibit peculiar traits not native to any normal cell type, and they are therefore not a good representation for studying and understanding human developmental potential. Only human embryonic stem cells offer a good model in which to actually ask the fundamental questions of human development. Furthermore, I would like to remind you that nearly every animal model treated with IPS cells (with positive outcomes - which is only a fraction to start with) end up with some form of cancer because of the transcription factor c-myc used to create them. Even newer lines without c-myc cause many cancer cases in lab animals. Please trust me when I tell you that you would not want to be treated with them.

I'm not saying embryonic cells are the only way to go.....but they must be studied in parallel before any of us can say with confidence we know what we are doing. It's not a matter of us advancing in technology enough to make new medicines, rather, it's a matter of us understanding the basic biology of the embryo which we cannot do without observing it.

I've pondered this issue a lot over the years. I think I've ultimately chosen my place on the debate as this- I don't care how much private money is used to study any form of stem cells. The potential is HUGE and this is a benefit to life as we know it. Federal funding for adult stem cells and for donated embryonic stem cells doesn't bother me in the least. If a couple decides not to use embryos created for IVF and decides to donate them for research, more power to them. It's a very personal decision that I have no right to involve myself in.

Where I get hung up is the idea of federal dollars used to create embryos specifically for research. I have moral and ethical issues with the idea of paying someone to go through the necessary steps to harvest eggs specifically for research purposes.

Hey Grad Student. I've been studying the research progress and treatments under development worldwide for adult stem cell therapies for years. Reason being is my sister was a paraplegic (legs) for 7 years due to a auto accident back in HS. I say 'was', because she traveled to Denmark 3 years ago for an experimental adult stem cell transplant from the tip of her nose to be used to regrow cells for her spine (yes, not explained in medical jargon but I am one of the lucky few to still be employed and have no time for details as my break is about over). 2 years later and she's walking with canes and still quite a limp on her right side...but WALKING. Not a unexplained miracle or new pill, but 100% due to the new cells grown from her own adult stem cells. There are many, many other successes that have taken place, most from around the world as our country is slow to approve experimental surgeries as I'm sure you are aware of.

Point being, please don't talk in such know-it-all generalities and make such blanket statements that "Neither (adult stem cells or embryonic) has been proven effective at anything yet." You are 100% wrong. I hope between now and when you graduate from med school you'll learn to talk in more appropriate tones and use more cautious language. Don't state your opinions as fact. Fact is, Adult Stem cell research and therapies are helping numerous aliments and afflictions - again, not on a massive scale but one person at a time. But it does work.

One kudo, I do know the UC is one hell of a medial school as my bother went through there 10 years ago and now has his own Orthopedic practice. So Good luck.

I'm sorry, but as a grad student in molecular bio I have to tell you that is not factual. Neither (adult stem cells or embryonic) has been proven effective at anything yet.

Please read the links. You are incorrect. They have been proven effective of many things.

The study of the "developmental process" does not lead to any new discoveries. In fact, so much is known now about the developmental process that sacrificing embryoes for study is frivolous and unnecessary. Curiosity is not an excuse for destructive experimentation on embryos.

The US spends more money on embryonic stem cell research than any other country in the world. California by itself has already obligated more than $200 million to hESC research, making it the largest hESC funder in the world. Yet what has all that money accomplished?

Nothing. No hESC has ever blossomed into any cure.

Contrast that to what I posted above. :)

jwhite - your view is typical of people with little scientific training or knowledge:

"The study of the "developmental process" does not lead to any new discoveries. In fact, so much is known now about the developmental process that sacrificing embryoes for study is frivolous and unnecessary. Curiosity is not an excuse for destructive experimentation on embryos."

There is actually a lot we do not know about the developmental process - what signals cause stem or pluripotent cells to differentiate into specific functional mature cell types, what signals cause them to migrate or to undergo programmed cell death, and how all of the different molecular signals converging on a cell at a given time are integrated and interpreted properly, etc..., and understanding how these processes work has far-reaching implications for medical science and future therapies - everything from developing cancer therapies to treating premature babies with underdeveloped lungs, to regenerating organs when they fail - the implications are too numerous to mention. Understanding the developmental process is a lot more involved than having a collection of pictures of embryos at different stages and saying you get how it all works.

I truly wish it was a requirement for every student to have to take a course in basic research before they could graduate high school - it would elevate the level of discussion on these topics in this country.

Religious views should not curtail our research ventures unless agreed upon ethical standards are met. No one is creating embryoes to do research. Those destined for disposal are donated for research. There is not much difference with that practice and organ or body donations.

If not for research, we all would die sooner and more often.

what signals cause stem or pluripotent cells to differentiate into specific functional mature cell types, what signals cause them to migrate or to undergo programmed cell death, and how all of the different molecular signals converging on a cell at a given time are integrated and interpreted properly, etc..., a

And that's all well and good, but you don't have to sacrifice human embryos to do that. You can just as easily study these same phenomena using say... rat embryos.

the implications are too numerous to mention.

Then I won't bother asking you to be more specific. :)

No one is creating embryoes to do research.

Not yet. Then again, I don't hear anyone willing to put restrictions on where the embryos destined for research come from either.

Is there anyone here willing to restrict human embryonic research at all? If so, what restrictions should be put on it?

jwhite - in case you hadn't noticed, there is a bit of a difference between a human and a rat. Shockingly enough, many of the things we learn about mouse or rat cells don't hold up in humans because, gee whiz, they are different. We have been curing mice of cancer for years but golly gee willickers, when we try those same therapies in humans, we don't get the exact same results. What may have been a cure in the mouse may at best delay tumor progression in people, and at worst, may demonstrate a completely unexpected serious toxicity.

As for the too numerous implications, I did provide a few specific examples, but I don't have time to spend all day coming up with every possible application.

As for restrictions, I think restrictions that prevent the creation of embryos specifically for research would be reasonable, while allowing embryos created through IVF, unwanted and sitting in freezers, to be donated for research. BTW, would you be in favor of throwing parents in jail who conceive a child for spare parts for one of their already born children who is sick? Or even those who push a minor into undergoing an invasive procedure to donate a part to a sibling (assuming the donator is too young to understand what they are doing)? Because to me that is morally reprehensible, but most evangelical rightwingers would go right along with that.

in case you hadn't noticed, there is a bit of a difference between a human and a rat.

Using humans as lab rats appears now to be perfectly acceptable. So, I'm having a hard time distinguishing the two, you'll have to excuse me.

We have been curing mice of cancer for years...

Please don't confuse what I was referring to. I was responding to this...

...studying embryonic stems cells is about more than curing diseases. There are fundamental developmental processes we would never understand if we do not study them.

what signals cause stem or pluripotent cells to differentiate into specific functional mature cell types, what signals cause them to migrate or to undergo programmed cell death, and how all of the different molecular signals converging on a cell at a given time are integrated and interpreted properly, etc..

What causes cells to differentiate, migrate, and die and what signals them to do so, does not need to be studied in embryos from people. That is NON-medical research.

And if you notice, cancer has been cured with adult stem cells for decades. A scientist grew a human bone with adult stem cells. Using a fetus's own tissues and stem cells from the umbilical cord (procedures which have no ethical implications) are being studied to see if they can help children with birth defects. Why not go that route? Maybe people should be fighting to further develop that route, as it is already been proven effective. Please see my above post.

BTW, would you be in favor of throwing parents in jail who conceive a child for spare parts [...]?Or even those who push a minor into undergoing an invasive procedure to donate a part[...](assuming the donator is too young to understand what they are doing)?

I think it's already clear that I'm not for embryonic stem cell research.

Bottom line: Try to tell a university professor he can't use something for research and it will suddenly be the answer to every disease under the sun. They have had very little success with doing anything with embryomic stem cells. Almost all research discoveries have been made with adult stem cells. But there is one possibility, I have heard they have made great inroads in curing liberalism. Nothing adult will work, got to use the little baby cells. I hear the baby cells can relate better.

UofC Student:

Only human embryonic stem cells offer a good model in which to actually ask the fundamental questions of human development.

Only newborn babes, free of any human contact, offer a good model in which to actually ask the fundamental questions of psychological development. That has been recognized since before even Freud. It's still illegal to do the kind of horrific, personality-destroying experiments on them that we'd need to do to really understand human psychological development. In fact, the entire idea, collectively, is called the Forbidden Experiment. Things like raising a child in complete isolation from any human language to see if any 'natural language' develops, of raising a child in complete isolation from any human contact to see what aspects are truly instinctual and what are socialized (i.e learned behaviors), and worse. Just because it's the only way to learn something doesn't mean we should do it. There are some experiments that just shouldn't be done. Both the psychological and medical community have known this for centuries (Nazi Germany being a horrific exception), but it seems the molecular biologists still need to figure it out.

CELLULAR DEVELOPMENT, not psychological development...

What do you think this article is about?

wow.

Yes, it is amazing how these right-wing extremists are so concerned with the 'lives' of embryos when they look like a ball of cells, and yet they could care less about the health and welfare of living human beings (leading the charge against research as well as expanded access to health care), and they are usually first in line to excuse killing innocent people in other countries in the name of some war goal or another (they love the euphemism 'collateral damage', or else they flat out say everyone in xxx culture is a subhuman devil worshipper and deserves to die). "Right to Life"? My a$$.

Actually, I've seen the left make this move more than the right. The right seems to be eager to point out that adult stem cell research doesn't require any lives and shows more promise. The left seems to be eager to accuse anything like this of being an attack on 'stem cell research' (despite the fact that it's being done by other stem cell researchers looking to get the money), leading to a common perception for many years that ESCs were the only kind of stem cells. Thankfully, a lot of people seem to have educated themselves on the issue now and know that there are multiple sources for stem cells of different kinds.

Funny I bet when Bush placed his uneducated ban on additional lines you didn't have a problem!

madison do they teach econ,law,politics in NY? President holds veto power, can place executive orders, it's called checks-and-balances. Otherwise we would have rogue judges with religious agendas crafting all our laws...oh wait...that has already been happening the past few hundred years.

What we need is the fundamental understanding of biology to cure these diseases...this cannot happen without research, research into cell bio, developmental bio, etc. This means studying all cell types, including embryonic. As another poster pointed out, if you're concerned about the "life" aspect of an embryo, all adult stem cells can create "life" just as an embryonic stem cell can, and we have no problem with that. So what's the big moral dilemma?

Bush issued more executive orders than any president in history. How quickly the mindless minions forget.

I guess the hypocrites didn't mind when their guy was doing it.

MmmMmmBeer : Veto power would be fall into checks and balances for the President, but executive orders would not as any law made by Congress, passed and signed, would over-rule any executive order. Just a minor correction worth mentioning since earlier this year there was a big to-do about Rep. Stupak selling his votes on health care for an executive order.

I am all for stem cell research of all varieties, so long as the stem cells are acquired through legal means.

The article states: "The administration said in its emergency request to the appeals court that Lamberth's ruling was at odds with the intent of Congress when it wrote the law limiting federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research and that it would undercut ongoing medical research."

This statement bothers me. A judge sits to interpret a law's language, and not the intent of Congress itself over what it has actually written... it's almost implying that Congress is so inept at English that it wrote something it didn't mean. And despite my current distaste with Congress, even I have a hard time swallowing that. So it bothers me that the DOJ would attempt to push domestic policy in this manner rather than simply repealing and passing a law they do want/support.

...nice to see "fatwahs" added to the Republican nomenclature. Socialist, communist, marxist was getting old. (sarcasm)

Well, the right wing nuts kind of think that they sort of believe that maybe Obama is a foreigner and a follower of Islam, as well as being a commie hell bent on destroying America and our established value system of unregulated capitalism, social intolerance and political corruption. No need to be sarcastic about it, Eric, because these bagger kooks don't understand sarcasm, let alone reality.

Opposition for the sake of opposing without any friggin' idea of what is at stake. When the Judge made his "activist" call aligned with the right, I did not see any of you screaming about somebody using his position of power! Keep it up! you are just taking the USA from its position as the research hub of the world!

Some people are just bineural!

Eric, Jim

I guess you marxists don't understand or really care about a law that forbids HUMAN EMBRYONIC stem cell funding. The laws only apply to others.

Speaking of 'fatwahs', a question:

How many people who support a woman's choice have been shot at, injured and/or murdered, and how many who are anti-choice fanatics have been shot at, injured and/or murdered? Specifically, how many times has Randall Terry (for example) had to dodge a (literal) bullet, vs. doctors in New York state, Georgia and Kansas been murdered by anti-choice fanatics?

BTW - a 'fatwa' is defined as:
"a non-binding judgment on a point of Islamic law given by a recognized religious authority"
(Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins)

Has ANY US President been considered 'a recognized religious authority' who can issue a judgment on a point of Islamic law? None that I know of.

Caligula, wrong. Who is the minion? Remember, people can use the internet to prove you wrong, you ought to use it to prove you are right.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_executive_orders_has_each_American_President_had_and_who_has_had_the_most

Which Presidents have had the most executive orders?

Recent presidents:
GW Bush 268, so far
Clinton 363
G. Bush 165
Reagan 380
Carter 319
Ford 168
Nixon 345
Johnson 323
Kennedy 213
Eisenhower 481
Truman 893
FD Roosevelt 3,466

From: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html

Numbers are close to what mark posted, but a few differences. Posted in case someone argues that wiki isn't a reference.

Recent presidents:

Obama 64 so far
GW Bush 291
Clinton 364
G. Bush 166
Reagan 381
Carter 320
Ford 169
Nixon 346
Johnson 324
Kennedy 214
Eisenhower 486
Truman 896
FD Roosevelt 3,728
Hoover 1,011

and still another 5,000 left before Hoover (13,552 total so far, so 308 average over 44 presidents)

as usual Madison just can't read

The Appeals court is supposed to review lower courts rulings and have done their job I wonder how Madison would act if he learned that he had a life ending condition and that stem cell research was his only hope of surviving

He has always shown a greater regard for a few cells than for any child in need

Oh, but haven't you heard? The lives of the innocent unborn group of cells are infinitely more important than the life of an innocent human being. You know...priorities and everything.

Every sperm (or stem cell) is sacred

If a sperm (or stem cell) is wasted

God get quite Irate

Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

LOL...love that movie!

Bionic

Look up the Forbidden Experiment. Things like that could advance us decades or more in the understanding of things like antisocial personality disorder (some estimates say that 50% of our prison population suffer from this), narcissistic personality disorder, dissociative identity disorder, and many other pressing psychological issues that probably impact a lot more lives than ALS. That being said, researchers worldwide (with the horrific exception of Nazi Germany) have considered such experiments unconscionable. Statements such as 'Any kind of research... is worth it" are dangerous in the extreme.

Carianne,

By all definitions except the legal one, these are human beings they're experimenting on. Or would you condone research using induced premature fetus removal (not a real birth, they swear!) to get the 'samples'?

Really, C. Smith? These are embryos that are frozen and being stored outside of any sort of womb and are headed for the garbage. Care to tell me how, under ANY conceivable definition, those embryos would develop into human beings? Unless you and your fellow wingnuts want to offer up your uteruses for all of them. Are you offering?

The only stem cell research that is controversial is Embryonic Stem cell research which has been fruitless to date. Adult Stem Cell research which is perfectly fine with most, including the Vatican, is not under fire and not being banned.

Cord blood stem cells are not embryonic stem cells and are also ethical and fine.

One of the more recent advances with adult stem cells also shows that now they can do everything that was only theorized with embryonic stem cells.

If the funding had been pulled sooner from embryonic stem cells (wasted) and put to adult stem cell research (including cord blood stem cells), we could have even more miracles by now.

We don't have any miracles yet and limiting the research to adult cells is not condusive to viable research standards. Why limit yourself when embryoes would have been destroyed and many people would have choosen to donate them instead.

NiteOwlett

Create your own and donate them to any one you wish to. But don't ask me to pay for it.

afloatin...

Too bad.

I will promote helping YOU, even if you don't want it.

GENERAL WELFARE. You gotta love it.

NiteOwlett

I've pointed this out above, but it bears repeating. The Forbidden Experiment (look it up) is the only effective way to study dozens of dangerous and debilitating mental disorders, as well as the very foundational elements of the human psyche. Researchers for centuries have agreed, however, that such experimentation is unconscionable, regardless of the potential benefits. Just because researchers can do it, and just because it may benefit people, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

What are you even talking about?

This is about stem cell research, (cellular development) not psychological research... I'm glad you've heard of the "Forbidden Experiment", but it has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER about this article.

Tell that to the fetuses/babies you are killing that it is benefitting them. How pathetic that our country takes life so lightly.

The "babies" they are using are "dead" anyway, they would otherwise be incinerated as medial waste.

Nobody is talking about getting a bunch of women pregnant so they can harvest fetuses from them for the sole purpose of stem cell research.

But nice try.

Gotta ask which decision you're referring to. Today's Appeals Court decision put Judge Lamberth's on hold. So which decision was on shaky ground?

I expect a UChi student to present thoughts more clearly.

We all know that's not gonna happen.

But it would be nice.

Impossible - most of the argument revolves around the ethics/morals of creating or destroying human life for research, trying to define when life begins and if human life is more important than other forms of life, all religiously based aspects. Without those factors, there is no argument.

But since our laws are based on English common law which is heavily influenced by Judeau/Christian ethics brought to England by the Romans, separating the two is patently impossible.

There are morals outside of religion.

There is also logic without religion. Any religiously based philosophical argument worth anything should be able to be argued logically as well. Otherwise it's just an opinion.

There are morals outside of religion.

Which is why I specifically included

...of creating or destroying human life for research,...

in my statement.

Please feel free to explain, in purely biological terms, what makes human life more important than other life forms.

Caligula

It will lead us straight to he11.

Ethics do not equate solely to religion. You could be an atheist and still have strict ethical standards.

Religion mucks up ethics with rumor/ennuendo.

NiteOwlett

What would be the basis for determining those ethical standards?

Common sense, scientific knowledge. Ask your Mother.

Scientific knowledge does not make ethical judgements. It's either fact or not. Ethics require a judgement of condition on the right/wrong continuum. Exactly where did common sense and mom get their information about ethical behavior?

To Brian:

"“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
The Mahatma Gandhi

NiteOwlett

Common sense, scientific knowledge. Ask your Mother.

Scientific knowledge does nothing to inform morality or ethics, which is why almost any research course in college will include an ethics class or two. Scientific knowledge answers questions about 'how does' not 'how should'.

Common sense is an oxymoron. It is far from common. Moreover, different people's common sense disagrees with others'. Who's common sense should we use? Mine? Yours? Obama's? Congress's (God forbid)? Same argument applies to mothers.

Common sense, is not so common but you don't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. Your mother will tell you not to do everything listed on the Ten Commandments, yet she could have never read them. Science tells us that brothers and sisters reproducing could bring out traits that are not compatible with life. Consenting adults does not equate to children and animals.

There is much to be said about religion in our past. It did tame us into needing to answer to a higher authority, which seemed to work for a while. Enlightenment brings on doubt so laws are made to hold up what we have learned over the brief period of our being "modern" and our more primitive past.

I am not able to define ethics but do understand the need to have those classes once again be mandatory in any type of degree program once again.

There is no law prohibiting embryonic stem cell research. Only federal funding for said research on newly created cell lines. Private donors are welcome to pour as much money into creating new cell lines for the research as they can find. The fact is religion plays a major role in the lives of many Americans whether you like it or not. While scientific research is incredibly important in advancing developed nations, it is not directly a government service so I think it's reasonable to consider differing views on the moral and ethical issues surrounding the research when making funding decisions with tax payer dollars.

Gov't money is also under the separation of church and state.

There is no Government money, those are tax payer dollars. Some of those tax dollars come from those opposed to abortion and the destroying of embryo's. Like Suzy said before, the only ban is federally funding the research. Feel free to donate to this worthy cause, if you feel it is so worthy. I myself am non-religious and have no problem with the research., just tax dollars paying for it.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research has been fruitless and a waste of money. All of the successes to date have been with adult stem cells. Just thought I would mention it because too many seem to be oblivious to this very important fact.

Of course if wasting tax payers' dollars on funding frivolous research just to irritate Christians and rack up a body count is the goal - then please continue.

If not for federal funding, most research would not be available. If only private industry comes up with cures/treatments, this would insure profit over people ad nauseum.

Since 1980 the economic rights (patents) for developments under federally funded research stay with the research institution if it so chooses. It does not become public domain.

For those of you posting your pedantic crap against using government funds to support embryonic stem cell research:

1.) Government funding is used for all sorts of sh!t I don't approve of and find ethically reprehensible: like executing a living, breathing human being; invading sovereign nations that are no threat to us (Iraq); excessive corporate welfare; a military-industrial complex that exceeds the #2 country by a multiple of 6.7 (we spend more than the next 17 countries combined) while my own countrymen don't have access to a basic measure of healthcare ((spare me your rhetorical crap and right wing talking points -you people have fought against helping your fellow man for over a year now)); TSA and those damn screeners; etc.

I'll bet you idiots support many of those, yet won't offer the same "lack of funding support" that you expect with embryonic stem cell research.

2.) The most profound breakthroughs are made when the financial force of a first-world economy is put behind the research -like Polio, HIV, smallpox, etc. You sure like being protected from that stuff, don't ya? But I'm sure some tool had some moral problem with spending money on those diseases. Don't bother arguing with me: I was alive in the 80s and heard your religious crap.

3.) If you don't like the treatments that come from embryonic stem cell research, then don't avail yourself to them, but quit being a bunch of self-righteous, sanctimonious jackoffs and depriving others of the advances that can be made. Go back to your faith-healing and get out of the way of progress.

Fred:

1.) So get together with a bunch of others who feel the same and elect Congressmen (and women) who agree with you and will pass laws to such effect. Everybody else did this, which is how we got to where we are today (good and bad), so why not join the club?

2.) Umm, there's no cure or vaccine for HIV yet (though they're working on it and I don't hear anyone complaining). The Polio vaccine was invented in the 50s and the smallpox vaccine was invented in the mid 90s... 1790s. I'm glad you were alive in the 1980s, but I don't think that has any bearing on any of your examples. Beyond that, though, this is why we support federal funding for adult stem cell research. It actually shows promise.

3.) If you don't like the advances that can be made from slavery, then don't avail yourself of them, but quit being such a self-righteous, sanctimonious jackoff and depriving others of the advances that can be made.

3.1.) The point being, society as a whole places a certain value on human life, and until recently there was a struggle to apply it to all human life. Now, we seem to be struggling to stop short of all human life. And yes, by all definitions but the legal one, these are humans we're experimenting on.

Smith, et al:

"1.) So get together with a bunch of others who feel the same..."

I don't know if you intentionally missed the point, or if reading comprehension just isn't your strong suit. I made it clear that my tax money gets used for things I don't personally approve of, but those things still happen

Furthermore, in light of your pedantic non-answer: the U.S. DID elect a group of people that put embryonic stem cell research back on the front burner where it belongs. It is people like the twits I addressed that are whining about their tax money being used for things they don't like. Maybe you should redirect your "response" to him. Perhaps that was you, but I just don't give enough of a damn to go back and look.

"2.) Umm, there's no cure or vaccine for HIV yet (though they're working... were alive in the 1980s, but I don't think that has any bearing on any of your examples."

If you had a clue, you would know exactly what I spoke of. Back in the 80s, all the religious whacks kept spreading the story that HIV was a "gay disease," and whined the same damn way about tax money being used to fund research and development of anti-HIV drugs. That religious hysteria was fuled by the same ignorance, in this case they acted like the mere act of gay sex was what caused the spread and claimed that AIDS was God's(tm) punishment:

"The fatal nature of AIDS ..., and its association with sexual and illegal activities make AIDS a concern not only for [churches directly]... Some physicians with fundamentalist beliefs have [also] openly proposed a direct relationship between sinful behavior ... and AIDS. These physicians attribute the virus's 'birth' to a supernatural, teleological response to sinful practices.[27]"

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/dmchurch.htm

But when the religious fools that were standing in the way realized that cute, white, Christian girls could get sick from it, too, federal funding flowed like water. Unfortunately, a lot of people suffered and died while those idiots worked diligently to keep their finger in their ass.

The other cures were developed with the influx of government money, but you managed to duck that point, too.

"3.1.) The point being, society as a whole places a certain value on human life,..."

It is a mass of cells smaller than the head of a pin that holds the promise of a staggering level of improvement in human health. None of your sing-song, religious tripe about "human life" will ever change that, no matter how many times you wimper and whine with your statements that are structured to make is appear that you care and I don't.

Additionally, "society as a whole" can benefit from financially supporting embryonic stem cell research, whereas hindering that research or watching it wither from lack of funding only benefits a small faction of people that rest their entire argument on non-existent Scripture.

And if you don't like it...what were your words? That's right, you can 'band together and elect someone' that will happily keep you in the dark ages of medicine.

Again, if you don't like the advances in medicine that this will bring, make sure you don't avail yourself to any of the cures, and shun any family members that do. You look them in the eye and remind them that you tried to stand in the way of the cure that helped them.

The point of my comments about federal funding for research is that private industry will not pony up the huge costs of research if they cannot see a big profit margin at the bottom of the spreadsheet.

Even if the developers can exploit their discoveries funded by federal dollars, the public still benefits by a lower cost to the consumer, and mankind for that matter.

Amen!

Let the good Christians of the world adopt this unwanted medical waste. They're always looking for someone who will listen to their BS without asking questions.

Thank you, Mike789!!

I believe you are the first to point out this fact in the discussion. When the judge attempted to block stem cell research, what did he/she think was going to happen? The couples who created them would eventually come back to claim them? The would sit in a freezer forever imbued with a frozen soul? Nah...

Childless couples harvest several eggs for in vitro fertilization. Once they have succeeded, the remaining embryos are discarded. Why does the judge not rule against this common medical practice? The judge cannot force these cells to be put to the use he prefers, but he does not think ahead. Probably appointed by Bush the Younger.

Research requires funding. You cannot block funding without blocking research. The potential benefits of the research are enormous. This is not a case of the end justifying the means - the means are already in place and are the source of no serious controversy.

Why should it? Private donors don't ask for a stake. This isn't just about making money. It might actually be about improving the quality of life. Not everything comes down to a capitalistic mentality.

But, why is it the governments job to fund such research. Please point where in the constitution it states the goverment funds research.

I don't care if a non-profit pays for the research and gives it away to the entire world. My statement was poorly worded in speaking about the profit side.

Right where it says 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" which all are easier with a fully functioning body. Not to mention the benefits of a healthy and productive country!!

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "

Funding research is considered to be providing for the common defence and general wlefare of the United States.

Learn it, love it, stop making up your own interpretations of it. Not everything that government does can be enumerated in a constitution. Quit listening to Fox news, they haven't even done an interent search on the Constitution to know what the preamble says. ;)

I love how everyone who disagrees assumes someone watches Fox news. I guess I do in that my local news is on a Fox affilliate.

When you ask me to stop making interpretations, please define your meaning of "general welfare."

Below is Thomas Jefferson's meaning.

"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:147

"Aided by a little sophistry on the words "general welfare," [the federal branch claim] a right to do not only the acts to effect that which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think or pretend will be for the general welfare." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825. ME 16:147

Interpretation of GENERAL WELFARE is an industry to itself.

I take it as what is good for the pursuit of happiness, while fed and clothed with a roof over your head. The devil is in the details.

While I appreciate a great deal of what Thomas Jefferson had to say, he is not the sole writer or contributor to the constitution. Trying to say that Thomas Jefferson said this so that's obviously what they meant is as unfounded as me saying the opposite. We can assume, if the writers wanted the term "General Welfare" to be define in a sepecific way, they would have defined it. Perhaps they had the foresight to understand that what the "General Welfare" for one peroid of time would not be the same for a later period of time.

The fact that, even at the time, the founding fathers were arguing over it means that we can't take one person's word for it over another. In point of FACT, the government formed with the constitution did not follow Jefferson's philosophy on it, so therefore the signers had a different understanding then Jefferson did. Extrapolating from there, the current view of General Welfare appears to be closer to what the signers veiwed it as, then Jefferson's was.

That is a very good question, Book'em Danno. Why should the federal government fund research?

I don't know, but I have devoted no time to study this question. You should ask someone who has studied the question.

The fact is, someone with a well-founded opinion decided that research funding by the federal government should take place in many areas. That is why we have space research (communications satellites, GPS, etc...), oceanographic research (Nat'l Weather Service, tsunami warning systems, etc...), and even the trans-continental railroad (with the Credit Mobilier scandal). Plus, all of these projects spin off thousands of other useful discoveries in computer technology, advanced materials, management control techniques and so on.

Privately funded advanced research follows federally funded basic research. It is a good idea that we do this. Get used to it.

Grandpa - first congratulations if you recently had a grandchild...or even if it was some time ago.

My problem with your statement of "Get used to it" is that is a weak argument. Just because something is done does not make it right. Many examples in the news lately - Koran burning as an example.

Many of the research items you list above were developed for a fully constitutional reason - provide for the defense. When they stray from their original purpose, we get outside of the boundries set forth in the constitution.

As for general welfare, even Hamilton would not agree with what is being done today. Hamilton in Federalist 78 states:

"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."

Hamilton too saw that the congress did not have the authority to do more than was is in the enumorated powers. If the congress, according to the "general Welfare" statement in Article 1, Section 8, were allowed to whatever they so desired, why even spell out the powers. Everything could be considered for the general welfare.

Furthermore, it is for the "general Welfare of the United States" meaning the states themselves and not the individuals of the United States.

...you should have expressed your unhappiness to George W. since he was the president who first allowed stem cell research on embryonic cells to go forward...

It was first under Clinton, but don't let facts get in the way of your opinions.

Prove that point, Brian. I see the bulk of the cloning discoveries took place in 2001 or later.

http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/stemcells/

Could go either way. The timeframe overlaps Clinton/Bush and it kind of depends on how you interpret the history. NIH guidelines were published under Clinton but no Federal funds were funneled into the program until Bush was President.

Is this your way of saying you were wrong?

http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/4/905.short

The entire premise of a disruptive form of birth control is flushing any egg, fertile or not, from the woman, 24/7 by not allowing implantation.

im dying waiting for research like this to come up with a cure for me. i joined during vietnam and got exposed to chemicals that ruined my immune system. i get to suffer and die while hoping a foreign country comes up with the cure instead of america. the petty bickering over this is as absurd as fillibustering everything or argueing the merits of burning a quran. if we are doing wrong, let God punish me- dont all you over zealous religious nuts try to legislate God. read the bible - especially the part about judging others and giving unto ceasar what is caesar's and taking care of the poor.

Every person who is ranting against embryonic stem cell research and the funding of same, will avail themselves of all advances that come from it. I

How could they? The advances coming from embryonic stem cell research have not materialized. In the meantime adult stem cell therapies are being used all over the world.

Adult stem cells are not being used in the United States, YET. Educate me if I am wrong.

FDA has not approved any adult stem cell trials until recently. But you could still get therapy.

http://singularityhub.com/2010/03/09/colorado-doctors-skirt-fda-jurisdiction-to-provide-human-stem-cell-therapies-video/

Thanks to big PHARMA, who stands to profit big time from buying and selling human embryos, which due to the deaths of the owners, belong to no one, it convinced the FDA to crackdown the much less profitable but much more promising adult stem cell therapies. People really should be protesting this but whatevs.

http://singularityhub.com/2010/03/22/fda-approval-for-stem-cell-treatment-trials-for-lou-gherigs-and-heart-disease/

Notice how the FDA changes its tune after one company manages to start attracting investors. Oh, all of a sudden its okay.

If you want stem cell therapy now you have to go over seas. But they're using scare tactics to keep people from doing this. But hopefully, with the blessing of the US's official religion, Economics, and its god the Almighty Dollar, we will soon have ridiculously expensive treatments for the super rich in the near future. :)

There has been no mention of allowing the buying and selling of human embryoes. Extrapolating extreme conclusions does not promote the ethical use of these otherwise wasted, human cells that may help others in extreme needs sooner rather than later.

Yes, I have noticed how the FDA's programs have not been consistent and I do wonder who is pulling the strings there.

Not limiting research to solely adult stem cells is the goal we should be eying, in order to get the best information BEFORE we have treatments available.

Good point. If those opposed want to specify how their tax dollars are spent, maybe the tax forms should accommodate them. They can check the No Stem Cell Research box, they'll go on the list of those who didn't contribute, and therefore won't benefit in the future.

Sounds cruel? It's their rules not mine. They would be the same people who don't want to contribute to unemployment and health care for others during the worst recession since the 1930s depression. Or the ones in Congress who opposed the stimulus funds then showed up and took credit when their districts received money.

This is silly rhetoric. Did the world refuse to use the medical advances that came out of the Nazi's horrific research? No.

Not quite.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/11/health.hiv.stemcell/index.html

An adult stem cell transplant helped cure AIDS.

Thank you for your expert stem cell information.

Maybe you can get on board and let them know how this whole thing works, then they won't have to spend any more on research, as apparently you have already figured it all out.

I personally believe that abortion, invitro fertilization, or any purposeful waste of life is morally wrong. People keep repeatedly saying, “this stuff is going to be wasted anyways, so lets use it”… but they should never have been put in a position to waste in the first place.

However, that being said, I don’t think the government should be enforcing moral laws. Let individuals stand before God to answer for their own personal moral decisions. I wish alleged Christians would stop trying to use the government to enforce thier views.

Jesus refused to get involved in government (he fled when the Jews tried to make him king) and very clearly stated his kingdom (government) is no part of this world (or system of things) and in the end, these governemnts will be replaced by his own anyways (Dan 2:44).

So "Christians" why don't you act Christian, stay out of politics, and wait patiently for Jesus to come and do his job.