EU parliment OKs stem-cell research funding. Well, sort of.

Marlin · Jul 25, 2006

So, with all the mud-slinging and "single-cell brain" comments about Bush and Republicans regarding Federal funding of stem-cell research, I find it interesting that a similar debate was going on in Europe.

It seems that government-funded stem-cell research had a small majority, but was opposed by a number of member states, led by Germany. Well, they've come to a compromise, and it's being billed as a victory for stem-cell research and contrasted with Bush's position, but it's interesting to see that it isn't really all that different than the Bush position.

First off, it will only be funded in EU member countries that allow it. Secondly, funding won't be allowed for expirements in which embryos are destroyed. (Sound like a familiar theme???) And lastly, they threw in a cop-out, which allows EU funded scientists to use new stem-cell lines, as long as the stem-cells were created by someone else (ie not funded by the EU).

Aside from the cop-out, it sounds pretty similar to Bush's "funding only for research on existing lines of stem-cells", doesn't it?

As for the cop-out, doesn't it kind of sound similar to a position such as outlawing harvesting organs from prison inmates because that would be unethical, but allowing transplants using organs harvested from prison imates as long as some other country did the harvesting? Aren't politics fun?

EU deal on stem cell research

geologyrox · Jul 25, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Jul 25 2006, 08:08 AM) [snapback]291888[/snapback]</div>

So, with all the mud-slinging and "single-cell brain" comments about Bush and Republicans regarding Federal funding of stem-cell research, I find it interesting that a similar debate was going on in Europe.

It seems that government-funded stem-cell research had a small majority, but was opposed by a number of member states, led by Germany. Well, they've come to a compromise, and it's being billed as a victory for stem-cell research and contrasted with Bush's position, but it's interesting to see that it isn't really all that different than the Bush position.

First off, it will only be funded in EU member countries that allow it. Secondly, funding won't be allowed for expirements in which embryos are destroyed. (Sound like a familiar theme???) And lastly, they threw in a cop-out, which allows EU funded scientists to use new stem-cell lines, as long as the stem-cells were created by someone else (ie not funded by the EU).

Aside from the cop-out, it sounds pretty similar to Bush's "funding only for research on existing lines of stem-cells", doesn't it?

As for the cop-out, doesn't it kind of sound similar to a position such as outlawing harvesting organs from prison inmates because that would be unethical, but allowing transplants using organs harvested from prison imates as long as some other country did the harvesting? Aren't politics fun?

EU deal on stem cell research
[/b]
Click to expand...

First, I don't think that is a safe analogy, because we're still just talking about funding, and not the legality of the research itself. EDITED IN: If I remember right, it was Clinton and co. who first proposed that we open up funding for the USE of stem cell lines (even though that initial derivation process destroyed an embryo) but not funding for the derivation process itself.

Actually, it's exactly what we were trying to get passed here.

The Dewey Amendment (signed by Clinton) prohibits federal funding from being used on research in which the embryo is actually destroyed. That's something both the Clinton and Bush administrations held up in their reccomendations. That would not have changed with HR810/S471 - they just would have opened up funding to research on lines created in other (privately funded) research. Each lab doesn't need to create their own lines, but labs need access to other countries/schools/etc lines. They passed just what we were asking for here.

Marlin · Jul 25, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Jul 25 2006, 08:28 AM) [snapback]291892[/snapback]</div>

First, I don't think that is a safe analogy, because we're still just talking about funding, and not the legality of the research itself. EDITED IN: If I remember right, it was Clinton and co. who first proposed that we open up funding for the USE of stem cell lines (even though that initial derivation process destroyed an embryo) but not funding for the derivation process itself.
Actually, it's exactly what we were trying to get passed here.

The Dewey Amendment (signed by Clinton) prohibits federal funding from being used on research in which the embryo is actually destroyed. That's something both the Clinton and Bush administrations held up in their reccomendations. That would not have changed with HR810/S471 - they just would have opened up funding to research on lines created in other (privately funded) research. Each lab doesn't need to create their own lines, but labs need access to other countries/schools/etc lines. They passed just what we were asking for here.
[/b]
Click to expand...

OK, maybe the "harvesting organs" analogy was a bit purposefully extreme.

However, don't you think the reasoning of "We believe Action X to be unethical and therefore prohibit it. However, we will allow the proceeds of Action X to be used, as long as someone else performs Action X", to be extremely hypocritical and perhaps morally bankrupt?

Here's a line of reasoning that I think you will agree is wrong, immoral, unethical, or whatever: "We believe torture is wrong and we prohibit it. However, it is OK to send prisoners to other countries to be tortured so that we can receive the information we want".

EDIT: And you can tell me all day long that harvesting organs from prisoners or torturing prisoners can not be equated to destroying embryos, but if you do, then you are missing the point.

The point is, that if one believes that Action X is unethical or immoral or just plain wrong, whatever that action is, then isn't benifiting from someone else performing that action equally wrong, or does allowing someone else to do it absolve you?

geologyrox · Jul 25, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Jul 25 2006, 08:39 AM) [snapback]291897[/snapback]</div>

OK, maybe the "harvesting organs" analogy was a bit purposefully extreme.

However, don't you think the reasoning of "We believe Action X to be unethical and therefore prohibit it. However, we will allow the proceeds of Action X to be used, as long as someone else performs Action X", to be extremely hypocritical and perhaps morally bankrupt?

Here's a line of reasoning that I think you will agree is wrong, immoral, unethical, or whatever: "We believe torture is wrong and we prohibit it. However, it is OK to send prisoners to other countries to be tortured so that we can receive the information we want".

EDIT: And you can tell me all day long that harvesting organs from prisoners or torturing prisoners can not be equated to destroying embryos, but if you do, then you are missing the point.

The point is, that if one believes that Action X is unethical or immoral or just plain wrong, whatever that action is, then isn't benifiting from someone else performing that action equally wrong, or does allowing someone else to do it absolve you?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Well, I still think that there is a big jump from something that is actually illegal to something that is completely legal, but not funded by the government. Obviously, I agree with your torture statement - that would be an action with the clear intent to skirt legislation intended to prevent torture. You would still be participating in an illegal activity. It's just not really fair to equate that to an issue where only funding, and not the legality, is in question.

I think the idea is that there comes a point where the life or death decision has already been made. In fact, I think that was Bush's exact reasoning when he allowed the initial pool of stem cells to be used. The line are bred and multiplied and shipped all over the country (legally allowed every step of the way) and people who take part in later research never even see an embryo to destroy it - that decision was made quite sometime ago. Yes, you can make the stand and say that you think step one was so unethical that no funds should go towards steps two through infinity - but you can't pretend you're protecting anyone anymore. Not using medical knowledge garnered from questionably ethical sources would have us all dealing with smallpox today. While this is a guess, I think that probably 99% of medical knowledge has some history with methods that are/were ethically questionable at some point. If you want to make a stand against using any medical research that has a shared history that conflicts with your ethics, you can - Bush is making a half-step at that stand. The EU decided that, while the first step is questionable (hence the lack of funding) the potential of the research is too important to allow their questioning to color the funding of possibly life-saving research.

EU parliment OKs stem-cell research funding. Well, sort of.

Marlin New Member

geologyrox New Member

Marlin New Member

geologyrox New Member

About PriusChat

Quick Navigation

Like us on Facebook

Buy us a beer!

Useful Searches

EU parliment OKs stem-cell research funding. Well, sort of.

Marlin New Member

geologyrox New Member

Marlin New Member

geologyrox New Member