Finally a Veto for all the wrong reasons?!?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GreenGene @ Jul 19 2006, 10:06 AM) [snapback]288760[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for the info and the link.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wstander @ Jul 19 2006, 01:19 PM) [snapback]288783[/snapback]</div>

Also, as I understand it (which should be verified) the bill is clean because of rules governing this particular debate. Each bill needed 60 votes to pass, and no amendments were allowed.

It seems the House had similar rules, though they voted on the most controversial bill last May.


EDIT: OK, while I found my source (http://www.lifenews.com/bio1633.html) which quotes Douglas Johnson with National Right to Life as saying that S.2754 "does incorporate the Dickey Amendment, which is the law that bans federal funding of research in which human embryos are harmed, and which appropriately defines the term 'embryo." I can't find any other reference to anyone saying this, so I think it's either a misquote or he's just uninformed. S.2754 does reference the most recent Dickey Amendent to define an embryo, but I don't see any wording that reaffirms limits on general funding, only on the funding being referenced in the bill.

That bill actually seems a little contradictory: The purpose is to promote pluripotent cell line research "...without creating human embryos for research purposes or discarding, destroying, or knowingly harming a human embryo or fetus." The insertion into the Public Health Service Act, though, says that "the Secretary shall conduct and support basic and applied research" into developing pluripotent stem cell lines that "are not derived from a human embryo." The two statements don't seem to match up - I wonder which will pan out when the House votes on it outside the rules of todays debate. The former strikes me as odd, because I STILL want to know what they would do with the embryos after they spent all that funding on making sure that their process didn't "knowingly harm" the embryo.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Jul 17 2006, 06:14 PM) [snapback]287869[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, what you said. You're the first one I've seen who's mentioned private funding of stem cell research, which is still allowed. There is a small libertarian part of me that wants government out of the business of "funding" (read: subsidizing) research that ends up mainly benefiting large multi-national corporations. But under the current system, federal funds are used as the lubricant to obtain greater private funding (in other words, why would anyone spend all the money to develop something when they can get the rest of the country to help chip in).

I'm also sympathetic to the argument that enabling federal funds for embryonic stem cell research has the potential to put us in a situation where we are creating life just to use it for medical research (what some have called "modern canibalism"). But every in-vitro lab in the country is doing this, with couples routinely saving dozens of fertilized eggs for possible future use. Once they have their two or three children, the eggs are ... what? Saved frozen? Discarded? How many are out there? The Rand study in 2002 identified 396,000 saved, primarily for "future pregnancy attempts". As the population of women who have saved frozen embryos ages, more and more of these will be discarded or donated to medical science. (The Rand numbers are at http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9038/index1.html).

While some pro-life people would love to see the practice ended, society has accepted in-vitro fertilization as a boon to infertile couples. I view stem cell research as much more important than whether or not Dick and Jane can have a baby. I see using the frozen embryos for stem cell research as a more ethical and moral use than simply washing them down the proverbial drain.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(San Diego Steve @ Jul 19 2006, 09:32 AM) [snapback]288731[/snapback]</div>

You can't use either definition of life to decide public policy matters. You have to take the legal definition of life, not the moral, religious or scientific definition.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 19 2006, 06:19 AM) [snapback]288612[/snapback]</div>

You know, traditionally that's the very definition of a "birthday" and the age system. Otherwise, we would be counting from the day of conception like Taiwanese and some other Asians traditionally do. Even Japanese/Koreans have a traditional 100 day celebration for when a new-born is "safely" alive. Traditionally and historically, high infant mortality argues against anything being alive until it doesn't die.

Is the same consideration given for the apes, chimpanzees, whales, elephants, and other intelligent animals on this blue earth? What about veal, and eating meat?

It's also traditional to have multiple standards based mostly on convenience and semantics, and couched/dressed as morality.

But I agree with Bush. There's just too many genetically inferior people alive in the world today draining the limited, shared resources (and polluting to the gills). Less that stay alive, or around, is better for us all.

 

About those adult stem cells.

I guess the House and the Senate didn't have time to read Science. (We know Bush doesn't read...anything.)

"On July 13, three stem cell experts published a letter in the journal "Science", along with detailed supporting data, that has demolished the lynchpin argument and key talking point of the religious right and others who oppose the expansion of funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Dr. David Prentice of the Family Research Council had long- promoted a list of 65 medical conditions supposedly treated by adult stem cells, thereby sending the message that adult stem cell were currently delivering treatments and thus there was no need to fund embryonic stem cell research.

The letter to "Science" stated in its concluding paragraph "By promoting the falsehood that adult stem cell treatments are already in general use for 65 diseases and injuries, Prentice and those who repeat his claims mislead laypeople and cruelly deceive patients." "

Talking points demolished.

 

All of you who are whining that stem cell research is being abandoned and people will suffer and die because of this veto need to SHUT UP! <_<

First of all, before I am labeled neocon fanatic . . . I am very much for stem cell research. I voted YES on California's 2004 Proposition 71, which passed, and will provide $300,000,000 per year for 10 years for stem cell research. Yes, three billion dollars from California alone.
http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/state/prop/71/

This veto will do little to nothing to diminish stem cell research. There are no laws which prohibit stem cell research . . . only FEDERAL funding on certain types of research. From a pragmatic point of view, stem cell research not being tied to federal funding and restrictions can only be a good thing.
This bill is nothing more than a grab at overflowing amounts of pork barrel spending.

If you really want to get mad, look at the patents which are doing more harm to stem cell research in the USA than this veto - which I am happy to see . . . not because of some personal moral or religious ideology I may hold - I don't.

Read this Wall Street Journal article and then focus your whining toward the real problem.

How a University's Patents
May Limit Stem-Cell Research

By ANTONIO REGALADO and DAVID P. HAMILTON
July 18, 2006; Page B1

Tonight, the U.S. Senate is expected to approve a measure to broaden federally funded research on embryonic stem cells. But some government officials and scientists say the strict limits imposed by the Bush administration are only part of what's hindering stem-cell research. Another problem: several broad patents held by a University of Wisconsin foundation.
When executives at Carlsbad, Calif.-based Invitrogen Corp. chose to locate their stem-cell research in Asia recently, they blamed the patents. And today, a California watchdog group, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights of Santa Monica, says it will ask the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to overturn three patents awarded to James A. Thomson, the Wisconsin researcher who first isolated stem cells from human embryos in 1998.
The broadly worded patents, which cover nearly any use of human embryonic stem cells, are held by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, a nonprofit group that handles the school's intellectual-property estate, managing a $1.5 billion endowment amassed during 80 years of marketing inventions.
John Simpson, an official at the foundation bringing the challenge, says WARF's efforts to enforce its patents are "damaging, impeding the free flow of ideas and creating a problem." Mr. Simpson's group got involved in the dispute earlier this year after Wisconsin officials said they would demand a share of state revenue from California's voter-approved stem-cell initiative.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115...M_20070718.html

 

Your article on stem cell patents is interesting - I read another article recently that indicated that patents are often being issued for really broad topics - things that 'obviously' shouldn't be patented - one of the examples in the other article is that a company actually holds the patents to the relationship between vitamin B12 deficiency and elevated something (sorry, it's early...) levels. In the past, it's been fine to patent a process, or a substance, but there are patents for things that probably cross the line into trying to patent facts, instead of ideas. Unfortunately, neither article offered any ideas on how to prevent this in the future, or fix the problem with any way but lawsuits. Yay, more lawsuits. Treat the symptom.

And I don't know about calling this THE real problem, but it's definately A real problem.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jul 20 2006, 05:40 AM) [snapback]289266[/snapback]</div>

Well, you're right in that private companies can (will/have) take up the research - where there is promise, money will flow. Unfortunately, you're wrong about the other part of the paragraph. If federal funding for this were not singled out, labs could *choose* whether to apply for federal funding (along with its restrictions) or stick to private sources. The restrictions are reasonable, and were already part of the process before S.471. The bill does not promote embryonic stem cell research - it merely allows them to apply. Federal grants (at least in geology) are often the stepping stones to deeper pockets from private sources - disallowing them from even applying is definately a net negative for the research. Bush had no valid reason to veto this bill, and it *will* be a detriment to research until we vote next year, when I expect we'll have enough votes to override him. Perhaps I should be grateful - it certainly energized me.

You do not say, why are you glad Bush vetoed this, if you are a supporter of the research? Would you have been upset if he did not veto S.2754, which actually was worded to 'promote' pluripotent cells that are not derived from embryos. I'd lay BETS that a majority of the sixteen studies that Santorum says are working on it are conservative schools with a history of support for him. In my oh-so-knowlegeable opinion (ha!) it's THAT bill that's a grab at pork barrel spending.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NuShrike @ Jul 19 2006, 08:01 PM) [snapback]289078[/snapback]</div>

Just to get yourself on record, how old does a person need to be before you would not snuff them out for whatever reason you deem appropriate? It's fun to quote traditions of countries and the use of the birthday, but how about you... When do you stop killing the baby?

President Bush stops killing them at conception (aka, he doesn't kill them at any age). I'm with him on this. Others are ok with killing them up to other certain points, but it seems no one is willing to call it killing. Killing is somehow bad, so they must try to convince their peers that what they are killing really isn't a baby.

Has anyone ever seen what can happen if you don't kill the embryo? Oh, look right there to the left.. It turns into a baby and the president of the most powerful country on the planet gives it a kiss on the head.

you are special since you are the only one of 100,000 embryos that we didn't kill. We will call you a snowflake child. Way to go America...

Good for Bush to Veto, Yay for the house members that voted to not override. The bill is dead, not the children.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 20 2006, 08:22 AM) [snapback]289284[/snapback]</div>

You know, in debates, there's this fallacy called "Argumentum ad nauseam" - where you try to prove a point by saying the same thing over and over again. When a statement is false, repeating it over and over again does not make it any less false. Sorry buddy.

Once again: the embryos in question (you know, the ones he vetoed) COULD NEVER turn into a baby. Never. The law actually requires this distinction, among others: "...it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Jul 20 2006, 07:54 AM) [snapback]289294[/snapback]</div>

Pretty much goes the same for repeating the same crap over and over about how a baby is not a baby until you say it is a baby. Eventually you'll believe what you've said to yourself 5000 time and then you start to think it is true.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jul 20 2006, 07:37 AM) [snapback]289288[/snapback]</div>

You must keep up on this stuff, but I don't see you saying any of it.

FDA has currently 9 (NINE) treatments approved using adult stem cell methods.
There are currently 0 (ZERO) treatments with embryo stem cell technologies. The stem cell research keeps skewing off into tumor territory, it's not working, and there are billions being spent going down this sewer pipe. Throwing more federal billions down that hole doesn't somehow make this technology work. Somehow, this line of technology is trumpeted as "The only hope for curing the world's medical problems". ZERO treatments is... um.. none...


Without federal dollars, embryo research does not stop, it's just not paid for by me and the rest of the voters that chose the man who would veto this bill. Yet, you don't have to look further than this thread to see that misinformation being spread.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 20 2006, 09:03 AM) [snapback]289297[/snapback]</div>

See, above you say embryos turn into babies, and here you don't say much of anything at all, but it appears to contradict that. You've said before that at 14 weeks and 8 weeks a fetus looks like a baby - and I'll give you that. At 8 weeks, according to webmd: "Your embryo is about the size of a grape -- 0.56 to 0.8 inches from crown to rump." It does indeed start to look like a baby - and you fight an honest fight, when talking about abortion. I side with the liberals when it comes to legislating them, but I know in my heart I couldn't ever have an abortion - so I do appreciate your point of view, even if I don't think we should make it illegal.

We're talking about embryonic stem cell research, though, and that's a different ballgame. This isn't something even as remotely human as the grape sized fetus. Even a just-created embryo in a womb stands a chance of growing - but scientists are REQUIRED to use only otherwise wasted cells. Zero chance. Do you agree with organ donation from braindead donors? How about from a braindead child, do you think the parent should be allowed to donate their organs? It would give me a clearer idea of just what you are objecting to.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 20 2006, 09:11 AM) [snapback]289297[/snapback]</div>

well since esc's were first isolated only 8 years ago (and time was needed to develop proper culture methods and media), and since the average time for R&D, testing and FDA approval for a drug/treatment can reach up into the 10-15 year range, should we just quit on all potential treatments after 8 years? say, oh, this isn't going to work so let's just forget it. let's toss all that work we've done down the drain and look for something else.

how long have we been looking for a way to defeat cancer? certainly more than just 8 years. should we give up on that too? oh, what a drain of federal funds that is.

just throwing up our hands would be a complete waste of all that money and time that's been put into the field.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jul 20 2006, 05:40 AM) [snapback]289266[/snapback]</div>

and federal funding is a very important part of financial resources for academic labs. of course stem cell research will continue- in the private sector. that's good for america, right? in our best interests. sure. academia's drive is to publish, to increase the general knowledge of the subject area, and that's how reputations are staked. the private sector does not run on this same principle. their primary objective is to make back the money they spent and therefore NOT share their findings with anyone.

and your comment of "overflowing amounts" of spending... ha! not on research there isn't... we're down to a single-digit percentage of grant applications being actually funded. people are losing jobs, closing down laboratories, cutting down on what would have been fantastic projects. yep, tons of money coming in around here.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jul 20 2006, 08:32 AM) [snapback]289315[/snapback]</div>

Don't create them in the first place, but we've already slid down that slippery slope. We're in a jam on this because we can't even say that they should all be up for adoption because you'll find owners of them who won't allow their stash of embryo's to be adopted and birthed by other parents.

Your question is tainted and bent. You don't want an answer with rhetoric, then don't ask a question with it. Call it an embryo since we are discussing embryo stem cell research. Or, get the scientific community to call it 'cell clump research'.

Change the law. You tell me if this is true. A woman that is 5 months pregnant has an abortion, are there laws regarding research, disection, research, etc that can occur on that aborted baby? In either case I would propose a law that ties the parents to the baby from inception to birth. No doing freaky research on aborted babies, and that includes these embryos. As long as abortion is legal, write the law to state that the embryo's belong to the parents until the parents show up to toss them in the trash. This puts the ownership of this problem on the people who are creating it, not on the rest of the country. Those parents have to keep storing them, give them up for adoption or abort them.

I wouldn't mind seeing abortion illegal too.

Again, let me tap into your medical training. This invetro process where they create dozens of embryo's in the tube to implant is what... 20 years old? It's terribly expensive which is why they create so many up front so they can try several rounds of implants before giving up or seeing success. Why not modify this process so we only create the number of embryos that are going to be implanted during the implantation phase. If it doesn't work, create some more. (Again, I'm not a big fan of this science either, but understand I'm not going to roll back this so called progress). In other words, stop saving money by creating this problem. Or, keep the fees the same, but change the process. Hasn't the science of this process grown enough that the process can be done without creating the side mess?

You and I both know that you are not argueing to get access to 300,000 embryos. You need the whole big ugly thing to be legal so you can start using all the unused embryos which only then moves one more step to creating embryos for the purpose of research. Thankfully the moral climate of the country at this point does not fund research on embryo's, but it does allow it.. that's sad.

We will eventually get there. I'm convinced that one day we will have the leadership to enable this whole thing and then there is no going back. It's sad, but I'm 100% sure it will happen.

It would be great if we could get a pro-adoption mindset. That baby in my avitar was one of these embryos that 'will never be a baby', 'does not have a chance at life anyhow'. Somehow I'm convinced the other 300,000 could turn into a baby too... They won't, too many people want to discard them.

 

Hmmmm, I guess those Germans must be in the pockets of US Religious Fundamentalists too.

Germany seeks EU ban on stem-cell research funding

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Jul 20 2006, 01:02 PM) [snapback]289538[/snapback]</div>

No, the Catholic church.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Jul 20 2006, 01:02 PM) [snapback]289538[/snapback]</div>

Hmmmmmm, if the EU is agin it, I may have to change my vote...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jul 20 2006, 05:40 AM) [snapback]289266[/snapback]</div>

I happened to run across an article that really made it sound like your "real problem" is just something else to complain about that can be pushed on the academics instead of Bush and the legislature. I did a little more research, and I'm not convinced that this is a real problem. First off, the restrictions on federal funding (Bush 2001) require duplication of labspace, equipment, and labor - quite a lot more expensive than the MAXIMUM license and education fees (charged to for-profit labs ONLY) of $165,000 for the first year, $40,000 annually for 'maintenance.' Second, academic researchers are charged $500 (at cost, supposedly) - which includes the extensive training program for scientists to learn how to work with the cells. 97% of the licenses were, in fact, issued to academic labs - and the 12 private companies that paid fees hardly scratched the surface of the cost of the development of the technology.

Yes, it appears that the patents are overly broad. That's a regularly recurring problem, and perhaps this high-profile case will be the thing that gets it reigned in. Just don't let yourself be fooled into thinking that the patent costs are what is 'really' standing in the way of the research - Bush's restrictions on funding really do have a much higher cost.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 20 2006, 10:40 AM) [snapback]289454[/snapback]</div>

So, would you support a law prohibiting organ donation? Or people donating their child's body to medical science?

The parents of the frozen embryos are the owners of them, and today they have three choices: they can donate them to another couple (adoption), they can have them destroyed, or they can pay to keep them frozen. There are over 300,000 of them, and not many volunteers for adopting them. The problem with adoption is that people paying for in-vitro want a baby that is biologically theirs. If they want to adopt, there are "already born" babies they can wait for without paying $25,000 to have one implanted.

Public policy law has the intent of modifying behavior. If our law prohibits the donation of their surplus frozen embryos to medical science, then they will opt to destroy them rather than pay thousands of dollars per year to keep them frozen. There are 300,000+ frozen embryos that you cannot apply a retroactive law to, so you cannot force the parents to pay to keep them frozen. Something has to be done.

So you decide. Should they be destroyed, or given to medical science? Which is the more ethical of the two choices ... destruction, or medical science?