Question about the current stem cell debate

[Vegetable Man]

To be honest, I haven't looked into this issue much, so I don't know the subtleties of it. I guess it's just not one of the major concerns I have in the current campaigns. But from what I can tell with a glancing view, Bush is not putting a limit on private stem cell research, correct? He's only saying that there won't be Federal funding of research, right?

If both of those are true, then even as someone who doesn't believe in a god, I don't have any issue with him. I guess my bias leans against taking money from my fellow Americans to support something that goes against their fundamental/core beliefs, especially when the private market seems much more apt at developing the research.

Just wondering what the thoughts of those who support federal funding are? Like I said, I don't have a well thought out critique of the current debate.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

One problem is that the real benefits of embryonic stem cell research probably won't come for another 5 to 10 years down the line. Thus, most private companies will not put much money into research since there is no immediate profitability in sight. So, historically speaking, it's usually federally funded research that makes the major and initial breakthroughs.

[Eduardo X]

I guess my bias leans against taking money from my fellow Americans to support something that goes against their fundamental/core beliefs

So do you not believe in the war for those same reasons?

[Vegetable Man]

I guess my bias leans against taking money from my fellow Americans to support something that goes against their fundamental/core beliefs

So do you not believe in the war for those same reasons?

Well, not the current war in Iraq, no. But in general, I do believe in defending our country in times of war, yes.

[flycatcher]

One problem is that the real benefits of embryonic stem cell research probably won't come for another 5 to 10 years down the line. Thus, most private companies will not put much money into research since there is no immediate profitability in sight. So, historically speaking, it's usually federally funded research that makes the major and initial breakthroughs.

Ralph is actually right. Pharmaceutical companies' main interest is making a profit. Right now stemcell research is in its infancy and while it holds many promises in treating several diseases, thier mystery has not really been unlocked in humans, although they have been used in Mice to treat and repair congenital heart defects. So the drug companies are not really interested in exploring or advancing the research until they know that they will be able to make money off it. So its ususally academic (Universities) reasearch, which relies heavliy on government money(NIH and NSF grants), which does tha basic research on things like cancer, HIV, and now stemcells(although very limited now do to Bush's limitations). When this research finds that there are therapeutic uses, thats when the drug companies step in, to make thier money

[Vegetable Man]

Hmmm... That just doesn't seem like a strong enough reason for me to personally support. Maybe I'm too naive in believing that the free market wouldn't eventually take the risk and invest the capital. I think I'd rather another country whose public supports the idea, and specifically, isn't taking my money for it, develop the research. It seems to me, in our time of global markets, the benefits would still wind up reaching the U.S. consumer given our markets ability to rapidly deploy such findings.

[Quaro]

If a lab does stem cell research using their own money, then they forfeit their right to recieve any federal funding at all for any kind of research.

[Vegetable Man]

Thanks, Quaro, that makes the debate a little more interesting, and my side harder to defend. Something new to chew on, cool.

[Chrisoc13]

I agree with you pretty much on this one vegetable man, but not to the point completely. If we applied this to everything then people wouldnt want there taxes going to anything. Since there is opposition to almost everything our tax money pays for. I think some federal funding would be nice, because otherwise we wont be pushing the envelope like we normally are.

[Yankeeman84]

I see nothing wrong with researching stem cells for curing diseases but I am against it to be used for cloning.

I believe in God and I even think God would approve of this cause we would be bettering ourselves, we would not be using aborted babies, and we would be trying to rid the world of disease.

The bad part is that if we put big dollars into this and after many years we come up empty.....that would be the teh suxxor!

[Zarathud]

I see 2 parts to the stem cell debate:

1. Existing Stem Cell Lines. The federal funding which is allowed is severely restricted to "existing" stem cell lines. Many of those stem cell lines just aren't suitable for the necessary research (contamination, etc.). Federal research runs the "pure research" at the college and university level, so cutting off that avenue creates a serious problem.

2. No New Stem Cell Lines. Sources of stem cells exist (at fertility clinics) which could be ethically obtained for research purposes, but are blocked from federal funding. A moderate objection to using stem cells from aborted fetuses, I can understand (even though abortion is a constitutional right). But a blanket prohibition to federal funding for stem cell resarch from any new source (in the name of saving life), I don't understand. The material is obtained for the purpose of creating life by in vitro fertilization (which is widely accepted), and it would make sense to allow using any unneeded material to further potentially life-saving research. I think that the Bush Administration restrictions are just way too overbroad for the reasonable ethical objections.

[Fireball]

Hmmm... That just doesn't seem like a strong enough reason for me to personally support. Maybe I'm too naive in believing that the free market wouldn't eventually take the risk and invest the capital. I think I'd rather another country whose public supports the idea, and specifically, isn't taking my money for it, develop the research. It seems to me, in our time of global markets, the benefits would still wind up reaching the U.S. consumer given our markets ability to rapidly deploy such findings.

The problem with this attitude is that America's economic dominance throughout the twentieth century was built upon scientific leadership. We've been at the forefront of virtually every major scientific movement in the last century, and when we weren't, we got up to speed and put ourselves at the forefront.

Technological leadership puts in place the infrastructure to exploit these advances once profitability becomes possible. This creates jobs here in America, enriches our economy and increases our economic clout in the world. To put in place a policy that permanently bars America from moving forward in this field at a pace comparable to competitor nations is to work in favor of a decline in America's economic stature.

[D'Arcy]

A moderate objection to using stem cells from aborted fetuses, I can understand (even though abortion is a constitutional right). But a blanket prohibition to federal funding for stem cell resarch from any new source (in the name of saving life), I don't understand. The material is obtained for the purpose of creating life by in vitro fertilization (which is widely accepted), and it would make sense to allow using any unneeded material to further potentially life-saving research.

What's the difference between an aborted embryo and a surplus embryo created during in vitro fertilisation?

[Unbreakable]

in Bush's defense, even most scientists dont view embryonic stem cells as the most reliable source. In fact, if you were talking about getting useful stem cells from, say, a tissue sample of a patient, it would have little to do with the methods used on embryonic stem cells.

I cant recall what my source was, but I either saw or read something which showed the politics among the scientists on this issue, and there is one very large company positioning itself to win big if they get embryonic stem cell money. The actual science involved didnt show more benefit than other methods, and in fact it was quite the opposite.

[Kraken]

He's only saying that there won't be Federal funding of research, right?

It's a little more insidious than that. Like Quaro said, any entity that permits such research will lose all of its federal funding. That effectively bans it throughout all mainstream research organizations.

The other usual argument says that embryonic stem cell research has not shown the same kind of results obtained so far from adult stem cell research, and is therefore unnecessary. However, because the research is so strictly curtailed in the US, that is circular reasoning. Of course research that we aren't doing isn't showing any payoffs.

Embryonic stem cells can be obtained in great quantity without relying on abortion, which is what makes its opponents squeamish. In vitro clinics have millions of embryos on ice that will be destroyed. This alone sweeps away the ethical objections.

The issue is very simple to me. My best friend is a doctor, who recently learned that he has a fatal cancer. He believes that embryonic stem cell research could lead to a cure before his time runs out. We are also likely to find new treatments, if not outright cures, for Alzheimers and other neurological diseases. I respect his knowledge and therefore his opinion on this. The potential gain is very great, and the positives to pursuing this research are evident.

There is also the aspect that if we (US institutions) don't do it, somebody else will. But it will take longer, and the US medical establishment will suffer for being frozen out.

I don't have any religious beliefs and do not hold human life (or anything else) sacred, so the supernatural objections are entirely lost on me.

[D'Arcy]

I don't have any religious beliefs and do not hold human life (or anything else) sacred, so the supernatural objections are entirely lost on me.

But certainly you believe that innocent human beings have the right not to be murdered.

The question, then, is when and why human beings receive that right.

It's possible to say that the when lies after conception. However, conception is the only punctual, clearly delimitable event in the development of man. After that, the development is gradual, and attempting to find a good moment for the infusing of civil rights will put you onto a dangerous slippery slope. I believe that the philosopher Peter Singer, who holds that the rights of a person grow along with its intellectual capacity and that therefore newborn babies and the demented possess less rights than monkeys and can be killed by their guardians if opportune, has brought this line of thought to its logical, absurd conclusion.

Regarding the why, it is again possible to say that society grants these rights and should be free to revoke them or define an age when the rights apply. However, the United States were founded by people who thought that all men are created equal, that is, their rights are recognisably present due to the order of nature, not social consensus. Accordingly, it shouldn't be possible to interpret the constitution in a way that would disenfranchise a defenseless group of people, even if the idea appears attractive because the people have something you deem useful.

[Kraken]

I don't have any religious beliefs and do not hold human life (or anything else) sacred, so the supernatural objections are entirely lost on me.

But certainly you believe that innocent human beings have the right not to be murdered.

The question, then, is when and why human beings receive that right.

I'm actually shaky on the concept of a "right" at all. Our "rights" exist only as long as we can prevent somebody from taking them away.

Leaving that aside, I accord far more importance to the born than to the not born. The embryo exists at the discretion of its mother. Period.

The debate over when a fetus becomes a legal person is inextricably bound up in beliefs over when it becomes "ensouled". If you do not believe in souls, then it is comparatively simple to set a convenient definition of personhood. Some would use birth, some viability. I use self-sufficiency; they're truly human when they start paying taxes. Leaving aside the mystical dimension, it is a real stretch to ascribe personhood to an embryo.

it shouldn't be possible to interpret the constitution in a way that would disenfranchise a defenseless group of people, even if the idea appears attractive because the people have something you deem useful.

This statement is invalid if they aren't people to begin with. Which takes us back to ensoulment again. Without it, I don't see much justification for the concept of "embryo rights".

[gbasden]

Regarding the why, it is again possible to say that society grants these rights and should be free to revoke them or define an age when the rights apply. However, the United States were founded by people who thought that all men are created equal, that is, their rights are recognisably present due to the order of nature, not social consensus. Accordingly, it shouldn't be possible to interpret the constitution in a way that would disenfranchise a defenseless group of people, even if the idea appears attractive because the people have something you deem useful.

Um, ok, but most of the plans I've see have the stem cells coming from leftover embryos from in vitro fertiliation. The choice isn't between life and science, it's between being flushed and science. Or are you suggesting that in vitro fertilization become illegal? Should these doctors have to keep unneeded embryos forever? Or is flushing less morally egregious than being used to search for a cure for Parkinsons?

[Vegetable Man]

Hmmm... That just doesn't seem like a strong enough reason for me to personally support. Maybe I'm too naive in believing that the free market wouldn't eventually take the risk and invest the capital. I think I'd rather another country whose public supports the idea, and specifically, isn't taking my money for it, develop the research. It seems to me, in our time of global markets, the benefits would still wind up reaching the U.S. consumer given our markets ability to rapidly deploy such findings.

The problem with this attitude is that America's economic dominance throughout the twentieth century was built upon scientific leadership. We've been at the forefront of virtually every major scientific movement in the last century, and when we weren't, we got up to speed and put ourselves at the forefront.

Technological leadership puts in place the infrastructure to exploit these advances once profitability becomes possible. This creates jobs here in America, enriches our economy and increases our economic clout in the world. To put in place a policy that permanently bars America from moving forward in this field at a pace comparable to competitor nations is to work in favor of a decline in America's economic stature.

More than their war against the humanity and dignity of homosexuals or their hatred of other cultures and religions, it is the war against scientific advancement that most makes the Christian Right America's greatest enemy.

That sounds eerily protectionist, and doesn't seem to take into account America's overall advantage in numbers when it comes to intellectual/creative/opportunity as whole. Certainly, technological leadership has put us ahead in almost every major category over the last century, but I would still argue that in areas where other nations have advanced before us, it was, more than anything, our somewhat freer markets that have enabled us to better capitalize than those who made the initial discoveries. And those same markets that exploit the findings still create numerous jobs here in America, so I still don't see the big deal.

The issues of canceling other federal funding and availablility from In Vitro clinics still seems to bring the most interesting problem, and one I'd like to read more about, at least from a standpoint of arguing within the current political spectrum.

[Zarathud]

What's the difference between an aborted embryo and a surplus embryo created during in vitro fertilisation?

Biologically, little if any difference.

Ethically, in vitro fertilisation is accepted but abortion is the subject of contentious debate (even if constitutionally protected).

Politicially, I wouldn't touch allowing federal funding of aborted embryos (even if constitutionally protected), but it makes sense IMO to take a nuanced view allowing the use of surplus embryos from in vitro fertilisation.

It's possible to say that the when lies after conception. However, conception is the only punctual, clearly delimitable event in the development of man. After that, the development is gradual, and attempting to find a good moment for the infusing of civil rights will put you onto a dangerous slippery slope.

Easy definition shouldn't be the solution to the delicate balancing test involved in Roe v. Wade. Conception is meaningless without context. That conception occurs (unlss in vitro) in a woman's womb. Accordingly, there are conflicting rights involved -- and we have to consider the right to choose medical treatment and make intimately private decisions about one's own reproduction.

[flycatcher]

The arguement presented above is the crux of the issue and the thing that has frustrated scientiste the most. You don't have to use aborted fetuses to get embryonic stemcells, there is esstentially an unlimited supply from fertility clinics. So the question here is, whats worse, to just destroy or deep freeze the extra embryos and not use them and essentially waste them, or should we use them for research and to potenitally save lives in the future(yes maybe the distant future). You won't be destroying life that already won't be destroyed, and the fact that the Bush adminstration won't address this issue is sort of absurb.

[Faldarian]

Read this. This is the best site I've seen explaining stem cell research and how present laws affect it. The common questions link in the middle of the page is an absolute must read for anyone interested in the subject.

http://www.time.com/time/2001/stemcells/