Home || Contact Us || Help Registering and Participating || Disclaimer

 SeaChange now offers CBD Oil


Barbara and Jeannine's Book

Bea Luis Memorial


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Obama to reverse embryonic stem cell ban Monday!

  1. #1

    Default Obama to reverse embryonic stem cell ban Monday!

  2. #2


    Yes, I think we are finally headed in the right direction.
    How long for legal treatments under universal healthcare ceverage, i.e. free???
    4 Autologous treatments to date.


  3. #3


    Stem cell scientists had been concerned that the delay in Obama's long-promised lifting of the restrictions would cause them to miss their chance to apply for some of the new funding the NIH is receiving as part of the stimulus package.

    While the first study testing embryonic stem cells on people could start as early as this summer, scientists cautioned that any cures from the research probably remain years away

  4. #4


    I am hoping that this may also bring about easing some of the restrictions on uc stem cell therapy as well as autologous therapies.
    First treatment in 2007. Pioneering ever since.


  5. #5

    Default Obama signs order lifting restrictions on funding for stem cell research

    In case anyone missed all the hub bub, I thought this was a good recap.

    Supporters say it will open up a broad front of research to find better treatments for ailments from diabetes to Parkinson's disease; opponents saying destroying embryos for research is morally wrong.

    Monday, March 09, 2009

    President Obama on Monday signed an order to lift restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, a move he said rejects the "false choice" between science and morality.

    The order would not fund the creation of new stem cell lines, but would allow federally funded scientists to conduct research on existing embryonic stem cells that under the Bush administration were off limits.

    Obama said the full promise of such research "remains unknown" but that it should be explored because of the potential for scientists to find better treatments for ailments ranging from diabetes to Parkinson's disease to cancer.

    "That potential will not reveal itself on its own. Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident. They result from painstaking and costly research," Obama said.

    He warned of the risks of falling behind other countries in scientific research by keeping in place government restrictions on funding.

    "When government fails to make these investments, opportunities are missed. Promising avenues go unexplored. Some of our best scientists leave for other countries that will sponsor their work. And those countries may surge ahead of ours in the advances that transform our lives," Obama said. "But in recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent."

    Obama cited broad bipartisan support for the order, and also issued a memorandum declaring his administration would base its policies on sound science and not political considerations.

    The executive order fulfills a campaign promise, and supporters say it will open up a broad front of research.

    But the issue remains controversial since days-old embryos must be destroyed to obtain the cells.
    Opponents argue that research using embryonic cells is morally wrong.

    House Minority Leader John Boehner issued a written immediately after the signing accusing Obama of contradicting his pledge to be "president for all Americans."

    "The president has rolled back important protections for innocent life, further dividing our nation at a time when we need greater unity to tackle the challenges before us," Boehner said, adding that he fully supports research on non-embryonic stem cells.

    "Non-embryonic stem cell research is not only showing great promise in the laboratory, but its applications are already being used to treat scores of diseases and medical conditions. Indeed, science and respect for human life can coexist," he said. "Politicians in Washington would be well-served to recognize this fact before they ask taxpayers to subsidize the destruction of innocent human life simply to advance a particular agenda."

    Embryonic stem cells are master cells that can morph into any cell of the body. Scientists hope to harness them so they can create replacement tissues to treat a variety of diseases.

    "I believe it is unethical to use human life, even young embryonic life, to advance science," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative organization.

    Obama plans to use the executive order and accompanying memo to signal his commitment to shift government's priorities. But he said Monday that the government will not open the door for human cloning, calling such action "dangerous" and "profoundly wrong."

    Former President George W. Bush was the first president to authorize any federal support for embryonic stem cell research but limited it to 78 known stem cell lines -- lines that were created before Aug. 9, 2001. Federal research dollars could not flow to any research on embryonic stem cell lines derived after that deadline, and some scientists objected that the Bush policy left them with too few stem cell lines to research, and that only 16 of the original 78 were even suitable.

    Hundreds more of such lines -- groups of cells that can continue to propagate in lab dishes -- have been created since then. Scientists say those newer lines are healthier and better suited to creating treatments for diseases. The Obama order will give researchers access to lines derived after Aug. 9, 2001.

    The proposed changes do not fund creation of new lines, nor specify which existing lines can be used. They mean that scientists, who until now relied on private donations to work with these newer stem cell lines, can apply for government money for the research, just like they do for studies of gene therapy or other treatment approaches.

    Dr. Curt Civin, whose research allowed scientists to isolate stem cells and who now serves as the founding director of the University of Maryland Center for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, disagrees with those who say embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong.

    "This was already life that was going to be destroyed," he said. "The choice is throw them away or use them for research."

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.
    First treatment in 2007. Pioneering ever since.


  6. #6


    Keep seeing all these articles about its wrong what he did and all sorts off stuff. I am wondering if these are mostly pefectly healthy people saying this stuff? If they were dying with a life threatening disease they would change there ways I bet
    Last edited by danny; 03-10-2009 at 08:51 AM.

  7. #7


    I think a very small minority has worked itself up to having us (and themselves too) believe that these embryos were going to do more than never be used or destroyed in the first place. I feel that science is a gift that has been given us and that this gift should be utilized to save lives and relieve suffering. I think the discoveries being made right now will eventually make embryonic use a moot point, but until then, I think President Obama has made the right choice.
    First treatment in 2007. Pioneering ever since.


  8. #8

    Default Words from the opposition

    Congressman Roscoe Bartlett Supports Embryonic Stem Cell Research Without Destroying Embryos

    Article Date: 10 Mar 2009 - 5:00

    "It is both immoral and scientifically unnecessary to destroy human embryos to obtain embryonic stem cells, so I was disappointed by President Obama's Executive Order today," said Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, who is the only Member of Congress with a PhD in Human Physiology. "I can not support the destruction of innocent human life for the potential benefit of society, especially when I know that it's unnecessary to harm or kill embryos to engage in embryonic stem cell research."

    The Dickey-Wicker amendment remains in place so that without legislation, federal funds can not be used to destroy embryos to create new stem lines," noted Congressman Bartlett. "I am glad that the President said he would not take a position on this small and fragile protection of human embryos."

    "I have a 100% pro-life voting record," said Congressman Bartlett. "Every human embryo is unique and could become the next Madame Curie or Albert Einstein which is why I oppose destructive embryonic stem cell research. I do support using federal taxpayers' dollars for non-destructive embryonic stem cell research. That is a path that respects both the uniqueness and sanctity of every human life as well as scientific progress."

    Congressman Bartlett explained, "Because of my advanced coursework in embryology as part of my doctoral studies in human physiology, I knew it was theoretically possible to remove a few cells from an early stage embryo that could be used to produce a stem cell line without creating a clone or harming the embryo's ability to develop into a baby. I first proposed this in 2001 which was acknowledged by President Bush's Council on Bioethics in their white paper on stem cell research. A repair kit for the child might also be produced from these cells."

    "I revere both life and the advancement of knowledge through science," said Congressman Bartlett. "The research regressing adult skin cells backward to an embryonic-like state and then forward to produce other types of cells and tissues is also very exciting. It holds much promise as an alternative ethical path. However, if you will talk to the researchers and the experts in this area as I have, they will tell you that the potential for embryonic stem cell application to medicine should be greater than adult stem cell applications because embryonic stem cells can produce anything and everything that is in the body. That is why it is important to pursue non-destructive ethical embryonic stem cell research."
    First treatment in 2007. Pioneering ever since.


  9. #9

    Default GPI applauds Obama's decision

    And back to those applauding the decision...............

    No Time For Complacency, Tough Stem Cell Policy Fights Ahead Says Genetics Policy Institute

    Article Date: 10 Mar 2009

    Follows is a statement by Bernard Siegel, Executive Director, Genetics Policy Institute (GPI), on President Obama's decision to lift restrictions on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research:

    "President Obama's action today marks a profound change for the better and a major victory for patients in their quest for cures. At this pivotal moment for the stem cell community, we cannot become complacent. Our most difficult work lies ahead, as we expect research foes to unleash new legal roadblocks and delaying tactics. They will continue to assert unsupported arguments playing upon ignorance and fear."

    "In order to provide certainty, the next step is to protect embryonic stem cell research by legislation. Building on the momentum, it's time to repeal the Dickey-Wicker Amendment that serves as a blockade for funding research on work on embryos discarded from in vitro fertilization procedures to derive new cell lines or somatic cell nuclear transfer. All stem cell advocates applaud Congresswoman Diana DeGette who has expressed her intention to seek reversal of this fundamental funding restriction."

    "President Obama delivered a striking blow in favor of sound science by lifting federal restrictions for funding ethical research, thereby delivering promised change. Millions of adults and children suffering from chronic and debilitating medical conditions now have hope that this valuable tool will have adequate funding to bring about treatments sooner rather than later."

    About GPI

    The Genetics Policy Institute "GPI" is a leading promoter and defender of stem cell research and other cutting edge medical research targeting cures. Through GPI's action network, world report, the World Stem Cell Summit, special projects, speaking engagements, world renowned advisory boards, educational resources, teaching initiatives and strategic relationships, GPI serves as the foremost channel of knowledge between world leading stem cell experts, patient advocates and those who make policy for the general public
    First treatment in 2007. Pioneering ever since.


  10. #10

    Default One more for the road

    Just one more for the road. Keep in mind that this is written by a journalist so you might just want to recheck any of her facts.

    March 11, 2009
    Behind the Cell Curve
    By Kathleen Parker

    WASHINGTON -- As he lifted the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research Monday, President Barack Obama proclaimed that scientific decisions now will be made "on facts, not ideology."

    This sounds good, but what if there were other nonideological facts that Obama seems to be ignoring? One fact is that since Obama began running for president, researchers have made some rather amazing strides in alternative stem cell research.

    Unfortunately, the stem cell debate has been characterized as a conflict between science (as though science is always right) and religious "kooks" (as though religious folk are never right). In choosing sides, it is, indeed, easier to imagine lunch with a researcher who wants to resurrect Christopher Reeve (whom Obama couldn't resist mentioning) and make him walk again, than with the corner protester holding a fetus in a jar.

    Moreover, as Obama said, the majority of Americans have reached a consensus that we should pursue this research. Polling confirms as much, but most Americans, including most journalists and politicians, aren't fluent in stem cell research. It's complicated. If people "know" anything, it is that embryonic stem cells can cure diseases and that all stem cells come from fertility clinic embryos that will be discarded anyway. Neither belief is entirely true.

    In fact, every single one of the successes in treating patients with stem cells thus far -- for spinal cord injuries and multiple sclerosis, for example -- have involved adult or umbilical cord blood stem cells, not embryonic. And though federal dollars still won't directly fund embryo destruction, federally funded researchers can obtain embryos privately created only for experimentation. Thus, taxpayers now are incentivizing a market for embryo creation and destruction.

    The insistence on using embryonic stem cells always rested on the argument that they were pluripotent, capable of becoming any kind of cell. That superior claim no longer can be made with the spectacular discovery in 2007 of "induced pluripotent stem cells" (iPS), which was the laboratory equivalent of the airplane. Very simply, iPS cells can be produced from a skin cell by injecting genes that force it to revert to its primitive "blank slate" form with all the same pluripotent capabilities of embryonic stem cells.

    But "induced pluripotent stem cells" doesn't trip easily off the tongue, nor have any celebrities stepped forward to expound their virtues. (If only Angelina Jolie would purse those pouty lips and say "pluripotent.") Even without such drama, Time magazine named iPS innovation No. 1 on its "Top 10 Scientific Discoveries" of 2007, and the journal Science rated it the No. 1 breakthrough of 2008.

    The iPS discovery even prompted Dr. Ian Wilmut, who cloned Dolly the sheep, to abandon his license to attempt human cloning, saying that the researchers "may have achieved what no politician could: an end to the embryonic stem cell debate." And, just several days ago, Dr. Bernadine Healy, director of the National Institutes of Health under the first President Bush, wrote in U.S. News & World Report that these recent developments "reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells ... are obsolete."

    Many scientists, of course, want to conduct embryonic stem cell research, as they have and always could with private funding. One may agree or disagree with their purposes, but one may also question why taxpayers should have to fund something so ethically charged when alternative methods are available.

    Next comes a move to lift the unfortunately named Dickey-Wicker amendment in Congress, which prohibits using tax dollars to create human embryos for research purposes. If the amendment is rescinded, then human embryos can be created and destroyed with federal tax dollars.

    Good people can disagree on these things, but those who insist that this is "only about abortion" miss the point. The objectification of human life is never a trivial matter. And determining what role government plays in that objectification may be the ethical dilemma of the century.

    In this case, science handed Obama a gift -- and he sent it back.

    Copyright 2009, Washington Post Writers Group
    First treatment in 2007. Pioneering ever since.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Copyright 2007 - 2011 Stem Cell Pioneers