Sorry, Stephen, your "we're falling behind!" Chicken Little impersonation is unpersuasive to me. If embryonic stem cells were the only avenue of research in this area, I would credit your point, but I still would disagree with the idea that it's OK to create embryos just to destroy them. The fact remains, however, that better results have already been obtained with adult stem cells, and we are still at the cusp of research into their capabilities. It seems every time I turn around another new source of stem cells is found that doesn't involve creating human life (pre- or proto- or potential or however you want to describe it, genetically those embryos are human) for the sole purpose of destroying them.

IMO the-potential-ends-justifies-the-means has always sucked as a justification and still does in this case. Embryonic stem cells are not all that removed from human cloning. Should we be at the forefront of that research, also?

Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.

And I won't even get into how abortion mills would likely profit from a relaxation of regulations in this area.

The "abortion mills" rhetoric speaks volumes, Joan. Find me a woman, just one, having an abortion so some non-profit "abortion mill" can sell off the results to some Godless Corporation. Just one.

Closing off any avenue of research at this early stage of the game - when we know so little about any of it - is self-defeating stupidity.

You're right on one thing: we shouldn't do certain things just because we can. But private entities shouldn't be legally restricted from doing certain things, just because they run contrary to your private religious beliefs.

As I recall, religion has been used not just to abolish slavery, but to justify it. In other words, just because a view is religious, doesn't make it right or wrong - or legally binding.

Joan,

Unfortunately, Stephen is right. This genie is out of the bottle, never to be put back in.

This leaves us with a dilemna. Do we allow others to get the jump on us, or do we celebrate human life as sacred (even to atheists)?

Obviously, human life does not mean the same thing to folks as it used to. Most people nowadays are perfectly willing to sacrifice someone elses life to better their own. I think it is clear that the ends justifies the means to these folks.

BTW, I do predict that fetus farming will become a growth industry. If there is money to be had, someone will be willing to step up to the plate to get it. Always been that way, allways will be.

Maybe we shouldn't do something just because we can, but once something can be done, it will be done. Things cannot be un-invented.

Stem cell research will continue and the government should stay out of it. Research will determine if it will be the breakthrough the media hype claims it will be.

Stephen, women aren't getting pregnant and having abortions to further stem cell research, they're getting pregnant and having abortions because they're too careless to use birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

Planned parenthood and other pro-abortion groups have been very successful in changing public opinion about abortion from a necessary evil to be used only in extreme cases to a quick and easy way to practice retro-active birth control.

Maybe embryonic stem cells will lead to the kind of advances you mention. Even a fraction of those benefits would be attractive. If the benefits are there, then it is undeniable that there will be biotech farms in every country that can afford to start them.

Some say that embryonic stem cells will hold advantages over adult stem cells due to their versatility. Ongoing research may prove that wisdom obsolete, and overcome most people's objections at the same time.

Geez, what's the deal with lawyer bashing? That's another one of Bush's faults you haven't mentioned. Otherwise couldn't agree more.

If embryonic stems were the so wonderful, why isn't the private sector all over it?
Why is government money needed for this research?

Abortion mills aren't much of a danger in the research phase, it is the generic treatment phase when you have 250,000 people being treated. Almost any researcher will tell you a fresh line of stem cells is prefered over a second generation line.

Once a procedure is developed we will go immediately to treatment without a pause for ethics. So procedures started now are in for the duration.

Interesting, Stephen, that you jump all over Jean for her religious views when she never mentions religion. (You exposed something very important about yourself there.)

You understand capitalism and human nature. You're being disingenuous when you claim abortions won't be done for the money. You know full well they will.

Two things. Let's try to leave the abortion debate aside for a bit.

Suppose we push ahead full spead with tons of federal money for embryonic stem cell research. What is that going to get us?

How many years have we been doing organ transplants now? Every person who has a transplant has to spend the rest of their life taking immuno-suppressive drugs to avoid rejection. Is there any study that shows we won't have that exact same problem with foreign stem cells?

Meanwhile we've got tons of work and progress being made with adult stem cells and the therapies for those involve actually taking the cells from the person who is to be treated. No rejection problem (at least not that I know of).

Finally, I'm a little confused as to what scientific avenues we would be closing off if we concentrated on adult stem cells for now. We'd be learning how to work with and administer stem cell treatments. We might have a more limited range of treatments possible, but we'd still be advancing the science and the application in general.

While we're doing that maybe we can launch into a large-scale research effort using animals for embryonic stem cell research.

And the diss at automobiles is perhaps inapt at a time when the fact that a large portion of New Orleans' population couldn't evacuate because they had no cars and Big Daddy's mass transit didn't show up is being blamed for much of the suffering there.

Well, alright. What about findings like this? http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1551272,00.html

Embrace the technology, right? Do we have to use actual embryos?

Your only counter to my arguments are 1)limiting research in early stages is stupid and self-limiting, and 2) religious beliefs shouldn't be used to outlaw private behaviors.

Your first point again ignores the facts that there are other sources of stem cells, and that adult stem cells have so far yielded much more promising results. So what if a few elite researchers return to their native countries to do embryonic stem cell research! Do we really need or want to be at the forefront of this particular frontier, while our research on adult stem cells continues? You seem to think that we'll be "left behind" and some horrible situation will result? What horrors? The horrors result if embryonic stem cell treatments actually do become available. If you could become immortal by killing someone else would you do it? (Ever read Bug Jack Barron?)

I hate to bring up the slippery slope, but there it is. Creating embryos for stem cell research is just a stone's throw from human cloning. Do you have a problem with that? I do. Perhaps I've imbibed too much science fiction (although I don't really think that's possible), but the potential for cultural and ethical nightmares is all too real, at least to me.

As to your second point, regarding my desire to impose my religious beliefs on everyone else -- well, since religious beliefs actually form the basis of all our laws, you're standing on shaky ground there.

Is it a religious belief that human life should be respected? I concede that most religions do revere life, but that some do not. However, I would hope that this feeling is not limited to religious people, but is instead recognized as a core requirement for civilization.

Is it a religious belief that embryos are genetically human?

It is true that my religion opposes abortion and the use of embryos for research. But I never raised religion in my comments to you. Was my use of the term "abortion mill" enough for you to tag me as an unthinking pro-lifer? Regardless, I find your arguments unpersuasive.

This bio-ethics paper from January 2004 covers all the same ground and comes to the conclusion that neither side of this argument has been able to sway the other. Nevertheless the discussions therein, even though they are approaching 2 years old, are still instructive.

VP, as your critics point out, there is no beating around the bush. You'll need to argue that embryoes are not people, rather than raise your opponents' religious motives first or toss out the red herring that women won't get pregnant only to make an embryo for science. (Maybe they won't, but that doesn't make it any more right to kill an embryo if it is wrong to kill an embryo.)

Joan's right that embryoes are human organisms. It doesn't matter whether her religion motivates her to cherish life. You cherish life, too.

No, you're going to have to argue that this kind of human organism isn't a person. It's not so hard to do. It isn't a person because it doesn't have a brain. There's nobody home in an embryo. There can be no murder where no one gets killed.

Jim,
The ramifications of your comment are pretty broad. This is OT, but I've got to ask: Does that mean that Terry Schiavo "isn't a person"?

Setting aside the obviously fractious argument of whether her death was horrible or merciful, of course.

Sorry guys, the argument that the genie is out of the bottle and we might as well get on board is unconvincing. Why not argue that various interesting and technologically demanding methods of torture are available and can never be handed back to Pandora, so we might as well get on with using them to obtain vital information.

Anyone want to take that position?

It all comes down to your definition of 'Life'. Until we can agree on that definition the two sides will never agree. But...for those of you on the pro-embryonic stem cell research side of the fence, please understand that those of us opposing such research are doing so out of an honest believe/line of reasoning that we are arguing in favor of life...specifically that life which is the embryo.

Medical advances are great, but I would not face the classic conundrum and choose to commit an unspeakable evil against even a single innocent child even if it meant eradicating 99% of all disease. But that's just my view.

Life or not. I still want the question answered on why Government money is needed.
What is so special about Uncle Sam's dollar that corporate dollars can't do it?

I'm with thirsty gamer on this one. Whether or not I want stem cell research is my choice until the government uses my tax money to support it - then I have no choice.

I am against embryonic stem research, that's my right as an american, so why should it be ok for the government to take my money for something that is against everything I believe. There is plenty of private money out there, use that and research to your hearts content, but stay out of my wallet. How bout if I ask you to pay your tax dollars to research the origins of Jesus or the meaning of life, or faith healing would that be ok. I think not.

Nice work, Steve. I've been saying to friends that the Theocratic GOP wing is doomed to the Econocratic GOP wing for a long time. Sooner or later, money wins out. There's more money in bio than there is in God.

If the Theocratic GOP wing doesn't move to the side, either the Dems will step into the vaccuum or the GOP will split.

Steve,

Your position is okay, it's just that you are on the wrong side.
All of the current advances are being made with adult stem cells. There is nothing happening with embryonic cells except for the recent finding that they might lead to cancer.

Abortion advocates are strongly pushing for Embryionic research because it gives them political and rhetorical cover for their position on when life begins.

The truth is not as you state that prudish religious zealots are standing in the way of amazing cures for superstitious reasons, rather abortion rights absolutists are pushing for wasteful spending of other peoples money to bolster their fading political position. Imagine that, a liberal special interest group demanding that the government spend untold millions to back up their politically nuanced view of the world. Kind of like Global warming, or wet lands regulations, or the idea that its better for forests to burn to the ground than to be logged.

Do yourself a favor and actually look at the current literature. Not the media but the actual papers being presented at medical conferences around the world. The future is in adult lines and the work is being done here in the good 'ol USA largely without tax dollars. In fact most major medicines and cures and breakthroughs are funded privately by you and me and every other American who has ever paid for a perscription.

Consider this another plug for non-embryonic stem cells. Actual treatments are being implemented from this.

For example, google "Edmonton Protocols' to learn more about ASC being used in treating diabetes. This is a treatment available now, and the results are more than encouraging.

In any event, the real money will be in genetic engineering and designer genes, and we should concentrate our focus there, and not on some pie-in-the-sky notion of embryonic stem cells. The problems with rejection will force researchers to transfer their skills to adult stem cells, and when that isn't enough (ie, genetic disorders), genetic engineering steps in. And when we want a solution to things like why we need sleep, designer genes will be the solution (yes I did read Beggars of Spain).

The point isn't to follow the puck, its to go where the puck will be. This will be a non-issue in 5 years. Genetic engineering is not. Designer genes won't be on the horizon for another 20 (IMO).

"How bright is the future of a nation that can produce better minds in an ever-growing portion of the population?"

If you're going to go down that road, isn't calling altering human genes to increase IQ/human capital "biotech" or "genetic engineering" just putting a prettier package on what's commonly known as eugenics?

The core question is not whether "societal gains might be made", "other sources are available", "they're already there-they'll die", "others will do it anyway", etc, etc, etc, but whether or not this is using one human's body to help others? If you confuse yourself into thinking it's so small, I would remind us that so were we once. Size doesn't matter -murder does! Calling evil good doesn't cut it -an evil means, to a good end, is just another evil. How we love to kid ourselves to get what we want, we humans.

Ususally I disagree vigorously with you. And you presented arguments I had not even considered. Good job!

Why must the government subsidize stem cell research ? It is not illegal for the private industry to subsidize this, which I am sure is happening. My beef, Stephen, is that the US taxpayer would be picking up the tab for government stem cell research. I personally do not want to be picking up that tab with tax dollars I have sent to the US govt. Lets let the private industry do that.

The idea that the Federal government is stifling a trillion-dollar industry by not providing hundreds of millions of dollars to fund one small segment of potential research is ludicrous.

The arguments about training scientists from other countries and not raising scientists "in-house" have nothing to do with embryonic stem cell research. If you want more American scientists, then change the system that effectively condemns potential scientists to 7-10 years of indentured servitude with no guarantee of a payoff at the end of the line. Until then, most Americans who could be scientists will go into other fields instead.

Posted approximately these same arguments on another blog and was accused of a non sequitOr. I'll try again anyway. Please suspend all moral/religious judgements for the duration of this comment.

1) I know nothing about biotechnology.
2) I've worked only on small-molecule drugs, not biologically derived materials.
3) You don't (FDA says you can't) administer experimental drugs to people until you've demonstrated some degree of safety in animals. The safety threshold will naturally depend on the seriousness of the untreated human disease state, the perceived benefit to the patient, and the availability and safety of alternative therapies.
4) Where animal models for human disease states exist, the FDA looks very favorably on (translate "essentially requires") demonstration of animal efficacy of experimental treatment before introduction of small-molecule drugs into human test populations (clinical trials).

Now I'll try translating these small-molecule suppositions to stem cells. This alone may well be a fatal leap of reason:

4) Human embroynic stem cell implants will likely kill animal subjects, I think (pathological tissue-rejection issues), so ideally you'd need to use species-specific stem cells to complete both safety/toxicology and efficacy studies (if possible) in animal models.
5) To my knowledge there are no prohibitions on use of federal funding for non-human embryonic stem cell lines. Mouse, rat, pig, dog, cat, monkey, etc., embryos and their stem cells should be easy (not to mention relatively cheap) to come by.
6) Ignoring any safety issues, where are the near-miracle cures in our furry friends that should be required before proceeding with tests of human-embryo-derived stem cells in human subjects? You know - the rat who overcame laboratory-induced spinal cord injury to regain sensation and 10% movement of it's back legs - or the macaque with a 30% reduction in Parkinson-like tremors and rigidity. Maybe all these encouraging animal model results are out there somewhere and I've just missed them. Or they don't exist. Or the rats all die of kidney failure a week after they successfully run the maze?

It's probably all just a conspiracy by the Bush-controlled media to suppress this information. Barring that, my conclusion is that the "federal funding of embryonic stem cell research" issue is a politically correct brickbat wielded by research welfare queens (not that there are any of THOSE hanging around our universities). Odd how stirring federal funds into the "scientific" research mix frequently yields promises of results particularly appealing to ONE SIDE OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM. Reminds me of a story I heard on NPR'S All Things Considered where this poor African American woman was thrown into the flooded streets of New Orleans by ... oh never mind.

>"...I understand why pro-life people are so upset by fetal stem cell research, but let's get something straight here. If there's a woman out there considering an abortion, her decision will not be based on the promise of medical research..."
This statement is nonsense. Any women choosing NOT to keep her baby has two options. 1. An abortion. 2. An adoption. A lot of the stem cell spin is so the pro-abortion groups can SELL the idea that an abortion instead of an adoption can help save lives. Sort of like the idea that if you limit the amount of guns a person can own, it is easier to eliminate them all together. PETA programs have the same "get a little now, then demand more" process.
If you want to "get something straight" then you should admit that the pro-abortion groups PUSH abortion over adoption. The pie-in-sky proponents of Federal funding of big medicine company research is to make abortion an "acceptable" reason to have an abortion for those undecided women. That is a "straight" fact.

The majority of people on earth today have never talked on a telephone.

Take your argument to them.

How can it be wrong to use fetal cells for research, but perfectly fine to use the tissues of, say, a murder victim? Assuming one believes that abortion is murder... what's the difference?

From the statistics I've seen, one out of every three pregnancies end in abortion.

Stem Cell research is such a small fraction of that, it would normally be considered a statisical error.

wow stephen, you touched a rail. you might be the victim of a mass delinking by the theocratic wing like glenn reynolds was for not skewering the aclu. you might lose 10 or so pageviews, so i think you should toe the line.

and i'm sorry, rest of the folks: i believe what stephen was saying here was that the new bio-"theocracist/ethicist" on the bush team advocates the banning of PRIVATE research. that was what he quoted, go read it.

then come back and argue about it all.

As a Jesus-freak, I can't help but be repelled by any scientific experimentation upon the helpless.

However, these embryos are dead, anyway.

Put them to use. The resulting discoveries may save wanted babies later on that may not survive otherwise.

Also, other stem cell lines are being found to be just as efficient and negate the dead-baby issue.

I vote with Vodka-guy, here. Full steam ahead.

Embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with abortion. The cells used were derived in a petrie dish and have never even been implanted in a woman, so they cannot possibly be the result of abortion.
So you see, there IS a huge difference between fetal stem cells and ESC.
If you are worried about the blastocysts in a petrie dish( a cell cluster smaller than the period at the end of a sentence, isn't even called an embryo until it implants in a woman....)please read this article http://www.reason.com/rb/rb122204.shtml
to put this silly issue in perspective.

In regard to adult stem cells, they have not cured paralysis yet and are thus of limited use even after 30 years of research.

This fallacious default argument that, if it's a relious belief it can't be done in America because of the equally fallacious "separation of Church and state", is really tiresome and rather sophomoric.
It is a also a religious belief that one should not steal, rape, murder,etc. Society will also punish parents who fail to take proper care of their children (also a religious belief.)
Should we omit these as the rightful laws of society because they are also religious beliefs?

It is quite different for society to say that no one can eat meat on Fridays (still Catholic urging)than it is for society to say , it's OK for people to eat fish on Friday.

If you can't see the difference I'm afraid no one will be able to help you.
Society has a right and obligation to protect innocent life -yes -even though it is also a religious belief!

Wow, Stephen, you have attracted quite the group of anti-abortion folks!

You know what I LOVE ? I absolutely LOVE when the anti-abortionists tell everyone - as if it's rock solid truth - that the whole embryonic stem cell thing is just a cover for the PRO-abortionists to lobby for more abortions. Good choice of argument there. That's a real winning angle there guys. But if you think it works, by gum, stick with it.

On the other hand, when anyone even SUGGESTS that anti-abortionists are religious, well, that's just not true. Please. People opposed to abortion are overwhelmingly religious. YOU may be the exception to the rule, but the rule still holds. Who's kidding who here ?

Stephen, I believe there is a deeper basis for our economic success. People came to the United States because they saw an opportunity to be treated fairly. That opportunity unlocked enormous untapped energy.

Besides being a grave moral evil, the exploitation of these tiny humans will backfire economically.

Bear with me. I have a point, but a round-about way of proving it.

In Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel, he cites the naval technology that was present in China in the early 1400's. China possessed treasure fleets with ships up to 400 feet long. China sent these fleets as far away as the East Coast of Africa. Why then didn't the Chinese conquer the Americas, seeing as how they had almost 90 years' worth of head start?

The answer is a political upheaval in China itself. Essentially the winners of an internal power struggle prevented the former group from sending any more fleets in an effort to limit their political power.

Since the Chinese sea captains had no one else to approach about funding their missions, the fleets were disbanded and disassembled.

Contrast that with Columbus, who went all over Europe looking for funding and playing one ruler off against another until he was able to get what he needed.

Our decision to handicap our scientists over stem-cell research is an exact parallel to the Chinese merchant fleets with one exception. Our scientists can, and believe me they will, go elsewhere for funding.

We are not only taking ourselves out of the game, we are putting our best talent into the draft.

One thing is for sure!... None of us are going to live forever.

Theocrat vs Econocrat.

The Theocrats have been trying to
overthrow the New _Secular_ Order
of government since its inception,
with little success; Ignore them.

The Econocrats have had some past
success in minimizing scientific
advances which threaten the $tatus
Quo; Rapid change occurs only
in cases of survival or surprise.

The future survival of the USA
rests on riding an accelerating
wave of technological surprise;
If we do not lead, we lose:
Economically, militarily, permanently.

One last comment before I turn in.

Science is a tool, that in the hands of moral men(and women) can bring about great fruits. Science without direction from moral men (and women) will bring about nothing but rotten fruits. We need to direct science to a moral end, not do as the Nazies, see where science chooses to take us.
Science untethered by morality is pure disaster.
Just think of terrorists with WMD and you'll see science without moral direction.

Interestingly you used the word "entities". Many of us believe embryos and fetus are "entities"... Of course that is a matter of debate for many...But...technology has proven that embryos and fetus are in fact living growing creatures! Stem cell research on embryos is tramping on sacred territory for many of us. If in fact an embryo is a human life growing inwside a female??? Does that make it OK to research in hope of contributing to another persons life?

Just because we can do something is not sufficient reason to do it if it is wrong.

A fetus at day birth-1 is different from a baby at day birth+1 how? It certainly can't be viability. Not with all of the premature babies that live.

And the difference between day birth-1 and day birth-2 is what? And day birth-3?

Pro-lifers cannot just say, "Well, murder will happen anyway, so why not take advantage of it?"

After watching my sister diagnosed with MS in '75, my brother diagnosed with a rare neurological disease and myself diagnosed with MS in 2002 the only avenue of hope I see is stem cell research. The majority of my female cousins also suffer from immune system disorders from lupus to RH. Don't get me wrong I am PRO life. I believe abortion is wrong. There must be some middle ground we can find among the political/religious rhetoric. There HAS to be a way.

Spanky

Personal problems cause emotional responses seldom based on moral principle - no disease, regardless how horrible, is excuse for all of us to degenerate into takers of innocent life to solve our problems. I repeat -doing evil to bring about a good, is evil. You cannot be pro-life and for embryonic stem cell research -no matter how much you'd like to fool yourself -

This gift of precious human life cannot become a
utilitarian product without reducing all of us to mere savage animals. Ask the Jews if it can't happen. The 40 Million aborted can't speak for themselves.

--they have not cured paralysis yet--

I thought there was a case in Portugal (?) where a woman had been paralyzed for 20 years and is now walking????

AND

Hasn't the sage of Omaha said most of his money's going to med research when he dies?

why can't he get by on $30 billion instead of over $40 billion????

Let im fund it, there's more than enough there.

Well, now that I know everyone's opinion about abortion and embryonic cell research, can I assume those opposed support Pellegrino's proposal to ban private research into the latter--the actual subject of the post?

Stem cells are a lot of hype. Nothing has been cured with stem cells anywhere by anyone. The hype surrounding stem cells would have people believe that stem cells can make the crippled walk and the blind see and the dead rise but nothing has been done with them yet anywhere.

On the issue of allowing private funds for embryonic stem cell research, I think it is a fair compromise.

On Spanky's issue w/ MS. It's in my family tree as well. I'm not so convinced that stem cells would cure it. MS is an auto-immune disorder. Transplanting a new immune system would be a very complex undertaking. I'm inlined to think that we will be able to regrow the mylene sheath on neurons before we learn how to create a new immune system in someone.
And how will we create these new mylene sheaths? Nanobots.

I've got one word for you .. PLASTICS.

And so goes the scene from Mrs. Robinson where the latest mega-dollar techno-fad. I'm surprised there was no "plastics bubble".

So why does the word .. Interferon .. keep bouncing around in my head ? That's right .. it was on the cover of TIME.

With scientists yelling "Ice Age" then "Global Warming" permutating into "Climate Change" just why shouldn't the public be a bit more suspicious about the back handed comments about "amazing cures" to come from fetal stem cells.

After all the societal icons are cast aside to chase this bio-windmill which requires that we ignore the bigger "moral safety net" of the unborn and the nearly dead, where .. in the words of Ray Donovan .. does society go to get back it's reputation ?

Let industry fund it's own research.

Would it have been morally acceptable if the Nazies had shipped out the "final solution" to the Jewish question to private industry?
What difference does it matter if private industry or the Government is doing the killing? To the murdered human, there can be no compromise about an absolute evil!

Save the nuances for politics!

Duranty,

You're entirely correct. The reason people ignore your argument is that it completely destroys the anti-Bush position.

People of have playing around with human embryonic stem cells for over five years. in that time, they haven't accomplished anything useful.

The reason they haven't accomplished anythign useful is that the science is harder than initially thought (gee, what a surprise), and we need to do a whole bunch of basic research.

Basic research goes much faster with animals than it does on humans (just think about all the scientific studies you can do to animals that no one would let you do to humans (like killing them two weeks into the experiment to see what's happening)). Bush is funding animal embryonic stem cell research, which is what we need right now.

We'll leave asside, for the moment, the humor of "libertarians" complaining because the Federal Geovernment isn't funding something. ;-)

You have said something very close to my heart.

The whole issue of morality wrt. stem cell research is misguided. Religious bigots were never able to stop the progress of science, but you cannot blame them for lack of trying.

The massive pushback from so called conservatives is destined to relegate US in the back-benches of modern science and innovation.

You made my evening.