Deconstructing Obama's Stem Cell Policy
I have been mouthing off at President Obama's stem cell actions all week, particularly with regard to his silent evisceration of the "alternative methods" federal funding requirement. Toward that end, I did what I do when steam is coming out my ears; wrote a piece for the Daily Standard. From my column:
The mainstream media--still obsessed with discrediting all things "Bush"--focused gleefully on the expected rescission of the restriction that under Bush limited federal funding to embryonic stem cell lines in existence on August 9, 2001. But opening up all existing and future embryonic stem cell lines to federal funding is not all that Obama did. While he made no mention of it in his widely covered East Room speech, a quiet press release issued on Monday stated that in addition to the above change, "Executive Order 13435 of June 20, 2007, which supplements the August 9, 2001, statement on human embryonic stem cell research, is revoked."The hypocrisy of taking away a policy that specifically bridged the bitter divides he promised to heal--pro life versus pro choice, liberal versus conservative, pro ESCR and anti ESCR--led me to this conclusion:
That opaque notice tells us absolutely nothing. But a little research makes clear why the administration was so terse: The 2007 executive order required the government to make a point of funding what are known as "alternative methods" for obtaining pluripotent stem cells. These are procedures that don't require the destruction of embryos to derive these powerful cells, which are theoretically able to become any tissue in the body. It is this capacity that scientists say makes embryonic stem cells so valuable.
President Obama's silent revocation of alternative-methods funding as a special project of the federal government betrayed the concerted attempts made over the last eight years to find a common way forward in one of the most ethically contentious areas of biotechnological research. So much for bridging the country's cultural and political divides. So much for transparency in governance. So much for taking the politics out of science.I am sure that this two-faced approach of saying one thing but doing the opposite will be a hallmark of the Obama Administration, at least with regard to issues we deal with here at SHS. For whatever it is worth, I will be deconstructing his policies all along the way.
Labels: Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Wesley J. Smith. President Barach Obama. Alternative Methods.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 11:16 AM
11 Comments
11 Comments:
Stimulus $$$ can go to ASC - if WE'RE good salesmen!!
(Excuse my little brainstorm and forgive me for copying a comment from an earlier post)
I think its all about the money.
BUT that this economic crisis actually provide us "ethicals" with an advantage. To explain. NORMAL grants are bureaucratic, nobody much follows its cost / benefits, only its "potential" which is ESCs selling point.
On CA level, hey it would be nice, it would be more than nice that the Regeneration thing paid by our bonds was producing. $40 bil state deficit adds to the accountability factor. Same with Federal except the stimulus gives us more advantage. Adult Stem Cells are almost "shovel ready" meaning more clinical funds, more money to save cord blood could not only mean research but real benefits, and steady jobs in an orderly fashion. Can ESC match that, NOPE!!?
With the end of the ban moreover, aren't all the research facilities going to have justify the "dual" equipment of fed, non-fed, ESC, non-ESC. Continuing "Basic research" into making those darn ESC behave and not cause tumors will not cut it on $ grounds!!!
I believe I am left with no choice but to be very direct here: there is much bold, flat out speculation that was implied in the "Daily Standard". This is not intellectually honest (ie, thorough) at all.
We need to to look at the NIH funding website. This is the current grant cycle, with grants due in May 2009. Notice all the funding for non embryonic stem cells.
http://stemcells.nih.gov/news/nihopps/nihopps_type.asp
We can only keep an eye on the funding levels at NIH and see if this changes - will NIH stop funding human iPSC? Will funding levels remain the same? Does Obama himself have DIRECT control over NIH allocation to stem cells - what % is spent on EST what % is spent on iPSC (he doesn't)? Ethics and morality aside, if new data on ESC is promising and blows away iPSC, should NIH continue to fund iPSC? Assuming future NIH grant cycles have a decrease in iPSC funding, can we PROVE that Obama himself was the one behind this - or was it promising data that pushed funding managers at NIH to pursue ESC vs. iPSC?
Given the memo that Obama released, he indicated such decisions would be made based on science. Whether that is actually what happens (behind closed doors) remains to be seen. [a test for this would be if ESC results fall flat in 4 years, yet is still funded out the wazoo at the loss to iPSC funding] A better question may be to directly ask Obama, point-blank, did he give NIH a directive to flat-out stop (or severely restrict) iPSC funding at some point, for no reason other than to allow ESC funding to increase? If he did, I actually think such an announcement would be made at NIH as such researchers (iPSC) would need to know ahead of time if there funding is in danger of being cut. I have seen no such announcement on their web site and calls for proposals.
I really do appreciate people, such as through this blog, keeping an eye on these issues and I think it leads to a healthy society to hold our leaders, scientists, and citizens accountable for where our public money is going in research. I also think open debate on these issues is necessary. But I also think we need to have intellectual integrity and careful, thorough research and analysis over these things. Admittedly, I am worried this blog is falling short on this matter, yet need not do so.
And I still think the heart of this issue may be over the biological definition of the beginning of "human life".
He doesn't even sound like a President. Something is wrong.
NIH (National institute of Health)must issue new guidance to the scientific and medical institutes requesting federal funds. While the general principle of federal $ for embryonic research will no longer be banned, there are many further areas of research that should need guidance or limitation on a variety of grounds.
* A real analysis of current scientific benefits of ASC vs ESC should lead to commensurate funding
* A real cloning ban .
* A real ban of experimentation on creation and use of the fetus beyond the implantation stage for pharmaceutical and disease modeling.
Please visit Stem Cell Research - Prolife Input to the Obama Administration http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=54930268191
Robert B, how can you have an analysis of current scientific benefits of ASC vs ESC, when you hardly know what ESCs are capable of? That's why scientists want to study them - they don't know what the potential of such cells is. Ethics and morality aside, it looks promising, but who knows?
A real cloning ban? Ban from cloning what? Which kinds of cloning should be banned? Humans clone things daily - many of our crops and lifestock are the product of cloning on some level. Scientists clone individual and groups of genes daily to study proteins.
A fetus, Robert, by definition has its major organ systems intact. This occurs around the 8th week or so. Implantation occurs with an embryo, not a fetus. Implantation occurs, apparently, when lysophosphaditic acid binds to a G-protein coupled receptor which in turn activates a signaling cascade to active cyclooxygenase-2, which in turn increases prostaglandin production, which then act with their receptors to create a slew of changes in the uterine lining. However, experiments may come out tomorrow that disprove all of this.
Before we take a stand on something, we ought to know what we are talking about and have our reasons for the positions we hold.
By the way, studies have been done looking at various aspects of stem cell research - comparing ESC with iPSC with ASC. Here is just ONE example to get you started (and it came out just last month), follow the links and citations and you will be well on your way to being informed as best possible with what we know:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
"Ethics and morality aside"? Am I the only person who is creeped out by this phrase?
Also, I didn't think there was ANY "biological" controversy about the beginning of human life - conception creates a brand new DNA signature that will eventually grow into an infant given the right environment to grow. Transferring a new nucleus into an egg does the same thing with an existing DNA signature, producing a clone of the original DNA donor.
Both produce new human life. There are people pushing the concept of "personhood" to (in my opinion) create classes of humans who have no rights and can be used as raw materials for the rest of us.
No SparcVark you're not the only one.
I don't think it should be done with humans or with non-human animals. What we find "works" with them we then do re ourselves and that's how we got to this point. It's not like using them for food, for which they use one another as well. When we start doing what they would have too much decency and too much sense to do if they were able to, that's when we get into trouble. And trouble is where we are now.
"A real cloning ban? Ban from cloning what?"
What Robert means is that both cloning for the sake of giving birth to clones AND cloning for the purpose of destroying the newly created (cloned) embryos should be banned. Both types. Obama mentioned only banning the former, which strongly suggests by omission that he supports the latter.
Thank you, WJS, for your insights here. I felt I had to give you credit for helping me to understand the Obama EO in relation to the other legislation that is swirling around the topic of ESCR. I've linked this post to my own blogpost on the subject.
Question: how do you think the Dickie-Wicker Amendment in the budget bill will actually affect Obama's aims to federally-fund all forms of ESCR?
Letitia (The Damsel): Thanks for coming to SHS.
I think Obama wants Dickey ended. He has indicated that other work in this field will be legislative. He has no choice and wasn't going to veto an omnibus budget bill during an economic crisis over that. But look for that drub beating to begin. He will try to make it look like he wasn't involved. But he is.
NYT has started the charge with its editorial.
Dana wrote:
"Here is just ONE example to get you started (and it came out just last month), follow the links and citations and you will be well on your way to being informed as best possible with what we know:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez"
What's the correct link, please?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home