The Untold Story: Radical Obama Also Rescinds Executive Order for Alternatives to ESCR
We all know that President Obama rescinded the Bush funding restrictions for ESCR. But that isn't all he did. He also rescinded Executive Order 13435 of June 20, 2007.
What is that? Of course, the Administration didn't have the candor or courage to publicize this part of his nasty work, but the now dead order explicitly required funding for "alternative methods," such as the new IPSCs, which offer so much promise without the ethical contentiousness. For more on that late executive order, see SHS, "Bush to Fund Stem Cell 'Alternatives' Research.) Alternative methods are one of the few areas in which we can all row in the same direction, which I thought this president wanted to do.
I can think of only two reasons for this action, for which I saw no advocacy either in the election or during the first weeks of the Administration: First, vindictiveness against all things "Bush" or policies considered by the Left to be "pro life;" and second, a desire to get the public to see unborn human life as a mere corn crop ripe for the harvest.
So much for taking the politics out of science!
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 1:16 PM
20 Comments
20 Comments:
And why did he feel a need to mention cloning? He is so full of it. The hook! The hook! Somebody find the hook and get this guy offstage! He has GOT to be impeached! I'm not worried about use of embryoes in research; that really doesn't bother me. I'm worried about the stupidity of those who would do it expecting success and the existence of IVF in the first place and how far gone the country already was that allowed this guy to get elected in the first place. He has GOT to go. This latest antic is just part of his whole schtick. He's not up to the job, he's out of his depth, he's a stooge (isn't that obvious?) and he's dangerous, as are those behind him. I'm finding that the same people I would never allow to set foot in my house on their own merits are turning out consistently to have voted for him.
The president isn't a hypocrite on this, he's a phony and a fraud. Shame on him. This is a return to using sufferers as props. He doesn't care about bringing people together either.
Not just crops but props. He sees sufferers as props just as other policitians did pre-iPSCs.
When people get dumb enough a stooge appears, brought onto the stage by those behind him who know that finally the time is ripe, and people end up dead. I'm mortified that he comes, sun-wise, from my part of the zodiac; dictators tend to, though, when we go negative. The rest of his chart tells his story, and you're right, Don, he's not about uniting people, he's about subjugating them, hob-nailed boots, himself, and hype.
On the brighter side, it looks from the numbers by the flags that more than 1000 new people in the U.S. are visiting SHS every 24 hours now.
This is an excellent and wise decision by Obama. Rescinding EO 13435 will open new avenues to research as it does not tie the hands or budget of scientific research. Science researchers will now be free to go wherever the data and most promising results take them. If ESCs demonstrate more interesting and promising results (who knows, we've hardly studied them), why waste time, resources, and money on IPSC or adult stem cells (which we've used for over 50 years) as required by EO 13435? Such freedom allows science to move wherever the data takes it, which is the quickest way to discovery and application. Consequently, I do not think this has anything to do with undermining Bush's policies or promoting a certain viewpoint of human life. As such, this is about pure, scientific inquiry and intellectual freedom that can hopefully secure America's position as the global leader in science - which will be necessary for our survival and success in the coming decades.
Dana: Then why didn't he make more of it? And if it is about "pure, scientific inquiry" he wouldn't say he was putting ANY ethical constraints in place. After all, pure science is unfettered by any ethical baggage.
And next, let's do away with the Animal Welfare Act that prevents pure scientific inquiry with animals. And the day after that, erase human research subject protections, which also constrain pure scietific inquiry.
Thanks for your POV.
Obama must think that the American people are stupid. INFURIATING. Talk about killing hope.
Securing America's position as a global leader in science? We're not that already? Well if we're not that explains a lot re our medical establishment among other things and if we are that's a reflection on the general inferiority of science to start with. Science is a servant. It can't handle being "supreme" and those who think it is are unfit even to be servants and have insolently, ignorantly, and unwisely stepped out of their class and become laughingstocks, of which they are unaware...
SAFEpres: Of course he does. First of all, he's tall, and unless they are internally balanced, tall people often make that kind of mistake. He's not balanced; too much fuss has been made over him all his life. He also doesn't like to work. (I couldn't help doing a little astro-profile on him here a while ago.) He's not up to the job, he doesn't know what competence and intelligence ARE, and he thinks he's smarter than everybody. The guy is negative, he is all about himself, and whoever voted for him deserves the mess he's making but the rest of us don't. Something has to be done; his health isn't even going to hold up because he's in over his head; he has to be impeached NOW. What to do about the rest of the crew he's got there I don't know. We need some thing like Hercules'solution to how to clean out the Augean (sp? can't remember) Stables. I won't give away my prediction of what's going to happen re Obama and how he's going to end up but when it happens I will indeed say "toldja!" He doesn't want to nurture hope and he's not up to doing that. We didn't need change, except from Bush's policies on tort reform and illegal immigration and certain attitudes prevalent in the country. NOW we need change. I think we should throw a large portion of the U.S. citizenry out of the country and secure our borders and stop trade with foreign countries. But then that's just another of my radical good ideas, and it's not apt to manifest of course. The people who elected this dangerous clown don't understand the value of hope and are negative themselves. I can't believe Warren Buffett supported him and is only now waking up about him -- unless Buffett's birthday is when I think I remember it is, but I'm not sure I'm not confusing him with someone else at the moment. Only that could explain it. This is all very bad gungee.
Hey what's Conservatives For Patients' Rights? Just heard its ad on the radio.
Wesley: I'd like to see Dana try to answer what you pointed out. If the left hemisphere of the brain had all the answers wouldn't it get us all further to lobotomize everyone's right hemisphere? They aren't trained to THINK. They just think they are.
I do not think the Animal Welfare Act has anything to do with human embryonic stem cells.
As for pure, scientific inquiry, such research would be responsible (not wasteful, or foolhardy) as it is hypothesis driven, testable, repeatable, and scientifically worthy as it gains knowledge through dissemination of the data obtained through methodological naturalism and philosophical materialism. It would be based on asking the right questions and not strictly limited to application driven research. This is pure, scientific inquiry. If it is tainted or needlessly limited by political pressures, application, data removed or changed/falsified, or suppressed, then it's not pure. Ethics and pure inquiry are different matters. HOWEVER, if one assumes I meant "unfettered" scientific research, my apologies. Unfettered and pure are not the same to me. Unfettered, to me, means anything goes; pure, to me, means untainted by the various (and more) factors listed above.
This executive order says nothing about ethics. Guidelines are fine - guidelines can be anything from how many labs, who can investigate, what kind of facilities, what level of funding, how to distribute scarce resources, etc.
As for securing America's lead in science - you can still be in 1st place, winning in the 4th quarter (or any other sports metaphor) and take means to secure your lead.
Science is a servant?? Servant of what or whom?? How is that a definition of modern science? Science is a way of looking at things and investigating them in the effort to pursue the truths of the natural world.
Lanthe, read this:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B8JH1-4VH4DRY-2&_user=716796&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000040078&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=716796&md5=196f9f3678ad93886e2aba6235334dd9
I think perhaps at the core of this issue is a fundamental definition of "human life". Many people, and perhaps Obama, do not see zygotes, blastocytes, fertilized eggs, embryos, or any number of development stages as "human life", rather, they may see it as "cellular life". How can "human life" be defined and when is "value" attributed to it? What is "cellular life"? Do those who insist that sentient consciousness capable of empathy alone constitutes "human life" have a valid point? Can the general public decide what/when "human life" is, or only politicians, or only embryologists, etc? Should we err on the side of caution, or is this caution irrational? Can knowledge gained through science be fairly applied to these questions? Should it be? From my both anecdotal and flimsy research experience, those who take a 'scientific' or 'biological' viewpoint toward answering these questions tend to view such zygotes, embryos, and blastocytes as "cellular" and not "human" life. And there seems to be many different points for individuals for which "cellular" switches to "human". Others contend that "human life" begins at conception (conception is very hard to define biologically) or sometime shortly thereafter. Perhaps this is the where the trenches of the battle really are and both sides may be fighting from the command post (I'm out of sports metaphors for today).
Dana:
It's biology, and logic.
1) Is it alive? If not, then how can it be of any use?
2) Is it human? Genetically, yes -- and the same question applies.
3) Is it a singular, self-organizing organism? Yes, once egg and sperm merge that is the case.
We thus are dealing with an individual human life. The rest is just obfuscation.
Dana: You may be right, but that isn't scientific. I thought they were the rational ones!
When you think of it, we are all "cellular life."
In my view, the continual redefinition is intellectually dishonest and ideologcally based. They want to use human beings as objects but don't have the guts to be honest about it.
Dana: With regard to the Animal Welfare Act, the connection is this: We don't permit scientists to do whatever they want with animals due to ethical considerations. The same should apply to human life, even to the unborn.
Is it just me, or have the ESC research proponents' talking points changed? Prior to the funding ban being lifted, I thought we got a lot of "cures are just around the corner" talk and the suggestion that the ban was hurting people with certain diseases who might be cured, soon, with promising research.
Now that it's lifted, suddenly it's "ASC research has a 40-year head start, it's too soon to expect much, this is just the early days". Kind of a sudden switch, right?
See also: the 2008 election.
Before: "We'll fix everything!"
After: "Jeez...this is gonna take years."
By the way, one reason ASCs "had a head start" is because they're far easier to work with. (But wait! We're supposed ta blame it on da Bush!)
Thank you for informing us about this. It was indeed a radical move to rescind Exec Order 13435. I had expected President Obama to rescind restrictions for ESCR funding, but this is bewildering. Human life deserves better.
I don't go to links, Dana. As for you, and the proper role of science, I'm versed in a science in which you are not, or you'd understand what I said. If you were trained to think, and capable of it, you'd know what the Animal Welfare Act and embryonic stem cell research have to do with one another. I'm not surprised you would call Obomination''s decision "wise." But you don't know what wisdom is.
Why do we have to be "first" in scientific progress? That has ramifications of other things than pure science and scientific inquiry, including economic, political, even military factors, and the career ambitions of our scientists. Which in fact is evidence that it is indeed a servant. Even as pure scientific inquiry it's a servant, if a reason for it to be unfettered is that it gets to breakthroughs that yield benefits more quickly. But who's first is irrelevant if all that's cared about is pure science, and it's a community of brilliant minds dedicated to nothing but progress of science as quickly as possible for the benefit of mankind, or even for its own sake.
I shared your blog post on a pro-choice e-mail list to point out how non-embryonic stem cell research has been de-funded and I was asked if it is possible that the new executive order made Executive Order 13435 redundant, and that was why it was repealed. I wasn't sure how to answer this - do you have a thought on this possibility?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home