Obama Reverses Bush On Stem Cells

37 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  Duffer on March 09 at 11:26 a.m.

  Yes I do. I have no moral problem with it!

• 

  toadman on March 09 at 11:33 a.m.

  “Do you support President Obama’s action this morning to lift federal restrictions on embryonic stem cell research put in place in 2001 by President Bush?”

  Yes. I support this.

• 

  Sisyphus on March 09 at 11:36 a.m.

  I support this very strongly.

• 

  Sam on March 09 at 11:38 a.m.

  As I said over at the Politics Blog, I’m just now waiting for the zombie hordes. I’ve seen “I am Legend.”

• 

  moscow_minidoka on March 09 at 11:39 a.m.

  Yes, but not for any knee-jerk reasons (not implying that’s why others said “Yes,” by the way).

  I think the Bush Administration’s demonization of science and scientists was one of the worst crimes of the last 8 years, and I am happy to have a president who supports science over Dobson.

• 

  toadman on March 09 at 11:42 a.m.

  mm - you’re right about why I said “yes.” This wasn’t a knee jerk reaction on my part, just a knee to the jerk who disowned science over the past 8 years…that’s all.

  :-O that was a friendly jab at Bush, nothing more…

  Oh, and Sam, the Zombie Hordes can’t show up soon enough….

• 

  JeanieSpokane on March 09 at 11:47 a.m.

  I am thrilled with this action, as I said on the Wild Card. It is a huge, huge development and badly needed.

• 

  poolman on March 09 at 11:50 a.m.

  Everything I have read about stem-cell technology has been very positive. Scientists are confident they can make dramatic steps to fight MS, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, heart disease and make breakthroughs in spinal cord injury rehabilitation - and that is just scratching the surface. The old notion that an embryo on a Petri dish is a “human life” is so backward and morally bankrupt. Tell some 16 year old kid who just woke up in a hospital bed after being hit head on by a drunk driver and has been told that he will never walk again because of C6 spinal fracture that we are not going to fund stem cell research because it is against our morals to harvest unwanted embryos from obsolete sperm and egg bank holdings. That is exactly what Bush did. The only immoral part is not doing more research faster.

• 

  Cabbage Boy on March 09 at 2:10 p.m.

  If the ESCR were so “promising”, it wouldn’t need government funding. Investors would be lining up to be in this business. The way it is, when science or businesses struggle, they now turn to lobbyists.

  Adult stem cell has shown some promise. But it isn’t a political football so it gets no attention.

  And Dave, the only “restriction” Bush put on it was by not funding the creation of FURTHER lines of the cells. There was not ban. Get a grip people.

• 

  Liz on March 09 at 2:55 p.m.

  thanks cabbage boy…for being bold enough to say that

• 

  Escapee on March 09 at 3:00 p.m.

  I’ll support anything that improves on the quality of health care, and from what I’ve read, permitting stem-cell research is certainly a shift in the right direction. Just another case of President doing what he said he was gonna do. How refreshing.

• 

  hmoffsuite on March 09 at 3:13 p.m.

  Escapee >>> “Just another case of President doing what he said he was gonna do. How refreshing.”

  What is not refreshing is the President not doing things he said he would do or doing things he said he wouldn’t.

• 

  Cabbage Boy on March 09 at 4:07 p.m.

  Your welcome Liz. Just get tired of the faux outrage about Bush “banning” ESCR when he only limited its funding to what was already created. hardly a “morally bankrupt” position as poolman puts it.

• 

  Arch_Druid on March 09 at 6:07 p.m.

  Yeah, essentially a shell game on not allowing any new stem cell lines being created. Precisely, the ones now in existence being for the most part unusable. Therefore essentially banning funding for research altogether, Cabbage Boy. Nothing there, there under any of the 3 shells. Which is why stem cell research went mostly overseas.

• 

  cantyoureadthesigns on March 10 at 12:33 a.m.

  Hmmmm, flush the unused blastocysts down the toilet, or use them for research into life saving cures. Golly gee, such a dilemma.

• 

  Phaedrus on March 10 at 8:16 a.m.

  The post at 2:10 PM by Cabbage Boy begins with a logical fallacy. Most medical research is spurred by the Federal Government through NIH. Cancer and other diseases have long been funded through this mechanism. Stem cell research is no different. Except in the minds of the embryo fixated.

• 

  hmoffsuite on March 10 at 8:23 a.m.

  Phaedrus >>> “Most medical research is spurred by the Federal Government through NIH. Cancer and other diseases have long been funded through this mechanism.”

  I’m wondering if you have any facts to back up this statement. Not trying to argue here but I happen to think the vast majority of drug research is funded by the private sector.

• 

  Phaedrus on March 10 at 8:31 a.m.

  I said medical research, not drug research.

• 

  Cabbage Boy on March 10 at 9:06 a.m.

  Phaedrus said
  “Most medical research is spurred by the Federal Government through NIH. Cancer and other diseases have long been funded through this mechanism. Stem cell research is no different”

  Soooo, with ESCR we can expect the same “results” as we have with the cure for cancer?

  government funding, just like a government job, usually doesn’t lead to a completion. It just leads to more reasons for continuing the funding. The cure for cancer research has been amazing in the dollars spent for no tangible result. Yes there is many expensive and unhealthy methods of fighting cancer, but no tangible cure.

  So we agree that the ESCR will be along the same lines. Money for research, no tangible results. I think that was my point.

« Back to Huckleberries Online