Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32

Thread: House Passes Bill for Stem Cell Research BUT.....

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    17,427
    Stephen212 - My point exactly, Krauthammer is wrong and way off just to mention amniotic stem cell research in the light of the H.R.3 debate. Amniotic stem cell’s is just another flower in the garden of adult stem cells. Not strange it exist in the amniotic fluid at all, a fetus have such cells likewise cells isolated in the placenta, but what does any of this have to do with human embryonic stem cell research which the H.R.3 calls for more focus on? Please explain.

    For amniotic stem cell research, there are no hindrances or laws to hold it down other than a general lack of funding to stem cell research which one always could put it depending on where one comes from like for example Krauthammer I believe.
    Last edited by Leif; 01-13-2007 at 04:53 PM.

  2. #22
    Senior Member cypresss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    C5 functional
    Posts
    648
    we need money from federal fonds for research. This nation it's stronger from the Earth and he can lead to a treatment for us.

    god bless america.

    http://www.curespinalcordinjury.com/node/23

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by stephen212
    Wise,

    I read the Krauthammer piece and came away drawing very different conclusions. Disclaimer: The dispassionate argument that follows should in no way be construed as a defense of Krauthammer's position. However, I don't think it's fair or accurate to accuse him of intentionally lying.

    Krauthammer attempts to draw a parallel between abortion rights gone too far (partial birth abortion) and the use of stem cells from fertilized embryos and their potential for clearly unethical future mis-use (e.g., human spare parts).

    He raises the issue of partial birth abortion and "dismemberment" to try and make the point that there is a tipping point at which legal abortion (which he supports) becomes ethically untenable. The same with sourcing stem cells.

    To Krauthammer, the purported viability of using amniotic-derived stem cells heralds a breakthrough opportunity to use a virtually abundant source of pluripotential cells that can in no way be tainted by the ethical quandry and potential abuse of using fertilized human embryos. By using amniotic cells there is no tipping point to approach, there are no ethical questions that need to be mulled over, there's nothing to object to.

    He applauds Bush for holding the line back in August, 2001, on the availability/development of stem cell lines citing the future not-yet-imaginable ways that unlimited availability could be used for less than moral purposes.

    I didn't agree with Bush then, I don't agree with him now. But I also don't think that Krauthammer's piece was intellectually dishonest or that he was pulling abortion straws out of the air. The essay met the measure of internal logic -- that is, it tied together well -- though we're all free to draw our own conclusions about where our own ethical tipping points lie with respect to the stem cell debate.
    Stephen212, I can appreciate your viewpoint but let me point out the following.

    This is an article published on January 12, two days after the House of Representatives passed HR3. Krauthammer was clearly referring to the House bill HR3 but was very careful not to refer to the bill. He instead attacked embryonic stem cell advocates, saying that they are giving false hope, that they support "wanton and unrestricted" use of human embryos, and they want to go down the "slippery slope" of creating embryos and growing "human-like organisms". He knows that the bill carefully restricts the research to blastocysts that are being discarded from IVF clinics and donated by parents for research.

    As a member of the President's Bioethics Council, Krauthammer also knows that Bush's policy on human embryonic stem cells is encouraging unregulated and unmonitored private research on human embryos while it is holding back legitimate NIH-funded research on an ethical source of cells that even Krauthammer approves of. If Krauthammer were truthful and self-consistent, he would be urging President Bush not to veto HR3. Why is he applauding the drawing of a line that has not saved any embryos, a line that has discouraged legitimate NIH research while encouraging unregulated and unmonitored use of human embryos by private companies?

    It is most interesting that Krauthammer says in the article that "Congress will soon vote to erase Bush's line". This suggests that he wrote the article before the vote took place. Furthermore, it suggests that he believes that Congress will erase the line. Note that he said "will" and not "may", almost as if Bush is not intending to veto the legislation. Perhaps Krauthammer knows something that we don't and Bush may surprise us by not vetoing the bill after the Senate passes it. At the same time, he calls the amniotic fluid stem cell finding "revolutionary" and "Goldilocks of stem cells" that "history will record... as the turning point in the evolution of stem cell research..."

    Given his position, Krauthammer should advise Bush to let the embryonic stem cell bill go through and propose to put a billion dollars into amniotic stem cell research. In one fell swoop, Bush would be able to erase his image as the ogre who prevented stem cell research, reassure adult stem cell research advocates privately that adult stem cell research will go forward, and have a powerful trading card with Congress for some breathing room on Iraq. What does he have to lose? Most opponents of embryonic stem cells have seen and believe the writing on the wall. They know that they will not be able to hold embryonic stem cell research off forever, that California and New Jersey will be spending billions on embryonic stem cell research despite their efforts to stop the research, and that a better position to take would be to propose federal funding of adult stem cell research instead.

    Wise.
    Last edited by Wise Young; 01-14-2007 at 10:06 AM.

  4. #24
    I will not reiterate the rest of his false statements but I have lost all respect for Krauthammer. He is simply wrong, knows it, and consequently is lying to himself and the public. It is sad.

    Wise.
    Unless I completely misread it, Krauthammer's discussion of abortion and amniotic stem cells is an effort to distinguish/separate the two issues from each other, not link them together. To that end, then, he appears to be urging the president to advance the research of amniotic stem cells. Given that we're stuck with Bush for another 2 years, let's get at least that much accomplished.

    stephen212
    I agree with Wise about the disingenuous position of Krauthammer. And, stephen212, I can also understand why his OpEd is easily mis-read. I admire CK's prose but the Byzantine way he constructs his argument is, to my mind, purposely deceptive. The majority of less discerning readers may take one of the divergent paths CK creates and wander off point.

    CK is a professional paid apologist for conservative views. He knows, full well, the president's signal social policy is in free fall. (Not to mention his foreign policy...) Bush and the religious right cannot win this debate logically. Obfuscation is their friend and CK masterfully provides some in his short essay. He offers praise to the Conservative leadership (Bush) for waiting patiently until a supposed ethically free solution arrived.

    My respect for CK was lost about 13 months ago when he wrote the same kind of unashamed defense of the administration's policy on torture. Here is the link to that bit of Conservative propaganda. This is the long version but a shorter OpEd piece also appeared in the Washington Post and, of course, reached the eyes of millions of Americans.

    It is preposterous to defend Bush's policy on ESCR as some sort of prescient prudence none of us "common folk" could appreciate 5 1/2 years ago. The discovery of stem cells in amniotic fluid is "revolutionary" as CK says. It is, however, like many other discoveries, highly theoretical at this time. Dr. Atala, the principal investigator, upon being made aware of the controversy of the timing of his paper being published, immediately affirmed that all stem cell research should be pursued, including ESCR. He re-stated the same on NPR's Science Friday on Jan. 12th.

    The suffering caused by unremitting disease and conditions such as SCI are not theoretical. There are real consequences to the delay of scientific inquiry and this administration chooses to ignore those consequences for political reasons, namely, fealty at the ballot box from the ultra-conservative right.

    Consideration and respect is trumpeted for cell clusters frozen in Petri dishes while being denied to millions of Americans living with disability and illness who might benefit from the research into ESCR. Krauthammer knows this but he will, nonetheless, fluff up the pillow of hard heartedness that Bush has slept on since August 9, 2001. Why, because he is a loyal Republican apologist, your basic "compassionate conservative."

    John
    "Hope is like a road in the country; there was never a road, but when many people walk on it, the road comes into existence." Lin Yutang

  5. #25
    Banned Faye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    6,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young
    Given his position, Krauthammer should advise Bush to let the embryonic stem cell bill go through and propose to put a billion dollars into amniotic stem cell research. In one fell swoop, Bush would be able to erase his image as the ogre who prevented stem cell research, reassure adult stem cell research advocates privately that adult stem cell research will go forward, and have a powerful trading card with Congress for some breathing room on Iraq. What does he have to lose?
    Bush shouldn't have any breathing room on either Iraq or Stem cell research. I just submitted a guest editorial to that effect.

    BTW there are no "adult stem cell research advocates", just anti-ESCR folks. After all ASCR is already amply funded.

    The amniotic stem cell discovery was made a long time ago, nothing new here whatsoever.

    The release of this study was motivated by the desire for maximum media impact.

    Thank you John, it's not a trade-off between ESCR and ASCR, but an issue of ALL stem cell research.

    "There’s far too much unthinking respect given to authority,” Molly Ivins explained; “What you need is sustained outrage.”
    Kerr, Keirstead, McDonald, Stice and Jun Yan courageously work on ESCR to Cure SCI.

    Divisiveness comes from not following Christopher Reeve's ESCR lead.
    Young does ASCR.
    [I]I do not tear down CRPA, I ONLY make peopl

  6. #26
    Senior Member Foolish Old's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida Keys
    Posts
    16,412
    With all due respect, and in the nicest way possible - Charles Krauthammer is a deceitful administration whore who has zero credibility.
    Foolish

    "We have met the enemy and he is us."-POGO.

    "I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."~Edgar Allan Poe

    "Dream big, you might never wake up!"- Snoop Dogg

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Faye
    Bush shouldn't have any breathing room on either Iraq or Stem cell research. I just submitted a guest editorial to that effect.

    BTW there are no "adult stem cell research advocates", just anti-ESCR folks. After all ASCR is already amply funded.

    The amniotic stem cell discovery was made a long time ago, nothing new here whatsoever.

    The release of this study was motivated by the desire for maximum media impact.

    Thank you John, it's not a trade-off between ESCR and ASCR, but an issue of ALL stem cell research.
    Faye, I want to make sure that there is no misunderstanding of my position concerning stem cell research and funding. Steven212 had claimed that Krauthammer was being self-consistent and I was trying to give an example of a position that Krauthammer would take in order to be self-consistent. I was not trying to suggest that Bush should have any breathing room on either Iraq or the stem cell issue but that this is a card that the Republicans may play.

    The continued failure of Krauthammer (and other ESC opponents) to push for funding of even ASC research that they claim is curing so many diseases illustrates clearly the bankruptcy of their position. The fact that Krauthammer supports the President's position even though he disagrees with it is reprehensible. But, the fact that he continues to press the false hope button indicates that he doesn't believe that there will be a cure. He is not only anti-ESC. He is anti-cure.

    Wise.

  8. #28
    Banned Faye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    6,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young
    I was not trying to suggest that Bush should have any breathing room on either Iraq or the stem cell issue but that this is a card that the Republicans may play.

    The continued failure of Krauthammer (and other ESC opponents) to push for funding of even ASC research that they claim is curing so many diseases illustrates clearly the bankruptcy of their position. The fact that Krauthammer supports the President's position even though he disagrees with it is reprehensible. But, the fact that he continues to press the false hope button indicates that he doesn't believe that there will be a cure. He is not only anti-ESC. He is anti-cure.

    Wise.
    Actually the anti-ESCR people HAVE been pushing increased funding through the introduction of various alternative bills. If you do a search for stem cell research in thomas you'll see the majority of bills dealing with ASCR.
    In fact they scored big in Dec 2005, when a major UCB stem cell bill was passed which was sponsored by your NJ Representative Chris Smith.

    I say: Enough of the derailment already.....it's only a political ploy for them to claim they are FOR stem cell research except one type: ESCR

    ASCR already receives 10x or more federal funding than ESCR.

    "There’s far too much unthinking respect given to authority,” Molly Ivins explained; “What you need is sustained outrage.”
    Kerr, Keirstead, McDonald, Stice and Jun Yan courageously work on ESCR to Cure SCI.

    Divisiveness comes from not following Christopher Reeve's ESCR lead.
    Young does ASCR.
    [I]I do not tear down CRPA, I ONLY make peopl

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Faye
    Actually the anti-ESCR people HAVE been pushing increased funding through the introduction of various alternative bills. If you do a search for stem cell research in thomas you'll see the majority of bills dealing with ASCR.
    In fact they scored big in Dec 2005, when a major UCB stem cell bill was passed which was sponsored by your NJ Representative Chris Smith.

    I say: Enough of the derailment already.....it's only a political ploy for them to claim they are FOR stem cell research except one type: ESCR

    ASCR already receives 10x or more federal funding than ESCR.
    Faye,

    Even though ASC research gets 10x more funding that ESC research, this does not mean that stem cell research funding is adequate. Total human stem cell research funding is about $250 million, less than 1% of the total NIH budget. This is a ridiculously small investment given that most scientists believe that stem cells represent one of the most promising biomedical development of the century.

    It is true that several bills have proposed ESC alternatives. I agree that some of these are aimed at "derailing" ESC research. However, none of these ESC alternative bills have passed Congress to date. The umbilical cord blood bill just provides funds for increased collection of cord blood for transplantation. It does not increase NIH funding of research for stem cell research.

    Much of the so-called doubling of the NIH budget between 1997 and 2001 was shifted to biodefense research. Last year, $9 billion of the $28 billion NIH budget was spent on biodefense rather than research on care and cure of disease and disability. When adjusted for inflation, many areas of NIH funding of biomedical research are actually lower today than it was in 2001 and this includes human stem cell research.

    Krauthammer and other embryonic stem cell research opponents spend much time and many words claiming that adult stem cells are better than embryonic stem cells but I have not heard him or others call for increased adult stem cell research funding at NIH. His failure to do so in this article and others that he has written indicates his underlying political motivation, to criticize those who support embryonic stem cell research (even though he says that he supports it).

    In my opinion, the last 6 years of the Bush administration has been catastrophic for federal funding of biomedical research. Fortunately, the states and private sector donations have partially covered the gap but with the unfortunate consequences of concentrating more research funding in wealthy states, reducing peer review and coordination of the research, and tightening of basic science research training programs.

    Wise.

  10. #30

    when?

    When will our Congress tackle the issue of unethically making more bench embreos than can be used? It's murder to make more than can be used! Ask George!

    I dont' think that stem cell research has ANYTHING to do with it. The issue are the fertilization clinics. SHUT THEM DOWN!

Similar Threads

  1. Faith and stem cell research
    By Sue Pendleton in forum Cure
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 06-13-2006, 07:48 PM
  2. United States see lagging on stem cell research
    By Buck503 in forum Funding, Legislation, & Advocacy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-03-2006, 02:31 PM
  3. Reid: One Year Is Too Long To Wait For Stem Cell Research
    By Faye in forum Funding, Legislation, & Advocacy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-07-2006, 09:26 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-16-2002, 11:50 AM

Posting Permissions

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