Experts Say Obama's Stem-cell Funding Will Trigger a Worldwide Renaissance in Regenerative Medicine

Obama has already lived up to his promise of change, signing stem-cell research funding into law and basically saying "Hey, how about we let the doctors and scientists run this medical research thing?"  It's terrifying that that's actually a new sentiment on Capitol Hill, but at least it's there now.

Previous Presidential proclamations have paralyzed this lifesaving science for almost two entire Olympics, seven-and-a-half years of being restricted to less than 5% of the available stem cell lines.  Hundreds of ideal models for genetic diseases and organ replacement, ignored because people whose education in stem cells began with "no, they're not part of a plant" said "Bad!"

The new law allows stem-cell researchers to apply for federal grant money, including packages from the economic stimulus package.  It's important to note that all embryonic stem cells used in research are taken with consent, and were scheduled for destruction anyway.  There are no evil scientists stomping around in baby-burning robot suits destroying churches, as awesome a Superman villain as that would be. Instead you had technicians holding small samples of tissue and asking "So, should we use this to help cure the sick and heal the injured, or just burn it?" They were told "For the sake of the children CAST IT INTO THE FLAMES!"

The new executive order will actually increase ethicality of research nationwide (though it still won't make "ethicality" a real word) as it frees the National Institute of Health (NIH) to draw up guidelines for research.  Previously such states as could afford stem-cell research did so without federal oversight and funded by private companies, and if that sounds like a perfect system for entirely ethical behavior then welcome to Earth, don't go outside until you learn a bit more.

There are hopes that this isn't just throwing the shackles off stateside science, but could lead to a worldwide renaissance in regenerative medicine.  The idea is that other repressive countries might ask themselves "Wait, we're writing rules AGAINST curing disease?  And do those people screaming against stem cells even know what they're talking about?"

Obama overturns stem cell ban

Comments

[phyl247]

There are 100's of scientific studies that have been done on AFA and our product StemEnhance. There are also 100's of scientific papers on Adult Stem Cell therapy. I have listed quite a few on my blog that you can read at http://www.phyl247.biz You can also find the book over at Amazon.com that Christian Drapeau wrote. It is called "The Stem Cell Theory of Renewal" Take a look if you would like to talk feel free to email or call me anytime 877-696-8581

[mk]

I'm all for the utilization of stem cells, but damn, this author is a 100% Obamanation-thumper.

[LP]

Are you kidding mk?

#1 - Obamanation - that was used in a SNL skit... as a joke... you were not supposed to use it after unless you want to look like your as ridiculous as the people they were making fun of.

#2 - His incredulity is reserved for the previous administration that seemed to have some type of vested interest in ignoring science to the benefit of the existing pharma-industry and it's Bible-thumping base.

Grow up and quit being a sore loser.

[kazoolist]

"Wait, we're writing rules AGAINST curing disease? And do those people screaming against stem cells even know what they're talking about?"

No, there were never "rules AGAINST curing disease."

There were rules prohibiting government funding of research on specific embryonic stem cell lines.

Private researchers could and have been using private money with those lines all they want though. (And, all without any actual results - UNLIKE adult stem cells, but I digress.)

The "experts" your title quotes (but not your post itself?) should have some pause if they are claiming Obama's life of the funding-ban is going to make a huge difference. How much potential do embryonic stem cells actually have if spending people's tax dollars is the only way this research will be sufficiently funded? (That's the premise anyway of why government funding is needed.) If private science and private research don't see their potential enough to fund this sufficiently privately, how exactly is that a ringing endorsement of their viability?

Finally, I, and many many others view research on embryonic stem cells morally bankrupt. (More than 50% of American hold pro-life views.) We view embryos as something valuable that should not be destroyed for research - even life saving research. Suppose science showed we could develop some miracle cure, but only by killing 5 year olds, would you be in favor of said research? You probably object that "that's not fair because an embryo isn't equivalent to a 5 year old." Well, it literally is to us who believe life starts at conception.

Having the government collect tax dollars from me to fund research I find morally abhorrent is outrageous. Especially while private funding is totally legal (something I'm not particularly happy about, but it does happen to be the case.)

[thevoice@voicedup.com]

Finally, after almost a decade of limiting taxpayer money for research president Barrack Obama has lifted the restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research today.

[aaron]

This is a rediculously slanted story. This law was about funding and never stopped any science from continuing

[Bosco]

Pointing out the supposed origination of Obamanation is hardly of value since even an embryonic cell could have thought of it. It IS that obvious. So bfd.

#2 - His incredulity is reserved for the previous administration <--- No! Really? what insight ... the article's author started by declaring Obama the Messiah and giving him a cyber bj.

that seemed to have some type of vested interest in ignoring science to the benefit of the existing pharma-industry and it's Bible-thumping base.

You think the pharma-industry is worried one way or the other over ESC? Good Grief. So friggin what? They use them or don't. Haha you think they have a vested interest in using only 2 or 3 lines? You think it's too expensive to start using a new line? What exactly is their supposed interest against it.

Bible-thumping ... ya, ok. Brave guy, say something bad about Islam ... thought so, you coward.

Grow up and quit being a sore loser.
Tell that to the author. His childish proclamation of Obama-love and totally biased argument sounds like adolescents circle-jerking their rigid ideas.

[Rusty]

Beware people who try to claim that science is, and should be, morally neutral. Whenever policymakers, both in government and in the medical field, decide that this practice will be permitted, but that one won't be, they are engaged in imposing moral values on science. If you believe science should not be subject to the restraints of morality, but only to itself, you had better make your apologies to Dr. Mengele.

[John Davis]

Wow, I can almost feel an Obama speech coming on.

RT
www.privacy.at.tc

[Sharron Field]

"...And do those people screaming against stem cells even know what they're talking about?"

Unfortunately most don't. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the case with those who don't have any idea of what they're campaigning against is probably that their fundamentalist church has misinformed them (IOW lied to them.) that collecting stem cells involves dissecting, filleting, and pulping, live developed aborted foetuses; which sets the pro-lifers off straight away.

Just as religion held back scientific advancement in the dark ages, so it still manges to do to some extent today. I hope those religionists who are now dieing of incurable ailments realise that if they hadn't been so bigoted and prejudiced all their days then we may have already found a cure for their terminal ailment and they could live longer without the pain.

[Justin Hardwick]

"Hey, how about we let the doctors and scientists run this medical research thing?"

I agree...

but does anyone think it is funny that inside the economic stimulus package, a there is a clause that allows for the bureaucracy to determine whether or not someone should be allowed a procedure, not the doctors.