Finally some intelligence

[E-NICE]

Obama to reverse embryonic stem cell ban - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/06/obama.stem.cell/index.html)

[morrisma]

In the US, eight years of research lost. Eight years where the best minds in this field went elsewhere or changed fields. What a waste. Finally we can restart stem cell research and maybe regain some ground lost to other less puritanical countries. And find cures and therapies to help people!
Mike

[fgummett]

Would that be "intelligence" as in "intelligent design"... sorry I know... I am a wicked person and will probably go to heck ;)

I agree that this is good news and people with many devastating diseases -- including Type 1 D -- should be pleased with the common sense approach finally being shown.

[DeusXM]

The other good news is that some other scientists have found a way to manipulate adult stem cells to act as embryonic ones - now everyone should be happy. Let's hope they get to work on this stuff now.

[DanG]

The other good news is that some other scientists have found a way to manipulate adult stem cells to act as embryonic ones - now everyone should be happy. Let's hope they get to work on this stuff now.

I think all sides are not intelligent.
Why does the survival of the fittest require so much work?
Where would survival of the fittest be 200 years ago without the "intelligence" of medicine we have today?
The findings of adult stem cells comes close to proving that "necessity is the mother of invention."
I think our desire for "life" is waaay over-rated. We all die - get used to it.:eek:

[xMenace]

On that note YouTube - You're Gonna Die (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfxGMKoKyng)

[dar917]

The other good news is that some other scientists have found a way to manipulate adult stem cells to act as embryonic ones - now everyone should be happy. Let's hope they get to work on this stuff now.

Didn't some of that end up causing cancer though?

Anyway, to the OP--YES. I was so happy to hear this news!
:party: :elefant: :thumbsup:

[yannah]

I think all sides are not intelligent.
Why does the survival of the fittest require so much work?
Where would survival of the fittest be 200 years ago without the "intelligence" of medicine we have today?
The findings of adult stem cells comes close to proving that "necessity is the mother of invention."
I think our desire for "life" is waaay over-rated. We all die - get used to it.:eek:

how do you define "the fittest" in 2009??? just curious.

[DanG]

how do you define "the fittest" in 2009??? just curious.

Fittest would certainly not mean someone with diabetes.
The DNA that can survive wins.
Technology and modern medicine are mere crutches to keep the unable alive. Diabetes sure ain't no fittest, that is fer shure - but... I be here still, nonetheless - thanks to insulin and test strips.:o

[yannah]

well, with all due respect, I define people by who they are. I find value in their soul. their disease is irrelavent.

[fgummett]

Darwin is once again misquoted and misrepresented: "survival of the fittest" does not mean the fastest, strongest, biggest etc... it means the one best adapted for the current environment... for humans go I would suggest that includes our inventiveness and technology.

[EdnBama]

I think all sides are not intelligent.
Why does the survival of the fittest require so much work?
Where would survival of the fittest be 200 years ago without the "intelligence" of medicine we have today?
The findings of adult stem cells comes close to proving that "necessity is the mother of invention."
I think our desire for "life" is waaay over-rated. We all die - get used to it.:eek:

I think if our society practiced "survival of the fittest" in its purest sense, most of us would be in big trouble ... no one would want to provide us -- diseased people -- with medication and diagnostic tools to manage our respective conditions. I don't think that Darwin was referring to "inventiveness", "technology", etc.

[fgummett]

I don't think that Darwin was referring to "inventiveness", "technology", etc.Why not? Surely anything that allows a species to make use of limited resources in the environment it finds itself is a successful adaptation?

By its very definition, a species unable to adapt to a changing environment does not survive.

[EdnBama]

Why not? Surely anything that allows a species to make use of limited resources in the environment it finds itself is a successful adaptation?

By its very definition, a species unable to adapt to a changing environment does not survive.

That could well be a modern understanding of "survival of the fittest" -- but you suggested that's Darwin's understanding would be inclusive of adaptations through technology and inventiveness. Do you have any references from his work that would show he meant that?

[EdnBama]

In an evolutionary sense, fitness is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool, and should not be confused with physically fit meaning biggest, fastest or strongest, which does not necessarily lead to reproductive success.

From: Survival of the fittest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest)

[fgummett]

Quick web search... Human Intelligence: Charles Darwin (http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/darwin.shtml)Darwin believed that intelligent behaviors developed from the primitive instincts of our nonhuman ancestors, and that the difference between human intelligence and animal intelligence is a matter of degree, not of kind: In his introduction to a book chapter on the evolution of mental powers, he stated: "My object in this chapter is to shew that there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties (Darwin, 1871, 1896 p. 66).”
In TheDescent of Man (1871/1896), Darwin presented numerous examples supporting his contention that humans and nonhuman animals share cognitive attributes like wonder, curiosity, long-term memory, the ability to pay attention, imitate the behavior of others, and to reason (Darwin, 1871/1896, p.65-113). As one illustration, he offered the story of an aggressive fish that took three months of smashing into a pane of glass separating it from other fishes to learn that it could not get through. Darwin suggested that although a monkey would have learned the same thing after only one trial, the important fact is that both creatures share the same ability to learn from experience. Those fishes or monkeys who could not learn would be "selected against" by nature, and would not pass on their genes. Only the intelligent genes would remain in the pool, thus gradually increasing the overall intelligence of each species. Darwin held that the human mind evolved into its present advanced state by the same process. When speaking of our moral and intellectual abilities he said:
These faculties are variable; and we have every reason to believe that the variations tend to be inherited. Therefore, if they were formerly of high importance to primeval man and to his ape-like progenitors, they would have been perfected or advanced through natural selection (Darwin, 1871, 1896, p. 128).

[lorilei]

kudos to frank if I am understanding it correctly...survival of the fittest includes intelligence that allows us to overcome any outstanding issues...the big D included....

[EdnBama]

I have nothing against the notion that our inventiveness and use of technology -- applied knowledge -- makes us better able to adapt to our environment and therefore prolongs life that might otherwise be lost or lived at a lower level of quality.

And I'm certainly not saying I don't appreciate the medical pharmacological advancements that provide me (and all of us with diabetes) the opportunity to manage my disease and, over time, maintain a certain quality of life.

I just have my doubts that Darwin would argue, from an evolutionary perspective, that mitigating the effects of diseases, without "curing" or overcoming the underlying cause, makes us stronger as a species, as is indicated in "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest".

Whether or not we become more intelligent as a species through our ability to mitigate the effects of disease across a wide array of people is an empirical question that I cannot answer.

[DanG]

Those fishes or monkeys who could not learn would be "selected against" by nature, and would not pass on their genes

That is the survival I refer to.
Diabetes is not fittest - it should not and will not evolve, as it kills - without any other inpu. Survival is not a daily effort - it is a time honor of fittest. Read Darwin again - diabetes is not fittest.

Using insulin is only a day-to-day function of our intelligence as human, but as a disease, it is not fittest. That is my only point in bringing in to this thread the concept of survival of fittest. Why did I do that? - I dunno... now:confused:

[fgummett]

Read Darwin again - diabetes is not fittest.Dan I suggest you read Darwin for the first time... once again "survival of the fittest" does not refer to the biggest, fastest, strongest etc... but rather; the best adapted for the current environment.

The link I posted above goes on to say:Those scholars who are interested in the history of the eugenics movement will find some arresting quotes in the fifth chapter of The Descent of Man. This chapter, titled "On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties During Primeval and Civilized Times" provides source material for many of the eugenicist arguments. For example:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment…Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed (Darwin, 1871, 1896, p. 133-134).

However, it would be unfair to suggest that Darwin condemned these merciful acts; that was not the intention of the quote presented above. He was simply providing evidence for the theory that humans have evolved a more sophisticated moral sensibility than other animals. In the passage following the quote above he states that eliminating acts of human sympathy would result in the "deterioration in the noblest part of our nature." Even though some intelligence theorists advocating the hereditarian position have used Darwinian ideas to support eugenicist goals like forced sterilization, it is very likely that Darwin himself would have objected to these practices:

…if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind…(Darwin, 1871, 1896, p. 134).

Who is to say that someone afflicted with a disease -- that would have led to death in a less technological age -- might not make some scientific or other breakthrough that solves World hunger, or cures cancer, or discovers mysteries of the universe... what would have become of Stephen Hawking for example?

[Funnygrl]

Right, cause everyone knows the president is the one with ultimate control over all laws. All Hail King Obama.

[Badlands]

Right, cause everyone knows the president is the one with ultimate control over all laws. All Hail King Obama.

Where did anyone say he has ultimate control over all laws? The fact is he has the power for this executive order (which, btw, overturns an executive order by King George).

Great news!

[fgummett]

...overturns an executive order by King George...an executive veto which countermanded the clear majority vote of elected representatives of the people of the USA ;)

[EdnBama]

Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!

Let's watch out how far we stray into politics.

We now return you to ... whatever ...

[fgummett]

Yup... this thread has religion, politics, science and controversy all rolled into in one... how about some sex and violins :bath: :musicus:

As the parent of a 18 year old boy I just wanted to add an observation to the evolution discussion above... it seems that high-school girls now favour the geeks over the jocks... what is the World coming to :D

[Funnygrl]

Yup... this thread has religion, politics, science and controversy all rolled into in one... how about some sex and violins :bath: :musicus:

As the parent of a 18 year old boy I just wanted to add an observation to the evolution discussion above... it seems that high-school girls now favour the geeks over the jocks... what is the World coming to :D
I used to play violin, and I used to be a high school girl.

[IrishJoe]

View Post
The other good news is that some other scientists have found a way to manipulate adult stem cells to act as embryonic ones - now everyone should be happy. Let's hope they get to work on this stuff now.
Didn't some of that end up causing cancer though?

No that was embryonic stemcells.

The adult ones have cured lots of things embryonic ones haven't. Adult ones can be used just like embryonic ones so there is no need for embryonic ones.

Yup... this thread has religion, politics, science and controversy all rolled into in one... how about some sex and violins

here's some bewbs (.)(.)
Here's violins (http://img.alibaba.com/photo/50023844/Popular_Violins.jpg)

[fgummett]

CTV.ca | Obama to reverse limits on stem cell work, source says (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090306/obama_stem_090306/20090306?hub=Health)Obama to reverse limits on stem cell work, source says

Updated Fri. Mar. 6 2009 7:24 PM ET

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Reversing an eight-year-old limit on potentially life-saving science, President Barack Obama plans to lift restrictions Monday on taxpayer-funded research using embryonic stem cells.

The long-promised move will allow a rush of research aimed at one day better treating, if not curing, ailments from diabetes to paralysis -- research that crosses partisan lines, backed by such notables as Nancy Reagan and the late Christopher Reeve. But it stirs intense controversy over whether government crosses a moral line with such research.

Obama will hold an event at the White House to announce the move, a senior administration official said Friday. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the policy had not yet been publicly announced.

Embryonic stem cells are master cells that can morph into any cell of the body. Scientists hope to harness them so they can create replacement tissues to treat a variety of diseases, such as new insulin-producing cells for diabetics, cells that could help those with Parkinson's disease or maybe even Alzheimer's, or new nerve connections to restore movement after spinal injury.

"I feel vindicated after eight years of struggle, and I know it's going to energize my research team," said Dr. George Daley of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and Children's Hospital of Boston, a leading stem cell researcher.

But the research is controversial because days-old embryos must be destroyed to obtain the cells. They typically are culled from fertility-clinic leftovers otherwise destined to be thrown away.

Under President George W. Bush, taxpayer money for that research was limited to a small number of stem cell lines that were created before Aug. 9, 2001, lines that in many cases had some drawbacks that limited their potential usability.

But hundreds more of such lines -- groups of cells that can continue to propagate in lab dishes -- have been created since then, ones that scientists say are healthier, better suited to creating treatments for people rather than doing basic laboratory science.

Work didn't stop. Indeed, it advanced enough that this summer, the private Geron Corp. will begin the world's first study of a treatment using human embryonic stem cells, in people who recently suffered a spinal cord injury.

Nor does Obama's change fund creation of new lines. But it means that scientists who until now have had to rely on private donations to work with these newer stem cell lines can apply for government money for the research, just like they do for studies of gene therapy or other treatment approaches.

The aim of the policy is to restore "scientific integrity" to the process, the administration official said.

"America's biomedical research enterprise experienced steady decline over the past eight years, with shrinking budgets and policies that elevated ideology over science. This slowed the pace of discovery and the search for cures," said Sean Morrison, director of the University of Michigan's Center for Stem Cell Biology.

Critics immediately denounced the move.

"Taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for experiments that require the destruction of human life," said Tony Perkins of the conservative Family Research Council. "President Obama's policy change is especially troubling given the significant adult stem cell advances that are being used to treat patients now without harming or destroying human embryos."

Indeed, there are different types of stem cells: So-called adult stem cells that produce a specific type of tissue; younger stem cells found floating in amniotic fluid or the placenta. Scientists even have learned to reprogram certain cells to behave like stem cells.

But even researchers who work with varying types consider embryonic stem cells the most flexible and thus most promising form, and say that science, not politics, should ultimately judge.

"Science works best and patients are served best by having all the tools at our disposal," Daley said.

Obama made it clear during the campaign he would overturn Bush's directive.

During the campaign, Obama said, "I strongly support expanding research on stem cells. I believe that the restrictions that President Bush has placed on funding of human embryonic stem cell research have handcuffed our scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations."

He said he would lift Bush's ban and "ensure that all research on stem cells is conducted ethically and with rigorous oversight."

"Patients and people who've been patient advocates are going to be really happy," said Amy Comstock Rick of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research.

The ruling will bring one immediate change: As of Monday, scientists who've had to meticulously keep separate their federally funded research and their privately funded stem cell work -- from buying separate microscopes to even setting up labs in different buildings -- won't have that expensive hurdle anymore.

Next, scientists can start applying for research grants from the National Institutes of Health. The NIH already has begun writing guidelines that, among other things, are expected to demand that the cells being used were derived with proper informed consent from the woman or couple who donated the original embryo.

[lorilei]

That is the survival I refer to.
Diabetes is not fittest - it should not and will not evolve, as it kills - without any other inpu. Survival is not a daily effort - it is a time honor of fittest. Read Darwin again - diabetes is not fittest.

Using insulin is only a day-to-day function of our intelligence as human, but as a disease, it is not fittest. That is my only point in bringing in to this thread the concept of survival of fittest. Why did I do that? - I dunno... now:confused:

kind of sounds like we should be sterilized...oops, too late!!

[gigiwong]

Who's the fittest?
Imagine we were born 100 years ago and we have T1D. We may survive for a few months once it was on-set, but sooner or later we will die due to the lack of insulin. Now we not only have insulin, but also with the aid of meter that help us to estimate the amount of insulin we required, and also pumps that facilitate the injection. I must say thanks to the technology.;)

Stem cell research
It's a shame that US is lag behind on stem cell reseach on the past 8 years and it's really a great news to hear that Obama shows support on this. Personally, I think science research should be wild, creative, crazy, funky, for the exploration of possibility.

fyi, the stem cell-like cells are induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC). It's interesting and hope that it will help when the use of embryonic stem cells is still in debation~:T

[morrisma]

Any trait you can pass to your offspring that enhances their ability to survive (and propagate) over others is Darwinian. Intelligence is one. The ability to live to and through child bearing age (and bear children) is another. Diabetes used to limit that child bearing thing but not so much any more.
Mike

[duck]

Sooooo...in the last 8 years, did King George stop the rest of the world from researching stem cells? I ask because (and I admit I am jaded) if stem cells are the holy grail every disease has been waiting for, why haven't the Chinese researched stem cells to their fullest potential? Certainly, China has no qualms with human fetuses, right? Or how about Germany? The UK? Mozambique? The world sans the USA?

I think in a dozen years, we'll still be debating whether George Bush did some massive disservice to humanity by limiting research in the USA to established stem cell lines, when in fact it was a dead-end like so many other potential avenues have been.

[G1nZeng]

Just a crazy thought here, but imagine if they never invented glasses? We'd be bumping into everything LOL! I agree the ability to adapt far outweighs being stronger, faster, etc. Times change and germs adapt. I always say work smarter, not harder.

[EdnBama]

And to clarify for the record, Bush didn't ban research on embryonic stem cells in the U.S. He prohibited federal funding for that research.

Sooooo...in the last 8 years, did King George stop the rest of the world from researching stem cells? I ask because (and I admit I am jaded) if stem cells are the holy grail every disease has been waiting for, why haven't the Chinese researched stem cells to their fullest potential? Certainly, China has no qualms with human fetuses, right? Or how about Germany? The UK? Mozambique? The world sans the USA?

I think in a dozen years, we'll still be debating whether George Bush did some massive disservice to humanity by limiting research in the USA to established stem cell lines, when in fact it was a dead-end like so many other potential avenues have been.

[EdnBama]

Any trait you can pass to your offspring that enhances their ability to survive (and propagate) over others is Darwinian. Intelligence is one. The ability to live to and through child bearing age (and bear children) is another. Diabetes used to limit that child bearing thing but not so much any more.
Mike

The question is: Where in the evolution of the human species is the adaptation to be more resistant to developing either type of diabetes?

In other words, what progress has the species made when it comes to selecting out the traits that leave humans vulnerable to diabetes?

[fgummett]

Natural selection is not some relentless drive towards perfection... it's not like the body says "D was a bad idea, best avoid that in future"... instead random mutations occur and those best suited for the current environment survive... perhaps our current environment requires more in terms of intelligence than physical prowess?

Before the dinosaurs died out, mammals were tiny creatures barely scratching out a living from holes in the ground... at that time which one would you have put odds on as the best physical specimen... a T-Rex or a vole?

[Funnygrl]

Stem cell research
It's a shame that US is lag behind on stem cell reseach on the past 8 years and it's really a great news to hear that Obama shows support on this. Personally, I think science research should be wild, creative, crazy, funky, for the exploration of possibility.


Lagging behind who?

[lorilei]

who's to say that eating carbohydrates is for the ultimate benefit of the human race..perhaps as diabetics we are ahead of the game and not equipped to handle an energy source that is not good for our species survival in the long run?? maybe we are genetically advanced and the environment has yet to follow suit? devil's advocate here....

[EdnBama]

Actually, I think the process behind natural selection is this:

1) Organisms develop from whatever origin you wish to propose

2) Random mutations occur in particular organisms, along with adaptations to the environment (aka "micro evolution")

3) Over time, the mutations that do not lead to death are perpetuated in the species.

4) Over time, the mutations that do lead to death will be selected out (obviously this is not 100% effective, all things considered)

Note that the process of natural selection isn't necessarily a process of refining "physical prowess" but a matter of the species, genetically speaking, maintaining traits that are beneficial (aka, traits that do not get us killed).

One could well argue that as we manage and mitigate a condition like diabetes with drugs and insulin, we are merely interrupting the process of natural selection.

With our advanced technology, we have found many ways to cocoon ourselves from nature, whether those cocoons are in the form of medicines and other therapies; insulated homes; artificial heat and cooling; etc.

While higher-level thinking and creativity are traits that can be handed down genetically, the products of higher-level thinking and creativity do not get incorporated into our genetic code.

[lorilei]

this would be fascinating reading if Darwin himself hadn't succumed to death...maybe he was counting too much on his genetic, physical prowess...RIP...

[EdnBama]

Yeah, Lori, he got selected out! ;)

[DeusXM]

Stem cell breakthrough may transform future of medicine | Science | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/01/stem-cells-breakthrough)

These are the adult stem cells with the flexibility of embryonic stem cells (without cancer) that I mentioned earlier.

Oh, and on the subject of Darwin - let's stop worrying what one man in the C19 might have thought and instead look at the biological science behind evolution. The individuals best adapted for their environment survive, those that aren't don't. **** is right in asserting that, compared to the wider human race at large, people with diabetes are at a disadvantage. I don't share his hopelessness though. Just because we have a genetic defect doesn't mean we'd have any less value and I'd also point out precisely what happens when you start going down that road.

[gigiwong]

Lagging behind who?

as far as i know, at least it's lagging behind Japan, where the stem cell research is red-hot there and iPSC was discovered 3 years ago.

But what I really want to pin-point is, not asking who's the top of the world on stem cell research or other researches. To me, it's truly sad to see someone standing there while everyone is running.

[foxl]

To me, it's truly sad to see someone standing there while everyone is running.

Yes, and we had everything else going for us, except the okay. EVERYTHING. :mad:

Hopefully, not too many of our young gifted scientists were discouraged from entering research, during this black spot in our history.

I have a nephew just starting grad school in Biochemistry. What a great time to do so!

[fgummett]

CTV.ca | Obama overturns Bush policy on stem cells (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090308/stemcells_policy_090309/20090309?hub=Health)Obama overturns Bush policy on stem cells

Updated Mon. Mar. 9 2009 12:51 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

U.S. President Barack Obama has lifted limits on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, vowing that his government will now "vigorously support scientists who pursue this research."

The announcement, which he had promised throughout his presidential campaign, overturns a policy set in 2001 by former president George W. Bush that limited taxpayer money for embryonic stem cell research to 60 stem cell lines that had already been created.

Only 21 of those lines have proven useful to researchers and scientists have complained that their work has been hampered by the funding restrictions.

Obama acknowledged Monday he recognizes the divisiveness of the issue of using embryos for research.

"Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about or strongly oppose this research. I understand their concerns and I believe we must respect their point of view," Obama said ahead of signing an executive order lifting the funding ban.

"But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans from across the political perspective and from all backgrounds and beliefs have come to the consensus that we must pursue this research, that the potential is great and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, perils can be avoided."

The president promised that the changes would not open the door to human cloning, which he called "dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society -- or any society."

He insisted the funding ban reversal was needed to stop the U.S. from falling behind the rest of the world in this promising area of research.

"When government fails to make these investments, opportunities are missed. Promising avenues go unexplored. Some of our best scientists leave for other countries that will sponsor their work. And those countries may surge ahead of ours in the advances that transform our lives," Obama said.

The changes will not allow scientists to use federal funds to create embryos for research. That has been banned since 1996, when the Dickey-Wicker amendment was passed. Instead, it will permit scientists who want to work with many more, newer stem cell lines that have been created since 2001 to apply for government money for the research, instead of relying on private donations.

Obama's executive order gives the National Institutes of Health four months to come up with new guidelines about when it is ethical and legal to pay for embryonic stem cell research.

Obama has no power to overturn the Dickey-Wicker ban, says Melody C. Barnes, his chief domestic policy adviser. The president believes stem cell research "should be done in compliance with federal law," she said.

Researchers who have been eager to access funding for further research into stem cells for treating debilitating disorders, such as muscular dystrophy and Parkinson's disease, are cheering the news.

"We've got eight years of science to make up for," said Dr. Curt Civin, whose research allowed scientists to isolate stem cells and who now serves as the founding director of the University of Maryland Center for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine.

"Now the silly restrictions are lifted."

But some religious leaders and anti-abortion activists are deploring the move, arguing that using embryos for research crosses a moral line because a potential human life is destroyed. They argue that scientists should focus on using adult stem cells that come from human tissue.

Many genetic researchers counter that embryonic stem cells are the most flexible and thus most promising form of stem cell. Others note that the embryos used for research are typically leftovers from fertility clinics that would have been thrown away anyway.

But some, such as Sen. Sam Brownback, a Republican from Kansas, say no research at all should be conducted on embryos if it means the embryos' destruction.

"If an embryo is a life, and I believe strongly that it is life, then no government has the right to sanction their destruction for research purposes," Brownback said in a statement of dissent.

Obama also issued a presidential memorandum Monday, promising to restore "scientific integrity to government decision-making," a policy change aimed more broadly into all areas of science, such as climate change, to ensure that science is protected from political interference.

"Promoting science isn't just about providing resources it is also about protecting free and open inquiry," Obama said.

"It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

[EdnBama]

this would be fascinating reading if Darwin himself hadn't succumed to death...maybe he was counting too much on his genetic, physical prowess...RIP...

Hey! Wait a minute! This wasn't fascinating reading anyway!?

[RayDS]

That was great new in relation to Stem Cell Research. :)

[morrisma]

And to clarify for the record, Bush didn't ban research on embryonic stem cells in the U.S. He prohibited federal funding for that research.

Very nearly the same thing.
Mike

[DanG]

I don't share his hopelessness though. Just because we have a genetic defect doesn't mean we'd have any less value and I'd also point out precisely what happens when you start going down that road.

Ya know - hopelessness borders real close with reality. It is a matter of how you deal with the reality. I merely like to be patently real and then deal with the aspects of hopelessness or whatever. Insulin in my life does not pose a huge problem - I live with it and really have no death wish that I did not have to use insulin - it is just there - no hopelessness. However, the reality is clear - my chances of health complications as we observe statistics is that things will happen as time takes the normal toll on the body & psyche. But... age has that same tact on persons not using insulin. I ain't got no hopelessness. Try to read me as - in your face reality, pure and simple. If that strikes you as hopeless? - that is your hopelessness, not mine.

[EdnBama]

Very nearly the same thing.
Mike

Yet some people (not necessarily you) want to claim that the government contributes nothing to the betterment of society.

/generalized rant off

[Caravaggio]

That is the survival I refer to.
Diabetes is not fittest - it should not and will not evolve, as it kills - without any other inpu. Survival is not a daily effort - it is a time honor of fittest. Read Darwin again - diabetes is not fittest.

Using insulin is only a day-to-day function of our intelligence as human, but as a disease, it is not fittest. That is my only point in bringing in to this thread the concept of survival of fittest. Why did I do that? - I dunno... now:confused:

I wish people would actually read the author/book they are citing and supposed to have read! :mad: