Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Stem Cells Research Ban Lifted... Hooray!!!

Scientists on Monday cheered President Obama's lifting of restrictions on the use of federal money for human embryonic stem cell research, while social conservatives and abortion opponents criticized the move.

"The limitations on stem cell research have not allowed scientists to do meaningful experiments for improving human lives," said John Pollock, associate professor of biological sciences at Duquesne University. "There will be greater latitude to explore meaningful options for new therapies."

Kudos to President Obama for lifting this stupid ban and hopefully for leading the USA back along the path to science and reason.


G said...

This article on the subject might be of interest to some:

Too Many Eggs in Obama's Basket

I usually don't think much of Kathleen Parker's articles. But this one seems to me to be well thought-out and expressed.

And note that despite the fact that she appears on townhall.com, she is decidedly NOT a social conservative.

Lou said...

"Obama proclaimed that scientific decisions now will be made "on facts, not ideology."

Other than when it comes to the Global Warming debate. For Obama, the politics of avoiding a public backlash against tough curbs on CO2 trumps the science. Therefore, he has gone against the science and against the IPCC. A typical politician but in this case shaky and inexperienced.

coreydbarbarian said...

i for one am pleased with obama's follow through. kathleen parker and lou, not so much.

csm said...

Yes, the constant chattering of right wing talking points is annoying. I guess if the "social conservatives" keep repeating their lies that there is no global climate change and that stem cell research is just like murder there will always be fools who will believe it.

Anonymous said...

Whoever said there is no global climate change? The climate on the earth is CONSTANTLY changing, and always has been. The issues are:
a) Is the current situation dangerous?
b) Is human activity contributing to it in any meaningful way?

Neither one of those has been proven to be true.

Ceroill said...


1) is either true, or it isn't. Even if it isn't, is there any harm in working to lessen our impact on the environment?

2)Does it matter? If 1 is true, we still need to do something, regardless of whether or not fault is involved, and if 1 is not true, reducing our impact on the environment is still a good thing regardless of whether or not fault is involved.

G said...

Sorry. That was me again.


G said...

1.Is there any harm? If done voluntarily, then no. If it is being forced upon us by the government (and increases our cost of living), then yes. It would be extremely harmful, particularly during a serious economic downturn.

2. If someone can prove the ability to alter the climate without causing harmful consequences, then sure. At this point in time, though, all we have is speculative computer models.

Also, if humans aren't having any meaningful impact, then stopping something we ARE doing won't have any meaningful impact either. And the only thing draconian regulations will do is add an unnecessary weight to the country's (and world's) economic situation.

csm said...

At this point, truly on lunatics would claim that we should not attempt to do things to stop climate change from altering our planet to become unlivable in many places (maybe all). There is no economic impact greater than that G. Re-read Bob's point #2 again.

Anonymous said...


1. "Climate change" is ALWAYS occurring. It is the norm for our eco-system.

2. Is this "climate change" that is currently happening something that has been proven to be dangerous? At this point, no. All we have are computer models (ALL of which are incredibly speculative) and scare tactics.

3. Are humans actually contributing in any significant way to this "climate change"? Right now, there isn't any compelling evidence that we are.

4. "Do something" without actually being certain that our "something" will help is foolish.

In theory, I would agree with you, csm. IF the climate is changing in a way that is harmful to human life... and IF humans are contributing to that change... then those changes would be more important than the economy. The problem is that those two "ifs" aren't even CLOSE to being proven as fact.