Did you notice that in the Executive Order President Obama signed yesterday authorizing Federal funding destructive embryonic stem cell research, not only was the restriction on Federal funding revoked but also the authorization to fund alternative sources of stem cells. This is the tail end of the executive order:
(b) Executive Order 13435 of June 20, 2007, which supplements the August 9, 2001, statement on human embryonic stem cell research, is revoked.
What was provided in Executive Order 13435?
So if the President's goal is to fund research that "has the potential to lead to better understanding and treatment of many disabling diseases and conditions," then why end funding for research that has demonstrable and hopeful results in favor of research that has so far failed to produce one hopeful, useful therapy? I'm not sure of the answer and it's the kind of question I've been asking for years now about the singular focus by some politicians on only this one kind of stem cell research.
Did you also notice the President's imposition of his religion on the issue? "As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering." Okay, let me get this straight. Opponents of ESCR raise purely ethical concerns and they're dismissed as religion intruding into public policy, but the President employs an explicitly religious claim that he even says is a personal matter of faith to make public policy. I agree completely with his expression of principle, but we disagree on who all of the people in view are who we should care for. I'd like to discuss that, but it's continually dismissed as "religious."
Did you also notice the Presidential Memorandum issues in tandem with the Executive Order directing the agencies of the executive branch to formulate guidelines for "restoring scientific integrity to government decision making?" This is another sophistic dismissal of the science and ethics that motivate opposition to ESCR. In the political rhetoric of proponents of ESCR, I rarely ever hear any acknowledgment of the science that has produced useful therapies so far. The conclusion I've come to about that is: Acknowledging that science would undermine political support for funding ESCR, which is offered as the sole promise of miraculous cures (with no scientific basis, if you want to talk science).
Here are two important articles describing, realistically, the current science, ethics, and progress in stem cell research.
Robert George nailed it in his article, "Obama's Abortion Extremism," when he said that it seems (based on his voting record) that Mr. Obama won't support research unless it kills an embryo.
Posted by: Robert K | March 10, 2009 at 09:35 AM
Seems we may have put a domestic terrorist in the White House.
Instead of a belt full of TNT, he wields a pen.
Posted by: David Hawkins | March 10, 2009 at 10:31 AM
"or destroying, discarding, or subjecting to harm a human embryo or fetus."
Am I missing something? Sounds like the Obama policy will preclude ESCR if the Embryo is destroyed or subject to harm. Isn't that the case with current ESCR?
Posted by: kpolo | March 10, 2009 at 10:44 AM
No, the order that refused funding for research that destroys embryos--the order you're quoting--was revoked.
Our hope is that this doesn't actually mean they're ceasing all funding for non-embryo-destroying stem cell research, but only that they had to revoke the order so that they could also fund the destroying kind. The revoking of the order may just be a technicality, but they will continue to fund all kinds. Right now, people on the web are saying otherwise, but we can hope.
Posted by: Amy Hall | March 10, 2009 at 11:13 AM
ESCR already faces a myriad of very tough problems (the main one being that no one understands the environments that lead to differentiation). Since the transformation of a differentiated cell into a pluripotent cell is an enormous problem in itself, I would expect that the removal of restrictions on destructive methods will effectively stop all research on non-destructive methods. People aren't going to want to spend years working on a difficult problem if they don't have to. Sadly, I think the people making the funding decisions are now going to see no reason not to pursue destructive methods, making non-destructive methods essentially a waste of money from their perspective.
Posted by: Dennis | March 10, 2009 at 01:14 PM
President Obama has no Constitutional authority to do this.
Posted by: Ethan Maas | March 10, 2009 at 08:51 PM
God Bless America !! How can He when we (Americans) kill our kids and embryos that become kids. I believe God will soon-if not now- judge and punish America.
Posted by: Robert D. Brown | March 10, 2009 at 09:14 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Obama once an embryonic stem cell?
What does he mean that science will now be free of political ideology? Doesn't science tell us that we can trace the unique DNA of every human being back to the moment of his/her conception? Wasn't our mother's womb our original EPA?
It stands to reason that DNA stands for "Do Not Abort."
Posted by: Art | March 10, 2009 at 10:37 PM
You are absolutely right. I continue to be baffled at how such a scientifically dubious and ethically troublesome practice can recieve 100% support from one political point of view and the media.
Posted by: Phil S | March 11, 2009 at 07:56 AM
Executive Order 13435 mandates funding for stem cell research that doesn't destroy embryos. In overturning it, Obama was overturning the MANDATE for non-embryonic stem cell research. He was not revoking the AUTHORIZATION to fund non-embryonic stem cell research.
There is no federal ban on non-embryonic stem cell research, and Obama's recent executive order did not create one.
Posted by: Anon | March 11, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Correction: the last line should read "There is no ban on federal funding for non-embryonic stem cell research, and Obama's recent executive order did not create one."
Posted by: Anon | March 11, 2009 at 10:48 AM