The NIH's Morally and Scientifically Incoherent Stem Cell Guidelines
First, let's set aside the question of whether or not there should be any federal funding for research and development. The fact is that there is such funding. Now, given the fact that the feds spend billions on research, shouldn't that money be spent in the most cost-effective way? In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama promised to "restore science to its rightful place." Listeners took this to mean that future decisions dealing with scientific matters would not be subject to ideological skewing as occurred during the Bush administration.
Alas, it appears that the National Institutes of Health is ignoring what science has to say about human embryonic stem cell research in its new draft guidelines for funding such research. The nub of those guidelines reads as follows:
These draft Guidelines would allow funding for research using human embryonic stem cells that were derived from embryos created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) for reproductive purposes and were no longer needed for that purpose. Funding will continue to be allowed for human stem cell research using adult stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells. Specifically, these Guidelines describe the conditions and informed consent procedures that would have been required during the derivation of human embryonic stem cells for research using these cells to be funded by the NIH. NIH funding for research using human embryonic stem cells derived from other sources, including somatic cell nuclear transfer, parthenogenesis, and/or IVF embryos created for research purposes, is not allowed under these Guidelines.
To sum up: Deriving stem cells from left over embryos from fertility clinics is OK; making new ones from which to derive stem cells is not. This is a weasely split the difference decision that in no way honors either ethics or science.
On ethics -- either the right-to-lifers are right and embryos, however produced, are people or they are not. IVF embryos and cloned research embryos will have the same moral status whatever that is. This proposed NIH funding guideline is just flat-out morally incoherent.
On science -- a lot can be gleaned from research using left over IVF embryos, but much more can be learned about diseases using embryos that have been created with the aim of studying specific genetic diseases. In addition, therapeutic cloning (although no one has yet successfully created a cloned human stem cell line) may turn out to be the best way to create perfect patient matched transplants to repair aging and damaged organs and tissues.
So the proposed NIH guidelines fail both morally and scientifically. Let's hope this gets fixed during the upcoming 30-day comment period.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"The fact is that there is such funding. Now, given the fact that the feds spend billions on research, shouldn't that money be spent in the most cost-effective way?"
Cue stupid paleo with an "answer" like "show me in the Constitution where it authorizes the federal government to spend money on this research" in 3
2
1
Stupid Paleo:
"Whats my answer to whether gays should be allowed to get married? My answer is that the government should get out of the business of marriage!"
Yeah, MNG! Burn that strawman!
Actually, Ron, all human ethical issues are resolved in exactly this weaselly (weasellike?) manner. If embryos are human beings, then anyone who destroys one is a murderer, right? So why didn't Bush et al. indict people engaged in privately funded stem cell research for murder? Eh?
Why don't pro-lifers promise to execute women who get abortion? Why doesn't the Catholic Church excommunicate women who get abortions, since they're condemning their unborn children to eternal damnation?
And if a foetus isn't a human being, why is abortion a "tragedy," as Hillary et al. keep telling us? Behind every immutable principle lie a thousand compromises.
As for "science," how come scientists disagree so spectacularly over global warming and the need, if any, to do anything about it?
Stupid Paleo:
"Burning straw is not what I do, I feed straw to my cattle. The New York Times is for burning!"
Stupid Paleo:
"That's it Xeones, I've decided that when Obama and the rest of the gun control crew sends those black UN helicopters to get you, my militia won't be there to save your foriegn-name sounding ass!"
The NIH has developed the art of being incomprehensible. It's what they do best.
Stupid Paleo:
"WILMA!!!!!!"
Stupid Paleo:
"Wilma is the name of my Christian mother you Godless heathen. Lord help me Wilma, but there's some limp wristed commie spoofing me! Must be a member of the DemocRAT party. Get it, a RAT, from a party that's not democratic! I hate the Tri-Lateral Commission and the Federal Reserve!"
Ron,
Does this mean that you are for government funding of this research, or do you prefer to have private research taking care of this?
You are sounding pro-gov on this one.
Hey MNG, i take it you are celebrating 4/20 pretty hard? Hook a brotha up.
Fuckin' Jesus, MNG sucks. At least joe could pull off a joke every now and then.
Ronald, you link to the Catholic church's argument against embryonic stem cell research. Is that b/c you think the church has put forward the best argument against embryonic stem cell research or b/c you think an argument against embryonic stem cell research can come only from a religious perspective? or a combination of both?
Xenoes,
Sounds more like he forgot his Luvox today.
Looking for Mad Max to get a ruling on this one.
How do we get the ad for the Asian chicks to pop back up? Or is that just the Jackie Chan thread?
Methinks there may be some spoofing going on.
And of course the NIH is weaseling. They're trying to appease everyone.
"Looking for Mad Max to get a ruling on this one."
Kill the vile gay embryos!
Stupid Paleo:
"Nice try Ron Bailey, but God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve!"
They're trying to appease everyone.
That should bring the mail-order bride ad back.
Stupid Paleo:
"Ron,
Does this mean that you are for government funding of this research, or do you prefer to have private research taking care of this?
You are sounding pro-gov on this one."
High Every Body gets it!
"Why don't pro-lifers promise to execute women who get abortion? Why doesn't the Catholic Church excommunicate women who get abortions, since they're condemning their unborn children to eternal damnation?"
I just have to say I dislike this line of reasoning, because it misses points like the fact that many pro-lifers are also anti-death-penalty or that Catholic bishops actually have protocol for excommunicating members in favor of painting pro-lifers as inconsistent.
I don't really mind people disagreeing with pro-life stances, but I'd rather they disagree with actual ideas or real hypocrisies, not these sorts of games where they say, "AHA! They wouldn't execute her for getting an abortion so they're INCONSISTENT!"
That being said, as a pro-life person, I don't really have many strong *political* convictions on some of these issues, because I realize that abortions will never end and embryonic stem-cell research isn't likely to stop, so I'd rather focus my energies on things that might actually make a long-term difference in our system of government. And I don't think that makes me inconsistent, just a realist.
"the mail-order bride ad back."
Stupid Paleo:
"Oh Warty I see from your flipness on this subject you're against marriage and Natural Law. Maybe Barney Frank can help you out, right after he gets fixed making this great nation socialist!"
Stupid Paleo:
"Because Barney Frank is gay, get it?
And he's a DemocRAT!
A gay DemocRAT!
And have you ever heard that man speak? Thanks Rep. Fudd (or should that be Fudge-packer, get it?)"
The role of joe is being played by MNG today.
Wait, that was every day back in the day.
LOL
Stupid Paleo:
"Yeah High Every Body! Did you know that Ron Bailey was not even a Baptist in good standing? And he believes in the GlobalWarmingHoax perpetrated by gay Jewish communist scientists! Next thing you know this animal rights loving athiest will be pusing dog embryo's marrying polygamists! But he doesn't count on solid Americans like you and me weilding the sword of stinging satire! Don't Tread on Us"
Stupid Paleo
"Those tofu-sushi eating cosmos can't stop us both working together High, you go low and I'll go high, unless you can think of a better idea! For the Republic for which it stands!"
All I learned from this thread is that MNG is really fucked up when high.
not even a Baptist in good standing
We have standing? I always thought it was binary - you is or you aint.
All I learned from this thread is that MNG is really fucked up when high.
I've heard of angry drunks, but never encountered an angry stoner before. Not pretty.
"Now, given the fact that the feds spend billions on research, shouldn't that money be spent in the most cost-effective way?"
It's a long shot, but maybe if the government spends the money in the least cost-effective way it would help magnify the fact that it shouldn't be spending the money in the first place.
Hello MNG. Do you like fish sticks?
The MNG show sucks today. Might check back later.
Suki
Canon 1398 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law provides: "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication."
(The Church does not, however, say that their unborn children are condemned to eternal damnation. Pope Benedict has even put the theologians to work to try to figure out how to develop an argument that they don't even end up in limbo.)
I say if my money is going to be taken at gun-point to pay for abortions, then we expand abortion.
Abortion until the 300th trimester. Let's start with those clumps of cells that call themselves Democrats and liberals.
JB, you pro-choicers just can't get enough murder can ya?
Stupid Paleo:
"Do you like fish sticks?"
"I'm not vegetarian, no sushi-tofu eater here; maybe if you like that you like Barney Frank! And you know about Barney Frank!
C'mon High Everybody, where are you man, we gotta skewer those sandal wearing cosmos, we're all that stands between mainland America and gun control and mandatory gay sodomy enforced by atheists in black UN helicopters!"
Bailey started his post with: "First, let's set aside the question of whether or not there should be any federal funding for research and development."
No, let's not set aside this question. Setting aside such questions is what gets us into the swamp of gay marriage (why is government in the business of marriage?) and other similar government overreaching.
The disheartening capitulation (Well, that's the way it is, so let's just try to minimize the damage within the framework of a system that is already ideologically flawed from the get go.) is at the root of why we as Americans don't seem able to apply the brakes to government bloat.
"Bailey started his post with: "First, let's set aside the question of whether or not there should be any federal funding for research and development."
No, let's not set aside this question."
"Ron,
Does this mean that you are for government funding of this research, or do you prefer to have private research taking care of this?"
Jesus Christ, some groups you just can't caricature. They will rise above and beyond the caricature no matter how silly you set it...
First, let's set aside the question of whether or not the federal government should be bailing out huge multi-national corporations. The fact is that they are. Shouldn't that money be spent in the most cost-effective way? In other words, should the Feds run Chrysler or GM?
Your duty as libertarian is to say whether it's Chrysler or GM. No hemming or hawing about the proper role of government, if you don't answer this with either Chrysler or GM then you are not really a libertarian but one of those filthy social conservatives who don't believe in freedom. After answering we can move on to the proper libertarian response to greater federal funding for elementary schools or high schools. Should the Federal Funds Rate be set at 2% or 4%? Do libertarians want taxes raised on the rich or the poor?
If Obama does not catch at least half the derision Bush did for his policy, then it shows that the criticism from the Left was motivated by partisan politics, not principles. If "science" trumps any moral value a human embryo might have, then there is no reason to prohibit funding for created embryos. By limiting funding to IVF leftovers, all Obama does is move the line somewhat but concedes that Bush had a legitimate point.
Bailey has admitted he is nowhere near a pure libertarian on this issue.
If the state is going to recognize marriages, should it recognize the marriages of inter-racial couples?
Come on now paleos, you have to say "the state should not recognize any of them, I have no further opinion" now don't you?
You guys really should get a handle on how dumb you sound.
Pope Benedict has even put the theologians to work to try to figure out how to develop an argument that they don't even end up in limbo.
Really? I mean, really?! Isn't he the farkin Pope, for Pete's sake? Isn't he the direct line to God? Why can't Popes make shit up as they go all on their own like everyone else?
Why do the most annoying commentors have to pollute the most important threads?
MNG is hurl-making before first coffee.
Suki
Are you somehow prevented by conditions of house arrest, mental injury or something from being capable of making a substantive point about anything?
Bailey, surely sensing the denseness that resides in many (not all) paleo-libertarians/hard-core/purist-libertarians, explicitly stipulated for the sake of discussion of this issue "set aside the question of whether or not there should be any federal funding for research and development."
But so many could not. Hell, even after I made fun of the inability of these types to do so, they exceeded the caricature.
Fanatics.
Look at me still talking
when there's Science to do.
When I look out there, it makes me GLaD I'm not you.
I've experiments to run.
There is research to be done.
On the people who are still alive.
And believe me I am still alive.
I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
I feel FANTASTIC and I'm still alive.
While you're dying I'll be still alive.
And when you're dead I will be still alive.
STILL ALIVE
Are you somehow prevented by conditions of house arrest, mental injury or something from being capable of making a substantive point about anything?
Talk about ironic and hypocritical at the same time, jeesh!
Obama's promise that, in relation to stem cell research, he would be guided by science instead of politics was merely demogoguery.
Science tells us what is possible. Morality tells us what is permissible. Obama's statement could be taken to mean that he believes that whatever is possible is also permissible, but not even I ascribe that to Obama. Instead, by decrying Bush's political decision, Obama was himself seeking political advantage.
So what else is new?
High
Are you seriously so retarded that you think that people that make substantive points that you disagree with have not made a substantive point?
Oh yeah, I never make any substantive points around here. Nothing like that we should change our policy re: Israel Palestine (you know, the substantive point you bitch about every time I make it), economic coercion, labor laws, wisdom of stimulus, etc. Nope, nothing like that from me!
Are you like 12?
To Ronald Bailey:
The NIH policy might be a reflection of the fact that the US population is more comfortable having issues of life or death resolved on an individual basis than on a corporate basis (by which I also mean government).
This is not to say that the view is coherent. I take your point. It is only to say that the US population might just be more comfortable saying that a left-over embryo is there by the individual decision of an adult, whereas the mass-produced embryo is there by the social, economic, or (coldly) scientific view of an organization.
The American people may trust more implicitly the person who has created embryos with the goal of having a child, and who then willingly donates the remainder to science, than the organizational entity that creates them for not-exactly-personal reasons.
Again, I'm not saying the view is coherent, or that it's even of a piece with Americans' views on abortion as such, but I am suggesting that a libertarian might want to be aware of the interpretation that an American citizen might be more sympathetic to the decisions of another citizen than to those of an unknowable organizational entity. And the NIH is merely reflecting this view by making the policy "most palatable" to the citizens.
Apparently the Spontaneous Order Machine is incapable of shutting some people up. I agree with Suki ... L8R.