Posted on 07/29/2005 12:15:49 PM PDT by AFPhys
And so is she! Actually, she's "superduper." If I don't remind her to be superduper when she's going home, she reminds me that she will. I have my legacy, and I'm not even 50 years old!
It changed her blood type, and her blood (and all successors from those stem cells) are male, not female.
I think this means she can be a Baptist preacher, but I'm not sure (grin).
be sure and look at the pinged post, for a picture of my grand daughter --- then you can read what Frist said.
Don't you think it's unusual that these guys pushing for federal funding for embryonic stem cell research don't have any animal models for anything except where a line of genetically IDENTICAL animals has been bred?
What about the stem cells in the placenta and the newborns cord?
A friend whose son after getting his PHD in gene splitting from Harvard and is now making over $250 K per year after two years said those sources were all all that he needed. His wife with the same background and employed by another company said the same.
I read his speech once, and don't have reliable recollection (in general), but a couple points enter my mind at this moment.
One triggered by your comment is the question of oversight. There is federal oversight now of our meat supply and of "good manufacturing practices" for pharmaceutical compounds. My point being that oversight and enforcement of ethical rules can be funded without funding the research. Enforcement can be funded independently from funding research.
Frist used similar sloppy logic in his recent "Terri (Schiavo) letter," I think in the hopes of placating constituents via confusion.
The other comment is based on Frist's assertion yesterday that he has held and expressed this for a long time, and expressed it in his "10 principles for ESCR." The reaction this creates in my gut is distrust of Frist. He's been for ESCR all this time, and was relatively mum about it.
I would suggest you re-read the speech. He clearly states that NO creation of embryos for research would be allowed. His only new source for embryonic stem cell research from what I could see was leftover blastocysts from fertility treatments that would be destroyed anyway.
I disagree with him, however, just as I disagreed with him in 2001.
I do not think that the federal government should fund embryonic stem cell research except in those lines that were already derived (whether it is 78 or 22 is immaterial to me).
We cannot stop this from happening in other countries. We cannot even stop it in the private sector. But by gosh, we shouldn't be forced to pay for it!
On the practical issue, it deems to me that if the stem cells in the existent lines are degrading, then it means that in order to have viable cells researchers will have to have a continuing supply of new cells, an incentive to procure even more embryos.
Frist has been consistent. I don't agree with his stance. I also want to know why, in the middle of all that is going on in Congress and internationally, he picked this moment (right before recess) to come out with this statement.
I understand what you're saying. I'm not happy about the whole area, personally, but it is clearly something that has to be dealt with. Banning stem cell research isn't going to happen. Banning IVF isn't going to happen, though in MY point of view, that is the moral/ ethical thing to do. Clearly, we need some kind of handle on this situation, and it seems Frist is struggling with how to open a real dialog about how to do that to get the best bill out of it. He's really accurate about the House bill being horrible, and in honesty, there is a very good chance of the President's veto being overridden on this issue, so the bill that is passed better be as good as possible, ethically. I also think it HIGHLY unlikely that legal restrictions and sanctions can ever get passed by the Congress without some type of involvement in funding in reciprocation, though I consider that very odious.
I'm not at all happy about this issue being even on the table, but those are the times we live in, I guess.
As far as timing, the timing is natural, given that the House only recently passed that bill. Frist didn't choose the timing - he responded to the imminent arrival of that bill in the Senate.
On the practical issue, it deems to me that if the stem cells in the existent lines are degrading, then it means that in order to have viable cells researchers will have to have a continuing supply of new cells, an incentive to procure even more embryos.
---->
I didn't respond to this. It looks to me like Frist is concerned that if something isn't done, IVF practitioners would start providing that incentive, and he's hoping to deter that incentive in his complete "rewrite" of the House bill. If I read his speech correctly, also, he wants to drastically limit the untimate number of cell lines, and hopefully eventually eliminate the need for embrionic stem cells altogether.
Click here -> 107th Congress - July 18, 2001 - Senate
Navigate to : 14 . STEM CELL RESEARCH -- (Senate - July 18, 2001)
Or, if you prefer, PDF version of Frist comments at pages S7846 to S7851.
If the PDF link is broken, it can be found with the following procedure:
Click here -> http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/advanced.html
Choose a volume(s): "2001 CR, Vol. 147"
Select a section(s)*: "Senate Section"
Search: embryonic AND frist
The first hit from that search should be "cr18jy01S STEM CELL RESEARCH," and you can choose between text and pdf forms.
We should not let the potential of this research drive the moral considerations themselves. Thus, we must set up a very important, strong, transparent, ethical construct in which this decisionmaking can be made, and needs to be made, on an ongoing basis. We do not know what the next great discovery is going to be 6 months from now. We cannot lock into place either the moral considerations or the way we consider whether or not it is appropriate to look in a new field of science.My take on that second point is that it draws the line at Federal funding for research in such a way that it does not fund the fertilization process. "Derivation" is a term of art that I don't fully understand.So the oversight process has to be responsive, has to be ongoing. It has to
[[Page S7847]]
recognize that science moves very quickly. The lack of predictability means there is the potential for abuse of the science itself. Again, that is why we must consider this issue in this body, why politics or policy must be engaged to prevent the potential for abuse. Anytime we are talking about the manipulation of life or living tissues at this early point, there is the potential for abuse. Thus, I conclude that embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cell research should be federally funded within a carefully regulated, fully transparent, fully accountable framework that ensures the highest level of respect for the moral significance of the human embryo, the moral significance of the human blastocyst.
There is this unique interplay of this potentially powerful research--uncharted research--this new evolving science with those moral considerations of life, of health, of healing. That interplay demands this comprehensive, publicly accountable oversight structure I propose.
I very quickly have addressed this issue in a comprehensive way. The reason I am in this Chamber and take this opportunity to speak is for people to actually see that the issue is a complicated issue but one that has to be addressed in a larger framework than just to say: Funding, yes or no.
There are basically 10 points I think we must consider, and I have proposed an answer. Again, I don't know the answer, and I struggle, like every person, on this particular issue to make sure we have the appropriate moral considerations. But I will outline what my 10 points are.
No. 1, we should ban embryo creation for research. The creation of human embryos solely for research purposes should be strictly prohibited.
No. 2, we should continue the funding ban on the derivation of embryonic stem cells. We need to accomplish this by strengthening and codifying the current ban on Federal funding for the derivation of embryonic stem cells.
But clearly, Frist has said for some time that he is in favor of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
The trouble with oversite is who is on the committee - all too often they reflect the current "men are tools" and "if I can and want to do it, the government should pay me to do it" mindset of scientists.
After all, why should scientists be limited, since they're so much smarter than we are? (and since most don't believe in God or any other higher power above what they call "democracy.")
I don't know if you saw the press conference on cspan last night with Republican House members re: this subject...
There are quite a few doctors in the House (no pun intended), and they were NOT on Frist's side on this.
One of the doctor reps. is Michael Burgess who is an ob/gyn from here in north Texas...
He explained that when Bush made the call on the first bill back in 2001, about just using the 77 lines available, which Frist NOW says is down to 22...Frist also says that the 22 aren't good because of the use of mouse cells or something...
Well, according to Dr. Burgess, the scientists involved his, were concerned about the use of the mice cells, and they didn't want to waste all lines if it proved to be a problem, which is what Frist is saying NOW...
Burgess, said that since the scientists were worried about this, the held back 31 lines that are just frozen and not been used yet....so he said really there are 53 lines then.. and that since NOTHING good had happened yet, with the ESC, this was plenty of lines to use unles/until they find that these ESC are worthy for further FUNDING>...
Does that help you at all with your dilemma?
It's important to them, but not enough to lose the SCOTUS, me thinks.
To put it crudely, there are 2 polar political advantages:
1 - the left says, "you should use left-over embryoes from fertility clinics." public agrees (I don't)
2 - right says, "you should ban human cloning." public agrees.
Why is point one prevailing and point two losing? Although Frist has disappointed us, he could make us some ground by saying no number 1 until number 2 is secured.
I agree with you about Frist's stance...
I haven't been a fan of his for awhile, but I respected his effort sometimes...
BUT, he lost me yesterday for sure!
I missed that. Thanks for the continuing information.
I saw Specter and Harking on cspan last night also..after the House REps...
Specter said---no joke---that he and Harkin are even thinking of having a Million Patient March on the Wash. Mall, to get the point across to Bush that this is necessary...and he intimated that even waiting THAT long, (to arrange a march) would mean a lot of people dying UNNECESSARILY!!!
Specter has gone around the bend on this one...and Hatch was on Hannity and Colmes and said that though he respects Bush's stance, BUSH IS JUST WRONG...and that this research is necessary for all of the kids that have horrible diseases, THEN, he hestitated and added...and adults also that are sick..it will help them also...
BLECH...I am afraid that his is gonna pass, and what Hatch was talking about and Specter, is making sure they get enough votes to be VETO PROOF...because Bush is still saying he would veto it...
When you mix scientists, doctors (I apologize to freeper doctors, but I have worked for a lot, so I know what I am saying is true), and politicians together....
You have so much ego...that I can't imagine the "public" or the "unborn babies" are really ever even thought about...it is what can I get out of this financially or publicity, or politically....IMHO
It seems to me that NIH could require companies involved in this practice to document the sources of their stem cells and submit to audit of their books, if Congress passed such a law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.