Question from Stem Cell Panel last night...

[matt]

I may have heard this wrong but, I wanted to see what you guys thought about this.

Last night I watched an interesting program on Stem Cell Research on one of the higher channels on DishNetwork. This conference was held in Cali at Stanford if Im not mistaken. On this program a speaker from the Stem Cell Research Panel made a reference that the ban on embryonic stem cell research, along with cloning in general, was wrong as it is unconstitutional. This was interesting to me for he posed it as if he were planning on doing the research and development with the intent of publishing this info on cloning/embryonic stem cell research in the journal science. His veiws were that by banning this research, his right to free speach would be infringed upon. I may be wrong in what I heard as it may be different than what he was trying to convey, but I think that was the gist(sp?) of it.

Anyone have any thoughts on this??

there is no ban on embryonic stem cell research - there is a limit on the number of lines authorized for research with federal funds.

Using that logic - research into the causes of water being wet is banned.

Private researchers using private funds are free to reseach to their hearts content.


Free speech is in no way implicated despite what the speaker may have alledged.


Here's an article I posted a while back on the subject

[matt]

I know that there is not a total ban on embryonic stem cell research, but there are limitations to the funding for research being conducted today. I am not trying to have a semantics game here, I am asking people's opinions on the subject.

[matt]

Originally Posted by xiannaix

there is no ban on embryonic stem cell research - there is a limit on the number of lines authorized for research with federal funds.

Using that logic - research into the causes of water being wet is banned.

Private researchers using private funds are free to reseach to their hearts content.


Free speech is in no way implicated despite what the speaker may have alledged.


Here's an article I posted a while back on the subject

Well, I read the article, and now I am even more confused. Why would a panel at Stanford University, which was even pointed out in the article, even bring this up if it were a non-issue?

ps: im not trying to get in a debate over stem cell research, and yada yada yada, im trying to understand:
1. if this is correct thinking
and
2. why this would have even been brought up in the meeting in the first place

Originally Posted by matt

I know that there is not a total ban on embryonic stem cell research, but there are limitations to the funding for research being conducted today. I am not trying to have a semantics game here, I am asking people's opinions on the subject.

Then why are you calling it a ban? You are perpetuating a myth by repeating it.


ethically: creating life to destroy it in the hope of prolonging another is ethically challenged - especially in light fo the fact that adult stem cell research has shown more promise and does not raise the same ethical issues.

fiscally: I generally have a problem of government funding for private research - there are circumstances where I may be less concerned. Here, where one branch of the research rasises none of the ethical issues and shows more promise than the other... I'm inclined to think the Fed. Gov't should stay out.

[johnny861]

Originally Posted by xiannaix

Then why are you calling it a ban? You are perpetuating a myth by repeating it.


ethically: creating life to destroy it in the hope of prolonging another is ethically challenged - especially in light fo the fact that adult stem cell research has shown more promise and does not raise the same ethical issues.

fiscally: I generally have a problem of government funding for private research - there are circumstances where I may be less concerned. Here, where one branch of the research rasises none of the ethical issues and shows more promise than the other... I'm inclined to think the Fed. Gov't should stay out.

I feel that Limiting the federal funding on new lines is basically a way for the government to back away from the gray area that is when is a human life considered a human life? Some people say at conception, other people say at the time of birth...

The citizens of the US seem to have a wide range of opinions on when human life is considered life. If the government doesn't fund new stem cell lines, which are at the heart of contraversy amongst Americans, then the government does not have to officially have a position on it and the public can carry on debating the issue, while not keeping this research at a stand still.

The Federal Government is not the sole provider of research funding in the United States, it should not be an issue as long as the research is not brought to a halt... This is only pulling lines from embryos, this does not include adult stem cell research and other related stem cell research projects, which will still be funded...

[Tortures Dionysos]

This was interesting to me for he posed it as if he were planning on doing the research and development with the intent of publishing this info on cloning/embryonic stem cell research in the journal science. His veiws were that by banning this research, his right to free speach would be infringed upon.

Ok... so are you asking if his right to free speech was infringed upon if he could not post his findings?

Well... I believe his right would be infringed upon.

Look at the Anarchists Cook Book... it has how to make a bomb in there... how to make acid... etc... and why? The right to free speech.


What makes this any different? It is all free speech in the end.

Originally Posted by Karen EpiK

Ok... so are you asking if his right to free speech was infringed upon if he could not post his findings?

Well... I believe his right would be infringed upon.

Are my first amendments rights being chilled if I am not given federal funding to research day time TV and its effects on my waist line?



Please tell me how this guy has been told he can't publish.... (referred to as prior restraint)

Originally Posted by Karen EpiK

Look at the Anarchists Cook Book... it has how to make a bomb in there... how to make acid... etc... and why? The right to free speech.

The writers/publishers weren't demanding federal funding to research the things published in that book and then calling it a ban when it wasn't given in all cases.