NIH Agency Chiefs Criticize Federal Policy on Stem Cells
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 7, 2005; Page A29
Quote:
Breaking with a tradition of deference to top administration officials, several institute directors at the National Institutes of Health went public yesterday with their distaste for federal restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research.
Their comments, put to paper at the request of Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and disclosed in conjunction with an NIH appropriations hearing yesterday, reflect festering frustration over the policy initiated by President Bush in 2001.
In their written comments and in testimony before the Appropriations subcommittee on the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, chaired by Specter, several NIH officials warned that the agency and the nation could become stragglers in the field as talented researchers move to places where the rules are less strict and funding is more plentiful.
"Progress has been delayed by the limited number of cell lines," wrote Elizabeth G. Nabel, the new director of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. "The NIH has ceded leadership in this field."
Continued
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32390-2005Apr6.html?referrer=email
There would never have been a question regarding fetal stem search had not our president
imposed his religious beliefs upon the nation.
Au: Exactly! He isn't serving the nation as a whole, just that fanatically religious group that refuses to be ignored. the only time you should let religion influence your policy-making is if every single person you're representing shares your faith. Even then, it's a bad idea.
Taliesin181 wrote:Au: Exactly! He isn't serving the nation as a whole, just that fanatically religious group that refuses to be ignored. the only time you should let religion influence your policy-making is if every single person you're representing shares your faith. Even then, it's a bad idea.
I disagree. That is the only time you could have laws requiring religion, but there can always be laws reflecting religious beliefs. Isn't that precisely what the president was elected to do? To use his beliefs to influence the structure of the nation.
Of course, it's completely acceptable to disagree entirely with his decisions, but I think it's silly to say he's not allowed to act on his own beliefs.
I would have the same gripe when laws are past in favor of abortion, I just can't throw a religious tag on it. But laws which I consider areligious probably offend me as much as laws that you consider religious. The real issue is that we disagree with the decisions.
SCoates
I my friend disagree with you. This is a secular nation and Bush nor any other president was elected to impose his religious law upon the citizenry of the nation. The constitution of the land does not give him that right. As for abortion there to there is not word one in the constitution that bans the procedure.
I should point out that religions are looking to impose their will upon you with their Thou shalt rules. While in a secular society it is live and let live. No one says you shall but by the same token no one says you may not.
But I think you are too loose on what you term "religious law."
If, for example, I feel abortion is wrong, then it does not matter whether it is written in the constitution; it does not matter whether you label that a religious belief. The fact is, I consider it wrong, and I believe it is my duty as a citizen to express what I believe to be correct or incorrect. Just as you are doing.
I suppose we won't agree, but where do you think the line should be drawn. All of my opinions could technically be considered religious, since I believe my religion has affected all of my opinions.
Which of my opinions should I be allowed to express?
But do you have a right to take that privilege away from the rest of the people. And in the case of fetal stem cell research which the people of this nation were overwhelmingly in favor of. Bush in effect said no because of his religious beliefs.
i think SC, that you are confusing 'religion', with 'morality'.
and as the bible will point out, in a heart beat (choose any page you like), there is no connection, whatever.
[it is always dangerous to apply one's own sense of 'morality' as a guide to the behaviour of others]
You can express any opinion you desire. You can even say my religion is false and yours is the only true one. However, what you can't do is impose your religion on me.
That in effect is what Bush does when he makes laws and mandates based upon his religious beliefs.
I believe he has the responsibility of doing what he feels is best for this nation.
Honestly, I didn't vote for Bush, and I don't support his decision on stem cell research. In this case I don't feel the solution is that he should ignore his religious persuasions. That's not a realistic solution. The solution is we need a better president, or other representatives with sound judgement.
You can't train a diseased monkey to no longer have a disease. Okay, that's going a bit too far... but I think it makes my point.
SCoates
You can't train a diseased monkey to no longer have a disease. Okay, that's going a bit too far... but I think it makes my point.
Well said however a monkey you can put to sleep.
SCoates: I understand your point, though. You're saying that, since his moral structure is built around his beliefs, that he can't really separate the two that easily. It's an interesting point.
Okay, I'll redefine. The only time the president should use his religious beliefs in policy-making is when a) the majority of the country agrees(polls show most of the country is pro-choice, and pro-stem cell research), and b) there is a solid base of reasoning supporting it. My problem is not just with him imposing his own values on society, but also deriving those values from a seemingly arbitrary rulebook that doesn't have real credence.
You make a good point, though. Hope to hear from you soon.
Now that position makes sense to me, Taliesin.
Additonally, and I am in no way defending Bush, a democratically elected leader will often make decisions that are not supported by the majority (in the polls or in reality - which are two separate things) based on a judgement of what is best for the nation, justifying that decision on 'based on information either not considered by or not available to, the general population'.
I agree that your religous beliefs inform you ethics/morals/judgement.
I am distrustful of our ability to determine what would constitute 'a solid base of reasoning'.
I am also distrustful of polls, which can be very easily manipulated by question formulation, and insufficiently informed respondents.
To quote Heinlein:
"Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something."
"Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?"
A million men do tend to have a better idea of what's going on. I've only seen "ask the audience" fail once on Who Wants to be a Millionaire?
Really? I've seen it fail quite a few times. And you're forgetting that contestants use that option on questions where there is a chance that the majority will know the answer, some questions it just won't work for and so it isn't used on them.
They should have a lifeline "Ask Ken Jennings."
Who's Ken Jennings? <embarrassed by own ignorance>
Oh, he was the champ on Jeopardy for a while. He won about 2 million (?), because someone finally got lucky enough to beat him. I calculate he knows about 90% of everything.
Please excuse me for being off the present arc of disscussion, but I just stumbled upon this topic.
To answer the question, it's like discovering a new drug, or dish, (or fruit
as in the first apple :wink: ), a person feels it's so wonderful, and the best, or only, they want to share it with others. Religion takes this to such an extreme however, that Jews, Christians, and Muslims, make the Crips, and Bloods, look like high school debating teams.
Which leads to a thought I've been tossing around in my head lately. MY NEW RELIGION!! The name Music...All you have to do is make or enjoy music...if you want to. There''s no mandated ceremonies, are prayers; You make your own set of ethics. no ministers, no holy books. The only mandated law in this religion is..."Thou shalt respect, and be nice to every one else." Think anyone would like to get in to such radical stuff? By the way, my personal code entails...Belief in God, being true to myself, and treating othes like I want to be treated. That's it, my ticket to Heaven, Nirvana, or whatever.
As for what I think of the the ultimate question, read my signature line.
