iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama Science Memo Goes Beyond Stem Cells

Obama

SETH BORENSTEIN and BEN FELLER   03/ 9/09 10:20 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — From tiny embryonic cells to the large-scale physics of global warming, President Barack Obama urged researchers on Monday to follow science and not ideology as he abolished contentious Bush-era restraints on stem-cell research. "Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values," Obama declared as he signed documents changing U.S. science policy and removing what some researchers have said were shackles on their work.

"It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda _ and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology," Obama said.

Researchers said the new president's message was clear: Science, which once propelled men to the moon, again matters in American life.

Opponents saw it differently: a defeat for morality in the most basic questions of life and death.

"The action by the president today will, in effect, allow scientists to create their own guidelines without proper moral restraints," Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said.

In a crowded ornate East Room, there were more scientists in the White House than Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science had seen in his 30 years in Washington. "More happy scientists than I've seen," he added.

The most immediate effect will allow federally funded researchers to use hundreds of new embryonic stem cell lines for promising, but still long-range research in hopes of creating better treatments, possibly even cures, for conditions ranging from diabetes to paralysis. Until now, those researchers had to limit themselves to just 21 stem cell lines created before August 2001, when President George W. Bush limited funding because of "fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science."

Science, politics and religion have long intertwined and conflicted with each other. In his actions Monday, especially with the stem cell decision, Obama is emphasizing more the science than the religion, when compared with his predecessor, science policy experts say. But they acknowledged politics is still involved.

Don't expect stem cell cures or treatments anytime soon. One company this summer will begin the world's first study of a treatment using human embryonic stem cells, in people who recently suffered spinal cord injuries. Research institutions on Monday were gearing up to ask for more freely flowing federal money, and the National Institutes of Health was creating guidelines on how to hand it out and include ethical constraints. It will be months before the stem cell money flows; the average NIH stem cell grant is $1.5 million spread out over four years.

Scientists focused on a new sense of freedom.

"I think patients everywhere will be cheering us on, imploring us to work faster, harder and with all of our ability to find new treatments," said Harvard Stem Cell Institute co-director Doug Melton, father of two children with Type I diabetes who could possibly be treated with stem cells. "On a personal level, it is an enormous relief and a time for celebration. ... Science thrives when there is an open and collaborative exchange, not when there are artificial barriers, silos, constructed by the government."

Opponents framed their opposition mostly, but not exclusively, on moral grounds and the scientifically contested claims that adult stem cells work just as well.

Said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America: "President Obama's order places the worst kind of politics above ethics. Politics driven by hype makes overblown promises, fuels the desperation of the suffering and financially benefits those seeking to strip morality from science."

In Congress, Reps. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., and Mike Castle, R-Del., said they would seek a quick vote on legislation to codify Obama's order in federal law, after failing twice in the past to overturn Bush's restrictions. DeGette said she doesn't want stem cell research to become "a pingpong ball going back and forth between administrations."

But Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., chairman of the Republican study committee, said the president's new policy would "force taxpayers to subsidize research that will destroy human embryos." De Gette and Castle said their legislation tries to minimize destruction of embryos.

Stem cells are typically derived from fertility clinic surplus, destined for destruction.

Obama also said the stem cell policy is designed so that it "never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction." Such cloning, he said, "is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society or any society."

In addition to the stem cell order, Obama issued a memo designed to ensure openness about scientific research and give whistleblower protection to scientists.

Promoting science "is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient _ especially when it's inconvenient," Obama said.

Science and politics often conflict, said Granger Morgan, professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University and a former science advisory board chairman for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency _ perhaps illustrated no more wildly than in 1897 when the Indiana legislature attempted to change the mathematical concept of pi to 3.2. Science should provide the facts that politicians use for their decisions, Morgan and Leshner said.

Many scientists and environmental activists complained that the Bush administration had censored and marginalized science. That's a perception that Bush science adviser John Marburger repeatedly called untrue and unfair, as he addressed a series of occurrences that troubled critics.

In 2006, the White House edited out congressional testimony about public health effects of global warming by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Julie Gerberding. A 2003 EPA global warming document was edited by nonscientists at the White House. A NASA political appointee tried _ and failed _ to silence the agency's top climate scientist.

Former Surgeon General Richard Carmona resigned in 2006, complaining about White House interference on global health issues: "The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds."

Obama advisers contend that all has changed. The government has already put on hold rules about scientific input on endangered species, reinstating advice that had been excised during the Bush administration.

Public policy must "be guided by sound scientific advice," said Dr. Harold Varmus, the Nobel Prize-winning co-chairman of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. The new memo Obama signed is "mainly a way of trying to prevent tampering with any advice," Varmus told MSNBC.

___

Associated Press writers Lauran Neergaard, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Philip Elliott contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

WASHINGTON — From tiny embryonic cells to the large-scale physics of global warming, President Barack Obama urged researchers on Monday to follow science and not ideology as he abolished content...
WASHINGTON — From tiny embryonic cells to the large-scale physics of global warming, President Barack Obama urged researchers on Monday to follow science and not ideology as he abolished content...
Filed by Rachel Weiner  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,784
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (22 total)
01:08 PM on 03/15/2009
When in the recorded history of "man" have those in power demonstrated the ability to use their intelligence exclusively for good? Of course my perspective comes from the feminine side and we have only one clue to work with, we have no "written" history. And every history that exists is ultimately marketed as the inherent evil of women. The sci-fi crowds show futurist worlds with men creating brand new worlds (Star Wars, Star Trek...) with a remarkable lack of women.

Of course this intellectually should make me very suspicious of the future, with Nada Suleman types being used as breeding machines for mass production or the future of creating designer babies or the future of extending "man's" life or predictions that "man" will be able to decide in the future whether they want a good old fashioned girl or a life-like robot. (And they have certainly used our bodies and made alot of money marketing the idea-silicon boobs, botox cow lips, contraceptives that postpone what seem to be the "natural" cycle of women).

"Man" is evolving, although I still pound the pavement, I am as extinct as a lion or tiger or bear. Like my ancestors before me, I am a silent witness.

So use the science for good, but be willing to accept the evolution that comes with it.
11:42 AM on 03/11/2009
There's a simple way to test someone who claims to support the notion that all unborn life, including an embryo, is sacred and that destroying such unborn life is murder; ask this kind of "pro-lifer" to demand from the President a military rule of engagement that forbids launching a military strike (even against suspected terrorists) when there's even the slightest chance a pregnant women might be any where near the vicinity of the attack. Such a ban might get an affirmative answer from Roman Catholics, who are at least consistent enough to construct a "just war theory" and to oppose capital punishment. But try to get a right-wing, pro-life, evangelical Republican to sign on to this proposition and see what kind of response you get. What you'll get is an answer that shows that deep-down they agree with the proposition that the taking of an unborn life (especially the unborn children - hell, even all their children - of our enemies) is justified if it serves a greater good, especially if that greater good serves their political purposes. The use of embryonic stem cells clearly serves a greater good. Thanks President Obama, and shame on pro-life hypocrites.
05:06 AM on 03/11/2009
That great news for people with serious diseases - hopefully it'll get us to a situation where we don't need to raise donations for kids with cancer and beg strangers for help
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:43 PM on 03/10/2009
I was an embryo once. Were I one of these embryos, would I want to be experimented upon?
No!! I'd want to be thrown in the dumpster as God intended.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JohnHKennedy
10:10 AM on 03/10/2009
How I have waited for this day. . Thanks, President Obama.

Mr. President, you have much more work to do to right the wrongs committed aginst the American people.

Our unnecessary wars will go on and on if we continue to refuse to examine the violations of Federal Law, Treaties, and the Geneva Convention on Torture by the Bush/Cheney Administration.

When are our Attorney General, our Congress, and the Obama Administration going to do something about investigating and prosecuting the Bushies that broke so many Federal Laws?

We must pressure our Attorney General holder, the Congress and the Obama Administration to appoint a Special Prosecutor to indict these criminals.

All of our country's problems can be traced to their blatant abuse of power.

WE CANNOT SUCCESSFULLY MOVE FORWARD Until We Examine the many Crimes
of the Bush Administration.

Sign the National Petition to Prosecute Bush, Cheney, and the appointees that violated so many Federal Laws, including the one against Torture.

http://AngryVoters.org

.
08:28 AM on 03/10/2009
For a decent analysis on the Bush "War on Science" (it's strange the New York Times didn't use that language), check out: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/science/10lab.html?ref=science

Adult stem cells have proven, at least at this early point, to be just as, if not more, promising than embryonic ones. The Bush Administration (good riddance) did not limit adult stem cell research, only embryonic. Will that change given further federal funding? Perhaps, but it is certainly not irrational or anti-science to further adult stem cell research while spurning a similar set of research with squishy ethics.

The group think on this discussion board is dismaying. I realize the republicans are doing the same thing on their inter-nets, but that doesn't make it right. Obama spoke of a post-partisan America; that starts with a) realizing that people aren't stupid because they don't agree with you, b) realizing you might be able to learn something from your neighbors' different perspectives (even...gasp...creationists!), and c) using language to communicate and build bridges, not to burn them down.

Moving away from "us versus them" might not be great for party unity (who will we make fun of at picnics?), but maybe it is for America.
08:17 AM on 03/10/2009
What about these cells?

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/culture-of-deception/
08:14 AM on 03/10/2009
I thought this was above his pay grade?
09:50 AM on 03/10/2009
When he was a Senator it was above his paygrade. He's been promoted.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vinca
07:25 AM on 03/10/2009
I'M FOR THE STEM CELL RESEARCH, THERE IS A GREAT POTENTIAL, FOR HEALING MANY THINGS
07:42 AM on 03/10/2009
No there isn't, not yet anyway.
09:51 AM on 03/10/2009
Why isn't there potential right now?
06:38 AM on 03/11/2009
That's what potential means, it can...
04:00 AM on 03/10/2009
Only 40 years ago hospitals were refused funding when they permitted doctors to further research in reimplantation-reattachment of severed limbs because it 'Smacked of Frankenstein-ism'. It's time the people stood up and told the ideologues where they can take their nonsense.
10:40 AM on 03/10/2009
And don't forget all the slippery-slope arguments against organ transplants. People were going to be kidnapped off the streets and wake up in hospitals missing organs, babies would be bought and sold for their organs, etc. We see where that's at. The ESC issue was used by the neocons as a wedge issue to get power. People's weaknesses and fears were manipulated by right-wing politicians. Their diatribes against ESC research include the same illogical and hysterical rantings as those against organ and limb research last century.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
redkim
Wounded by beauty, I am one who struggles with God
02:21 PM on 03/10/2009
Exactly. And once you take government funding, you give the government permission to tell you what to research, where, and for how long. You also give them permission to refuse you available funding if you do not do as they tell you.
03:14 AM on 03/10/2009
I tire of commenting on this delusional system of beliefs espoused by those on the hard Right:

He who purports that his doctrine is "pro-life"--proponent of sustained living--whilst denying the sick an opportunity to continue living by growing new organs, new limbs, new faces, new brain and spinal tissues, is delusional.

He who espouses a "pro-life" position considers only the presence of a life, not the quantity or quality of years that life will experience.

He who denies a woman the right to decide what she will do with her body, is un-American: The Security of her continued existence is threatened by death, by the risks of birth. Her Liberty is tossed aside when it is taken from her by the doctrine of the few. And her Pursuit of Happiness is suspended indefinitely, by way of forcing her to raise a child she does not want.
01:32 AM on 03/10/2009
Hey Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America,
God forbid you got hit by a car and you sustained a spinal injury,
that resulted in your not being able to walk and stem cell
development and treatment would cure your condition.
You would change your position at the speed of light.
02:36 AM on 03/10/2009
Concerned Women of America? The prototypes for that Monty Python skit where the women answer each issue by flailing each other with their purses?
10:41 AM on 03/10/2009
Thanks for the great visual.
01:25 AM on 03/10/2009
Thank goodness the era of Incurious George is over. I am so weary of people who think Patriotism begins and ends at flag waving. And those who say they are Christian but actually don't act like good Christians.
Bush embodied that. Sure, he believes in Christ - just not anything he said or did.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MarkInEugene
A blasphemy a day keeps the deities away.
12:16 AM on 03/10/2009
Thank God...sanity has returned to America! Science is not the enemy!
11:51 PM on 03/09/2009
Speaking of which... WHAT is a retired psychiatrist and a bunch of psychologists doing writing a letter like THIS...

http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/gordon.html

How DARE they exert their muscle about what's healthy... LOOK AT SOME OF 'EM!

http://www.nutriwatch.org/00AboutNutriwatch/Gifs/sbarrett.jpg

http://media.cla.auburn.edu/psychology/people/images/mcglynn.jpg

http://www.youradvocateonline.com/images/lilienfeld-small.jpg

http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/images/screenhunter_2_10.jpg

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/img/v3/07-13-2008.NB_13docs2.GA02EEQNE.1.jpg

http://www.drexel.edu/coas/psychology/formanherbert/Images/james2.jpg

http://www.instituteofliving.org/ADC/Staff/Tolin.jpg

http://www.apa.org/ppo/images/pratkanis.jpg

http://www.nyicbt.org/images/bios/eisman.jpg

http://www.nyicbt.org/images/bios/bush.jpg

And not a SINGLE woman or person of color in the bunch!

And WHY is at least one of their names on this...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rmtgold.htm

Since WHEN did PSYCHOLOGISTS and PSYCHIATRISTS question the existence of repressed memories?

It's "scientists" like this that have made my sheep skin about as valuable as toilet paper!