Scientists: Disagree with Bush, get fired.

[AtheistArchon]

- Yawn. Par for the course... this no longer surprises me.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040303/04

News: Bush dismisses council members

Scientific groups angry at loss of Elizabeth Blackburn from group considering stem cells | By Maria Anderson



US President George W. Bush dismissed two members of his President's Council on Bioethics last Friday afternoon in a move that has been dubbed a “very ill-advised decision” by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) president Bettie Sue Masters.

Elizabeth Blackburn, a University of California, San Francisco, biochemist and former president of the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB), and William May, a medical ethicist and former head of the Maguire Center of Ethics at Southern Methodist University, received notification last Friday that their service on the council was no longer needed.

Blackburn told The Scientist that she received a call from the White House personnel office last Wednesday (February 28) requesting her to call them back on Friday afternoon. When she returned the call, she was notified of her dismissal. Although she and May frequently expressed views opposing those of the president and the council's chairman Leon R. Kass, she said that she had “no inkling” that a dismissal was imminent and that she has not been contacted by Kass at all.

To replace Blackburn, May, and Stephen Carter, a Yale University law professor who left the council in September 2002, Bush appointed Benjamin S. Carson, the director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at John Hopkins and a vocal abortion opponent; Peter A. Lawler, head of the Government and International Studies Department at Berry College in Georgia; and Diana J. Schaub, head of the Political Science Department at Loyola College in Maryland.

Bush established the council as a federal advisory committee in January 2002. The 18-person group, comprising scientists, lawyers, physicians, and others, published its first report, a recommendation for federal regulations on human cloning, in July 2002. Since then, the council has issued two more reports on biotechnology (October 2003) and stem cell research (January 2004), as well as a collection of readings about bioethics (December 2003). Bush renewed his executive order for the council in January when its first 2-year term expired. The council members' terms also expired in January; only Blackburn and May were not invited back.

Coming on the heels of protests from the Union of Concerned Scientists and others that the White House has distorted scientific facts to support its policies on the environment, public health, and biomedical research, this latest action by the Bush administration has done more than raise a few eyebrows in the scientific community. Several professional organizations, including the ASCB and the ASBMB, have expressed their disappointment in Bush's decision, which will lower the fraction of research scientists on the council.

“Even before Dr. Blackburn's dismissal, scientists were heavily outnumbered by nonscientists with strong anti-research ideological views,” said ASCB public policy chair Larry Goldstein in a statement. “Now it will be even more unlikely than before that the council will be able to make informed ethical decisions.”

Many also believe that it is an effort to increase the number of conservatives on the council. Bernard Siegel, the Genetics Policy Institute's executive director, told The Scientist in an E-mail, “It is a shame that [Blackburn] is being replaced by outspoken foes of [somatic cell nuclear transfer] research. This is… another punch in the face to scientists and disease advocates by the folks more concerned about 'energizing their political base' than finding cures.”

Kass responded to these criticisms in an editorial in today's Washington Post: “Our new members are all people of distinction, ethical seriousness and intellectual independence, with the sorts of competences we need for the new and different work ahead. Unfortunately, these membership changes were met with unfounded and false charges of political 'stacking' of the council. Such charges are as bogus today as they were when the council was formed.”

Explaining the replacement of Blackburn with Carson, Kass wrote, “[T]his change reflects the changing focus of the council's work, as we move away from issues of reproduction and genetics to focus on issues of neuroscience, brain and behavior.”

Blackburn pointed out that the council already has “two fine psychiatrists,” Charles Krauthammer and Paul McHugh, and one cognitive neuroscientist, Michael Gazzaniga, so she doesn't think Kass' explanation is valid. “Two dissenting voices are now not on that council,” she said. “Now I fear it's very lopsided.” She said that with the current ratio of scientists to nonscientists, the President's Council on Bioethics is “not an ideal council.” While it's necessary to have a variety of viewpoints, “it is bioethics, after all.”

© source where applicable

[yxboom]

Have you told Socrates yet?

[Jaltus]

LOL, like the above scientists were not politically biased already?

said ASCB public policy chair Larry Goldstein in a statement. “Now it will be even more unlikely than before that the council will be able to make informed ethical decisions.”

Public policy chair? Not political at all, right?

“It is a shame that [Blackburn] is being replaced by outspoken foes of [somatic cell nuclear transfer] research. This is… another punch in the face to scientists and disease advocates by the folks more concerned about 'energizing their political base' than finding cures.”

Going ahead in stem cell research already displays bias. Claiming it is scientific does nothing to alter that.

And of course the headline is biased since, instead of dismissing the people, Bush is in fact renewing others and not them. Of course that is buried in the article along with the rational Bush had for the decision.

Rather biased reporting. It assumes the scientists who were not renewed were in the right and tells the entire story that way.

[AtheistArchon]

LOL, like the above scientists were not politically biased already?

- Perhaps! But isn't the point to keep an even number of evens and odds on the panel? What's the purpose if we stack it with odds?

Public policy chair? Not political at all, right?

- Very political. That's my point! Wherever Bush has direct control, he supplants even-handed science in favor of people who tow his line. He's not interested in an informed decision, he's only interested in "a science panel" backing his agenda!

Going ahead in stem cell research already displays bias. Claiming it is scientific does nothing to alter that.

- Bias towards what... science? And who's going to have that debate now I wonder? Nobody. No need now, the dissenting voices have been removed.

And of course the headline is biased since, instead of dismissing the people, Bush is in fact renewing others and not them. Of course that is buried in the article along with the rational Bush had for the decision.

- Bush started the panel with people he felt were stacked in his position in the first place! I even wrote an essay back when it happened:

http://www.the-archon.com/Essays/cloning3.htm

- This is Bush's first opportunity to refine that panel, and true to form, he ejected the two people who dissented. Bush's solution: find someone with a college education who won't veer from my agenda, put them in a position of power, and then claim you have a qualified scientific panel on bioethics.

Rather biased reporting. It assumes the scientists who were not renewed were in the right and tells the entire story that way.

- The reason it reads that way is because this is an ongoing story: the scientific community was outraged when Bush first formed the panel and stacked it not with people genuinely interested in science and bioethics, but yes-men that he thought would never present any obstruction to his policies. Now that two of those people actually had the GALL to dissent, he has removed them and replaced them with people even more indoctrinated by his religious agenda.

- I realize that science and politics have never really gotten along, but this is just ludicrous. It would be like me creating a panel on morality and stacking it with all atheists, and then ejecting two who actually thought religious people could be moral.

[Jaltus]

In some respects I agree with you, but be honest about how biased the entire report is. It talks about them being dismissed when that is a lie. They were not renewed, meaning that he did not give them a position rather than firing them from a position.

Are representatives fired from their jobs, or do they just not get re-elected? This is very much the same thing.

Also, you are assuming motivations which Bush's administration disagrees with, which also shows your assumption that they are lying. Why is it that the motivation cited by the article for Bush is necessarily false?

As to my point about the public policy chair, that was the guy complaining for the scientists! It was the science "establishment" (for lack of a better term) which was going political on this.

I agree that it was stupid of Bush not to add scientists. However, his rationale for letting these go could very well be legit. See what the future holds before condemning his choices. His motivation could very well be valid.

[Captain Ochre]

- Perhaps! But isn't the point to keep an even number of evens and odds on the panel? What's the purpose if we stack it with odds?

What's the purpose of a panel where the purpose of the panel is to keep an even number of evens and odds on the panel?

- Very political. That's my point! Wherever Bush has direct control, he supplants even-handed science in favor of people who tow his line. He's not interested in an informed decision, he's only interested in "a science panel" backing his agenda!

The panel has already published findings on various topics despite the presence of the supposed dissenters.
Should we expect those works to now be amended?

- Bias towards what... science?

That's one possibility.
There are some in the scientific community who hold to the view that if it can be done, then science should do it.
That's one of the reasons for ethics panels in the first place.

And who's going to have that debate now I wonder? Nobody. No need now, the dissenting voices have been removed.

I must have missed the part where Blackburn and May were the only panel members who expressed dissent.
Could you point out a relevant reference for me?

- Bush started the panel with people he felt were stacked in his position in the first place! I even wrote an essay back when it happened:

http://www.the-archon.com/Essays/cloning3.htm

Shrill as ever.

- This is Bush's first opportunity to refine that panel, and true to form, he ejected the two people who dissented.

Nobody other than those two dissented?

Bush's solution: find someone with a college education who won't veer from my agenda, put them in a position of power, and then claim you have a qualified scientific panel on bioethics.

Parody pending ...

- The reason it reads that way is because this is an ongoing story: the scientific community was outraged when Bush first formed the panel and stacked it not with people genuinely interested in science and bioethics, but yes-men that he thought would never present any obstruction to his policies. Now that two of those people actually had the GALL to dissent, he has removed them and replaced them with people even more indoctrinated by his religious agenda.

"In a dissent, 7 of the panel's 18 members went even further, recommending that research cloning proceed under government regulation."
http://www.wabre.org/news_articles/7_11_02.html

Shouldn't we have expected Bush to replace seven members of the board?

- I realize that science and politics have never really gotten along, but this is just ludicrous. It would be like me creating a panel on morality and stacking it with all atheists, and then ejecting two who actually thought religious people could be moral.

Well, if you kept five others that thought that religious people could be moral, then maybe we'd cut you a break until we figured out why you actually dismissed the two.

Fair enough?

[AtheistArchon]

Jaltus: In some respects I agree with you, but be honest about how biased the entire report is. It talks about them being dismissed when that is a lie. They were not renewed, meaning that he did not give them a position rather than firing them from a position.

Are representatives fired from their jobs, or do they just not get re-elected? This is very much the same thing.

- *shrug* The effect is the same.

Also, you are assuming motivations which Bush's administration disagrees with, which also shows your assumption that they are lying. Why is it that the motivation cited by the article for Bush is necessarily false?

- Eh? The Bush administration wants a total and complete ban on cloning across the board. He put this group together as a bioethics counsel and stacked it with people who he thought would bring that about (and in a way, they did, putting a moratorium on the practice). His motivation isn't getting good science advice, his motivation is using science as a political tool.

As to my point about the public policy chair, that was the guy complaining for the scientists! It was the science "establishment" (for lack of a better term) which was going political on this.

- Not at all. The group was appointed as a political tool by Bush in the first place. Scientists agree there needs to be an ethics council, but not one stacked with people with right-wing political agendas as appointed by the president.

I agree that it was stupid of Bush not to add scientists. However, his rationale for letting these go could very well be legit. See what the future holds before condemning his choices. His motivation could very well be valid.

- Given Bush's actions elsewhere, I think I am justified in my suspicion that he's simply playing politics.

Cap: The panel has already published findings on various topics despite the presence of the supposed dissenters.
Should we expect those works to now be amended?

- I don't know. The Bush administration has, however, reversed prior scientific findings and replaced them with political material in the past, most notably on the CDC website.

That's one possibility.
There are some in the scientific community who hold to the view that if it can be done, then science should do it.
That's one of the reasons for ethics panels in the first place.

- But the panel is useless if all the members share Bush's religious ideology. It was formed for one purpose: to lend some kind of credibility to the Bush decision to ban all cloning research. It fulfilled that purpose, and now that new science has entered the debate (stem cells), Bush is modifying the panel in order to adjust accordingly.

I must have missed the part where Blackburn and May were the only panel members who expressed dissent.
Could you point out a relevant reference for me?

- I never said Blackburn and May were the only dissenters, but they clearly did express dissent. And now that the debates have switched from cloning to stem cell research, Bush removes Blackburn, a biochemist, and May, a professional medical ethicist, and replaces them with "outspoken foes of [somatic cell nuclear transfer] research" Carter and Schaub, one a lawyer and vocal abortion opponent, and the other a political scientist.

- Now Cap, I know you're a big fan of Bush and his method of cover-ups, but use some common sense here.

Shrill as ever.

- *shrug* Bush is a theocrat.

Parody pending ...

- I have little doubt.

"In a dissent, 7 of the panel's 18 members went even further, recommending that research cloning proceed under government regulation."
http://www.wabre.org/news_articles/7_11_02.html

Shouldn't we have expected Bush to replace seven members of the board?

- I'd be upset if he did, sure. But there's ample reason to be concerned with just these two. Do you really see no disparity?

Well, if you kept five others that thought that religious people could be moral, then maybe we'd cut you a break until we figured out why you actually dismissed the two.

Fair enough?

- Not with Bush's track record on science (bad) combined with his flourish of faith-based approaches to real-world issues. If this were an isolated event, Cap, I really would have no big issue, but this is yet more of the same behavior we've come to expect from the Bush admin: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environ...sirelease.html

[Noesis]

I could be wrong, but not in this case. The point of Presidential panels, secretaries, etc. is to tell the public what he wants them told and help him sell it.

I was once invited to join a governor's commission on prisons, supposedly to examine design and staffing issues for a new and potentially costly and controversial facility. In our first meeting the Governor was not in attendance, but the chief prisons administrator was there to present to the board. It became apparent the adminsitrator had already settled on a new design and staffing plan, one that exceeded the construction budget by $37M (it was a four star hotel, not aprison) and the staff budget allocation by nearly $13 million annually. But the announced charter of our commission was to select a design and formulate a staffing plan and make recommendations. We were all degreed and experienced in corrections, law enforcement, security and criminal defense or prosecution, and in fact many of us would have been considered well-qualified to assume the administrator's position. So rather than rubber-stamping the proposal, we proceeded to assign subcommitees and objectives for the work of doing our own assesssment before submitting an honest recommendation.

Forty-five minutes into this process the Governor appeared, having been urgently summoned by an agitated prisons administrator, and explained to us that he had already approved the design and staffing plan, and the problem we were actually there to resolve was to help him sell the budget overruns to the legislature and public. I was among the 24 of 30 who declined to be part of the sham.

Three days later the Governor's personal assistant, a former boss of mine, took me to lunch to try to get me to come back, apologizing that she hadn't "explained things" to me, and saying she, "should have known better than to catch me off guard with a process that gave an appearance of less than complete above-board legitimacy." She then proceeded to explain to me that all such commissions were public relations organs, that members were selected for their reputations and influence, and that such commissions were a means for the chief executive to deal with controversies at arm's length and implement politically risky decisions with plausible deniability, hiding behind the commission's "findings."

That is certainly the function of the Presidential commission discussed. Whether or not it should be a public relations tool, that's what it is, and Bush has as much right to pick his team for this purpose as he has to pick his cabinet. I may not like it, but it's not there for me to like.

[The Laughing Man]

Bush is a theocrat

How predictable. Bush isn't afraid to mention God and talk about his faith, so that makes him a "theocrat." Oh, and he's "anti-science," too.

You REALLY need to get out more, Arch. "Theocrat." *snicker*

[Jaltus]

- *shrug* The effect is the same.

The effect is the same? Your opening title and the title of the article are LYING. They are NOT TRUE. It is the difference between murder and someone dying of old age, but according to you "the effect is the same."

Ends do not justify the means.

- Eh? The Bush administration wants a total and complete ban on cloning across the board. He put this group together as a bioethics counsel and stacked it with people who he thought would bring that about (and in a way, they did, putting a moratorium on the practice). His motivation isn't getting good science advice, his motivation is using science as a political tool.

He is a politician. Did you really expect him to have no opinion? Also, where was this when Clinton did the same thing, stuffing commissions with pro-death advocates?

- Not at all. The group was appointed as a political tool by Bush in the first place. Scientists agree there needs to be an ethics council, but not one stacked with people with right-wing political agendas as appointed by the president.

You must have a reading comprehension problem. For the third time, read the original article and notice that the person protesting in the article, whom you called a scientist, was a member of the science wing called a public policy chair. THIS PERSON WAS AGAINST BUSH, not appointed by him. Are you getting this yet?

- Given Bush's actions elsewhere, I think I am justified in my suspicion that he's simply playing politics.

And given your above posts and missing the point of my protests, I believe I am justified in my suspicion that you care nothing for the truth and everything about spinning things your own way.

[Jimmy Higgins]

How predictable. Bush isn't afraid to mention God and talk about his faith, so that makes him a "theocrat." Oh, and he's "anti-science," too.

No, Jimmy Carter wasn't afraid of his faith. But he has intelligence. His faith never interfered with his scientific judgement, him being a nuclear engineer and all. Bush isn't afraid of his faith, but he has no grasp on science and fills science in with his faith.

You REALLY need to get out more, Arch. "Theocrat." *snicker*

You need to study some science.

[Socrates]

No, Jimmy Carter wasn't afraid of his faith.

No, because he was so liberal anyway, and liberalism is all about compromising Christianity to the fashions of the day.

But he has intelligence.

He was widely regarded as the most pathetic US president of the 20th centiry, apart from Nixon.

His faith never interfered with his scientific judgement,

Here's Jimmy's misochristism to the fore -- once again perpetuating the lie that faith and science are in conflict, although science was founded in Christianized Europe! Nor does Higgy have any problems with his fellow atheists letting THEIR faith interfere with their scientific judgement!!

Bush isn't afraid of his faith, but he has no grasp on science and fills science in with his faith.

He has so. But the stupid critics portray him and his committee of being against stem cell research, when they are all very strongly in favor of somatic ("adult") stem cell research that has had many proven clinical successes!

You need to study some science.

So do you -- you're only a B.S. engineer

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

No, because he was so liberal anyway, and liberalism is all about compromising Christianity to the fashions of the day.

Once again Socrates shows that he hasn't a clue what a liberal actually is. Get a clue, Soc, it would be quite refreshing!

He was widely regarded as the most pathetic US president of the 20th centiry, apart from Nixon.

Once again Socrates displays a remarkable ignorance of actual US history, prefering instead the revisionism he's gotten from the right. Had he known anything about actual US history, he would have known that Carter is "widely regarded" as one of the most respected and beloved presidents of the 20th century. I'd say the ones most regarded as pathetic presidents were Nixon (the crook), Ford (Mr. Didn't Do Squat), Bush Sr. (the failure), and Bush Jr. (the village idiot), all Republicans, interestingly enough. About the only Republican president in recent history that was widely respected was Reagan.

Here's Jimmy's misochristism to the fore -- once again perpetuating the lie that faith and science are in conflict, although science was founded in Christianized Europe!

Here again Socrates displays his inability to grasp the position of his fellow posters. If Socrates had the ability to think for himself, rather than just aping "liberals are evil" soundbites he's heard time and again from his favorite right-wing boobs, he would have noticed that Jimmy's point WAS that faith and science are not in conflict, as he demonstrated with his allusion to Carter, but merely that they happen to be in conflict for Bush, because Bush lacks an understanding of science.

So do you -- you're only a B.S. engineer

This coming from a quack who thinks "Answers in Genesis" is real science! Now THAT'S funny!

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, because he was so liberal anyway, and liberalism is all about compromising Christianity to the fashions of the day.

Ah. I get it. So when Jimmy Carter, even in his very later years, helps build homes for the homeless, he's being a "compromising Christian"?

He was widely regarded as the most pathetic US president of the 20th centiry, apart from Nixon.

The word isn't pathetic. That should read ineffective. But the most ineffective would be Herbert Hoover who shares something with your bun boy Bush. Both are the only two presidents in the past 100 years to lose more jobs than create in a four year span. Wow! Now that is a legacy! Carter wasn't very effective as president. He was also too honest. He spoke to Americans telling them they needed to pick up their slack to help make America better. He was punished for that.

Nixon was not pathetic. He didn't run the Watergate deal, he just covered it up. He also helped end Vietnam and started a love triangle with China that helped to end the Cold War. Nixon made many mistakes, but I wouldn't call him pathetic.

Here's Jimmy's misochristism to the fore -- once again perpetuating the lie that faith and science are in conflict, although science was founded in Christianized Europe! Nor does Higgy have any problems with his fellow atheists letting THEIR faith interfere with their scientific judgement!!

Once again, Socrates makes such a great argument in lieu of his Smilie usage. Bush knows nothing of science and when morality comes into play his dogma rules over. So instead of helping the living improve their status of life, we're just going to sit on our hands and let the Europeans do it. Although, ironically, I don't think Socrates was bitching about Bush when he allowed the existing Stem Cells to be used instead of destroyed.

He has so. But the stupid critics portray him and his committee of being against stem cell research, when they are all very strongly in favor of somatic ("adult") stem cell research that has had many proven clinical successes!

And I guess that's why people don't suffer from brain damage or spinal cord injuries any more... oh wait.

So do you -- you're only a B.S. engineer

Well, I got my degree at a Christian College. You got your degree at a Secular Institution. My work has directly effected and improved the quality of life in Northeast Ohio, and Northwest Ohio. What have you done today? Posted some more on TWeb? You are so ashamed of your accomplishments or lack there of, that you can't even bother to share them.

[Socrates]

Ah. I get it. So when Jimmy Carter, even in his very later years, helps build homes for the homeless, he's being a "compromising Christian"?

No, when he compromises the Word of God and appoints anti-Christian bigots to all key positions. And I don't need an overt Christ-hater like Higgy to tell me who my fellow Christians are.

The word isn't pathetic. That should read ineffective.

That's what I meant.

But the most ineffective would be Herbert Hoover who shares something with your bun boy Bush.

Hoover was an idiot.

Both are the only two presidents in the past 100 years to lose more jobs than create in a four year span. Wow! Now that is a legacy!

Bush has now freed up trade between Australia and the USA, which should benefit both countries. He just didn't go far enough because he's not willing to stand up to your inefficient sugar producers.

Carter wasn't very effective as president. He was also too honest. He spoke to Americans telling them they needed to pick up their slack to help make America better. He was punished for that.

Or for sucking up to murderous despots like Ceaucescu and Castro.

Nixon was not pathetic. He didn't run the Watergate deal, he just covered it up. He also helped end Vietnam and started a love triangle with China that helped to end the Cold War.

You're right. But Hanoi John Kerry brags about speaking out against "Nixon's war" although Kennedy started it and LBJ continued it.

Nixon made many mistakes, but I wouldn't call him pathetic.

The only president to be forced to resign?

Once again, Socrates makes such a great argument in lieu of his Smilie usage. Bush knows nothing of science and when morality comes into play his dogma rules over.

And of course rabid atheists like Higgy have no dogma

So instead of helping the living improve their status of life, we're just going to sit on our hands and let the Europeans do it. Although, ironically, I don't think Socrates was bitching about Bush when he allowed the existing Stem Cells to be used instead of destroyed.

:shoot: How would you know what I was doing? For the record, any conceived embryos should be given a chance at life by being implanted. Using them for stem cell research or destroying them are equally reprehensible.

FWIW, AiG commented about this in Stem cells and Genesis

Addendum: AiG’s comment on President Bush’s decision

AiG, along with many conservative Christian groups, is pleased that President Bush decided to forbid funding of any more destruction of human embryos, and with his restatement of his strong opposition to human cloning. He also refused to allow harvesting of stem cells from 100,000 embryos frozen at fertility clinics, as many evolutionary scientists would prefer, but which we oppose. The President also affirmed the uniqueness of each individual embryo and cited with approval an ethicist who dismissed as ‘callous’ an attempt to pretend that the early embryo isn’t really human. Further, he affirmed that ‘human life is a sacred gift from our Creator’ and that ‘we recoil at the idea of growing human beings for spare body parts or creating life for our convenience.’ The President also affirmed the important Biblical principle (cf. Romans 3:8) ‘even the most noble ends do not justify any means.’ On 14 August, President Bush promised to veto any congressional bill that would allow embryos to be destroyed for research.

He also correctly pointed out that stem cells are readily available from non-embryonic sources, on which there has been a virtual media blackout, as pointed out in this article. Fortunately, after President Bush’s decision, there seems to be a slight increase in the media’s admitting this fact. But he said:

‘However, most scientists, at least today, believe that research on embryonic stem cells offers the most promise because these cells have the potential to develop in all of the tissues in the body.’

As has been shown, this appears to be contrary to the experimental evidence.

However, President Bush’s go-ahead for funding on 60 already-existing stem cells lines obtained by past killing of embryos has raised far more debate among conservative Christians. Some have said that since nothing will bring these embryos back, we may as well research these stem cell lines that might save lives in the future. We recognize the agonizing moral dilemma that led to the decision. A similar dilemma was faced by medical researchers concerning the results of ghastly Nazi medical experiments involving the torture-murder of living prisoners. Here was data which could possibly save human lives; should its source mean it should not be utilized to possibly do good? So, on this view, we should be grateful that the President has at least stopped further embryo destruction for research purposes, and we should recognize that there is a limit to how much a politician can achieve against substantial opposition even within his own ranks.

But others have claimed, in our view correctly, that while we should indeed be grateful for President Bush’s decision to abolish funding for more embryo murders, his other decision to allow research on existing stem cell lines still perpetuates the view that human embryos are disposable commodities rather than human life (e.g. the Family Research Council response). Therefore it makes it harder to defend embryos from the mass murder perpetrated in abortion mills in the Western world. This is the contrast with the ‘Nazi dilemma’ mentioned above — the Nazis’ atrocities have ceased, but thousands of unborn babies are murdered every day.

There is also a key moral principle that profiting from immoral acts makes one a participant in them, and provides an incentive to commit them. By allowing research to continue, the President has inadvertently rewarded those who committed an act he himself said was unethical, i.e. those who destroyed these embryos in the first place. Further, the President’s ban on funding of more research, while good in itself, when combined with the limited permission, actually gives these people a monopoly on selling embryonic stem cell tissue to federally funded researchers.

And I guess that's why people don't suffer from brain damage or spinal cord injuries any more... oh wait.

The best chance for them too is somatic stem cells.

Well, I got my degree at a Christian College.

Only in name. After all, this compromising churchian institution taught the anti-Christian documentary hypothesis crap.