• Susan Seligson

    Susan Seligson has written for many publications and websites, including the New York Times Magazine, The Atlantic, the Boston Globe, Yankee, Outside, Redbook, the Times of London, Salon.com, Radar.com, and Nerve.com. Profile

Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 7 comments on Stem Cell Injunction Has Researchers Reeling

  1. Is there any reason why the following sentence picks out a certain religious figure out of a “group of plaintiffs”?

    “In ruling on a suit brought by a group of plaintiffs, one the director of a Christian adoption agency, Chief Judge Royce Lamberth concluded…”

    It consistently amazes me how BU can claim to be so tolerant on a lot of issues, and yet be selectively biased in others.

  2. See: http://www.lifenews.com/bio3145.html

    The court ruled in favor of a suit filed by Dr. James L. Sherley, a former MIT professor and scientist, and other researchers who said human embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of human embryos. They also made the very sensible argument that funds plowed into useless ESC research are depriving life-saving research and cures with adult stem cells.

    Sam Casey, General Counsel of Advocates International’s Law of Life Project, a public interest legal project involved in the case, pointed out that NIH officials have admitted they violated the public comment process by ignoring the majority of comments coming from pro-life advocates opposed to destroying unborn children for their stem cells.

    “The majority of the almost 50,000 comments that the NIH received were opposed to funding this research, and by its own admission, NIH totally ignored these comments,” he said. “The so-called spare human embryos being stored in IVF clinics around the United States are not ‘in excess of need,’ as the NIH in its guidelines callously assert. They are human beings in need of biological or adoptive parents.”

    Embryonic stem cell research has yet to help a single patient, unlike adult stem cell research — which has helped patients with more than 100 diseases and medical conditions and which President Bush supported with hundreds of millions in federal funding.

    The NIH rules say fertility clinics need only provide couples with the options available at that clinic, which likely do not include the possibility of adopting the human embryo to a couple wanting to allow the baby to grow to birth.

  3. Sure, not all the plaintiffs were ‘religious nuts’ but they did have a fairly notorious history as highlighted by the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/health/policy/25scientists.html?_r=1&ref=policy

    Also, these same ‘plaintiffs’ claimed damages based upon the fact that their work would not be able to compete with ESC research…Is the NIH granting process not extremely competitive to begin with with only the most promising research being funded? Did these researchers want an unfair advantage in the process? Lastly, ESC research, particularly human ESC research, has only been performed for a short period of time with lots of restrictions thrown in all along. Is is much too soon to conclude that this research will never lead to breakthrough cures.

  4. “…there’s no place in science for personal beliefs…” I find this thinking very disturbing. Think Mengele. Btw, I support stem cell research. Now, don’t stray away from this quote. Stay on point and tell me why personal beliefs have no place in science. It is a very, very, slippery slope indeed.

    1. Mengele? What about him? Don’t just throw a scary-sounding word out there and let peoples’ imaginations run wild, MAKE YOUR POINT. And whatever that point is, I hope you know that there are universal standards of ethics in scientific and medical research. It doesn’t matter if a researcher has no personal code of ethics, there’s still a standard he or she can be held to.

      Anyway, you’re the one who said you find the statement “very disturbing.” Maybe you should tell us why before you’re entitled to hear a spirited defense of that statement.

Post a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *