WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama is planning to sign an executive order Monday to overturn Bush-era policy that limited federal tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research, according to administration officials familiar with the deliberations.

Obama's move will be hailed by advocates for those suffering from a host of afflictions, ranging from diabetes to Parkinson's disease, who believe that an expansion of stem-cell research could boost medical progress toward eradicating the debilitating diseases.

But many conservatives object to the destruction of human embryos because they contend that it ends a human life.

The officials said the administration is planning a Monday event at the White House at which Obama will overturn the executive order signed by President George W. Bush in August 2001. It barred the National Institutes of Health from funding research on embryonic stem cells beyond using 60 cell lines that existed at that time.

Tony Perkins of the conservative Family Research Council accused the White House of leaking the details Friday night so that the move gets little attention, declaring that it is "a slap in the face to Americans who believe in the dignity of all human life."

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said, "Advancements in science and research have moved faster than the debates among politicians in Washington, D.C., and breakthroughs announced in recent years confirm the full potential of stem cell research can be realized without the destruction of living human embryos."

In addition to signing the executive order, Bush twice vetoed legislation -- in July 2006 and June 2007 -- that would have expanded federally funded embryonic stem cell research.

At the time, Bush also argued that scientific advances allowed researchers to conduct groundbreaking research without destroying human embryos.

This one doesn't really bother me too much. I say use other methods whenever possible but maybe the benefits will be a net plus with the use of early stage embyos ?  Like with abortions, if they are done do them early . I would of course prefer adoption. Third trimester abortions should be avoided. That piece of cells starts to look like a baby by that time. I know this is arbitrary.

Moving a bit afield, I am for capital punishment . Fry these child raping, murdering miscreants, they can't be rehabilitated. The chance of frying an innocent person is pretty unlikely with modern DNA and other evidence, of course the valid evidence must be there.

 there have been cases of innocent people being exonerated after their execution, making all of us complicit in murder. until we develop a flawless conviction record i'll never be pro death penalty

though i'll admit i hope that day of "perfection" arrives someday because there's some human beings on this planet that even i think need to be put down like rabid dogs

The problem with DNA evidence is that it is only evidence in the same way as fingerprints.  It is an amazingly powerful tool, but I think many folks believe it is a magic bullet to solve any crime.  I have mixed feelings about the DNA databases too- sure it is great, but assuming you don't put everyone in there, you need to think carefully about who gets added to those databases.

  Very pleased about Obama's stem cell policy, and also  the changes to endangered species oversight that he is hoping to reverse.  I think we've all seen what happens if someone decides to use ALL of their ivf eggs.  I'd never want late term (even 2nd trimester) abortion to be the first option, and think adoption is fantastic (so let the gays get married adopt some kids!).

 Malarkey.  Give me the facts.  If there were such cases, they'd be widely disseminated and they are not.

Malarkey that you'll be for the death penalty when (as if...) it's flawless.

Geez,

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

hey look how easy it is to educate yourself

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

way to just dismiss my views about serial killers sitting around cushy jail cell eating on my tax money when they should be put to death. if we're free to just contradict each other's views based on nothing then i'm going to call "malarkey" on your views about gay marriage. you don't REALLY think they are subhuman monsters undeserving of equal rights.

Jordan .

I'm sorry Nefud.  I didn't want to just dismiss you out of hand.  But ohmygawd, this year has taken a toll on me and my malarkey post this morning was after a quick read as I headed out the door to take my husband back to the doctor with excruciating kidney stone pain.  Since Friday morning, I have been to the emergency room with him twice, and to doctors' offices four times.  I know.  It's getting to be pretty unbelievable the time I'm spending in medical facilties so far in '09.  Ordinarily I would have gone on and on and on but not this morning. 

Yes, I'm very well aware of Barry Scheck and Peter (?) Neufeld of the "Innocence" Project.  The same guys whose DNA testimony was instrumental in freeing OJ Simpson.  Sorry if their credibility is less than stellar for me.  What you misunderstand about the "malarkey" (I'm into the word today as we approach St Paddy's day) of that misnamed Project is that they sometimes have discovered DNA evidence that has proven a criminal rapist or murderer was not guilty of the crime for which he was convicted.  Or more often the DNA is inconclusive so convictions are overturned.   Or sometimes the trial had some legal technicality that puts the conviction in question.  RARELY is a murder defendant -- most especially in a DEATH PENALTY case --  found to be a completely innocent individual.  I'm not saying that hasn't happened but do not believe that IP tells the complete story when you read their propaganda.  Yes, there have been cases where a person spent time on death row for a crime they did not commit. 

But what has not happened to my knowledge --  (and I know this area pretty well through my friendship with  prosecutor who writes/debates Barry Scheck frequently on the subject of the death penalty) -- is the execution of any American who was later ESTABLISHED to have been innocent of that crime.  The main reason for this is the multiple appeals afforded to death penalty cases and the extremely high burden of proof on the state.  It is the name of that innocent who was executed that I seek.  Now you may find someone from prior to 1950.  But let's just deal with the past 59 years. There was one high profile killer, I believe from Illinois, who was given the death penalty for his murder.  Time Magazine had a big cover story with this guy with a headline that read something like -- Blah blah blah was killed by the state of Illinois AND HE MAY HAVE BEEN AN INNOCENT MAN.   So the governor allowed for the rare use of DNA retroactively after his execution.  He became a cause celebre for the anti-death penalty crowd.  When the DNA results came in, Time did a small inside article that let us know he was indeed guilty or so the DNA revealed.  It is, I guess, possible that the guy had consensual sex with the murdered woman and later someone else came and murdered her.

The Innocence Project serves a function.  Most of it not worthy though not altogether.  I'll grant you that.  It's the human realm and mistakes can and are made.  Not perfect. 

But lastly, were you serious that you would be for putting known serial killers to death?  I thought you were completely against any kind of state murder be it a police man killing a criminal or a soldier in wartime.  If I misunderstood, I apologize.  

To put my views on the death penalty in simple clear terms:  I am a firm proponent of the use of the ultimate punishment -- death -- for those murderers (not ALL murderers however) who have exercicsed the highest levels of cruelty.  I am for the highest level of accuracy and the highest level of proof for the crime.  I am for the best legal defense for the person charged.  And then I am for the penalty to be carried out in a humane manner.

Now I need a 24 break.  They're blowing up the White House tonight!

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

if i have to arbitrarily limit it to americans, fine, but it's happened at least twice* in england

and yes i do think it's society's responsibility to execute some people (this is wholly different IMO from violence, which i am completely opposed to even in self defense). there are some people who are regretably beyond saving. i feel bad for some people who are complete monsters such as albert fish, charles manson, or john wayne gacy. they had terrible childhoods or brain chemisty which put them in such a state of pain and confusion that they committed terrible acts. but much like i think it's ok to pull the plug on people like terri shaivo, some folks are just so messed up that they will never live a life of any self-worth, much less lack of detriment to society.

*that we know of. that's the important thing. there are an unknown number of unknowns, so to speak

Well, I can't really speak to what the Brits used to do, Fud! 

Yep, unknown number of unknowns.  But with all the intense scrutiny by the Ban the Death Penalty forces, don't you think if they could find ONE shining example of the Shawshank Redemption type inmate who was executed, he (or she hahaha) would be the poster child for their campaign?

Glad to hear the other parts of your post.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

 Of course, if human beings with all its assortment of the fine and the demented, were to 'develop' into a different species....

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

yeah i read it twice but that was in high school

i forget, did the outbreak of sterility stem from some kind of genetic experiment gone wrong?

When I think of genetic engineering I think of eugenics/breeding or else inserting or removing genes from gametes/embryos.  Gene therapy is (I think)  more along the lines of supplementing proteins that a faulty gene should be making but isn't, or possibly turning on working genes that have been inappropriately "switched off".  I think this generally wouldn't affect how your kids turn out because it wouldn't change anything in your sperm/eggs.

That's what I was thinking.

So is the information contained in sperm/eggs only affected when you start messing about with embryos?

Wikipedia proves me wrong- there are both genetically heritable gene therapies (which I had called genetic engineering) and non-heritable ones (which I had assumed was the only kind of gene therapy).  It doesn't look like doctors are currently allowed to use the germ-line therapy on humans.  There's a lot more in the article on how it's done...

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy

Germ line gene therapy

In the case of germ line gene therapy, germ cells, i.e., sperm or eggs, are modified by the introduction of functional genes, which are ordinarily integrated into their genomes. Therefore, the change due to therapy would be heritable and would be passed on to later generations. This new approach, theoretically, should be highly effective in counteracting genetic disorders. However, this option is prohibited for application in human beings, at least for the present, for a variety of technical and ethical reasons.

[edit] Somatic gene therapy

In the case of somatic gene therapy, therapeutic genes are transferred into the somatic cells of a patient. Any modifications and effects will be restricted to the individual patient only, and will not be inherited by the patient's offspring.

my edit- better answer to your question, when people muck around with animal or plant genomes, it is usually at a very early stage- sperm, eggs, or zygote.  For people, it looks like they've mainly been targeting specific cells or systems later on in fully formed children or adults, and this wouldn't affect the germ cells so wouldn't be passed on to the children.  Usually the therapy is to fix a specific problem in a specific organ that isn't making the right enzymes, antibodies, whatever.  So there isn't a sci-fi like 'inject this and it will mutate all the cells in the body' treatment, as far as I can tell from a brief readthrough of the article.