Jophiel wrote:
Hey, not only was I right but the NIH decided I was right way back in '98.So the rules have been, for the last decade, as I stated they were and, as usual, Gbaji's full of conjecture and bullshit.
Reuters Factbox wrote:
* In 1998, soon after human embryonic stem cells were discovered, the National Institutes of Health determined that the Dickey Amendment did not apply to researchers working with stem cells, so long as they did not get the cells themselves from human embryos.
Er? That finding is one of the things that sparked opposition to ESC research in the first place Joph. Quoting that is like quoting the Roe v. Wade decision to someone who believes it was a horrible ruling and should be overturned. It's meaningless. The finding was based on an incredibly narrow view of the circumstances. They decided that since the research was only being done on embryonic stem cells, and they aren't themselves embryos, that it was perfectly ok.
The author of the Dickey amendment has himself stated that the NIH's finding was in clear violation of the intent of the law he wrote. The point was to prevent federal research funding to cause any embryos to be destroyed (or created for the purpose of said research). Period. For the umpteenth time, it's pretty darn obvious that funding ESC research on any "new" lines will cause more embryos to be destroyed. It's a clear violation of the law. The only reason it hasn't been challenged in court was because Bush's executive order in 2001 made the issue moot. Up to that point, no one had tried to provide funding under that finding.
Depending on the guidelines the NIH comes up with in the next 120 days, this will be the first time federal funding has actually been provided in a manner that clearly violates the Dickey amendment. You can bet there will be legal challenges.
Edited, Mar 10th 2009 7:26pm by gbaji