[sunnykerr]

Man Threatens to Clone Himself 14 Times
Stem Cell Debate
Ian Frazier, Australian Scientist to trial Skin cancer vaccine

Banner by 4N6 DNA

[sunnykerr]

Obama Overturns Bush Endangered Species Rule WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama on Tuesday overturned a last-minute Bush administration regulation that many environmentalists claim weakened the Endangered Species Act. The regulation, issued a few weeks before George W. Bush left office, made it easier for federal agencies to skip consultations with government scientists before launching projects that could affect endangered wildlife. By overturning the regulation, Obama said during an enthusiastic reception at the Interior Department, he had restored "the scientific process to its rightful place at the heart of the Endangered Species Act, a process undermined by past administrations." Under the Bush administration rule, there was no need for a federal agency to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Services if that agency determined that no harm would come to an endangered species as a result of its project. But the determination of what "no harm" meant rested with agency bureaucrats instead of scientists. Obama issued a memorandum that effectively suspends the regulation while ordering a review to determine whether it promotes "the purposes of the [Endangered Species Act]." "The work of scientists and experts in my administration, including right here in the Interior Department, will be respected," Obama said. "For more than three decades, the Endangered Species Act has successfully protected our nation's most threatened wildlife, and we should be looking for ways to improve it, not weaken it." Environmental groups were quick to praise Obama's action. "President Obama's announcement will allow [the Endangered Species Act] to do what it was intended: protect our nation's endangered plants and animals," said Andrew Wetzler, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Endangered Species Program. "Reversing the Bush administration's midnight action will restore protections for our last wild places and species." Obama also helped celebrate the 160th anniversary of the Interior Department on Tuesday. "Throughout our history, there's been a tension between those who've sought to conserve our natural resources for the benefit of future generations and those who have sought to profit from these resources," he told department employees. "But I'm here to tell you this is a false choice. With smart, sustainable policies, we can grow our economy today and preserve the environment for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren."

Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule - CNN.com

This cheered me up like you would not believe. I, too, believe that the dichotomy between economic progress and environmental policy-making is a false one. Sustainable development is not cost prohibitive.

In any case, I love the fact that there is finally a sound environmental leader in the White House.

[Callace]

I love reading this too! Feeds into my hopes that the new administration can make right sas many as possible of the wrongs the last one did. (It's got to be a hell of a job to get it all better, but this shows that there is at least something that can be done.

I wonder if this really is science news, though. It may fit better as politics?

[sunnykerr]

Well, it's certainly political news. But I was looking for something to start a scientific news thread and, not being particularly large on time or on scientific knowledge, I went with the story that made the most sense to me. I do consider the environment as falling within the paramaters of the scientific world, especially since almost everything to do with it has something to do with science one way or another.

Either way, the thread is up and running now and, should someone else come up with an actual science news story, they now have somewhere to put it.

[Callace]

Good you are right that things do have close connection. science, at it's best, should be closely tied in with politics (In the "listen to the reseach" way, not as politicians dictating what the scientists should come up with.

I read a lot of science news, I can try to post some here

For starters, anyone got thoughts on this one?

BBC NEWS | UK | Ecstasy 'not worse than riding'

Taking the drug ecstasy is no more dangerous than riding a horse, a senior adviser has suggested. Professor David Nutt, chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), outlined his view in the Journal of Psychopharmacology. The council, which advises the government, is expected next week to recommend that ecstasy is downgraded from a class A drug to a class B one. Ministers have outlined their opposition to any such move. Professor Nutt wrote: "Drug harm can be equal to harms in other parts of life. There is not much difference between horse-riding and ecstasy." Organ failure The professor said horse-riding accounted for about 10 deaths a year and was associated with more than 100 road accidents. He went on: "This attitude raises the critical question of why society tolerates - indeed encourages - certain forms of potentially harmful behaviour but not others such as drug use." Professor Nutt's academic work does not prejudice that which he conducts as chair of the ACMD ACMD spokesman Ecstasy use is linked to around 30 deaths a year, up from 10 a year in the early 1990s. Fatalities are caused by massive organ failure from overheating or the effects of drinking too much water. The ACMD last night distanced itself from Prof Nutt's comments. A spokesman for the body said: "The recent article by Professor David Nutt published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology was done in respect of his academic work and not as chair of the ACMD. "Professor Nutt's academic work does not prejudice that which he conducts as chair of the ACMD." 'No safe dose' David Raynes, of the National Drug Prevention Alliance, told the Daily Telegraph: "He is entitled to his personal opinion, but if his personal view conflicts so very strongly with his public duties, it would be honourable to consider his position. "If he does not, the home secretary should do it for him." Last September a Home Office spokesman said the government believed ecstasy should remain a Class A drug. "Ecstasy can and does kill unpredictably. There is no such thing as a 'safe dose'," he said.

[sunnykerr]

Oh, thank you so much for collaborating on this one! That's a great story.

Of course, I don't know what the heck Professor Nutt (aptly named, if you ask me) is on about. Ecstasy sucks the serotonin right out of your brain. And serotonin is that think that modulates anger and the human apetite as well as rather crucial things like one's ability to sleep, one's body temperature and one's ability to live without constantly seizing.

In fact, the lack of serotonin is considered to be one of the causes of sudden infant death syndrome.

So, you know, ecstasy may not kill you right off that bat (assuming it's not tainted, because let's face it... drugs? totally safe, right!), but using it is just asking to have the serotonin sucked out of your brain.

[4N6 DNA]

I've been a bit busy this past few days, but I've got the weekend free and am gonna post a bit of recent news on each of the threads but I just had to stop by before bed and post this:

11 words I've been waiting for for 8 years:

Obama To Overturn Ban On Federal Funding For Stem Cell Research

[Callace]

that such good news!! Thank you for sharing

I never understood the logics behind the last government's ban on this! The embryos would otherways just have been thrown away anyway! What was the harm in using them for life-saving research instead??

I really cannot see the difference between this and any other kind of organ donation. When a grown up person dies, his heart, lungs etc can be used to save others. But when it comes to a leftover embryo, it's stem cells can not?? What is the sense in that?

[4N6 DNA]

As for the ecstasy article, I feel that is a major blunder when common sense is used in the wrong context. Just because the amount of deaths is not more than something else, it is not always less dangerous then. Also, you can't just compare the personal deaths to users, you also have to consider the danger someone who is on ecstasy is to those around them; behind the wheel for example.

Originally Posted by callace (View Post) I never understood the logics behind the last government's ban on this! The embryos would otherways just have been thrown away anyway! What was the harm in using them for life-saving research instead?? I really cannot see the difference between this and any other kind of organ donation. When a grown up person dies, his heart, lungs etc can be used to save others. But when it comes to a leftover embryo, it's stem cells can not?? What is the sense in that?

Yes, they would have been thrown away anyway. The controversy is not on the methods of obtaining the embryonic stem cells, but what they are to begin with. But the other thing about scientific breakthroughs I feel is the hardest obstacle to overcome is that the methods are being judged without the person having sufficient knowledge on the procedure. There is a difference between adult stem cells and embryonic ones, but once people hear "stem cells" they flip out.

I think this is going to be a great era for scientific research. Obama is not as religiously rooted as Bush was and I think we have a great chance of getting out of the dark ages.

[sunnykerr]

Actually, I think Obama is way more religiously rooted than Bush was, but in a way that gives him more plain old common sense rather than zealotry. Bush found God when he dealt with his alcoholism and drug addictions. I'm not saying this is the case for everyone, but it seemed to have turned him into someone who thinks there is only one God and he knows which IT is. Whereas Obama, we know, was raised by atheists or agnostics (I'm not exactly sure which actually) and found a faith that suited him later in life, but it seems a kinda of faith that is true and so allows him to respect other people's creeds.

Anyway, that's neither here nor there for the purposes of this thread. I do believe that the stem-cell reversal is crucial to actual breakthroughs in that field. Because we know there are pockets are really excellent research team around the world who have been doing great research in these areas, but no one has the access to funding the way Americans do. That's why Michael J. Fox got his American citizenship.

And that's an excellent point, Jessie, on the whole amount of deaths by ecstasy being significant on their own, regardless of whether they are are in large amounts compared to other things. It's like the suicides by metro we get here in Montreal. Basically, the statistics are that, out of every ten people who attempt to kill themselves by jumping in front of the metro, only one succeeds. The other nine don't die... but would you really envy the state they find themselves in?

[TheAngel]

I'm really excited about the stem sell research. Using embryonic stem cells could really bring about a lot of changes in medicine in the next ten to fifteen years, which is amazing. I'd love to see cures for some of the worlds diseases, like diabetes, or cures for debilitating accidents. I have a good friend whose father was paralyzed after an accident and it would be amazing for him to have access to the technology and information that would make him able to walk again. And I'm thinking of all the soldiers that come back with spine injuries and neurological problems and wonder what great medical advancements can be made there. Using embryos that wouldn't be used or would be destroyed anyway is wonderful. I just don't understand the nut jobs that want to say an embryo in a petrie dish is a baby. That makes no sense at all.

[Callace]

I think it sort of make sense to say that it is a person. It has the potential for one, anyhow. But it is one that is about to die anyway, has no life ahead of him/her. We accept that parts of dead grownups are used to save others (organ donation) Why should this be any different with embryos?

[sunnykerr]

Yeah, I can see why people would call embryos human life, inasmuch as they are alive. But, as far as I see it anyway, and I'm certainly not asking anyone to share my opinion on the matter, but embryos exist on a cellular level. As an organism. Not as something that could sustain life unaided.

Either way, as callace pointed out, we have no problem with borrowing life-saving "material" from grow adults, I don't see why embryos should not be used to research ways to save lives.

[Callace]

ITA

follow-up articles on the OP one:

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | EU needs 'brutal' science advice

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Scientists optimistic over Obama

and I particularly recommend this one! It covers a lot of what we have talked about lately
BBC NEWS | Special Reports | The presidents' guide to science

[mattia]

so happy about the stem cell stuff, as a scientist, I know first hand the good that this will accomplish...and that is a completely valid point about embryo's vs. organ donors etc....

these are embryo's that are going to be thrown away, I dont think there is going to be a line at the abortion clinic because of this. I can only wonder about the major medical advances that are going to be made! I say give Bush about 25 years when his health is crap and he needs stem cells.