 |
 |
This is very subtle, you have to read deep into it to find some important points. >But if a Kerry administration could come up with a liberal interpretation of >the amendment, federally funded embryonic stem-cell research could increase by >leaps and bounds. This implies some interpretation of the Dickey Amendment would allow stem cell research. >"It all comes down to the Dickey amendment," said Lawrence Goldstein, a >biology professor at the University of California at San Diego. "The president >cannot authorize (the destruction of embryos), only the use of stem cells that >were derived with private funds." This passage indicates that if the stem cells are derived with private funds, you can research them with any federal funding. I don't think deriving the lines has ever been the expensive part (it could be funded by plenty of private sources), its all the experimentation that's done afterwards that costs money. -A On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 13:29:14 EDT, Rayilyn Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I'm sending this because I know we're not supposed to send attachments and > the article is in it. > > Even if Kerry is elected the Dickey Amendment prohibits NT (formerly known as > SCNT) and there are not enough votes in the Congress, esp the Senate to > change it. Isn't that just great news? > > Also read in Ellen Goodman's column today that W. David Hager, Head of FDA, > ob-gyn dispenses "Corinthinians and Romans" for PMS plus many other outrages. > We are in the road to faith-based medicine, she contends. > > Let us pray. > Ray > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] > In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn