Sticky Elasticy Discharge A Sign Of Menstruation?

Il veto ai fondi federali US per la ricerca sulle cellule staminali embrionali: la storia infinita?


As you may recall, one of Obama's first moves was to be president-after promise to close Guantanamo, remove the veto provision of federal public funds (the National Institutes of Health, NIH, then) to research on human embryonic stem cells (hES) that had been laid by his predecessor George Bush. That was March 6, 2009 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7929690.stm) and put an end to a veto that had lasted more than eight years, just from that in August 9, 2001 that George Bush had forbidden federal funds-tax dollars of Americans ", as he had placed the former president, went to fund research considered unethical (research on human embryonic stem cells is still possible with private funds in U.S. or on cell lines already exist).

terminating, or should we say, seemed to put an end to the veto?

In fact, the story is not over, because Monday, August 23, 2010 Federal Judge Royce C. Lamberth has opened a new chapter, issuing a verdict that the funding for research on hES violates a federal law that prevents the use of tax money (the same argument used by Bush and then) to conduct experiments that destroy human embryos (http : / / www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/23/AR2010082303448.html?wpisrc=nl_politics). In its decision 15 pages long (which can be read entirely here: https: / / ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov) Judge Lamberth in his opinion cites a law "unambiguous" (unambiguous) enacted by Congress in 1996, and called Amenda Dickey-Wicker, that it is forbidden to bestow federal funds to fund research that will be "destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death embryos."

As you probably already guessed, is not it evident that the implication of this amendment has the veto to research on hES. In fact, as concluded in 1999, the lawyer Harriet S. Rabb, it can be argued that the NIH support research on hES does not violate the amendment, if the funds are used only for experiments on cell lines derived from embryos, and not specifically to create embryos for research. The line of thought
Advocate Rabb is similar to those used in arguments bioetica per cui è lecito (inteso come eticamente giustificabile) fare ricerca sugli embrioni umani sovrannumerari da pratiche di fecondazione assistita, per esempio (perché, detto un po' semplicemente, tali embrioni sarebbero comunque destinati a rimanere in un congelatore senza la possibilità di svilupparsi in un feto), mentre non è lecito creare appositamente embrioni destinati solo alla ricerca scientifica, andando a distruggere quindi consapevolmente la loro potenzialità.

Tale linea di pensiero può essere assimilata anche a quegli argomenti usati da parte di esponenti cristiano protestanti (come la Chiesa valdese in Italia, per fare un esempio vicino a noi), secondo cui è lecito fare ricerca su linee cellulari of existing hES, because evil (the destruction of the embryo) has already been done, and recurrence of evil (to do research on hES) must be balanced against the benefits to human health which could be obtained from the research on hES.
the contrary, the Catholic view is more extreme with regard to the recurrence of evil, and there is no assessment of the benefits that can compensate for such action.

So, in short, the arguments for and against the research on hES vary but always include the same ones that turn and turn over. Judge Lamberth was not particularly original, and its decision can be challenged with their own arguments similar to those used by Rabb in 1999, and with arguments that take into account the risks or benefits, or more.

But the point is another: we want to really think this is still the level of debate on bioethics in hES? We are not yet tired of sharpening always the same, and more and more worn, weapons?

Apparently, the sad answer is no, we did not (or rather, who has, as Judge Lamberth did not) still tired. Expect to see then the next, inevitable chapter in history. For now, the NIH had no immediate comment on the ruling.

(A little side note: if we were in Italy, I suspect that there is some 'bad faith to take Decisions of this kind ever in August-the veto Bush in August 2001, the decision of Judge Lamberth in August 2010 - when everyone is on holiday and the decision more easily pass unnoticed.

But in the U.S. work in August, and I who are nasty! or not?

Property Value Predictions

La povertà infantile può avere effetti dannosi sul cervello?


Studies currently emerging in the U.S. are showing that grow in a low-income family can have a direct impact on the organization and function of the brain. Were in fact observed in children raised in poor families, some difficulties in the formation of memories and attention, hypersensitivity to stress, and problems in the approach to gratification. It seems, however, that education heartfelt affection of parents to counter many of the negative effects of poverty of the family.
In a recent research project, Martha Farah and colleagues from the University of Pennsylvania (http://www.neuroethics.upenn.edu/) found that pupils of a kindergarten from low-income households, as compared to children of middle and upper classes, functions in impoverished parts of the brain involved in reading activities, language and "executive control." Executive control includes skills such as working memory (eg. Remember a number of phone dials properly after some time) and the ability to suppress impulsive behavior (eg. responding to a challenge calmly and verbally, rather than lash out in anger against the other party).
To avoid prejudices of race, the group of Prof. Farah examined only African-American children from poor families and middle class, and one of the conclusions was that some of the major difficulties found in children with economic problems, such example, difficulties in concentration, seem to have a strong environmental component. In the long run, the inability to manage the distraction could cause further and deeper problems. The value of physical and mental health, education ricevuta e della capacità di focalizzare l’attenzione è oggi fondamentale nella nostra società, e la concentrazione e le abilità linguistiche sono necessarie per poter avere successo.
La povertà infantile può anche avere effetti duraturi sul cervello.
In un altro recente studio condotto dal ricercatore Peter Gianaros, dell'Università di Pittsburgh (pmbcii.psy.cmu.edu/) è emerso che gli studenti dei primi due anni di università provenienti da famiglie di basso livello nella scala socio-economica sono più propensi ad avere forti reazioni emotive guardando fotografie di volti minacciosi rispetto a studenti provenienti da famiglie ricche.
Il compito è stato eseguito in concomitanza con l’analisi brain of the subjects, performed with a scanner for functional magnetic resonance imaging, to identify parts of the brain most active during the experiment. Well, students from low socio-economic status showed increased activity in the amygdala, the part of the brain that processes the more negative emotions and stress. In a second study, the team of Dr. Gianaros found that students from lower socio-economic backgrounds have less brain tissue in the anterior cingulate cortex, one of the frontal regions of the brain that controls emotional impulses.
Of course, experience shows that even in very poor families, some children are much more resistant than others (also state that studies conducted by Dr. and Dr. Mezzacappa. John Buckner in Boston): Get better results in school, relate well with their peers and are much less likely to get into trouble.
What researchers now want to prove, however, is that the negative effects of a degraded socio-cultural context may have effects not only on the behavior of children in the short term but also long-term, with important consequences for their brain function. Our brain, in fact, is not fixed, stable, but has enormous plasticity and is constantly evolving, absorbing elements from the environment to a level that always leaves more amazed.