In 2001, George W. Bush signed an order limiting federal funding for stem cell research to already existing lines. Many believe the move squelched progress on the most promising medical frontier in a generation.

The Big O promised during the campaign that he’d overturn the ban, and the minute the polls closed back in November the NIH began drafting guidelines assuming he’d do just that.

Most assumed that when Obama got around to following through on his promise, he’d specify that federal dollars should be used only to support research on unused embryos produced as a byproduct of in vitro fertilization; embryos that would otherwise be discarded.

Instead, he chose not to specify anything about the sources of stem cells for medical research.

He tasked the NIH to make recommendations in this regard, and he wants answers in 120 days.

This neatly fulfilled another campaign promise, which was to reinvolve scientists in deliberations regarding ethics. The punt also leaves open the possibility that taxpayer dollars could be used to support broader, more controversial experiments.

Would it be OK to use embryos created specifically for research purposes or by cloning, for example?

Obama quickly closed the door on latter, saying “we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction.” 

NIH officials were surprised and delighted to receive the broader assignment.

They promised to consult guidelines created by the National Academy of Sciences and the International Society for Stem Cell Research, which already permit research on stem cells from multiple sources.

“The president’s order offers us the opportunity to look carefully at how we might best identify responsible and scientifically worthy science that the NIH should be funding,” Story Landis told the Washington Post.

He’s the man in charge of the NIH stem cell task force and the clock is ticking.

Sadly, the adage that moderate alcohol intake carries minimal risk and may actually be beneficial in some ways has taken a beating lately.

First,  a study out of Oxford  showed that one lousy alcoholic beverage per day increases the risk of multiple cancers in women.

And now, scientists at the Harvard School of Public Health are reporting that people who consume 2 or more alcoholic drinks per day have a 22% higher risk for pancreatic cancer.

Stephanie Smith-Warner and colleagues published the disquieting news in Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention.

The scientists had noted that in several prospective cohort analyses, risk ratios for developing pancreatic cancer were greater than one when high alcohol intake cohorts were compared with teetotalers, but in none of these studies did the difference reach statistical significance.

That’s a situation that begs for a meta-analysis, and Smith-Warner’s team jumped all over it.

The scientists rolled-up 14 studies involving 860,000 people, spun the numbers and eked out the finding.

The increased risk for pancreatic cancer remained intact after full multivariate adjustment for known risk factors like age, diabetes, smoking and BMI.

Oddly, it held for women only. There was a trend in the same direction for men, but it wasn’t significant.

A similar, non-significant trend was found for those consuming fewer than 2 drinks per day, but the association only achieved significance in the 2+ drinks per day cohort.

The type alcoholic beverage didn’t matter, by the way. Wine, beer, hard stuff, it was all the same.