Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would like to see all this research funded by the Federal government and production done by several private sector drug companies in price competion for market share.
I couldn't care less where the embryos come from. Millions are naturally aborted every day so the "loss" of a few for research is no big deal.
From what I've read, all successes with stem cells has been with adult stem cells, not embryonic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
Gee, I thought it was pretty common knowledge, No, I didn't get it from Rush. This has been talked about for years whenever this controversy has come up. Embrionic stem cells have yet to show any promise. But there has been progress in adult stem cell reserach, which does show promise.
You do the research. Why should I do it for you? You will find out what I just told you.
OK, I did the research. Here is is from the NIH (National Institutes of Health). This is a pdf document, so I can't quote from it, but I will paraphrase what they say about adult vs embryonic stem cells.
Simply put, there are advantages and disadvantages to both adult and embryonic stem cells.
It would certainly behoove us to be able to study the whole spectrum of stem cells, instead of being restricted to the one type.
My best friend has identical twin daughters and childhood diabetes. If stem research is allowed, she might, just might live to see them get married and have children of their own.
I do not oppose stem cell research per se, but I do oppose couples who terminate a preganancy just to sell the embryo for stem cell research. Creating a life, quickly ending it, then making a quick buck because of it does not sit well with me...
that is not going to happen
(http://tinyurl.com/bhmn6r - broken link)
In addition to signing an executive order overturning the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, President Obama also signed a presidential memorandum, which administration officials claim will be "aimed at insulating scientific decisions across the federal government from political influence"...Geez, what a concept, policy based on science instead of fundie superstition.
Just the facts. Read the entire article if you are intellectually honest.
Last week President Obama lifted restrictions on federal funding for embryonic and asked the National Institutes of Health to come up with a funding game plan within 120 days. Yet while the field of stem cell research holds great promise, hype and misconceptions cloud the picture. Here are a five such misconceptions.
1. George W. Bush killed research on
Wrong. Bush actually was the first president to allow Bill Clinton had chickened out. A very brief history follows.
While I agree with points 2-5 of that article to an extent the point that you choose to pick up on (Clinton chickened out) is a little less then intellectually honest.
The first hESC lines that were derived (and still available for research) were developed in 1998. Anyone who actively works with cell lines understands the difference between developed and ready to distribute. I've worked with cells for years that were standards in breast cancer research that have only recently (20 plus years after their discovery) been shown to actually be melanoma cells.
Also, and very importantly, regarding the comparisons to gene therapy. The Human Genome Project is hardly a decade old and still is providing amazing data on the subject. Stem cells probably won't be the cure all that some people (mostly non-scientists) will sell them as but they will allow researchers to actually understand their limits and learn new biology.
IMO, the big failures of gene therapy and probably upcoming stem cell therapies are the venture capitilists who will promote cures without the proper data and the few scientists who encourage it. The rest of the medical research community just wants the proper funding to be able to actually assess these cells and figure out what can and can't be done, or learned. Most of us just want to be able to come to a scientifically derived conclusion regarding the applicability of these potential cures. Most of the country seems to back us.
Exactly right. And, as I stated previously, some of those embryos are created through donor sperm and/or donor eggs, for which the donors are paid quite well. Desperate people who need money can be these donors and who knows what sort of lifestyles they lead, and what those lifestyles can do to their cells. And, yep, if there was money involved, couples WOULD get pregnant just so they could sell the embryos.
I would NOT want anything with all of those unknowns that will be further manipulated in a laboratory into becoming something it wasn't intended to become implanted in my body. It could contain genetic defects and cause further problems. Also, in my case, my body would attack that perceived invader vigorously. Now, if they used stem cells from my own body -- that's a different case entirely. The body doesn't reject it.
I've addressed your concerns multiple times already in this thread and you continue to reject any scientific evidence. You are entitled to your opinion. The rest of your fellow citizens, who overwhelmingly support federal funding for stem cell research, are also entitle to their opinion.
Your arguments are less against stem cells then all of modern medicine. BTW to get on of your own stem cells to become even pluripotent they would have to be treated with artificial genetic material delivered by a herpes virus. I guess that is somehow less likely to cause defects in your mind despite the overwhelming evidence that it will likely end up giving you cancer.
Here is a site that is designed to deliver the most current resources and procedures. It also outlines the hoops that any one private or public must jump through to get at the ever-dwindling number of stem cell lines for their research. Notice how many of the 20 lines are actually in the US? And this was from the 2001 presidential mandate.
To extend this topic just a little, I think an even better day for science was when president Obama appointed a Nobel prize winning physicist as Secretary of Energy.
It will be good to have a scientist who understands energy in charge of energy policy for a change. For the past eight years, energy policy was the domain of oil executives. The guys who brought us $4/gal gas last summer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A great day for science at the White House
