I wish there would be a parallel study using embrionic stem cells and stem cells from adult sources. It would be important to learn if the same (better?) results could come from the adult-stem cell.
MEDICINE
A New Stem Cell Era
Scientists cheer as President Obama ends restrictions on research. What the move means for your future.
Mar 9, 2009
Member Comments
- 1
- 2
-
Posted By: Carol N. @ 03/27/2009 11:42:23 AM
-
Posted By: DrewCAENG @ 03/24/2009 7:56:46 PM
Renruts you are wrong in every conceivable way!
-
Posted By: jannakl @ 03/16/2009 4:42:26 PM
A research company in Orange County, California recently issued a press release announcing the publication of their human clinical study which documented the first ever adult stem cell trial conducted to treat spinal cord injured patients. The study was a great success and really illustrates the therapeutic promise of these cells. I have been amazed at the seemingly deaf ears this story is falling on. There seems to be a gross bias over the promise of embryonic stem cells versus adult. I would think that any tangible and significant advances or progress that has shown the ability to improve health and quality of life for these patients would be more important or valuable. Is there a forum or pending discussion for this topic? I am tired of attending conferences and knowing that a real therapy exists but that due to public investment of being "pro-embryonic stem cell", some key opinion leaders are reluctant to give attention to the progress and value of adult stem cells. Both therapeutic options are promising but why ignore what is working now?
-
Posted By: T.Clark @ 03/21/2009 12:39:58 AM
Thank you for your comments. Would be so kind as to cite the study and the organization who conducted this study?.
I think this would be valuable public knowledge.
T. Clark
-
-
Posted By: renruts @ 03/19/2009 11:38:26 PM
STEM CELLS
Science, ethics can mix
President Barack Obama is opening the door to research that could lead to destroying live human embryos, despite the fact that science is moving on, and embryonic stem cells are becoming obsolete.
That's the considered judgment of the first female director of the National Institutes of Health, Bernadine Healy, writing in the March 4 issue of U.S. News and World Report.
Healy cites a recent study in Israel, showing the formation of multiple tumors in a boy's nervous system after he was treated with derivatives from early embryonic stem cells.
Moreover, a study in Nature Biotechnology in January, confirmed that embryonic stem cell cultures generally contain abnormal cells that can cause cancer - and there is no simple way to tell which cells are abnormal.
There appears to be little or no justification for forcing taxpayers to fund embryonic stem cell research because adult stem cells, obtained without harming the donor, are benefiting more and more real patients, reversing the symptoms of multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease in the latest published trials.
An advance hailed by the journal Science as the top scientific breakthrough of last year - a technique for reprogramming ordinary adult cells into "induced pluripotent stem cells" - looks better with each passing month.
If there is any research purpose for which embryonic stem cells have an advantage, these reprogrammed cells seem able to perform that task as well or better, without ethical problems.
Science and ethics are pointing the way forward together. The only thing standing in the way now is an ideology, supported by Obama, which promotes embryo destruction that many American people do not support and find morally reprehensible.
Jacksonville Florida
-
Posted By: renruts @ 03/19/2009 11:37:55 PM
STEM CELLS
Science, ethics can mix
President Barack Obama is opening the door to research that could lead to destroying live human embryos, despite the fact that science is moving on, and embryonic stem cells are becoming obsolete.
That's the considered judgment of the first female director of the National Institutes of Health, Bernadine Healy, writing in the March 4 issue of U.S. News and World Report.
Healy cites a recent study in Israel, showing the formation of multiple tumors in a boy's nervous system after he was treated with derivatives from early embryonic stem cells.
Moreover, a study in Nature Biotechnology in January, confirmed that embryonic stem cell cultures generally contain abnormal cells that can cause cancer - and there is no simple way to tell which cells are abnormal.
There appears to be little or no justification for forcing taxpayers to fund embryonic stem cell research because adult stem cells, obtained without harming the donor, are benefiting more and more real patients, reversing the symptoms of multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease in the latest published trials.
An advance hailed by the journal Science as the top scientific breakthrough of last year - a technique for reprogramming ordinary adult cells into "induced pluripotent stem cells" - looks better with each passing month.
If there is any research purpose for which embryonic stem cells have an advantage, these reprogrammed cells seem able to perform that task as well or better, without ethical problems.
Science and ethics are pointing the way forward together. The only thing standing in the way now is an ideology, supported by Obama, which promotes embryo destruction that many American people do not support and find morally reprehensible.
Jacksonville Florida
-
Posted By: reasonablediscourse @ 03/15/2009 11:47:50 PM
This is a complex issue, however we still make qualitative statements about these embryos, and these statements are predominantly the result or theocracy or religious belief. Embryonic stem cells are collections of human cells (usually numbering in the teens) that have the "potential" to become human beings. As most recognize, these cells are genetic material, with limited levels of activity, that can become human beings. What else has these properties, one might ask. Well any oocyte (female egg) also has the potential of becoming a human being, if it unites with a sperm. Likewise with the sperm. Both of these types of cells are living cells that carry the genetic material required for humans. Most make the argument that "life" begins at the moment of fertilization... the properties of the fertilized embryos at this stage, is no more "magical", or "full of life", or having a "soul" than both the sperm and egg separated. It really is just a step in the process in the uniting of the genetic materials. Any statement that a soul exists, or that a newly found life is created in this combination is a matter of theocracy, belief, and/or religion. Scientifically, the only reason some assert that this is the beginning of life, is that this genetic combination is the the furthest single source of the process, as opposed to the egg and sperm separate. One can argue that the sperm and egg require just as much protection as the embryo, as both are needed to create human life. Does the simple combination really designate such a dramatic and qualitative change? I think not. We seem to have some cultural predisposition (mostly taken from christianity in our nation) that fertilization is something magical and novel. Scientifically, it is not. Therefore, these ideologies should not dictate federal policy, and there should not be a federal ban on further scientific research. Admittedly, we should go through pains to exhaust the possibilities of adults stem cells, as they are much less controversial, however, embryonic sc research should not be ruled out entirely. If we really value the tiny little cells moving around with human genetic material and the capacity for human life, we must start regulating masturbation practices, menstruation, and any form of birth control is destroying/preventing human life. A bit long winded...my apologies
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/16/2009 1:29:47 PM
Get over yourself! Read the post below and try to argue with that........
Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/13/2009 3:20:42 PMTHE FACTS OF WHEN HUMAN LIFE BEGINS
Interview With Maureen Condic of the Westchester Institute
By Karna Swanson
-
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/16/2009 1:28:04 PM
It is amazing how everyone post on here about what they consider science and religious viewpoint on this subject but those who hold on to the science viewpoint never even though about commenting on the post below...
Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/13/2009 3:20:42 PMTHE FACTS OF WHEN HUMAN LIFE BEGINS
Interview With Maureen Condic of the Westchester Institute
By Karna Swanson
I already know why ...
-
Posted By: reasonablediscourse @ 03/15/2009 11:26:32 PM
j
-
Posted By: lucy2008 @ 03/14/2009 10:22:14 AM
Not everyone believes in the sanctity of a conceived human cell or a 10-day embryo of blastocytes. Not everyone believes a soul pops into the conceived cell and now it is a person of religious and political rights. I for one do not. In my view it is faith not science or reason or ethics that argue for political personhood and political rights for those cells. I for one want our country to find worthy our own living citizen families and the billions on this earth that are in need. I for one hope our planet of worthy life will be respected and treated with grace. Today these people of political personhood are not even treated as worthy. When rightw-wing Pauline Christians spend more of their time helping those with personhood that are il, poor, and illiterate than making righteous arguments about birth control, conceived cells and homosexuality.
-
Posted By: lucy2008 @ 03/14/2009 10:12:41 AM
Most people do not object to 10-day old embryos to be used to research the cause and cures of human disease and transplantation needs. I am religious but hardly one to believe in a soul or the sanctity of a conceived cell. That is the belief of specific religious sects in our country. They have the right of free speech but so do I. An overwhelming majority of voters put our President into office and has now fulfilled his campaign pledge. This is democracy in action.
The last 8 years have been a travesty for disease research because of the ignorance of G.W. Bush. Our country is now returning to an age of reason and respect for science and knowledge. The last 8 years have been a travesty for protection of our environment and involvement to help our planet against global warming. The list goes on and on where the results of mainstream science - overwhelmingly- were thrown aside for religious blindness and greed. Sadly, our nation's are poorly educated and lacking. A large number deny evolution of life and believe humans were created 5,000 years ago and lived with dinosaurs. I hope our new government will invest highly in education of our people- in reason, science, math, and history. A democracy of ignorance is what our Founding Fathers feared.
-
Posted By: Jt74 @ 03/10/2009 9:15:51 PM
Good work Mr. President, one more good policy promise made and kept to the American people. On a less forgiving note, I sincerely hope that all of those who so supported our former "president's" personal "ethical" spin on how he determined that embryos from fertilization clinics are better discarded as medical waste then used for scientific research will abide by their own "moral standards" and never, ever use the scientific advancements obtained by stem cell research for their personal benefits. The pontificating arrogant denial of science and its benefit to others by religious fanatics should merit its so well earned Darwin prize
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/13/2009 5:27:06 PM
Read my post and tell me about what science says...
THE FACTS OF WHEN HUMAN LIFE BEGINS
Interview With Maureen Condic of the Westchester Institute
By Karna Swanson -
Posted By: Abots22 @ 03/13/2009 5:03:27 PM
Simple. Now there is a financial incentive to create more embryos than what is really needed at the fertility clinics and thus creating more "discarded" embryos. At the very least, all financial incentive to reduce the number of "discarded" embryos has been removed.
-
-
Posted By: Abots22 @ 03/13/2009 4:52:29 PM
The real crime with using embryos for stem cell research is that they were created in the first place without the guarantee that they would be used for procreation. When these embryos are destroyed, make no mistake, it carries the same consequences as abortion. Look, we aren't talking about gene splicing for a new species of orchids here. We are talking about HUMAN embryos being created haphazardly and then "discarded". The federal funding of this research now removes any and all incentive to reduce the number of "discarded" embryos. There is more solidly backed SCIENTIFIC evidence that life begins at conception than at any other stage of pregnancy.
I undertsnd why Obama made this decision, but it has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with his rabid pro-abortion stance. If he even hints that there is a moral implication with using embryos for stem cell research then his abortion views will come under heavy attack...and rightly so.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/13/2009 3:20:42 PM
THE FACTS OF WHEN HUMAN LIFE BEGINS
Interview With Maureen Condic of the Westchester Institute
By Karna Swanson
SALT LAKE CITY, Utah, NOV. 7, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The conclusion of scientist Maureen Condic that human life begins at a defined moment of conception isn't an opinion based on a belief, but rather a "reflection of the way the world is."
Condic, a senior fellow of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person, published her conclusions in a white paper titled "When Does Human Life Begin?" In the report she addresses the topic using current scientific data in human embryology.
An associate professor of neurobiology and anatomy at the University of Utah School of Medicine, Condic received her doctorate in neurobiology from the University of California, Berkely. Her teaching focuses primarily on embryonic development, and she directs the University of Utah School of Medicine's course in human embryology.
In the interview with ZENIT, Condic explains why the question of when human life begins is important to address, and what scientific criteria she used to define a "moment of conception."
Q: This is the first white paper for the Westchester Institute. Why this topic? Why now?
Condic: This is an important question, with significant biological, ethical and philosophical dimensions. As I note in the paper, resolving when human life begins has important implications for a number of controversial political topics, including abortion and human embryonic stem cell research.
As a scientist and as director of a medical school course in human embryology, I have been considering the general question of when human life begins for quite a few years. The argument put forward in the white paper has grown out of discussions with philosophers, scientists and ethicists, as well as out of my own research in this area.-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/13/2009 3:22:31 PM
Yet this topic has come to the fore in the lead-up to the presidential election. While the topic of when life begins has generally been avoided by politicians and government officials, recently a number of prominent figures have offered their interpretations, making this a timely subject to consider with scientific rigor and neutrality.
Q: You define the moment of conception as the second it takes for the sperm and egg to fuse and form a zygote. What were the scientific principles you used to arrive at this conclusion?
Condic: The central question of "when does human life begin" can be stated in a somewhat different way: When do sperm and egg cease to be, and what kind of thing takes their place once they cease to be?
To address this question scientifically, we need to rely on sound scientific argument and on the factual evidence. Scientists make distinctions between different cell types (for example, sperm, egg and the cell they produce at fertilization) based on two simple criteria: Cells are known to be different because they are made of different components and because they behave in distinct ways.
These two criteria are used throughout the scientific enterprise to distinguish one cell type from another, and they are the basis of all scientific (as opposed to arbitrary, faith-based or political) distinctions. I have applied these two criteria to the scientific data concerning fertilization, and they are the basis for the conclusion that a new human organism comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion.
Q: Many in the scientific world would say that fertilization doesn't happen in a moment, but rather that it is a process that comes to an end at the end of the first cell cycle, which is 24 hours later. Why is it important to define a "moment of conception," as opposed to a "process of fertilization"?
Condic: It is not important to somehow define a "moment" or a "process" of fertilization in the abstract. It is important to base conclusions and judgments about human embryos on sound scientific reasoning and on the best available scientific evidence.
Had this analysis led to a different conclusion -- for example, that fertilization is a "process" -- I would have accepted this conclusion as scientifically valid. However, a scientific analysis of the best-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/13/2009 3:24:40 PM
available data does not support the conclusion that fertilization is a "process"; it supports the conclusion that fertilization is an event that takes less than a second to complete.
The events of the first 24 hours following sperm-egg fusion are clearly unique, but they are also clearly acts of a human organism, not acts of a mere human cell.
Q: Do opinion, belief and politics have a place in defining the beginning of a new life? How is it that the topic has become an issue of debate?
Condic: The topic of when human life begins is an issue of debate because it has strong implications for public policy on matters that concern many people; abortion, in-vitro fertilization and human embryo research. How "opinion, belief and politics" have assumed such a large role in deciding when life begins is a question for a sociologist or a psychologist, not a biologist!
It is important to appreciate that the scientific facts are themselves entirely neutral; they are simply a reflection of the way the world is, as opposed to how we may wish or imagine it to be.
That is not to say that the scientific facts lend equal support to any and all views of when human life begins. While people are free to formulate their opinion on when human life begins in any manner they choose (including belief and politics), not all opinions are equally consistent with factual reality. Those who choose to ignore the facts cannot expect their opinions to garner as much respect or to be given as much credibility as those who base their opinions in sound scientific observation and analysis.
The opinions of members of the flat-Earth society should not carry as much weight as those of astrophysicists in formulating national aerospace policy. The opinions of those who reject the scientific evidence concerning when life begins should not be the basis of public policy on embryo-related topics, either.
Q: Who needs to read this paper and why?
Condic: I think every person who is concerned about the important "life-issues" of health care, abortion, assisted reproduction and stem-cell research should read this article, because-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/13/2009 3:26:31 PM
understanding when life begins is the basis of a sound political, ethical and moral debate on these complex and difficult topics. Certainly, all those charged with the formation of public policy on these matters should read this argument and think seriously about its implications. If we cannot know what a human embryo is and when it comes into existence, we cannot make sound judgments regarding any of the issues surrounding the human embryo.
Q: What reactions have you received to the conclusions of your paper? What do you hope will result from its publication?
Condic: Thus far, reactions have been thoughtful and considered. I hope this will continue and that a clear understanding of the relevant scientific evidence will help ground future public policy debates over embryo-related issues in sound scientific fact -- rather than in mere "opinion, belief and politics."
--- --- ---
On the Net:
"When Does Human Life Begin?": http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/index.php?
-
-
-
-
Posted By: j.q.publicusa @ 03/12/2009 7:08:49 PM
stem cell esearch goverment fundined how much is too much? Without educating yourself how can you make informed decisions for such actions that deal in the body human. What has happened to morals and vakues of life.
-
Posted By: j.q.publicusa @ 03/12/2009 7:06:02 PM
ignorance is the way of the world. People the surveys are usually that of 1000 people. Do you you really want your DNA available to to doctor's with federal funding or EX: the day after pill available if it effects your life or that of someone you know. You are talking about research it sounds more like frankenstein. Shame on you. When did America lose their morals and values on human life. Parkinson disease can be caused by genetics,toxins, head trauma , cerebrall anoxia ,drug induced . Think before you delegate Americans tax money without further knowledge on the the reason they need more than the number tga George W Bush had approved in 2001. Sheep are easily led.
-
Posted By: Debunked! @ 03/09/2009 1:54:45 PM
Sounds like politics to me. Obama has been feeling the heat because of the economy and if you look at the polls, particularly, Rasmussen (which is one of the most accurate) his postives have been slowly decreasing and negatives have been slowly increasing. This stem cell announcement and photo op of his signing the bill seems like a deliberate distraction to me!!
Those who have lost their jobs or homes or in are the process of losing either (or concerned about their 401k, like me) are wondering and asking why is he focusing on this when the economy is in shambles! The economy is front and center and any publicity stunt/distractions Obama choose to pursue should be relating to the economy! The pro Obama media and everyone else who is choosing to where blinders will eat this stunt/distraction up but the rest of us see this for what it is!!-
Posted By: soof @ 03/09/2009 3:30:26 PM
Could it be possible that he is working on both things at once!? Usually known as Multitasking! Obviously you or your family members have not been struck by an incurable disease and therefore you are too shortsighted to understand the meaning of Stem cell research and the hope of life it will give to people suffering from ALS ,FTDs and other Spinal and Brain diseases. Try and think of other people instead of just yourself. President Obama just took office a mere 46 days ago, give him a break!
-
Posted By: Abots22 @ 03/09/2009 3:39:37 PM
I don't mean to sound harsh, but are you not thinking of the potentially perfectly healthy child that was destroyed for "research". Then consider what happens if a cure is found. In order to cure one person we need to kill another. Where does that leave us? Non-embryonic stem cells have proven to be FAR more successful than embryonic stem cells in disease research. 70 cures or treatments have been found. There is no scientific reason to promote embryonic stem cell research over non-embryonic.
I can just see the Planned Parenhood ads now..."Have an abortion and help stem cell research."-
Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 03/11/2009 3:53:36 PM
"I don't mean to sound harsh, but are you not thinking of the potentially perfectly healthy child that was destroyed for "research". "
Are you suggesting that women have abortions for the purpose of manufacturing stem cells? Or that abortion clinics kidnap women off the street to give them forced abortions for the stem cells? -
Posted By: kshortSD @ 03/09/2009 4:59:26 PM
The embryos used for research are going to be discarded anyway!! They are NEVER going to be anyone's children! Knock it off, already! Maybe someday you'll have a spinal cord injury and wish that stem cell research could cure you!!
-
Posted By: Abots22 @ 03/09/2009 5:33:32 PM
If I understand your point, killing an embryo in a dish is not the same as killing an embryo in the womb, becasue an embryo in a dish is not sustainable. Does anyone else not see the irony in this? Can you tell me, and scientifically back it up, that life doesn't begin at conception (formation of the embryo)? Didn't think so. So why then are you so careless when it comes to the destruction on the human embryo.
-
Posted By: kshortSD @ 03/09/2009 6:02:25 PM
So, if we're talking about using embryos that are no longer in the womb for valuable research, then what the heck is your problem? Please don't try to confuse the issue of stem cell research with abortion...
-
Posted By: Qazman @ 03/11/2009 8:33:18 AM
But the oposition of both issues stems from the same complaint: we should not be killing unborn children
-
-
-
Posted By: HDavidsonNeverDies @ 03/09/2009 5:27:29 PM
no,. no, GOD would cure them, and therefore "christians" should be denied ANY medical attention as GOD should be right there to fix what ever ails them and if they die, well that's just gods plan. NO dentistry, no docs, no pain meds, no antibodies...just the good lord and their "faith"...sounds fair to me and think of the money we'd save as a nation if we let god handle the SICK christians, hell they could even do some recruiting from it, once everybody sees how many christians are NOT dying or getting sick, they'll all convert....WOO HOO!
-
Posted By: Abots22 @ 03/09/2009 5:31:02 PM
You obvoiulsy have no idea what you are talking about. If you understood anything about Christianity and the God of the Bible, yo
-
Posted By: HDavidsonNeverDies @ 03/11/2009 2:12:22 AM
LMAO! are you judging me...lol, I have read the bible, I have read "the cat in the hat" too.
-
-
Posted By: Abots22 @ 03/09/2009 5:34:40 PM
I realized I was dignifying your post with a response and had to cut myself short.
-
Posted By: 4obama @ 03/09/2009 7:21:34 PM
Im glad you did! Because, your just dugging a Hole!
-
-
-
-
Posted By: HDavidsonNeverDies @ 03/09/2009 5:22:58 PM
Here's your cracker polly []...enjoy and keep up the good hate.
-
-
-
Posted By: HDavidsonNeverDies @ 03/09/2009 5:22:34 PM
Here's your cracker polly []...enjoy and keep up the good hate.
-
Posted By: Abots22 @ 03/09/2009 5:26:01 PM
Disagreement = hate. Must be a liberal with a weak argument.
-
Posted By: HDavidsonNeverDies @ 03/11/2009 2:14:04 AM
wow! you reeeaally like those crackers huh, here ya go [] [], not put the sheet over your cage and go to sleep ;) The radical right will have new talking points for you tomorrow.
-
-
-
Posted By: soof @ 03/09/2009 3:28:54 PM
Could it be possible that he is working on both things at once!? Usually known as Multitasking! Obviously you or your family members have not been struck by an incurable disease and therefore you are too shortsighted to understand the meaning of Stem cell research and the hope of life it will give to people suffering from ALS ,FTDs and other Spinal and Brain diseases. Try and think of other people instead of just yourself. President Obama just took office a mere 46 days ago, give him a break!
-
-
Posted By: Magnus The Luchador @ 03/11/2009 3:44:49 PM
THis is a non-debate. Only the presence of religious morons could make it one. Religion even finds it way into sports. I wrote an article about it. Check it out:
http://www.magnuschronicle.com/warner.html
I think you'll find it to be pretty funny.
-
Posted By: vstillwell @ 03/11/2009 2:27:57 PM
Love reading these comments. Everyone's a scientist or an expert on life. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
-
Posted By: redrockraven @ 03/09/2009 2:01:18 PM
The Republican Party likes to label the Democrats as promoting Socialism. Yet they are the Socialist Party when it comes to meddling into the personal and sexual lives of everyone else, whether or not they share the same religious beliefs.
It is very encouraging to see the government removing religion from its 8 year stranglehold on scientific health research. Claiming that stem cell research is equivalent to abortion makes as much sense as claiming eating eggs is killing chickens. Maybe there is a pill to cure people from religious hypocrisy.-
Posted By: Abots22 @ 03/09/2009 3:44:46 PM
Religion really has very little to do with it. Plain old human science tells us that an embryo, if allowed to grow, will become a child. Did you miss that day in the 2nd grade...I think that's when I learned that one. Why promote embryonic stem cell research over non-embryonic stem cell research when non-embryonic stem cell research has been FAR more productive??
-
Posted By: kshortSD @ 03/09/2009 4:57:38 PM
These embryos are left-over from IVF treatments and are going to be discarded. Why do you think these embryos will ever become children??
-
Posted By: Qazman @ 03/11/2009 8:29:30 AM
These embryos should not have been created in the first place.
If they had been implanted in the womb instead of discarded they might have become children (barring miscarrage etc)
-
-
Posted By: kway63 @ 03/09/2009 4:19:37 PM
Your chicken analogy would be accurate, however, the eggs we get from the grocery stores have not been fertilized, and would therefore never become chickens. Eating fertilized eggs, would in fact, be killing chickens. It's simple science, not religion.
-
Posted By: HDavidsonNeverDies @ 03/09/2009 5:22:12 PM
so how do you feel about tape worms in women, they are living beings created by god, with feelings and thoughts, and like an "embryo" they are a parasitic organism living off the host....kill them or birth them and let them grow into good chriatians?
-
Posted By: Abots22 @ 03/09/2009 5:43:38 PM
Were tapeworms created in the image and likeness of God? Are you comparing yourself to a tapeworm? I'm just asking.
-
Posted By: HDavidsonNeverDies @ 03/11/2009 2:16:30 AM
You never know...do you...All things were created in the image and likeness of god..as god is all things right ;) so are you saying god is a tiny gooey white thing with a wiggley tail? or an egg? of a glob? is god a man or a woman? ot oh? white or black? brown, yellow, red...how many times have YOU seen "God"?...exactly...try again.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: buzzboyd @ 03/09/2009 5:08:17 PM
Religion has everything to do with it. Don't hide under a humanist flag now that the religious right wing is on the back burner.
-
Posted By: Abots22 @ 03/09/2009 5:40:38 PM
I am not hiding. Merely pointing out that a non-religous arguement can be made against embryonic stem cell research. If you have a point to make, then make it instead of sniping from the sidelines.
-
Posted By: buzzboyd @ 03/09/2009 5:45:48 PM
Maybe you could make that argument but it appears to be the height of hypocrisy. I just call 'em like I see them.
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Qazman @ 03/11/2009 8:22:43 AM
Restrictions on Embryonic stem cell research is not an attack on science as a whole.
They were put in place to stop the use of, what is essentially humans in the making, from being used in scientific research and then disposed of when they are of no longer use.
There has been more promising research developments with Adult stem cells. Adult Stem Cells are taken from an patient and used to grow specific organs which are then implanted back into the patient. These cells have already progressed past the stage of embryonic stem cells and cannot be used to create Embryos (basically Human clones). They are versatile enough though that doctors have successfully regrown nerve cells, heart muscle, and other human tissue to cure patients of numerous conditions.
The fact of the matter is that Scientists do not need to rely on Embryonic Stem Cells, which have been shown in other countries to be unreliable and unpredictable, and can use Adult Stem Cells which have already started becoming what you already want them to be, making them more predictable and reliable.
Try Googling "Embryonic Stem Cell Success stories" Most of the articles on the front page are about Adult stem cell success and how similar research with embryonic stem cells has failed.
- 1
- 2
Report Abuse
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
- Black Friday should unleash pent-up demand. Analyst Bill DreherNYT
- The task is to restore our conservative bona fides James Bopp Jr. on a 10-pt GOP checklist NYT
- Twenty five years feels right in my bones and right in my spirit. Oprah on ending her showCST
- It’s going to be a holy war Orrin Hatch on debate over the Senate health billNYT
- The nation and the world will see him for the coward he is Holder, on trying KSMAP
Discuss