Embryonic stem cell research
-
Let me begin by saying that I know nothing technical whatsoever about this subject. Personally, I oppose it because I find it absolutely immoral and a bit sci-fi bizarre to kill one person to medically benefit another (it's like soul-sucking or something). But there is something I else that I find quite politically bizarre, and that's the left's unwavering support for federal tax dollars (which basically only benefit big pharmaceutical businesses) for something that is really very unproven. This morning I was stuck in traffic for an hour and wound up listening to a conservative radio show (not Rush Limbaugh...and believe it or not I don't typically listen to right-wing radio) and they had called an MIT professor of molecular biology to discuss the topic. He said that he was once enthusiastic about embryonic stem cell research, but had changed his position a few years ago because embryonic stem cells always result in tumors when applied to adults. Apparently adult stem cell research has the same benefits without this problem. More interestingly, he said that numerous successful treatments have come from adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells have to date yielded no results. Pharmaceutical companies are also investing heavily in adult stem cell research, but not embryonic stem cell research. This professor's assertion (which may be in dispute...as I'm no expert I can't say) supports a suspicion that I've held for some time. I think the left has irrationally attached itself to embryonic stem cell research not because of the potential but because of its association to abortion. In other words, by attaching the concept of "life" to abortion, it confuses the issue to where abortion is no longer merely justified by "personal choice", but implies that those who oppose abortion are actually anti-life (thereby reversing the political position on the issue). In other words, the current "pro-choice" crowd would become the "pro-life" crowd and the current "pro-life" crowd would become the "pro-disease" crowd. That's my crazy theory for the day. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
Personally, I oppose it because I find it absolutely immoral and a bit sci-fi bizarre to kill one person
The embryo is extracted when it's 2-3 weeks old, correct? Would a 3 week embryo be alive? I think it'd just be like a body part - even the brain may not have formed yet! Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New) -
espeir wrote:
Personally, I oppose it because I find it absolutely immoral and a bit sci-fi bizarre to kill one person
The embryo is extracted when it's 2-3 weeks old, correct? Would a 3 week embryo be alive? I think it'd just be like a body part - even the brain may not have formed yet! Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New)Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
The embryo is extracted when it's 2-3 weeks old, correct? Would a 3 week embryo be alive?
Yes it's alive. ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
espeir wrote:
Personally, I oppose it because I find it absolutely immoral and a bit sci-fi bizarre to kill one person
The embryo is extracted when it's 2-3 weeks old, correct? Would a 3 week embryo be alive? I think it'd just be like a body part - even the brain may not have formed yet! Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New)Everybody believes that life begins at different times. Personally, I accept conception as the time life should be respected and therefore oppose abortion at all stages. If you disagree, I think you should at least determine a specific point of development at which time life begins. Since development is continous (and not done in absolute distinct stages...the brain doesn't just appear one day), I think this is necessary or it simply leads to the conclusion that a person's life does not begin until after puberty. But that's a different subject. I was just stating why I oppose embryonic stem cell research. I'm more curious as to why the left so emphatically supports it when it does not yield results like adult stem cell research. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
The embryo is extracted when it's 2-3 weeks old, correct? Would a 3 week embryo be alive?
Yes it's alive. ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
ihoecken wrote:
Yes it's alive.
By what criteria?
-
Let me begin by saying that I know nothing technical whatsoever about this subject. Personally, I oppose it because I find it absolutely immoral and a bit sci-fi bizarre to kill one person to medically benefit another (it's like soul-sucking or something). But there is something I else that I find quite politically bizarre, and that's the left's unwavering support for federal tax dollars (which basically only benefit big pharmaceutical businesses) for something that is really very unproven. This morning I was stuck in traffic for an hour and wound up listening to a conservative radio show (not Rush Limbaugh...and believe it or not I don't typically listen to right-wing radio) and they had called an MIT professor of molecular biology to discuss the topic. He said that he was once enthusiastic about embryonic stem cell research, but had changed his position a few years ago because embryonic stem cells always result in tumors when applied to adults. Apparently adult stem cell research has the same benefits without this problem. More interestingly, he said that numerous successful treatments have come from adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells have to date yielded no results. Pharmaceutical companies are also investing heavily in adult stem cell research, but not embryonic stem cell research. This professor's assertion (which may be in dispute...as I'm no expert I can't say) supports a suspicion that I've held for some time. I think the left has irrationally attached itself to embryonic stem cell research not because of the potential but because of its association to abortion. In other words, by attaching the concept of "life" to abortion, it confuses the issue to where abortion is no longer merely justified by "personal choice", but implies that those who oppose abortion are actually anti-life (thereby reversing the political position on the issue). In other words, the current "pro-choice" crowd would become the "pro-life" crowd and the current "pro-life" crowd would become the "pro-disease" crowd. That's my crazy theory for the day. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
The fact it has been implemented as a presidential veto when a fair minority of republicans support it seems vaguely undemocratic. Being a godless nihilist I have no moral qualms about using spare embryos (a simple bag of cells, certainly a different moral issue than a foetus) to benefit mankind. But in a decent democracy, redistributing tax money to fund causes that a significant minority find repugnant shouldn't be done. Though you could apply the same logic to the defense budget of course.. The science will be done anyway, if it has potential value. Either through private funding or in a country that has less people who think that "life begins at conception" requires an absolute prohibition on deliberate destruction of embryos. Which should of course include the rhythm method if people were logically consistent with that position.. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
Everybody believes that life begins at different times. Personally, I accept conception as the time life should be respected and therefore oppose abortion at all stages. If you disagree, I think you should at least determine a specific point of development at which time life begins. Since development is continous (and not done in absolute distinct stages...the brain doesn't just appear one day), I think this is necessary or it simply leads to the conclusion that a person's life does not begin until after puberty. But that's a different subject. I was just stating why I oppose embryonic stem cell research. I'm more curious as to why the left so emphatically supports it when it does not yield results like adult stem cell research. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
For testtube babies (IVT) I believe several egg-sperm fusions are done (I may not be using the correct technical words) and some of them die - if you think life begins at conception (union of egg and sperm), then during IVT, a few lives are killed. I understand what you are saying, but it may be best to fix the beginning of human life more accurately - perhaps when the embryo is 90 days old. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New) -
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
The embryo is extracted when it's 2-3 weeks old, correct? Would a 3 week embryo be alive?
Yes it's alive. ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
ihoecken wrote:
Yes it's alive.
It may be technically alive, but it's definitely less alive than a 3-month embryo. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New) -
ihoecken wrote:
Yes it's alive.
By what criteria?
thealj wrote:
By what criteria?
Presumably the criteria is blind assumption. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New) -
thealj wrote:
By what criteria?
Presumably the criteria is blind assumption. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New)Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
Presumably the criteria is blind assumption.
The criteria is that it grows. It has cells, there are also reactions on special influences. So it is alive. ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
ihoecken wrote:
Yes it's alive.
It may be technically alive, but it's definitely less alive than a 3-month embryo. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New)Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
It may be technically alive, but it's definitely less alive than a 3-month embryo.
Something is more alive than something other? That's silly. Either something is not alive or it is alive. So what it is less alive than you? A child? An old man? Animals? Or someone of another religion? ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
For testtube babies (IVT) I believe several egg-sperm fusions are done (I may not be using the correct technical words) and some of them die - if you think life begins at conception (union of egg and sperm), then during IVT, a few lives are killed. I understand what you are saying, but it may be best to fix the beginning of human life more accurately - perhaps when the embryo is 90 days old. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New)Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
For testtube babies (IVT) I believe several egg-sperm fusions are done (I may not be using the correct technical words) and some of them die - if you think life begins at conception (union of egg and sperm), then during IVT, a few lives are killed.
You know I'm the exact same age as the first test tube baby (we were born on the same day). Babies die in the womb often from miscarriages and test tube eggs that fail never actually begin development (as I understand it) because they fail to attach to the uterus wall. I personally would not want my wife to use artificial insemination if she needed it for pregnancy and find sextuplets another odd sci-fi thing.
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
I understand what you are saying, but it may be best to fix the beginning of human life more accurately - perhaps when the embryo is 90 days old.
But 90 days is not a specific phase of development. There is nothing special about 90 days expect in medical terms it is the end of the first trimester. Conception is a specific point of pregnancy. Attachment to the uterus' wall (that's actually more specifically when I actually believe life begins) is another. There are other specific points of development as well, but simply saying 90 days does not have any specific meaning to development. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
ihoecken wrote:
Yes it's alive.
By what criteria?
thealj wrote:
By what criteria?
By the criterias biologists call something alive. It grows, it needs nourishment, it also reacts on outer influences. Regards, Ingo ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
Let me begin by saying that I know nothing technical whatsoever about this subject. Personally, I oppose it because I find it absolutely immoral and a bit sci-fi bizarre to kill one person to medically benefit another (it's like soul-sucking or something). But there is something I else that I find quite politically bizarre, and that's the left's unwavering support for federal tax dollars (which basically only benefit big pharmaceutical businesses) for something that is really very unproven. This morning I was stuck in traffic for an hour and wound up listening to a conservative radio show (not Rush Limbaugh...and believe it or not I don't typically listen to right-wing radio) and they had called an MIT professor of molecular biology to discuss the topic. He said that he was once enthusiastic about embryonic stem cell research, but had changed his position a few years ago because embryonic stem cells always result in tumors when applied to adults. Apparently adult stem cell research has the same benefits without this problem. More interestingly, he said that numerous successful treatments have come from adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells have to date yielded no results. Pharmaceutical companies are also investing heavily in adult stem cell research, but not embryonic stem cell research. This professor's assertion (which may be in dispute...as I'm no expert I can't say) supports a suspicion that I've held for some time. I think the left has irrationally attached itself to embryonic stem cell research not because of the potential but because of its association to abortion. In other words, by attaching the concept of "life" to abortion, it confuses the issue to where abortion is no longer merely justified by "personal choice", but implies that those who oppose abortion are actually anti-life (thereby reversing the political position on the issue). In other words, the current "pro-choice" crowd would become the "pro-life" crowd and the current "pro-life" crowd would become the "pro-disease" crowd. That's my crazy theory for the day. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
In other words, the current "pro-choice" crowd would become the "pro-life" crowd and the current "pro-life" crowd would become the "pro-disease" crowd. That's my crazy theory for the day.
Bingo! Very well put. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
The fact it has been implemented as a presidential veto when a fair minority of republicans support it seems vaguely undemocratic. Being a godless nihilist I have no moral qualms about using spare embryos (a simple bag of cells, certainly a different moral issue than a foetus) to benefit mankind. But in a decent democracy, redistributing tax money to fund causes that a significant minority find repugnant shouldn't be done. Though you could apply the same logic to the defense budget of course.. The science will be done anyway, if it has potential value. Either through private funding or in a country that has less people who think that "life begins at conception" requires an absolute prohibition on deliberate destruction of embryos. Which should of course include the rhythm method if people were logically consistent with that position.. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
Ryan Roberts wrote:
The fact it has been implemented as a presidential veto when a fair minority of republicans support it seems vaguely undemocratic.
The purpose of a presidential veto is to force a larger majority to endorse legislation when that legislation (usually for those things that are fairly controversial). It's a safeguard to protect us from the "tyranny of the majority". :)
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Which should of course include the rhythm method if people were logically consistent with that position.
How does that destroy an embryo?? "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Let me begin by saying that I know nothing technical whatsoever about this subject. Personally, I oppose it because I find it absolutely immoral and a bit sci-fi bizarre to kill one person to medically benefit another (it's like soul-sucking or something). But there is something I else that I find quite politically bizarre, and that's the left's unwavering support for federal tax dollars (which basically only benefit big pharmaceutical businesses) for something that is really very unproven. This morning I was stuck in traffic for an hour and wound up listening to a conservative radio show (not Rush Limbaugh...and believe it or not I don't typically listen to right-wing radio) and they had called an MIT professor of molecular biology to discuss the topic. He said that he was once enthusiastic about embryonic stem cell research, but had changed his position a few years ago because embryonic stem cells always result in tumors when applied to adults. Apparently adult stem cell research has the same benefits without this problem. More interestingly, he said that numerous successful treatments have come from adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells have to date yielded no results. Pharmaceutical companies are also investing heavily in adult stem cell research, but not embryonic stem cell research. This professor's assertion (which may be in dispute...as I'm no expert I can't say) supports a suspicion that I've held for some time. I think the left has irrationally attached itself to embryonic stem cell research not because of the potential but because of its association to abortion. In other words, by attaching the concept of "life" to abortion, it confuses the issue to where abortion is no longer merely justified by "personal choice", but implies that those who oppose abortion are actually anti-life (thereby reversing the political position on the issue). In other words, the current "pro-choice" crowd would become the "pro-life" crowd and the current "pro-life" crowd would become the "pro-disease" crowd. That's my crazy theory for the day. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
Any ultimate cures will almost certainly have to come from adult stem cells, even if the tumor problem was solved there'd still be organ rejection type issues. That said, the younger they are the easier it is to coax a stemcell into doing something interesting. Worh with ESCs can allow for faster proof of concept type research to point people doing the more difficult work with ASCs in the right direction.
-
Let me begin by saying that I know nothing technical whatsoever about this subject. Personally, I oppose it because I find it absolutely immoral and a bit sci-fi bizarre to kill one person to medically benefit another (it's like soul-sucking or something). But there is something I else that I find quite politically bizarre, and that's the left's unwavering support for federal tax dollars (which basically only benefit big pharmaceutical businesses) for something that is really very unproven. This morning I was stuck in traffic for an hour and wound up listening to a conservative radio show (not Rush Limbaugh...and believe it or not I don't typically listen to right-wing radio) and they had called an MIT professor of molecular biology to discuss the topic. He said that he was once enthusiastic about embryonic stem cell research, but had changed his position a few years ago because embryonic stem cells always result in tumors when applied to adults. Apparently adult stem cell research has the same benefits without this problem. More interestingly, he said that numerous successful treatments have come from adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells have to date yielded no results. Pharmaceutical companies are also investing heavily in adult stem cell research, but not embryonic stem cell research. This professor's assertion (which may be in dispute...as I'm no expert I can't say) supports a suspicion that I've held for some time. I think the left has irrationally attached itself to embryonic stem cell research not because of the potential but because of its association to abortion. In other words, by attaching the concept of "life" to abortion, it confuses the issue to where abortion is no longer merely justified by "personal choice", but implies that those who oppose abortion are actually anti-life (thereby reversing the political position on the issue). In other words, the current "pro-choice" crowd would become the "pro-life" crowd and the current "pro-life" crowd would become the "pro-disease" crowd. That's my crazy theory for the day. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
think the left has irrationally attached itself to embryonic stem cell research not because of the potential but because of its association to abortion.
I believe it has been the right which has made this association, which means the truth is probably that both have done so for pretty obvious reasons that are solely political and not scientific. There is one case and one case only in which I have no problem with folks who are against stem cell research: if they are also against in vitro fertilization, which happens to be the last hope for millions of people to have their own kids. For you see, that process is where the fertilized eggs for stem cell research comes from. These embryos would otherwise be destroyed anyway and are being destroyed today, but with no scientific benefit whatsoever. If you are against in vitro, fine, be against stem cell research, but realize there are millions of real, happy children who would not exist today without it. I give credit to anyone who is truly against both practices (as is the Catholic church, officially, I believe), but I cannot in good conscience be against in vitro. A friend has beautiful twin girls thanks to it (identical twins actually, almost unheard of with in vitro). Hey, let parents keep the unused embroys frozen forever if they want to for some reason, but when it comes time to destroy them, why not use them to look for a cure instead?
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
The fact it has been implemented as a presidential veto when a fair minority of republicans support it seems vaguely undemocratic.
The purpose of a presidential veto is to force a larger majority to endorse legislation when that legislation (usually for those things that are fairly controversial). It's a safeguard to protect us from the "tyranny of the majority". :)
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Which should of course include the rhythm method if people were logically consistent with that position.
How does that destroy an embryo?? "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
How does that destroy an embryo
Apparently, it tends to fertilise eggs when the woman is at the edge of her ability to implant, so fertilised embryos are quite often produced (as there is no barrier method being used) but fail to implant due to the deliberate avoidance of the fertile part of her cycle. New scientist link[^]. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-- modified at 10:45 Thursday 20th July, 2006
-
espeir wrote:
think the left has irrationally attached itself to embryonic stem cell research not because of the potential but because of its association to abortion.
I believe it has been the right which has made this association, which means the truth is probably that both have done so for pretty obvious reasons that are solely political and not scientific. There is one case and one case only in which I have no problem with folks who are against stem cell research: if they are also against in vitro fertilization, which happens to be the last hope for millions of people to have their own kids. For you see, that process is where the fertilized eggs for stem cell research comes from. These embryos would otherwise be destroyed anyway and are being destroyed today, but with no scientific benefit whatsoever. If you are against in vitro, fine, be against stem cell research, but realize there are millions of real, happy children who would not exist today without it. I give credit to anyone who is truly against both practices (as is the Catholic church, officially, I believe), but I cannot in good conscience be against in vitro. A friend has beautiful twin girls thanks to it (identical twins actually, almost unheard of with in vitro). Hey, let parents keep the unused embroys frozen forever if they want to for some reason, but when it comes time to destroy them, why not use them to look for a cure instead?
David Kentley wrote:
I believe it has been the right which has made this association, which means the truth is probably that both have done so for pretty obvious reasons that are solely political and not scientific.
This isn't a political association, but a scientific one.
David Kentley wrote:
There is one case and one case only in which I have no problem with folks who are against stem cell research: if they are also against in vitro fertilization, which happens to be the last hope for millions of people to have their own kids. For you see, that process is where the fertilized eggs for stem cell research comes from. These embryos would otherwise be destroyed anyway and are being destroyed today, but with no scientific benefit whatsoever. If you are against in vitro, fine, be against stem cell research, but realize there are millions of real, happy children who would not exist today without it.
I actually am personally opposed to in vitro fertilization. Though not as fervently as I am opposed to abortion, since its intent is ultimately good. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Let me begin by saying that I know nothing technical whatsoever about this subject. Personally, I oppose it because I find it absolutely immoral and a bit sci-fi bizarre to kill one person to medically benefit another (it's like soul-sucking or something). But there is something I else that I find quite politically bizarre, and that's the left's unwavering support for federal tax dollars (which basically only benefit big pharmaceutical businesses) for something that is really very unproven. This morning I was stuck in traffic for an hour and wound up listening to a conservative radio show (not Rush Limbaugh...and believe it or not I don't typically listen to right-wing radio) and they had called an MIT professor of molecular biology to discuss the topic. He said that he was once enthusiastic about embryonic stem cell research, but had changed his position a few years ago because embryonic stem cells always result in tumors when applied to adults. Apparently adult stem cell research has the same benefits without this problem. More interestingly, he said that numerous successful treatments have come from adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells have to date yielded no results. Pharmaceutical companies are also investing heavily in adult stem cell research, but not embryonic stem cell research. This professor's assertion (which may be in dispute...as I'm no expert I can't say) supports a suspicion that I've held for some time. I think the left has irrationally attached itself to embryonic stem cell research not because of the potential but because of its association to abortion. In other words, by attaching the concept of "life" to abortion, it confuses the issue to where abortion is no longer merely justified by "personal choice", but implies that those who oppose abortion are actually anti-life (thereby reversing the political position on the issue). In other words, the current "pro-choice" crowd would become the "pro-life" crowd and the current "pro-life" crowd would become the "pro-disease" crowd. That's my crazy theory for the day. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
I don't find it in the least bit curious that there is support for fetal stem cell research, even though there are no cures at this point. How will successful therapies be develop if research is not done? Adult and fetal stem cells are different. See this link: http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pecorino2.html[^] There has not been extensive use of fetal stem cells in human therapy, so I doubt that one can say with clinical certainty that fetal stem cell therapy always results in tumors. The 'left' is not some monolithic group that follows the orders of some 'leader of the left'. Many people support the research because it holds out the promise of therapies or cures to many diseases - parkinsons and diabetes to name two.
-
Any ultimate cures will almost certainly have to come from adult stem cells, even if the tumor problem was solved there'd still be organ rejection type issues. That said, the younger they are the easier it is to coax a stemcell into doing something interesting. Worh with ESCs can allow for faster proof of concept type research to point people doing the more difficult work with ASCs in the right direction.