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
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.
-
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
Interesting, but they still fail to implant. This happens all the time without the rhythm method as well. Let me clarify that by "contraception" I'm actually referring to the point at which the egg implants because that's when development begins and cannot begin without it. "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.
dennisd45 wrote:
There has not been extensive use of fetal stem cells in human therapy
Why is that? And why has industry apparently rejected investment in fetal stem cell research but embraced adult stem cell research?
dennisd45 wrote:
The 'left' is not some monolithic group that follows the orders of some 'leader of the left'.
For the most part they are.
dennisd45 wrote:
Many people support the research because it holds out the promise of therapies or cures to many diseases - parkinsons and diabetes to name two.
But that's my point. Again, this is just from a single MIT professor, but embryonic stem cell research does not hold this promise as was initially believed. But the left continues to embrace it because of its association to fetal destruction. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Interesting, but they still fail to implant. This happens all the time without the rhythm method as well. Let me clarify that by "contraception" I'm actually referring to the point at which the egg implants because that's when development begins and cannot begin without it. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
They don't implant in IV either. Or before using the morning after pill. 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
-
dennisd45 wrote:
There has not been extensive use of fetal stem cells in human therapy
Why is that? And why has industry apparently rejected investment in fetal stem cell research but embraced adult stem cell research?
dennisd45 wrote:
The 'left' is not some monolithic group that follows the orders of some 'leader of the left'.
For the most part they are.
dennisd45 wrote:
Many people support the research because it holds out the promise of therapies or cures to many diseases - parkinsons and diabetes to name two.
But that's my point. Again, this is just from a single MIT professor, but embryonic stem cell research does not hold this promise as was initially believed. But the left continues to embrace it because of its association to fetal destruction. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
But that's my point. Again, this is just from a single MIT professor, but embryonic stem cell research does not hold this promise as was initially believed. But the left continues to embrace it because of its association to fetal destruction.
Well, reading your initial posting and this one, I must admit to agree with you in many points. But one point in your arguementation really sucks (and not in this one). It's always the left or some leftist. Is it your only sorrow? Well I don't agree with left parities in many points, but they aren't the BIG EVIL in the world. :sigh: Regards, Ingo ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
They don't implant in IV either. Or before using the morning after pill. 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:
They don't implant in IV either.
Which is why my opposition to IV is rather light. I'm personally uncomfortable with it, but I don't fault others for doing it.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Or before using the morning after pill.
I am moderately opposed to this because while it's not technically an abortion, the intent is to actively prevent an egg from attaching to the uterus wall when it otherwise would. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
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
-
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.
Unless it's a virus :) An all encompasing minimum definition of life is tricky. 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
-
espeir wrote:
But that's my point. Again, this is just from a single MIT professor, but embryonic stem cell research does not hold this promise as was initially believed. But the left continues to embrace it because of its association to fetal destruction.
Well, reading your initial posting and this one, I must admit to agree with you in many points. But one point in your arguementation really sucks (and not in this one). It's always the left or some leftist. Is it your only sorrow? Well I don't agree with left parities in many points, but they aren't the BIG EVIL in the world. :sigh: Regards, Ingo ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
ihoecken wrote:
but they aren't the BIG EVIL in the world.
As a matter of fact, they are. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
dennisd45 wrote:
There has not been extensive use of fetal stem cells in human therapy
Why is that? And why has industry apparently rejected investment in fetal stem cell research but embraced adult stem cell research?
dennisd45 wrote:
The 'left' is not some monolithic group that follows the orders of some 'leader of the left'.
For the most part they are.
dennisd45 wrote:
Many people support the research because it holds out the promise of therapies or cures to many diseases - parkinsons and diabetes to name two.
But that's my point. Again, this is just from a single MIT professor, but embryonic stem cell research does not hold this promise as was initially believed. But the left continues to embrace it because of its association to fetal destruction. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
But the left continues to embrace it because of its association to fetal destruction.
espeir wrote:
Why is that? And why has industry apparently rejected investment in fetal stem cell research but embraced adult stem cell research?
Because more research is required. Advances do not occur overnight.
espeir wrote:
For the most part they are.
And who is your fearless leader of the monolithic right?
espeir wrote:
but embryonic stem cell research does not hold this promise as was initially believed.
There is no evidence that that is true. Research is in it's infancy, and to say, at this early date, that it is a dead end, is way to permature.
espeir wrote:
But the left continues to embrace it because of its association to fetal destruction.
That is ridiculous. Many people, on the left and right, support research because of the potential to cure many diseases. Nancy Reagan support the research.
-
Unless it's a virus :) An all encompasing minimum definition of life is tricky. 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:
Unless it's a virus An all encompasing minimum definition of life is tricky.
:laugh: That's right! ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
espeir wrote:
But that's my point. Again, this is just from a single MIT professor, but embryonic stem cell research does not hold this promise as was initially believed. But the left continues to embrace it because of its association to fetal destruction.
Well, reading your initial posting and this one, I must admit to agree with you in many points. But one point in your arguementation really sucks (and not in this one). It's always the left or some leftist. Is it your only sorrow? Well I don't agree with left parities in many points, but they aren't the BIG EVIL in the world. :sigh: Regards, Ingo ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
No. Many conservative Republicans (including senate majority leader Bill Frist) voted in favor of this bill and I disagree with those conservatives. My point was that it seems to me that the left has very eagerly pushed for embryonic stem cell research without any real understanding of its potential benefits. I believe that the reason for this was purely political and done to alter the perception of abortion from life-destroying to life-supporting because the rhetoric points in that direction. I'm testing that theory here, but naturally this thread has diverged. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
espeir wrote:
But the left continues to embrace it because of its association to fetal destruction.
espeir wrote:
Why is that? And why has industry apparently rejected investment in fetal stem cell research but embraced adult stem cell research?
Because more research is required. Advances do not occur overnight.
espeir wrote:
For the most part they are.
And who is your fearless leader of the monolithic right?
espeir wrote:
but embryonic stem cell research does not hold this promise as was initially believed.
There is no evidence that that is true. Research is in it's infancy, and to say, at this early date, that it is a dead end, is way to permature.
espeir wrote:
But the left continues to embrace it because of its association to fetal destruction.
That is ridiculous. Many people, on the left and right, support research because of the potential to cure many diseases. Nancy Reagan support the research.
dennisd45 wrote:
Because more research is required. Advances do not occur overnight.
Research in embryonic stem cells has been continuing for over 5 years with zero results while adult stem cells have yielded about 65 successful clinical trials in that time. Results may progress slowly but should progress if there is truly any promise.
dennisd45 wrote:
And who is your fearless leader of the monolithic right?
I don't have one. Republicans voted for this bill and I part with them because I'm not blind.
dennisd45 wrote:
There is no evidence that that is true. Research is in it's infancy, and to say, at this early date, that it is a dead end, is way to permature.
Again, I'm not an expert. That's just what the random molecular biologist from MIT who has been conducting stem cell research since 2000 has said.
dennisd45 wrote:
That is ridiculous. Many people, on the left and right, support research because of the potential to cure many diseases. Nancy Reagan support the research.
Many people support it, but the left specifically uses rhetoric that now equates abortion to life. I consider their position anti-science. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
ihoecken wrote:
but they aren't the BIG EVIL in the world.
As a matter of fact, they are. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
Stan Shannon wrote:
As a matter of fact, they are.
Taking a look on you, I think there is at least on evil leftist - and he tries to creep in the right ones, adorn himself with borrowed plumes. :~ Is there nobody you like with another political alignment? ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
Unless it's a virus :) An all encompasing minimum definition of life is tricky. 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
Don't biologists disagree as to whether viruses are considered living? I seem to remember another theoretical lower form of life than a virus (research labs I worked in back in college) that were simple proteins capable of infecting cells and reproducing but otherwise had no function. I can't remember what they were called. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy