Stem cell research

[Hendog]

Stem cell research is controversial and it doesn’t have to be.
The media reports a lot of controversy around stem cell research. What isn’t made clear is that adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cell research successes have been made. Meanwhile no successes have been achieved with embryonic stem cell research. The controversy revolves around the use of embryonic stem cells. But given that achievements are being made with other types of stem cells why do we need to go down the road of embryonic stem cell research? Research with embryos allows researchers to dabble with human cloning “while they’re in there”. Who’s to know whether they’re “doing some of this while they’re doing some of that”? We already have a couple of winning research models, let’s put our efforts behind those; we can do without the controversy.

Lets’ put the distorted media spotlight aside and make it real simple for the masses:
Embryonic stem cell research = Not necessary. End of controversy.
Adult stem cell research = Already making strides
Umbilical cord stem cell research = Already making strides

Read more here: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06110105.html

[jorian]

Please post a unbiased source

Who Produces LifeSite?
The site is affiliated with Interim Publishing and is also closely associated with Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), both organizations being headquartered in Toronto, Canada. LifeSite networks regularly with leaders and other organizations around the world.

Interim Publishing, founded in 1983, produces The Interim, Canada's national life and family newspaper and other publications related to life and family issues.

Campaign Life Coalition, founded in 1978, has been one of the first pro-life organizations to emphasize the international dimension of attacks on life and family. Along with a couple of other groups it pioneered pro-life lobbying at United Nations conferences. CLC president, Jim Hughes, is currently also vice-president of the International Right to Life Federation.
[I]

Henri,

Just as many medical advances take years of R&D to come to fruition, Embryonic Stem Cell Research is still in its infancy (no pun intended). To discount or legislate it because it is controversial or counter to some special interest groups' agendas is not a scientific reason to stop doing so. If science had to ask permission from religious/political groups for every avenue of research we would still be burning 'witches' at the stake.

[kang]

I fail to see the controversy even with embryonic stem cell research. They only use embryos that are going to be discarded anyways. You have an embryo, you can either

1) Throw it away
2) Use it for research

I choose number 2. It’s not like you’re destroying a potential life, like W says. That’s already been done. What they are doing is kind of like using a heart from someone who has been already declared brain dead to save the life of someone who has a bad heart.

And no, there are incentives to provide embryos. It’s not like the donor gets paid or anything. There are already laws about that. For example, you cannot get paid, or compensated in any way, if you donate a kidney.

[cool_chick]

Hendog, I believe it's because of this....

Embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells serve different purposes (medically). You won't ever be able to take an adult stem cell and grow nerves so that a person can walk again...

We would benefit...but differently....from both technologies being developed.

[Moneyguy1]

There weems to be no middle ground on this topic. Logic cannot outshout religious opinion. And this is what it amounts to. SOme say life starts with the instant the sperm and egg meet. No consensus here. Different religions define the beginning of life differently, and the question will never be answered by mere mortals. Question: If embryonic stem cells are one of God's creations, then who is to say they are not there for us to discover ways to eliminate some diseases and undo the damage done by accidents such as paralysis? The strawman argument that embryonic stem cells have not yet resulted in a cure, would have been the kind of argument that, if taken to heat, ewould have discouraged the likes of Doctor Jonas Salk.

I do not know the answer to any of this, but I also do not see the problem since no one can define the time life begins.

Can a zygote feel pain? Can it deflect the needle on an EEG? How do we define consciousness? All questions I cannot answer, since the Creator does not directly confide in me as He does in some others.

[klaucke]

Originally posted by kang
You have an embryo, you can either

1) Throw it away
2) Use it for research

I choose number 2.

Exactly. Tens of thousands of frozen embryo's are discarded every year instead of being used constructively in research in this country. Meanwhile, the rest of the world continues to make much headway in this field. Very, very sad, when you consider what extreme potential there is for medical progress.

[Rick Lee]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
There weems to be no middle ground on this topic. Logic cannot outshout religious opinion.

Well, I'm as agnostic as the day is long and couldn't care less about the religious aspects of this debate. I'm just insulted by the mischaracterization of the whole thing, when people say so and so is against stem cell research. People who oppose spending fed. tax dollars on embryonic stem cell research because it has shown zero promise so far, when adult stem cell research has yielded plenty of tangible results, are often called "anti-stem cell research" or religious zealots. That's not true and it just further pushes me into the camp of those who don't want tax dollars spent on politicizing science and medical issues. FWIW, there are plenty of other fed. spending programs I have problems with too. And my positions on those are also not based on religious grounds.

[nostatic]

lifesite.net appears to be a bunch of unmitigated tripe imho

federal money is the cornerstone of medical research. To abandon a high risk/high reward line of research based on "moral indignation" from a vocal minority is short-sighted at best. Are ethics important? Of course. But the opposition is directly tied to the abortion question, not to rational scientific and ethical debate.

If you're going to wade in on this one, how about all the other funding choices? You want line-item veto over NIH allocations?

[Rick Lee]

There are so many funding choices that chap my a$s, that I wouldn't know where to start. Printing any gov't. document in Spanish might top the list though.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by nostatic
federal money is the cornerstone of medical research.

Why is that? Why must we depend on the government to provide funding for research? Why can't people get private "venture capital" like they do in many other fields? Why can't this be a state funding issue? Why must someone's federal tax dollars be spent on research they have a serious moral objection to?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Stupid religious-based crapola debate. Stem-cell research, whether embryonic or umbilical (and yes, there are differences) has great potential for saving lives and is ultimately victimless. Do it. End of story.

It's just one more area where the ROW laughs their asses off at how backwards and stupid this country is - while they blow our doors off in scientific research. I especially love how Bush and his ilk rant about "educational progress" and how math and science are so important and then take an absolutely retarded position such as they do that discourages scientific advancement, research, discovery or innovation.

20 years from now, the $$$ we all find ourselves spending on gene therapy treatments will all be going to overseas pharmaceutical companies exactly because of this kind of stupidity and bass-ackwards thinking.

If you follow this mentality to its logical conclusion, it won't be long before "America" is a pseudo-theocracy of mud-hut dwelling doofuses not all that different from the third-world "islamofascist" societies we either fear or laugh at.

Religion out of politics. Period. End of discussion. Next stupid non-issue?

[Tim Hancock]

Originally posted by Rick Lee
There are so many funding choices that chap my a$s, that I wouldn't know where to start. Printing any gov't. document in Spanish might top the list though.

I am all for less govt spending, however I would rather see a little more money go towards lifesaving research and a little less going towards welfare.

[Rick Lee]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
Stem-cell research, whether embryonic or umbilical (and yes, there are differences) has great potential for saving lives and is ultimately victimless. Do it. End of story.

Spoken like a Nobel laureate. If this is true, then ESC research should be awash in venture capital, no? Why isn't it then?

[Jim Richards]

A: Wingnuts.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Why is that? Why must we depend on the government to provide funding for research? Why can't people get private "venture capital" like they do in many other fields? Why can't this be a state funding issue? Why must someone's federal tax dollars be spent on research they have a serious moral objection to?

national security. You want the terrorists to win? Keep cutting the amount of basic research this country does. Business skews their research dollar towards quarterly profits. You show me a stsockholder that is willing to wait 10-30 years for a payoff and then I'll show you a "venture capital" firm that will invest in basic scientific research work.

[artplumber]

Some of this was explored elsewhere (MJFox thread). There are significant ethical issues with ESC and embryos in general, because the issue of independent viability remains. Example, divorce results after 6 embryos obtained. Custody of the remaining embryos granted to wife who implants two more over her lifetime, does the ex husband have to pay child support? They are his children biologically at least....

That, for example, has nothing to do with the abortion issue. But even if it did there is no clearly/uniformly applied criteria for life. Currently, there is a practical threshold which is "independent" existence (read premature babies), but this is somewhat a joke as independence actually includes heavy dependance on medical technology for survival.

As to the capabilities of embryonic vs adult stem cells or cord blood, although the proponents would have you believe that there is some unique benefit to embryonic cells, that has not proven to be the case. Cross lineage success is possible with adult stem cells as well. Example, bone marrow (the stuff that makes your blood) and circulating hematological stem cells have been used successfully to regenerate the heart after heart attack.

I'm not for or against frankly, but as always, in public this has become a name-calling over-simplified exercise rather than a critical evaluation of the data.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by artplumber

I'm not for or against frankly, but as always, in public this has become a name-calling over-simplified exercise rather than a critical evaluation of the data.

and to get the data, you have to do the experiments...

[artplumber]

Let me rephrase:

You should seriously consider the ethical dilemmas, and potential benefits of the research (vs other lines of investigation/economics) before choosing to venture down this particular path.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by artplumber
Let me rephrase:

You should seriously consider the ethical dilemmas, and potential benefits of the research (vs other lines of investigation/economics) before choosing to venture down this particular path.

you mean like splitting the atom?

[Jim Richards]

excellent example.