Science Hating President Will Get Chance to Use First Veto

[scott]

Well its a good thing he didn't use the opportunity to veto huge pork spending by the legislature the last 4 years, you have to save your big punches for vetoing research that can save lives.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7964239/

House votes
to lift ban
on stem cell funding
Bush promises to veto legislation loosening restrictions on research

WASHINGTON - Ignoring President Bush’s veto threat, the House voted Tuesday to lift limits on embryonic stem cell research, a measure supporters said could accelerate cures for diseases but opponents viewed as akin to abortion.

Bush called the bill a mistake and said he would veto it. The House approved it by a 238-194 vote, far short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a veto.

“This bill would take us across a critical ethical line by creating new incentives for the ongoing destruction of emerging human life,” the president said Tuesday. “Crossing this line would be a great mistake.”

An alternative offered by Republican leaders that would fund research using stem cells derived from adults and umbilical cords rather than from embryos, passed 430-1, with Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, the lone opponent. But the focus was on the embryo bill.

Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said the embryonic research bill would force taxpayers to finance “the dismemberment of living, distinct human beings.”

The rhetoric didn’t sway many Democrats.

“I don’t need a lecture from the majority leader on moral and ethical leadership,” said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., referring to questions that have been raised about DeLay’s travel, fundraising and associations with a lobbyist now under federal criminal investigation.

Supporters of the measure said many embryos that would be studied would otherwise be discarded rather than implanted in the wombs of surrogate mothers. The moral obligation, they argued, rested on Congress to fund research that could lead to cures for diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.

“Being pro-life also means fighting for policies that will eliminate pain and suffering,” said Rep. James R. Langevin, D-R.I., who was paralyzed at 16 in a gun accident.

Many members voted for both measures, saying that together they represented hope for the largest number of people critically ill with diseases that scientists say could be treated or even cured through stem cell research.

To support only one measure, said Rep. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio., would be to “offer hope to some and sympathy to others.”

Bill would lift Bush's 2001 ban
The more controversial bill, sponsored by Reps. Mike Castle, R-Del., and Diana DeGette, D-Colo., would lift Bush’s 2001 ban on federal funding for new research using stem cells from embryos that had not been destroyed before August 2001.

The House vote on the Castle-DeGette bill was intended mostly as a show of force to help propel it through the Senate and, the sponsors hope, into compromise talks with the White House.

In the Senate, Arlen Specter, R-Pa. and Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, asked Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to immediately bring the stem cell issue to the Senate floor. Backers of embryonic stem cell research said the measure was supported by 60 senators, enough to break a filibuster by opponents, and could even get a two-thirds majority that would be enough to overpower a presidential veto.

Emotional debate
The House floor discussion often echoed the emotional terms of the abortion debate and Terri Schiavo’s right-to-die case.

Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, a doctor of obstetrics, played the sound of a fetal heartbeat over the House speaker system, declaring, “This is what it’s all about, folks.”

The bill favored by GOP leaders and Bush was widely supported by members of both parties. Sponsored by Reps. Chris Smith, R-N.J., and Artur Davis, D-Ala., it would provide $79 million to increase stem cell research using umbilical cord blood and establish a national database for patients looking for matches. It also would clear the way for studies on stem cells derived from adults.

The two address very different procedures.

Blood saved from newborns’ umbilical cords is rich in a type of stem cells that produces blood in the same way that transplanted bone marrow produces it. The Institute of Medicine recently estimated that cord blood could help treat about 11,700 Americans a year with leukemia and other devastating diseases, yet most is routinely discarded.

The Castle-DeGette bill deals with embryonic stem cells, which are the building blocks for every tissue in the body. Attempting to harness those stem cells’ regenerative powers is in very early research stages, but many scientists believe it has the potential to one day create breakthrough treatments.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


-----------------

Is there a correlation between the idiocy of the Texas representatives highlighted above and Texas's subpar education standards?

[exstatic]

I hope Bush gets Alzheimers. Ignorant fuck.


Scratch that. I hope Laura gets it, and he has to watch.

[3rdCoast]

I hope Bush gets Alzheimers. Ignorant fuck.


Scratch that. I hope Laura gets it, and he has to watch.

That's not nice.

[Duff McCartney]

Damn...I can't believe some sub-atomic goop is being considered life.

[travis2]

There is no reason to use embryonic stem cells. Much research has already shown that adult and umbilical cells are as good or even better.

Y'all need to actually do some homework instead of letting Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi speak for you.

[JoeChalupa]

There is no reason to use embryonic stem cells. Much research has already shown that adult and umbilical cells are as good or even better.

Y'all need to actually do some homework instead of letting Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi speak for you.

There are plenty of reasons to use embryonic stem cells and perhaps you too should do some homework instead of letting Frist and Dubya speak for you.

Don't you think?

[travis2]

Have you actually looked at the comparative studies between the two? Not the news articles...

For your information, I have done my homework. I expected more from you, Joe...

[JoeChalupa]

Have you actually looked at the comparative studies between the two? Not the news articles...

For your information, I have done my homework. I expected more from you, Joe...

I have done my homework Mr. Travis and my opinion is that stem cell research is good. That is just my opinion.

[travis2]

I have done my homework Mr. Travis and my opinion is that stem cell research is good. That is just my opinion.

Joe, I never said stem cell research should be banned. I specifically said embryonic stem cell.

[Bandit2981]

An alternative offered by Republican leaders that would fund research using stem cells derived from adults and umbilical cords rather than from embryos, passed 430-1, with Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, the lone opponent. But the focus was on the embryo bill.
this solution sounds better to me, 430-1?? you'll almost never see that again.

[travis2]

this solution sounds better to me, 430-1?? you'll almost never see that again.

I have no problem with that alternative either.

[MannyIsGod]

This is just political bullshit either way. It is my understanding that the Koreans are so far ahead of us in this game and this bill addresses research that is already out of date.

In other words, this is a waste of time taht will only serve to give campaigns fuel for their rhetoric. Washington DC is operating normaly.

[SWC Bonfire]

"Science is part of the axis of evil."

Exstatic is now on my ignore list.

[JoeChalupa]

Joe, I never said stem cell research should be banned. I specifically said embryonic stem cell.

I stand corrected. But I do support stem cell research.

[Clandestino]

this is one of the things i totally disagree with bush on...

[Nbadan]

Is there a correlation between the idiocy of the Texas representatives highlighted above and Texas's subpar education standards?

Unfortunately, its doubtful Scott, but I bet there is a correlation between the lack of Federal funding for stem cell research and our Nation getting so far behind in the development of this Science that someday soon we may have third-world class medical treatment in this country.

[ididnotnothat]

As Arlen Specter stated, this "life" (in quotes because it's debatable) is going to be destroyed anyway whether this science is done or not.
Bush isn't speaking out against in vitro fertilization though.
As for the destroy life to save life defense, then what's the purpose of supporting the death penalty?


"I happen to believe that the death penalty, when properly applied, saves lives of others. And so I'm comfortable with my beliefs that there's no contradiction between the two."
—Bush, April 14, 2005

[AFE7FATMAN]

Bush is not banning Research-He is simply refusing to use government funds for it.

Wouldn't it be nice if he refused/banned other things to get government research $? :rolleyes

I think that most voters don't understand this research and are only paying attention to sound bites.

Myself I am for spending the $, but I believe I am in the minority.

[ChumpDumper]

Nancy Reagan spoke out for the research.

Reagan > Bush.

This will pass eventually.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Bush is not banning Research-He is simply refusing to use government funds for it.

Wouldn't it be nice if he refused/banned other things to get government research $? :rolleyes

I think that most voters don't understand this research and are only paying attention to sound bites.

Myself I am for spending the $, but I believe I am in the minority.

Since when did Dubya become fiscally conservative?

[BronxCowboy]

This is understandably a controversial topic. But if in fact the destruction of human embryos is morally wrong, some serious restrictions need to be put on fertility clinics immediately. Anyone who doesn't have the balls/conviction to speak out against the destruction of embryos in that arena doesn't have a leg to stand on when condemning embryonic stem cell research. Unfortunately, I think Manny is right in his assessment that this is all about political jockeying.

[BronxCowboy]

Damn...I can't believe some sub-atomic goop is being considered life.

Human blastocysts, from which embryonic stem cells are extracted, are hardly "sub-atomic goop." If we knew how to extract and manipulate subatomic particles to the extent that we do stem cells, we would be talking about an entirely different realm of technological possibilities. You should have paid attention in school.

[Nbadan]

You should have paid attention in school.

:lol

Nice

:hat

[SWC Bonfire]

From Yahoo:

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer
1 minute ago



WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Friday threw his support behind legislation to expand federal financing for embryonic stem cell research, breaking with President Bush and religious conservatives in a move that could impact his prospects for seeking the White House in 2008.

ADVERTISEMENT

Frist, a heart-lung transplant surgeon who opposes abortion, said modifying Bush's strict limitations on stem cell research would lead to scientific advances and "bridge the moral and ethical differences" that have made the issue politically charged.

"While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitation put into place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases," the Tennessee lawmaker said on the Senate floor.

"Therefore, I believe the president's policy should be modified. We should expand federal funding ... and current guidelines governing stem cell research, carefully and thoughtfully, staying within ethical bounds," he said.

[Johnny Tightlips]

i ain't vetoin' nothin'

[SWC Bonfire]

The media is largely to blame for the confusion over stem cell research.

How many people actually know that "adult" stem cells can come from a human embryo only a few months old? And that "embryonic" stem cells come from embryos only days old?

Someone made a comment about fertility clinics. Well, fertility clinics inject fertilized eggs into the uterus, and some stick, some don't. Britian has taken the lead and is using these rejected embryos for their research. They don't provide absolutely ideal test cells (some are rejected by the mother for a reason), but they are not wasting life in that regard, because they are using "life" that had a chance to develop but for whatever reason did not.

[DrRich]

I hope Bush gets Alzheimers. Ignorant fuck.


Scratch that. I hope Laura gets it, and he has to watch.

I beleive this comment just qualified you as the ignorant fuck! :rolleyes

[JoeChalupa]

Looks like Bill Frist is breaking away from Dubya, no doubt to build clout for his own presidential bid in '08.

Frist backs increased Federal Stem Cell Funding (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/29/frist.stem.cells.ap/index.html)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Friday threw his support behind House-passed legislation to expand federal financing for human embryonic stem cell research, breaking with President Bush and religious conservatives in a move that could impact his prospects for seeking the White House in 2008.

"It's not just a matter of faith, it's a matter of science," Frist, R-Tennessee, said on the floor of the Senate.

Frist's announcement immediately dented his support among Christian conservatives but won lavish praise from former first lady Nancy Reagan, who said it "has the potential to alleviate so much suffering." Her husband, the late former President Ronald Reagan, had Alzheimer's disease.

~~I support the research.

[DrRich]

The fact still remains that embyonic stem cell have not produced any decent result in treating human disease while adult stem cell research has!

It's not like ESCR is illegal. Let some private company do all the research that they want. If, and that's a big if, they ever start showing viable results then we can revisit the federal funding issue.

[SWC Bonfire]

Not to sound like a blatent homer, but no advancements have been made with ESCR mainly because it is not a priority in the US. The rest of the world will have a hard time doing so without contributions from the premiere scientific country in the world.

I think that there are ethical ways of doing this, such as the leftover embryos from invitro fertilization. These embryos at least had a "fighting" chance to develop.

[jochhejaam]

Quote from Duff McCartney: "Damn...I can't believe some sub-atomic goop is being considered life".


Human blastocysts, from which embryonic stem cells are extracted, are hardly "sub-atomic goop." If we knew how to extract and manipulate subatomic particles to the extent that we do stem cells, we would be talking about an entirely different realm of technological possibilities. You should have paid attention in school.


Duff has officially been "McSchooled" :oops :lol


Blastocysts, now there's a word you don't hear every day. Where's Mr. Dictionary when you need him? :lol

[The Ressurrected One]

Damn...I can't believe some sub-atomic goop is being considered life.
Well, it's actually not "sub-atomic" but, I get your drift...anyway, consider this, you were that "sub-atomic goop" not long ago.

[Nbadan]

Well, it's actually not "sub-atomic" but, I get your drift...anyway, consider this, you were that "sub-atomic goop" not long ago.

The difference being, of course, that Duff was planted in a human host that was capable of conception, while the rest of the frozen fertilized embyros were not. This isn't a right to life issue, its a issue about personal property rights.

[The Ressurrected One]

The difference being, of course, that Duff was planted in a human host that was capable of conception, while the rest of the frozen fertilized embyros were not. This isn't a right to life issue, its a issue about personal property rights.
Well, not wanting to get into another pointless and fruitless debate over right-to-life, I'll put my personal feelings aside. Just let me say that I'm opposed to federal dollars being spent on experimental research -- or anything for that matter -- that is already being conducted by the private sector or is not specifically enumerated in the U. S. Constitution.

I looked, such a purpose is not found in the U. S. Constitution...generally or specifically.

[JoeChalupa]

I support Frist on this one.

[travis2]

I don't.

[Vashner]

"Science hater" ... you smoke crack?

[gtownspur]

Bush has been the only president to fund stem cell research. Bill Clinton had a chance i thought but he didnt in his term. so as far as the science hating tag, that is half ass half brain charectarization from scott.

[travis2]

"Science hater" ... you smoke crack?

You talking to me?

[travis2]

Just so we're clear...DrRich hit the nail squarely on the head.


The fact still remains that embyonic stem cell have not produced any decent result in treating human disease while adult stem cell research has!

It's not like ESCR is illegal. Let some private company do all the research that they want. If, and that's a big if, they ever start showing viable results then we can revisit the federal funding issue.

[exstatic]

The fact still remains that embyonic stem cell have not produced any decent result in treating human disease while adult stem cell research has!
Is ASCR federally funded? Thought so....

It's not like ESCR is illegal. Let some private company do all the research that they want. If, and that's a big if, they ever start showing viable results then we can revisit the federal funding issue.
Except that we won't. The Fundys rationale has never been about lack of results. That's just a smoke screen to draw support, or at least quell opposition. Research could show it to be the cure for cancer, AIDS, and a guarantee of a 200 year lifespan, and they'd still shoot it down. They fail to fund it because THEY DON'T WANT IT TO SHOW RESULTS. I'll repeat that. THEY DON'T WANT IT TO SHOW RESULTS. Good results in even one area push undecideds firmly OUT of the Anti-abortion arena. Roe v Wade never gets overturned.

[travis2]

As usual, you swallow the NBADan kool-aid and blame it all on the nasty "fundys".

Well there are plenty of scientifically-literate non-fundies out there who actually take the time to read the science who disagree with your strictly political posturing.

[DrRich]

Is ASCR federally funded? Thought so....

Except that we won't. The Fundys rationale has never been about lack of results. That's just a smoke screen to draw support, or at least quell opposition. Research could(BIG MAYBE THERE) show it to be the cure for cancer, AIDS, and a guarantee of a 200 year lifespan, and they'd still shoot it down. They fail to fund it because THEY DON'T WANT IT TO SHOW RESULTS. I'll repeat that. THEY DON'T WANT IT TO SHOW RESULTS. Good results in even one area push undecideds firmly OUT of the Anti-abortion arena. Roe v Wade never gets overturned.

This coming form the idiot that wishes a dreadful disease on someone just because he doesn't like him!

The fact remains why not support the research that has already and I repeat already yielded favorable results over one which has offered virtually nothing except a lot of could possiblies and mights!. Oh thats right some people want to drag this into the abortion issue!!

This is not really an abortion issue because the majority of the stem cell come from unharvested fertilized eggs from fertility clinics. I personally do not see the coorelation between the two issues, beside the fact that they both involve the destruction of a human fetus!

[exstatic]

This coming form the idiot that wishes a dreadful disease on someone just because he doesn't like him!
Actually, I wished it on him for denying the research. It would serve him right to have to cope with something that could have been cured by something he blocked. He shouldn't be exempt from the suffering that he's prolonging for others.

The fact remains why not support the research that has already and I repeat already yielded favorable results over one which has offered virtually nothing except a lot of could possiblies and mights!
AGAIN, I'm not saying to abandon ASCR. It will have it's uses, but it's pretty well accepted that ESCs can turn into more different kinds of tissue than ASCs. This will probably be a crucial distinction when it comes to matters of nerve or brain tissue regeneration, neither of which happen in adults. As for the "possiblies and mights", we won't find out without the research. Private entities just don't have the funding to keep up with publicly funded research in other countries, so we'll get beaten to that punch, the patents and capital will go offshore, and the process won't be stopped, it'll just be German or French or Swiss, and they'll reap the rewards. Believe me, the GOP fools will be first in line if a loved one has Parkinsons, heart damage, or a severed spinal cord, Senator Brownshirt probably first of all.

[JoeChalupa]

Fund it.

[scott]

The fact remains why not support the research that has already and I repeat already yielded favorable results over one which has offered virtually nothing except a lot of could possiblies and mights!

If we didn't pursue research in areas that have to date only yielded "could be's" and "mights", then we never have any innovation.

ASCR and ESCR are obviously not mutually exclusive.

[travis2]

Actually, I wished it on him for denying the research. It would serve him right to have to cope with something that could have been cured by something he blocked. He shouldn't be exempt from the suffering that he's prolonging for others.

I think it would be more appropriate for assholes like you to have to suffer.


AGAIN, I'm not saying to abandon ASCR. It will have it's uses, but it's pretty well accepted that ESCs can turn into more different kinds of tissue than ASCs. This will probably be a crucial distinction when it comes to matters of nerve or brain tissue regeneration, neither of which happen in adults. As for the "possiblies and mights", we won't find out without the research. Private entities just don't have the funding to keep up with publicly funded research in other countries, so we'll get beaten to that punch, the patents and capital will go offshore, and the process won't be stopped, it'll just be German or French or Swiss, and they'll reap the rewards. Believe me, the GOP fools will be first in line if a loved one has Parkinsons, heart damage, or a severed spinal cord, Senator Brownshirt probably first of all.

WRONG AGAIN!!


Stem Cell Tales of Hope and Hype
Jean Swenson (archive)


July 8, 2005 | Print | Recommend to a friend


We all remember the fairy tale about the Emperor swindled into believing his new clothing was the finest available. When he paraded through the streets wearing nothing but imaginary apparel, a child cried out, “But he has nothing on at all!”

As a quadriplegic who could possibly benefit from stem cell research, I fear many of us are being sold an imaginary garment of hope—a fictitious belief that embryonic stem cells will cure us.

In reality, no such cures exist now or in the near future. Like the truthful child we must cry out, “But there is nothing here at all!”

Stem cells, found in embryos, umbilical cord blood, and adults, can change into specialized cell types. Their value lies in replacing diseased or damaged tissues. However, embryonic stem (ES) cells have serious problems that currently prevent human use. Adult and cord blood cells do not, and are already being used to treat nearly sixty conditions. (See www.stemcellresearch.org )

For over twenty years scientists, using animal ES cells, have failed to solve the same roadblocks faced by researchers working on human ES cells. Problems such as tumor formation, tissue rejection, and genetic instability are enormously complex and must be overcome before ES cells can have medical applications.

The Lancet, a British medical journal that favors ES cell research, calls cure headlines “sensationalist” and “hype.” In fact, this journal reports that “no safe and effective [embryonic] stem cell therapy will be widely available for at least a decade, and possibly longer.”

According to Cornell University stem cell scientist Shahin Rafii, “Just injecting stem cells is not going to work. First, you have to be able to differentiate the cells into functional, transplantable tissues. We don’t really know how to do this yet.”

Many ES cell researchers acknowledge that ES cells are more useful for basic research than for cure applications. James Thompson, who first isolated human ES cells in 1998, states, “ is the most important legacy [of ES cells].” He adds, “I’m very hopeful that there will be some transplantation applications for this technology, but they’re going to be very challenging. And it’s been so hyped in the press that people expect it to come the day after tomorrow.”

[b]People who want government to fund ES cell research are expecting taxpayers to pay for science projects that knowledgeable investors will not. William Haseltine, ES cell research advocate and CEO of Human Genome Sciences said, “The routine utilization of human embryonic stem cells for medicine is 20 to 30 years hence. The timeline to commercialization is so long that I simply would not invest. You may notice that our company has not made such investments.”

Those serious about clinical trials and treatments—not just basic research—are using adult stem cells or cord blood. The Spinal Cord Society (SCS), based in Fergus Falls, MN, with 200 chapters worldwide, is on the cutting edge of spinal cord applied research, meaning they’re trying to find treatments that really work. SCS will be starting human trials using cells from patients’ own nasal cavities. SCS leadership have said they would use ES cells “if they worked for us.” But because of ES cell medical problems, SCS is currently pursuing adult stem cells and avoiding embryonic

Russian scientist Dr. Andrey Bryukhovetskiy has tried both ES cells and adult stem cells in his quest for spinal cord injury cure. He has concluded that adult cells are much more effective than ES cells in restoring function.

After President Reagan died, people were led to believe that Alzheimer’s could be cured by ES cells. Yet, according to Alzheimer researcher Michael Shelanski, “The chance of doing repairs to Alzheimer's brains by putting in stem cells is small. I personally think we're going to get other therapies for Alzheimer's a lot sooner.”

Stem cell researcher Ron McKay, in a Washington Post article, attempted to explain this distortion. He said, “To start with, people need a fairy tale. Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand.”

We’re watching this fairy tale play out. Like the Emperor's swindlers, many prey on the well-intentioned and desperate with imaginary promises of ES cell cures. It’s time we face the truth about the bogus embryonic stem cell story we’ve been sold, and focus precious resources on adult stem cell and cord blood treatments that work.

Jean Swenson is a quadriplegic from a 1980 spinal cord injury. For over twenty years she has been following and supporting spinal cord injury cure research. You may contact her at jswenson -at- usfamily.net .

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Swenson20050708.shtml

The real Hitler-ites are people like you who just follow the political winds of your "democratic" masters and advocate imposing their twisted views of reality on people instead of actually doing your homework.

[scott]

However, embryonic stem (ES) cells have serious problems that currently prevent human use.

Key word: currently?


People who want government to fund ES cell research are expecting taxpayers to pay for science projects that knowledgeable investors will not.

This sounds like a lot of spin to me.


“The routine utilization of human embryonic stem cells for medicine is 20 to 30 years hence. The timeline to commercialization is so long that I simply would not invest. You may notice that our company has not made such investments.”

From this statement, used to support the previous one - it sounds like investors won't go into ESCR because of the time line, not because they are knowledgble that it won't yield valuable results.

Should we avoid any research that may take more than a few years to develop because of concerns related to commercialization? I hope not, otherwise medical research will be limited to the highest IRR projects in shorter time horizons... and there goes your AIDS, Cancer, etc. research.

I understand some people's reservations regarding ESCR, but I don't sign how combatting unknowledgable takes with spin makes your opinion any more enlightened, travis.

[travis2]

Key word: currently?



This sounds like a lot of spin to me.



From this statement, used to support the previous one - it sounds like investors won't go into ESCR because of the time line, not because they are knowledgble that it won't yield valuable results.

Should we avoid any research that may take more than a few years to develop because of concerns related to commercialization? I hope not, otherwise medical research will be limited to the highest IRR projects in shorter time horizons... and there goes your AIDS, Cancer, etc. research.

I understand some people's reservations regarding ESCR, but I don't sign how combatting unknowledgable takes with spin makes your opinion any more enlightened, travis.

Why screw around with things that right now morph into deadly things when there's already something that works?

I don't understand your so-called logic. Absolutely nothing positive has been shown. Anywhere. Worldwide.

You need to support your stance...not me.

[smeagol]

I'm with travis on this one (even though Scott has labeled me a commie-lover).

[scott]

Why screw around with things that right now morph into deadly things when there's already something that works?

I don't understand your so-called logic. Absolutely nothing positive has been shown. Anywhere. Worldwide.

You need to support your stance...not me.

Do you deny that there is potential for ESCR to do things that ASCR can't do? Without full research, how can you tell?

I won't argue whether or not any promise has been shown in the research to date- I don't keep up with it. But there are people who believe it shows promise and want to research, indicating there is some potential. Either that, or they just want to destroy embryos?

What logic do you want me to support? I am not making any claims for ASCR - but for research in general. Innovation relies on exploring new things, does it not? Until it has been determined that ESCR is not at all capable of doing things ASCR cannot... there is the incentive for research.

I don't know whether ESCR has shown that potential, but from the article you posted, it didn't seem like it is definitive that it hasn't... just that long-term research doesn't suit the demands of shareholders (as an aside, where would AIDS, cancer, and alzheimers be without federal funding? I don't think the market alone would have supported those causes).

[scott]

PS, travis, I invite you to post links to any research that can pursuade me. I admit to not being at all knowledgable of research in this area. All my statements are based on my opinions of research in general.

[travis2]

PS, travis, I invite you to post links to any research that can pursuade me. I admit to not being at all knowledgable of research in this area. All my statements are based on my opinions of research in general.
Scott, try here. I freely admit it is an "advocacy" site...

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/index.html

[scott]

Even though I was a bit discouraged when I saw this:


Do the Math: Experimental Cloning Exploits Women

I gave your website a decent look. The article don't appear to claim that ESCR has no potential to do what ASCR cannot - just that it hasn't to date. I stand by my position that the lack of evidence to date shouldn't be reason to discontinue further research efforts.

[Duff McCartney]

The first soap was made from the ashes of heroes, like the first monkey shot into space. Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.

[travis2]

The first soap was made from the ashes of heroes, like the first monkey shot into space. Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.

Fine. Why don't we just make you into soap and call it even, asshole?

[Spam]

The first soap was made from the ashes of heroes, like the first monkey shot into space. Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.

How true.