Science Hating President Will Get Chance to Use First Veto

[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 .


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

I beleive this comment just qualified you as the ignorant !

[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

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"


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

[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. Cons ution.

I looked, such a purpose is not found in the U. S. Cons ution...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 en ies 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 en ies 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 fic ious 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, “[Basic research] 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.”

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/G...20050708.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).