Why not do this research with non-embryonic stem cell lines? A. Non-embryonic stem cell lines involve cells that are more differentiated and thus less capable of being programmed into various cell lines. Simply put, as the cell line ages it loses its capability to differentiate itself into various tissues and thus is less useful. An aging stem cell doesn't quite have the luxury of dividing into all these cell lines. Q. What kind of medical breakthroughs are expected by this research? Ok, here ya go Huck Finn A. Scientists hope that stem cell research will lead to cures for such diseases as heart disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and perhaps even spinal cord regeneration, to name a few. Again, however, the stem cell research has not been used to cure any diseases at this time. Q. How do scientists hope to create the breakthroughs with the cells? A. By growing these cell lines, they may be able to treat many existing diseases by actually replacing damaged cells with new ones from the laboratory. It's incredibly exciting, the idea that we might actually take these cells, for example, to develop some heart tissue, inject some of those cells into a heart that has been damaged and restore some of the function of that heart. Stem cell research is a very exciting area of research. http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/07/11/gupta.debrief.otsc/
The supposed advantages of embryonic stem cells are purely theoretical, while non-embryonic stem cells have already proven beneficial. See the links I cited in post #23 of this thread.
Yep, but it's mostly the pharmaceutical companies telling the government to be against it, because it's the pharmaceutical companies profitting off AIDS and Cancer, if they were to cure them, they would lose a lot of money. Peace and Love, Dan
Huck is only interested in saving babies. What happens to the babies when they are adults he doesn't give two shits about. Babies are at risk for cancer too, ya know
(This was posted on the "Abortion" thread, but I'm replying here instead.) If ova could truly be "tricked" into producing stem cells without cloning, then I would have no problem with this. Unlike embryos, gametes are not humans.
Stem cell research is good. Self induced ignorance is bad. Banning stem cell research = self induced ignorance. That's my opinion anyway.
If you don't like ignorance, you should be aware that private embryonic stem cell research is perfectly legal but it has yet to prove beneficial, while publicly funded non-embryonic stem cell research has already yielded many substantial benefits. You might also be interested to know that Bush's opposition to all human cloning is shared by much of the rest of the world. Britain is almost alone in its support for research cloning.
My point was that Bush has hardly "banned" stem cell research. Also, there's a fair amount privately funded non-embryonic stem cell research. Companies have shown very little interest in funding embryonic stem-cell research because it doesn't look like a very worthwhile investment. Now there's a great country to emulate . . .
Is that clearer? I never claimed we should emulate them, however in this particular aspect I don't think it would be such a bad idea.
From another thread: First, I've never heard of aborted fetuses being used as sources of stem cells, but live human embryos. Second, the development of miracle cures from embryonic stem cells is pure speculation, in contrast to the proven benefits of non-embryonic stem cells.
Bush hasn't "banned" any privately funded stem cell research. This describes non-embryonic stem cell research, which is fully eligible for federal funding. Again, Bush has only restricted federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Fall behind whom? As I've already noted, most industrialized countries support comprehensive bans on human cloning, both for reproductive and research purposes.
Well I wasn't talking specifically about stem cells, we are falling behind in science and education in general. And it will be devestating to our economy. We became a super-power by being ahead of the rest. If we want to keep that position we need to stay ahead of the rest. Otherwise it WILL hurt our economy. Here are a few links, but a little research on the topic will give you quite a bit of information. http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/06/science.education.ap/ http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/uselection/article.jsp?id=ns99996484 http://www.iseek.org/sv/21010.jsp?fwa=fw/fw4924.jsp&id=4924
then we need to completely revamp our school system and get rid of all the BS that has been introduced in the past 20 years.
I'm not sure what you consider the "BS" but I would have to agree with you that we need to revamp our school system. Even at the university level we are getting a lot less foreign students than we used to. But I guess all this is for a different thread, I just wanted to reply to Huck's post, clarify a bit, and give him some info.
the foreign students is because of the visa problems, not the education. Our college education is superb, especially at the graduate level.
What other countries besides Britain? Several Western European countries have banned human cloning; they must be caving to the sinister religious right. Once again? Embryonic stem cell research has never been federally funded. First, a human embryo is no mere "fertilized egg." At one week, they've grown exponentially from the time of conception. Second, research labs would quickly exhaust the supply of embryos from fertility clinics; their ultimate aim is the creation of a new human cloning industry. Third, frozen embryos need not be destroyed; they can be adopted. I would say that the creation of "expendable" human embryos is immoral. I personally wouldn't mind if IVF were banned altogether. At the very least, these clinics shouldn't be allowed to produce more embryos than can safely be implanted in a single procedure.
