# Success with stem cells



## alan1 (Jan 4, 2009)

There have been numerous medical success's using adult stem cells for treatment.
Can anybody provide a link to show successful medical treatments that used embryonic or fetal stem cells?
I'm starting to think science should focus on what works.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 4, 2009)

Science, like anything else, should pay its own freight.

If stem cells, embryonic or otherwise, are the supposed miracle cure for anything and everything, then investors who smell a profit will provide the proper capitalization for research.


----------



## Svante (Jan 4, 2009)

BatBoy said:


> There have been numerous medical success's using adult stem cells for treatment.
> Can anybody provide a link to show successful medical treatments that used embryonic or fetal stem cells?
> I'm starting to think science should focus on what works.



these are universitet that d o stem cell researc h for diabetes and othre disease.

Center for Stem Cell & Regenerative Medicine 

CSCRM - Center for Stem Cell & Regenerative Medicine

universitet o f Toronto as Lopetta she quote

Toronto Stem Cell Initiative- Home

fro m m y thread an USMB

http://www.usmessageboard.com/health-and-lifestyle/66327-type-1-diabetes.html



> quote fro m Lopettaa
> 
> Quote:
> As many people know, stem cells are important. They can be obtained from the placenta and umbilical cord after birth. It is effective because immune system will not reject our own stem cells.
> ...


----------



## alan1 (Jan 4, 2009)

Svante said:


> these are universitet that d o stem cell researc h for diabetes and othre disease.
> 
> Center for Stem Cell & Regenerative Medicine
> 
> ...



Thanks, but none of those links show specific medical treatment success's involving fetal or embryonic stem cells.


----------



## Svante (Jan 4, 2009)

BatBoy said:


> Thanks, but none of those links show specific medical treatment success's involving fetal or embryonic stem cells.



i g o to clevelend clinic few years befojr with m y family.we speak with Dr Jansen and Dr Penn abaout this research.Lopetta she know the person i n Universitet o f Toronto s o i will ask her.


----------



## KittenKoder (Jan 4, 2009)

Okay ... laughable at best. Adult or embryonic isn't the issue, a stem cell is still a stem cell, the difference is the quantity they can gain. Making stem cells from adults is very costly and extremely difficult, but a fetus has a lot that are already grown. Honestly, if they already died why waste their non-lives and just toss them in the garbage when you can at least make it mean something? Even pro-lifers should be for this since it give some meaning to the wasted life.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 6, 2009)

Dude said:


> Science, like anything else, should pay its own freight.
> 
> If stem cells, embryonic or otherwise, are the supposed miracle cure for anything and everything, then investors who smell a profit will provide the proper capitalization for research.



You can always tell where the REAL potential is by where the private venture capital is.  If a line of research MUST have government funding to even exist, it's a waste of time.


----------



## Agnapostate (Jan 6, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> You can always tell where the REAL potential is by where the private venture capital is.  If a line of research MUST have government funding to even exist, it's a waste of time.



That's a fairly standard fallacy of perfect competition. As I have mentioned time and time again, even orthodox economists reject the premise of perfect competition, as evidenced by the development of monopsony theory. Unsurprisingly, the potential for utility maximization lies apart from the potential for profit maximization.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 6, 2009)

No competition is ever perfect and perfection is not even an option.

Unless, of course, if you're  politicians and bureaucrats, who thrive on contrived and needless division and waste, and need the illusion of "perfection" to keep your phony baloney job.


----------



## Agnapostate (Jan 6, 2009)

...Hence no market is ever legitimately free. But why do I doubt that you will reach this conclusion with me?


----------



## Luissa (Jan 6, 2009)

BatBoy said:


> There have been numerous medical success's using adult stem cells for treatment.
> Can anybody provide a link to show successful medical treatments that used embryonic or fetal stem cells?
> I'm starting to think science should focus on what works.


ever think because one has more funding then other along with one having more regulations then the other! I agree with Kitten also, if the fetus is already being aborted why not put it to good use!


----------



## Oddball (Jan 6, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> ...Hence no market is ever legitimately free. But why do I doubt that you will reach this conclusion with me?


That all depende upon how you define "freedom".

Personally, I find defining at in terms of "freedom *from*" gives inordinate legitemacy and focus to one's fears, and leads to life in endless reaction to those fears. 

OTOH, the horizons of "freedom* to*" are virtually limitless.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 6, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> ....Honestly, if [fetuses] already died why waste their non-lives and just toss them in the garbage when you can at least make it mean something? Even pro-lifers should be for this since it give some meaning to the wasted life.



So you *agree *with GW Bush's decision to finance research on existing fetal cell lines.


----------



## KittenKoder (Jan 6, 2009)

glockmail said:


> So you *agree *with GW Bush's decision to finance research on existing fetal cell lines.



I have said Bush is an idiot, not mindless. One is possible to agree with someone sometimes but not most of the time. If I met him in person I would pick his brain as I would anyone else, but never would I respect someone who can't even read a book for children much less read a speech well enough that I laugh at every attempt to use common phrases.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 6, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> I have said Bush is an idiot, not mindless. One is possible to agree with someone sometimes but not most of the time. If I met him in person I would pick his brain as I would anyone else, but never would I respect someone who can't even read a book for children much less read a speech well enough that I laugh at every attempt to use common phrases.


Your insults and deflections cannot mask the fact the GW Bush made a _brilliant _decision on embryonic stem cell research, and one that no sane person can disagree with, not even you.


----------



## alan1 (Jan 6, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Okay ... laughable at best. Adult or embryonic isn't the issue, a stem cell is still a stem cell, the difference is the quantity they can gain. Making stem cells from adults is very costly and extremely difficult, but a fetus has a lot that are already grown. Honestly, if they already died why waste their non-lives and just toss them in the garbage when you can at least make it mean something? Even pro-lifers should be for this since it give some meaning to the wasted life.



Actually, adult stem cells are not that difficult to come by, and they offer some good advantages.

Adult Stem Cell Advantages
1. *Special adult-type stem cells from bone marrow and from umbilical cord have been isolated recently which appear to be as flexible as the embryonic type*
2. Already somewhat specializedinducement may be simpler
3. Not immunogenicrecipients who receive the products of their own stem cells will not experience immune rejection
4. Relative ease of procurementsome adult stem cells are easy to harvest (skin, muscle, marrow, fat), while others may be more difficult to obtain (brain stem cells). Umbilical and placental stem cells are likely to be readily available
5. Non-tumorigenictend not to form tumors
6. No harm done to the donor


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 6, 2009)

Luissa said:


> ever think because one has more funding then other along with one having more regulations then the other! I agree with Kitten also, if the fetus is already being aborted why not put it to good use!



Maybe because ESCR can't possibly be fueled merely by already-existing fetuses being aborted, and would require more to be created specifically for that purpose?  Or how about because a current lack of moral fiber doesn't justify lessening of said fiber to an even greater extent?


----------



## alan1 (Jan 6, 2009)

Luissa said:


> *ever think because one has more funding then other *along with one having more regulations then the other! I agree with Kitten also, if the fetus is already being aborted why not put it to good use!



If the funding is coming from the private sector, why do you think that is?
Personally, I think the government has no business funding either one.


----------



## Svante (Jan 20, 2009)

glockmail said:


> So you *agree *with GW Bush's decision to finance research on existing fetal cell lines.



i think Bush h e i s against research for stem cells.president Obama will lead research for this.


----------



## Svante (Jan 20, 2009)

BatBoy said:


> If the funding is coming from the private sector, why do you think that is?
> Personally, I think the government has no business funding either one.



je ne consens, the gouvernement must fund research and i hope president Obama h e do this.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 22, 2009)

Svante said:


> i think Bush h e i s against research for stem cells.president Obama will lead research for this.



I think you should learn to operate your keyboard better than my cat could before presuming to pronounce on things you obviously know nothing about.  Your illegible posts are just about on my last nerve.


----------



## Agnapostate (Jan 22, 2009)

The word has been spoken.


----------



## Missourian (Jan 22, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I think you should learn to operate your keyboard better than my cat could before presuming to pronounce on things you obviously know nothing about.  Your illegible posts are just about on my last nerve.




I believe Svante is from one of the Nordic Countries of Northern Europe.

He does a far better job than I would trying to communicate with him is his language as I only speak  English, American, Canadian and I can get by in Australian in a pinch.


----------



## michiganFats (Jan 23, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> That's a fairly standard fallacy of perfect competition. As I have mentioned time and time again, even orthodox economists reject the premise of perfect competition, as evidenced by the development of monopsony theory. Unsurprisingly, the potential for utility maximization lies apart from the potential for profit maximization.



Is it just me, or has Agna just achieved bureaucratic doublespeak nirvana?


----------



## Agnapostate (Jan 23, 2009)

michiganFats said:


> Is it just me, or has Agna just achieved bureaucratic doublespeak nirvana?



I believe I achieved that a while ago. Shall we discuss the impossibility of viable general equilibrium or any legitimate Walrasian auctioneer status?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 24, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Science, like anything else, should pay its own freight.
> ...



Of course you can. And when you see a government program that goes over budget by a factor of ten, does not achieve it's primary objective, and takes twice as long as planned, you understand why people hate government programs. The program referred to was the Lewis and Clark Expedition. All too often, in exploration, be it scientific or physical, what we find by accident, is more important that what we were looking for.


----------



## alan1 (Jan 24, 2009)

All these posts, and still nary a success of embryonic stemcells.


----------



## taimie (Jan 25, 2009)

Please do a search for:

Open Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research - The Petition Site & sign - less than 3,000 to reach goal.

Sorry this site will not let me post direct link yet


Thank You!
Taimie


----------



## alan1 (Oct 22, 2011)

MountainMan said:


> There have been numerous medical success's using adult stem cells for treatment.
> Can anybody provide a link to show successful medical treatments that used embryonic or fetal stem cells?
> I'm starting to think science should focus on what works.




2 years 9 months later.

I ask the same question.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 22, 2011)

*What are the similarities and differences between embryonic and adult stem cells?

Human embryonic and adult stem cells each have advantages and disadvantages regarding potential use for cell-based regenerative therapies. One major difference between adult and embryonic stem cells is their different abilities in the number and type of differentiated cell types they can become. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are thought to be limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin.

Embryonic stem cells can be grown relatively easily in culture. Adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues, so isolating these cells from an adult tissue is challenging, and methods to expand their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out. This is an important distinction, as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies.


...


Scientists believe that tissues derived from embryonic and adult stem cells may differ in the likelihood of being rejected after transplantation. We don't yet know whether tissues derived from embryonic stem cells would cause transplant rejection, since the first phase 1 clinical trials testing the safety of cells derived from hESCS have only recently been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
*


What are the similarities and differences between embryonic and adult stem cells? [Stem Cell Information]


----------



## Valerie (Oct 22, 2011)

> October 6, 2011
> 
> *Scientists hail gain in human embryonic stem cell research*
> 
> ...



Scientists hail gain in human embryonic stem cell research - CNN.com


----------



## alan1 (Oct 22, 2011)

Valerie said:


> *What are the similarities and differences between embryonic and adult stem cells?
> 
> Human embryonic and adult stem cells each have advantages and disadvantages regarding potential use for cell-based regenerative therapies. One major difference between adult and embryonic stem cells is their different abilities in the number and type of differentiated cell types they can become. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are thought to be limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin.
> 
> ...



Still not a successful treatment derived from embryonic/fetal stem cells.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 22, 2011)

MountainMan said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > *What are the similarities and differences between embryonic and adult stem cells?
> ...





Research and clinical trials take time... 


*clinical trials testing the safety of cells derived from hESCS have only recently been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)*


----------



## Valerie (Oct 22, 2011)

> 03.07.03
> 
> 
> The doctors did offer an alternative: Bonnville could become the first human to receive experimental stem-cell therapy to revive his damaged heart tissue. They went ahead with the procedure, the results of which could turn the stem-cell debate on its head.
> ...



Stem Cells Heal a Broken Heart


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 22, 2011)

Valerie said:


> > 03.07.03
> >
> >
> > The doctors did offer an alternative: Bonnville could become the first human to receive experimental stem-cell therapy to revive his damaged heart tissue. They went ahead with the procedure, the results of which could turn the stem-cell debate on its head.
> ...



Did you bother to read your own frigging article, you silly bitch, or did you just grab on to the fraudulent headline and run with it?  From your article:

_The teenager's therapy began Feb. 17 with a four-day regimen of a drug that *stimulated the production of stem cells in his blood. On Feb. 21, doctors harvested Bonnville's stem cells.* Using a heart catheter, they transplanted the stem cells into the artery that supplies blood to the front of the heart. _

They used HIS OWN STEM CELLS.  And since the guy in question was a teenager, I'm going to guess he wasn't an embryo, ergo they would not have been embryonic stem cells.

Sit down and have a nice cup of shut the hell up until you can say something intelligent.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 22, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > > 03.07.03
> ...






  Oh aren't you sweet... I won't be shutting up any time soon you crazy beeyatch.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 22, 2011)

_Doctors at William Beaumont Hospital in Royal Oak, Michigan, used a procedure that, if successful, could eliminate some of the controversy surrounding the medical use of embryonic stem cells, as well as the practice of therapeutic cloning._






> 2003
> 
> 
> 
> ...



index - Garden Health


----------



## Valerie (Oct 22, 2011)

Valerie said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...








> August 24, 2010
> 
> 
> In the last days of July, the Food and Drug Administration gave the green light to a clinical trial that has been nearly a decade in the making. The federal agency approved a test of some of the first fruits of human-embryonic-stem-cell research, in a new therapy that could help patients recover from spinal-cord injury.
> ...




Stem-Cell Research Backed by a Company Advances to First Human Therapy Test - Research - The Chronicle of Higher Education


----------



## alan1 (Oct 22, 2011)

Valerie said:


> > 03.07.03
> >
> >
> > The doctors did offer an alternative: Bonnville could become the first human to receive experimental stem-cell therapy to revive his damaged heart tissue. They went ahead with the procedure, the results of which could turn the stem-cell debate on its head.
> ...



And yet another article that pretends that adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells are the same.
I'm still waiting for the proof that embryonic stem cells can actually cure anything.  We already know that adult stem cells can and do.
Articles like the above just muddy the waters and folk like Valerie fall for it.


----------



## alan1 (Oct 22, 2011)

Valerie said:


> _Doctors at William Beaumont Hospital in Royal Oak, Michigan, used a procedure that, if successful, could eliminate some of the controversy surrounding the medical use of embryonic stem cells, as well as the practice of therapeutic cloning._
> 
> 
> 
> ...


See part in red.
You are supporting my OP despite trying to deny it.


----------



## alan1 (Oct 22, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



Clinical trials are not successful treatments, they are, well, clinical trials.
I asked for proof of successful treatment and you want to give clinical trials as your proof of of success?
Are you serious?


----------



## Valerie (Oct 22, 2011)

MountainMan said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...






  Where have I said I want to give clinical trials as PROOF of anything.  Only an idiot who doesn't COMPREHEND what's been posted would think THAT!


----------



## Valerie (Oct 22, 2011)

MountainMan said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...






The question remains WHY would a person who KNOWS (assuming you're not an idiot) there currently exists NO SUCH PROOF, why would you pretend that there MIGHT be proof...?  AS IF anyone not currently posting PROOF here makes YOU some kind of WINNER...?    Sad that you don't understand SCIENCE and clinical trials.


----------



## alan1 (Oct 22, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Where have I said I want to give clinical trials as PROOF of anything.  Only an idiot who doesn't COMPREHEND what's been posted would think THAT!



What did I ask in the OP?

And yet you want to implicate lack of comprehension on my part?
Seriously?


----------



## alan1 (Oct 22, 2011)

Valerie said:


> The question remains WHY would a person who KNOWS (assuming you're not an idiot) there currently exists NO SUCH PROOF, why would you pretend that there MIGHT be proof...?  AS IF anyone not currently posting PROOF here makes YOU some kind of WINNER...?    Sad that you don't understand SCIENCE and clinical trials.


See above post.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 22, 2011)

MountainMan said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Where have I said I want to give clinical trials as PROOF of anything.  Only an idiot who doesn't COMPREHEND what's been posted would think THAT!
> ...






So you really EXPECTED there to BE proof and also CLAIM to comprehend the issue...?  




That's FUNNY!


----------



## alan1 (Oct 22, 2011)

Valerie said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



Oddly enough, I can provide proof of success with adult stem cells.
Why do you find it funny for me to ask for proof of other medical treatments?

Valerie, you seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing, not because you have facts that you want to disseminate.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 22, 2011)

MountainMan said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...






I am posting info in order to disseminate the facts and you are the one attempting to argue the inarguable...


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 22, 2011)

I have been against embryonic stem cell research from the very beginning.  It is too expensive with way too little results.  In fact, to date, NO results.  

The entire use of embryonic stem cell research is to support abortion and legitimize it.   Logically and realistically embryonic stem cells have no other use.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 22, 2011)

MountainMan said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



Although the use of adult stem cells has had the most success.  There has been signficant gains using umbilical stem cells too.  Only embryonic stem cell research has come up empty.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 22, 2011)

Tipsycatlover said:


> I have been against embryonic stem cell research from the very beginning.  It is too expensive with way too little results.  In fact, to date, NO results.
> 
> The entire use of embryonic stem cell research is to support abortion and legitimize it.   Logically and realistically embryonic stem cells have no other use.






The clinical trials have only just begun... And NO the entire use is not to legitimize abortion!  


_

August 24, 2010


In the last days of July, the Food and Drug Administration gave the green light to a clinical trial that has been nearly a decade in the making. The federal agency approved a test of some of the first fruits of human-embryonic-stem-cell research, in a new therapy that could help patients recover from spinal-cord injury.

The trial will be the first to use embryonic stem cells in human beings. _


----------



## alan1 (Oct 22, 2011)

Valerie said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


The question was asking for proof of successful cures as a result of embryonic/fetal stem cells.  
So far, you haven't provided that information or proof.
Try harder.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 22, 2011)

MM I notice your post just disappeared but no it was not a straw man...




Tipsycatlover said:


> *The entire use of embryonic stem cell research is to support abortion and legitimize it.*   Logically and realistically embryonic stem cells *have no other use.*


----------



## Valerie (Oct 22, 2011)

MountainMan said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...





So you just wanted to post to yourself then...Pardon me for interrupting.   







 MM


----------



## alan1 (Oct 22, 2011)

Valerie said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



I was looking for, and asking for successful cures involving embryonic/fetal stem cells.
You could not provide such, so you attempted to divert.
You also attempted to belittle me in previous posts (insinuated that I was an idiot).
Now this, a cartoon insult.

Seriously, Valerie, address the subject of OP instead of attacking me for posting it if you want to discuss it.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 22, 2011)

Tipsycatlover said:


> I have been against embryonic stem cell research from the very beginning.  It is too expensive with way too little results.  In fact, to date, NO results.
> 
> The entire use of embryonic stem cell research is to support abortion and legitimize it.   Logically and realistically embryonic stem cells have no other use.



While I do agree with you that embryonic stem cell research is wrong, I have to ask how anyone could determine if it could lead to potentially life saving breakthroughs if it were forbidden?

I mention this because of your statement--"It is too expensive with way too little results.  In fact, to date, NO results."  If these stem cells could be harvested without the destruction of the human life that produced them, then I would think the research should go on.  

Unfortunately, my understanding is that to date, harvesting embryonic stem cells spells the destruction of life.

Immie


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 22, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



Okay.  Feel free to proudly display yourself as proof that the entire women's rights movement was a misguided waste of time.  No skin off my nose if you like looking like an ignorant twat in public.

Meanwhile, is there any possibility you could start reading your own frigging links, or is that part of your all-important right to make a fool of yourself?  Notice that I don't expect you to spend any time actually answering the points I made about your link, rather than brilliantly and incisively focusing on "You're mean!" like the whining, vaporish pre-Suffrage throwback you so clearly are.  Just indicating that you can actually read would be nice.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 22, 2011)

MountainMan said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > > 03.07.03
> ...



That's because folks like Valerie think having a vagina and being "warm and caring" obviates the need for literacy or linear thought.  An embarassment to everyone on the planet with ovaries AND a brain.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 23, 2011)

KittenKoder said:


> Oka Adult or embryonic isn't the issue, a stem cell is still a stem cell, the difference is the quantity they can gain. Making stem cells from adults is very costly and extremely difficult, but a fetus has a lot that are already grown.



I do not believe that is true.

The only restrictions on the use of stem cell treatment has been on US federally funded research on new lines of stem cells. No one else in the world is so limmited and yet all themajor breakthroughs have been with adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. There is a reason for that.

Embryonic stem cells differentiate almost randomly and there are cases of them being used in an organ with the result that the embryonic stem cells grew into almost randomly different things, from teeth to hair to skin. Adult stem cells are multipotent, not pluripotent, and will adapt to the organ tissue that they are planted in and naturally do what the cells in that organ need it to do somehow.



KittenKoder said:


> Honestly, if they already died why waste their non-lives and just toss them in the garbage when you can at least make it mean something? Even pro-lifers should be for this since it give some meaning to the wasted life.



There is no such thing as innocent life that is wasted life. That is the root disagreement here that will never be overcome.

Human life is not just a blob of cells.


----------



## FurthurBB (Oct 23, 2011)

MountainMan said:


> There have been numerous medical success's using adult stem cells for treatment.
> Can anybody provide a link to show successful medical treatments that used embryonic or fetal stem cells?
> I'm starting to think science should focus on what works.



Yeah, look up China stem cell, something like that.  They have used a lot of embryonic stem cells to treat things successfully.


----------



## FurthurBB (Oct 23, 2011)

Tipsycatlover said:


> I have been against embryonic stem cell research from the very beginning.  It is too expensive with way too little results.  In fact, to date, NO results.
> 
> The entire use of embryonic stem cell research is to support abortion and legitimize it.   Logically and realistically embryonic stem cells have no other use.




So, I guess no one ever makes fertilized eggs that they do not use and get thrown away.  Wow, it must be nice to be able to so thoroughly lie to yourself.


----------



## FurthurBB (Oct 23, 2011)

JimBowie1958 said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Oka Adult or embryonic isn't the issue, a stem cell is still a stem cell, the difference is the quantity they can gain. Making stem cells from adults is very costly and extremely difficult, but a fetus has a lot that are already grown.
> ...




Human life is just a blob of cells like any other organism, we are not any more special just because we feel that we are.  Also, no one is talking about a human life so this is just off topic.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 24, 2011)

FurthurBB said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



No that is not true. Our behavior is not determined and we have mental aspects to our being that no other animal does, such as complex language and thought.

You have to lie to yourself in this manner in order to dodge the obvious rhetorical nonsense.



FurthurBB said:


> Also, no one is talking about a human life so this is just off topic.



If the cell is alive, and it is of the homo sapien species then it is by definition human life.


----------



## Valerie (Oct 24, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...





  And yet I CAN actually read... Can YOU...?  I haven't made ANY claims about embryonic cells as there are NONE to make, you raving LUNATIC.  The clinical trials were FINALLY just approved by the FDA a little over a year ago and if you understood about the scientific method you would realize that means there could be NO cases of successful TREATMENTS with embryonic stem cells YET.  The POTENTIAL still exists no matter how much you rave and call me names.  PLURIPOTENT stem cells have special properties which the research is still TRYING to hash out...  For the overly emotional and mentally retarded, that means citing the FACT there aren't YET successful treatments to speak of, still remains essentially MEANINGLESS.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 24, 2011)

China has had no more luck with embryonic stem cell research than we have.  None.  All of their success has followed ours, the success is with adult stem cells.   China has gone us one better, because abortion is a government obligation, they are able to research using foetal bone marrow.   The results still are not as impressive as with adult stem cells.

Stem cell research in China

The United States is not China.  Our research funds comes from taxes.  No scientist is compelled to experiment.    We continue to waste millions of dollars on a failure instead of on what works because to do otherwise might have some tangenital effect on abortion.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 24, 2011)

FurthurBB said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > I have been against embryonic stem cell research from the very beginning.  It is too expensive with way too little results.  In fact, to date, NO results.
> ...



This makes no sense whatsoever.  The issue is not whether fertilized eggs would or should be thrown away.  It's allocation of resources.  Do we put resources on what works or on what doesn't work?  

Is the tissue thin use of embryonic stem cells that important to abortion?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 24, 2011)

FurthurBB said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



We most certainly ARE talking about human life.  A human embryo is a living human organism, same as you are.

And could you tell us, please, why we shouldn't be special to ourselves?


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 24, 2011)

In the case of whether research dollars should be spent on embryonic stem cells or adult (or even umbilical) stem cells whether human life is important or not only muddies up the discussion.   The ONLY reason why embryonic stem cell research is continuing is because there is some tenuous support of abortion.  Take that out of consideration and it isn't even close.   All of the successes has come from use of adult stem cells.  If abortion wasn't the be and end all, there wouldn't be any embryonic stem cell research going on.  It would be too unprofitable.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 24, 2011)

FurthurBB said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



About the only thing any one can say in response to this is "thank you for your opinion".

Immie


----------



## alan1 (Oct 24, 2011)

FurthurBB said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > There have been numerous medical success's using adult stem cells for treatment.
> ...



Thanks for the link.

Oh wait, you didn't provide one.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 24, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Science, like anything else, should pay its own freight.
> ...



Really? And which of the early capitalists funded the Corps of Discovery?


----------



## alan1 (Oct 24, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Thomas Jefferson.


> The Corps of Discovery was not a benevolent mission.  Welcomed notions quickly turned to unexpected surprise of betrayal. Upon meeting a tribe for the first time, captains of the expedition informed tribal leaders their land now belonged to the United States government and their &#8220;new great father&#8221; was President Thomas Jefferson. The Lewis and Clark Expedition was the trickle that started the flood of subjugation.
> 
> The Native Americans lost on several fronts: land, resources, culture, language, and sovereignty.  According to Gerard Baker, a full-blooded Mandan-Hidatsa from Mandaree, North Dakota, the Lewis and Clark Expedition was the beginning of the end.  &#8220;In a nutshell, what happened to our people in the years after Lewis and Clark is that we went downhill, we lost.&#8221;



Go figure that somebody got screwed when the government was involved.

Got any successful treatments with fetal or embryonic stem cell research that you want to share?


----------



## FurthurBB (Nov 3, 2011)

JimBowie1958 said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Again with the lying to yourself.  It is okay, I understand why you feel the need.  Oh, and as far as your second statement, then stop treating cancer because those are living human cells.


----------



## FurthurBB (Nov 3, 2011)

Tipsycatlover said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...



What are you talking about?  Are you lost?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 4, 2011)

FurthurBB said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > FurthurBB said:
> ...



Again with the "I was jacking off behind the gym during biology class".  It's amazing - and not at all coincidental - how many liberals are ALSO uneducated and scientifically illterate.

Get a biology textbook, get someone to read it to you, and then have that person turn to the section where they explain the difference between "cells, tissues, organs, and organisms", you fucking retard.

Until then, you're done here, because you've just proven that you have less to say scientifically than my three-year-old does.  (He knows as much as you do, but he's cuter.)


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Nov 4, 2011)

FurthurBB said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > FurthurBB said:
> ...



Well, perhaps you can also feel the need to show where I had lied.



FurthurBB said:


> Oh, and as far as your second statement, then stop treating cancer because those are living human cells.



You cannot distinguish the qualitative difference between a cancer cell and a human embryo?

Seriously?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Nov 4, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Again with the "I was jacking off behind the gym during biology class".  It's amazing - and not at all coincidental - how many liberals are ALSO uneducated and scientifically illterate.
> 
> Get a biology textbook, get someone to read it to you, and then have that person turn to the section where they explain the difference between "cells, tissues, organs, and organisms", you fucking retard.
> 
> Until then, you're done here, because you've just proven that you have less to say scientifically than my three-year-old does.  (He knows as much as you do, but he's cuter.)



I know.

It's incredible, isnt it?

I mean, to think someone really thinks this kind of 'defence via pretence of stupidity' just boggles the mind.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 4, 2011)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Again with the "I was jacking off behind the gym during biology class".  It's amazing - and not at all coincidental - how many liberals are ALSO uneducated and scientifically illterate.
> ...



It boggles my mind that they seriously think reality and public policy should be determined by THEIR lack of education and information.  A fetus should be adjudged as "not a person" merely because he does not look like what they think of as a person, aka an adult human being.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Nov 4, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Agreed.

It's the same old prejudice of 'It's not familiar to me, nor what I can empathize with, so it must not be human.' And that's not much different than the thinking of every ideological thug and murderer from Kemal Attaturk, to Adolph Hitler, to Stalin and Mao to Pol Pot.

It is a dangerous thing to dehumanize other people because the same logic can undermine how others see you and your kind as well.


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 4, 2011)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



_tsk tsk_ Did you just compare liberals to Adolph Hitler?  Don't you know that is politically incorrect and can get you demonized as a right wing troll for life, or at least your life here on the board?  It is only permissible to compare right wingers to Hitler because when you compare a liberal to Hitler you are being intolerant.  Comparing a right winger to Hitler is displaying liberal thinking and is perfectly acceptable.

Get with the picture, buddy.  

Immie


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 5, 2011)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



I am always extremely grateful that reality continues to be what it is and the universe continues to work the way it does irregardless of whether or not humanity comprehends it.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Nov 5, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Well, Hitler was a tree hugging, genetic determinist who wanted complete socialism, mind-numbed sheeple and loved various sexual perversions.

But I wasnt going into all that, just that various ideologues, left or right, have atendency to dehumanize various people. In the case of baby killers, I pretty much classify them close to the Nazis and the Cheka.



Immanuel said:


> Don't you know that is politically incorrect and can get you demonized as a right wing troll for life, or at least your life here on the board?



Too late.



Immanuel said:


> It is only permissible to compare right wingers to Hitler because when you compare a liberal to Hitler you are being intolerant.  Comparing a right winger to Hitler is displaying liberal thinking and is perfectly acceptable.
> 
> Get with the picture, buddy.
> 
> Immie



I get the sarcasm, but your parody is too close to the Truth of the matter, and thus obscuring whether you truly intend to be farcical, or, like many libtards, you are just naturally farcical due to cognitive dissonance and ideological group-think.

But I will go out on a limb here, and guess, based on your sense of humor, that you are indeed being farcical....am I right?


----------



## Montrovant (Nov 5, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, the whole 'not a person' thing is a matter of the ability to think and is not about appearance.  I would consider an adult human without cognitive brain function to be 'not a person' as well.


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 5, 2011)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



You are right and remember all good humor (and I don't consider mine to be good humor but I do try now and then) has to have a basis in reality to be funny.

Immie


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 5, 2011)

Montrovant said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Why?  When did we decide it was okay to start drawing lines in the sand and saying, "Personhood begins with THIS level of intellect"?  Do we really want to set up such a subjective and arbitrary boundary?  Are we really stupid enough not to realize how easy it is to adjust such a thing at will once it is accepted?

A living human being is a person.  Period.  I think many people who love those with severe retardation, Alzheimer's, brain damage, etc. would agree with me that our society does not need to start trying to bestow personhood and creating classes of disposable human non-persons.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Nov 6, 2011)

Montrovant said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



You have moved the goal posts though, havent you? We were discussing whether the unborn child is a human being, not whether they are a person, an ambiguous term at best.

If it's the ability to think that solely makes us human, then one has to ask how well they must think to be human. An unborn child has a functioning brain so they do think at some level. So if an unborn child is not a person because they do not think quite well enough to meet your standards, where else might that line be drawn? Is a born baby a person? an adolescent? a young adult with mental disabilities? a person of the wrong race or ethnic group?

That is a very dangerous slippery slope you place the essence of humanity on.

What makes us a person is the presence of a soul. It has nothing to do with cognitive ability, only whether there is a functioning brain and the potential for independent life. This has been the definition for what makes us human for millenia, and the last century has amply shown us the dangers of abandoning that ancient standard for life, has it not?

But the simple and plain unspoken truth is that we live in a twisted society that has reduced the act of creating life to a form of entertainment. And since we crave more cars and appliances and a bigger house more than we do children, some kill some of their children in the womb in order to not have the financial setback that a baby represents in an urban society. Some kill their own because they are weak in confidence or body or faith, but the consequences are still the same.

We in effect devour our young, as the evil 'gods' did of the ancient world, and we are not going to escape the consequences. Already we must bring in more and more immigrants from alien cultures and the number of native born Americans dwindles more with each passing year.

It wont be too much longer when the Powers That Be will realize they dont have enough loyal hands to do their work, nor minds to solve their problems. But they will be too busy struggling for what scraps of diminishing power they can take for themselves to pay any mind to solving problems anyway.

We live on a rudderless ship with a helm that is covered in the dust of neglect.

That we have not recked is purely a matter of luck, but we cant stay 'lucky' for ever.

Though I hate the thought, one day our own Rhine will freeze over and the barbarians will cross the boundries we have imposed by wit and craft because our strength and devotion has long ago left us.

And then we will become re-aquainted with deprivation and suffering as our enemies take our place from us in this world. 

But maybe God will be merciful and a remnant will be large enough and strong enough to restore some of what we once had some day.

Maybe.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Nov 6, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Why?  When did we decide it was okay to start drawing lines in the sand and saying, "Personhood begins with THIS level of intellect"?  Do we really want to set up such a subjective and arbitrary boundary?  Are we really stupid enough not to realize how easy it is to adjust such a thing at will once it is accepted?
> 
> A living human being is a person.  Period.  I think many people who love those with severe retardation, Alzheimer's, brain damage, etc. would agree with me that our society does not need to start trying to bestow personhood and creating classes of disposable human non-persons.



So  true, and it just incredible that the Twentieth Centuries horror has not been sufficient to make all of us understand this simple Truth.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 6, 2011)

Valerie said:


> > 03.07.03
> >
> >
> > The doctors did offer an alternative: Bonnville could become the first human to receive experimental stem-cell therapy to revive his damaged heart tissue. They went ahead with the procedure, the results of which could turn the stem-cell debate on its head.
> ...


Ummm, those aren't embryonic stem cells.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 6, 2011)

Valerie said:


> *What are the similarities and differences between embryonic and adult stem cells?
> 
> Human embryonic and adult stem cells each have advantages and disadvantages regarding potential use for cell-based regenerative therapies. One major difference between adult and embryonic stem cells is their different abilities in the number and type of differentiated cell types they can become. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are thought to be limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin.
> 
> ...


Sure, embryonic stem cells can be relatively easy to grow in culture.  Preventing their differentiation is NOT easy.

So far, the potential for therapeutic uses of adult stem cells is far more evident than for embryonic.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 6, 2011)

Valerie said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


He asked a clear question.  You didn't like it so you answered a question you made up.  You are arguing with yourself and he is not interested, as are most of us.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 6, 2011)

Tipsycatlover said:


> In the case of whether research dollars should be spent on embryonic stem cells or adult (or even umbilical) stem cells whether human life is important or not only muddies up the discussion.   *The ONLY reason why embryonic stem cell research is continuing is because there is some tenuous support of abortion.*  Take that out of consideration and it isn't even close.   All of the successes has come from use of adult stem cells.  If abortion wasn't the be and end all, there wouldn't be any embryonic stem cell research going on.  It would be too unprofitable.


[Emphasis added]

That's just hooie.

Embryonic stem cell research is continuing because (1) the expansion of knowledge in the sciences is not only important for humans as a collective, but for any nation's national security, and (2) they provide a therapeutic potential other stem cells cannot.

This has nothing to do with any "tenuous support of abortion", especially when embryonic stem cells can be cloned.


----------



## Montrovant (Nov 6, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



We basically already do just that in multiple situations.  Obviously, most people consider animals less than people because of levels of intellect.  Granted, the 'cuteness' of a particular animal can be a factor too, but if we were able to speak to any animal, I am confident people would raise it in their estimation of 'personhood'.  Then there is the case of a human who does not have most brain function.  Many consider a 'vegetable' to no longer be a person.  There is the idea of brain death.  There is the morality of 'pulling the plug'.  Questions of personhood are already there, abortion is just another situation to ask the question.

You are free to consider a newly fertilized egg a person, the same as any other.  I cannot.


----------



## Montrovant (Nov 6, 2011)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I didn't move any goalposts.  I wasn't discussing whether a fetus is a human being rather than a person.  My first comment here was in response to Cecilie's post, in which she mentioned the idea of being a person and connected it to appearance.  

Also, since I do not believe in a soul, I cannot believe that the presence of a soul is what determines whether something is a person or not.

And wow, that's quite a rant to go on based on my post which you didn't even really pay attention to based on your moving goalposts comment!


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 6, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > In the case of whether research dollars should be spent on embryonic stem cells or adult (or even umbilical) stem cells whether human life is important or not only muddies up the discussion.   *The ONLY reason why embryonic stem cell research is continuing is because there is some tenuous support of abortion.*  Take that out of consideration and it isn't even close.   All of the successes has come from use of adult stem cells.  If abortion wasn't the be and end all, there wouldn't be any embryonic stem cell research going on.  It would be too unprofitable.
> ...



There is no support of embryonic stem cell research without bringing in the right to abortion.  What is a person?  All the arguments to support abortion.   Embryonic stem cell research is flatly unproductive and unprofitable.  Mostly because it (like most democrat policies) has not evolved, but been imposed, mostly to lend support for abortion.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 6, 2011)

Katzndogz said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...


Abortion has nothing to do with it.

You can pretend that you aren't aware that NO embryonic stem cells ever came from an abortion, but that would be a fantasy.

Embryonic stem cells are cloned, as well.

And, if the research community ever stopped doing research because there is no immediate application for that research, we wouldn't have the knowledge, technology, medications, etc. we have today.

Thus, what you are saying is clearly emotion-based and has nothing to do with reality.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 6, 2011)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Why?  When did we decide it was okay to start drawing lines in the sand and saying, "Personhood begins with THIS level of intellect"?  Do we really want to set up such a subjective and arbitrary boundary?  Are we really stupid enough not to realize how easy it is to adjust such a thing at will once it is accepted?
> ...



If there is one thing that all of humanity seems to excel at, it's lying to itself.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 6, 2011)

Montrovant said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Animals? Really?  You think we don't consider animals to be people because of their _intelligence_?  Can you grasp at straws any harder?

We don't consider animals to be people because THEY'RE NOT HUMAN.  There are adult animals with greater cognitive ability than a newborn baby, but I can assure you that that never comes into any consideration when deciding if the baby is a person or the dog is.  

The fact that there are people sick and coldhearted enough to consider living human beings with brain damage "no longer persons" carries no weight with me, because I certainly do not aspire to sink to that level, nor do I view it as some pinnacle of wisdom and morality to attain.  I consider those people to have devolved to the same bestial level as those who justified slavery on the basis that "blacks are just savage beasts, not really people at all".  And by the way, please do not presume to project that depraved viewpoint onto "most" people.

By the way, being "a vegetable" - and my, what a charming and moral way to refer to another human being - is not anything like close to being brain-dead, although I realize that people so ignorant and uneducated that they actually believe there's no difference between an embryo and a cancer cell would also be too ignorant and uneducated to understand.  Once again, we see the lines of reality, science, and medicine being blurred by the lazy, fuzzy thinking of laypeople who thought biology class was just something to blow off.  It is sad when science gets politicized and is forced to pander to fools.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 6, 2011)

Montrovant said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



You seem to think that you can just state that "human being" and "person" are two different things, and everyone else is just going to nod and accept your false and arbitrary parameters on the topic.  Unfortunately for you, you don't carry that sort of weight and respect, so you ARE going to have to actually discuss and defend and persuade on your assertion before you ever get a chance to go to "Well, since I'm right that they're different . . ."

So yes, if you're discussing embryos and fetuses at all, you ARE discussing whether or not you get to redefine "person".  Or you're admitting that you have no factual, scientific basis for trying to belittle and demonize an entire class of people.  Your choice.

Also, science tells us that everything in the universe is energy in one form or another, and energy cannot be destroyed; it can only be moved from one form to another.  (Yeah, it's a simplification.)  Our souls are basically the energy that animates our bodies and continues on in another form after our bodies die.  It takes a stunning level of dogmatic fanaticism to refuse to believe that.  And embryos and fetuses have that same energy animating them as well.  Otherwise, their mothers' doctors would declare them dead in the womb and remove them before they could putrify and kill her.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 6, 2011)

Funny, I thought this was a stem cell thread.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 6, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Funny, I thought this was a stem cell thread.



It is.  And insofar as one must kill the embryo in order to harvest embryonic stem cells, it is incumbent upon us to discuss the life and humanity of the embryo we propose to destroy.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 6, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Funny, I thought this was a stem cell thread.
> ...


When it's cloned, nope.

Are you against fertility clinics disposing of blastocysts when the parents approve?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 6, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Yes, of course I am.  And no, it matters not a bit to me how a human being is created.  Once he exists, it is necessary to discuss the morality of disposing of him like a Kleenex.  I'm having trouble figuring out how cloning or fertilizing in a test tube somehow conveys less metaphysical importance and meaning to a life than a fifth of tequila and a one-night stand does.


----------



## alan1 (Nov 6, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Funny, I thought this was a stem cell thread.
> ...



Or, we could discuss whether or not certain stem cells have contributed to successful medical treatment.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 6, 2011)

You should keep in mind, Si Modo, when you're blithely assuming that because society winks at the practices of fertility clinics that must mean I do too, that I once worked in a fertility clinic.

When I was in my early twenties and just starting my first career in clerical and admin work, I got a really excellent job in a fertility clinic.  Good pay, good benefits, pleasant work and environment; everything I could have wanted in a job, especially at that point in life.

The clinic took on a patient who'd been quite the busy woman in earlier years.  Lots of partying with a wide variety of men and not much attention paid to birth control, such that she had had four abortions.  I recall actually hearing her tell one of the techs, "Who wanted kids in the way?"

Now that she was a bit older, she had found a man with money to take care of her.  The only catch was, he wanted children out of the deal, and Miss Spreadeagle 1990 had programmed her uterus into the ultimate hostile environment for fetuses:  she kept spontaneously miscarrying in her second month.

The clinic, of course, had no problem whatsoever in helping this coldhearted slut produce a baby for convenience after killing so many for convenience that her reproductive system didn't work right any more.  After all, the amount of money they were going to charge was QUITE healthy.  I, on the other hand, decided that fertility clinics were perhaps not the best working environment for a person with any morals or conscience, and I quit.

So no, it's never a safe assumption that I approve of much of anything about how fertility clinics work.  Nor do I sign on to the breathtakingly selfish, self-absorbed attitudes that support fetility clinics.  Had I not been able to become pregnant on my own, I can assure you that it would never have crossed my mind to spend staggering sums of money on it, in the process throwing away dozens of living embryos, merely because I "had to have my own child".  I would have adopted or in some other way devoted my time and attention to caring for children already in existence.  I'm not conceited enough to believe my own personal DNA is that essential and holy.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 6, 2011)

MountainMan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Also an issue of concern.  And I think it's remarkably - one might even say suspiciously - short-sighted and blindered of Si Modo to keep stubbornly insisting that there's no connection between abortion and ESCR, simply because the embryos don't come from abortions, as though that was ever the question at all.

It is obvious to me that if ESCR was any other field of medical research, it would have been abandoned long since as unproductive and unprofitable.  Science does not normally make a practice of beating its brains out against a line of inquiry that shows absolutely no results or progress whatsoever, as ESCR has done so far.  The only possible reason there could be for continuing to throw money and time at this is if there's another agenda at work besides pure bioscience.  And the most likely culprit is abortion.  

It is absolutely imperative for abortion supporters to keep the public thinking of embryos as merely disposable commodities rather than living organisms with an intrinsic value.  And since medical science has been so unkind as to debunk all the arguments they used to use for that purpose, they need to cling to the dwindling possibility that killing unborn children will cure Alzheimer's or whatever.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 6, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


And, what if the fertility clinic goes out of business?  Or, they can no longer afford cryogens?


----------



## Si modo (Nov 6, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> You should keep in mind, Si Modo, when you're blithely assuming that because society winks at the practices of fertility clinics that must mean I do too, that I once worked in a fertility clinic.
> 
> When I was in my early twenties and just starting my first career in clerical and admin work, I got a really excellent job in a fertility clinic.  Good pay, good benefits, pleasant work and environment; everything I could have wanted in a job, especially at that point in life.
> 
> ...


So, that woman didn't deserve to have a baby.

Damn, please don't ever run for any elected office, nor become a judge.

Alright, now that I know that you cannot discuss research on stem cells without getting stuck here, that's fine.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 6, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



You totally lost me on any sort of continuity between what I said and what you responded.  I think you're still assuming an approval of fertility clinics and their techniques that I don't have.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 6, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > You should keep in mind, Si Modo, when you're blithely assuming that because society winks at the practices of fertility clinics that must mean I do too, that I once worked in a fertility clinic.
> ...



One does not "deserve" to have a baby.  They aren't property, and they aren't commodities.  They're human beings.  It was immoral for anyone to say, "Oh, you killed four children because they were inconvenient, but now you need to have one in order to keep your meal ticket?  All righty, just give us $100,000."  If you expect me to say any different, you're delusional.

And just so we're very clear on my opinion of fertility clinics, it is sick and immoral for ANYONE to treat living human beings as commodities, or to aid others in treating them as though they're accessories.

Insofar as anyone can "deserve" to create and become responsible for an innocent, helpless human being, no.  She didn't deserve to have a baby, any more than that woman who drowned her children in the bathtub "deserved" to have any more children.

All right, now that I know you can't deal with any worldview other than your own, that's fine.  Well, actually, it's not.


----------



## konradv (Nov 6, 2011)

MountainMan said:


> There have been numerous medical success's using adult stem cells for treatment.
> Can anybody provide a link to show successful medical treatments that used embryonic or fetal stem cells?
> I'm starting to think science should focus on what works.



How do find out what works, if you don't study ESCs?


----------



## Si modo (Nov 6, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


I'm not changing my mind on this and I'm pretty sure you're not.  So, we can agree to disagree and actually get to the topic of stem cell research or you can stay stuck there.

I choose not to stay stuck there.  I came in the thread expecting to discuss stem cell research.


----------



## Montrovant (Nov 6, 2011)

Here's an article about artificial blood that researchers believe could be used as a safer supply for transfusions.  The article brings up the possibility that embryonic stem cells could be used to make it in sufficient quantity to make it viable :

Artificial blood made from stem cells could be used in transfusions in just two years | Mail Online

It isn't a successful use of ESC's, but if they are actually much easier to replicate in large numbers, it's a potentially good use of them.


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 6, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



You have discovered what I already knew.  The topic of the faillure of embryonic stem cell research cannot be discussed without it becoming mired in the right to abortion.  The ONLY reason why money is being wasted on embryonic stem cell research insead of on what has a proven record of success is because it support abortion.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 6, 2011)

konradv said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > There have been numerous medical success's using adult stem cells for treatment.
> ...



Exactly how long does one waste time and funds on a line of inquiry, "to find out it doesn't work", before one concedes that it doesn't?  And why is that span of time so much longer with ESCR than with virtually anything else in science?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 6, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Why don't you tell me what you think is left to talk about beyond the fact that ESC are virtually useless, and only still being studied at all to advance other agendas?

I guess we could talk about advances in adult stem cells, but THEY aren't controversial.  Pretty much anyone with a teaspoon of brains recognizes how useful THEY are.  Although there again, you run up against the fact that they don't get the attention and federal funding they deserve because of people pushing ESCR.  Thank God for the private sector.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 6, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


But, as I said before, hESC research is being studied for the advancement of knowledge.  Basic research in the pure sciences rarely has any immediate applications.  We don't stop doing it because of that.  If we did, we wouldn't be very advanced technologically.

So, *if *one were to say there was a sole reason for doing this research in hESC or not, a more  accurate statement would be the ONLY reason we are doing basic research is for the advancement of knowledge with the hope that like most basic research, eventually it can be applied.

So, your phrase that I bolded is terribly mistaken.


----------



## konradv (Nov 6, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



What does time have to do with it?  You're not qualified to make that kind of decision.  It needs to be left to the people doing the work.  They're the ones that know, if there's any there there.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 6, 2011)

konradv said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Actually, if it's MY tax money being used for it, I have every right to demand answers to that question, and no intention of "just leaving it up to" the idiots who want to collect more and more of my money.


----------



## Cowman (Nov 7, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Have fun working with your elected representative, because that's your only option.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Nov 7, 2011)

Montrovant said:


> I didn't move any goalposts.  I wasn't discussing whether a fetus is a human being rather than a person.  My first comment here was in response to Cecilie's post, in which she mentioned the idea of being a person and connected it to appearance.



Yes, she brought the subject up since this continually repeated debate keeps covering the same terrain, and the person vrs hman being argument is a common defense for dehumanizing unborn babies and is a 'moving the goalposts' fallacy. The unborn baby is obviously a human being, so pro-abortionists want to change the topic to one of what a person is.

Your response affirmed that fallacy, whether you first brought the subject up or not.



Montrovant said:


> Also, since I do not believe in a soul, I cannot believe that the presence of a soul is what determines whether something is a person or not.



The concept of the soul ties into the idea of that distinctiveness between people and animals, whatever yo uwant to attribute it to, metaphysical or natural cognitive ability as secular philosophers have long done. You dont have to believe in a spiritual realm to  have some belief that this distinctiveness is valid.



Montrovant said:


> And wow, that's quite a rant to go on based on my post which you didn't even really pay attention to based on your moving goalposts comment!



It is interesting that you think you have provided a rebutal to my 'rant' simply because you think I had gone off topic blaming you for something you think you didnt do.

Is that what passes for reason in your world?


----------



## Iridescence (Nov 7, 2011)

*At the risk of being considered the 'most fluent of delusions'... abortion cannot be done within the earliest part of conception because the embryo has not yet formed enough... yet the heart starts to beat at five weeks. The brain and the nuerological wiring is obviously not formed until after. The issue I have with many is that, though the baby obviously has the soul, the spirit is questionably yet to develop... rather, that is, an independent spirit... This is something that potentially keeps some methods of abortion as more humanely optional than some levels of living...*

*As incomplete as this thought may seem, it prevents me from discrediting the proactive stance for continual stem cell research. Many things that are considered as cold-hearted and cruel by would be mothers may not necessarily be so if their lifestyles were to reveal certain things regarding detrimental living conditions. However, from what I also understand about stem cell research, the embryo must be as fully developed as possible...*

**


----------



## konradv (Nov 7, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You weren't asking a question, really.  You were telling us it had already taken too long, something you'd have no way of knowing.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 7, 2011)

konradv said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



I believe I said we've wasted more time on it already than is typically spent on something that yields no results, as it has done.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 7, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Hmmmmm.  As decades have been spent on basic research into biological and/or genetic reasons for autism, for example, and none have been pinpointed yet, then we should stop.


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 7, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



An excellent example.  Suppose there was some beneficial treatment for autism that was showing promise of great success.  Yet, the money being poured into autism research was going to support a line of research without a single success, but supported some other political and social agenda.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 7, 2011)

Katzndogz said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


What basic research ever supports any agenda other than the expansion of knowledge?


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 7, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



The one that pays the most.  Millions are being poured into embryonic stem cell research.  Millions that should be going to support research showing results.  The ONLY reason for this is that embryonic stem cell research supports abortion.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 7, 2011)

Katzndogz said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


hESC research supports nothing but the expansion of knowledge in science.

We don't stop doing basic research because there are no immediate applications.  We'd still be in mud huts.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Nov 7, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



She is talking about a relatively fruitless avenue of research that has been long demonstrated to be less helpful than other approaches.

Katzndogz brings up research to cure a specific disease, which is an 'apples to oranges' comparison.

But to answer your question, other agendas might be:
1. to make money doing research
2. to find new ways of making profit from the discoveries of the research
3. to provide support for an ideological/political slogan


----------



## Si modo (Nov 7, 2011)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


Posters keep talking about basic research promoting an ideology.

The only ideology basic research supports is the expansion of knowledge in the sciences.


----------



## Montrovant (Nov 7, 2011)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't move any goalposts.  I wasn't discussing whether a fetus is a human being rather than a person.  My first comment here was in response to Cecilie's post, in which she mentioned the idea of being a person and connected it to appearance.
> ...



Moving of goalposts would require me to have a position, then change something about that position to fit the evidence.  You took my first position and called it moving goalposts.  I think the problem is that I jumped into this late, and so my post was unintentionally linked to the rest of the discussion.  I was commenting specifically on the post of Cecilie's I quoted, and the part of that post I bolded.

You are using a definition of soul I have not seen commonly used, so this is probably just a semantics argument there is no need to get into.  I'll concede you may have been completely correct and that I merely misunderstood your use of the term.

I don't think I provided a rebuttal.  I simply found it funny that you would feel the need to make such a long, impassioned response to my post, which I think was pretty limited.  Part of the humor is that you would do that after claiming I moved goalposts when it was my opening position in the thread.

As this thread has clearly been derailed and I don't see a need to continue contributing to that, I'm perfectly willing to end this here if you are.  We have different opinions about the idea of being a person; I won't claim mine are any more valid, they are just my opinions.


----------



## Iridescence (Nov 7, 2011)




----------



## konradv (Nov 7, 2011)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



How about, _4. to keep others under their thumb_?

That's the only conclusion I can come up with, since their reasons dropping the research involves value judgements that they're not qualified to make.  Man tried to fly for a long time before it happened.  If the Wright brothers has listened to these types, we'd still be bound to the earth.


----------



## konradv (Nov 7, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Well, the IS NO "typical time".  You're just trying to create a construct that helps your cause, but ultimately DOESN'T EXIST!!!


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 7, 2011)

konradv said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



I was merely responding to the example someone else brought up.

If you want to use the Wright brothers, didn't they fund their own research into flight?  If someone wants to fund embryonic stem cell research they can.  No problem.  The government spending millions of dollars on something with no results to the exclusion of productive research simply to support a political and social agenda is totally wrong.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 7, 2011)

Katzndogz said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


But, there are plenty of results from basic research in hESC.  Just not applications, yet.  If there weren't results, clinical trials would not be approved.  And, the results don't just include therapeutic.  Advances in culturing procedures, differentiation mechanisms, cloning, etc. have also been realized.


----------



## alan1 (Nov 7, 2011)

Montrovant said:


> Here's an article about artificial blood that researchers believe could be used as a safer supply for transfusions.  The article brings up the possibility that embryonic stem cells could be used to make it in sufficient quantity to make it viable :
> 
> Artificial blood made from stem cells could be used in transfusions in just two years | Mail Online
> 
> It isn't a successful use of ESC's, but if they are actually much easier to replicate in large numbers, it's a potentially good use of them.


Thank you for that informative article, Montrovant.
It's not quit a success with Embryionic/Fetal stem cells though, it is a succuss with adult bone marrow stem cells thogh.
Snipped from the linked article.



> The hope comes from Edinburgh and Bristol university researchers who have, for the first time, made thousands of millions of red blood cells from stem cells  master cells seen as a repair kit for the body  taken from bone marrow. But with the average blood transfusion containing 2.5million million red blood cells, this is not enough.
> 
> *Cells taken from human embryos in the first days of life are easier to multiply in large numbers, but the researchers have so far not managed to make such realistic blood*.


----------



## Montrovant (Nov 7, 2011)

MountainMan said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Here's an article about artificial blood that researchers believe could be used as a safer supply for transfusions.  The article brings up the possibility that embryonic stem cells could be used to make it in sufficient quantity to make it viable :
> ...



Absolutely, this is a success for adult rather than embryonic stem cells.  I found it interesting, and the implication that adult stem cells may not be able to produce it in sufficient quantities to make a true difference, but that embryonic stem cells might be able to, seemed relevant.

My knowledge of the subject is very limited, but the easily reproduced nature of embryonic stem cells compared to adult stem cells is one of the few things I've repeatedly seen given as an example of the differences between them, and why embryonic stem cell research may be an important thing to study either separately or in concert with adult stem cell research.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Nov 14, 2011)

konradv said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Again, that is comparing apples to oranges, as nothing the Wright brothers did required the killing of innocent lives


----------



## Ringel05 (Nov 15, 2011)

Here ya go.

Oh wait.  These are adult stem cells....... again........ 



> In Bolli's study, published in The Lancet, 16 patients with severe heart failure received a purified batch of cardiac stem cells. Within a year, their heart function markedly improved. The heart's pumping ability can be quantified through the "Left Ventricle Ejection Fraction," a measure of how much blood the heart pumps with each contraction. A patient with an LVEF of less than 40% is considered to suffer severe heart failure. When the study began, Bolli's patients had an average LVEF of 30.3%. Four months after receiving stem cells, it was 38.5%. Among seven patients who were followed for a full year, it improved to an astounding 42.5%. A control group of seven patients, given nothing but standard maintenance medications, showed no improvement at all.


Studies: Stem cells reverse heart damage - CNN.com


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 15, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



If private industry is still funding the research, then there is obviously some sort of result being produced.  Unlike the federal government, the private sector does not keep insisting on making something work when it clearly isn't going to, especially if something else clearly DOES.

Perhaps you'd like to cite for us any indication in clinical studies whatsoever that embryonic stem cells will actually do any of the pie-in-the-sky things that their supporters fantasize for them.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 15, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



And if we were talking about something as basic as finding out information on biological reasons for autism, that would be true.  However, we're not.  We're talking about creating and destroying human life to try to find cures for diseases in other humans, despite clear evidence that it's not going to work.  You talk like you think what they're doing is just researching to find out what embryonic stem cells are or something.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 15, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Right.  We should keep pouring millions of dollars into trying to cure diseases with embryonic stem cells, just so that we can find out how many things they don't work on.  That makes a LOT more sense than spending that money on something that's already proven effective on many things, and stands a good chance of being effective on many more.

Again, ESCR isn't "basic research to gain knowledge".  It's pigheadedly insisting that embryonic stem cells will cure a host of diseases, despite repeated evidence that they can't, and that they, in fact, can and will cause MORE problems.

Why not just spend that money hiring witch doctors to dance around patients and wave bones and sticks at them?  Think of all the "knowledge" we could acquire about SPECIFICALLY which diseases THAT doesn't cure.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 15, 2011)

Si modo said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



You could be more naive, but I think it would take elective surgery.

First of all, scientists are human beings with political and ideological agendas, same as everyone else.  Second of all, scientists all want more funding, and the best way to get that is to tailor your research to the ideological agendas of the people doling out the dough-re-mi.  This vision of scientists as pure, untainted seekers of truth and knowledge is cute, though.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 15, 2011)

Ringel05 said:


> Here ya go.
> 
> Oh wait.  These are adult stem cells....... again........
> 
> ...


The national news, forget which channel, had a story on this last night. Pretty damn amazing!


----------



## konradv (Nov 15, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Here ya go.
> ...



Stem cells help regenerate damaged heart - CBS News

Dr. Eduardo Marban, my old boss' boss!


----------



## konradv (Nov 15, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Pie-in-the-sky?!?!  Do you even know what it means?

The Preacher and the Slave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## FurthurBB (Nov 15, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



What exactly do you believe is different about an embryonic stem cell and an adult stem cell?  I will give you a hint, one is an undifferentiated cell among differentiated cells that is pluripotent and one is an undifferentiated cell that is pluripotent.  Why has this gone on for so many pages?


----------



## FurthurBB (Nov 15, 2011)

Katzndogz said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Undifferentiated pluripotent cells have shown great success for treating many ailments.  You just don't like when they come from embryos.  That has nothing to do with success.


----------



## FurthurBB (Nov 15, 2011)

Katzndogz said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



An embryo from an abortion would be pretty much worthless.  An embryo that was made from a fertilized egg and never implanted is where embryonic stem cells should come from.  Also, cord blood has a lot of undifferentiated pluripotent stem cells.  Neither of these places have anything to do with abortion, your argument lacks substance.


----------



## FurthurBB (Nov 15, 2011)

Montrovant said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Again, you are comparing apples to apples.  Can we at least get that clear?  The only difference is where they come from.


----------



## Montrovant (Nov 15, 2011)

FurthurBB said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



Are you saying that embryonic and adult stem cells are no different?  All the information I've ever seen has claimed that there are definitely differences between the two.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 15, 2011)

MountainMan said:


> There have been numerous medical success's using adult stem cells for treatment.
> Can anybody provide a link to show successful medical treatments that used embryonic or fetal stem cells?
> I'm starting to think science should focus on what works.



Why not allow full access and research on both cell lines?  

If you remove the politics from the issue, that's how science would work anyways.  

More then likely, the work done on both lines would be synergistic not only in advancements in treatment and cures but also in our understanding of basic medical sciences.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 15, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Science, like anything else, should pay its own freight.
> ...



Like all that venture capital funding NASA in the '60s?  

Not all science is done to yield profits or products.  A lion's share of the work is done simply for the sake of advancing knowledge that allows us to make greater strides that yield breakthroughs.  Scientific research and thought isn't discrete.  It all feeds off of each other.  If you've ever read a scientific paper flip to the References paper and check the dates.  The paper I am looking at right now referenced research done in 1981 (and it covers a relatively knew trend in medicine:  the management of nutrition and outcomes in trauma patients).  

I am glad you guys have zilch to do with the research process.


----------



## FurthurBB (Nov 21, 2011)

Montrovant said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



The only difference is that embryonic stem cells really have the potential to become any cell and adult stem cells might not.  The benefit to using embryonic stem cells would be to research though, as it is better to use your own stem cells so that you do not have any kind of rejection.  The problem is that adult stem cells are not as prolific, which makes research limited.  Other than that, they are exactly the same.  So, maybe you should find other sources to read.


----------



## Montrovant (Nov 21, 2011)

FurthurBB said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > FurthurBB said:
> ...



So, the only difference is where they come from.  Oh, and that embryonic stem cells have the potential to become any cell and adult stem cells do (or may) not.  Oh, and they are more prolific.  So wait, maybe the only difference isn't where they come from?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 21, 2011)

FurthurBB said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Have you really been sitting around all this time, thinking that whether or not researchers use embryonic or adult cells is just a matter of personal preference?  Good grief.

What are the similarities and differences between embryonic and adult stem cells? [Stem Cell Information]


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 21, 2011)

Montrovant said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Of course there are differences.  The main one is that, unlike what Furthur says, adult stem cells are NOT considered to be "pluripotent".  They are, rather, considered to be "multipotent".  It's the main reason that they appear to be much easier to control and made to do what the researchers want, rather than going wild and creating teratomas, the way embryonic stem cells have been known to do.


----------



## FurthurBB (Nov 22, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Well, thanks for the confirming link, appreciate it.  Other than that, I never said anything about personal preference.  Good Grief!


----------



## FurthurBB (Nov 22, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > FurthurBB said:
> ...



That is true, though we use hematopoietic stem cells because they have the most potential to be pluripotent, IE we can force them to become other cell types easily because they express the most proteins and genes.  Other than that, adult stem cells can only become the same type of tissue they were derived from, again why the hemaopeitic stem cells.  If it is better to have mulipotent cells, then why do we go for blood cells and force them to become other cells?  I do not agree that researchers think it is better to have them at all.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 22, 2011)

FurthurBB said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > FurthurBB said:
> ...



How is it that you think a link that says adult stem cells are NOT "pluripotent" is CONFIRMING your bullshit assertion that they are?

And yes, dipshit, when you say there's no difference between adult and embryonic stem cells, you ARE saying that there's no reason other than personal preference to use one over the other.

Your ESL teacher really needs to step up the curriculum.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 22, 2011)

FurthurBB said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



My God, you really know nothing about this topic at all, do you?  And this whole claiming one position and then switching to another and trying to pretend it's what you were saying all along thing doesn't fool anyone.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 22, 2011)

I am still confused as to what (pragmatic) reason we would have to limit research on one line versus the other.  

Cell potential is an important issue.  As noted, emryonic cells can differentiate into more cell types then adult.  Therefore, there is a lot to be learned from them that can help us all.

To act like we have to eliminate embryonic stem cells simply because we haven't seen immediate results or even that they haven't yielded a therapeutic benefit is simplistic thinking.


----------



## FurthurBB (Nov 23, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Okay, you can use untrue personal attacks as your only point of view and try to bob and weave out of what you said before, but the only people impressed are the ones who agree with you in the first place.


----------



## alan1 (Nov 23, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> I am still confused as to what (pragmatic) reason we would have to limit research on one line versus the other.
> 
> Cell potential is an important issue.  As noted, emryonic cells can differentiate into more cell types then adult.  Therefore, there is a lot to be learned from them that can help us all.
> 
> To act like we have to eliminate embryonic stem cells simply because we haven't seen *immediate* results or even that they haven't yielded a therapeutic benefit is simplistic thinking.



Interesting way you have of wording that.
Embryonic stem cell research has been going on for over 30 years and it had the building block of other stem cell research behind it.
It's not that there there hasn't been "immediate results" (your words), it's that there have been zero results (in medical cures) after over 30 years.
"Simplistic" that.


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 23, 2011)

MountainMan said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > I am still confused as to what (pragmatic) reason we would have to limit research on one line versus the other.
> ...



I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, and I do mean Devil.

Does that mean that we should end the Jerry Lewis Labor Day Telethon because there has not been a cure for MD?  It has been going on for as long as I can remember and they don't appear to be any closer today than they were the day I was born.  

Immie

PS: I know that is not true about MDA.  I'm sure they have made many breakthroughs... haven't they?


----------



## alan1 (Nov 23, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...


Good point, Immie.
Let people donate to the Jerry Lewis MDA all they want.  Or to embryonic stem cell research.  Or to adult stem cell research.  Or to breast cancer research.  Or to etc.
No need to have the government decide what is worthy research especially when much of it yields no results.  It's not like the congresscritters have some sort of special star-wars like force that makes them better equipped to decide where (mine and yours) charity dollars should go when it comes to medical research.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 24, 2011)

MountainMan said:


> Interesting way you have of wording that.
> Embryonic stem cell research has been going on for over 30 years and it had the building block of other stem cell research behind it.



That's over stating it a bit.  While bench research on stem cells has been going on for a while, bio-research has boomed in the last 15-20 years with the advent of technology.  We are basically in the middle of an industrial revolution of research.  Though, since few people read scientific journals, they aren't aware of it.  

To put any type of research on some sort of time line as if it were a football game and the clock is winding down is just silly.  



> It's not that there there hasn't been "immediate results" (your words), it's that there have been zero results (in medical cures) after over 30 years.
> "Simplistic" that.



That's because you have limited "results" to "medical cures".  This is what drives me nuts about people (not necessarily directed at you) who insist scientific research be limited to private funding with some sort of specific end state.

Science is, and always has been, about the search for knowledge (and not the search for money).  Scientific work is usually not done with the goal of becoming richer than God.  It's done to advance our knowledge in the field.  The sum total of that knowledge leads to breakthroughs. 

In that instance, we have a ton to learn about both adult and fetal stem cells.  This isn't limited to cures.  We can use them to learn about pathology and physiology.  The minor breakthroughs of today will lead to larger breakthroughs tomorrow.  If you doubt that, pick up a scientific paper and flip to the references page and see how experiments and studies done 30 years ago influenced work done today.

Again, I was just reading a paper about nutrition in critically care patients (a relatively new concept - how you can adjust calories on patients on a ventilator and change outcomes) and there are references from 1980 in it.  

So again, outside of the 600 lbs gorilla (which is people's moral aversion to embyronic stem cells), what is the pragmatic reason to limit research on both lines?

If this just boils down to how we all feel about the life issue, we can agree to disagree and move on.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 24, 2011)

MountainMan said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



Have you ever been involved in medical research?  I am not huge into research.  I have been a part of one publication that is about to be published and it was a very modest piece of work (as it took us two years to get published - obviously not a barn burner and we didn't require any funding).

The government doesn't decide what is worthy.  Scientists do.  

Once again, limiting outcomes to what is profitable is the antithesis of science.  If you do that, you will unwittingly cause the field to grind to a halt.  

We haven't found a cure for cancer and a lot of times the treatment is worse then the disease.  By your logic, we should stop all cancer research.


----------



## alan1 (Nov 24, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting way you have of wording that.
> ...



I have no problem with scientific research.
I am unsure why some think that congress has the intelligence to determine what scientific research should be funded with my and your dollars.  That is the gorilla in the room.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 24, 2011)

MountainMan said:


> I have no problem with scientific research.
> I am unsure why some think that congress has the intelligence to determine what scientific research should be funded with my and your dollars.  That is the gorilla in the room.



"Congress" doesnt'.  The NIH and other institutions does.  In reality, scientists submit proposals for grants and they are either approved or dissaproved.

It's the same process for virtually any other government bid or funding.  You could make the same statement about R&D in the defense industry.  Why people decide to get wrapped around the axle about research grants is beyond me.  

To insist that the endstate or goal is always a tangible and profitable quantity is also silly.

Fleming had no intentions of discovering penicillin.  It was complete happenstance.  And yet, that let to one of the greatest discoveries of the 20th century and saved countless lives in World War II and beyond.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 24, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



I wasn't aware that the Jerry Lewis Telethon (which, by the way, doesn't have Jerry Lewis any more) received federal funding, which is actually the crux of the problem here.  I don't believe anyone has suggested that private industry should be made to stop funding ESCR if it desires to do so.  It's the taxpayer money and where it should be spent that's in question.

By the way, the MDA does a lot of things besides fund research into muscular dystrophy and other nerve disorders.  They have clinics that provide diagnosis and treatment, and they offer community services such as a summer camp for kids with muscular dystrophy.  And while there is not a cure yet for MD, I believe varying progress has been made in developing treatments for different nerve and spinal disorders.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 24, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I wasn't aware that the Jerry Lewis Telethon (which, by the way, doesn't have Jerry Lewis any more) received federal funding, which is actually the crux of the problem here.  I don't believe anyone has suggested that private industry should be made to stop funding ESCR if it desires to do so.  It's the taxpayer money and where it should be spent that's in question.
> 
> By the way, the MDA does a lot of things besides fund research into muscular dystrophy and other nerve disorders.  They have clinics that provide diagnosis and treatment, and they offer community services such as a summer camp for kids with muscular dystrophy.  And while there is not a cure yet for MD, I believe varying *progress* has been made in developing treatments for different nerve and spinal disorders.



Ah yes.  The "p" word..........

Do you think the federal government doesn't fund research into Muscular Dystrophy?   

If you do, you would be wrong.

NIH awards Muscular Dystrophy Cooperative Research Center grants, September 29, 2010 News Release - National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Jerry Lewis and the Telethons are wonderful, but he's not the Lion's share benefactor of the work that is being done on DMD.  

Furthermore, since DMD is a genetic pathology, it can't be cured.  Since it is a relatively obscure pathology that universally makes those who suffer from it wheelchair bound by their teens and dead by their 30s, there isn't a ton of money to be made in treating it.  

You all simply are being selective on what you deem to be worthy of research and what is not.

In reality, for people in health care, it is all important.


----------



## alan1 (Nov 24, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > I have no problem with scientific research.
> ...



I repeat,
I am unsure why some think that congress has the intelligence to determine what scientific research should be funded with my and your dollars.  Feel free to strike the word "congress" and put in any word, agency or government bureaucracy you want as a substitute.  It's still the same thing.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 24, 2011)

MountainMan said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



And the average taxpayer does?  A significant proportion of people in this country don't even believe in evolution.

So it becomes the same "waste of taxpayers" money arguement that could apply to everything.   

As it stands, the current system with the NIH handling the grants (which are overseen by scientists) makes sense.

I also fail to see how this is purely limited to stem cells.  I don't know what you are proposing other than limiting research only to things that would promise to be a "eureka moment".

It makes little sense.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 24, 2011)

As for the NIH and who runs it and decides on the grant process:

Past NIH Directors - The NIH Almanac - National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Dr. Collins is well known for his work in genetics.  He is also known for his faith and commentary on the intelligent design issue.  

NIH Clinical Center: The NIH Clinical Center Board of Scientific Counselors

NIH Clinical Center: Board of Scientific Counselors: Review Process - Goals of Scientific Review



> Scientific significance (i.e., Does the project address an important problem? Are the aims of the project being achieved? If so, is scientific knowledge being advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts or methods that drive this field?).
> Scientific approach (i.e., Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Where problem areas arose were reasonable alternative tactics employed?).
> Innovation (i.e., Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches, or methods? Does the project employ original innovative aims? Does the project challenge existing paradigms or develop new methods?).
> Scientific and intellectual environment (i.e., In the context of this project, is the investigator taking advantage of the special features of the NIH intramural scientific environment or employing useful collaborative arrangements?).
> ...


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 24, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



Good points and I was not insinuating that MDA should be shut down.  Remember, I was playing Devil's Advocate.

It did seem to me until the latest part of the thread, that the point was to stop *ALL* ESCR. 

Immie


----------



## alan1 (Nov 24, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



And the average non-taxpayer makes the argument no different, regardless of their belief in evolution, science or anything else.  Oddly enough, belief in those things hasn't changed the results from stem cell research.



geauxtohell said:


> I don't know what you are proposing other than limiting research only to things that would promise to be a "eureka moment".
> 
> It makes little sense.


You missed my point that it's not the governments responsibility/decision to determine what is worthy research and what is not.  I said nothing about limiting research, don't try to pretend that I did.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 24, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Well, yes and no.  As far as I'm aware, ESCR mostly goes forward through agenda-driven government funding, because private industry doesn't seem to see a whole lot of promise there.  So removing taxpayer dollars from it would have the net effect of largely ending it.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 24, 2011)

MountainMan said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



Then you oppose the embryonic stem cell research bans?


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 24, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



In that case, it should largely be eliminated. 

Immie


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 24, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Why?  Why must science be tied to the premise that it has to be profitable?  Again, many of the greatest discoveries that have benefited mankind the most have been completely serendipitous.  

Please don't subscribe to the silly "libertarian" notion that science, like everything else in this world, has to be all about dollars and cents.  You never know what seemingly inane discovery of today might lead to the break through of tomorrow. 

Science is a cumulative effort.  Eliminating items simply because you deem them to be non-profitable is like playing Jenga blind.  

Again, "knowledge for the sake of knowledge" is sufficient.  That's what makes it different then other enterprises.

Is NASA a "profitable" enterprise?  No immediately.  However, look at the items that have spun out of our quest to go to space:  GPS, computers, satellites, etc.

The sum total of the money spent to go to the moon has led to items that have been enormously profitable.


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 24, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Neither science nor the arts should be tied to whether or not they will be profitable.  However, we have a government that is spending more money than it can ever begin to think about paying back.  We shouldn't be funding such research or the arts at a time like this.  If there are scientist that believe in this line of research so much, let them expend their own capital or find investors who are willing to expend their capital on the research, but it is time Uncle Sam stop doing so.

If embryonic stem cell research shows any promise let those who will profit from it expend the capital it will cost to profit from it.  I as an American taxpayer do not want to spend more tax dollars on this particular line when there is more promise from adult stem cells.  

I am not calling for the ban of such research rather the end of my having to help fund it.

Immie


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 24, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Defunding is a defacto ban.  Furthermore, it's presumptive to say there is "no money" in embryonic stem cells.  

As I noted, these aren't discrete issues.  I am sure research will get cut along with everything else to include the military.

However, to single out one particular thing and axe it based off of profitability is just silly, because that hardly stops with stem cells.  As I said, if the issue is really people have a moral objection to stem cells, then just say so and we can leave it at that.  

The "cure" for cancer isn't currently available or immediately profitable.  That doesn't mean we stop looking.  

Thankfully, the people who green-light research "get it".


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 24, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



The problem is that those morons green light everything and don't give a shit about what it is doing to our country.

If and when embryonic stem cell research even shows a glimmer of promise maybe then someone should consider green lighting government spending on it.  Until then we have more hope elsewhere and plenty of needs.

Immie


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 24, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Stem cells have greatly enhanced our understanding of cell biology.

The problem is you've fallen for "medical treatments" as the gold standard for proving worth.  

As if our understanding of basic medical sciences starts in the dusky corridors of clinical practice.


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 25, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Fine continue research funding with adult stem cells.  Any scientist who wants to gamble on embryonic stem cells should have to foot the bill themselves until they can show even the slightest bit of promise.

Immie


----------



## konradv (Nov 28, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Who says they haven't already shown "promise"?  It's not a gamble, but merely a tough problem.  As far as I'm concerned, scientists have already met your criterion for continuing research.  The fact that they haven't gotten as far doesn't mean we should stop, anymore than we should stop research on fusion power, just because fission power was easier and has been around for over half a century.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 28, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Again, what is the barometer for "slightest bit of promise"?  Its turned into a game of whack a mole.  First it was "medical treatment" then it was profitability and now it's something else.  

Inherent to this issue is that science simply for the sake of promoting our understanding of the natural world is sufficient (or should be to anyone involved in the field).  

This is a frequent canard of the anti-embryonic stem cell movement.  They attempt to disguise their real problem (their moral opposition to embryonic stem cell research) with ESCR with pseudo-scientific or financial arguments.  I don't see why people simply can't say "I object to ESCR because I find it ethically troubling".  

A (very quick) glance at the peer-reviewed literature (not OPED or agenda driven) shows the utility of ESCR and where scientists think ESCR could go:

Current State of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research: An Overview of Cell Lines and Their Use in Experimental Work - Guhr - 2006 - STEM CELLS - Wiley Online Library
MMS: Error
Human embryonic stem cell transplantation to repair the infarcted myocardium -- Leor et al. 93 (10): 1278 -- Heart

After Bush severely curtailed ESCR:

Human Embryonic Stem Cell Policy Under Former President Bush (Aug. 9, 2001&#8211;Mar. xx, 2009) [Stem Cell Information]

It shouldn't be terribly surprising that the results haven't been as impressive as you guys would desire.  It's like griping about the outcome of a self-fulfilling prophecy.  

To be certain, I am not stating that we shouldn't stop researching adult stem cells.  I am saying that we shouldn't hinder work on either type.  

One thing is for certain, our international competitors who don't see the need to make a ethical fight over this issue will corner the market of ideas in this field:

Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines and Their Use in International Research - L[]ser - 2009 - STEM CELLS - Wiley Online Library


----------



## Si modo (Nov 28, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...


Actually, Bush did not curtail ESC research.  He did not allow funding of research involving new lines.  There were existing lines and they were never exhausted.

I didn't agree with that EO, specifically because it prohibited cloning.  Which was absolutely ridiculous and fed into hysterical fears about ESC.

Anyway, a major breakthrough in prevention of spontaneous differentiation during storage happened during that time.  That's a big deal.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 28, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Actually, Bush did not curtail ESC research.  He did not allow funding of research involving new lines.  There were existing lines and they were never exhausted.



How is limiting NIH funding to 21 original lines not curtailing research?  



> I didn't agree with that EO, specifically because it prohibited cloning.  Which was absolutely ridiculous and fed into hysterical fears about ESC.
> 
> Anyway, a major breakthrough in prevention of spontaneous differentiation during storage happened during that time.  That's a big deal.



Which didn't require a curtailment of ESR to discover.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 28, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, Bush did not curtail ESC research.  He did not allow funding of research involving new lines.  There were existing lines and they were never exhausted.
> ...


I suppose if you included my entire post, you would know how it didn't curtail research.

Here is the pertinent part, bolded:



Si modo said:


> Actually, Bush did not curtail ESC research.  He did not allow funding of research involving new lines.  *There were existing lines and they were never exhausted.
> *
> I didn't agree with that EO, specifically because it prohibited cloning.  Which was absolutely ridiculous and fed into hysterical fears about ESC.
> 
> Anyway, a major breakthrough in prevention of spontaneous differentiation during storage happened during that time.  That's a big deal.



(I was an employee of the NIH during much of the Bush's second term.  We were all well aware of our stem cells and the EO.)



> > I didn't agree with that EO, specifically because it prohibited cloning.  Which was absolutely ridiculous and fed into hysterical fears about ESC.
> >
> > Anyway, a major breakthrough in prevention of spontaneous differentiation during storage happened during that time.  That's a big deal.
> 
> ...


Which I didn't say, now did I?  

I gave one example of a major breakthrough during the time of that EO so that those who might be tempted to say no research was done, won't.




And, onto the huge gripes in this thread about ESC research:  I cannot comprehend the obsession of some with wanting ESC research to stop because it "promotes a pro-abortion agenda".

It doesn't.  And, now that cloning is no longer banned, it's far beyond being a ridiculous idea.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 28, 2011)

Si modo said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



I never claimed that zero research was done.  I claimed it was curtailed as in there were barriers to it that prevented it from being as accessible as it would have been otherwise.

Other than that, we are on the same page, I think.  I really can't fathom the people who would want to stop scientific work simply because (they perceive) no immediate benefit from it.


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 28, 2011)

konradv said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



I believe that the point of this thread was to have someone provide any articles that hinted towards even an ounce of promise from embryonic stem cell research and so far no one has provided even one single study that shows promise from ESCR.

Maybe you can?

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 28, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Um, just to clarify, since that is apparently a slam towards me, I never said it should stop.  Rather, what I said was the government should not be funding it.  If you think that means the research would stop then that is not my problem.

I'm currently working for a trucking company that is losing money.  Maybe the government should just give my employer wads of cash to run goods from one side of the country to the other, after all, without trucks and trains things would be at a stand still in this country.

Immie


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 28, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Did you miss my study from 2006 about the usefulness of ESC for recovering myocardium?


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 28, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Um, just to clarify, since that is apparently a slam towards me, I never said it should stop.  Rather, what I said was the government should not be funding it.  If you think that means the research would stop then that is not my problem.
> 
> I'm currently working for a trucking company that is losing money.  Maybe the government should just give my employer wads of cash to run goods from one side of the country to the other, after all, without trucks and trains things would be at a stand still in this country.
> 
> Immie



It's not a slam at you.  It's a slam at everyone who thinks that way.  When I want to single someone out, I have no problem doing it.  

Cessation of government funding would stop the research.  It would stop virtually all research.  It's not a matter of what I believe, it's a matter of what the facts are.  If you are doubtful of that, then ask Si Modo.  She worked at the NIH and, I am sure, is well aware how much NIH grant money plays into all scientific research.  

The logical fallacy you demonstrated in the last sentence is just the kind of silliness I was talking about.  To compare a trucking company with the process of scientific research is a complete non sequitur.  

You chose to work for a private company that exists by turning a profit.  Science has never been a "profit" driven enterprise.  As I stated before, knowledge for the sake of knowledge is more than sufficient when it comes to scientific ventures.  Insisting the every experiment become profitable would kill the spirit of inquiry.  

As your company is private and for profit, you have many competitors that would gladly take your place.  In that instance, they are most likely within this country.  Things wouldn't stand still very long.  On the other hand, our competitors in biotechnology and other forms of technology are global.  Things would stand still in this occasion.  They would stand still and move to other countries that recognize that it's a good investment.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 29, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...


I know you didn't say that no research was done.  I've seen others try to say it and I made a preemptive statement.

You and I ARE almost completely on the same page.  I've seen a few ethics papers written about Bush's infamous EO on the topic and based on those analyses, I _somewhat_ understand part of it.  I never did and never will understand why cloning of existing ESC was banned as well, though.

And, now that cloning is no longer banned on ESC, I am having an impossible time understanding the opposition to research on ESC based on anti-abortion views, as we've seen in this thread.

And, I am in total agreement with my incomprehension of folks' desires to cease basic research because no immediate applicable results have been realized.

Science is classified as basic and applied: basic science is usually chemistry, physics, biology, and interdisciplinary mixes of those and applied science is engineering, medical, etc.  Basic science research usually leads to applied science research, but without basic science, we won't have applied science.

Yes, we are on the same page - very much so.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 29, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Um, just to clarify, since that is apparently a slam towards me, I never said it should stop.  Rather, what I said was the government should not be funding it.  If you think that means the research would stop then that is not my problem.
> ...


Exactly.

Immie, and anyone else who is interested:

Our federal scientific policy started developing during the FDR administration.  The father of that scientific policy is a man called Vannevar Bush.  He wrote several famous analyses of how government funding of scientific research is imperative for the national security of the USA.  Consider the development of the Bomb; we were funding close to zero basic research in that area and but for the German scientists who had been working on that and who decided to help us, the outcome of WWII would have been much different.

Vannevar Bush stressed the importance of never being in that situation again and he stressed the importance of keeping an active and leading role in scientific research, always.

Of course, Vannevar Bush is much more eloquent in his analysis of scientific policy and its importance to national security than I, so I highly recommend reading a summary of his analysis and a history of how scientific policy developed in the USA.  (His entire report to FDR is here, "Science the Endless Frontier" - well worth the read for anyone who wonders why the federal government funds scientific research.)

Although Bush's concentration in his promotion of government's funding of scientific research was on national security, as it well should be, GTH also mentions another reason - maintaining global competitiveness in the market for applied sciences.


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 29, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



I'm sure that you realize that your post came after the one to which I was responding.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 29, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Um, just to clarify, since that is apparently a slam towards me, I never said it should stop.  Rather, what I said was the government should not be funding it.  If you think that means the research would stop then that is not my problem.
> ...



I am afraid that it is because there are people who think that money grows on trees that this country is doomed to collapse.  Sure, just throw a few hundred billion at every "scientist" who says they can solve all the worlds problems.  What's another hundred trillion or so here or there?  The government can just print all the money it needs.

This country is on the verge of economic collapse because no one will say "no".  Conservatives won't say no to increasing taxes or cutting the defense budget and liberals want to fund every pet project that comes along.

I am not saying that someday ESCR won't maybe lead somewhere positive, but damnit, if this country is third world when it does, what the hell good will it do us?  And for the record there are a lot of those evil corporations out there that will fund research.  It need not be the U.S. Government all the time.  And before you go putting more words in my mouth, I did not say stop funding all research.  I said stop funding research that was not providing any current promises such as ESCR.  
Immie


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 29, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



No I didn't.  No big deal.  What did you think? That's just one study.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 29, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



No, if private companies could or would do it, then it wouldn't be an issue.  Outside of a few notable private firms that only do biotech, venture capital isn't interested on something they can't ensure a payout on.  There is nothing wrong with that, it's just not a pragmatic model for scientific progress in this country.  

Why must ESCR always be the "gold standard" for "not providing any current promises"?

For one thing, ESCR is providing advancement.  You have been sold a bill of goods by people that oppose it simply because they object to the morality of it.  

For instance, did you read the articles I sourced?  If you are short on time and don't want to wade through biostats, just skip to the conclusions (though if you start reading scientific papers a lot, that's a bad practice).


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 29, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



What do I think? Does anyone really care?  They will just go on throwing more taxpayer dollars at it regardless of what I think.

Hell, with all those medical terms I would have had to have spent time just trying to figure out what the heck they were talking about.  

I was going to reply to it last night when I saw it but I had plans and just didn't feel like going into it and acknowledging that you were the first in the thread to come up with some kind of a link that showed some kind of progress was being made.

In all honestly, what do I think?  I think adult stem cells show more promise and that research should go on.  From what I have read and understood, in layman's terms, embryonic stem cells are not all that reliable and although there is always hope for a breakthrough in the future, right now they are not promising while adult stem cells do most definitely provide hope for progress.  I cannot fathom embryonic stem cells ever being more useful than adult stem cells.

I guess that is why I don't agree that we should continue funding embryonic stem cell research until and if there ever seems to be more promise than the adult stem cells.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 29, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Read them?  

No, I skimmed through the one that spoke about the research on the myocardial infarction(?) and read the conclusion. I, also, briefly skimmed through the one about all the research that was going on.   I think those were two or your links.  I think there was at least one more.  I must admit, I lost interest and didn't open it.

Why must it be the gold standard?  Because politicians want it to divide us between good and evil (conservative and liberal).  Now, was that in respective order or not? 

Immie


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 29, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



No problem.  I have to really sit down and nug out peer reviewed studies if I want to get really analytical on them.  I can understand the conclusions, but to really look at how they reached that conclusion (and if the stats are legit) would take me a lot of time.  

At any rate, it was merely meant to demonstrate that ESCR has yielded results.  I fully favor researching adult stem cells.  However, one doesn't have to suffer at the hands of another.  There is plenty of work and interested parties to go around.  

I am not here to try and change your mind, just to something for you to consider.  This thread is chalk full of silliness on both sides (and you'll notice that most of those posters have slipped out the back door).  You are level headed.  I would take you simply seeing that ESCR is not some evil conspiracy to destroy fetuses for no scientific purpose as a victory.


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 30, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



The point of this thread was to have someone show some kind of information that showed any progress in the realm of ESCR.  Until your post, I do not believe anyone had accomplished that task and if they did, I missed it.

I agree one need not suffer because the other is being researched, but I feel even more strongly that our government needs to just stop funding every Tom, Dick and Harry that promises a magic solution if just given a few million dollars here and there.

Consider your points considered.

I have never once believed that ESCR is some kind of evil conspiracy to destroy fetuses.  That has never even crossed my mind.  I do believe that it destroys a life, but anyone who looks at this question realistically knows that said embryos have about as much chance of forming into fully grown human beings as I have of playing professional football which was my childhood dream.

Immie


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 17, 2011)

Was just shown this article about some embryonic stem cell research that has shown promise.  The article mentions and links to an article about another positive success.  Neither are ready-to-go cures, but they are both certainly indicative of positive progress with embryonic stem cells.

Latest Victory For Regenerative Medicine: Pituitary Grown From Embryonic Stem Cells | Singularity Hub


----------



## alan1 (Dec 18, 2011)

Montrovant said:


> Was just shown this article about some embryonic stem cell research that has shown promise.  The article mentions and links to an article about another positive success.  Neither are ready-to-go cures, but they are both certainly indicative of positive progress with embryonic stem cells.
> 
> Latest Victory For Regenerative Medicine: Pituitary Grown From Embryonic Stem Cells | Singularity Hub



I went back and looked at my OP.
Nope, I didn't specify human embryonic stem cells, so mouse cells qualify.

Thanks for the informative article.


----------

