Now that we're finding ways to get embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos, Bush's supporters celebrate his stoutness. They think science has vindicated him. I can't agree. For years, he ignored the changing facts on the ground in science, just as he did in Iraq. There's no honor in that.

Dear Saletan,

If ethical stops had not been put into the process it is most likely that the alternate adult stem cell research discoveries would not have transpired for decades. Stop taking credit for science as if it was inevitable this alternate stem cell source would have been discoverd in the short time that it was.

I find Bush did compromise too much. He should have said we will have a moratorium on human, embryo derived, stem cell research but continue with the animal stem cell research while we figure out the ethics.

But guess what Sal. Scientists are human too and don't find working on animals as sexy as working on humans. Many like you are hubris filled worshippers of science. You are zealots in your own right and like religious zealots are blind to that fact of your zealotry.

Go suck on your frankenfood dude.

Oops, I seem to lack an online civility gene to let me conclude a post w/o indulging my frustrations.

Frankly I think it is silly to even care if an embroyo is 'killed'.

Just silly and a non issue. In other words this alternate is just more 'feel good' nonsense. BUT from a political viewpoint it does help put this non issue to rest. So that is good.

I'm not sure you can give credit to Bush's stance for that.
Certainly, his ethical stops prevented more research into human stem cells (just as his stripping of the NIH has prevented more research and hospital funding in general). However, just because less research has been performed on human stem cell research doesn't mean that more research has focused on animal stem cell research.
Scientists are human too, and several prominent ones across the country are still searching for an adequate solution to this ethical problem.
That being said, embryonic stem cell lines still appear to be the most suited for translational research as they appear to be the most stable lines available. If embryos are going to be discarded anyways, why throw them out? Why not, at the very least, use those resources to help save lives?

Even if you believe that embryos are human, this question is still valid: If a minor dies, why not try to use that loss of life to, at the very least, try to save others? Especially if the guardian of the minor has consented to donating the cadaver to science?

People can't see the forest for the trees.

Most anything that can be done on animals in regards to stem cell research will likely translate to humans.

Tell you what - CURE x, y, and z in monkeys using gene therapy and/or animal embryonic stem cells while we RIGHTLY discuss the ethical consequences of this on society in regards to humans.

Whats that you haven't cured diabetes in a mouse yet. Haven't regrown and reinserted an eyeball for a monkey yet. Haven't restored a parapalegic rat. Haven't cured Parkinson's in ......

Okay, get that right while we discuss over here how to proceed from that point. Really, we don't need to grow a human eye on a monkey quite yet, grow the monkey eye first.

Are you starting to wake up to the argument yet?

However, just because less research has been performed on human stem cell research doesn't mean that more research has focused on animal stem cell research.

Exactly, animal stem cell research is not as SEXY as human stem cell research. I could only hope that animal stem cell research had increased. It is a simple fact that scientist don't want to pay their dues anymore. They want to jump straight into the fray, consequences be damned. Not all my concerns are about "destroying human life" they also center around other considerations. Such as do we really want to hybridize human and animal cells?

Adult stem cell make much more sense in the end. After all they ARE less subject to immunity rejection when re-introduced.

I don't give Bush active credit for the discoveries but you'd have to be retarded to think adult stem cell discoveries would have happened without Bush's policy. As a matter of fact I fault Bush for getting the ethical question wrong and offering the world poor leadership.

What has happened internationally on embryonic stem cell research? Precious little for all the whacky "scientists" out there.

RIGHTLY discuss the ethical consequences of this on society in regards to humans.

I just don't agree with your take here. How we apply what we learn has ethical consequences but what embryo we use to get there doesn't. Again, it is silly to even care.

Just more crap that man is playing 'god'. Man has to since god doesn't do crap.

By your reckoning we'd could ethically have slave embryonic cells and that would be okay too.

I hate to tell you that your amendment idea ending slavery simply would never have worked.

:0)

Southern Cross Flag = racism + treason + slavery + moral terpitude issues.

You live under the dillusion that because you and some others don't have a God means one doesn't exist. BTW, the guys who throw up their hands and says the don't know if there is a God or not are the ones who are intellectually superior in this, not the disbelievers or the believers.

I'm not even sure where to begin to comment on this...
I'm sure we can all agree here that we're nowhere close to finding a cure for any of the diseases you mentioned and this has to do with numerous factors unrelated to your comments:
1) Scientific research in this country, including animal stem cell research, has been way down since bush has taken office. This has little to do with his policy on stem cell research. It has more to do with the fact that he's the first president to consistently reduce the NIH's budget for 6 consecutive years(the NIH had a slight bump the past year). If anything, our discoveries on adult stem cell research have happened despite Bush's policies on biological research.
2) We know very little about stem cells to begin with. Before we can start trying to cure diseases, we need to understand the nature of what we are curing diseases with. This includes animal and adult stem cells. Because of the limit on adult stem cell research, we are unable to even do the basic research necessary to understand the tools that can be used.
3) Many people on both sides of the argument bring up this notion of "oh you can't cure X,Y,Z yet so why bother", or the flipside "oh we need to open up this research so we can cure X,Y,Z now". Please, basic research requires decades of cautious careful study before it translates to clinical application. To bring up what we can and can't cure now limits our sight, so that people really look at the trees instead of the forest.
4) Internationally, a great deal of basic research output has been produced. If you don't believe me, simply pick up the past year's copy of cell and take a look at what's been done in other countries with respect to stem cell research.
5) This outpouring of research in stem cell(as well as other biologic research) has caused our own talent pool to diminish, as highly talented scientists leave our country to pursue better opportunities worldwide. As a result, our educational system is diminished.
6) Since Bush's policies on the NIH and stem cell research have been made, significant declines in health care quality and coverage have been observed. Little do most people know, but funding for adult stem cell research directly benefits hospitals, through indirect and direct costs paid to said institutions. When hospitals lose money because of policies refusing to fund research, the quality and quantity of hospitals and their staffs is reduced. This results in fewer lives saved from diseases that are very curable today.
7) Actually, most studies done on animals do not translate well to human treatments. A great example of this would be the so-called Alzheimer's vaccine that was produced at MGH. Although it worked real well on rats and beagles(yes, beagles get Alzheimer's disease), the vaccine produced hydrocephalitis in humans. Ask any drug company, and they'll tell you that most drugs that pass Phase I clinical trials rarely make it through Phase II and/or III. As you yourself just said, the future of stem cell treatments will most likely lie with adult stem cells.

8)Scientists don't want to pay their dues anymore? Seriously, what are you smoking? As I noted above, the scientific industry in this country has been hurt tremendously by the current presidency and the republican congress that supported him. Because of people who want to "cure diseases now", scientists, in order to procure the money they need for research, are forced to turn to more "sexy" pursuits. As funding for good careful research has been drying up, due to the current presidents cutting of the NIH.

Jazzguitarman is absolutely correct. As politicians and moralists conduct foolish debates on the morality of stem cell research, more american citizens have become sicker, dumber, and poorer due to the lack of investment for funding in general. Ironically, by trying to be moral, these people have indirectly committed unethical acts.

Should there be a limit to scientific research? Absolutely! As any tool can be used for ethical or unethical purposes. Does that mean we should not research how to understand these tools? Absolutely not!

Finally, human embryos are being discarded every day, whether you like it or not. Are you saying we should trash the resources we have to, at the very least, make some good out of it? We're not talking about killing babies here for the purpose of doing research. We're talking about using discarded remains to better understand who we are and how we work. If you argue that using what is essentially dead to perform basic research (not create zombies or animal-human hybrids), which in turn will save lives and educate more people. Then by your logic, should organ donation also be unethical?

"You live under the dillusion that because you and some others don't have a God means one doesn't exist. BTW, the guys who throw up their hands and says the don't know if there is a God or not are the ones who are intellectually superior in this, not the disbelievers or the believers."
I guess I should comment on this too...
I don't know how you get from talking about the ethics of stem cell research to whether someone believes in a God. Belief in a God has nothing to do with intellect or vice versa, it is simply an individual choice one makes. After all, even a nihilist believes in something. If you think I don't believe in a God, or if you think that my disbelief in a God makes me think that God doesn't exist, then you don't even understand the words that I am typing right now.

The key to your improving your argument would be to work on brevity. The key to brevity would be to stop repeating yourself. AS IN the constant harping on the BUSH administration and Republicans.

You are too emotionally vested or brainwashed on this topic.

As far as I'm concerned my vote goes for those who use animal embryonic stem cell for further research and to adult stem cell research. It is only the permissive characters in our society who are desperately seeking human, embryonic stem cell research. It is a politcal movement that believes it can use this issue among several others to fundamentally change our social values. It is a transparent effort.

Jazzman implied there is no God. I was addressing him based on some other topics we've tackled before. I am thinking I know him more than from this single thread. I've gotten the impression he has atheist leanings.

My apologies, I thought those comments were directed towards me. It's a tangential thread anyways.

You're right that I am emotionally vested in this topic. From a scientist's perspective, the Bush administration has made it extremely difficult to fund any research. If he had taken a stand on human embryonic stem cell research, but had not cut the NIH, I probably wouldn't be so angry about it.

Regardless, my problem isn't with embryonic stem cell research being funded or not. My problem is with 2 other points you made previously:
1) Scientists lack any form of ethics, therefore wouldn't try to find another way to generate stem cell lines
2) Because of Bush's stance on stem cell research, progress has been made in alternative methods of generating stem cells

As I stated in my post above, advances in stem cell research have been made despite a slew of cuts in public funding, and many of my colleagues have been working hard to defuse this ethical dilemma by generating alternative stem cell lines. Unfortunately, they've been hampered by the fact that less than 3% of all scientists get funded for this kind of research. If Bush had taken a strong stance but kept NIH funding to the levels we saw in the 90s(when 15% of scientists were able to get funds for this kind of research), we probably wouldn't even have this argument; scientists would have found a better way to generate alternate lines.
If Bush wanted to truly honor his own morality, he would've provided the funds for scientists to find another way. There's no honor in preventing funding for destroying embryos, and then removing funding for finding an alternative.

"The key to your improving your argument would be to work on brevity. The key to brevity would be to stop repeating yourself. AS IN the constant harping on the BUSH administration and Republicans.

You are too emotionally vested or brainwashed on this topic."

wow. your entire argument has just devolved into name-calling and insults. how valid that is.

I should've added this to my first post:
A lot of the research done to find alternative lines has not been done in America. Much of the recent work has been done in Japan and England. Most alternative lines discovered in the US, were discovered before bush even took office. The two alternative lines discovered in America during bush's tenure have not been shown to be particularly stable in human cells(they also carry their own ethical dilemmas).

Therefore, having ethical limitations has had no impact on the discovery of alternative stem cell lines. Furthermore, the lack of NIH funding has allowed other countries to advance adult stem cell research beyond what America has been able to do.

Name calling? No.

Possibly insulting? Maybe.

He wrote to damn much. I could go through his list and deconstruct most of it because most of it was "OPINION on facts" (that was not even rudimentarily backed up with any sources/links) and not merely "personal opinion". The other stuff was attacks on Bush. He erroneously believes I in any manner support Bush on anything.

1) Scientific research in this country, including animal stem cell research, has been way down since bush has taken office. This has little to do with his policy on stem cell research. It has more to do with the fact that he's the first president to consistently reduce the NIH's budget for 6 consecutive years(the NIH had a slight bump the past year). If anything, our discoveries on adult stem cell research have happened despite Bush's policies on biological research.

How much is way down in $. How much money is spent by private concerns, is that up or down? Reference to stem cell research statistics. What percent does NIH expenditure represent of the total? How much did California put into the pot? Get the idea?

2) We know very little about stem cells to begin with. Before we can start trying to cure diseases, we need to understand the nature of what we are curing diseases with. This includes animal and adult stem cells. Because of the limit on adult stem cell research, we are unable to even do the basic research necessary to understand the tools that can be used

The underlined part - what limits on "adult stem cell research"

3) Many people on both sides of the argument bring up this notion of "oh you can't cure X,Y,Z yet so why bother", or the flipside "oh we need to open up this research so we can cure X,Y,Z now". Please, basic research requires decades of cautious careful study before it translates to clinical application. To bring up what we can and can't cure now limits our sight, so that people really look at the trees instead of the forest.

Basic research on animals haven't been done? How does that require an expedited process on the pending decision for human embryo stem cell research. Doesn't it follow to do the animal research first? OFTEN IT IS CALLED PROOF OF CONCEPT.

4) Internationally, a great deal of basic research output has been produced. If you don't believe me, simply pick up the past year's copy of cell and take a look at what's been done in other countries with respect to stem cell research.

Its your argument you link out to at least 3 or 4 examples where other countries are doing a lot on embryonic human stem cells.

5) This outpouring of research in stem cell(as well as other biologic research) has caused our own talent pool to diminish, as highly talented scientists leave our country to pursue better opportunities worldwide. As a result, our educational system is diminished.

Got some names or are you just going by sentiments dating back a few years now?

6) Since Bush's policies on the NIH and stem cell research have been made, significant declines in health care quality and coverage have been observed. Little do most people know, but funding for adult stem cell research directly benefits hospitals, through indirect and direct costs paid to said institutions. When hospitals lose money because of policies refusing to fund research, the quality and quantity of hospitals and their staffs is reduced. This results in fewer lives saved from diseases that are very curable today.

Purely subjective statements. So they redirect monies from the research to the patient care? What are indirect and direct costs involved in human embryo adult stem cell research? I don't know what you are talking about.

7) Actually, most studies done on animals do not translate well to human treatments. A great example of this would be the so-called Alzheimer's vaccine that was produced at MGH. Although it worked real well on rats and beagles(yes, beagles get Alzheimer's disease), the vaccine produced hydrocephalitis in humans. Ask any drug company, and they'll tell you that most drugs that pass Phase I clinical trials rarely make it through Phase II and/or III. As you yourself just said, the future of stem cell treatments will most likely lie with adult stem cells.

Ironically, all these studies have to go through animal trials, whether they fail or not. But we at this point aren't talking about stem cell research...

I really don't know what this discussion is all about. I was talking about the ethical issues of human embryo stem cell research and how knowledge and techniques exist in vast quantities out there that can be discovered while not yet on the path to unfettered human embryo stem cell research.

This partial hiatus we've had has directly led to adult stem cell research that probably would not have happened in an expedited fashion were it not for a considered approach to this type of research.