The battle over embryonic stem cell research is over. A few skirmishes will no doubt continue—perhaps even for years—and some ESCR advocates will refuse to acknowledge defeat. But they have decisively lost. Years from now, when we look back in astonishment at having been fleeced for billions to pay for therapeutically worthless research, we’ll recognize that California was the Waterloo for ESCR.
In 2004, California approved Proposition 71, a ballot measure that would allow the state to borrow $3 billion for ESCR. At best the measure would have been an epic boondoggle: pharmaceutical companies would have been able to profit off the taxpayer-funded research without the state sharing any of the profits or even obtaining any of the developed drugs at a cheaper cost. But because it was considered a “progressive” measure (ESCR has always been a stalking horse for abortion rights) it received the support from a long list of billionaires, Silicon Valley tycoons, Nobel laureates, and Hollywood celebrities. Convinced that the only thing standing between science and cures was time and money, the citizens of California opened the state’s coffers.
But five years later, the hype has died down and ESCR has provided no cures, no therapies, no progress, and no hope. Investor’s Business Daily notes,
The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the state agency created to, as some have put it, restore science to its rightful place, is diverting funds from ESCR to research that has produced actual therapies and treatments: adult stem cell research. It not only has treated real people with real results; it also does not come with the moral baggage ESCR does.
To us, this is a classic bait-and-switch, an attempt to snatch success from the jaws of failure and take credit for discoveries and advances achieved by research Prop. 71 supporters once cavalierly dismissed. We have noted how over the years that when funding was needed, the phrase “embryonic stem cells” was used. When actual rsarena progress was discussed, the word “embryonic” was dropped because ESCR never got out of the lab.
Advocates of ESCR preyed on the scientific and ethical illiteracy of the general public to support the massive funding of this speculative research. The complexity of the issue and the peculiar terminology used often prevented many citizens from developing a fully informed opinion on the matter. They relied on the “experts” and the ESCR supporters took full advantage of this trust by making claims that had no basis in reality. As Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, said in 2004 about the claims that ESCR could lead to cures for Alzheimer’s, “To start with, people need a fairy tale. Maybe that’s unfair, but they need a story line that’s relatively simple to understand.”
The truth about ESCR wasn’t unknown to researchers and scientists. The only legitimate practical (though it remained unethical) reason for pursuing ESCR has always been basic research. Researchers know, however, that you’ll never get a grant for millions of dollars because you find stem cells intriguing and want to spend your life studying them in a lab. So they stretched the truth by downplaying the fact that the barriers to therapeutic applications were all but insurmountable. They’ve always known, as MIT researcher James Sherley says, that, “Figuring out how to use human embryonic stem cells directly by transplantation into patients is tantamount to solving the cancer problem.”
Fortunately, the misinformation and false promises seem to be on the wane. Some politicians still continue to tout the benefits of ESCR, of course, because their ignorance is often as limitless as their willingness to talk about issues they know nothing about. (Digression: Several years ago I presented testimony on ESCR and cloning before the Illinois legislature. A Chicago Democrat told me I was wrong about ESCR because he knew that people had already been cured by injecting “embryos into a patient’s spinal cord.”) Scientists and researchers, however, appear to be less vocal than they were a few years ago. Perhaps the Climategate scandal has served as a warning that trust in science is destroyed when they are willing to deceive the public.
This doesn’t mean that they will be honest about their deception, of course. And we shouldn’t expect the “ESCR has proven to be a failure” theme to be carried by the media. Despite the fact that adult stem cell research has provided 73 treatments for everything from heart disease to brain cancer while ESCR has never produced any results at all, ESCR will still be considered a “promising approach.” Like climate change, stem cell research is often more about politics than science, so as long as gullible politicians are willing to hand over millions in funding, supporters won’t admit defeat.
Still, while the people of California may continue to throw their money away on the research, the real debate about the promise of ESCR is over. Whether they realize it or not, ESCR advocates have lost—and ethical research has won.
(Via: Stand to Reason Blog)
January 13th, 2010 | 9:31 am
Waterloo huh? I highly doubt you will post my comment. But Your wrong. And knowing that I have proved YOU wrong to YOU directly is of great satisfaction. I could literally show links upon links of the success’ of StemCell research from Prop 71 and thru out the Country/World. Funny how the generation of want it now thinks that it can come instantly. At the beginning of the 20th Century a telephone was a novelty in communication. In the Span of time from 1900 to 1999 communication has improved from a few phones to being able to communicate with Voyager 2 BILLIONs of miles away from earth. Triple heart bipass was a big deal in the 70′s80′s now it is common place. The CUSP is upon the Scientific era for StemCells and the Platform. The ethical debate has Stifled the science under Bush. We have FOUR years under BO to get this science pushed hard and onto the USA spectrum, after which the Left is gone for at least a generation from power. Companys like Geron and Advanced Cell Technology are just NOW bringing Stemcell Tech to the FDA for HUMAN Clinical’s. Most recently ACT brought an IND to the fDA for its RPE program to treat Stargardts SMD. It WORKED flawless in Rats and will work in Humans.
Take a Chill Pill. Science and medicine is advancing and doubling every 18months, by 2030 it will double every 6 months. the 21st century is the new dawn
feeed
January 13th, 2010 | 9:45 am
Guys, it’s going to happen whether politics in the US stops it or not. Research needs to be done on both Embryonic and Adult. That’s the only thing that will save Health Care Cost in the future. Special interest do NOT want progress because they will no longer be able to line their pockets treating the symptoms instead of the cures. I disagree with this article.
January 13th, 2010 | 12:14 pm
“Science and medicine is advancing and doubling every 18months, by 2030 it will double every 6 months. the 21st century is the new dawn”
Science is doubling every 18 months? I am confused. How does science multiply?
I find your argument hard to follow. Phones and heart surgery have improved over the years, so, therefore, we should research stem cells? The difference between phones and ESCR is that phones had an immediate, practical use. The point of this article is that there are no practical uses for ESCR yet, four years after Prop. 71. Your links (can’t you post just one?) not withstanding.
Regardless of where you come down on the embryonic research issue, it is impossible to deny that it is a fuzzy moral question. And, as we question where our limited research funding should go, it is probably wiser to fund research with a more immediate and less controversial results.
No one is doubting that given enough time and money, we might find a use for embryonic stem cells. And this use might even be a cure for a horrible and destructive disease. What some people doubt is whether we should be exchanging lives, one for the other, in order to reduce the suffering of the more powerful. We would find research on retarded or crippled people appalling for the same reason.
Of course, whether or not you believe embryos are real human persons is up to you, but opinions do not change facts. Under such fuzzy moral conditions, isn’t it better to err on the side of life? There might just be someone watching.
January 13th, 2010 | 2:16 pm
The iPS cells have replaced embryonic stem cells in most applications. However, there is still some debate as to if the IPS cells are truly identical to the embryonic stem cells. One issue is DNA methylation. There are still differences in this between iPS cells and embryonic stem cells. I think iPS research is very promising and that these cells will make embryonic stem cell research obsolete. However, we are not yet at this point (although very close). Once iPS match the “gold standard” of embryonic stem cells, then embryonic stem cell research will finally be obsolete.
We’re close, but not there yet, guys.
January 13th, 2010 | 2:31 pm
ESCR is a bit of a misnomer that leads to an unqualified acceptance of (adult) ASCR.
When an adult stem cell is reverted back to a toti-potent state, in effect it has become an embryonic stem cell. What really matters is not the source (if the source is not destroyed) but the potentiality of the stem cell. To understand this better, realize that the first cell created during the moment of conception is a toti-potent stem cell.
Dianne Irving, a former bench biochemist with the NIH and bioethics expert at Georgetown University, told LifeSiteNews.com that there must be caution among pro-life advocates in endorsing the work … should the cells created be shown to be “totipotent” instead of “pluripotent”, it could mean that the process creates not embryo-like iPS cells, but entirely new, living and developing embryonic human individuals.
If you are opposed to ESCR, then you need to truly understand the philosophical implications of you reasoning. You might just discover that even ASCR is unethical and unacceptable.
January 13th, 2010 | 2:42 pm
,Brett,
I am sorry you find it hard to under stand that science is increasing at rate that even 15yrs ago was un heard of. The internet in which you have written your comments on has saved more tree’s and reduced global warming more than any BS speech from Al Gore and or tree hugger has. simply thru the reduction of EVERYTHING with a carbon foot print. E-commerce means, a huge reduction in Clear cutting for paper. Tele-conferences with “go to meeting” has saved billions of gallons of Fuel that toxicity would end up in the Atomosphere. The analogy of Phones I thought was a clear Cut analogy of how Investment in Science has gigantic rewards that are completly unattached in “appearance” but beyond a doubt all come together at some point. AGM did not know he would be father of the Internet?
Lanza/CHA/Harvard/5/8/09 made a discovery known in a joint paper that appeared in Stem Cell Stem journal in which unlike Dr. Y using Virus’ to coax the transformation process turning a patients own skin cells into Stems , The good Doctor used “protiens” to make this transference. Companys like Advanced Cell Tech and Geron are paving the way for the future “Bill-Gates” of Stem Cell researching and regenerative medicine. StemCell science is THE Science of the future and is a Domino effect that could literally End the Industry of Waste of Treating the Illness instead of healing and foregoing the gigantic costs of which. $250,000 for Open Heart Surgery. {StemCell injection to the effected area $10,000??” etc etc etc. I encourage everyone to Think out side the Box on this Star Trek Science. ACT’s Blastomere process has ended the Political debate in that it can Pluck ONE stem Cell out of the Embryo and NOT harm it to build StemCell’s. This is ground breaking,.but is kept silent by the Far righties. Under Bush the Republican Majority brought TWO StemCellFunding Bills of which he veto’d both times. BOTH sides of the isle want this technology funded. Everyone has a friend/mother/father/etc etc that is/has rotted from cancer, alzheimers, heart, etc etc etc
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/3933270
feeed
January 13th, 2010 | 3:37 pm
WOW LOOK AT THIS!!!!!!!!!! took me ONLY one day to prove how damn wrong someone is. When is the Net going to require a license to bash one’s hands against the key-boards in which they KNOW nothing of what they speak?
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
feeed
read it and weep.
http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/81349157.html
January 13th, 2010 | 3:37 pm
“I am sorry you find it hard to under stand that science is increasing at rate that even 15yrs ago was un heard of…. The analogy of Phones I thought was a clear Cut analogy of how Investment in Science has gigantic rewards that are completly unattached in “appearance” but beyond a doubt all come together at some point.”
I’m even more sorry there are people who seriously think biology and electronics are analogous.
January 13th, 2010 | 3:52 pm
Ethical ESCR is not only a possibility, it’s already here.
PGD has already proven to not damage the embryo, and has been used in IVF for some time. Thousands of children have been born this way already.
The company that the other commentor mentions (Advanced Cell Technology) is actually one of the few companies that use the same method to create ESC lines as is already used in PGD, with no harm to the embryo.
January 13th, 2010 | 5:13 pm
WOW LOOK AT THIS!!!!!!!!!
http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/81349157.html
That is another good example of ADULT stem cells used to cure. one of the 73 treatments mentioned in the article.
Embryonic stem cell research, not so much, Well, OK Zero.
Frank
January 13th, 2010 | 5:42 pm
Regarding this link posted by the commenter above:
http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/81349157.html
careful reading will reveal that this is a phase 1 trial. For those who are unfamiliar with the terminology specific to clinical trials, I refer you to this site:
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/info/understand
A phase 1 trial is to determine safety and dosage only: to identify dangerous side effects before testing on a larger population. It is not to determine efficacy (whether a treatment does anything, let alone anything more than existing treatments). This is typically the earliest stage in testing a new treatment. Its completion does not guarantee advancement to the next stage (Phase II, more safety, some efficacy). That often depends on grantwriting skills, the funding fates, commercial support…..I’m not sure how the usual drug development timeline would apply to ESCR, but new drugs take 10-12 years to reach approval–and most never do.
ALS is a rotten disease. Because it is as awful and fatal as it is, people are willing to try things that in a less rotten condition they might not. My opinion as a physician who has participated in clinical research (admittedly not a clinical trialist) is that this use of ESCR in ALS is a commentary on the desperate straits of those with ALS and not on the great potential of ESCR. Nontheless I await commentary in capital letters with multi-exclamation points and will gripe along with my colleagues about scientific illiteracy in America.
January 13th, 2010 | 10:08 pm
luckily feeeding frenzy, we won’t have to hear your rant anywhere near 2030, hopefully.
January 14th, 2010 | 12:10 am
R Hampton has a point worthy of serious analysis. ASCR could possibly be considered unethical and may be oncogenic . Embryonic cell lines are both unethical and dangerous. It was obvious to me that teratomas would grow out even before I read the initial paper in Science. It’s a racket and a waste of resources also especially in the present financial fiasco. Let’s concentrate on real problems : the suffering in Haiti and elsewhere. Stem cells are no cure for this. TW
January 14th, 2010 | 1:25 am
ESCR is God’s Will, evidence of His grace, sent to reduce suffering.
(Jesus, the son of God spent most of his time intervening on behalf of the disabled and sick. Does it make sense to you that he now wants you to target the sick?)
Why do you accept policitcal leaders masquarding as religious leaders?
If you speak to any of the top Adult Stem Cell Scientists you will see they say Embryonic Stem Cells are ethical, the “Gold Standard” and the most promising treatment option for millions!
If we really are trying to safe embryos, why don’t we try to stop fertility treatment? (can it be because Fertility treatment is popular?
Look, everyone is doing their best, but we need to be sure.
January 14th, 2010 | 10:36 am
“ESCR is God’s Will, evidence of His grace, sent to reduce suffering.”
Splendid! I trust that you’ve previously trundled off to a kidney donor list to render up your extra kidney to one of the suffering as soon as possible. (1) It would reduce that suffering, (2) you only need one to process waste, thus (3) you have an extra. Add them up, and your refusal would be a selfish assault on His grace and a thwarting of his will. More to the point, you’ll still be alive afterward.
If you’re asking embryonic human life to fall on a grenade for the rest of us, it’s only fair that you take one for the team, too.
January 14th, 2010 | 10:38 am
Oh, and I think all fertility treatments that involve the production of “extra” embryonic human life should be banned.
January 14th, 2010 | 10:41 am
[...] even further than the IBD article is Joe Carter at the First Things Blog, who essentially characterizes advocates of embryonic stem cell research as kissing cousins with the [...]
January 14th, 2010 | 10:44 am
I’ve seen some pretty erudite comments here but, as always, the “fringe” comments as well. Wisdom is usually simple but profound. The slaughter of our children must stop and I believe we will be judged. It is simply disingenuous to assert that good can proceed from intrinsic evil.
January 14th, 2010 | 11:08 am
http://www.prayersforthepeople.com/id168.html
Embryonic Stem Cell Research : Funding Destruction
Thank you Joe for the excellent post.
-daniel
January 14th, 2010 | 11:18 am
[...] even further than the IBD article is Joe Carter at the First Things Blog, who essentially characterizes advocates of embryonic stem cell research as kissing cousins with the [...]
January 14th, 2010 | 2:04 pm
Dale,
I think you are saying you oppose Fertility Treatment & that validates your position on ESCR. I agree! IF and ONLY IF you take the same actions against Fertility Treatment that you do against ESCR.
If you take actions against (write checks, persuade, vote against) the sick but do not do the same against Fertility Treatment, then you are in a worse spot than me. (you are likely to outlive me, but so will a goldfish…but a goldfish won’t share eternity)
Not taking 10 minutes to check out the facts before taking actions to PROLONG SUFFERING is a lot like the multitude of “Christians” who took actions resulting in disabled, ethnic and political deaths during WWII. (they also had the support of their pseudo religious but it turns out politically motivated leaders)
Since you asked; I had to stop donating blood & go off the bone marrow registry when I was diagnosed with Multiple System Atrophy.
I accept your challenge to my logic by asking about my character, even though it is a diversion from my thoughtful point.
I rec’d the Governor’s Volunteer Award, volunteered thousands of hours, started a food kitchen, free clinic and a fire department. I tutor at risk kids, and worked with profoundly disabled children. I risked my life and was commended in a hostage situation with a newborn.
I know I can make mistakes, but look at the sheer volumn of time Jesus spent on the sick and disabled…does doing the opposite make any sense?
January 14th, 2010 | 2:12 pm
My tremor hit submit early…
Since you asked; I had to stop donating blood & go off the bone marrow registry when I was diagnosed with Multiple System Atrophy.
I will not live to benefit from ESCR, but hundreds of thousands will!
We go to Adult Stem Cell and Embryonic Stem Cell Conferences and I see the top Brain Docs in the world…ALL say Embryonic Stem Cells are the most promising!
My famous brain doctor was very sad one day, he told me when cures are found from ESCR and the number who suffered needlessly are counted, he felt it would be hundreds of thousands.
He is from Eastern Europe, and we discussed the shame people felt. We discussed the Pope’s apology and his researching and taking responsibility for CAUSING deaths.
We discussed good “Christians” who tried to stop the Polio VACCCINE.
Not any groups we would want to join, right?
January 14th, 2010 | 2:31 pm
feeed – (regarding your posting yesterday at 2:42pm) I am not sure why you are so excited about the ACT research and “cures.” I watched the video to which your link pointed us and heard about the blastomere procedure to pluck out embryonic cells without destroying the embryo. But I still wonder, where do the embryos come from? Are they kept in a petrie disk somewhere? And I doubt that this has ended any political debate – I’m not sure anything ever puts a stop to political debate as long as people think they can get mileage out of it.
Either way, according to the newest press release on ACT’s website:
“It has been over a decade since human embryonic stem cells were first discovered,” said Dr. Robert Lanza, ACT’s Chief Scientific Officer. “The field desperately needs a big clinical success. After years of research and political debate, we’re finally on the verge of showing the potential clinical value of embryonic stem cell research. Our research clearly shows that stem cell-derived retinal cells can rescue visual function in animals that otherwise would have gone blind. We are hopeful that the cells will be similarly efficacious in patients.”
The key phrases here are “on the verge,” “potential clinical value” and “hopeful.” It appears from ACT’s own press release that their research has not yet produced any cures which would justify the enormous funding thrown at this technology, but that they hope they are coming up on a big win.
So I am not sure why you are LYAO.
Oh, and as for “bashing one’s hands against the keyboard” – is that why your punctuation, spelling, capitalization and grammar are so wildly incorrect, as a consequence of your bashing your hands on the keyboard?
January 14th, 2010 | 3:23 pm
Annie, Jesus healed the sick. He didn’t demand that others sacrifice themselves in the process. He didn’t sever the legs of another to heal the man on the pallet who couldn’t walk. He didn’t inflict hemophilia on another woman to heal the woman with an issue of blood. He certainly didn’t kill anyone to raise Lazarus or the daughter of Jairus.
You find my kidney analogy offensive. Well, why, precisely? We have the gift of an extra kidney–why should a healthy potential donor be stingy with that gift? It’s a far lesser sacrifice than the ultimate one being demanded of embryonic human life, and for the same ends: alleviation of suffering, based on God’s design and grace.
But that is precisely what you are asking with destructive embryonic stem cell research: demanding that one must die so that another will live.
Actually, that’s not quite correct: you are demanding that one must die so that hypothetically someone years from now might benefit in some unspecified way. Which, as you are forced to admit, is all those you speak with can honestly say.
Opposing that is hardly “taking actions against the sick,” even though you obviously think I’m somehow helping to sign your death warrant by doing so. I am sorry you feel that way. I’m even more saddened about your medical condition, even though you probably don’t believe that. As the heir to some nontrivial congenital medical problems myself, I understand the desire for cures. Even more so when I contemplate my young children, also heirs to the same problems.
But research that destroys human life by design is never rooted in the example of Jesus. He never asked the weak to suffer for the benefit of those more powerful, nor did he endorse the exploitation of the helpless.
There are other paths to the same goal, and I support them wholeheartedly. Pluripotent stem cells increasingly can be produced without destructive research. Let’s agree to go that way without following the siren of destruction.
January 14th, 2010 | 4:52 pm
Dale,
Because these are life & death issues; I have read and checked out dozens of right to life web pages, when they quote a scientist I check out the quote.
Why can’t you do the same?
The very adult stem cell scientists you and I both support DISAGREE with YOU. They say adult stem cells have problems that will delay and possibly prevent cures for about 70 diseases that millions of people suffer from. (they are about to make another diabetes advancement!)
You can check out the Right to Life/Personhood/ Anti Stem Cell pages yourself, and with 4 mouse clicks you will see complete misquotes and out and out lies.
Shouldn’t a person check out the facts before forcing others to die for minority held interpretation of God’s Will? (You may think I’m totally wrong, but most Christians, most Catholics, most Fundamentalist also disagree with you!)
I answered all your questions, but will you answer mine?
Have you taken as much action to stop/outlaw Fertility Treatment (which makes embryos & destroys the “left over”) as to stop/outlaw doctors from snatching the cells from the trash & using them to help living people?
Since you know only cells already scheduled for destruction that are knowingly donated can be used, I don’t get the connection. But I want to understand, the discussion is good, so I will answer.
We often make decisions that could save or cost a life..Do we hire enough Police so they go in pairs? Do I buy 2 or 3 smoke detectors? Do I donate to the stranger who needs a transplant?
It may feel noble to delay ESCR, but “even” people of faith should be careful before imposing their beliefs on others. Plus, it isn’t an American value to force others to die for our beliefs.
Also, the Bible clearly says “Life begins in the Womb” a place no dish fertilized embryo has ever been!
I don’t doubt your sincere concern, but I have had a wonderful life! Despite the dire diagnosis & the frankly terrible physical aspects, I am happy! I am not afraid to die, but I can’t shake seeing children and younger people (I’m 51) dying from diseases that doctors believe the cures were delayed 8 years.
I am also worried about good, nice people I know who have blindly followed on this issue, they should have checked things out, but our new version of religion seems even less tolerant of review…..How will they feel if I turn out to be right?
January 15th, 2010 | 11:35 am
Annie:
This is an unfair presumption:
“I am also worried about good, nice people I know who have blindly followed on this issue, they should have checked things out, but our new version of religion seems even less tolerant of review…..How will they feel if I turn out to be right?”
Please don’t assume I’m blind and haven’t examined the issue in detail. I have. The fact remains that you are promoting the destruction of embryonic human life in the laboratory.
More to the point, even if you are right and should there be some benefit down the road to said research, I can no more endorse ESCR than I can endorse involuntary organ donation or blood transfusions from a prisoner on death row. Which happens now in China, by the way, providing great good to those who receive such organs. But certain lines can never be crossed, and utilitarian thinking is not the mind of Christ.
No, I haven’t spent as much time fighting against fertility treatments as I have against destructive embryonic stem cell research. For as awful as production of “extra” human life in a lab is, it’s still not as awful as destroying that life is. The stakes and actions are different. At some basic level, the fertility clinics are trying to offer something good without destroying anything. The problem is that the people who go to such clinics often fail to realize that a child is not a commodity, and there is no such thing as “extra” or “discardable” human life.
At this point, the best that can be done is to ban donations of one’s unwanted offspring to destructive research, ban the “discarding” of embryonic human life, and to promote adoption of the embryonic human life from said facilities. Which has been done in the case of the so-called “snowflake” children.
With all respect, the “imposition of one’s beliefs” argument is an empty one, laughably so. By your own admission, you and other supporters of destructive ESCR, such as the President, are determined, from the best of motives, both religious and secular, to impose your beliefs on me. And have successfully done so, via the voters in Michigan back in 2006, going so far as to amend the State constitution. As well as the President via executive order. Which, as an important aside, also forcibly terminated non-destructive embryonic stem cell research, all in the name of science. Over the past three years, I’ve had the other side’s views jammed down my throat and reaching into my family’s strained coffers–thus, I am forced to respectfully decline the invitation to unilaterally disarm.
January 15th, 2010 | 12:43 pm
Dale,
Thanks for the discussion, it really did increase my understanding! You do make good points and I will think about them!
If I may, can I suggest you “examine the issue in detail” a little further in one regard?
I was a social worker, (you know how annoying we can be); but I can’t help but notice your view comes tied up in the “all is for the best,” comfy, “adult stem cells are better anyway” “escape from inflicting harm” clause….
Might you agree to check out that aspect of your discussion more thoroughly?
My nephew was just diagnosed with type one diabetes (9 yoa), and we are doing the dance of joy over Adult Stem Cell advances (about to be announced).
And there are a handful of other illnesses that Adult Stem Cells are and will make huge advances.
Can you see how I may worry it is maybe “ego protecting” to applaud the adult stem cell scientists on the one hand and then completely misquote them in the next sentence?
We attended conferences put on by the Harvard and Wisconsin Adult Stem Cell Researchers and they say Adult stem cells will save TENS of THOUSANDS, but Embryonic Stem Cells will save HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS.
I guess I am a tired of hearing how it is all for the best from the minority who hold your view (and a handful of Docs without any credentials in the field), when 100% of my ELEVEN doctors (two are Catholic), lament the delays they say are costing lives.
I was in Rome when Pope John Paul II accepted responsibility for the Church taking actions that resulted in the deaths of disabled, ethnic and political victims during 3 periods of history.
He also stated the Church, and it’s members failed to take actions that certainly would have decreased suffering and saved lives.
100% of the Embryos “left over” from fertility treatment are destroyed, ESCR doesn’t destroy them, it snatches them from the trash and uses them to save lives…
My uncle was a Jesuit Priest, and before he died (before we knew I was ill) he told me of the lively discussion over the Church’s position on ESCR. He said it was a much closer call with important theologists coming down on both sides….how did we forget that it was not a clear issue?
I know you will disagree, but you are an intellect,(and patient enough to discuss this calmly with a brain damaged person) can you see how I may worry some day the leader of the Church may be apologizing for you?
January 15th, 2010 | 12:51 pm
Annie We attended conferences put on by the Harvard and Wisconsin Adult Stem Cell Researchers and they say Adult stem cells will save TENS of THOUSANDS, but Embryonic Stem Cells will save HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS.
With all due respect, any stem cell researchers who say that are either dishonest or delusional. Most likely what they mean is “If we could solve all the problems with embryonic stem cells, we could do wonders.” But first they must solve the same problem that causes cancer. So yes, if we first figure out how to cure cancer then maybe embryonic stem cells would be useful.
January 15th, 2010 | 1:11 pm
I thought the development of iPS (induced pluropotent stem) cells was supposed to end the controversy on stem cell research.
January 15th, 2010 | 3:52 pm
Lindsey, give this a read:
The Pluripotency Pickle: The Story of a Lie, by Judie Brown
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/brown/brown_30pluripotency.html
January 19th, 2010 | 10:59 pm
I am late with my comment. But, nevertheless I would like to point to the fact that both embryonic and adult stem cells are only the source of differentiated cells which should be used for stem-cells based therapies, like cardiac muscle cells, or neural cells. However, it appears that the same type of differentiated cells originating from various sources have different characteristics, and not the same capacity to regenerate damaged tissues.
Unfortunately, more than half of present stem cell-based therapies are using undifferented stem cells, such as mesenchymal stem cells obtained from bone marrow, with hope that they will differentiate in vivo (injected to patient) in desirable cell type and that they will
migrate to damaged tissue. What will happen to patient treated with this type of cells who has more than one tissue damaged, like brain due to stroke and spinal cord due to injury?
To get more information on present development of stem cells by various companies for the treatment of various diseases you can visit stem cell info center at http://www.biopolaris.com
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact