Embryonic Stem Cell Research

[brien]

I have noticed much controversy around this research but little facts published in the media. I am now, as of yesterday(Nov 6), a 5 year cancer free survivor, and wish for all meaningful sources for cancer research to be available. But I am suspect of government funding for embryonic stem cell research mainly because there have been little or no no meaningful gains from this aspect of stem cell research. Those who wish to continue this research wish to do so with government money because the private sector sees little value to it. Ergo, private enterprise rejects its funding.

On the other hand, adult stem cell research is prosperous and continues to make great strides in successful research. Privately funded adult stem cell research has no problem with funding. It seems to me that since embryonic stem cell research is in trouble both scientifically and financially, it is only people who wish to feed at the government trough who wish to continue this type of research at the expense of the taxpayer.

What do you think. Should we fund embryonic stem cell research with government money?

Here are some links to start us off.

Here is where your tax money will go for research


http://www.news10.net/storyfull2.aspx?storyid=20959

U.C. Davis Gears Up for Stem Cell Research Funding
Written for the web by Alicia Malaby, Anchor-Reporter

U.C. Davis researchers hope to be among the first to receive grants awarded under Proposition 71. The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine is expected to award $24 million in grants to approximately 30 recipients in January

Here is a link to show very little benefits so far from embryonic stem cell research:

WorldNetDaily: The 'enemy' within

Neither of the Senate candidates opposes stem cell research. What they do oppose is the use of unborn human embryos to supply those cells for research. And, more specifically, they oppose the use of federal money to purchase those embryos.

The proponents of embryonic stem cell research do not want you to know the following information. Contrary to what they say, embryonic stem cell research is not illegal. They're angry that President Bush refuses to pick up the tab for the purchase of the research cells. He believes that your money should not be used for something that he – and many Americans – considers to be immoral, that is, the use of unborn fetuses for patently dubious research.

Recently, a leading stem cell researcher from MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, revealed that researchers have not been able to stop embryonic stem cells from causing tumors when injected into patients.

Professor James Sherley said that the "tumor formation property is an inherent feature of the cells." He cautioned that the prospect of overcoming it is very far into the future. He explained that "although some might say we can solve the tumor problem down the road, that's equivalent to saying we can solve the cancer problem, and we may, but that's a long time coming." Professor Sherley's assertions have recently been confirmed by researchers at the University of Rochester and Harvard.

So the bottom line is, contrary to what the media tell you, embryonic stem cell research is not illegal, but it's also not that promising. At best, it could only yield results after many years, perhaps even decades. It could not have helped Christopher Reeve or Michael J. Fox.

And because it's not illegal, any number of left-leaning foundations or individuals could put up the money to purchase the embryos so that research can continue. But apparently, they don't want to foot the bill themselves; they want you to do that. And they refuse to tell you about the fabulous results that have been achieved through the use of adult stem cells or umbilical cord blood stem cells.

But then, those forms of stem cell research don't further the ultimate objective of human cloning for organ harvesting.

If you get your information from the mainstream media as you prepare to vote, here are a couple of other things you haven't heard.

Here is another take on funding.

Stop The ACLU » Blog Archive » More Reasons For Missouri To Vote No On Amendment 2

The Intellecutual Conservative gives non-religious/moral reasons to vote no.

So what is this bill about? One word: money. Embryonic stem cell research is not very promising in the eyes of most businesses, and they’re struggling for funding. If they can’t get money, they’ll have to (heaven forbid) go back to the drawing board and think of something else, or at the very least put this on the back burner for awhile until the technology is there to better study it. And for this they want us to sign a blank check and fund them into infinity with no accountability on research that may never lead anywhere. And even if we find that it’ll lead absolutely nowhere, the only way to even limit funding is to remove the amendment. A yes vote on Amendment 2 is your signature on the bottom of a blank check to an industry that will enver tire of coming back with an open hand and greasing their palms with your money.

Use of embryonic stem cells wrong - The Clarion-Ledger

November 1, 2006

Use of embryonic stem cells wrong

Adult stem-cell research and embryonic stem-cell research are two completely different issues.

Embryonic stem-cell research involves destroying a human embryo for study. When an embryo's inner cell mass is taken out to harvest its stem cells, it is necessarily killed. Each and every person reading this right now was once an embryo. Human life, beginning at conception, contains the entire genetic makeup of a human being.

Adult stem-cell research involves using one's own stem cells for curing illnesses. Umbilical cord stem cells, blood cells, bone cells, etc., are also being used, with much success. No one has to die to obtain these stem cells. There is no rejection factor either.

Through recent TV ads about adult stem-cell/embryonic stem-cell research, it appears that the biased liberal media and the liberal Democrats, along with Michael Fox are focusing on "the great promise" of embryonic stem-cell research.

To date, there have been no cures and no positive results from embryonic stem-cell research. However, use of adult stem cells appears to be the "light at the end of the research tunnel." The growing list of research breakthroughs using adult stem cells is amazing

.


So should we as taxpayers fund the stem cell research that has little benefit?

I don't want this to turn into a moral question but I wish to rather explore the side of government funding for stem cell research. Is it worth while?

[Pooeypants]

I think it's all about the potential, Embryonic stem cells have the potential to heal more diseases and ailment due to their ability to differentiate into any type of cells. Source
The only reasons that Embryonic stem cell research has problem getting funding is due to the ethically opposition of the fundementalists.

[brien]

I think it's all about the potential, Embryonic stem cells have the potential to heal more diseases and ailment due to their ability to differentiate into any type of cells. Source
The only reasons that Embryonic stem cell research has problem getting funding is due to the ethically opposition of the fundementalists.

The only reasons that Embryonic stem cell research has problem getting funding is due to the ethically opposition of the fundementalists.

This may be partiallly true but I am opposed neither on moral grounds or religious grounds. I am opposed because adult stem cell research shows all of the success and embryonic stem cell research has shown no success.

I am not opposed to embryonic stem cell research but rather to the government funding of something that shows no succcess rate whatsoever. There is a reason that private industry is not supporting this. Why should government support what amounts to a boondoggle at this point in time?

[Pooeypants]

This may be partiallly true but I am opposed neither on moral grounds or religious grounds. I am opposed because adult stem cell research shows all of the success and embryonic stem cell research has shown no success.

I am not opposed to embryonic stem cell research but rather to the government funding of something that shows no succcess rate whatsoever. There is a reason that private industry is not supporting this. Why should government support what amounts to a boondoggle at this point in time?

Again, I'll reiterate the point, Embryonic research has the greatest potential, if and when we do make a breakthrough, it'll have a much greater impact than Adult stem cells unless they find a way for the latter to be as adaptive and flexible as the former.

[Right of Center]

Again, I'll reiterate the point, Embryonic research has the greatest potential, if and when we do make a breakthrough, it'll have a much greater impact than Adult stem cells unless they find a way for the latter to be as adaptive and flexible as the former.

However so far it is not. If embryonic stem research has shown tremendous and amazing potentials, then how come the private market isn't rushing to embryonic instead of adult? The reason is because embryonic stem cell research only shows theoretical potential. It has not been successful other than people's theoretical opinion.

[Pooeypants]

However so far it is not. If embryonic stem research has shown tremendous and amazing potentials, then how come the private market isn't rushing to embryonic instead of adult? The reason is because embryonic stem cell research only shows theoretical potential. It has not been successful other than people's theoretical opinion.

The reason they haven't been rushing at it is because, as I've said already, of the ethical implications. It's quite hard to work on some thing when your lab is getting harassed by protestors...

[brien]

Again, I'll reiterate the point, Embryonic research has the greatest potential, if and when we do make a breakthrough, it'll have a much greater impact than Adult stem cells unless they find a way for the latter to be as adaptive and flexible as the former.

if and when

Look at what you are writing. I have no problem with research but why should the government fund it when private enteprise has already backed adult stem cell research because of its proven success. I have no problem with Embryonic stem cell research, just with government money being used to support it when it has yet to yield any significant benefits to science. Let the Universities who stand to reap millions in tax dollars come back after the Embyonic Stem Cell research proves some success in the scienetific world. Makes more sense to me.

[Pooeypants]

Look at what you are writing. I have no problem with research but why should the government fund it when private enteprise has already backed adult stem cell research because of its proven success. I have no problem with Embryonic stem cell research, just with government money being used to support it when it has yet to yield any significant benefits to science. Let the Universities who stand to reap millions in tax dollars come back after the Embyonic Stem Cell research proves some success in the scienetific world. Makes more sense to me.

From a scientific point of view, studying Embryonic stem cells makes much more sense, I've already cited a NIH article covering the basic differences. Did you actually read it?

"Human embryonic and adult stem cells each have advantages and disadvantages regarding potential use for cell-based regenerative therapies. Of course, adult and embryonic stem cells differ in the number and type of differentiated cells types they can become. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin. However, some evidence suggests that adult stem cell plasticity may exist, increasing the number of cell types a given adult stem cell can become.

Large numbers of embryonic stem cells can be relatively easily grown in culture, while adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues and methods for expanding 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.

A potential advantage of using stem cells from an adult is that the patient's own cells could be expanded in culture and then reintroduced into the patient. The use of the patient's own adult stem cells would mean that the cells would not be rejected by the immune system. This represents a significant advantage as immune rejection is a difficult problem that can only be circumvented with immunosuppressive drugs."

source
I think this is a very balanced view.

[brien]

From a scientific point of view, studying Embryonic stem cells makes much more sense, I've already cited a NIH article covering the basic differences. Did you actually read it?

source
I think this is a very balanced view.

Yes. but my problem is not with the potential, it is with the proven succcess. I am merely advocating that Embryonic Stem Cell research be a proven success before my taxpayer money is used to fund it. I think this is relatively simple to understand, is it not?

[Pooeypants]

Yes. but my problem is not with the potential, it is with the proven succcess. I am merely advocating that Embryonic Stem Cell research be a proven success before my taxpayer money is used to fund it. I think this is relatively simple to understand, is it not?

But you're giving them a catch-22. No one in private sector will touch it with a barge pole because of the religious fundies who oppose it, so research can't really be done en masse. And with out that, we can't have "proven" success. Do you understand now?

[gallo]

However so far it is not. If embryonic stem research has shown tremendous and amazing potentials, then how come the private market isn't rushing to embryonic instead of adult?

Is this a DUH question? The answer is simple, which probably explains why it is above your head. There is no funding for such research because the federal government has declared it illegal.

The reason is because embryonic stem cell research only shows theoretical potential. It has not been successful other than people's theoretical opinion.

Idiocy.

[gallo]

Yes. but my problem is not with the potential, it is with the proven succcess. I am merely advocating that Embryonic Stem Cell research be a proven success before my taxpayer money is used to fund it. I think this is relatively simple to understand, is it not?

It certainly is, for a simpleton. How do you propose that such research be conducted if it is illegal to do such research? What is it that you don't understand? Why do you oppose embryonic stem cell research? AH! I understand. You would prefer that embryos are dumped down garbage disposals rather than harvested for stem cell research. It's some sort of Biblical thing, isn't it?

[Jack]

As we venture further into this new existence as a minor theocracy, we are going to have to depend on Europeans and Easterners to delve into scientific areas that the religious won't permit to be explored here.

[brien]

But you're giving them a catch-22. No one in private sector will touch it with a barge pole because of the religious fundies who oppose it, so research can't really be done en masse. And with out that, we can't have "proven" success. Do you understand now?

What I understand is if it were profitable, the private sector would rush to support it and no religious group would get in the way. Because it isn't profitable is precisely why the supporters want my tax dollars. Do YOU understand now?

[brien]

It certainly is, for a simpleton. How do you propose that such research be conducted if it is illegal to do such research? What is it that you don't understand? Why do you oppose embryonic stem cell research? AH! I understand. You would prefer that embryos are dumped down garbage disposals rather than harvested for stem cell research. It's some sort of Biblical thing, isn't it?

You assumptions lead me to view your post as asinine. If you bother to do some research, you would find that stem cell research is indeed legal. It just isn't profitable.

I don't oppose stem cell research. I never wrote that at all. Another ASSumption on your part. I wrote that I oppose my tax dollars going to support that which has not proven to be a success. I wrote I oppose my tax dollars being used to support a program that is better left to the private sector.

What does this have to do with the Bible? Another ASSumption on your part. Your post is a perfect example of why even simpletons can't understand the issue.:rolleyes:

[brien]

As we venture further into this new existence as a minor theocracy, we are going to have to depend on Europeans and Easterners to delve into scientific areas that the religious won't permit to be explored here.

This is simply not true Ish. There is much stem cell research. Embryonic Stem Cell Reseach isn't profitable. Why should our tax dollars support research that has failed to generate any significant success? I say let the Europeans use their public money to support research that shows no promise yet. This isn't a religious issue. It is an issue of using public money to fund research which has not proven to be of any significant benefit to the medical field.

Show me some significant success and I would reconsider my position. Otherwise, the private sector is fully capable of supporting Embryonic Stem Cell research and when and if they show succcess, then let the government consider supporting it with tax dollars. The religious end of this is merely a straw dog being exploited by those who wish to divert public money into private research which shows no significant medical benefits for mankind yet.

This isn't about religion, it is about using public tax dollars to support research that shows no significant success in the medical field. It is about the failure of Embryonic Stem Cell research to attract the support of private industry so those who want to continue are looking to the government for a handout from the public pocket of money. I say no public funds for a medical boondoggle.

[Pooeypants]

What I understand is if it were profitable, the private sector would rush to support it and no religious group would get in the way. Because it isn't profitable is precisely why the supporters want my tax dollars. Do YOU understand now?

You do realise that profit can be hurt by bad publicity? There's certainly a huge opposition to Embryonic SC research from the Evanglicals and the more right wing sided people.
So you do YOU understand now?

[brien]

You do realise that profit can be hurt by bad publicity? There's certainly a huge opposition to Embryonic SC research from the Evanglicals and the more right wing sided people.
So you do YOU understand now?

There's certainly a huge opposition to Embryonic SC research from the Evanglicals and the more right wing sided people.

So what. Big deal. They haven't made Embryonic SC research unprofitable. That's laughable. Prove that statement please. Otherwise, it is nonsense.

You attribute power to the Evangelicals that they just don't have in America. Embryonic SC research is not funded by private money because it hasn't proved to be successful. Not because of the Evangelicals.

Nice try though.

[Zhavric]

Embryonic stem-cell research involves destroying a human embryo for study. When an embryo's inner cell mass is taken out to harvest its stem cells, it is necessarily killed. Each and every person reading this right now was once an embryo. Human life, beginning at conception, contains the entire genetic makeup of a human being.

Not sure if this has been pointed out yet, but I felt it important to do so.

Yes, everyone was an embryo, but you've NEVER met a person who was once an embryonic test subject or even close to being one.

Embryonic research (when it's on humans at all) is performed on lab-created zygotes. These are freely donated sperm cells and freely donated egg cells which are brought together in a lab and frozen shortly after meeting one another.

I'm concerned that the lay-person who takes interest in this wedge issue will think researchers are pre-birth infant body-snatchers. This is absurd. It's a misconception the right has done absolutely nothing to stamp out.

Furthermore, I don't see too many people from the right offering up their daughters / wives / aunts / girlfriends / own wombs to host these "wayward" collection of stem cells.

The only people being harmed by stopping stem cell research are individuals like Christopher Reeve who could have (potentially) been saved by a stem cell procedure which as of today is still science fiction.

As for tax dollars & profitability? Curing injured people has always and will always be profitable. I don't see drug companies aren't hurting for cash and surgeons aren't usually on food stamps. Any one of us could be hit by a car & paralyzed today and in desperate need of stem cell research tomorrow, so why not spend tax money on it? Why does it have to be about profit?

[brien]

As for tax dollars & profitability? Curing injured people has always and will always be profitable. I don't see drug companies aren't hurting for cash and surgeons aren't usually on food stamps. Any one of us could be hit by a car & paralyzed today and in desperate need of stem cell research tomorrow, so why not spend tax money on it? Why does it have to be about profit?

As for tax dollars & profitability? Curing injured people has always and will always be profitable.

If this is true, then the private sector will step up to the plate when it is necessary. So far, we have not seen any significant developments in Embyonic SC research which is perhaps why private industry hasn't expressed much interest. When there are profits involved, you can bet there will be investment. When there is significant embryonic SC research success in treating disease, as there is now in adult SC research, then the financial support will follow.

Meanwhile what is the purpose of using tax dollars to support what appears to be another government boondoggle?

Why does it have to be about profit?

Because private industry always encourages success through profits better than government does by using tax dollars.