There seem to be a few misconceptions on Stem Cell Research

[TekDragon]

Speaking of media ignorance/bias on the matter:

Even with the dozens of successes with adult stem cell reasearch, there has only been ONE news publication that actually observed the fact that the treatments developed have ALL come from adult stem cell research and that all embryonic tests have been miserable failures. That was a Boston Globe article.

[TekDragon]

Wow, good job Donkey! You posted an article that discussed 101 "What if's" to embryonic research. "Might, could, if, maybe, etc etc". That's a whole lot of potential! I read the entire thing and didn't read a single peice of concrete evidence that embryonic stem cell treatments are anything other than a dream.

Meanwhile, adult stem cell research has developed over 40 treatments and has had hundreds of succesful tests.

Despite that, you still have failed to show how Bush reduced funding on embryonic stem cell research.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Speaking of media ignorance/bias on the matter:

Even with the dozens of successes with adult stem cell reasearch, there has only been ONE news publication that actually observed the fact that the treatments developed have ALL come from adult stem cell research and that all embryonic tests have been miserable failures. That was a Boston Globe article.

How about maybe, just maybe, there haven't been as many procedures and experiments done with embryonic stem cells as there have been adult? Could THAT have something to do with it? The way you're talking, there is absolutely no reason we should use embryonic cells....in spite of what MOST scientists say....at least the ones not on your biased sites. Nobody is saying that adult stem cells are useless. Nobody is saying they aren't able to do things with adult stem cells. Not sure where you're getting that from.


http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp

Originally Posted by info

V. 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. 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.

Embryonic stem cells from a donor introduced into a patient could cause transplant rejection. However, whether the recipient would reject donor embryonic stem cells has not been determined in human experiments.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Wow, good job Donkey! You posted an article that discussed 101 "What if's" to embryonic research. "Might, could, if, maybe, etc etc". That's a whole lot of potential! Meanwhile, adult stem cell research has developed over 40 treatments and has had hundreds of succesful tests.

Despite that, you still have failed to show how Bush reduced funding on embryonic stem cell research.

I never said he reduced funding on embryonic stem cell research. He vetoed a bill that would raise the limit of government funding.

[TekDragon]

Now, Donkey, while you have provided quotes of stories that are undermined after simply reading them (I assume you're hoping I have as short of an attention span as you) i'll provide you with something concrete.

How do quotes from the scientist that ORIGINALLY isolated embryonic stem cell research and from the PRESIDENT of one of the leading research institutes in embryonic research. James Thompson and Alan Lewis sound?

Many of the technologies we hyped to the general public haven't worked yet

Meanwhile, Lewis also pointed out that venture capitalists, the source of much of the funding of stem cell research companies, "are very cautious'' about investing because of the limited success and lack of future prospects.

Geron is by far the largest company in the field, and it lost about $80 million last year. Other stem cell companies are struggling to stay afloat.

Advanced Cell Technology, a Worcester, Mass., firm has run into big financial problems.

"The timeline to commercialization is so long that I simply would not invest," Haseltine added.

As a result, leading embryonic stem cell research firms are losing money.

Geron, the California-based biotech firm has put over $100 million into embryonic stem cell research and, because it has little to show for the investment, lost $80 million last year.

"There have been companies that have gone into embryonic stem cells, but nobody's made any money," researcher Thomson admitted.

[TekDragon]

Hopefully that clears up the last of the misconceptions.

As a wrap up:

1. Bush is pro stem cell research (hell, even the BBC admitted it).
2. Funding has been increased on adult stem cell research.
3. Funding for embryonic stem cell research has not been reduced.
4. Harvesting of embryonic stem cells from fetuses was banned, but existing embryonic stem cells are continuing to have their research funded, despite their lack of results or even their promise of results.
5. The majority of the scientific community sees embryonic stem cell research as being a bad investment, including the original scientist who did it and the president of one of the leading research firms.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Now, Donkey, while you have provided quotes of stories that are undermined after simply reading them (I assume you're hoping I have as short of an attention span as you) i'll provide you with something concrete.

How do quotes from the scientist that ORIGINALLY isolated embryonic stem cell research and from the PRESIDENT of one of the leading research institutes in embryonic research. James Thompson and Alan Lewis sound?

Originally Posted by nopoint

"Many of the technologies we hyped to the general public haven't worked yet"

And there was a time when adult stem cell research didn't yield any results. "Yet" doesn't mean never....and it STILL doesn't change the fact that Bush is using religion to make a decision for me.

Originally Posted by nopoint

"Meanwhile, Lewis also pointed out that venture capitalists, the source of much of the funding of stem cell research companies, "are very cautious'' about investing because of the limited success and lack of future prospects."

Why the fuck do I care about this?

Originally Posted by nopoint

"Geron is by far the largest company in the field, and it lost about $80 million last year. Other stem cell companies are struggling to stay afloat. Advanced Cell Technology, a Worcester, Mass., firm has run into big financial problems."

And? Again...no point.

Originally Posted by nopoint

"The timeline to commercialization is so long that I simply would not invest," Haseltine added."

Good for him. All you're proving is that we need more government money.

Originally Posted by nopoint

"As a result, leading embryonic stem cell research firms are losing money.
Geron, the California-based biotech firm has put over $100 million into embryonic stem cell research and, because it has little to show for the investment, lost $80 million last year."

"There have been companies that have gone into embryonic stem cells, but nobody's made any money," researcher Thomson admitted."

All the reason to fund it with government donations.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

All the reason to fund it with government donations.

I agree, which is why I agree with Bush in his decision to continue funding embryonic stem cell research. Maybe, despite all evidence to the contrary, embryonic stem cell research will experience a break through that will prove it isn't a wasted avenue of research compared to adult stem cell research. When that happens, corporate and private investors will begin funding it at the level of adult stem cell research.

More than likely, though, by that point it will be irrelevant as adult stem cell research will have made them irrelevant. Still, kudos to Bush for giving it a chance to succeed and not just chopping it off at the kness.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Hopefully that clears up the last of the misconceptions.

As a wrap up:

1. Bush is pro stem cell research (hell, even the BBC admitted it).

Nobody said he wasn't.

Originally Posted by TekDragon

2. Funding has been increased on adult stem cell research.

Ok.

Originally Posted by TekDragon

3. Funding for embryonic stem cell research has not been reduced.

What don't you understand about "there are limitations on it and congress tried to lift some of them, but Bush spoke to God and vetoed the bill."?

Originally Posted by TekDragon

4. Harvesting of embryonic stem cells from fetuses was banned, but existing embryonic stem cells are continuing to have their research funded, despite their lack of results or even their promise of results.

See last answer.

Originally Posted by TekDragon

5. The majority of the scientific community sees embryonic stem cell research as being a bad investment, including the original scientist who did it and the president of one of the leading research firms.

Again, what's the point of this?

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

I agree, which is why I agree with Bush in his decision to continue funding embryonic stem cell research. Maybe, despite all evidence to the contrary, embryonic stem cell research will experience a break through that will prove it isn't a wasted avenue of research compared to adult stem cell research. When that happens, corporate and private investors will begin funding it at the level of adult stem cell research.

More than likely, though, by that point it will be irrelevant as adult stem cell research will have made them irrelevant. Still, kudos to Bush for giving it a chance to succeed and not just chopping it off at the kness.

Can you just answer these questions?

1: Are there limitations to federal funding on embryonic stem cell research?

2: Did congress try to pass a bill to lift some of those limitations?

3: Did Bush veto it because of his religious beliefs?

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Again, what's the point of this?

Apparently it's just over your head. Tell me, why don't you go make a thread crying about how the government isn't building DC power infrastructure or convincing auto manufacturers to build coal fired engines.

You obviously have no clue as to the meaning of irrelevancy.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Can you just answer these questions?

1: Are there limitations to federal funding on embryonic stem cell research?

2: Did congress try to pass a bill to lift some of those limitations?

3: Did Bush veto it because of his religious beliefs?

1. Sure, there's limits on funding on everything.

2. Yes, though this is a simplistic argument (right up your ally). Government funding provides a minor faction of total funding. Even if congress increased funding by 100% it wouldn't make a dent - as the majority of the money comes from (or did come from) private and corporate investors. The fact of the matter is, embryonic stem cell research has been 100% proven as being an inferior research avenue and Bush was EXTREMELY generous in not cutting it's funding all together.

3. Partly because of them yes. The mountain of evidence that supports his decision, including testimonies by scientists involved in the field and presidents of the research institutes, had a much greater and more important part of it.

[Hedweb Buddha]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Motivez, I agree with part of what you're saying. but your operating under one of those misconceptions. When there are multiple scientific avenues to the same goal, and one of them succeeds or proves it is a better method, history has shown that the other avenues are abandoned.

Tell me, Motivez, do you see cars being developed with coal fired engines? No. When the internal combustion engine was created scientists realized it was a far more rewarding and compelling line of research.

Further examples of this can be seen in the development of electricity, aviation, medicine, sanitation, and many other fields.

Adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells are two avenues to the same goal. Adult stem cells have proven to be conducive to medical research and have yeilded valuable results where as embryonic stem cells have failed so often that investors are turning away from it almost entirely.

If investors feel there is no need to invest in embryonic stem cell research (investors, mind you, who know FAR more about the process and results than you or I) compared to adult stem cell research - that should be a pretty clear reading on the situation.

What is ironic is that stem cells are to adult cells what the internal combustion engine was to the steam engine. You seem to be totally missing that point.

Did anyone see the Tim Russert interview yesterday? He asked a Bush admin. spokesperson 'can you name one scientist who thinks adult stem cells are a better bet than embryonic stem cells because we couldn't'. Naturally the administration man couldn't either. Where are these scientists who think adult cells are better than embryonic cells?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13904922/page/5/

MR. RUSSERT: Karl Rove, the president’s chief political adviser, said that adult stem cells show far more promise than embryonic stem cells, and the White House could not identify any scientist who could confirm that. Is—does the president agree with Mr. Rove?

MR. BOLTEN: I’m, I’m no scientist, not, not quantified to speak on it, but I think the point that Karl was getting at is that there are alternative means to achieve some of the promise of the—of the embryonic stem cells that, that scientists...

MR. RUSSERT: No, he said “far more promise.”

MR. BOLTEN: Well...

MR. RUSSERT: Can you—can you cite any scientist who believes that adult stem cells have far more promise than embryonic stem cells?

MR. BOLTEN: Well I can’t cite scientists on either side of it, but what I can tell you is that adult, adult human stem cells have already shown enormous utility in, in the amelioration of disease in this country. Embryonic stem cells have, have yet to fulfill the promise that many see, but, but there—but there is a legitimate promise there, and that’s why the president has struggled so much with that difficult balance...(unintelligible).

MR. RUSSERT: But is there any ev—is there any evidence that you’re aware of, or the president’s aware of, that says that adult stem cells show far more promise than embryonic?


Adult stem cells are still 40+ years old. They lack the flexibility of embryonic stem cells. So embryonic stem cells combine the benefits of adult stem cells but are more flexible. They can convert to more kinds of cells in the human body.

[Hedweb Buddha]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

JUNK AVENUE OF RESEARCH BY EXPERTS IN THE SCIENTIFIC AND SCIENTIFIC INVESTMENT COMMUNITY

83% of physicians support embryonic stem cell research

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/inde...-docsurvey.xml


I can't find how many research scientists support it. Nonetheless, lets stop listening to doctors and listen to radical idealogues instead. That cannot possibly fail to protect the public. What would a doctor know about medicine? Probably less than an economist about the economy. We should put radical idealogues who place what they want to believe over what the evidence says they should believe in charge of everything. It works great in Iran.

[Scrum]

So where is that "mountain of evidence" that embryonic stem cell research is useless?

All I have seen is people saying there has been no results yet. Of course the research os going to be slower when they can't get new lines and funding isn't coming in.

[Scrum]

So where is that "mountain of evidence" that embryonic stem cell research is useless?

All I have seen is people saying there has been no results yet. Of course the research is going to be slower when they can't get new lines and funding isn't coming in.

[ballz2wallz]

there is no reason why the government should become involved with such a controversial issue at this point. there is too much other research to understand beforehand.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Of course the research os going to be slower when they can't get new lines and funding isn't coming in.

Plenty of other european counties don't have a ban on harvesting embryonic stem cells and have labs dedicated to research. Investors still don't care. They still see it as a waste of money.

The fact is that Bush didn't ban research on embryonic stem cells and, in fact, he didn't even reduce the funding of embryonic stem cell research.

If you don't like how little funding embryonic research is getting - the person to blame isn't Bush. Hell, it isn't even the investment community - they're just putting the facts together. God would be the person to blame.