Stem Cell Research

This is exactly right. To condemn stem cell research at this early stage for its "dismal" results is ridiculous. Perhaps Edison should have quit after the first 500 filaments didn't work. Obama's decision has already been cause for a lot of rejoicing among scientists here in CA. It relieves them of ridiculous accounting methods and the necessity of keeping separate labs, so as not to commingle private and federal funds. It allows them to focus on what they do best - research.

Finally, a president whose decisions are rooted in intelligence and common sense. Hallelujah!

As for missing Bush - oh my god, let him stay cooped up on his Texas ranch and may we never here him open his mouth again. I have mixed feelings about the possibility of bringing charges of war crimes against Bush and his cronies. I'd love to see some of them thrown in the brig, but I just can't stand the thought of even looking at him anymore. Arguably the worst president of modern times. I think history may eventually put him at the absolute bottom - a complete disgrace.

 

Amen to that brother!

Abner

 

I agree with the worst in modern times. James Buchanan's attempts to ignore the secession of southern states is perhaps a bad enough single act to be worse than Bush's numerous mistakes: starting two wars, not finishing any wars, failing to get Bin Laden, spying on Americans, making the rest of the world hate us thereby making the terrorists stronger, torturing prisoners, disposing of the rule of law, repeatedly telling the scientists that they were wrong because they didn't agree with Bush's ideaology, proudly declaring that he decides with his gut instead of his brains, getting us into a deep recession, etc.

 

Do you think Bush started two wars? I am going to go with the Afghanistan conflict starting on 9/11.

I won't/can't argue the rest of your post.

 

So how did a stem cell discussion become a political debate? You folks wanting to politicize, please argue politics in the appropriate forum.

I would like to return to the topic with some discussion of where stem cell research is headed. Anybody have any further research to offer?

 

Stem cell research is a political debate since it is governed by policies enacted by our elected officials.

It is tough to debate it without discussing politics.

 

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090227/stem_cells_090228/20090302?hub=Health

Always glad to see Canadian breakthroughs. Too bad my government has started to cut Science funding (we have a minority Conservative government in place).

 

There's this tendency for society (including those with advanced educations) to divide into two contending gangs. Positions on hot-button issues symbolize allegiances and are worn like gang colors. Arguments become rhetorical ammo, ordinance to fire at the evil bastards on the other side.

And as more and more of life is politicized, less and less of life is available for disinterested and objective thought and consideration.

Sadly, stem-cells have been thoroughly swept up in that disfunctional social dynamic.

I'm just a layman, not a medical scientist, and I'm not really up to speed on how well developmental biology currently understands how cells differentiate into tissues.

But controlling stem cells, getting them to do what we want them to do, looks like it might be the big challenge. Uncontrolled stem-cells could just end up giving patients tumors. That's true for both embryonic and induced stem-cells.

But it isn't clear that these two kinds of stem-cells will prove equivalent in terms of our future ability to control them. Inducing cells to once again become pluripotent by a process that might be damaging their internal controls could suggest that they will prove more difficult in that regard.

 

Promising results and treatments are occuring every day. You just have to dig really deep to find the stories.

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20090315/ARTICLES/903141929

 

It will be a huge challenge. But then again, there were many naysayers who thought a vaccine for polio would be almost impossible to accomplish, so why even try? Can you imagine if the researchers said "Ah fuck it, that is a lot of work, let's not even try."

As far as the moral aspect, you are quite correct. It is used as a club to incite moral outrage (ala Rovian tactics). Terms are thrown around such as "You are dismembering babies" are thrown out. If this is the case, why is there no outrage when these cells are thrown in the trash by infertility clinics? I guess it is better to throw these cells into the trash? The majority does not think so. I really don't care about confusing the issue and turning this into a religious debate. Bye GW.

In the final analysis, I am sure many can look at this through cold sterile eyes. Why? They are currently healthy. If you find yourself suddenly tethered to a wheelchair, you would be crying for MORE research. Another example, Mrs. Reagan. I admire her outspoken call for more research regarding the disease that consumed her husband. People cannot really understand until a disease affects them or a loved one. So I say, research, research, research! Let the scientists do their work.

Enough said,


Time for this Cali boy to go get some carne asada, YUMMY!!!!!!!!!


Abner

 

Excellent point... It is rather hypocritical of many to have any moral outrage over this type of research when babies are being manufactured in fertility clinics everyday. I personally believe that manipulating and disposing of human life in fertility clinics is wrong and that is why I can have a clear conscience when arguing against this type of “research". Small steps of moral apathy have been made over the last 50 years when it comes to this type of manipulation of human life and larger steps are coming and I personally believe that it is wrong to dispense or otherwise manipulate human life under any circumstances.

Where is the fine line on this issue? What if we one day discover that babies with a specific, irreversible brain disorder, which will only allow them to live for one year, happen to carry a specific gene or antibody that can help cure many cancers, but only if the baby is killed and those genes or antibodies are used within a month of the baby's birth? Would it be morally acceptable to use and kill these babies to cure millions of cancer? After all, the baby is going to die anyway, what difference does it make if we kill it a little early if there is a benefit to society? We could even set up a lab that "creates" these babies with these brain disorders so that no actual parents would have to be involved and suffer the pain of having their babies taken away. Does this cross the line? The moral argument of the left always seems to fall into a utilitarian argument of "whatever serves the greater good is thus morally acceptable."

To me this philosophy is frightening, but my morals are governed by a higher power and understanding than my own...

Please feel free to pile on...