Stem Cells: Loads Of Wool, Lots Of Eyes

It’s all across the newswires:

The Great Messiah Steps Into Our Small, Mostly Vicarious, Lives And Allows Federal Funding Of Stem Cell Research!

Well, tie me to a pole until the Jackanapes come home and lick my toes until I die imagining Caravaggio! I’d’ve never thought such a thing could occur.

At least the ABC story got things half right when they filed this story under Health AND Politics.

Two bits and then my opinion:

  1. The local Fox affiliate this morning noted that opponents to stem cell research are opposed on moral grounds. No word yet on if the reporter bothered researching any further than the local abortion mill’s press release.
  2. There are actually 2 primary classifications of stem cells: embryonic and adult. The embryonic stem cells cause tumors and uncontrollable growths and the adult stem cells actually cure people.

My opinion is an old article I wrote as far back as November of 2007:

  • Adult stem cells suffer no chance of rejection from their host. Adult stem cells are collected from the person they will be used on, meaning the organs grown from them carry the exact biological and genetic “fingerprint” of the rest of the body, there is zero chance of rejection of these treatments.
  • Adult stem cells are given voluntarily as part of treatment. There is no moral or ethical morass involved in the collection of the these cells.
  • Adult stem cells can differentiate under controlled conditions. Unlike embryonic stem cells, which differentiate wildly and which we are currently unable to control, adult stem cells pluripotency can be controlled in application with greater reliability.

So we have an issue where the successful treatment and therefore all the private money has gone in one direction, but a few stubborn souls insist on using disinformation and outright lies to promote a morally reprehensible treatment system which would have been likely looked upon with distaste by most of the Nazi death doctors in hopes of getting us to pay for a treatment process with no current success and little promise.

“If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough.” ~James A. Thomson

Read all about it…

It’s an issue of science as much as morals. If you will ignore the morals, you cannot, at least, ignore the science.

If you must ignore both, your life is far smaller for it.

By the way, what business is it of the government to pay yours and my money for this? Don’t we already do that supporting the massively bloated health care industry?

8 thoughts on “Stem Cells: Loads Of Wool, Lots Of Eyes”

  1. Good summary. Technically, they are correct. We oppose ESCR on the moral grounds that it kills an innocent human being every time.

    What they left out is that scientifically speaking, these embryos are human beings.

  2. Finally, after almost a decade of limiting taxpayer money for research president Barrack Obama has lifted the restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research today. Let's think of how many Americans are suffering from ailments and what this research can do for them. I'm sure everyone reading this knows someone important to them that is affected by one of these maladies such as Parkinson's, repairing spinal cord injuries as well as treating diabetes, cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis and many more defects.

    1. Yes, let us fix/heal Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis . . . and so much more. Let us use proven techniques to help and cure these diseases. Wait, this is one of the problems . . . even with years of federal funding under Clinton, embryonic stem cells have not 1) Cured a single disease. 2) Slowed the progress of an ailment. 3) Created new tissue (like they are supposed to) that is compatible to their host. Oh wait . . . adult stems cells have done all of that.

  3. You see, this can be easily discussed without the slimyness of a moral slant. Basically, there are two recognized approaches to solve a single problem. The one, embryonic stem cells is supposed to be great because it is totally new tissue and hopefully it attach to the host and solve a whole ton of issues. The other, adult stems cells, has created a totally new tissue that attaches to the host and solves a whole ton of issues. The question does not have to be is it right or is it wrong, the the questions can easily be, does it work or doesn't it. And guess what . . . research has conclusivly shown that, at our level of sophistication, it doesn't work.

  4. So the question is really, would you, with your money, support an unworking thing or a working things. Let us say you need a new lawnmower. Will you buy the one that is sold "as is" at the garage sale and looks rusted but the owner says it always worked for him (but his lawn doesn't look like it have been mowed in two years), or do you buy the new one with the life-time guarantee.

    Further, because life is destroyed, the morality debate cannot be sidestepped. You might refence my article "Unwatchable Watchmen" to understand how the destruction of these lives to save a few others actually creates a devaluing of everyones lives and makes us souless, Godless, animals who think we rule the Earth.

  5. The common argument often put forth by conservatives: embryonic stem cell research hasn’t shown any progress. How much progress could have been made in this field in 10 years if opponents hadn’t tied scientists hands through lobbying and legislation? Adult stem cell research has been going for almost half a century. “lack of progress” arguments are insidious. Obama’s lifting of the ban on federal spending for stem cell research has the potential to have far reaching impact not only on the course of future health care for millions of Americans but economic effects as well. This has the potential to benefit millions throughout the world. Embryonic stem cell research hasn’t moved forward due to the limitations on funding and number of available and usable stem lines, therefore there is no progress to be displayed. By lifting the ban on funding and opening up more lines, we can let the science dictate whether pursuing this research is valuable or not, we can also consider placing ethical standards for scientists to adhere to.
    Success=opportunity+preperation, with no funding there is no opportunity. “The United States should have been at the forefront of this work. It was a (non-federally funded) James Thompson, at the University of Wisconsin, who created the first human embryonic stem cell lines in 1998. But instead we are years behind in researching stem cell application for medicine and human health, leaving that work to the UK and other research centres globally. Internally we’ve allowed private or even state-funded research centres lag far behind. Federal funding is critical for most of this research. There simply isn’t enough in the private or state pots to push the work forward at any kind of reasonable clip. As a result, as much as they are championed, we really don’t even know what the possibilities of stem cell research might be. And we need to be realistic. The cure for Parkinson’s disease, and cancer and diabetes isn’t around the corner, and it won’t be until the US government allows scientists to do their jobs without the political sea changes that arise with every national switch in party power.” (Sarah Wildman guardian.co.uk)

    One last point regarding funding and probably the most important to the industry. Private investors, venture capitalists and pharmaceutical companies will NOT invest money into a company out of fear federal regulation could tighten further. Any notion of why hasn’t private money seeded this if it could be profitable should be put to an end right there. If anyone here has ever managed a P&L you would know money is not allocated in such a haphazard way where government can intervene. thanks for contributing i sense you are more against the use of esc as you see it as killing a living creature and that is open to interpretation by all. The main point of my article was that federal funding is available once again …and that is great for the reasons I stated above. There is no discussion about right or wrong as that will be debated for years to come. music2myear whose hiding behind anonymous? and yes I read your story i left a comment…dont over think it!

  6. hahaha . . . as a practising research scientist (I work in lobster research right now), I can really tell you that federal funding or research, while appreciated, is not needed or healthy for the advancement of a reseachable comidity. I know you touched this topic in your second paragraph, and I unfortuantly do not know your level of experience with funding of research. However, I do know that from my experiences, private funding is the primary source of funds for research. In fact, while much research is conducted at public institutions (universities and colleges) a professor is often required, or at least encouraged greatly, to be self funded inorder to be considered for promotion. It is true that this limits the professors research to what the consumer (or supporter/granter) wants to support, but it also acts much like a free economy because it drives reseach into areas of current interest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>