A DIFFERING VIEW: Coverage slants public view of stem cell research
The Rocky’s June 23 editorial “Bush losing stem cell clash” states that the majority of the public supports federal funding of embryonic cell research. The reason that many support this is because of the slanted articles in the press promising quick cures.
In fact, all of the cures and health improvements due to stem cells so far are the result of adult stem cell research. Why would the Rocky encourage spending money on a wild promise rather than on proven research? On a morally questionable path rather than on one morally acceptable to all?
I am waiting to find an unbiased article on this research, detailing which kinds of stem cells are involved, and what the results have been. Then the public may have enough information to make a rational decision about where funding should go.
Marjorie Jansen is a resident of Lakewood.
Check the AMA Journel. It is also bias to a point but not like the Rocky.
Posted by on July 16, 2007 06:08 AMMarjorie said:
"The reason that many support this is because of the slanted articles in the press promising quick cures."
Could you provide some links to these slanted articles?
Posted by Charles B on July 16, 2007 06:52 AMI'm with Charles, could one of the anti-research folk point me to just one article detailing the "cures" derived from adult stem cells. Then could they tell me how and why success, in whatever measure, along one avenue of research constitutes an argument for restricting another.
Posted by patrick on July 16, 2007 08:25 AMLets see, first Marjorie writes:
"In fact, all of the cures and health improvements due to stem cells so far are the result of adult stem cell research. "
And then turns around and writes:
"I am waiting to find an unbiased article on this research, detailing which kinds of stem cells are involved, and what the results have been. "
If she hasn't found an unbiased article, then how can she make the first statement about adult stem cells??
Posted by CL on July 16, 2007 08:35 AMI spend about 5 hours per week checking the advances of research re: hESC and regenerative medicine. Why? My 12 year old has Type 1 Juvenile Diabetes. I have a huge belletin board full of hESC research progress. We did not get to the moon overnight. It took money and research and time. hESC research has been around for less than a decade. Adult stem cells have been known and researched for about a decade longer. I have yet to see a cure for diabetes, Parkinson, most cancers, epilepsy from adult stem cell research so we look elsewhere. Let's see what is being done. Geron Corp and University of Alberta have coaxed hESC to differentiate into glucose sensitive beta cells for the pancreas. Still a few years off for clincals, but it was done. Wake Forest University created and implanted six bladders into people (including children) who had none. Japan has created kidneys in mice and now are trying to do the same with humans. Britain has developed nerve cells to replace the same in those who have lost their hearing due to nerve damage. All of these discoveries show hESC research is starting to show positive results. The majority of taxpayers wish to keep such research and possibilities continuing. Health care and hESC will be a major issue together with the Iraq war in the next Presidential election.
Posted by Cheryl on July 16, 2007 08:43 AMMedia coverage is no more biased the the president's religion-based views on the stem cell research issue.
He feels that fetal stem cell research is not ethical because he believes that it would encourage the destruction of millions of "potential humans."
I suppose he never heard of separation of church and state. If he had a spine, he would put the issue up for a referendum and let the American people decide for themselves, instead of running roughshod over Congress with his veto power and presindetial signing statements.
Posted by Tree Hugger on July 16, 2007 08:45 AMI fear the day we begin growing and harvesting our own species to save lives. It's a world of science fiction that is becoming reality. I acknowledge the promise of embryonic stem cells, but I refuse to condone their use. This is a slippery slope so a hard line needs be drawn somewhere. My father suffers from a rare degenerative brain disease, most like Parkinsons, and I am sure he could benefit. If they determine it is genetic, I could benefit too. I pray for a cure everyday. I also pray for the strength to resist harvesting our young, no matter the stage of development, to continue our lives. There ARE alternatvies e.g. adult stem cells, cord blood - scientists, have at them. Half the readers probably dismissed me as some zealot when I wrote "pray." I am not. I simply recognize the miracle of life, and I accept my mortality. It is not my place to sacrifice one to stave off the other. Something you'd think any mature adult would realize.
Posted by Matt on July 16, 2007 09:37 AM"Proven research" ~~ I didn't know it existed; as for Bush on Separation of church and state which the Founders sought to keep separate to prevent holy horrors, the Vatican Five did to the Wall what Islam did to the twin towers in NYC: Bush pilots his craft into the Wall claiming tax dollars can go to Christianity from the Executive Branch and the five Supremes pilot their craft into the Wall: Terrorists within our midst.
Deicide Corner: “Truly religious people are resigned to everything, even to mediocre poetry.” -- Oscar Wilde
Posted by Richard Grimes, Deicide r22037@yahoo.com (ffrf.org and ask for copy of FreeThought Today) on July 16, 2007 09:39 AMMatt, we treaded that "slippery slope" with organ donations...remember that movie "COMA". Let's keep people alive so we can harvest their organs. Scientists and researchers also have these same concerns and have ethical parameters that they subscribe. Congress missed an opportunity with the Degette stem cell bill to enact laws to regulate this type of research. The individual states now regulate it. We all know that embryos are being created and unused in fertility clinics. To me the consistent "moral" argument (as opposed to ethical argument) would be not to create them in the first place if one has the knowledge that some of the same will be destroyed. Each religion has its own definition as to when life begins. That is the basic question and if we cannot agree on this, then what? Which religion trumps the other? The basic question of this posting was whether or not hESC was showing progress. From what I have read from researchers around the world, I believe that it is...and will continue to show progress enough to warrant continued funding.
Posted by cheryl on July 16, 2007 10:17 AMFor those that actually want to KNOW what the Fed's will pay for and what they won't, here is the actual guidelines are:
http://stemcells.nih.gov/staticresources/news/newsArchives/NIHSCguideline2000.pdf
From the NIH, here are also some FAQ's to look at:
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/faqs.asp#funding
Take the time to get better acquainted with what the language actually is, what the issue actually is (no NEW Federal dollars for lines outside of recognized lines after 8/9/01).
Again, I don't see the HUGE issue on this topic. Embryonic stem cells ARE being Federally funded currently, they will continue to be Federally funded, there is NO restriction on private funding - even if some of the embryonic lines are outside the Federal guidelines.
Research IS being conducted, it IS being funded by the Feds, and IT DOES show promise, although this research is still in it's infancy. Let's see what develops and THEN make a truly educated decision on if we should EXPAND Federal funding, or if other ways, lines, or methods will actually DEMONSTRATE more promise.
Posted by Dan2 on July 16, 2007 10:48 AMI always find it ironic that "people of faith" will explain away the greatest tragedies and catastophes as the will of God, yet get their panties all in a bunch when we use the knowledge and abilities that God didn't see fit to give any other species to better our lives.
How do these people justify the killing living, breathing human beings with guns,bombs, torture, lethal injections, starvation, malnutriition, disease, etc, yet go into such conniptions over the status of aborted fetus or an unwanted embryo?
There are some serious dichotomies that "pro-life" people need to work out in their own self-centered schizophrenic minds before we can take them seriously.
Either ALL life has worth or they are the one's playing God.
No federal funds may be used, either directly or indirectly, to support research on human embryonic stem cell lines that do not meet the criteria established by President Bush on August 9, 2001. According to the researchers, these limited lines are defective and contaminated. In my opinion, monies spent on these limited lines is only going to be wasted because the research will also be defective. Both NIH and the US Surgeon General supports hESC research and wants it expanded. Bush does not. Research in the US regarding hESC is severely behind other nations...Canada (the country that actually confirmed the existence of hESC - and also the country that allegedly has poor medical care), Great Britain, Israel, Singapore and Australia are all leaders and much ahead of the US in this area of research. Dan2, please show me where we are conducting hESC research outside the limited parameters established in 2001with Federal funds. NOT! California established its own STATE funding of this type of research because the FEDS were not movingn it along. Other states have followed. Why? Because the Feds have not gotten out from underneath the restrictions imposed in 2001
Posted by cheryl on July 16, 2007 11:02 AMI'm with Thomas. Hypocrisy is somewhat tolerable until it becomes life or death. This issue is life or death, and hypocrites are revealed by their religious judgment that causes more pain and suffering, as they choose.
The majority of the public supports research because it is based on science, not on a subjective belief fueled by one's interpretation of the Bible or religious tenets. Jansen gives too much credit to the RMN and media.
Posted by River on July 16, 2007 11:13 AMCheryl,
The Feds will indeed fund a lab that uses hESC that meet and DON'T meet the federal guidelines, they just will not fund the lines that don't, and there needs to be paperwork and a chain of command sheet that shows no federal funds were used on non-federally approved lines.
The argument for use of stem cell lines, is that they may develop into almost anything, thereby making one line of stem cells able to "morph" into anything. If hESC truly is able to advance science because of it's many uses, why do we need additional lines, if we can grow and reproduce these cells?
But to answer your specific question, hESC was first discovered (after I had left) at the University of Wisconsin - Madison in 1998. The knowledge of what these cells ACTUALLY can do (nothing so far), and what we "think" the potential is, is so drastically different. Industry spends TRILLIONS in medical research. If the potential is really there, industry would be all over it to be the "first to market" and have the ability to set the price.
Also, there is NOTHING that prevents us from raising our own funding, assuming we think that this is important, and sending those donations to researchers committed to hESC.
Explain to me why it should even be up to the Federal Government on funding research? If this is indeed important research, why are there not "rides for the cure," little ribbons to wear, donation sites, more independent solicitation, anything? Why haven't Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet, sent any money to labs conducting this research to utilize more lines? Why don't you organize "a cure for diabetes" event and donate your proceeds to a lab that won't have to rely on Federal funding for hESC?
Posted by Dan2 on July 16, 2007 11:50 AMCheryl has pointed out the ruling by the Bush administration quite well. I thought Nancy Pelosi had come up with a workable solution: to use only embryos which were going to be destroyed anyway - and only with the permission of the folks whose eggs & sperm were used to create those embryos. Bush decided that was unacceptable - that he would rather see the embryos destroyed than put to use for medical research, perhaps replacing some of the defective lines that are currently federally funded.
The way the in vitro fertilization clinics currently work, they create enough embryos for a litter (8 or more at a time), implant perhaps half, reserving the rest for future use. If the couple breaks up, or has a successful pregnancy resulting in the number of children they want, the rest of the embryos are held for some time then destroyed.
The only 2 possible resolutions to the argument is
1) insist that only 1 embryo be created & implanted at a time (instead of the multiples being created & implanted, often resulting in a doctor's suggestion that if all embryos implant successfully that some be aborted). This of course would put the cost of in vitro fertilization out of reach but all but the wealthiest in this country, as the process is not generally covered by insurance plans.
or
2) mandate that ALL existing embryos should be used by folks who insist on 'giving birth' rather than adopting a child over the course of the next year or so. Any remaining embryos should be destroyed immediately. When that is completed. all in vitro fertilization clinics should be shut down.
Which do you prefer - Pelosi's solution (which Congress passed, but not with enough votes to override the veto) or one of my solutions? Pick one, then contact your representatives.
Posted by Mary on July 16, 2007 11:55 AMDan2...one of the last words my husband said to my 12 year old before he died was not to give up hope on finding the cure for Type1 diabetes. You underestimate me. I do everything to try to raise funds for diabetes research. I just got back from a 100 mile bike ride in California where we raised 700K for diabetes research. We have 3 more rides to go. I am consistantly looking for sponsors for JDRF. JDRF is the largest private funder of diabetes research. Under your premise, why do we even have NIH? Why are we allocated tax dollars to cancer cures, Parkinson cures, etc. Or is it the type of research you object to. Government funding of medical research has been around a very long time. (See also http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?alias=geron-says-embryonic-). FYI, the Lakser Award went to Ernest A. McCulloch and James E. Till (Canada) for ingenious experiments that first identified a stem cell - the blood-forming stem cell - which set the stage for all current research on adult and embryonic stem cells. Canada seems to have moved forward in both areas of research - the US has not. Heck, let's not even talk about Federal funding of research that can cure disease, let's move on to Federal funding of medical care and universal health insurance coverage...these are the issues that are much discussed and will be factors in the 2008 elections. Look at the boards as to the number of bloggers on these issues. Diabetes alone is a billions dollars a year profit maker for pharmaceuticals. I fight my health insurance company all the time regarding coverage issues for my daughter. i would rather find cures for these chronic diseases by which humans have no control over their health predicament, instead of relying on health insurance providers to call the shots as to whether my daughter gets one treatment versus another. Myself and my daughter's health care providers call the shots - not a health insurance company. My apologies for the digressions.
Posted by cheryl on July 16, 2007 12:21 PMI challenge Marjorie's frame that hESC is morally questionable, and that the alternative is acceptable to all.
I think it's morally questionable to NOT use embryos (~100-cell collections with neither organs nor nervous sytems) that are going to be destroyed anyway, and whose parents agree to the experimentation. Why should the "moral" objections of people like Marjorie have veto power over the majority who want the research to take place?
And Dan2, if a lab purchases an expensive piece of equipment with a federal grant, and that equipment has multiple uses, it may not be used for hESC research on lines post 8/9/01 so your simplistic view of how research could run is wrong in the real world of the research laboratory.
Posted by on July 16, 2007 12:22 PMDid you know that Warren Buffet is a Democrat that has donated money to Hillary Clinton's campaign....ironic isn't it. He plans to do the same for Obama. This is substantiated by recent business articles.
Posted by cheryl on July 16, 2007 12:23 PMsorry - the web link got cut off in the pasting
This is what hESC can do so far with regards to diabetes - let's let the researchers move forward.
http://www.genengnews.com/news.bnitem.aspx?name=17569445
sorry - the web link got cut off in the pasting
This is what hESC can do so far with regards to diabetes - let's let the researchers move forward.
http://www.genengnews.com/news.bnitem.aspx?name=17569445
I give up on cutting and pasting websites - here is the article!
Geron Scientists and Collaborators Differentiate Human Embryonic Stem Cells Into Insulin-Producing Islet-Like Clusters
May 17 2007, 7:30 AM EST
Business Wire
Geron Corporation (Nasdaq:GERN) today reported that its scientists and collaborators at the University of Alberta have differentiated human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) into islet-like clusters (ILCs) that secrete insulin in response to elevated glucose levels. The studies demonstrate the feasibility of producing therapeutic cell types from hESCs for the treatment of diabetes.
To be published in the August issue of Stem Cells, which is available now for online viewing in Stem Cells Express at http://stemcells.alphamedpress.org/papbyrecent.dtl, the paper describes studies showing how the researchers differentiated hESCs into cell clusters containing the main cellular components of the islets of Langerhans. The islets of Langerhans are structures in the pancreas that are responsible for regulating and producing insulin in response to changing glucose concentrations and are targets for autoimmune destruction or dysfunction in Type I Diabetes.
"These studies show that the islet-like clusters contain the major cellular components of islets and are sensitive to glucose, the key sugar to which they must respond to be therapeutically beneficial," stated Anish Majumdar, Ph.D., the senior author of the paper. "Our major goal moving forward is to improve the purity, yield and maturational status of these cells to induce normoglycemia in animal models of diabetes."
Geron Corporation was granted U.S. Patent No. 7,033,831 in April 2006 covering the production of insulin-secreting cells from hESCs as well as two U.K. patents covering similar production methods. Geron also has a worldwide exclusive commercial license covering hESC-derived islets from the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.
Geron's scientists and collaborators produced ILCs containing individual cells types that express insulin, glucagon and somatostatin, three of the major hormones produced by islet beta, alpha and delta cells, respectively. Further analysis of the insulin-producing cells indicates they also produce c-peptide, a peptide cleaved upon secretion of the precursor of insulin, indicating that insulin was actually produced, and not absorbed, by the cells. Approximately 2%-8% of the differentiated cells contain insulin and c-peptide and their insulin content was higher than that of fetal islets.
The ILCs functioned to secrete insulin in response to elevated glucose levels. Cells within the ILCs contained secretory granules characteristic of those seen in islet beta cells. In cell culture, the ILCs produced c-peptide and insulin when exposed to higher concentrations of glucose with the kinetics of an immature islet.
The protocol to produce the ILCs drives hESCs through a series of cell culture steps that mimic the progressive differentiation stages during development of the pancreas in humans. Other pancreatic cell types resembling those of the exocrine pancreas were also observed during the differentiation process. The protocol does not utilize serum or feeder cells of any kind, underscoring the scalability of the process.
Originally developed at the University of Alberta, the Edmonton Protocol provides the proof of concept that transplantation of purified cadaveric islets can significantly reduce the need for insulin in patients with advanced Type 1 Diabetes. Problems limiting the accessibility of transplantation therapy for diabetes patients are the poor availability of organs from cadavers and the eventual failure of the grafts, which often require replacement and chronic immunosuppression.
"The Edmonton Protocol provides significant evidence that transplantation of primary islets can be used to successfully reduce the need for insulin in patients with Type 1 Diabetes," said Thomas B. Okarma, Ph.D., M.D., Geron's president and chief executive officer. "It is the work published today that demonstrates the potential of human embryonic stem cells to enable the ready availability of uniform, functional islet cells for therapeutic administration."
Geron is developing first-in-class biopharmaceuticals for the treatment of cancer and chronic degenerative diseases, including spinal cord injury, heart failure, diabetes and HIV/AIDS. The company is advancing an anti-cancer drug and a cancer vaccine that target the enzyme telomerase through multiple clinical trials. Geron is also the world leader in the development of human embryonic stem cell-based therapeutics, with its spinal cord injury treatment anticipated to be the first product to enter clinical development. For more information, visit www.geron.com.
This news release may contain forward-looking statements made pursuant to the "safe harbor" provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Investors are cautioned that such forward-looking statements in this press release regarding potential applications of Geron's human embryonic stem cell technology constitute forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties, including, without limitation, risks inherent in the development and commercialization of potential products, uncertainty of clinical trial results or regulatory approvals or clearances, need for future capital, dependence upon collaborators and maintenance of our intellectual property rights. Actual results may differ materially from the results anticipated in these forward-looking statements. Additional information on potential factors that could affect our results and other risks and uncertainties are detailed from time to time in Geron's periodic reports, including the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007.
Anonymous,
You are incorrect. That piece of equipment CAN INDEED be used, even if purchased with Federal dollars, but must ALSO have been purchased with non-federal monies in proportion to it's use on non-federally funded hESC. It's right in the guidelines from the NIH.
Cheryl,
I am truly sorry for your loss. And if you provide me with information, or a place for me to personally donate so that my monies go to non-federally funded hESC lines, I will write you check today.
So you have a better idea where I am coming from, I am a Libertarian, and I do not think that we should have the NIH at all anyway. And read my post to health care. You'll see how I compromise my stance on this issue, even though it is against my philosophical belief in extremely small government, at least on the Federal level as it applies to medical coverage.
Posted by Dan2 on July 16, 2007 12:41 PMDan:
I understand your theory on government. I also thought like that at one point in time. But reality is that government is never going to get smaller...neither you nor I can change this fact. Power, money, egos, pork projects, etc. is what makes politics. Frankly, I voted for old Ross Perot years ago and am frustrated at both parties for not working together and resolving issues. We are all in this world together (or in the US together). If the government is going to throw money at a project, let's give it all we have and solve the issue. We did it with NASA and landing on the moon (there's a controversial govt financed project - got us technology and what else??????). The Iraq war is sucking billions from future generations. Politicians and corporations sleep together. I would also like a "milton friedman" economy, but it is not going to ever happen. Government is a mess. I do not know what the answer is, either. But I do know that progress is being made with hESC and if government is doling out money for research, let's find that cure so that medicaid expenditures are lessened (Diabetes care - both Type 1 and Type 2 take up about a third of the medicare budgets! - staggering isn't it). website for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation jdrf.org
Posted by cheryl on July 16, 2007 01:13 PMCheryl -
I too am very concerned about, and support, ANY research on diabetes. My major concern is due to the fact my five year old grandson has Type 1 diabetes.
Without distracting from the current debate above (especially since I am rooting in your corner) I would like to know if you are aware of some independent research being done somewhere in New York -- Columbia, NYU, etc. -- that is being financed primarily by Lee Iacoca (sp?), former head of Chrysler?
I read about it while laying around in a hospital a couple of years ago and didn't retain enough info to follow up later. As my memory serves, the Dr. heading the project claimed that she had reversed some Type 1 patients during clinical trials but still had a way to go.
Any info you might have on this would be greatly appreciated.
Posted by darfor on July 16, 2007 01:40 PMCheryl --
Here's a quote I found from Iococca regarding this project (2005), but I haven't been able to find any subsequent information.
But now, one of those researchers at Mass General [Hospital] had a 10-strike.
"She cured diabetes in mice in about a year and a half ago, and once she cured it, she said, "Wow! Not only did I stop the disease, but once I stopped the disease in the mouse they started to regenerate new cells." So now it's simple: If you're a mouse, I got you covered. But how you will translate that to humans, that is tough. "
Posted by darfor on July 16, 2007 01:57 PMWhy is the government involved in science at all? They should just keep out of it and let scientists handle the scientific issues...
Posted by Roy on July 16, 2007 02:08 PMCheryl,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I know that sometimes my remarks may seem callous, but the intention is to make people think beyond their own comfort zone.
And thank you for the information on jdrf. I will be visiting that site right now.
Posted by Dan2 on July 16, 2007 02:10 PMI know the research that you are talking about. Dr. Denise Faustman of Harvard. Unfortunately, researchers have their own politics and her research was discredited by those of her own. I have many articles regarding her work...but none of it recent, despite my efforts to keep up with it. Lee Iaccoca has his own diabetes foundation and Dr Faustman has her own donors for research. Iaccoca lost his wife to the disease at an early age. You see, most of us just want no doors closed to scientic advances and research. I support Dr. Faustman as I do those scientists as the Univeristy of Alberta. I appreciate all of their hard work. But there are broader issues here than just diabetes....
Posted by cheryl on July 16, 2007 02:12 PMHot topic, but there are advances in type 1 diabetes using stem cells, but they aren't embryonic. You can read about it here.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/215631/united_states_says_no_to_diabetes_stem.html
As for adult stem cells, here is a web site that gives a lot of information.
The argument here appears to be on the one side, people consider it morally objectionable to kill a fetus to get cells for experimentation. Right now there are no cures from embryonic stem cells and in fact there is a problem in that embryonic stem cells tend to develop tumors. And finally there are a number of promising experiments going on that are taking adult stem cells and turning them into the equivalent of embryonic stem cells.
ON the other side, the proponents of funding embryonic stem cells feel that there are potentially the cures to many diseases that afflict mankind. They seem to feel if we just pour more money into the research, we will overcome the problems. Finally they feel the objections are religious vs being scientific.
I'm on the opposed side. I see the objections as being both morality and scientific and before you require everyone to pay taxes to pay for killing fetuses, you need a lot more science on your side.
Posted by Jim on July 16, 2007 02:17 PMHot topic, but there are advances in type 1 diabetes using stem cells, but they aren't embryonic. You can read about it here.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/215631/united_states_says_no_to_diabetes_stem.html
As for adult stem cells, here is a web site that gives a lot of information.
The argument here appears to be on the one side, people consider it morally objectionable to kill a fetus to get cells for experimentation. Right now there are no cures from embryonic stem cells and in fact there is a problem in that embryonic stem cells tend to develop tumors. And finally there are a number of promising experiments going on that are taking adult stem cells and turning them into the equivalent of embryonic stem cells.
ON the other side, the proponents of funding embryonic stem cells feel that there are potentially the cures to many diseases that afflict mankind. They seem to feel if we just pour more money into the research, we will overcome the problems. Finally they feel the objections are religious vs being scientific.
I'm on the opposed side. I see the objections as being both morality and scientific and before you require everyone to pay taxes to pay for killing fetuses, you need a lot more science on your side.
Posted by Jim on July 16, 2007 02:17 PMBoth Scientific American and the Wall Street Journal have run articles on Dr. Faustman. The most recent that I have is a SA article dated November 12, 2006 where separate researchers confirmed her initial research. There is a theory that spleen cells can morph into pancreatic islets. She also used a chemical called Freund's complete adjuvant to help with the immunity issues. JDRF has funded some of the research that confirmed Faustman's findings. Admittedly, I think JDRF was very skeptical of her research since other scientists argued that she did not follow particular research protocols. Darfur, I am truly sorry about your grandson. This is a horrible disease for a child to have. My heart sinks every time I go to the Barbara Davis Center and see families in the "new intake" rooms and knowing what lies before them. My daughter has already had seizures. A simple flu bug landed her in the ER because of very elevated ketones in her urine. People don't understand that children can die from this disease (like cancer and any other disease, of course). Children should not have to go through any of this (chemo, radiation, multiple injections, etc). This disease is a little different because children look healthy on the outside but on their internal organs are being jeopardized. One cannot see it like a child with cancer undergoing treatment. Go to the JDRF webite (jdrf.org) and read some of the testimony that children gave before Congress recently
Posted by cheryl on July 16, 2007 02:25 PMI'm on the opposed side. I see the objections as being both morality and scientific and before you require everyone to pay taxes to pay for killing fetuses, you need a lot more science on your side.
Posted by Jim on July 16, 2007 02:17 PM
----
There are more choices than 'ban it or subsidize it'...i.e. don't do anything...
Posted by Roy on July 16, 2007 02:26 PMGee, I don't like the recent findings that innocent people have been on death row. I don't like government money (my tax dollars, too) going to support the death penalty or this killing in Iraq. Jim, why is it ok to use tax dollars to kill the above and not ok to "kill" fetuses? (by definition, hESCs are not fetuses). I do not see a list of killing exceptions in the 10 Commandments. I guess man made them up. Again, whose religion trumps the other? I guess the Pope thinks Catholics are the only ones going to Heaven. The Pope must have a directly line to God. His statements are devisive and are ill served to his community. Some radical Muslims think that they are the chosen ones into Heaven. Let's not get into who is moral and who is not, though. WWJD?
Posted by Cheryl on July 16, 2007 02:35 PMRoy
1) Embryos are not fetuses.
2) Once the science has been developed using private funds, at what point would you require everyone to pay taxes to pay for killing fetuses (or embryos)?
Sorry Roy, I meant Jim
Posted by on July 16, 2007 02:37 PMGreat thread! Thanks for the knowledge.
Posted by Charles B on July 16, 2007 05:35 PMCheryl -
This thread seems to have taken a break for a while. I found a very interesting video interview with Dr. Faustman that I wanted to pass on to you. Apparently, she's now establishing the protocols for her human clinical trials.
And, she does admit in the interview that there is some speculation regarding the possible use of embryonic stems cells in her work. But she does emphasize that she has utilized other types of cells; and, that cell introduction may not be necessary in the long run.
http://www.diabeteshealth.com/tv/play/9.html
darfor
darformail@yahoo.com