Right now across this wonderful country of ours people are going to fertility clinics because they can not concieve a child naturally or they have a genetic predispostion that they want the embryo screened for. ( Tay-Sachs, Huntington's etc.)
Here is how the process works. They remove 20-30 eggs (sometimes more sometimes less) and mix them with sperm from the father. If the father has defective sperm they will sometimes mix his sperm with a donor. Don't ask me why they just wouldn't use a donor's sperm but some people still hold out hope that there sperm will be the one that fertilizes the egg. So after mixing the sperms and the eggs that look for miotic division. The viable eggs chromosomes are then screened. Now if people want to choose the sex of their child they can. People choose the egg they want developed.
Now the unused eggs are put in a freezer. What do we do with these embryo's? There are literally millions of these around the country in fertility clinics. So instead of saying harvesting embryo's for embryonic stem cell research why don't we say we are using frozen embryo's that will be destroyed eventually. I believe these embryo's are stored away and they will eventually be destroyed or are in the process of being destroyed. Now if the parents who could not have concieved a child without going thriough in-vitro fertilization want to donate their unused embryos to science, why are we standing in their way. Would you rather see them thrown away? I have seen articles from respected Science Journals that show the promise of embryonic stem cell research. The adult stem cell lines argument are NOT coming from the academic side. The New England Journal of Medcine, respected scientific journals, have argued for EMBRYONIC stem cell research.
If there is any possible medical use for them, then I am all for it.
These are the Embryo's that they want to do the research on. There's literally millions of them out there.
That scenario makes way too much sense. Maybe if we do that we might be able to catch up with the British in research.
It presents absolutely no moral dilema for this Republican. To me it is just common sense if something can come out of it then we should be all over it. Also have to consider that the Europeans and Asians will be all over it and that will put their medical and pharmaceutical industries a step ahead of ours eventually.
Machiavelli Wrote:These are the Embryo's that they want to do the researsh on. There's literally millions of them out there.
There is nothing, I repeat
nothing, preventing research on them today.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but after Bush signed his ban did it not state that any new "strains" of the embryonic cells were not allowed to be tested?
Thats not to say the old ones couldn't be tested, but I haven't hear either way if they ever have.
Quote:There is nothing, I repeat nothing, preventing research on them today.
Except you can't use Federal NIH money. Which is
THE driving force behind University research.
Oh... btw.... This is the argumnent this guy at work uses gainst me. I'm now pro-life. So, can anyone give me an argument I can use against this guy.
mlb Wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but after Bush signed his ban did it not state that any new "strains" of the embryonic cells were not allowed to be tested?
Thats not to say the old ones couldn't be tested, but I haven't hear either way if they ever have.
The "ban" said federal money wouldn't be used to fund research on any new strains.
Quote:Except you can't use Federal NIH money. Which is THE driving force behind University research.
I don't believe that's true. Private endowments and donations are the driving force.
If the medical private sector sees a value in research, they will give the dollars to fund it. Government should stay out of it, primarily because they suck at it.
The govt. can sneeze more money at research than a private company could come up with in years. Was it on here where a guy gave a scenario where a billion seconds takes us back to the 50' A billion minutes past the ice age. Something along those lines. A billion is truly an astonishing number. A million pennies fills up a 10' by 10' cubicle something like 3 ft. high. There was an article in a Current Science about a classroom that tried to collect a million pennies. It took up more room than you realize.
Our govt. throws billions of dollars around daily. I know you want a smaller govt. and I truly can see your side of that argument, but to say that a private foundation can fund research the same as our government is misleading at best.
Machiavelli Wrote:The govt. can sneeze more money at research than a private company could come up with in years.
That's not the point. The government money is tax money ergo my money. Therefore I very much have a say in where I feel it should go. Simply because the government
can do something doesn't mean they should. And with government funds comes government meddling. And anytime the government meddles in matters like this it makes things worse not better.
Quote:but to say that a private foundation can fund research the same as our government is misleading at best.
Where did I say that Dogger? Ready more carefully. I said if the private sector sees value in the research, they will fund it. How much funding do you think it needs that is not within the private sector's ability to provide?
This is the difference between the left and right mindset on these things. The left thinks the solution to every problem is to throw more money at it.
Ninerfan1 Wrote:This is the difference between the left and right mindset on these things. The left thinks the solution to every problem is to throw more money at it.
This has nothing to do with government programs. Researchers write proposals which are reviewed and if it seems that the research has potential, money is granted. Fortunately private companies do provide research funds; otherwise we would be much further behind the rest of the world.
In terms of R&D the more money you throw at a solution the better the chance of success. We never would of went to the moon without the govt. Now, I do respect the ingenuity, the drive, and the cost effectiveness of the private sector. But when it comes to the big stuff ie. cancer research, spinal cord (nerve regeneration), cell differentation, these big ones. The driving force is going to come from the National Institute of Health grants.
This is your classic wedge issue. The only reason I brought it up because in the other thread I thought people were confusing adult stem cell research with embryonic. There are some big differences and that's why scientist want to look into embryonic stem cells. People on the right give the headway that adult stems cells are making, but I argue because thats were the federal research dollars are going.
Now if you were dying of brain cancer or had Parkinson's? Would you want the most money being thrown at it as possible? I know this is a tough question and you don't have to answer it. I'm not trying to enflame anyone. I just gave the above scenario so people could see where they are getting the embryos. I think some people are thinking they are taking the embryo's from aborted babies or something along these lines.
It truly is a slippery slope. What God Hath Made Crooked Does Man Have the RIGHT to Straighten.
You get into some tricky ethical issues when you start screening embryo's and changing different genes. Eventually you could end up with two seperate species. When you look at a chimpanzee and think we share 99% of their DNA and a 1000 genes seperate them from us and we talk about modify or sorting 200 of our genes. You can see after a few generations you would have the "evolutionary equalivent seperation" between the "modified" and the natural homo sapien.
So I do respect and understand if you hold reservations about modifying genes and you see the stem cell research as the 1st step along those paths......... but if I had Parkinson's or my son or daughter had something that possibly be cured from this research. I want federal funding for it.
Fanatical Wrote:This has nothing to do with government programs.
lmfao yeah, ok.
Its like talking to a brick wall.
Machiavelli Wrote:In terms of R&D the more money you throw at a solution the better the chance of success.
Nope. More money does not equal more chance for success in the case of R&D. Like most things there is a point where more=less in terms of success.
Quote:We never would of went to the moon without he govt.
What disease have we cured by doing so? Going to the moon, comparatively, is far easier than curing cancern, parkinsons, AIDS etc.
Quote:But when it comes to the big stuff ie. cancer research, spinal cord (nerve regeneration), cell differentation, these big ones. The driving force is going to come from the National Institute of Health grants.
Couldn't disagree more. Polio, one of the worst diseases of the 20th century, was cured largely through funding from the March of Dimes, a private charity group. With government money comes government meddling.
Quote:Now if you were dying of brain cancer or had Parkinson's? Would you want the most money being thrown at it as possible?
If the amount of money being thrown at it made the research self defeating, absolutely not. And I wouldn't want another life murdered to save mine. (embyronic stem cell)
Quote:I think some people are thinking they are taking the embryo's from aborted babies or something along those lines.
An embryo is a fertilzed egg. It's a life, a human life. And when you jump on the slippery slope fo being willing to use human life to save another you open the doors to all kinds of lines you don't want to cross.
We don't allow human experimentation for disease cures until years and years into the development of the method. Why do we do that? The fact is diseases could be cured so much more quickly if we allowed human experimentation. The ends don't justify the means to me in this case.
Quote:but if I had Parkinson's or my son or daughter had something that possibly be cured from this research. I want federal funding for it.
That's the thing. There is nothing that says a cure can be garnered from this research. Research has been done, and continues and as of now has yielded nothing that indicates cures are possible. that's one of the great tragedies of this debate.
Fanatical Wrote:Its like talking to a brick wall.
Tell me about it.
I'll kindly refer you to the department of education, No Child Left Behind, the medicare perscription drug benefit and head start as perfect examples of government programs that have billions thrown at them yet still have the same problems they've had for decades.
Government money means government meddling. Whether government creates the program or funds it it's still part of the government. I'm fully aware how research grants work.
Ninerfan1 Wrote:Government money means government meddling. Whether government creates the program or funds it it's still part of the government. I'm fully aware how research grants work.
Well the government is certainly meddling by cutting research funding; but I was unaware that it had such control over independent private and academic research.
And since you obviously haven't read my earlier topic on this matter, I'll link it for you.
http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/ncaa/phpbb...hp?t=20700
Here we can see a few examples of how stem cell research is advancing and creating results. You'll notice that it is happening outside the US.
>Here< is an example of stem cells leading to a cure for blindness. Of course, human foetal cells couldn't be harvested from a developing fetus for this. Perhaps if we had stem cells at an earlier stage of development and attempt to find out how we can direct their growth.... Oh wait, nevermind. We'll just let the Britsh handle that.
Fanatical Wrote:Well the government is certainly meddling by cutting research funding; but I was unaware that it had such control over independent private and academic research.
Where exactly did I say it did? My reference that you gave me the obnoxious
to was talking about government, not private. (Note that the conversation to that point was respectful and civil before you decided to jump in and change it for no reason)
Quote:And since you obviously haven't read my earlier topic on this matter, I'll link it for you.
http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/ncaa/phpbb...hp?t=20700
From your thread:
Quote:BRITISH scientists have grown the first artificial liver in a breakthrough that could eventually allow livers to be grown for human transplants.
Using stem cells from umbilical cords, Nico Forraz and Colin McGuckin, from Newcastle University, have grown the miniature livers in a laboratory. The livers are about the size of a 1p piece, and are a vital first step in creating a full-sized liver. They can already be used for drug testing, reducing the need to test on animals and human beings.
Where exactly did you see me say that 1) stem cells from umbilical cords wasn't yielding results or 2) that I was against using them? You didn't. What I'm against is embryonic stem cell research.
Quote:Perhaps if we had stem cells at an earlier stage of development and attempt to find out how we can direct their growth.... Oh wait, nevermind. We'll just let the Britsh handle that.
Perhaps. Thanks for illustrating my point that, in reference to
embryonic stemcell research.
Ninerfan1 Wrote:Fanatical Wrote:Well the government is certainly meddling by cutting research funding; but I was unaware that it had such control over independent private and academic research.
Where exactly did I say it did?
Ninerfan1 Wrote:Government money means government meddling. Whether government creates the program or funds it it's still part of the government. I'm fully aware how research grants work.
Federal grants are distributed to many private research groups.
As for everything else, my niner friend, I don't know what else to argue. I've shown that stem cells have great promise. But there is always the "What have embryonic stem cells done for me lately?" cry, and the answer will always be very little since very little research can be done with them. Fortunately, scientists are working on new ways to artificially create embryonic stem cells. Hopefully these will not be prohibited from research when the research matures.
Fanatical Wrote:I've shown that stem cells have great promise. But there is always the "What have embryonic stem cells done for me lately?" cry, and the answer will always be very little since very little research can be done with them. Fortunately, scientists are working on new ways to artificially create embryonic stem cells. Hopefully these will not be prohibited from research when the research matures.
Where have you shown that embryonic stem cells show promise? ....and no, I'm not talking about an unbilical cord.
I'll repeat, little research has been done with embryonic stem cells, as there are few samples and little research funding.
The research direction for embryonic stem cells is to direct them to become the advanced "adult" stem cells. These more advanced stem cells are ideal, but they are limited in number. The need for the embryonic research is to create larger amounts of directed stem cells.
Fanatical Wrote:I'll repeat, little research has been done with embryonic stem cells, as there are few samples and little research funding.
The research direction for embryonic stem cells is to direct them to become the advanced "adult" stem cells. These more advanced stem cells are ideal, but they are limited in number. The need for the embryonic research is to create larger amounts of directed stem cells.
Then how can you sit there, with a straight face, and say, "I've shown that stem cells have great promise."?
Fanatical Wrote:I've shown that stem cells have great promise.
you've shown that cord stem cells have great promise, an assertion I've never disputed, and that "perhaps" embryonic based on mice. You seem to be content not to differentiate the differences.
Quote:But there is always the "What have embryonic stem cells done for me lately?"
What have they done at all? I can point to countless diseases and treatments that adult stem cells have brought, yet none embryonic.
China is not prohibited in anyway from this research. Given their forced abortion policy they have more than enough embryos to work with. Europe are not prohibited in their research of them I don't believe, at least based on your assertion that we're falling behind the british, and yet have produced nothing, save China has produced a dead person who they gave a massive brain tumor when they used them.
You've shown cord cells and adult stem cells show great promise. That's something I've never disputed. Embryonic, you've showed nothing save some mice in Britain.
RebelKev Wrote:Then how can you sit there, with a straight face, and say, "I've shown that stem cells have great promise."?
Please, read the articles I have posted. Examples include, growing new livers and curing blind rats.
And again, the direction of embryonic stem cells is to steer them to be able to become desired adult stem cells. This is because adult stem cells are difficult to remove, including expensive surgery, and are in low amounts in the body. Research is still needed because we still aren't sure how it happens. And again, of course you're not going to see many articles on research that has been stalled.
Imagine if the Wright brothers gave up the first time their glider crashed?
Fanatical Wrote:Imagine if the Wright brothers gave up the first time their glider crashed?
But how did the Wright Brothers get a plane to fly without federal funding? How dare the US Government ban airplane research!
;-)
Fanatical Wrote:And again, the direction of embryonic stem cells is to steer them to be able to become desired adult stem cells. This is because adult stem cells are difficult to remove, including expensive surgery, and are in low amounts in the body. Research is still needed because we still aren't sure how it happens. And again, of course you're not going to see many articles on research that has been stalled.
....as opposed to those 'lil unborn f'ers that have no choice.
SIEG HEIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!