This is more of a science blurb than an actual posting, but the topic is one I’ve ranted about before. I’m sure we’ve all heard the Republican Right bashing Michael J. Fox for his political ad that encourages people to vote for candidates that support stem cell research. In the ad Michael says that stem cells could one day be a cure for Parkinson’s disease.
Well, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is backing this claim. There are a specific cell type called DA neurons that relieve the symptoms of Parkinson’s. Researchers in several different laboratories have successfully induced stem cells to differentiate into cells that function as DA neurons. Thanks to the policy Bush signed in 2001, Scientist can’t afford to continue this research.
It’s crazy. We’re this close to curing a number of diseases like Parkinson’s and diabetes, but without government funding researchers can’t continue their work. Then the work goes to big corporations who then reserve the right to charge outrageous amounts of money for the cure. It’s the same ole’ gripe.
I am so angry at that stupid drug-addled pig Rush Limbaugh. And I can’t stand Patricia Heaton, either. The wife from Everybody Hates Raymond? She is just as insane as Rush and the others.
I bet its extra frustrating for, you know, actual scientists like you. Sigh.
What Tiffany said. (Also, I don’t know Pat Heaton’s political stance, but I hate her because of the Albertson’s commercials. Snack mom indeed.)
Time for your reality check boys and girls.
First you group embryonic stem cell research with all other types of stem cell research which makes the premise of your argument wrong. (like michael J fox)
Here are the facts:
The federal government DOES FUND stem cell research.
Republicans are for STEM CELL RESEARCH.
Cord Blood Stem Cells have indeed shown great promise as you describe, however EMBRYONIC stem cell research has NOT.
ALL studies done so far on embryonic stem cells have had problems with tumors and cancer.
If embryonic stem cells are so great, get together with your friends and invest in it. If it cures half as many diseases as people are claiming you will be a bazillionaire in no time.
Embryonic stem cell research involves cloning and killing of human life.
When you agree to kill death row inmates for their parts, we can discuss killing unborn humans for their parts.
I’m curious what you believe the premise of the post to be. I would also like to know how you concluded that embryonic stem cells should not be grouped under the heading “Stem Cell Research”. Are you saying that embryonic stem cells are not stem cells, or is it that your argument just relies on excluding it. Embryonic stem cells are stem cells.
No one is saying that the federal government doesn’t fund stem cell research, nor that Republicans are not for stem cell research.
Only a handful of labs in the US are trying to develop stem cells from cloned embryos. Nearly all embryonic stem cell research uses embryos left over from fertility clinics that would be destroyed anyway. Should we shut down fertility clinics? Additionally, there is a big difference between reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. Many scientists who use therapeutic cloning would support a ban on reproductive cloning.
Your claim that embryonic stem cell research has not shown great promise is an argument that eats itself. It hasn’t shown much promise because not as much research has been done. Funds have been severely cut, and access to existing lines is extremely limited (nowhere near the 60 that Bush claimed exists; it was just a number he pulled out of his ass). Also, most of the existing lines are not very good, and scientists who are forced to use them could easily draw wrong conclusions in their research. Thus, the need for new lines that are better characterized and freely available.
That “embryonic stem cells have had problems with tumors and cancer” is all the more reason for further research. You don’t just disregard the research because of some lame mentality of “Oh, look, it causes cancer. Darn, I guess we should stop right there and not find out why; it’s not like we’re scientists or anything”. You never know what you’ll find during the course of your research. That it could be related to cancer and tumors means that it already has lots to offer scientists studying cancer and tumors. Likewise, should we stop treating cancer with radiation? Radiation has been proven to cause cancer, and yet we use radiation to treat it.
The best guesses are that clinical trials are 15-20 years away, which is why we should start sooner rather than later. Again, once we start, we don’t know how long it’ll be before we see any break-throughs. Think about how far computers have come in the last 20 years, and about how we use them today compared to how limited our thinking was back then about the way we thought people would use them.
Hate to break it to you, but it looks like your reality check just bounced. Maybe you should open an account with the bank first.