You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Stem Cell Research
- Thread starter HBanana
- Start date
kayleesgrandma
New member
Welcome Hannah, I can't wait until you get your own blog. I think you will have some really interesting things for us to read and discuss. I'm torn between the moral implications of "harvesting" stem cells, and knowing its the "next best thing" in research. It's another complicated Pandora's Box. I'm torn between the dilema of "soul" when it comes to a conceived "blob of cells". I don't know enough about this to give a reasoned, qualified response. But I guess I am not against it--who would say they don't want resarch to find a way to make life better . . . I maily wanted to say hello, and welcome. Try to get yourself a blog here, I look forward to reading you! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">
kayleesgrandma
New member
Welcome Hannah, I can't wait until you get your own blog. I think you will have some really interesting things for us to read and discuss. I'm torn between the moral implications of "harvesting" stem cells, and knowing its the "next best thing" in research. It's another complicated Pandora's Box. I'm torn between the dilema of "soul" when it comes to a conceived "blob of cells". I don't know enough about this to give a reasoned, qualified response. But I guess I am not against it--who would say they don't want resarch to find a way to make life better . . . I maily wanted to say hello, and welcome. Try to get yourself a blog here, I look forward to reading you! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">
kayleesgrandma
New member
Welcome Hannah, I can't wait until you get your own blog. I think you will have some really interesting things for us to read and discuss. I'm torn between the moral implications of "harvesting" stem cells, and knowing its the "next best thing" in research. It's another complicated Pandora's Box. I'm torn between the dilema of "soul" when it comes to a conceived "blob of cells". I don't know enough about this to give a reasoned, qualified response. But I guess I am not against it--who would say they don't want resarch to find a way to make life better . . . I maily wanted to say hello, and welcome. Try to get yourself a blog here, I look forward to reading you! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">
kayleesgrandma
New member
Welcome Hannah, I can't wait until you get your own blog. I think you will have some really interesting things for us to read and discuss. I'm torn between the moral implications of "harvesting" stem cells, and knowing its the "next best thing" in research. It's another complicated Pandora's Box. I'm torn between the dilema of "soul" when it comes to a conceived "blob of cells". I don't know enough about this to give a reasoned, qualified response. But I guess I am not against it--who would say they don't want resarch to find a way to make life better . . . I maily wanted to say hello, and welcome. Try to get yourself a blog here, I look forward to reading you! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">
kayleesgrandma
New member
Welcome Hannah, I can't wait until you get your own blog. I think you will have some really interesting things for us to read and discuss. I'm torn between the moral implications of "harvesting" stem cells, and knowing its the "next best thing" in research. It's another complicated Pandora's Box. I'm torn between the dilema of "soul" when it comes to a conceived "blob of cells". I don't know enough about this to give a reasoned, qualified response. But I guess I am not against it--who would say they don't want resarch to find a way to make life better . . . I maily wanted to say hello, and welcome. Try to get yourself a blog here, I look forward to reading you! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">
kayleesgrandma
New member
Welcome Hannah, I can't wait until you get your own blog. I think you will have some really interesting things for us to read and discuss. I'm torn between the moral implications of "harvesting" stem cells, and knowing its the "next best thing" in research. It's another complicated Pandora's Box. I'm torn between the dilema of "soul" when it comes to a conceived "blob of cells". I don't know enough about this to give a reasoned, qualified response. But I guess I am not against it--who would say they don't want resarch to find a way to make life better . . . I maily wanted to say hello, and welcome. Try to get yourself a blog here, I look forward to reading you! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">
From what I understand, there are many, many sources of stem cells other than embryonic (embryonic being the least stable and the only ones with federal restrictions on $ for testing) such as the cord blood stem cells. I personally don't like the idea of creating embryos only to harvest from them and destroy them. Here's a bit why I prefer adult stem cell research:
From Wikipedia (adult stem cell support side):
(2) Exploring alternative therapeutic options
Embryonic stem cells should be abandoned in favor of alternatives, such as those involving adult stem cells.
Adult stem cell and cord blood stem cell research would be able to make greater advances if less money and resources were channeled into embryonic stem cell research.[9]
It is claimed by pro-life supporters that the use of adult stem cells from sources such as umbilical cord blood has consistently produced more promising results than the use of embryonic stem cells.[10]
"Adult stem cells have already produced therapies, while embryonic stem cells have not.[11][12]
(3) Scientific flaws in embryonic stem cell research
Another concern with embryonic stem cell research is the tendency of stem cells from embryos to create tumors. [11][13]
(4) Overstatement of research potential
Scientists have long promised spectacular results from embryonic stem cell research, and this has not yet occurred[7][14][15]
(5) The mouse was cured using Adult Stem Cells, not Embryonic
Why the "Successful" Mouse "Therapeutic" Cloning Really Didn't Work
"Therapeutic" cloning is supposed to produce matched embryonic stem cells that can be transplanted back into the original patient and not be rejected. Yet the original "patient" in these experiments still rejected the supposedly matched cells from its cloned embryo. Even transplantation into a different "patient" who should not have rejected the cells was still largely unsuccessful. The scientists in their paper note: "Our results raise the provocative possibility that even genetically matched cells derived by therapeutic cloning may still face barriers to effective transplantation for some disorders." In other words, therapeutic cloning may not always produce matched tissues. In contrast, "adult" stem cells from the born cloned mice were successful in matching the original patient and correcting the problem.[16]
This argument is hotly debated on both sides. Those critical of embryonic stem cell research point to a current lack of practical treatments, while supporters argue that advances will come with more time and that breakthroughs cannot be predicted.
Conspicuously, some criticism has even come from researchers themselves. For example, in November 2004, Princeton University president and geneticist Shirley Tilghman said, "Some of the public pronouncements in the field of stem-cell research come close to overpromising at best and delusional fantasizing at worst."[17] Similarly, fertility expert and current president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Lord Winston has warned of a public backlash against stem cell research if it fails to deliver on some of the "hype" surrounding potential treatments.[18]
^(9) The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics. "The "Political Science" of Stem Cells". Retrieved on July 16, 2006.
^(10) Prentice, David. (October 17, 2005) "Live Patients & Dead Mice". Christianity Today. Retrieved on August 24, 2006.
^(11) a b Clarke, Michael F. and Michael W. Becker. (July 2006). "Stem Cells: The Real Culprits in Cancer?" Scientific American. Retrieved on August 8, 2006.
^(12) Anonymous (September 24, 2006) "Cloning/Embryonic Stem Cells." National Human Genome Research Institute. Retrieved September 24, 2006.
^(13) Dolan, Kerry. (July 21, 2006) "Despite Bush Veto, Stem Cell Research Abounds." Forbes. retrieved July 21, 2006"
^ (14)Nerensini, F. (2000) "And Man Descended from the Sheep: The Public Debate on Cloning in the Italian Press." Public Understanding of Science, vol. 9, pp.359-382.
^ (15)Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D. & Kroepsch, A. (2003) "Framing Science: The Stem Cell Controversy in an Age of Press/Politics." The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 36-70 DOI: 10.1177/1081180X02251047.
^(16) Americans for Banning Cloning.(2002) [<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://cloninginformation.org/info/unsuccessful_mouse_therapy.htm">http://cloninginformation.org/...sful_mouse_therapy.htm</a> "Why the "Successful" Mouse "Therapeutic" Cloning Really Didn't Work "] Stem Cell Research. Retrieved April 13, 2007.
^(17) Tilghman, Shirley M. (November 11, 2004) "Address to the Stem Cell Institute of New Jersey," Retrieved August 22, 2006.
So even if I was okay with embryonic stem cell research, I would still be more hopeful about adult/cord blood stem cell research, and would like to see more time, money and effort put into it. There is also apparently research into amniotic fluid as a source of stem cells.
From Wikipedia (adult stem cell support side):
(2) Exploring alternative therapeutic options
Embryonic stem cells should be abandoned in favor of alternatives, such as those involving adult stem cells.
Adult stem cell and cord blood stem cell research would be able to make greater advances if less money and resources were channeled into embryonic stem cell research.[9]
It is claimed by pro-life supporters that the use of adult stem cells from sources such as umbilical cord blood has consistently produced more promising results than the use of embryonic stem cells.[10]
"Adult stem cells have already produced therapies, while embryonic stem cells have not.[11][12]
(3) Scientific flaws in embryonic stem cell research
Another concern with embryonic stem cell research is the tendency of stem cells from embryos to create tumors. [11][13]
(4) Overstatement of research potential
Scientists have long promised spectacular results from embryonic stem cell research, and this has not yet occurred[7][14][15]
(5) The mouse was cured using Adult Stem Cells, not Embryonic
Why the "Successful" Mouse "Therapeutic" Cloning Really Didn't Work
"Therapeutic" cloning is supposed to produce matched embryonic stem cells that can be transplanted back into the original patient and not be rejected. Yet the original "patient" in these experiments still rejected the supposedly matched cells from its cloned embryo. Even transplantation into a different "patient" who should not have rejected the cells was still largely unsuccessful. The scientists in their paper note: "Our results raise the provocative possibility that even genetically matched cells derived by therapeutic cloning may still face barriers to effective transplantation for some disorders." In other words, therapeutic cloning may not always produce matched tissues. In contrast, "adult" stem cells from the born cloned mice were successful in matching the original patient and correcting the problem.[16]
This argument is hotly debated on both sides. Those critical of embryonic stem cell research point to a current lack of practical treatments, while supporters argue that advances will come with more time and that breakthroughs cannot be predicted.
Conspicuously, some criticism has even come from researchers themselves. For example, in November 2004, Princeton University president and geneticist Shirley Tilghman said, "Some of the public pronouncements in the field of stem-cell research come close to overpromising at best and delusional fantasizing at worst."[17] Similarly, fertility expert and current president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Lord Winston has warned of a public backlash against stem cell research if it fails to deliver on some of the "hype" surrounding potential treatments.[18]
^(9) The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics. "The "Political Science" of Stem Cells". Retrieved on July 16, 2006.
^(10) Prentice, David. (October 17, 2005) "Live Patients & Dead Mice". Christianity Today. Retrieved on August 24, 2006.
^(11) a b Clarke, Michael F. and Michael W. Becker. (July 2006). "Stem Cells: The Real Culprits in Cancer?" Scientific American. Retrieved on August 8, 2006.
^(12) Anonymous (September 24, 2006) "Cloning/Embryonic Stem Cells." National Human Genome Research Institute. Retrieved September 24, 2006.
^(13) Dolan, Kerry. (July 21, 2006) "Despite Bush Veto, Stem Cell Research Abounds." Forbes. retrieved July 21, 2006"
^ (14)Nerensini, F. (2000) "And Man Descended from the Sheep: The Public Debate on Cloning in the Italian Press." Public Understanding of Science, vol. 9, pp.359-382.
^ (15)Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D. & Kroepsch, A. (2003) "Framing Science: The Stem Cell Controversy in an Age of Press/Politics." The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 36-70 DOI: 10.1177/1081180X02251047.
^(16) Americans for Banning Cloning.(2002) [<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://cloninginformation.org/info/unsuccessful_mouse_therapy.htm">http://cloninginformation.org/...sful_mouse_therapy.htm</a> "Why the "Successful" Mouse "Therapeutic" Cloning Really Didn't Work "] Stem Cell Research. Retrieved April 13, 2007.
^(17) Tilghman, Shirley M. (November 11, 2004) "Address to the Stem Cell Institute of New Jersey," Retrieved August 22, 2006.
So even if I was okay with embryonic stem cell research, I would still be more hopeful about adult/cord blood stem cell research, and would like to see more time, money and effort put into it. There is also apparently research into amniotic fluid as a source of stem cells.
From what I understand, there are many, many sources of stem cells other than embryonic (embryonic being the least stable and the only ones with federal restrictions on $ for testing) such as the cord blood stem cells. I personally don't like the idea of creating embryos only to harvest from them and destroy them. Here's a bit why I prefer adult stem cell research:
From Wikipedia (adult stem cell support side):
(2) Exploring alternative therapeutic options
Embryonic stem cells should be abandoned in favor of alternatives, such as those involving adult stem cells.
Adult stem cell and cord blood stem cell research would be able to make greater advances if less money and resources were channeled into embryonic stem cell research.[9]
It is claimed by pro-life supporters that the use of adult stem cells from sources such as umbilical cord blood has consistently produced more promising results than the use of embryonic stem cells.[10]
"Adult stem cells have already produced therapies, while embryonic stem cells have not.[11][12]
(3) Scientific flaws in embryonic stem cell research
Another concern with embryonic stem cell research is the tendency of stem cells from embryos to create tumors. [11][13]
(4) Overstatement of research potential
Scientists have long promised spectacular results from embryonic stem cell research, and this has not yet occurred[7][14][15]
(5) The mouse was cured using Adult Stem Cells, not Embryonic
Why the "Successful" Mouse "Therapeutic" Cloning Really Didn't Work
"Therapeutic" cloning is supposed to produce matched embryonic stem cells that can be transplanted back into the original patient and not be rejected. Yet the original "patient" in these experiments still rejected the supposedly matched cells from its cloned embryo. Even transplantation into a different "patient" who should not have rejected the cells was still largely unsuccessful. The scientists in their paper note: "Our results raise the provocative possibility that even genetically matched cells derived by therapeutic cloning may still face barriers to effective transplantation for some disorders." In other words, therapeutic cloning may not always produce matched tissues. In contrast, "adult" stem cells from the born cloned mice were successful in matching the original patient and correcting the problem.[16]
This argument is hotly debated on both sides. Those critical of embryonic stem cell research point to a current lack of practical treatments, while supporters argue that advances will come with more time and that breakthroughs cannot be predicted.
Conspicuously, some criticism has even come from researchers themselves. For example, in November 2004, Princeton University president and geneticist Shirley Tilghman said, "Some of the public pronouncements in the field of stem-cell research come close to overpromising at best and delusional fantasizing at worst."[17] Similarly, fertility expert and current president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Lord Winston has warned of a public backlash against stem cell research if it fails to deliver on some of the "hype" surrounding potential treatments.[18]
^(9) The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics. "The "Political Science" of Stem Cells". Retrieved on July 16, 2006.
^(10) Prentice, David. (October 17, 2005) "Live Patients & Dead Mice". Christianity Today. Retrieved on August 24, 2006.
^(11) a b Clarke, Michael F. and Michael W. Becker. (July 2006). "Stem Cells: The Real Culprits in Cancer?" Scientific American. Retrieved on August 8, 2006.
^(12) Anonymous (September 24, 2006) "Cloning/Embryonic Stem Cells." National Human Genome Research Institute. Retrieved September 24, 2006.
^(13) Dolan, Kerry. (July 21, 2006) "Despite Bush Veto, Stem Cell Research Abounds." Forbes. retrieved July 21, 2006"
^ (14)Nerensini, F. (2000) "And Man Descended from the Sheep: The Public Debate on Cloning in the Italian Press." Public Understanding of Science, vol. 9, pp.359-382.
^ (15)Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D. & Kroepsch, A. (2003) "Framing Science: The Stem Cell Controversy in an Age of Press/Politics." The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 36-70 DOI: 10.1177/1081180X02251047.
^(16) Americans for Banning Cloning.(2002) [<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://cloninginformation.org/info/unsuccessful_mouse_therapy.htm">http://cloninginformation.org/...sful_mouse_therapy.htm</a> "Why the "Successful" Mouse "Therapeutic" Cloning Really Didn't Work "] Stem Cell Research. Retrieved April 13, 2007.
^(17) Tilghman, Shirley M. (November 11, 2004) "Address to the Stem Cell Institute of New Jersey," Retrieved August 22, 2006.
So even if I was okay with embryonic stem cell research, I would still be more hopeful about adult/cord blood stem cell research, and would like to see more time, money and effort put into it. There is also apparently research into amniotic fluid as a source of stem cells.
From Wikipedia (adult stem cell support side):
(2) Exploring alternative therapeutic options
Embryonic stem cells should be abandoned in favor of alternatives, such as those involving adult stem cells.
Adult stem cell and cord blood stem cell research would be able to make greater advances if less money and resources were channeled into embryonic stem cell research.[9]
It is claimed by pro-life supporters that the use of adult stem cells from sources such as umbilical cord blood has consistently produced more promising results than the use of embryonic stem cells.[10]
"Adult stem cells have already produced therapies, while embryonic stem cells have not.[11][12]
(3) Scientific flaws in embryonic stem cell research
Another concern with embryonic stem cell research is the tendency of stem cells from embryos to create tumors. [11][13]
(4) Overstatement of research potential
Scientists have long promised spectacular results from embryonic stem cell research, and this has not yet occurred[7][14][15]
(5) The mouse was cured using Adult Stem Cells, not Embryonic
Why the "Successful" Mouse "Therapeutic" Cloning Really Didn't Work
"Therapeutic" cloning is supposed to produce matched embryonic stem cells that can be transplanted back into the original patient and not be rejected. Yet the original "patient" in these experiments still rejected the supposedly matched cells from its cloned embryo. Even transplantation into a different "patient" who should not have rejected the cells was still largely unsuccessful. The scientists in their paper note: "Our results raise the provocative possibility that even genetically matched cells derived by therapeutic cloning may still face barriers to effective transplantation for some disorders." In other words, therapeutic cloning may not always produce matched tissues. In contrast, "adult" stem cells from the born cloned mice were successful in matching the original patient and correcting the problem.[16]
This argument is hotly debated on both sides. Those critical of embryonic stem cell research point to a current lack of practical treatments, while supporters argue that advances will come with more time and that breakthroughs cannot be predicted.
Conspicuously, some criticism has even come from researchers themselves. For example, in November 2004, Princeton University president and geneticist Shirley Tilghman said, "Some of the public pronouncements in the field of stem-cell research come close to overpromising at best and delusional fantasizing at worst."[17] Similarly, fertility expert and current president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Lord Winston has warned of a public backlash against stem cell research if it fails to deliver on some of the "hype" surrounding potential treatments.[18]
^(9) The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics. "The "Political Science" of Stem Cells". Retrieved on July 16, 2006.
^(10) Prentice, David. (October 17, 2005) "Live Patients & Dead Mice". Christianity Today. Retrieved on August 24, 2006.
^(11) a b Clarke, Michael F. and Michael W. Becker. (July 2006). "Stem Cells: The Real Culprits in Cancer?" Scientific American. Retrieved on August 8, 2006.
^(12) Anonymous (September 24, 2006) "Cloning/Embryonic Stem Cells." National Human Genome Research Institute. Retrieved September 24, 2006.
^(13) Dolan, Kerry. (July 21, 2006) "Despite Bush Veto, Stem Cell Research Abounds." Forbes. retrieved July 21, 2006"
^ (14)Nerensini, F. (2000) "And Man Descended from the Sheep: The Public Debate on Cloning in the Italian Press." Public Understanding of Science, vol. 9, pp.359-382.
^ (15)Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D. & Kroepsch, A. (2003) "Framing Science: The Stem Cell Controversy in an Age of Press/Politics." The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 36-70 DOI: 10.1177/1081180X02251047.
^(16) Americans for Banning Cloning.(2002) [<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://cloninginformation.org/info/unsuccessful_mouse_therapy.htm">http://cloninginformation.org/...sful_mouse_therapy.htm</a> "Why the "Successful" Mouse "Therapeutic" Cloning Really Didn't Work "] Stem Cell Research. Retrieved April 13, 2007.
^(17) Tilghman, Shirley M. (November 11, 2004) "Address to the Stem Cell Institute of New Jersey," Retrieved August 22, 2006.
So even if I was okay with embryonic stem cell research, I would still be more hopeful about adult/cord blood stem cell research, and would like to see more time, money and effort put into it. There is also apparently research into amniotic fluid as a source of stem cells.
From what I understand, there are many, many sources of stem cells other than embryonic (embryonic being the least stable and the only ones with federal restrictions on $ for testing) such as the cord blood stem cells. I personally don't like the idea of creating embryos only to harvest from them and destroy them. Here's a bit why I prefer adult stem cell research:
From Wikipedia (adult stem cell support side):
(2) Exploring alternative therapeutic options
Embryonic stem cells should be abandoned in favor of alternatives, such as those involving adult stem cells.
Adult stem cell and cord blood stem cell research would be able to make greater advances if less money and resources were channeled into embryonic stem cell research.[9]
It is claimed by pro-life supporters that the use of adult stem cells from sources such as umbilical cord blood has consistently produced more promising results than the use of embryonic stem cells.[10]
"Adult stem cells have already produced therapies, while embryonic stem cells have not.[11][12]
(3) Scientific flaws in embryonic stem cell research
Another concern with embryonic stem cell research is the tendency of stem cells from embryos to create tumors. [11][13]
(4) Overstatement of research potential
Scientists have long promised spectacular results from embryonic stem cell research, and this has not yet occurred[7][14][15]
(5) The mouse was cured using Adult Stem Cells, not Embryonic
Why the "Successful" Mouse "Therapeutic" Cloning Really Didn't Work
"Therapeutic" cloning is supposed to produce matched embryonic stem cells that can be transplanted back into the original patient and not be rejected. Yet the original "patient" in these experiments still rejected the supposedly matched cells from its cloned embryo. Even transplantation into a different "patient" who should not have rejected the cells was still largely unsuccessful. The scientists in their paper note: "Our results raise the provocative possibility that even genetically matched cells derived by therapeutic cloning may still face barriers to effective transplantation for some disorders." In other words, therapeutic cloning may not always produce matched tissues. In contrast, "adult" stem cells from the born cloned mice were successful in matching the original patient and correcting the problem.[16]
This argument is hotly debated on both sides. Those critical of embryonic stem cell research point to a current lack of practical treatments, while supporters argue that advances will come with more time and that breakthroughs cannot be predicted.
Conspicuously, some criticism has even come from researchers themselves. For example, in November 2004, Princeton University president and geneticist Shirley Tilghman said, "Some of the public pronouncements in the field of stem-cell research come close to overpromising at best and delusional fantasizing at worst."[17] Similarly, fertility expert and current president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Lord Winston has warned of a public backlash against stem cell research if it fails to deliver on some of the "hype" surrounding potential treatments.[18]
^(9) The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics. "The "Political Science" of Stem Cells". Retrieved on July 16, 2006.
^(10) Prentice, David. (October 17, 2005) "Live Patients & Dead Mice". Christianity Today. Retrieved on August 24, 2006.
^(11) a b Clarke, Michael F. and Michael W. Becker. (July 2006). "Stem Cells: The Real Culprits in Cancer?" Scientific American. Retrieved on August 8, 2006.
^(12) Anonymous (September 24, 2006) "Cloning/Embryonic Stem Cells." National Human Genome Research Institute. Retrieved September 24, 2006.
^(13) Dolan, Kerry. (July 21, 2006) "Despite Bush Veto, Stem Cell Research Abounds." Forbes. retrieved July 21, 2006"
^ (14)Nerensini, F. (2000) "And Man Descended from the Sheep: The Public Debate on Cloning in the Italian Press." Public Understanding of Science, vol. 9, pp.359-382.
^ (15)Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D. & Kroepsch, A. (2003) "Framing Science: The Stem Cell Controversy in an Age of Press/Politics." The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 36-70 DOI: 10.1177/1081180X02251047.
^(16) Americans for Banning Cloning.(2002) [<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://cloninginformation.org/info/unsuccessful_mouse_therapy.htm">http://cloninginformation.org/...sful_mouse_therapy.htm</a> "Why the "Successful" Mouse "Therapeutic" Cloning Really Didn't Work "] Stem Cell Research. Retrieved April 13, 2007.
^(17) Tilghman, Shirley M. (November 11, 2004) "Address to the Stem Cell Institute of New Jersey," Retrieved August 22, 2006.
So even if I was okay with embryonic stem cell research, I would still be more hopeful about adult/cord blood stem cell research, and would like to see more time, money and effort put into it. There is also apparently research into amniotic fluid as a source of stem cells.
From Wikipedia (adult stem cell support side):
(2) Exploring alternative therapeutic options
Embryonic stem cells should be abandoned in favor of alternatives, such as those involving adult stem cells.
Adult stem cell and cord blood stem cell research would be able to make greater advances if less money and resources were channeled into embryonic stem cell research.[9]
It is claimed by pro-life supporters that the use of adult stem cells from sources such as umbilical cord blood has consistently produced more promising results than the use of embryonic stem cells.[10]
"Adult stem cells have already produced therapies, while embryonic stem cells have not.[11][12]
(3) Scientific flaws in embryonic stem cell research
Another concern with embryonic stem cell research is the tendency of stem cells from embryos to create tumors. [11][13]
(4) Overstatement of research potential
Scientists have long promised spectacular results from embryonic stem cell research, and this has not yet occurred[7][14][15]
(5) The mouse was cured using Adult Stem Cells, not Embryonic
Why the "Successful" Mouse "Therapeutic" Cloning Really Didn't Work
"Therapeutic" cloning is supposed to produce matched embryonic stem cells that can be transplanted back into the original patient and not be rejected. Yet the original "patient" in these experiments still rejected the supposedly matched cells from its cloned embryo. Even transplantation into a different "patient" who should not have rejected the cells was still largely unsuccessful. The scientists in their paper note: "Our results raise the provocative possibility that even genetically matched cells derived by therapeutic cloning may still face barriers to effective transplantation for some disorders." In other words, therapeutic cloning may not always produce matched tissues. In contrast, "adult" stem cells from the born cloned mice were successful in matching the original patient and correcting the problem.[16]
This argument is hotly debated on both sides. Those critical of embryonic stem cell research point to a current lack of practical treatments, while supporters argue that advances will come with more time and that breakthroughs cannot be predicted.
Conspicuously, some criticism has even come from researchers themselves. For example, in November 2004, Princeton University president and geneticist Shirley Tilghman said, "Some of the public pronouncements in the field of stem-cell research come close to overpromising at best and delusional fantasizing at worst."[17] Similarly, fertility expert and current president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Lord Winston has warned of a public backlash against stem cell research if it fails to deliver on some of the "hype" surrounding potential treatments.[18]
^(9) The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics. "The "Political Science" of Stem Cells". Retrieved on July 16, 2006.
^(10) Prentice, David. (October 17, 2005) "Live Patients & Dead Mice". Christianity Today. Retrieved on August 24, 2006.
^(11) a b Clarke, Michael F. and Michael W. Becker. (July 2006). "Stem Cells: The Real Culprits in Cancer?" Scientific American. Retrieved on August 8, 2006.
^(12) Anonymous (September 24, 2006) "Cloning/Embryonic Stem Cells." National Human Genome Research Institute. Retrieved September 24, 2006.
^(13) Dolan, Kerry. (July 21, 2006) "Despite Bush Veto, Stem Cell Research Abounds." Forbes. retrieved July 21, 2006"
^ (14)Nerensini, F. (2000) "And Man Descended from the Sheep: The Public Debate on Cloning in the Italian Press." Public Understanding of Science, vol. 9, pp.359-382.
^ (15)Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D. & Kroepsch, A. (2003) "Framing Science: The Stem Cell Controversy in an Age of Press/Politics." The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 36-70 DOI: 10.1177/1081180X02251047.
^(16) Americans for Banning Cloning.(2002) [<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://cloninginformation.org/info/unsuccessful_mouse_therapy.htm">http://cloninginformation.org/...sful_mouse_therapy.htm</a> "Why the "Successful" Mouse "Therapeutic" Cloning Really Didn't Work "] Stem Cell Research. Retrieved April 13, 2007.
^(17) Tilghman, Shirley M. (November 11, 2004) "Address to the Stem Cell Institute of New Jersey," Retrieved August 22, 2006.
So even if I was okay with embryonic stem cell research, I would still be more hopeful about adult/cord blood stem cell research, and would like to see more time, money and effort put into it. There is also apparently research into amniotic fluid as a source of stem cells.
From what I understand, there are many, many sources of stem cells other than embryonic (embryonic being the least stable and the only ones with federal restrictions on $ for testing) such as the cord blood stem cells. I personally don't like the idea of creating embryos only to harvest from them and destroy them. Here's a bit why I prefer adult stem cell research:
From Wikipedia (adult stem cell support side):
(2) Exploring alternative therapeutic options
Embryonic stem cells should be abandoned in favor of alternatives, such as those involving adult stem cells.
Adult stem cell and cord blood stem cell research would be able to make greater advances if less money and resources were channeled into embryonic stem cell research.[9]
It is claimed by pro-life supporters that the use of adult stem cells from sources such as umbilical cord blood has consistently produced more promising results than the use of embryonic stem cells.[10]
"Adult stem cells have already produced therapies, while embryonic stem cells have not.[11][12]
(3) Scientific flaws in embryonic stem cell research
Another concern with embryonic stem cell research is the tendency of stem cells from embryos to create tumors. [11][13]
(4) Overstatement of research potential
Scientists have long promised spectacular results from embryonic stem cell research, and this has not yet occurred[7][14][15]
(5) The mouse was cured using Adult Stem Cells, not Embryonic
Why the "Successful" Mouse "Therapeutic" Cloning Really Didn't Work
"Therapeutic" cloning is supposed to produce matched embryonic stem cells that can be transplanted back into the original patient and not be rejected. Yet the original "patient" in these experiments still rejected the supposedly matched cells from its cloned embryo. Even transplantation into a different "patient" who should not have rejected the cells was still largely unsuccessful. The scientists in their paper note: "Our results raise the provocative possibility that even genetically matched cells derived by therapeutic cloning may still face barriers to effective transplantation for some disorders." In other words, therapeutic cloning may not always produce matched tissues. In contrast, "adult" stem cells from the born cloned mice were successful in matching the original patient and correcting the problem.[16]
This argument is hotly debated on both sides. Those critical of embryonic stem cell research point to a current lack of practical treatments, while supporters argue that advances will come with more time and that breakthroughs cannot be predicted.
Conspicuously, some criticism has even come from researchers themselves. For example, in November 2004, Princeton University president and geneticist Shirley Tilghman said, "Some of the public pronouncements in the field of stem-cell research come close to overpromising at best and delusional fantasizing at worst."[17] Similarly, fertility expert and current president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Lord Winston has warned of a public backlash against stem cell research if it fails to deliver on some of the "hype" surrounding potential treatments.[18]
^(9) The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics. "The "Political Science" of Stem Cells". Retrieved on July 16, 2006.
^(10) Prentice, David. (October 17, 2005) "Live Patients & Dead Mice". Christianity Today. Retrieved on August 24, 2006.
^(11) a b Clarke, Michael F. and Michael W. Becker. (July 2006). "Stem Cells: The Real Culprits in Cancer?" Scientific American. Retrieved on August 8, 2006.
^(12) Anonymous (September 24, 2006) "Cloning/Embryonic Stem Cells." National Human Genome Research Institute. Retrieved September 24, 2006.
^(13) Dolan, Kerry. (July 21, 2006) "Despite Bush Veto, Stem Cell Research Abounds." Forbes. retrieved July 21, 2006"
^ (14)Nerensini, F. (2000) "And Man Descended from the Sheep: The Public Debate on Cloning in the Italian Press." Public Understanding of Science, vol. 9, pp.359-382.
^ (15)Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D. & Kroepsch, A. (2003) "Framing Science: The Stem Cell Controversy in an Age of Press/Politics." The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 36-70 DOI: 10.1177/1081180X02251047.
^(16) Americans for Banning Cloning.(2002) [<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://cloninginformation.org/info/unsuccessful_mouse_therapy.htm">http://cloninginformation.org/...sful_mouse_therapy.htm</a> "Why the "Successful" Mouse "Therapeutic" Cloning Really Didn't Work "] Stem Cell Research. Retrieved April 13, 2007.
^(17) Tilghman, Shirley M. (November 11, 2004) "Address to the Stem Cell Institute of New Jersey," Retrieved August 22, 2006.
So even if I was okay with embryonic stem cell research, I would still be more hopeful about adult/cord blood stem cell research, and would like to see more time, money and effort put into it. There is also apparently research into amniotic fluid as a source of stem cells.
From Wikipedia (adult stem cell support side):
(2) Exploring alternative therapeutic options
Embryonic stem cells should be abandoned in favor of alternatives, such as those involving adult stem cells.
Adult stem cell and cord blood stem cell research would be able to make greater advances if less money and resources were channeled into embryonic stem cell research.[9]
It is claimed by pro-life supporters that the use of adult stem cells from sources such as umbilical cord blood has consistently produced more promising results than the use of embryonic stem cells.[10]
"Adult stem cells have already produced therapies, while embryonic stem cells have not.[11][12]
(3) Scientific flaws in embryonic stem cell research
Another concern with embryonic stem cell research is the tendency of stem cells from embryos to create tumors. [11][13]
(4) Overstatement of research potential
Scientists have long promised spectacular results from embryonic stem cell research, and this has not yet occurred[7][14][15]
(5) The mouse was cured using Adult Stem Cells, not Embryonic
Why the "Successful" Mouse "Therapeutic" Cloning Really Didn't Work
"Therapeutic" cloning is supposed to produce matched embryonic stem cells that can be transplanted back into the original patient and not be rejected. Yet the original "patient" in these experiments still rejected the supposedly matched cells from its cloned embryo. Even transplantation into a different "patient" who should not have rejected the cells was still largely unsuccessful. The scientists in their paper note: "Our results raise the provocative possibility that even genetically matched cells derived by therapeutic cloning may still face barriers to effective transplantation for some disorders." In other words, therapeutic cloning may not always produce matched tissues. In contrast, "adult" stem cells from the born cloned mice were successful in matching the original patient and correcting the problem.[16]
This argument is hotly debated on both sides. Those critical of embryonic stem cell research point to a current lack of practical treatments, while supporters argue that advances will come with more time and that breakthroughs cannot be predicted.
Conspicuously, some criticism has even come from researchers themselves. For example, in November 2004, Princeton University president and geneticist Shirley Tilghman said, "Some of the public pronouncements in the field of stem-cell research come close to overpromising at best and delusional fantasizing at worst."[17] Similarly, fertility expert and current president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Lord Winston has warned of a public backlash against stem cell research if it fails to deliver on some of the "hype" surrounding potential treatments.[18]
^(9) The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics. "The "Political Science" of Stem Cells". Retrieved on July 16, 2006.
^(10) Prentice, David. (October 17, 2005) "Live Patients & Dead Mice". Christianity Today. Retrieved on August 24, 2006.
^(11) a b Clarke, Michael F. and Michael W. Becker. (July 2006). "Stem Cells: The Real Culprits in Cancer?" Scientific American. Retrieved on August 8, 2006.
^(12) Anonymous (September 24, 2006) "Cloning/Embryonic Stem Cells." National Human Genome Research Institute. Retrieved September 24, 2006.
^(13) Dolan, Kerry. (July 21, 2006) "Despite Bush Veto, Stem Cell Research Abounds." Forbes. retrieved July 21, 2006"
^ (14)Nerensini, F. (2000) "And Man Descended from the Sheep: The Public Debate on Cloning in the Italian Press." Public Understanding of Science, vol. 9, pp.359-382.
^ (15)Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D. & Kroepsch, A. (2003) "Framing Science: The Stem Cell Controversy in an Age of Press/Politics." The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 36-70 DOI: 10.1177/1081180X02251047.
^(16) Americans for Banning Cloning.(2002) [<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://cloninginformation.org/info/unsuccessful_mouse_therapy.htm">http://cloninginformation.org/...sful_mouse_therapy.htm</a> "Why the "Successful" Mouse "Therapeutic" Cloning Really Didn't Work "] Stem Cell Research. Retrieved April 13, 2007.
^(17) Tilghman, Shirley M. (November 11, 2004) "Address to the Stem Cell Institute of New Jersey," Retrieved August 22, 2006.
So even if I was okay with embryonic stem cell research, I would still be more hopeful about adult/cord blood stem cell research, and would like to see more time, money and effort put into it. There is also apparently research into amniotic fluid as a source of stem cells.
From what I understand, there are many, many sources of stem cells other than embryonic (embryonic being the least stable and the only ones with federal restrictions on $ for testing) such as the cord blood stem cells. I personally don't like the idea of creating embryos only to harvest from them and destroy them. Here's a bit why I prefer adult stem cell research:
From Wikipedia (adult stem cell support side):
(2) Exploring alternative therapeutic options
Embryonic stem cells should be abandoned in favor of alternatives, such as those involving adult stem cells.
Adult stem cell and cord blood stem cell research would be able to make greater advances if less money and resources were channeled into embryonic stem cell research.[9]
It is claimed by pro-life supporters that the use of adult stem cells from sources such as umbilical cord blood has consistently produced more promising results than the use of embryonic stem cells.[10]
"Adult stem cells have already produced therapies, while embryonic stem cells have not.[11][12]
(3) Scientific flaws in embryonic stem cell research
Another concern with embryonic stem cell research is the tendency of stem cells from embryos to create tumors. [11][13]
(4) Overstatement of research potential
Scientists have long promised spectacular results from embryonic stem cell research, and this has not yet occurred[7][14][15]
(5) The mouse was cured using Adult Stem Cells, not Embryonic
Why the "Successful" Mouse "Therapeutic" Cloning Really Didn't Work
"Therapeutic" cloning is supposed to produce matched embryonic stem cells that can be transplanted back into the original patient and not be rejected. Yet the original "patient" in these experiments still rejected the supposedly matched cells from its cloned embryo. Even transplantation into a different "patient" who should not have rejected the cells was still largely unsuccessful. The scientists in their paper note: "Our results raise the provocative possibility that even genetically matched cells derived by therapeutic cloning may still face barriers to effective transplantation for some disorders." In other words, therapeutic cloning may not always produce matched tissues. In contrast, "adult" stem cells from the born cloned mice were successful in matching the original patient and correcting the problem.[16]
This argument is hotly debated on both sides. Those critical of embryonic stem cell research point to a current lack of practical treatments, while supporters argue that advances will come with more time and that breakthroughs cannot be predicted.
Conspicuously, some criticism has even come from researchers themselves. For example, in November 2004, Princeton University president and geneticist Shirley Tilghman said, "Some of the public pronouncements in the field of stem-cell research come close to overpromising at best and delusional fantasizing at worst."[17] Similarly, fertility expert and current president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Lord Winston has warned of a public backlash against stem cell research if it fails to deliver on some of the "hype" surrounding potential treatments.[18]
^(9) The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics. "The "Political Science" of Stem Cells". Retrieved on July 16, 2006.
^(10) Prentice, David. (October 17, 2005) "Live Patients & Dead Mice". Christianity Today. Retrieved on August 24, 2006.
^(11) a b Clarke, Michael F. and Michael W. Becker. (July 2006). "Stem Cells: The Real Culprits in Cancer?" Scientific American. Retrieved on August 8, 2006.
^(12) Anonymous (September 24, 2006) "Cloning/Embryonic Stem Cells." National Human Genome Research Institute. Retrieved September 24, 2006.
^(13) Dolan, Kerry. (July 21, 2006) "Despite Bush Veto, Stem Cell Research Abounds." Forbes. retrieved July 21, 2006"
^ (14)Nerensini, F. (2000) "And Man Descended from the Sheep: The Public Debate on Cloning in the Italian Press." Public Understanding of Science, vol. 9, pp.359-382.
^ (15)Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D. & Kroepsch, A. (2003) "Framing Science: The Stem Cell Controversy in an Age of Press/Politics." The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 36-70 DOI: 10.1177/1081180X02251047.
^(16) Americans for Banning Cloning.(2002) [<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://cloninginformation.org/info/unsuccessful_mouse_therapy.htm">http://cloninginformation.org/...sful_mouse_therapy.htm</a> "Why the "Successful" Mouse "Therapeutic" Cloning Really Didn't Work "] Stem Cell Research. Retrieved April 13, 2007.
^(17) Tilghman, Shirley M. (November 11, 2004) "Address to the Stem Cell Institute of New Jersey," Retrieved August 22, 2006.
So even if I was okay with embryonic stem cell research, I would still be more hopeful about adult/cord blood stem cell research, and would like to see more time, money and effort put into it. There is also apparently research into amniotic fluid as a source of stem cells.
From Wikipedia (adult stem cell support side):
(2) Exploring alternative therapeutic options
Embryonic stem cells should be abandoned in favor of alternatives, such as those involving adult stem cells.
Adult stem cell and cord blood stem cell research would be able to make greater advances if less money and resources were channeled into embryonic stem cell research.[9]
It is claimed by pro-life supporters that the use of adult stem cells from sources such as umbilical cord blood has consistently produced more promising results than the use of embryonic stem cells.[10]
"Adult stem cells have already produced therapies, while embryonic stem cells have not.[11][12]
(3) Scientific flaws in embryonic stem cell research
Another concern with embryonic stem cell research is the tendency of stem cells from embryos to create tumors. [11][13]
(4) Overstatement of research potential
Scientists have long promised spectacular results from embryonic stem cell research, and this has not yet occurred[7][14][15]
(5) The mouse was cured using Adult Stem Cells, not Embryonic
Why the "Successful" Mouse "Therapeutic" Cloning Really Didn't Work
"Therapeutic" cloning is supposed to produce matched embryonic stem cells that can be transplanted back into the original patient and not be rejected. Yet the original "patient" in these experiments still rejected the supposedly matched cells from its cloned embryo. Even transplantation into a different "patient" who should not have rejected the cells was still largely unsuccessful. The scientists in their paper note: "Our results raise the provocative possibility that even genetically matched cells derived by therapeutic cloning may still face barriers to effective transplantation for some disorders." In other words, therapeutic cloning may not always produce matched tissues. In contrast, "adult" stem cells from the born cloned mice were successful in matching the original patient and correcting the problem.[16]
This argument is hotly debated on both sides. Those critical of embryonic stem cell research point to a current lack of practical treatments, while supporters argue that advances will come with more time and that breakthroughs cannot be predicted.
Conspicuously, some criticism has even come from researchers themselves. For example, in November 2004, Princeton University president and geneticist Shirley Tilghman said, "Some of the public pronouncements in the field of stem-cell research come close to overpromising at best and delusional fantasizing at worst."[17] Similarly, fertility expert and current president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Lord Winston has warned of a public backlash against stem cell research if it fails to deliver on some of the "hype" surrounding potential treatments.[18]
^(9) The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics. "The "Political Science" of Stem Cells". Retrieved on July 16, 2006.
^(10) Prentice, David. (October 17, 2005) "Live Patients & Dead Mice". Christianity Today. Retrieved on August 24, 2006.
^(11) a b Clarke, Michael F. and Michael W. Becker. (July 2006). "Stem Cells: The Real Culprits in Cancer?" Scientific American. Retrieved on August 8, 2006.
^(12) Anonymous (September 24, 2006) "Cloning/Embryonic Stem Cells." National Human Genome Research Institute. Retrieved September 24, 2006.
^(13) Dolan, Kerry. (July 21, 2006) "Despite Bush Veto, Stem Cell Research Abounds." Forbes. retrieved July 21, 2006"
^ (14)Nerensini, F. (2000) "And Man Descended from the Sheep: The Public Debate on Cloning in the Italian Press." Public Understanding of Science, vol. 9, pp.359-382.
^ (15)Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D. & Kroepsch, A. (2003) "Framing Science: The Stem Cell Controversy in an Age of Press/Politics." The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 36-70 DOI: 10.1177/1081180X02251047.
^(16) Americans for Banning Cloning.(2002) [<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://cloninginformation.org/info/unsuccessful_mouse_therapy.htm">http://cloninginformation.org/...sful_mouse_therapy.htm</a> "Why the "Successful" Mouse "Therapeutic" Cloning Really Didn't Work "] Stem Cell Research. Retrieved April 13, 2007.
^(17) Tilghman, Shirley M. (November 11, 2004) "Address to the Stem Cell Institute of New Jersey," Retrieved August 22, 2006.
So even if I was okay with embryonic stem cell research, I would still be more hopeful about adult/cord blood stem cell research, and would like to see more time, money and effort put into it. There is also apparently research into amniotic fluid as a source of stem cells.
From what I understand, there are many, many sources of stem cells other than embryonic (embryonic being the least stable and the only ones with federal restrictions on $ for testing) such as the cord blood stem cells. I personally don't like the idea of creating embryos only to harvest from them and destroy them. Here's a bit why I prefer adult stem cell research:
From Wikipedia (adult stem cell support side):
(2) Exploring alternative therapeutic options
Embryonic stem cells should be abandoned in favor of alternatives, such as those involving adult stem cells.
Adult stem cell and cord blood stem cell research would be able to make greater advances if less money and resources were channeled into embryonic stem cell research.[9]
It is claimed by pro-life supporters that the use of adult stem cells from sources such as umbilical cord blood has consistently produced more promising results than the use of embryonic stem cells.[10]
"Adult stem cells have already produced therapies, while embryonic stem cells have not.[11][12]
(3) Scientific flaws in embryonic stem cell research
Another concern with embryonic stem cell research is the tendency of stem cells from embryos to create tumors. [11][13]
(4) Overstatement of research potential
Scientists have long promised spectacular results from embryonic stem cell research, and this has not yet occurred[7][14][15]
(5) The mouse was cured using Adult Stem Cells, not Embryonic
Why the "Successful" Mouse "Therapeutic" Cloning Really Didn't Work
"Therapeutic" cloning is supposed to produce matched embryonic stem cells that can be transplanted back into the original patient and not be rejected. Yet the original "patient" in these experiments still rejected the supposedly matched cells from its cloned embryo. Even transplantation into a different "patient" who should not have rejected the cells was still largely unsuccessful. The scientists in their paper note: "Our results raise the provocative possibility that even genetically matched cells derived by therapeutic cloning may still face barriers to effective transplantation for some disorders." In other words, therapeutic cloning may not always produce matched tissues. In contrast, "adult" stem cells from the born cloned mice were successful in matching the original patient and correcting the problem.[16]
This argument is hotly debated on both sides. Those critical of embryonic stem cell research point to a current lack of practical treatments, while supporters argue that advances will come with more time and that breakthroughs cannot be predicted.
Conspicuously, some criticism has even come from researchers themselves. For example, in November 2004, Princeton University president and geneticist Shirley Tilghman said, "Some of the public pronouncements in the field of stem-cell research come close to overpromising at best and delusional fantasizing at worst."[17] Similarly, fertility expert and current president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Lord Winston has warned of a public backlash against stem cell research if it fails to deliver on some of the "hype" surrounding potential treatments.[18]
^(9) The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics. "The "Political Science" of Stem Cells". Retrieved on July 16, 2006.
^(10) Prentice, David. (October 17, 2005) "Live Patients & Dead Mice". Christianity Today. Retrieved on August 24, 2006.
^(11) a b Clarke, Michael F. and Michael W. Becker. (July 2006). "Stem Cells: The Real Culprits in Cancer?" Scientific American. Retrieved on August 8, 2006.
^(12) Anonymous (September 24, 2006) "Cloning/Embryonic Stem Cells." National Human Genome Research Institute. Retrieved September 24, 2006.
^(13) Dolan, Kerry. (July 21, 2006) "Despite Bush Veto, Stem Cell Research Abounds." Forbes. retrieved July 21, 2006"
^ (14)Nerensini, F. (2000) "And Man Descended from the Sheep: The Public Debate on Cloning in the Italian Press." Public Understanding of Science, vol. 9, pp.359-382.
^ (15)Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D. & Kroepsch, A. (2003) "Framing Science: The Stem Cell Controversy in an Age of Press/Politics." The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 36-70 DOI: 10.1177/1081180X02251047.
^(16) Americans for Banning Cloning.(2002) [<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://cloninginformation.org/info/unsuccessful_mouse_therapy.htm">http://cloninginformation.org/...sful_mouse_therapy.htm</a> "Why the "Successful" Mouse "Therapeutic" Cloning Really Didn't Work "] Stem Cell Research. Retrieved April 13, 2007.
^(17) Tilghman, Shirley M. (November 11, 2004) "Address to the Stem Cell Institute of New Jersey," Retrieved August 22, 2006.
So even if I was okay with embryonic stem cell research, I would still be more hopeful about adult/cord blood stem cell research, and would like to see more time, money and effort put into it. There is also apparently research into amniotic fluid as a source of stem cells.
From Wikipedia (adult stem cell support side):
(2) Exploring alternative therapeutic options
Embryonic stem cells should be abandoned in favor of alternatives, such as those involving adult stem cells.
Adult stem cell and cord blood stem cell research would be able to make greater advances if less money and resources were channeled into embryonic stem cell research.[9]
It is claimed by pro-life supporters that the use of adult stem cells from sources such as umbilical cord blood has consistently produced more promising results than the use of embryonic stem cells.[10]
"Adult stem cells have already produced therapies, while embryonic stem cells have not.[11][12]
(3) Scientific flaws in embryonic stem cell research
Another concern with embryonic stem cell research is the tendency of stem cells from embryos to create tumors. [11][13]
(4) Overstatement of research potential
Scientists have long promised spectacular results from embryonic stem cell research, and this has not yet occurred[7][14][15]
(5) The mouse was cured using Adult Stem Cells, not Embryonic
Why the "Successful" Mouse "Therapeutic" Cloning Really Didn't Work
"Therapeutic" cloning is supposed to produce matched embryonic stem cells that can be transplanted back into the original patient and not be rejected. Yet the original "patient" in these experiments still rejected the supposedly matched cells from its cloned embryo. Even transplantation into a different "patient" who should not have rejected the cells was still largely unsuccessful. The scientists in their paper note: "Our results raise the provocative possibility that even genetically matched cells derived by therapeutic cloning may still face barriers to effective transplantation for some disorders." In other words, therapeutic cloning may not always produce matched tissues. In contrast, "adult" stem cells from the born cloned mice were successful in matching the original patient and correcting the problem.[16]
This argument is hotly debated on both sides. Those critical of embryonic stem cell research point to a current lack of practical treatments, while supporters argue that advances will come with more time and that breakthroughs cannot be predicted.
Conspicuously, some criticism has even come from researchers themselves. For example, in November 2004, Princeton University president and geneticist Shirley Tilghman said, "Some of the public pronouncements in the field of stem-cell research come close to overpromising at best and delusional fantasizing at worst."[17] Similarly, fertility expert and current president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Lord Winston has warned of a public backlash against stem cell research if it fails to deliver on some of the "hype" surrounding potential treatments.[18]
^(9) The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics. "The "Political Science" of Stem Cells". Retrieved on July 16, 2006.
^(10) Prentice, David. (October 17, 2005) "Live Patients & Dead Mice". Christianity Today. Retrieved on August 24, 2006.
^(11) a b Clarke, Michael F. and Michael W. Becker. (July 2006). "Stem Cells: The Real Culprits in Cancer?" Scientific American. Retrieved on August 8, 2006.
^(12) Anonymous (September 24, 2006) "Cloning/Embryonic Stem Cells." National Human Genome Research Institute. Retrieved September 24, 2006.
^(13) Dolan, Kerry. (July 21, 2006) "Despite Bush Veto, Stem Cell Research Abounds." Forbes. retrieved July 21, 2006"
^ (14)Nerensini, F. (2000) "And Man Descended from the Sheep: The Public Debate on Cloning in the Italian Press." Public Understanding of Science, vol. 9, pp.359-382.
^ (15)Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D. & Kroepsch, A. (2003) "Framing Science: The Stem Cell Controversy in an Age of Press/Politics." The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 36-70 DOI: 10.1177/1081180X02251047.
^(16) Americans for Banning Cloning.(2002) [<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://cloninginformation.org/info/unsuccessful_mouse_therapy.htm">http://cloninginformation.org/...sful_mouse_therapy.htm</a> "Why the "Successful" Mouse "Therapeutic" Cloning Really Didn't Work "] Stem Cell Research. Retrieved April 13, 2007.
^(17) Tilghman, Shirley M. (November 11, 2004) "Address to the Stem Cell Institute of New Jersey," Retrieved August 22, 2006.
So even if I was okay with embryonic stem cell research, I would still be more hopeful about adult/cord blood stem cell research, and would like to see more time, money and effort put into it. There is also apparently research into amniotic fluid as a source of stem cells.
i'll make this short or i'll get all pi**ed off and make it really long....
is it really worth the killing of thousands of innocent unborn children to try to maybe cure some diseases. there is nothing for certain about stem cells, we don't know for sure if anything will come from it. As far as the cord blood thing, if you can harvest the stem cells that way without injuring the child then go play with the stuff as much as you want but don't create life just to destroy it.
if it's ok to "abort" a human life before birth, what makes birth such a turning point to make it murder all of a sudden, it is a human life in the womb. why is that "magic time" at birth, if you're gonna make it ok to kill a person before birth why not make it after a week? why not decide that you don't want that person after a few years and be able to abort it? it isn't any different.
... just something to think about
is it really worth the killing of thousands of innocent unborn children to try to maybe cure some diseases. there is nothing for certain about stem cells, we don't know for sure if anything will come from it. As far as the cord blood thing, if you can harvest the stem cells that way without injuring the child then go play with the stuff as much as you want but don't create life just to destroy it.
if it's ok to "abort" a human life before birth, what makes birth such a turning point to make it murder all of a sudden, it is a human life in the womb. why is that "magic time" at birth, if you're gonna make it ok to kill a person before birth why not make it after a week? why not decide that you don't want that person after a few years and be able to abort it? it isn't any different.
... just something to think about
i'll make this short or i'll get all pi**ed off and make it really long....
is it really worth the killing of thousands of innocent unborn children to try to maybe cure some diseases. there is nothing for certain about stem cells, we don't know for sure if anything will come from it. As far as the cord blood thing, if you can harvest the stem cells that way without injuring the child then go play with the stuff as much as you want but don't create life just to destroy it.
if it's ok to "abort" a human life before birth, what makes birth such a turning point to make it murder all of a sudden, it is a human life in the womb. why is that "magic time" at birth, if you're gonna make it ok to kill a person before birth why not make it after a week? why not decide that you don't want that person after a few years and be able to abort it? it isn't any different.
... just something to think about
is it really worth the killing of thousands of innocent unborn children to try to maybe cure some diseases. there is nothing for certain about stem cells, we don't know for sure if anything will come from it. As far as the cord blood thing, if you can harvest the stem cells that way without injuring the child then go play with the stuff as much as you want but don't create life just to destroy it.
if it's ok to "abort" a human life before birth, what makes birth such a turning point to make it murder all of a sudden, it is a human life in the womb. why is that "magic time" at birth, if you're gonna make it ok to kill a person before birth why not make it after a week? why not decide that you don't want that person after a few years and be able to abort it? it isn't any different.
... just something to think about
i'll make this short or i'll get all pi**ed off and make it really long....
is it really worth the killing of thousands of innocent unborn children to try to maybe cure some diseases. there is nothing for certain about stem cells, we don't know for sure if anything will come from it. As far as the cord blood thing, if you can harvest the stem cells that way without injuring the child then go play with the stuff as much as you want but don't create life just to destroy it.
if it's ok to "abort" a human life before birth, what makes birth such a turning point to make it murder all of a sudden, it is a human life in the womb. why is that "magic time" at birth, if you're gonna make it ok to kill a person before birth why not make it after a week? why not decide that you don't want that person after a few years and be able to abort it? it isn't any different.
... just something to think about
is it really worth the killing of thousands of innocent unborn children to try to maybe cure some diseases. there is nothing for certain about stem cells, we don't know for sure if anything will come from it. As far as the cord blood thing, if you can harvest the stem cells that way without injuring the child then go play with the stuff as much as you want but don't create life just to destroy it.
if it's ok to "abort" a human life before birth, what makes birth such a turning point to make it murder all of a sudden, it is a human life in the womb. why is that "magic time" at birth, if you're gonna make it ok to kill a person before birth why not make it after a week? why not decide that you don't want that person after a few years and be able to abort it? it isn't any different.
... just something to think about
i'll make this short or i'll get all pi**ed off and make it really long....
is it really worth the killing of thousands of innocent unborn children to try to maybe cure some diseases. there is nothing for certain about stem cells, we don't know for sure if anything will come from it. As far as the cord blood thing, if you can harvest the stem cells that way without injuring the child then go play with the stuff as much as you want but don't create life just to destroy it.
if it's ok to "abort" a human life before birth, what makes birth such a turning point to make it murder all of a sudden, it is a human life in the womb. why is that "magic time" at birth, if you're gonna make it ok to kill a person before birth why not make it after a week? why not decide that you don't want that person after a few years and be able to abort it? it isn't any different.
... just something to think about
is it really worth the killing of thousands of innocent unborn children to try to maybe cure some diseases. there is nothing for certain about stem cells, we don't know for sure if anything will come from it. As far as the cord blood thing, if you can harvest the stem cells that way without injuring the child then go play with the stuff as much as you want but don't create life just to destroy it.
if it's ok to "abort" a human life before birth, what makes birth such a turning point to make it murder all of a sudden, it is a human life in the womb. why is that "magic time" at birth, if you're gonna make it ok to kill a person before birth why not make it after a week? why not decide that you don't want that person after a few years and be able to abort it? it isn't any different.
... just something to think about
i'll make this short or i'll get all pi**ed off and make it really long....
is it really worth the killing of thousands of innocent unborn children to try to maybe cure some diseases. there is nothing for certain about stem cells, we don't know for sure if anything will come from it. As far as the cord blood thing, if you can harvest the stem cells that way without injuring the child then go play with the stuff as much as you want but don't create life just to destroy it.
if it's ok to "abort" a human life before birth, what makes birth such a turning point to make it murder all of a sudden, it is a human life in the womb. why is that "magic time" at birth, if you're gonna make it ok to kill a person before birth why not make it after a week? why not decide that you don't want that person after a few years and be able to abort it? it isn't any different.
... just something to think about
is it really worth the killing of thousands of innocent unborn children to try to maybe cure some diseases. there is nothing for certain about stem cells, we don't know for sure if anything will come from it. As far as the cord blood thing, if you can harvest the stem cells that way without injuring the child then go play with the stuff as much as you want but don't create life just to destroy it.
if it's ok to "abort" a human life before birth, what makes birth such a turning point to make it murder all of a sudden, it is a human life in the womb. why is that "magic time" at birth, if you're gonna make it ok to kill a person before birth why not make it after a week? why not decide that you don't want that person after a few years and be able to abort it? it isn't any different.
... just something to think about
i'll make this short or i'll get all pi**ed off and make it really long....
is it really worth the killing of thousands of innocent unborn children to try to maybe cure some diseases. there is nothing for certain about stem cells, we don't know for sure if anything will come from it. As far as the cord blood thing, if you can harvest the stem cells that way without injuring the child then go play with the stuff as much as you want but don't create life just to destroy it.
if it's ok to "abort" a human life before birth, what makes birth such a turning point to make it murder all of a sudden, it is a human life in the womb. why is that "magic time" at birth, if you're gonna make it ok to kill a person before birth why not make it after a week? why not decide that you don't want that person after a few years and be able to abort it? it isn't any different.
... just something to think about
is it really worth the killing of thousands of innocent unborn children to try to maybe cure some diseases. there is nothing for certain about stem cells, we don't know for sure if anything will come from it. As far as the cord blood thing, if you can harvest the stem cells that way without injuring the child then go play with the stuff as much as you want but don't create life just to destroy it.
if it's ok to "abort" a human life before birth, what makes birth such a turning point to make it murder all of a sudden, it is a human life in the womb. why is that "magic time" at birth, if you're gonna make it ok to kill a person before birth why not make it after a week? why not decide that you don't want that person after a few years and be able to abort it? it isn't any different.
... just something to think about