Source: Obama to reverse limits on stem cell work

[BMW540I6speed]

OK, let's all set up the most outrageous cloning strawman. We can and dare others to burn it down.

For instance, the real question of human cloning is...will a cloned version of you, even if it could be invested with the exact contents of your brain, a la "Freejack" still be you? In other words, would God invest your clone with the same spirit/soul that IS you? Would that keep your soul on earth for another lifetime instead of it's proceeding to the next life?

Or would God invest a cloned version of yourself, even invested with your exact memories, with a soul at all, since that clone would be a human creation rather than a creation of God, or would that cloned "you" be "soulless?" The fictional (but inspired?) depictions of such creatures are not pretty.

Then, again, if human clones don't receive souls, are they really human or is a living breathing human body without a soul nothing more than a collection of cells? Would such a soulless body even be able to attain consciousness?

If your clone receives a new soul different from yours, it will be influenced in very different directions than you were by your own soul so it may not be anything like you despite having identical genetics (as is the case with some identical twins).

In other words, why make a clone of yourself if it can't be... YOU?

Of course if God is totally opposed to human cloning, no doubt God will make it impossible to accomplish. God could do that, couldn't God?.

 

[SAWYER]

If these are to be thrown away then what is the problem? Do the same people who are against that also against people donating their body to science after they die?

 

[DealMonkey]

I found it interesting that not only did Bush install a federal funding ban on embryonic stem cell research, but the Republican-controlled Congress under Clinton effectively pre-empted Bush's efforts by about 6 years.

The Dickey Amendment is the name of an appropriation's bill rider attached to a bill passed by United States Congress in 1995, and signed by former President Bill Clinton which prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from using appropriated funds for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in which human embryos are destroyed. HHS funding includes the funding for National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. Technically the Dickey Amendment is a "rider" to other legislation, which amends the original legislation. The rider receives its name from the name of the Congressman that originally introduced the amendment, Representative Jay Dickey. The Dickey amendment language has been added to each of the Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations acts for FY1997 through FY2004. The original rider can be found in Section 128 of P.L. 104-99. The wording of the rider is generally the same year after year. For FY2005, the wording prohibits HHS from using FY2005 appropriated funds for:

(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or

(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and Section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act [1](42 U.S.C. 289g(b)) (Title 42, Section 289g(b), United States Code). For purposes of this section, the term "human embryo or embryos" includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 (the Human Subject Protection regulations) . . . that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes (sperm or egg) or human diploid cells (cells that have two sets of chromosomes, such as somatic cells).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment

It's no wonder embryonic stem cell research is far behind research being done with adult stem cells. Behind to the tune of 14 years!

Oh god, save the embryos! :roll:

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Not to mention the moral issues that most here cannot fathom...there's a big difference between adult stem cell and embryonic stem cell success stories.

Adult Stem Cells v. Embryonic Stem Cells

Adult stem cell research has been far more successful in providing cures for serious illnesses. I understand that there have been some horrific failures with embryonic stem cell research where the stem cells form into tumors.

Ugh. Please don't think you are suddenly "informed" since you can link to such a list. That list, and many other claims that adult stem cells "treat" 65+ diseases have been debunked repeatedly. In fact, Science published a letter from 3 established researchers who examined that list. Their conclusion?

"Prentice has said, "Adult stem cells have now helped patients with at least 65 different human diseases. It's real help for real patients" (2). On 4 May, Senator Brownback stated, "I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the listing of 69 different human illnesses being treated by adult and cord blood stem cells" (3).

In fact, adult stem cell treatments fully tested in all required phases of clinical trials and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are available to treat only nine of the conditions on the Prentice list, not 65 [or 72 (4)]. In particular, allogeneic stem cell therapy has proven useful in treating hematological malignancies and in ameliorating the side effects of chemotherapy and radiation. Contrary to what Prentice implies, however, most of his cited treatments remain unproven and await clinical validation. Other claims, such as those for Parkinson's or spinal cord injury, are simply untenable."

And a chart detailing their examination.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/1129987/DC1/1

Or if you don't like reading academic journals, then read the newspaper version:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...R2006071401380_pf.html

Please, if you are going to act like you are really informed on the subject, please don't post items that are grossly incorrect.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
snip

First of all you linked a clearly biased lobbyist organization, which will not give you an objective picture of the topic on hand.

But more to the core of my argument - Neither one of us have any sort of qualification to evaluate the research on hand. Whether you can dig up or cherry pick some articles from PubMed is really besides the point, since neither one of us can understand the content within.

This is why your argument is void, same way my argument regarding the validity of the research would be void. It's not an ad-hominem (i.e. "attack the messenger"), because the basis of your argument assumes knowledge of the topic in order to be able to evaluate its merits.

The main difference between you and I is that you're trying to justify your dogma with stuff you know nothing about, where as my position is to let the people that do the research decide the merits of the research (there's no dogma on my part). If people with MCDB doctorates decide that embryonic stem cells are useless, then they'll stop researching it. If it's people clutching bibles with no bio background that want to decide the research is fruitless, it's nothing more than a dogma push.

You say the source of the information presented is 'clearly biased' to infer that the information itself is biased. I'm not going to argue something as subjective as whether or not the source is biased or not. But, the information presented is not really a subjective issue is it? It's either factual or it isn't. Is this key point eluding you? I have given you every opportunity to present an objective picture of the topic as well as to prove your point that I presented biased information...yet you offer nothing. The harsh reality here is that the facts don't happen to line up with way you would like them to line up and you simply just cannot seem to deal with that head on. This is the core of my argument...now let's move on to the core of your argument that I'm trying to justify my 'dogma'. I fully admit that I am guilty as charged (in an off-handed way) just as you are.

I see that you think embryonic research shows promise in spite of the fact that the track record has been miserable. Maybe yes, maybe no...time will tell. But...I do take exception to your "people clutching bibles" derogatory comment. I have a world view that's very different than yours. I'm entitled, as a living breathing human being, to have a belief system and morality just as you are entitled to your belief system and a secular-based morality. We human beings are all unique and diverse in every way possible...I have an opinion just as you have an opinion. You think you're right...I think I'm right. Yet, by making your snide comment, you want to minimalize my opinion and the right to express it...what gives? You got it all figured out?

From the git go...all I asked you for was facts...is that so hard?

Seriously, reading comprehension. I have a graduate degree in Finance, not Biology. Myself arguing for or against embryonic stem cells would be as idiotic as you doing the same here. There is no sense in either one of us bringing quips, facts or some cherry picked articles from PubMed that would either support or reject the merits of embryonic stem cells.

For whatever reason you keep missing my main point - I AM correct in the fact that neither of us have any bio background to judge embryonic research, which preclude us from going the route you'd like ("From the git go...all I asked you for was facts...is that so hard").

See you think you're right about the merits embryonic stem cells (lack thereof), again because the bits of research you've come across fits your persuasion and preconceived opinion, regardless of the actual science. I, on the other hand, have no idea - I'm not supporting or rejecting anything. My position is let scientists and experts in the matter figure it out, rather than pulling the federal funding and justifying it with "intelligent design"-esque arguments like yours.

The sole fact you'd still reject embryonic stem cells even without any scientific backing makes your standing argument pointless; it's not about the science, it's about finding some science to give an intellectual facade to your dogma a la intellectual design.

Look, you made an allegation of bias here and I simply asked you to back it up with facts. It's obvious that you can't deliver and now you are trying to misdirect this discussion into some cockamamie argument that you need to have a biology background to discuss the cursory facts of the subject or even ethical considerations for that matter. As pointed out to you by another poster, your logic here is horribly flawed...it's a shame that you are apparently unable to see this.

You obviously have an 'ethic' where the harvesting of embryonic stem cells from embryonic human life is acceptable. I have a different ethic. No biology degree required for either of us to have an ethical viewpoint?or does that just apply to me? I was merely pointing out some facts that show which side of the adult/embryonic balance sheet had all the successes to date. Now you go on to accuse me of "intelligent design"-esque arguments and 'finding some science to give an intellectual facade to your dogma a la intellectual design'. Sigh?why can't you deal with what's in front of you instead of diverting. I have no idea what your idea of an '"intelligent design"-esque argument' is...nor do I want to go down your path of diversion.

I point out some facts on the subject that I thought people here would find interesting. I made no conclusions. I told you that in an 'off-handed' way I was justifying my 'dogma' as you call it (for the record, I prefer to say 'ethical viewpoint' instead of 'dogma' as your word choice implies religiosity and a potential host of stereotypes and diversions that go along with that). I made an 'veiled' inference here...nothing more, nothing less. I made no conclusions...letting the facts speak for themselves. You've the one who's extrapolated well beyond my intent here. Let's be clear here?this is an ethical issue. As previously stated, your entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine.

Isn't it ironic that you criticize me for having a preconceived opinion (as an attempt to marginalize my viewpoint) while totally ignoring your own preconceived opinions and conclusions on this subject? Or, are you also unable to see this too?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I found it interesting that not only did Bush install a federal funding ban on embryonic stem cell research, but the Republican-controlled Congress under Clinton effectively pre-empted Bush's efforts by about 6 years.

The Dickey Amendment is the name of an appropriation's bill rider attached to a bill passed by United States Congress in 1995, and signed by former President Bill Clinton which prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from using appropriated funds for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in which human embryos are destroyed. HHS funding includes the funding for National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. Technically the Dickey Amendment is a "rider" to other legislation, which amends the original legislation. The rider receives its name from the name of the Congressman that originally introduced the amendment, Representative Jay Dickey. The Dickey amendment language has been added to each of the Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations acts for FY1997 through FY2004. The original rider can be found in Section 128 of P.L. 104-99. The wording of the rider is generally the same year after year. For FY2005, the wording prohibits HHS from using FY2005 appropriated funds for:

(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or

(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and Section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act [1](42 U.S.C. 289g(b)) (Title 42, Section 289g(b), United States Code). For purposes of this section, the term "human embryo or embryos" includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 (the Human Subject Protection regulations) . . . that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes (sperm or egg) or human diploid cells (cells that have two sets of chromosomes, such as somatic cells).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment

It's no wonder embryonic stem cell research is far behind research being done with adult stem cells. Behind to the tune of 14 years!

Oh god, save the embryos! :roll:

A. Clinton signed it
B. Nothing was\is stopping private firms from researching this. In fact many have and still are funding it. Also what is stopping other countries from doing this research?

Perhaps your view it is behind is incorrect and there simply arent the gains from embryoic stem cells that are seen in adult stem cells.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Sawyer
Ok I am in the dark on stem cell research. Why is it a bad thing?

It all boils down to a 'sanctity of life' ethical issue revolving around embryonic stem cells. This is not an issue with adult stem cell research which has many, many success stories that will undoubtedly help mankind. On the other hand embryonic stem cell research involves the creation, use and destruction of human embryos (human life). Great hope has been placed on this particular type of stem cell research...however, there are no success stories so far...in fact, there have been some horrible failures.

My pet peeve is that the media and most people don't make this distinction (adult vs. embryonic) when talking about the subject. Either they're ignorant regarding the crux of this issue or they're willfully dishonest and want to paint those who have ethical concerns as anti-science and against all stem cell research....which is not true, but that's what they want to believe (or perhaps only mentally capable of believing).

You don't get it, do you? We're not creating embryos so we can destroy them. We are taking the embryos that are going into the medical waste bins of fertility clinics, since they make more than one to try and get successful implantation, etc. Is it more ethical to throw them in the trash (like they do now) than use the 15 cells per embryo to advance the field of medical science? Find cures for diseases that adult stem cells would never have a chance at doing?

Adult stem cells, as great as they are, are not necessarily replaceable for embryonic stem cells.

They're can't be success stories in embryonic stem cell research when funding has been severely restricted. Without federal funding, there will be very little research in the area since it is so expensive to do biological research.

I don't think you get it...I do not support the artificial creation and destruction of human embryos...period.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: abj13

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Not to mention the moral issues that most here cannot fathom...there's a big difference between adult stem cell and embryonic stem cell success stories.

Adult Stem Cells v. Embryonic Stem Cells

Adult stem cell research has been far more successful in providing cures for serious illnesses. I understand that there have been some horrific failures with embryonic stem cell research where the stem cells form into tumors.

Ugh. Please don't think you are suddenly "informed" since you can link to such a list. That list, and many other claims that adult stem cells "treat" 65+ diseases have been debunked repeatedly. In fact, Science published a letter from 3 established researchers who examined that list. Their conclusion?

"Prentice has said, "Adult stem cells have now helped patients with at least 65 different human diseases. It's real help for real patients" (2). On 4 May, Senator Brownback stated, "I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the listing of 69 different human illnesses being treated by adult and cord blood stem cells" (3).

In fact, adult stem cell treatments fully tested in all required phases of clinical trials and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are available to treat only nine of the conditions on the Prentice list, not 65 [or 72 (4)]. In particular, allogeneic stem cell therapy has proven useful in treating hematological malignancies and in ameliorating the side effects of chemotherapy and radiation. Contrary to what Prentice implies, however, most of his cited treatments remain unproven and await clinical validation. Other claims, such as those for Parkinson's or spinal cord injury, are simply untenable."

And a chart detailing their examination.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/1129987/DC1/1

Or if you don't like reading academic journals, then read the newspaper version:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...R2006071401380_pf.html

Please, if you are going to act like you are really informed on the subject, please don't post items that are grossly incorrect.

Thanks for your post...I'll read articles later today.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Sawyer
Ok I am in the dark on stem cell research. Why is it a bad thing?

It all boils down to a 'sanctity of life' ethical issue revolving around embryonic stem cells. This is not an issue with adult stem cell research which has many, many success stories that will undoubtedly help mankind. On the other hand embryonic stem cell research involves the creation, use and destruction of human embryos (human life). Great hope has been placed on this particular type of stem cell research...however, there are no success stories so far...in fact, there have been some horrible failures.

My pet peeve is that the media and most people don't make this distinction (adult vs. embryonic) when talking about the subject. Either they're ignorant regarding the crux of this issue or they're willfully dishonest and want to paint those who have ethical concerns as anti-science and against all stem cell research....which is not true, but that's what they want to believe (or perhaps only mentally capable of believing).

You don't get it, do you? We're not creating embryos so we can destroy them. We are taking the embryos that are going into the medical waste bins of fertility clinics, since they make more than one to try and get successful implantation, etc. Is it more ethical to throw them in the trash (like they do now) than use the 15 cells per embryo to advance the field of medical science? Find cures for diseases that adult stem cells would never have a chance at doing?

Adult stem cells, as great as they are, are not necessarily replaceable for embryonic stem cells.

They're can't be success stories in embryonic stem cell research when funding has been severely restricted. Without federal funding, there will be very little research in the area since it is so expensive to do biological research.

I don't think you get it...I do not support the artificial creation and destruction of human embryos...period.

So people that are infertile or having fertility problems should not be allowed to go to a fertility clinic to undergo in vitro fertilization and subsequent implantation? Because that's what you're saying.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Genx87
A. Clinton signed it

And so? The GOP Congress created it.

B. Nothing was\is stopping private firms from researching this. In fact many have and still are funding it. Also what is stopping other countries from doing this research?

How much farther along would we be had there not been a federal funding ban for 14 years? That's the real question you should be asking.

Perhaps your view it is behind is incorrect and there simply arent the gains from embryoic stem cells that are seen in adult stem cells.

We won't know until we try, right? Personally, it seems rather obvious why adult stem cell research is 14 years ahead of embryonic, but think what you want I suppose.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
snip

First of all you linked a clearly biased lobbyist organization, which will not give you an objective picture of the topic on hand.

But more to the core of my argument - Neither one of us have any sort of qualification to evaluate the research on hand. Whether you can dig up or cherry pick some articles from PubMed is really besides the point, since neither one of us can understand the content within.

This is why your argument is void, same way my argument regarding the validity of the research would be void. It's not an ad-hominem (i.e. "attack the messenger"), because the basis of your argument assumes knowledge of the topic in order to be able to evaluate its merits.

The main difference between you and I is that you're trying to justify your dogma with stuff you know nothing about, where as my position is to let the people that do the research decide the merits of the research (there's no dogma on my part). If people with MCDB doctorates decide that embryonic stem cells are useless, then they'll stop researching it. If it's people clutching bibles with no bio background that want to decide the research is fruitless, it's nothing more than a dogma push.

You say the source of the information presented is 'clearly biased' to infer that the information itself is biased. I'm not going to argue something as subjective as whether or not the source is biased or not. But, the information presented is not really a subjective issue is it? It's either factual or it isn't. Is this key point eluding you? I have given you every opportunity to present an objective picture of the topic as well as to prove your point that I presented biased information...yet you offer nothing. The harsh reality here is that the facts don't happen to line up with way you would like them to line up and you simply just cannot seem to deal with that head on. This is the core of my argument...now let's move on to the core of your argument that I'm trying to justify my 'dogma'. I fully admit that I am guilty as charged (in an off-handed way) just as you are.

I see that you think embryonic research shows promise in spite of the fact that the track record has been miserable. Maybe yes, maybe no...time will tell. But...I do take exception to your "people clutching bibles" derogatory comment. I have a world view that's very different than yours. I'm entitled, as a living breathing human being, to have a belief system and morality just as you are entitled to your belief system and a secular-based morality. We human beings are all unique and diverse in every way possible...I have an opinion just as you have an opinion. You think you're right...I think I'm right. Yet, by making your snide comment, you want to minimalize my opinion and the right to express it...what gives? You got it all figured out?

From the git go...all I asked you for was facts...is that so hard?

Seriously, reading comprehension. I have a graduate degree in Finance, not Biology. Myself arguing for or against embryonic stem cells would be as idiotic as you doing the same here. There is no sense in either one of us bringing quips, facts or some cherry picked articles from PubMed that would either support or reject the merits of embryonic stem cells.

For whatever reason you keep missing my main point - I AM correct in the fact that neither of us have any bio background to judge embryonic research, which preclude us from going the route you'd like ("From the git go...all I asked you for was facts...is that so hard").

See you think you're right about the merits embryonic stem cells (lack thereof), again because the bits of research you've come across fits your persuasion and preconceived opinion, regardless of the actual science. I, on the other hand, have no idea - I'm not supporting or rejecting anything. My position is let scientists and experts in the matter figure it out, rather than pulling the federal funding and justifying it with "intelligent design"-esque arguments like yours.

The sole fact you'd still reject embryonic stem cells even without any scientific backing makes your standing argument pointless; it's not about the science, it's about finding some science to give an intellectual facade to your dogma a la intellectual design.

Look, you made an allegation of bias here and I simply asked you to back it up with facts. It's obvious that you can't deliver and now you are trying to misdirect this discussion into some cockamamie argument that you need to have a biology background to discuss the cursory facts of the subject or even ethical considerations for that matter. As pointed out to you by another poster, your logic here is horribly flawed...it's a shame that you are apparently unable to see this.

You obviously have an 'ethic' where the harvesting of embryonic stem cells from embryonic human life is acceptable. I have a different ethic. No biology degree required for either of us to have an ethical viewpoint?or does that just apply to me? I was merely pointing out some facts that show which side of the adult/embryonic balance sheet had all the successes to date. Now you go on to accuse me of "intelligent design"-esque arguments and 'finding some science to give an intellectual facade to your dogma a la intellectual design'. Sigh?why can't you deal with what's in front of you instead of diverting. I have no idea what your idea of an '"intelligent design"-esque argument' is...nor do I want to go down your path of diversion.

I point out some facts on the subject that I thought people here would find interesting. I made no conclusions. I told you that in an 'off-handed' way I was justifying my 'dogma' as you call it (for the record, I prefer to say 'ethical viewpoint' instead of 'dogma' as your word choice implies religiosity and a potential host of stereotypes and diversions that go along with that). I made an 'veiled' inference here...nothing more, nothing less. I made no conclusions...letting the facts speak for themselves. You've the one who's extrapolated well beyond my intent here. Let's be clear here?this is an ethical issue. As previously stated, your entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine.

Isn't it ironic that you criticize me for having a preconceived opinion (as an attempt to marginalize my viewpoint) while totally ignoring your own preconceived opinions and conclusions on this subject? Or, are you also unable to see this too?

To be fair though you are trying to introduce scientific debate motivated by religious dogma, hence his intelligent design accusation.

So your motive isn't really scientific debate is it?

One of the key points of scientific research is not to have a preconceived outcome.

S&M

 

[Genx87]

And so? The GOP Congress created it.

Point being you tried to label this as republican only when the simple fact is Clinton, a democrat, went right along with it.

How much farther along would we be had there not been a federal funding ban for 14 years? That's the real question you should be asking.

That is a question nobody can answer. Considering public funding represents just a part of the reaeach. I dont think we lost much ground.

We won't know until we try, right? Personally, it seems rather obvious why adult stem cell research is 14 years ahead of embryonic, but think what you want I suppose.

We have been trying where have you been? The private sector has been working with embryoic cells for years. What are the results? So far nothing worth mentioning like what we have seen on the adult side. There is no proof adult stem cells is 14 years ahead of embryoic stem cell research. That is made up in your head.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Genx87

We have been trying where have you been? The private sector has been working with embryoic cells for years. What are the results? So far nothing worth mentioning like what we have seen on the adult side. There is no proof adult stem cells is 14 years ahead of embryoic stem cell research. That is made up in your head.

Currently the results are treatments from companies like Geron that are in human trials for things such as spinal cord damage and cancer. Sounds pretty good to me.

 

[GoSharks]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
We won't know until we try, right? Personally, it seems rather obvious why adult stem cell research is 14 years ahead of embryonic, but think what you want I suppose.

Adult stem cell research and application is way more than 14 years ahead of embryonic. Bone marrow transplants have been done for over 30 years, yet we were only able to isolate human ES cells starting in the mid-late 90s.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: abj13

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Not to mention the moral issues that most here cannot fathom...there's a big difference between adult stem cell and embryonic stem cell success stories.

Adult Stem Cells v. Embryonic Stem Cells

Adult stem cell research has been far more successful in providing cures for serious illnesses. I understand that there have been some horrific failures with embryonic stem cell research where the stem cells form into tumors.

Ugh. Please don't think you are suddenly "informed" since you can link to such a list. That list, and many other claims that adult stem cells "treat" 65+ diseases have been debunked repeatedly. In fact, Science published a letter from 3 established researchers who examined that list. Their conclusion?

"Prentice has said, "Adult stem cells have now helped patients with at least 65 different human diseases. It's real help for real patients" (2). On 4 May, Senator Brownback stated, "I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the listing of 69 different human illnesses being treated by adult and cord blood stem cells" (3).

In fact, adult stem cell treatments fully tested in all required phases of clinical trials and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are available to treat only nine of the conditions on the Prentice list, not 65 [or 72 (4)]. In particular, allogeneic stem cell therapy has proven useful in treating hematological malignancies and in ameliorating the side effects of chemotherapy and radiation. Contrary to what Prentice implies, however, most of his cited treatments remain unproven and await clinical validation. Other claims, such as those for Parkinson's or spinal cord injury, are simply untenable."

And a chart detailing their examination.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/1129987/DC1/1

Or if you don't like reading academic journals, then read the newspaper version:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...R2006071401380_pf.html

Please, if you are going to act like you are really informed on the subject, please don't post items that are grossly incorrect.

Thanks for your post...I'll read articles later today.

I'm more "informed" now?thanks...appreciate the links. Here's a link to Prentice's paper (sorry?I don't have a newspaper version for you):

Adult Stem Cells - DAVID A. PRENTICE, PH.D.
In his scope statement he states the following:
"This paper will review the literature related to adult stem cells, including current and potential clinical applications (with apologies to the many who are not cited, due to the exponential increase in papers regarding adult stem cells and the limitations of this review.)"

Please note that this paper was written 5 years ago to provide an overview of current adult stem cell research efforts underway at that time and their potential benefits. Also note that Prentice never made an assertion that all adult stem cell treatments in his paper were "fully tested in all required phases of clinical trials and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration". Maybe I missed that little tidbit?please show me where he makes that assertion. Prentice also never said that adult stem cell treatments are already in general use for 65 diseases and injuries. Also please point out that little tidbit too when you get a chance. In addition, the web site I linked doesn't make either of these assertions and I certainly never made these assertions?so what the hell are you talking about?

I've read the Shane Smith, William Neaves, Steven Teitelbaum paper you linked and I'm having difficultly concluding that the Prentice paper was "debunked" as you put it.

Let's look at the first one on the "debunked" list:
Actual nature of the study or studies cited by Prentice
"Two clinical studies and one literature review indicated that some patients who have their brain cancers treated with high-dose chemotherapy show improved long-term survival rates when transplants of adult stem cells from bone marrow or blood are used to alleviate side effects of the chemotherapy."
Additional comments (cited by Shane Smith, William Neaves, Steven Teitelbaum)
"Adult stem cells from bone marrow are not used to treat brain cancer. They are sometimes used to alleviate side effects of the toxic chemotherapy and radiation treatments used to treat the disease."

Notice that Prentice NEVER made the assertion that adult stem cells from bone marrow are used to treat brain cancer?all he said that was that increased survival rates were observed for brain cancer patients treated with high-dose chemotherapy.

Going through this entire paper, there are numerous items where Prentice notes higher survivability rates and the "debunkers" basically agree. All they do is just further elaborate that these higher survival rates were probably due to adult stems cells allowing patients to receive high-dose chemotherapy treatments. Anyway?here's Prentice's response to the "debunkers":

"Smith et al. criticized an earlier compilation of peer-reviewed studies with results showing benefits for patients with 65 conditions from nonembryonic stem cells. In our Letter "Treating diseases with adult stem cells" (19 Jan., p. 328), we thanked them for detecting a few technical errors in this list, but added that these do not affect our central claim--in fact, such health improvements have now been documented in patients with over 70 conditions [see the Supporting Online Material that accompanied our Letter (1)].
In none of these studies do the authors state merely that they are about to "test" whether adult stem cells may benefit patients or that they have begun "enrollment" in clinical trials. Rather, all these studies (including those on breast cancer and heart damage) are reports of completed trials in which patients with these conditions benefited.
They question our reference to the use of GDNF for Parkinson's patients. The focus of this therapeutic approach was improvement in patient health, which was achieved in these studies (2-4), rather than basic investigation of GDNF's mode of action. However, the finding that trophic factors such as GDNF act by stimulating endogenous stem cells has existed for years, has been demonstrated in animal models, and has been proposed by several authors for treating neurodegenerative diseases in humans [e.g., (5-9)]. Regarding the patient case report they criticize, this was hardly mere "hair loss," but rather complete remission of alopecia universalis (10).

We thank them for pointing out the vagaries of the NIH search engine, although we note that they only looked at trials currently recruiting patients, and not the complete list of trials. We had chosen a search term similar to that used by Dr. Battey, Chief of the NIH Stem Cell Task Force, who reported 563 adult stem cell clinical trials in 2004 (11). Closer analysis shows that currently there are only 1229 trials listed at clinicaltrials.gov that are related to the use of adult stem cells (12). Will all these trials automatically translate into safe, reliable, and widely available treatments? We do not know. That does not mean we should deny or belittle the tangible benefits that published approaches have already provided to some patients--benefits that remain lacking from any approach using embryonic stem cells. To suppress the evidence would be a disservice to patients.

In this context, we note that Neaves and Teitelbaum were very prominent in the wellfunded political coalition designed to amend the Missouri constitution in 2006 to authorize human embryo cloning and embryonic stem cell research. The Web site of this coalition, Missouri Coalition for Life-Saving Cures (13), continues to list "more than 70 diseases and injuries that could benefit from stem cell research," despite the lack of evidence regarding embryonic stem cells for such a claim and the widespread consensus that some of these conditions, such as Alzheimer's disease, are extremely unlikely candidates for a stem cell treatment in the future. On one point we agree with Smith et al.--It is gravely wrong to mislead laypeople and cruelly deceive patients. -David A. Prentice & Gene Tarne"

You call this debunking? Granted?you can argue on a couple of the items if you want to be argumentative?but nothing's been "debunked". Prentice clearly stated in his scope and accomplished what he intended to accomplish with his study. But really?isn't this all diversion here? You can split hairs all day long?but the fact of the matter remains that adult stem cell research has been highly successful in many areas and the good news gets better every day. On the other hand, I don't see a lot of embryonic stem cell success stories...I've looked...and I can't find any.

I stand by my statement?there's a BIG difference between adult stem cell and embryonic stem cell success stories and adult stem cell research has been far more successful in providing cures for serious illnesses. Am I wrong? Or do you want to pick nits or play the semantics game?

"Please, if you are going to act like you are really informed on the subject, please don't post items that are grossly incorrect." So true, so true. You're too funny.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: MooseNSquirrel
To be fair though you are trying to introduce scientific debate motivated by religious dogma, hence his intelligent design accusation.

So your motive isn't really scientific debate is it?

One of the key points of scientific research is not to have a preconceived outcome.

S&M

I'm open to scientific debate...I'm also open to debating ethics in relation to science. I don't have a preconceived outcome...I'm just pointing out an interesting curiousity.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Genx87
A. Clinton signed it

It appears Congress had the votes to make it veto proof.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...:HR02880@@L&summ2=m&

House 371 - 42; Senate 82-8

Additionally, it was a rider attached to other legislation.

So don't go thinking Clinton had any choice in the matter.

B. Nothing was\is stopping private firms from researching this. In fact many have and still are funding it. Also what is stopping other countries from doing this research?

Who cares? Researchers and scientists who are directly affected by this ban on funding, have clearly said the ban has impacted their work.

Go read this article posted today, if you have any doubts:

http://blog.wired.com/wiredsci...03/obamastemcells.html

"This marks a new era for stem cell research. It will not only impact research in the laboratory, but perhaps more importantly, it finally lifts the black cloud that has hovered over this research for so long. We have been operating for the last decade with one hand tied behind our back," said Robert Lanza, science director of Advanced Cell Technologies. "For the first time in almost a decade, we can now apply for government grants to use our cells to treat human diseases. Rather than keeping the cells in the freezer, now we can use them to help people."

Sorry dude, but you're just plain wrong. This ban was a GOP construct from the beginning and pushed through year after year, first by a GOP-led Congress and then by a GOP president, and the impacts are huge. Research in this area of stem cells has been slowed to a crawl for 10+ years.

 

[Moonbeam]

I just want to say that while I support stem cell research, I admire the instinct that tells people so many things we can do today seem to threaten the notion that life is sacred.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: GoSharks

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
We won't know until we try, right? Personally, it seems rather obvious why adult stem cell research is 14 years ahead of embryonic, but think what you want I suppose.

Adult stem cell research and application is way more than 14 years ahead of embryonic. Bone marrow transplants have been done for over 30 years, yet we were only able to isolate human ES cells starting in the mid-late 90s.

Okay, I stand corrected. 30 years ahead of embryonic stem cell research.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Genx87
A. Clinton signed it

It appears Congress had the votes to make it veto proof.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...:HR02880@@L&summ2=m&

House 371 - 42; Senate 82-8

Additionally, it was a rider attached to other legislation.

So don't go thinking Clinton had any choice in the matter.

:roll:

To get a majority like that would require democrat support. Either way a bi-partisan effort.

B. Nothing was\is stopping private firms from researching this. In fact many have and still are funding it. Also what is stopping other countries from doing this research?

Who cares? Researchers and scientists who are directly affected by this ban on funding, have clearly said the ban has impacted their work.

Go read this article posted today, if you have any doubts:

http://blog.wired.com/wiredsci...03/obamastemcells.html

"This marks a new era for stem cell research. It will not only impact research in the laboratory, but perhaps more importantly, it finally lifts the black cloud that has hovered over this research for so long. We have been operating for the last decade with one hand tied behind our back," said Robert Lanza, science director of Advanced Cell Technologies. "For the first time in almost a decade, we can now apply for government grants to use our cells to treat human diseases. Rather than keeping the cells in the freezer, now we can use them to help people."

Sorry dude, but you're just plain wrong. This ban was a GOP construct from the beginning and pushed through year after year, first by a GOP-led Congress and then by a GOP president, and the impacts are huge. Research in this area of stem cells has been slowed to a crawl for 10+ years.

That is one guys opinion and I never made the claim it was as easy as adult stem cell. My point which you keep missing or deliberately skipping over is nothing was stopping the private sector from working on embryoic stem cells. Also other govts could as well provided they didnt have the same laws enacted.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Genx87
That is one guys opinion and I never made the claim it was as easy as adult stem cell. My point which you keep missing or deliberately skipping over is nothing was stopping the private sector from working on embryoic stem cells. Also other govts could as well provided they didnt have the same laws enacted.

There are significantly more researchers in academia than in the private sector, especially when it comes to basic research. Private funds can fund the research at some universities, but with the ban in place, you couldn't use any equipment that was funded wholey or in part by Federal grants, thus providing an additional barrier to research, as new equipment would need to be purchased with private funds in order to do this research in the first place.

The thing is, the ban wasn't based on science, just on ideology. We're not putting additional money into research now that the ban is lifted, merely allowing existing research funds to move into embryonic stem cell research and opening the door for more researchers to enter the field, which can only lead to more discoveries.

 

[GoSharks]

Originally posted by: Genx87
That is one guys opinion and I never made the claim it was as easy as adult stem cell. My point which you keep missing or deliberately skipping over is nothing was stopping the private sector from working on embryoic stem cells. Also other govts could as well provided they didnt have the same laws enacted.

The lack of profitable return is definitely stopping privately funded work on ES cells. Do you have an idea of how much basic science research is needed before relatively new discoveries such as ES cells can become commercially viable? Privately funding ES research is like throwing a large amount of money into a crowd of people and hoping to get it all back, not even speaking of making money.

For the record, I have worked in the biotech industry and am currently pursuing a PhD in bioengineering. My dissertation research is on a tissue engineering subfield, but I do not work with stem cells.

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Also note that Prentice never made an assertion that all adult stem cell treatments in his paper were "fully tested in all required phases of clinical trials and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration". Maybe I missed that little tidbit?please show me where he makes that assertion. Prentice also never said that adult stem cell treatments are already in general use for 65 diseases and injuries.

LMAO, you some how deny that the majority of his cited diseases aren't approved by the FDA, then why in the world would you make these claims?

"Adult stem cell research has been far more successful in providing cures for serious illnesses."

"there's a BIG difference between adult stem cell and embryonic stem cell success stories and adult stem cell research has been far more successful in providing cures for serious illnesses."

Sounds like somebody didn't even bother to read what Prentice is claiming, or at least you never understood the context and you're now double tracking.

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Notice that Prentice NEVER made the assertion that adult stem cells from bone marrow are used to treat brain cancer?all he said that was that increased survival rates were observed for brain cancer patients treated with high-dose chemotherapy.

All they do is just further elaborate that these higher survival rates were probably due to adult stems cells allowing patients to receive high-dose chemotherapy treatments.

Again, if that is what Prentice set out to do, why the hell would you make posts like:

"Adult stem cell research has been far more successful in providing cures for serious illnesses."

"there's a BIG difference between adult stem cell and embryonic stem cell success stories and adult stem cell research has been far more successful in providing cures for serious illnesses."

You must somehow realize that "increased survival rates" does not translate into "cures," and that increased survival rates does not translate in to benefits in quality of life if the treatment is high dose chemo.

Originally posted by: Doc Savage FanPrentice clearly stated in his scope and accomplished what he intended to accomplish with his study. But really?isn't this all diversion here? You can split hairs all day long?but the fact of the matter remains that adult stem cell research has been highly successful in many areas and the good news gets better every day.

LOL. If that's his scope, then you have absolutely no footing to make claims on how adult stem cells are providing "cures." The vast majority of the diseases claimed to be treated on that list will never be provided to patients, unless they enroll in a research study. Just because of "increased survival rates," these studies do not suddenly mean these diseases can be treated in that manner. That is why FDA approval is a key factor when evaluating these treatments. Without approval, claiming the benefit of those studies doesn't really mean anything. There's a reason why many of those "benefits" in those studies have not translated into actual treatments. I'll let you figure those out, if you are so curious.

While you are at it, since adult stem cells provide "cures," why don't you post the survival curves for bone marrow transplantation for the various leukemia conditions?

Better yet, why don't you explain the mechanism of how autologous transplantation occurs in many leukemia patients? Its shocking how the "adult stem cells" aren't being manipulated in a way that is proposed for embryonic stem cells.

 

[0marTheZealot]

As long as cells are not being explicitly made for research, there should be no objections to stem cell research.

Anyone opposed to stem cell research should realize that the cells are destined to be frozen glycerol stocks forever or until the company/bank/university decides to autoclave them and then dispose of them. A typical in vitro fertilization reaction gives you many more embryos that what is needed for a viable fetus. The rest are simply frozen down.

There is no debate, only polarized wackos harping on the sanctity of life. If stem cells were being explicitly created, then I might have an objection, depending on the circumstances. To forbid the use of already doomed cells is just asinine.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

There is no debate, only polarized wackos harping on the sanctity of life. If stem cells were being explicitly created, then I might have an objection, depending on the circumstances. To forbid the use of already doomed cells is just asinine.

And until we have the solutions both fetal and adult stem cell research seek to provide, cutting off any promising area of research is simply foolish. Obama has stated that any Federal funding for fetal stem cell research would include strict ethical guidelines and restrictions which haven't yet been disclosed so there's no grounds to criticize him on that score until they're announced.