EYE SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE

This is the form of stem-cell treatment we should be giving research grants to. Embryonic stem-cell research has gone nowhere... All the big breakthroughs have come from stem-cells harvested from the recipient's own body.

What's his handicap?

tgambitg: This is the form of stem-cell treatment we should be giving research grants to. Embryonic stem-cell research has gone nowhere... All the big breakthroughs have come from stem-cells harvested from the recipient's own body.

Woefully naive and, to excuse a pun, myopic. Just because something hasn't yet provided useful treatments, doesn't mean it never will. I'm perfectly fine with funding both, but cutting off funding for embryonic stem cell research would just be stupid.

Skail: Woefully naive and, to excuse a pun, myopic

I cannot excuse that pun. I must applaud it.

Skail: tgambitg: This is the form of stem-cell treatment we should be giving research grants to. Embryonic stem-cell research has gone nowhere... All the big breakthroughs have come from stem-cells harvested from the recipient's own body.

Woefully naive and, to excuse a pun, myopic. Just because something hasn't yet provided useful treatments, doesn't mean it never will. I'm perfectly fine with funding both, but cutting off funding for embryonic stem cell research would just be stupid.

Non-embryonic stem cells have proven way more viable than embryonic ones. Why use the one that causes controversy when a better alternative is already there? That's like saying that we should go back to leaded gasoline because it only needs one additive (lead), but it provides less power and harms the environment more.

And saying don't abandon it because it hasn't yielded anything? That would be like telling scientists to try out alchemy because it hasn't yielded anything either. (Yes, I'm being obtuse.)

Let the research be done on non-embryonic stem cells, get the techniques perfected, and then let's see if we can get anything more out of the embryonic. At that point, the controversy might have died down. Sometimes it seems like the embryonic stem cell proponents are pushing it because it makes some people uncomfortable.

Excellent.

tgambitg: Skail: tgambitg: This is the form of stem-cell treatment we should be giving research grants to. Embryonic stem-cell research has gone nowhere... All the big breakthroughs have come from stem-cells harvested from the recipient's own body.

Woefully naive and, to excuse a pun, myopic. Just because something hasn't yet provided useful treatments, doesn't mean it never will. I'm perfectly fine with funding both, but cutting off funding for embryonic stem cell research would just be stupid.

Non-embryonic stem cells have proven way more viable than embryonic ones. Why use the one that causes controversy when a better alternative is already there? That's like saying that we should go back to leaded gasoline because it only needs one additive (lead), but it provides less power and harms the environment more.

And saying don't abandon it because it hasn't yielded anything? That would be like telling scientists to try out alchemy because it hasn't yielded anything either. (Yes, I'm being obtuse.)

Let the research be done on non-embryonic stem cells, get the techniques perfected, and then let's see if we can get anything more out of the embryonic. At that point, the controversy might have died down. Sometimes it seems like the embryonic stem cell proponents are pushing it because it makes some people uncomfortable.

I disagree completely. Yes, there have been many leaps made because of using the patient's own stem cells. But, honestly, why limit ourselves? Embryonic stem cell research has suffered tremendously due to Bush et al deciding that it was somehow "immoral" and, as a result, a bulk of the research done academically in recent years has been on the adult variety. There's no question that they're going to find some things with those. But to give up on what could turn out to be completely mutable cells? Why would we do that? Your comparsion to alchemy is terrible - alchemy is based on hoping and wishing, whereas embryonic stem cell science is based on science (obviously). Potential is there, and there's no reason to give up on it just because it hasn't yet succeeded.

I don't think anyone is pushing it because it makes some people uncomfortable. Mostly, I think they're just annoyed because the people who oppose it seem to have a double standard (should be discarded rather than used - basically, having absolutely no purpose is preferable to having a scientific one). And I sort of agree with them. But since Bush's crap has been dying down, I want them to (quietly) go back to work on the damn things. It's clay straight out of the package, unmolded, and ready to be investigated.

B-b-b-but FETUS!

I have serious ethical and moral objections to treating social conservatives with stem cell therapies.

Skail: I disagree completely. Yes, there have been many leaps made because of using the patient's own stem cells. But, honestly, why limit ourselves?

Scientific history is filled with wonderful discoveries coming from what had been deemed "useless" sources. You are correct. People saying "embryonic stem cell hasn't produced results yet, let's give up" haven't a clue about scientific research.

"Why use the one that causes controversy..."

Because no one gives a shiat about you and your controversy. Fark you and your controversy.

This is SCIENCE we are talking about, not the book of the month club. See the difference?

It's like the story with Jesus, only this is real.

LOL! +1 Subby

Okay everyone, we know the drill: everybody gets stem cell treatments except the Republicans. They have to die just like their prophet Reagan: shiatting in their own bed until they farking die like the wastes of human life they are.

Sorry Republicans, but you don't like science so you all die. fark you, nobody will miss you, go die in a fire.

tgambitg: This is the form of stem-cell treatment we should be giving research grants to. Embryonic stem-cell research has gone nowhere... All the big breakthroughs have come from stem-cells harvested from the recipient's own body.

Thanks Einstein, I'm sure scientists need your input.

subby

now they just have to prevent him from growing eyes all over his body

Came here for Anne Frank, was not dissapointed

digidorm: Why are we not funding this?! (LGN)

Came for this.

You know what's fun about stem cell threads? The massive number of posters who have no clue that the stem cell therapies discussed in the articles are the ones that the social conservatives have been saying need to be continued. I'm not a social conservative, but it seems they are not the only ones who are woefully ignorant.

This is great, I just want to make sure every registered Republican is BANNED from receiving this treatment and rehabilitation.

Republicans tend to oppose EMBRYONIC stem cell research -- not stem cell research in general.

For example, in the case subby linked, the stem cells came from his healthy eye.

That's STEM CELLS FROM HIS HEALTHY EYE.

Nightmaretony: GreenAdder: I can hear again, and I can see! I can hear again, and I can see!

..but who am I?

Your mom?

LOL, oh wow

This is great, I just want to make sure every registered Republican is BANNED from receiving this treatment and rehabilitation.

How about Republicans who support stem cell research? Or pro-life Democrats who oppose it?

You realized there are both, right? And that these stem cells came not from an embryo but the man's healthy eye?

Skail: I disagree completely. Yes, there have been many leaps made because of using the patient's own stem cells. But, honestly, why limit ourselves? Embryonic stem cell research has suffered tremendously due to Bush et al deciding that it was somehow "immoral" and, as a result, a bulk of the research done academically in recent years has been on the adult variety. There's no question that they're going to find some things with those. But to give up on what could turn out to be completely mutable cells? Why would we do that? Your comparsion to alchemy is terrible - alchemy is based on hoping and wishing, whereas embryonic stem cell science is based on science (obviously). Potential is there, and there's no reason to give up on it just because it hasn't yet succeeded.

I don't think anyone is pushing it because it makes some people uncomfortable. Mostly, I think they're just annoyed because the people who oppose it seem to have a double standard (should be discarded rather than used - basically, having absolutely no purpose is preferable to having a scientific one). And I sort of agree with them. But since Bush's crap has been dying down, I want them to (quietly) go back to work on the damn things. It's clay straight out of the package, unmolded, and ready to be investigated.

Embryonic stem cell research didn't 'suffer' because of the Bush administration's restricting funding to existing lines - despite the impression culitivated by the mass media, the Bush administration did not eliminate funding for the research - it 'suffered' because it has failed at every turn. None of the benefits or breakthroughs touted by self-serving grant seekers have materialised in close to a decade of research, whereas adult stem cells have been used successfully for some time now.

Best headline in months.

I think I pissed myself giggling.

Merry f*cking Christmas everyone. (and Happy Hanukkah, Happy New Years, Festivus, and whatever else you're celebrating)

FloydA: you magnificent bastard!

This is a stupid meme. Well, I guess I mean 'stupider than most'

/That is all.

Was he blinded setting off fireworks on an airliner?

DRTFA

aelfheld: the Bush administration did not eliminate funding for the research

"Under the former President's stem cell policy, federal funds cannot be used to support research on embryonic stem cell lines derived after August 9, 2001. Fewer stem cell lines meet this criterion than the Bush Administration claimed. The lines that do meet the cutoff date are contaminated with mouse cells, and many are becoming unstable."

What the heck are you quacking about up there? Can we just stick to one farking reality here? There were 10 lines that federal funds were allowed to touch, which were either contaminated or unstable. They were supposed to fail.

dasqoot: aelfheld: the Bush administration did not eliminate funding for the research

"Under the former President's stem cell policy, federal funds cannot be used to support research on embryonic stem cell lines derived after August 9, 2001. Fewer stem cell lines meet this criterion than the Bush Administration claimed. The lines that do meet the cutoff date are contaminated with mouse cells, and many are becoming unstable."

What the heck are you quacking about up there? Can we just stick to one farking reality here? There were 10 lines that federal funds were allowed to touch, which were either contaminated or unstable. They were supposed to fail.

Good news a couple weeks back, though, the restrictions were lifted. So as soon as results are found one side of the manufactured "controversy" will be left with their foot in their mouth, and I bet I know which one.

I may be way off but..

If embryonic stem cell research is still legal and has the possibility of yielding positive results why isn't it being funded and pursued by private industry?

Seems to me that if I were a greedy pharma exec. I would wanna make this happen and profit from it.

What always struck me strange about the ant-embryonic stem-cell folks is the argument doesn't make sense... we turn up the heat and kill millions of them on a routine basis... forbidding research on them doesn't "save lives"... it just wastes what's already going in the trash.

This is akin to outlawing donations of spare change instead mandating that it be disposed of by melting it down.