A sad day for science

[sgreger1]

Well, looks like last week the courts struck down the one good thing Obama has done since he's been in: federal funding of stem-cell research.


http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...013042,00.html



I can't stress enough how important and revolutionary this regenitive technology is going to be for us in the future. And progress is being made so fast, people who are in their 20's-30's today may get a very real return on investment by the time they get old. The ability to regrow cells is so absolutely essential to the entire medical field I cannot believe that anyone is against this.



Where do you stand on the stem-cell debate, particularly on the use of embryonic stem cells?

Side 1 believes: 5 day old embryos are people, and even if aborted they should not be used for science. Some believe this may lead to people getting more abortions on purpose in order to nake more embryonic stem-cells available.

Side 2 believes: That re-growing organs and solving some of the worlds worst diseases is priority #1. We are not killing children or forcing abortions, rather using embryos that would otherwise go in the trash to cure potentially hundreds of millions of people from life threatening diseases. Soldiers who lose limbs in combat could regrow them and people with heart, liver,or kidney problems could get have new organs grown for them that can then be transplanted.


What do you think?

[tom502]

Do they pay women to give up their fetoes, however it's spelled?
If so, welfare moms might jump on this.

Hmm, what Hitler do?

[c.nash]

Can't they get all the stem cells out of the embilical cords now and still do the research without ****ing with featuses?

[RobsanX]

But Pat Robertson told us stem cells are the devil, so I'm against them...

[Big L]

I can sympathize with #1, and I don't encourage abortion, but on the other hand people are not going to stop having abortions anytime soon. Why let it go to waste, the fetuses are already dead. I don't think people will start having abortions just to give their embryos to science, I mean having an abortion isn't a casual procedure. I support #2, there could be some very important scientific breakthroughs.

[tom502]

[sgreger1]

Do they pay women to give up their fetoes, however it's spelled?
If so, welfare moms might jump on this.

Hmm, what Hitler do?

No, it is illegal to offer any kind of compensation. It's the same thing as opting to have your organs donated if you die for some reason. No profit, no anything, just using something that would be thrown in the trash towards helping other people.

[sgreger1]

Can't they get all the stem cells out of the embilical cords now and still do the research without ****ing with featuses?

No, there are different types of stem cells, embryonic are the most potent and can be used for a wider range of treatments. Adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells, and the umbilical cord type (i forget their name ), all play a big part of this. Without embryonic stem cells, waaaaaaaaaaaaaay less can be accomplished, since they are the most important ingredient. For example, the ones from umbilical cord blood can only cure a small range of diseases.


There is no alternative to embryonic stem cells right now. If we allow funding, at some point in the future they will find a way to better utilize other stem cells or even manufacture them.

[PipenSnus]

I'm all for stem cell research, particularly when there are lines of cells currently sitting in freezers waiting to be used. Those cells can serve no other purpose but research now -- if not used before their shelf life expires, they're medical waste. And stem cell research can save lives. A lot of lives.

There is great hope that we may be able to find other sources besides embryos for stem cells, but only if research is allowed to continue. No woman has an abortion in order to increase the number of stem cells. That's just ludicrous. To say stem cell research promotes abortion is simply ignorant. Health care policy, and all other political decisions, for that matter, need to be decided on the basis of reason, not ideology.

[truthwolf1]

We need to move forward but big pharma also needs to profit from moving forward.

[sgreger1]

I'm all for stem cell research, particularly when there are lines of cells currently sitting in freezers waiting to be used. Those cells can serve no other purpose but research now -- if not used before their shelf life expires, they're medical waste. And stem cell research can save lives. A lot of lives.

There is great hope that we may be able to find other sources besides embryos for stem cells, but only if research is allowed to continue. No woman has an abortion in order to increase the number of stem cells. That's just ludicrous. To say stem cell research promotes abortion is simply ignorant. Health care policy, and all other political decisions, for that matter, need to be decided on the basis of reason, not ideology.

Exactly!

This is like back in the day when the indians would't let you take their picture because they believed it would steal their soul. If we had allowed people to halt any progress in science because of "what if's", we would not have any of the facilities we have today, there would be no Large Hedron collider, there would never have been a man on the moon, and there would be no delicious morphine when you go to the Dr.

The implications of stem cell technology are HUGE. This is like inventing electricity but for the medical field. GROWING ****ING BODY PARTS WHEN YOURS BREAK. This would be the largest leap in all of human history if we could regrow a new heart to replace the one you damaged from drinking like a fish your whole life.

There is a whole host of issues to deal with, such as "when people live longer, more resources are consumed", but that is a different debate. The point is that this is something big and we need to be investing in it.


To quote Peter Griffin from Family Guy:

Peter: "How long was I in there"
Louis: "5 minutes"
Peter: "WHY AREN'T WE FUNDING THIS??"

[Simplysnus]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Em...214/story.html

[sgreger1]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Em...214/story.html

This link explains why embryonic stem cells are so important very well:


As a reminder, embryonic stem cells (ESCs) come from days-old embryos and the embryo must be destroyed to extract them. But they are pluripotent -- they have the potential to turn into any one of the body's approximately 200 kinds of mature cell types. They could be blood, bone, brain or heart cells.

Consequently, those in favour of ESC research live in the hope that one day these cells will regenerate organs, heal spinal cord injuries and reverse progressive diseases like Alzheimer's.

In contrast, adult stem cells are mature cells that typically come from the bone marrow or the blood. But they only have the potential to turn into the cells from their tissue of origin.

[Simplysnus]

This link explains why embryonic stem cells are so important very well:


As a reminder, embryonic stem cells (ESCs) come from days-old embryos and the embryo must be destroyed to extract them. But they are pluripotent -- they have the potential to turn into any one of the body's approximately 200 kinds of mature cell types. They could be blood, bone, brain or heart cells.

Consequently, those in favour of ESC research live in the hope that one day these cells will regenerate organs, heal spinal cord injuries and reverse progressive diseases like Alzheimer's.

In contrast, adult stem cells are mature cells that typically come from the bone marrow or the blood. But they only have the potential to turn into the cells from their tissue of origin.

Why did you not paste the part discounting your alarmist reaction too???

[sgreger1]

Why did you not paste the part discounting your alarmist reaction too???

Im sorry, perhaps i missed it. In what way was my "alarmist reaction" countered by your article? I didnt read the end of it.


Either way, it doesnt matter, this anti-stem cell thing is like fighting against the use of penecilin or of sterylizing hospital equipment after each use. The implications of stem cell research are too large to not have an "alarmist reaction" when i hear its being blocked, yet again. Of all the shit we waste money on, the one thing we wont spend for is to help research something that could save our civilians, and give our military a leading edge.


No one bats an eye when they hear we are 13 trillion in debt, yet if americans finds out that somewhere a poor person is getting a free lunch or that evil science is at it again, everyone goes into a panic about how we must stop this immediately.




The ruling was legit because the question was did it violate this 90's law, which it clearly did. My question is why we are not repealing said law so we can move forward into the future.