NIH Research Chief: Shut Down Human Embryonic Stem Cell Experiments Immediately

This is so ghey. The government is actually spending our tax dollars wisely for once and some jackass judge shuts it down. He must own some stocks in pharmaceuticals.

Embryonic stem cell research is nothing but a politically correct money hole. This research has not produced the kind of benefits that were promised, and there is very little evidence that it ever will.

The smart money is going adult stem cell research. There are already several clinic trails of treatments that use a patient's own stem cells, and more on the way. This is where the money should be going.

@Cholin -- And money is going to these programs. The point is, we shouldn't be limiting our research to one field as there are many promising opportunities out there involving both embryonic AND adult stem cells. It's the 21st century and we are limiting research/funding to promising science because a certain backwards group in this nation believe cells within petri-dishes contain souls. Dangerous, Sad and absolutely immoral. No wonder this country is becoming a laughing stock to the rest of the developed world.

So to get this straight... We cant exparament on already-dead baby corpses, but its perfectly acceptable to study adults who died, and you can donate your body to science. But the dead baby parts that are just gunna be thrown away anyhow cant be used?

Its not like this is going to lead to baby farming.

I believe this is a matter for seperating religion from state.

hurray! now there is more money for weapons development which never kill babies

religion for the win

Scientific research should not be stopped, no matter the subject, application of that research should be considered and legislated, one cannot know what one piece of research will bring, short term or long term, it may be a "failure" in one section of science but may bring unexpected results in another...

plus we don't gain anything by banning research... big multinational corporations and individuals with enough money can go to countries that the research is not banned (Africa, south & central America and some parts of Asia) to do their research that will benefit the highest bitter... by allowing research at least you have the intel. and knowledge of who is included, and who is funding it for what short term and long term reason...

@Thumper_DS

No this isn't about experimenting on already dead babies, it's about using fetus's and thus human life to be experimented on, and preventing fetus's from being farmed, as it would be a logical outcome of this. And no if they were really "dead baby parts" they wouldn't be viable. A adult person who's died has to give expressed conscious consent to allow experimentation after they die, how does a fetus give consent?

And no it's not a matter of of separating church and state, as that isn't in the constitution as the 1st Amendment states specifically "That Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It was always meant to keep Government out of Religion not the other way around.

Seriously I don't blame you, I blame the obvious shoddy eduction that you received.

@gman -- That's a pretty impressive revision on history and our founder's concept/meaning behind the separation of church and state.

@gman -- I wonder if you've ever read an actual book on the majority of our founder's deistic beliefs ... or just prefer to follow the Glenn Beck narrative?

Just another example of religion holding back science. To bad playing god is a real expression since he doesn't exist.

@Chad_Is_Rad

so these arent humans then? Are they gona be kittens or what?
and they dont have souls? When do they get them? Do you have a soul or do you not believe that "crap". Maybe you should harvest your body parts..

@brad -- In your attempt to smear my post, you've merely highlighted your ignorance within the actual science itself. Stem cell researchers use embryos that were created *but not used* in in vitro fertility treatments to derive new stem cell lines. Most of these embryos are to be destroyed, or stored for long periods of time, long past their viable storage life. In the United States alone, there have been estimates of at least 400,000 such embryos. The flipside to this coin of untapped potential, are cures for many different diseases and the possible end to a lot of human suffering. To argue against this research is immoral on many levels.

"Consider the present debate over research on human embryonic stem cells. The problem with this research, from the religious point of view is simple: it entails the destruction of human embryos. The embryos in question will have been cultures in vitro (not removed from a woman’s body) and permitted to grow for three to five days. At this stage of development, an embryo is called a blastocyst and consists of about 150 cells arranged in a microscopic sphere. Interior to the blastocyst is a small group of about 30 embryonic stem cells. These cells have two properties that make them of such abiding interest to scientists: as stem cells, they can remain in an unspecialized state, reproducing themselves through cell division for long periods of time (a population of such cells living in culture is known as a cell line); stem cells are also pluripotent, which means they have the potential to become any specialized cell in the human body – neurons of the brain and spinal chord, insulin-producing cells of the pancreas, muscle cells of the heart, and so forth.

Here is what we know. We know that much can be learned from research on embryonic stem cells. In particular, such research nay give us further insight into the processes of cell division and cell differentiation. This would almost certainly shed new light on those medical conditions, like cancer and birth defects, that seem to be merely a matter of processes gone awry. We also know that research on embryonic cells requires the destruction of human embryos at the 150-cell stage. There is not the slightest reason to believe, however, that such embryos have the capacity to sense pain, to suffer, or to experience the loss of life in any way at all. What is indisputable is that there are millions of human beings who do have these capacities, and who currently suffer from traumatic injuries to the brain and spinal chord. Millions more suffer from Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases. Millions more suffer from stroke and heart disease, from burns, from diabetes, from rheumatoid arthritis, from Purkinje cell degeneration, from Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and from vision and hearing loss. We know that embryonic stem cells promise to be a renewable source of tissues and organs that might alleviate such suffering in the not to distant future.

Enter faith: we now find ourselves living in a world in which college-educated politicians hurl impediments in the way of such research because they are concerned about the fate of single cells. Their concern is not merely that a collection of 150 cells may suffer its destruction. Rather, they believe that even a human zygote (a fertilized egg) should be accorded all the protections of a fully developed human being. Such a cell, after all, has the potential to become a fully developed human being.. But given our recent advances in the biology of cloning, this much can be said of almost every cell in the human body. By the measure of a cell’s potential, whenever the president scratches his nose he is now engaged in a holocaust of souls.

No rational approach to ethics would have led us to such an impasse. Our present policy on human stem cells has been shaped by beliefs that are divorced from every reasonable intuition we might form about the possible experience of living systems. In neurological terms, we surely visit more suffering upon this earth by killing a fly than by killing a human blastocyst, (flies, after all, have 100,000 cells in their brains alone). Of course, the point at which we fully acquire our humanity, and or capacity to suffer, remains an open question. But anyone who would dogmatically insist that these traits must arise coincident with the moment of conception has nothing to contribute, apart from his ignorance, to this debate. Those opposed to therapeutic stem-cell research on religious grounds constitute the biological and ethical equivalent of a flat-earth society. Our discourse on the subject should reflect this. In this area of public policy alone, the accommodations that we have made to faith will do nothing but enshrine a perfect immensity of human suffering for decades to come."

By the way ... I oppose abortion

hm, it appears that I agree with chad, especially with the addition of the last bit. Seriously though people, please stop dragging religion into this. This is a scientific site and whenever you mention religious concepts such as a soul, you basically forfeit your argument. I'm not saying one or the other is right, I'm just saying keep science and religion separate. Anyway, we need to focus on actually moving forward in the field of medicine. Look at the progress we've made medically in the past CENTURY compared to a mere decade of advancement in computers. The drugs have gotten better (but the best ones have been banned), and electronics are finally taking their place, but for most intents and purposes we're in a medical dark age. Please stop trying to postpone the renaissance.

@chad,

Actually I've been studying American history the past year, and what I quoted was and is from the United States Constitution, as it sounds like you may have been reading someone else's. And no not Glenn Becks books, even though he does appear to have excellent researchers that work for him. I've just read the federalists papers, US. Constitution, George Washington's letters, etc. The source as I always prefer, to understand what was actually taking place at that time.

I highly recommend it, you may learn something...or not.

As some people don't seem realize, it's more about ethics. Science should be governed by ethics, not wanting the latest possible advance. We don't want to end up with atrocities like the Nazi human experimentation that took place during WWII.

@chad,

You don't seem to entertain other people thoughts, as you, like most leftist use ridicule to shutdown any possible discussions. I'm certain your not any type of a scientist as true scientists leave discussion open, no matter if you agree or disagree with your opponent. Sad really, it destroys the very fabric of scientific and rational pursuit that is all about scientific discovery.

@Dustin -- That's the whole problem/point. We can't keep religion out of it. We can't keep religion separate. It's our politicians and policy makers (using their own biased, irrational and archaic views on faith) that are making the decisions regarding our funding, research and progress in regards to science and medicine. That, is the whole point.

@gman45 I noticed you responded to Chad but didn't really retort. Could it be his explanation was so reasonable you couldn't come up with a convincing rebuttal?

If you do respond let me take a guess at what it would sound like: "Blah, blah, blah, God, blah, George W. Bush, blah, you're wrong because you like to kill babies, even though they really aren't babies yet, but that's not the point. Blah"

@gman -- Don't flatter yourself. You're not pursuing a rational discourse based within a scientific debate. You're using biased views and faith-based claims that have no barring in the scientific method. Skepticism and debate *are* things much admired in science, neither of which you happened to be engaged in at the moment however.

As far as your blatant disregard of history and why our founders limited the power of religion within our government, I never said your quote wasn't directly pulled from the constitution. I was merely pointing out that the majority of our founding fathers were in fact *deists* and not theists. Maybe look that word up in your "studies" and see how much they wanted Christianity to play a role in our government. Furthermore, I've read the constitution. If you will good sir, give it a read and please tell me how many times you find the word "god". The simple answer is zero. Funny, that Christians who founded this country as a Christian nation based on Judeo-Christian beliefs makes no mention of said creator within it's founded document?

And finally. What on earth makes you think I'm a leftist? Is that a talking point/rebuttal Glenn Beck instructs his followers to use when they encounter someone in favor of secular principles?

The separation of church and state is to protect the church from the state. It makes sense from a historical perspective from what we were breaking away from and everything happening in the world then.

I can't seem to work up a giving-a-crap about if people are aborting their babies. Heartless probably, but they probably would have turned out just like them so no loss. But, I do see the slippery slope that that can cause. Aborted babies ok to experiment on? Well why not criminals and unwanted medical experimentation, it's for the good of society after all. What about organ harvesting of the ->fill in the eugenics class here<- they only use up resources, it's unsustainable.

People can be light. People can be dark. But most people can be influenced far one direction or the other by what is permissable in society. And some have dark intentions that masquerade as the light. It's hard to tell them apart because they both say words that aim toward the same direction. One means it, the other does not.

@chad_is_rad

I never knew what deist meant, I just looked it up..

A word, that anything tied to the french revolution, age of "enlightenment"-> misnomer, or the reign of terror, should be taken with as much of a grain (boulder) of salt as you would current political machinations.

Religion was the first enemy of this proto-progressive death cult. It still is. How do you convince people away from religion when it was so powerful in their lives? You nudge them away, like a christian holiday on the same day as samhain. Subtly over time replace with another. Deism is as much a progressive artificial creation as napolean or hitler.

Ah, gman45! A year! You've been studying American History for a YEAR?

Have you read the Federalist Papers? (I've never heard of the federalists papers. Could you tell me about them?)

Tell me:

1. What was the purpose of the Federalist Papers?

2. How many authors produced the Federalist Papers, and what were their names?

3. How many times is "God" mentioned in the Federalist Papers and by whom?

What did most Federalists feel about the Bill of Rights? Why did that precipitate the 9th Amendment? Was the 9th before, or after, the 2nd? Something to think about.

Who first spoke of the "separation of Church and State" and when? (Hint: It isn't something new.) Which Amendment did he use as a reference? What opinions has the SCOTUS written with regard to the issue?

Which document, ratified by the US Senate, says, in part, "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion ..."

"The Neocon Handbook of What We Want US History To Have Been " is fun to read when I need a laugh.

After reading the article and many of the comments I think the discussion of religion in response to the article is irrelevant. It was CONGRESS that made the law against using federal funds for embryonic stem cell research that involves the destruction of human embryos. It was the error of both Bush and Obama to start funding for research that congress had already decided against.

"At issue: Whether or not Obama's policy violates a federal ban on federal money contributing to the destruction of embryos." (http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-08/federal-judge-halts-obamas-embryonic-stem-cell-policy-leaving-research-limbo) Yeah, that's right, this is a quote from the Popsci article posted on Aug 24 that reported the origin of the problem. Notice that the issue is not a religion it was a FEDERAL BAN.

Perhaps the decision of those in Congress to prohibit federal funds was motivated or influenced by religious ideals, but they went through the same process as any other law. Those politicians were elected by votes from the American people NOT any religious organization.

Don't get it twisted. You can not blame any religious group for this problem. The lawsuit that was filed only reminded Congress of the decision they had made before Bush and Obama.

The blame for this issue lies completely on the pool of incompetence that is Washington, DC for not realizing this sooner. Some one should have told Bush and Obama, "Hey, you know you can fund this stuff because Congress already said no." Now if you want to blame religion because it was a religious group who pointed out this blunder then that's your prerogative.

Science, Religion, and state government will never be separated so long as people have the right to learn and participated in all these things, so get over it already! The solution is to elect more competent leaders to make laws the allow federal funding for whatever research is desired. Whining about religion will not change the FEDERAL BAN against the research, OK? So drop it already!

It is, indeed, a legislative issue.

But those who say things like "I blame the obvious shoddy eduction that you received..." and then proceed to demonstrate their misunderstanding of historical matters stand to be corrected wherever they are found. Mine was a History lesson for one whose understanding of US History appears to be somewhat sophomoric.

Sorry. I was a sworn protector of the US Constitution for 24 years and, by way of professional development, a student of US History.

My post didn't mention stem cell research.

On rereading the thread, I would say that the discussion revolved less around the religious aspects of the issue than around the disjointed posts of one particular person.

I have the perfect solution:

Lets put all the "Christians" on a continent where they can argue amongst themselves how clever and good patrons they are to their faith while they die horrible deaths in their old age around their 80's on their way to their heaven.

Then the rest of us can go to hell after we live into our 1000's plus years old with the highest quality of life all the way through out until the last day WE DECIDE when to die.

Seriously, I can't believe we are letting cave man views of the world such as "soul" stop science...at the very least this will serve as fodder for future generations to laugh how we continued to shoot ourselves in the foot when we were so close to making discoveries that could significantly increase the quality of the human experience.

@logicalist: I don't think it's just religious ppl who hold the viewpoint that we shouldn't be testing on fetuses. I'm not a Christian, and don't subscribe to any religion but believe there is value in a fetus because technically it's a living thing. One also never understands the true consequences of an action unless it becomes too late. For instance, testing on 1 fetus is fine, but once u get started, it get give rise to a whole host of problems. - Henway of www.colonzone.org

@AznHisoka: I entirely agree a whole new set of problems will arise, and luckily new technologies can and will confront, prevent and aid in regulating the scientific investigation
of using stem cells, but to simply do nothing will only fragment research(and slow discoveries) and create a black market where ANYTHING goes...

So it looks like only the very rich will be able to afford the private labs and private research...

I call banning stem cell research equivalent to discriminating against the old and poor who might like to live a few more years, enjoy their grandchildren a bit more, and obtain a quality of life at that age that is often confounded with a loss of memory and identity.

This seems to be mostly an argument between two institutions. Religion and science. Interesting how these two seem to always be conflicting and ironic in the fact that religion tends to be wrong more often than not. Galileo was virtually crucified for proposing that the earth rotated around the sun, an opposing belief taught by the Catholic church...how'd that work out for religion? Evolution, also controversial between the two institutions...yet I was taught evolution in school and have read many books by prominent authors who agree that evolution is absolute fact...Science 2 Religion 0.

Also I hear nobody strongly debating to incorporate religion into the education system; the opposing voices are strong and unrelenting though. Why? Why does no one argue against leaving religion out of school but are so quick to include religion in science? If religion had it's way there would be no science. God gave humans the capacity to utilize this science. If we don't take advantage of that here in the States, then we'll witness God-like miracles performed by other countries and be at yet another social and financial disadvantage.

Wow. Let's face the cold hard reality of all this. This has nothing to do with religion or your constitution. It has to do with the extremely high profits made by several parties from pharmaceutical sales and disease treatments. If a cure-all drug is discovered I'm sure it will be quickly bought and hushed. The US government has an invested interest in securing the current treatments longevity. The same is to be said for why the US is so severely interested in continuing an oil based infrastructure instead of investing in a viable alternative. Despite the environmental repercussions. Like many governments, they'd rather delay the solution for four years and have the next president address it.
The leading cause for medical halts is the ridiculous hurdles the researchers have to leap in order to get it to testing then to shelves. Let's be honest with ourselves: cancer is profitable. Cancer created a lot of jobs. So the longer someone is in therapy, the more money gets trickled down the pipeline. When crookedness stops being a political requirement then maybe we can see some long awaited advancements.

wow there is probably 200% more to read in this article than the article itself actually has. lol

@gman45: Your comments on this article are a clear example of how Glenn Beck is completely poisoning this country. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, I am begging you to listen to someone else besides Glenn Beck. If you are interested in American History read a REAL history book, not just what Beck tells you to read. And do not fool yourself - you are clearly HEAVILY influenced by Beck. You characterized a challenge to your opinion as a 'leftist attack' by those that received a 'shoddy education'. You even through in a 'slippery-slope Nazi' warning. GMAN45, I can only assume you are a voter, PLEASE for the sake of this country engage yourself in some opposing view points.

@shaunmckinnon - so your saying the government hasn't invested in alternate fuel resources and that they are halting research to make money and keep people sick? Then how come they don't restrict gerontologists trying to cure disease and aging? Seems a little hypocritical if you ask me.

To Chad_is_Rad,

I really appreciate your concern for medical advances, but I must point out some obvious flaws in your argument.

1) You speck of something being "immoral." By what standard have you come to that conclusion? Is it immoral to kill 20 old people to save one healthy teenager?
Is it immoral to kill 400,000 babies to cure one case of cancer? It seems your bases for "moral" resides souly in "usefulness." The "Look at the "good" or "usefulness" that will come from this. How about this, in some countries people only eat one small meal a day. You probably eat 3 big meals a day. If you were killed three people could eat and live better lives. You should die because better would come.

2) You speck of "human suffering." How do you know humans are suffering and why are they suffering?
Does pain equal suffering? Their is an eleven year old girl that literally feels no pain. She has a rare condition that prevents here brain from sensing pain. Does she still suffer? Some see pain as a blessing because it is a warning to the body that something is wrong. But you mean sickness right? Why is thier sickness and death? According to evolution it is a way to balance the universe. We don't want overpopulation do we? We don't want to "rape" the world of its provision. Wouldnt you be in favor of "thinning the herd?"

3) Have you ever studied things like cancer and the like? Did you know that mearly fasting can cure cancer? Doing simple things like excersing and being disciplined in your life can prevent alot of "suffering." Why would people live in excess their whole lives and be surprised that they have physical problems...and then have the nerve to sacrifice humans to cure their pain. If you REALLY cared about "ending human suffering" you would start an excersice club and promote a healthy lifestyle.

@QII,

Please understand I'm Physicist from the UK. History really isn't my specialty.
No I haven't read all 85 Federalist papers. Just about half.
Authors besides Alexander Hamilton (Publius), who did most of the writing, and John Jay and James Madison they tried to get Morris, he turned it down and William Duer (Philo-Publius), but they didn't use his papers, but he did support them.
My question is why to so many of you is the absence of the word "God" in the Constitution or the Federalist papers so significant?
To the framers of the Constitution, the idea of having a government not based on God would have been unthinkable. Remember that when the Constitution was written, the only possible explanation for the existence of the Universe was through a creator. Therefore, all of the delegates at the Philadelphia convention were creationists.
This is the reason the framers did not create a "secular" state in the modern sense of the term. The concept of "secularism" as it is used today didn't even exist in 1787. It is largely a twentieth century concept.

I can go on and on, but as usual I doubt you'll hear me anyway.

What I find so interesting is that the same conservative movement, getting back to our true roots is taking place all over Europe as well as in the U.S.

I think that it's important to remember that just because something is stopped or slowed here in the States doesn't mean that scientific advancement won't happen. This research can and will continue with private funds and in other places besides the US. Thinking that embryonic stem cell research will be halted based on this single decision in our country is nothing but myopic.

While I don't agree with this research for religious reasons I am not foolish enough to think for an instant that it can be stopped. Maybe it will be slowed down in the US, but we have to remember that we aren't the only country with scientist researching this field. As the research continues I'm continually concerned that we are not anywhere near where we should be ethically speaking to deal with the potential that this research will yield.

Now let's stop saying foolish things like send all the religious people to one place while the scientist do their work because many might be surprised at how many scientist would have to be sent away as well.

As I stated before this issue really has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with sloppy half witted legislation.

Event though I have my objections about this sort of research I know the very nature of man will inevitably discover everything there is to know about embryonic stem cells. It will just take time, and taking time can be a good thing. I know that people are dying from this disease and that disease, but this research has yet to cure a disease so there is not need to say that somehow people are going to die needlessly because the US federal government is not allowing funding for this research. Remember the government is not the only source of funding and the US is not the only country researching this field.

Before you hate on religion recognize the source of this problem. It ain't Christians, Muslims, Hindus, or Jews, it's just those boneheads in Washington, DC.

I think it is just horrible that the funding has been cut off. We can't afford to fall behind in this field while the rest of the world marches forward. Especially when we have the best most efficient labs in the world right here in the U.S. The upside of stem cell research is simply limitless. I'll post a video that highlights some of the breakthroughs in stem cell research that have come from one of the U.S. best labs if you want to see the kind of medicine that we are giving up. Hopefully this injunction doesn't last too long.

http://www.ndep.us/Building-Body-Parts

@sanud

Stem Cell research hasn't been cut off, just the use of embryonic stem cells. I really think the issue is moot, after all experimentation with adult stem cells has advanced considerably. Even if they needed to use embryonic stem cell for research they can easily get what they need from left over placental tissue and amniotic fluids, without having to deal with fetus's at all.

Why is everyone on this thread arguing about relgigion and science? No one is going to listen to one another so why argue? I believe we should leave the complications between science and religion out of this. Just talk about the article and don't bring outside issues into this. Personally, I believe that stem-cells used in research don't even have to be embryonic, we can use engineered adult stem cells and avoid the political and ethical ramifications altogether.

@bob5312 EXACTLY! Thank you!

Fact: Embryonic stem cells can differentiate into ANY part of the body, Adult stem cells are more specialized. Its a matter of degrees of freedom under possible genetic designs. It follows Embryonic stem cells would accelerate discoveries and innovations within science...a good thing, right? Of course, this would be good news to those closer to realizing their mortality than others, and to those recovering in the military, and to those recovering in the work force, and to those in recovery from sports accidents, and to those involved in optimizing their health, and to a huge number of yet to be categorized new derivative sciences...

@Dustin

How can you keep 'religion' out of science if God created everything in science?

More like "fear of the unknown" created God. Science is just trying to clear up the myths.

to shaunmckinon,

Actually your statement is incrediablly flawed. You stated that

"fear of the unknown created God." Uhmm..

When we fear the unkown do we create something greater then ourselves? Something greater and far more fearful, powerful, personal, and mysterious then the mere unknown that was before??

Which is easier to cope with, an almighty righteous God, or random chance events that bears no great weight on the way I live my life?

No I think it was "a fear of God" that created secular science. Im sorry but on rational grounds your argument and logic falls.

They need to switch over the cow embryos. They would do the same thing as human embryos and could be made to produce human cells.

Every cow owner that has them, to feed people, can also make money off removing the cow embryos and getting them to the lab to be overridden with human DNA. Once this is done the can be frozen. What would be best is the DNA and equipment is ready at the farm. All the embryos are immediately over ridden then frozen for storage and shipping.

This is every thing that is wanted, plenty of material, at a cheap price, that doesn’t use Human embryos.

The answer here IS cow (or other mammalian) fetuses, but not in the way you mean.

Fetal stem cells have yet to be proven in any test animal.

In normal medical testing, the process is tested and used on animals until it demonstratively works. Mice, sheep, cows, goats, rabbits, monkies, and all other animals that are ready and consistantly bred to die.

With Stem Cells, scientist have been trying to bypass that system because no living adult is at risk (like testing on a skin graft).

The problem is that they have not been ablee to produce results.

Cutting funding to embrionic stem cell research at this time is just good finances. If scientist are so sure that there are miracles to be found, let them get the funding to work with stem cells in other creatures.

When you actually have a treatment ready for the transition to human testing, and the body of science to back it up, then come back for money and permission for human embrionic stem cell testing.

A decade's difference in a pharma company's coffers for patenting a treatment is not worth my hard earned and heavily taxed dollar.

Also, note the difference between a treatment and a cure before touting the social benefits of having said treatment ten years sooner.

@trueperspective

How is his statement flawed? You don't have proof that God exists either. And I know some people would say "well there isn't proof that he didn't not exist". What about rationality? Is that good enough? No, it's not to Christians for some reason. The mere fact that there isn't any proof for his existence is an extremely good indicator against it. I don't understand how completely rational people can accept something just because most people say its true even though it seems extremely ridiculous. What if everyone said I was God? What, you wouldn't believe me just because your mom didn't tell you I was when you were little. If you believe in something, just take a step back and ask yourself - Why?

Shaunmckinon was merely saying that as humans we have to have an explanation for everything and so for the mystery of the universe we created God to have a reason for ourselves.

Exactly. If you look at history you see the countless cultures doing exactly that. The Greeks and Romans with multiple deities to explain the complexity of the sun, storms, oceans, death, ect. We have one god, but to be frank, science kind of obliterated the necessity for the others. I think if more people were to realize that they were responsible for their existence and fortune and take less time to blame or rely on a deity then maybe the human race can make the next logical step into advancement. Religion seems to create a spiritual crutch for us to get through life guilt free. Science at least attempts to explain cause and effect logically.
I'm not a scientists or a leader in faith in anyway. But I will say that common sense seems to say that we are capable of more then just relying on faith to solve problems. We need to understand that Heaven needs to be built here. The bible is a book of common sense and examples of those rules. It's purpose is to scare wrong doers right. I live my life and I educate my children to live their lives by knowing right from wrong and by knowing what is morally acceptable.

@Benjulious
I'll assume you're joking here, so ha ha...

On the off chance that you're not joking, let me explain to you what science is. Science is a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method. The scientific method:
1.Observe
2.Hypothesize
3.Test
4.Draw conclusions
5.Revise hypothesis if necessary
6.Publish theory

Religion and science are not totally mutually exclusive; you can be a religious person and a scientist. However, there should be no intermix between the two fields; we (meaning scientists) have not yet directly or indirectly observed a higher power, therefor for scientific purposes, there is no higher power. Bear in mind of course, that does not mean there is one, it just means that it has not been conclusively tested or observed one way or the other.

popsci boards are not as good an experience as they once were..

@shaunmckinnon "The bible is a book of common sense and examples of those rules. It's purpose is to scare wrong doers right."

The Bible is so much more than that, but if that is the perspective you take when you read it that is all it will ever be to you.

@BassiveMalls "I don't understand how completely rational people can accept something just because most people say its true even though it seems extremely ridiculous."

It's called faith and it is something that every person has and uses almost on a daily basis in varying degrees. The only difference is that Christians and every other religious person simply employs it far more often and to a much higher degree than a non-religious person. I don't see why it's so hard to understand, but that's because I'm a person of faith.

I admit that I don't know all the religious beliefs of those who have been commenting, but it seems to me that a lot people who don't have never given themselves completely over to a religion are making all the comments against it. If you're not a religious person then why do you state your opinion as if it's widely accepted fact?

Obviously my post has nothing to do with the article and I've tried to keep the conversation on task to no avail. However, since I'm a deeply religious person I just had to ask the question.

Maybe the whole thing could be settled by looking at the word "embryo." A biologist might not say a cytoblast is an embryo, thereby exempting the source of stem cells from the law.

By the time the cytoblast becomes an embryo, the cells are specialized, and no longer are stem cells. The cytoblast is a sphere containing a number of identical cells, that when teased away, can become new cytoblasts, and so on. Or if kept separate, become the stem cells they use for experiments, and eventually for treatment.