Stem Cell Research Will Continue While Obama Administration Fights Ban

Chalk another one up to the good guys (at least for now.)

Has anyone ever seen Idiocracy?

Anyone else ever feel like they are stuck in a "Truman Show-esce" subplot of that movie?

As I'm sure you are aware both of these stories on the success of stem cell research were not from embryonic stem cells but from adult stem cells. The ruling did not block adult stem cell research but rather embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells can be taken from living breathing people or even umbilical cord tissue after the birth of a child. Embryonic stem cells are taken from aborted babies.

You are applauding taking away funding from the proven science and giving it to the more problematic and controversial issue. Embryonic stem cell research has yielded no results. Stem cell research is good and shows nothing but potential when the stem cells are not embyonic stem cells.

@Pelican .... Um .... No.

1. Embryonic stem cells are derived from an embryo, but once these cells are derived they can be grown in the lab - theoretically forever. In fact, most embryonic stem cell research has been performed on cells that were originally obtained nearly 15 years ago. So while these cells did indeed come from an embryo at one point, 15 years is pretty far removed and I think a large majority of Americans would agree that there's an important difference here. If the cells were already obtained, we should make the most of them. That's why conservative politicians such as George W. Bush enacted the rules the way he did.

2. An embryo is not the same as a fetus, and vice versa. When embryonic stem cells are indeed derived from an embryo, its from an embryo that is approximately 5 days after fertilization at a stage called the blastocyst. This is literally a hollow "ball" of cells, containing 50-100 total cells. Smaller than the tip of a needle. There's no resemblance to a human, or anything in the animal kingdom for that matter. Embryonic stem cells are so powerful because they are derived at a stage before any cell fate has been decided. They can become any cell type without restrictions. It's also worth mentioning that 5 days post fertilization is before implantation in the uterus. We're talking very early in development here, long before a woman would know she's pregnant. So any stories equating embryonic stem cells with fetuses, or with abortion, are just outright false. Once the embryo develops more and becomes a fetus, you cannot derive embryonic stem cells anymore because they have developed into something else. Also, its worth mentioning that all embryonic stem cells that have been derived from embryos have been done with embryos that were left over from in vitro fertilization clinics and with the consent of the couple.

3. A lot of comment boards on other sites are filled with people claiming that adult stem cells are better and have resulted in cures (such as your comment), so embryonic stem cell research shouldn't be pursued. This is tremendously stretching the truth. Adult stem cells HAVE proven to be useful in some instances, such as bone marrow stem cells or umbilical cord stem cells being used to treat diseases of the blood system. They have not conclusively been shown to help other systems and in fact these studies have been largely discredited.

Diseases/disorders of other systems, such as the nervous system, are reliant on embryonic stem cells because not only are neural stem cells restricted in their number and abilities, would you volunteer to have someone dig around in your brain to find some cells? This post is not meant to say that adult stem cells are not worthwhile. Like any field of study, all options should be explored without exclusion. However, by their very nature in an “adult” tissue, these cells are very restricted in their abilities, and can almost never become cells of another system.

No, Pelican, you are wrong. Embryonic stem cells do not come from "aborted babies". That's your church talking. They come from the leftovers of in vitro fertilization. They make far more zygotes than they need and it's these stem cells that they use. For the stem cells to be any use to science they need to be with the blastocyst stage, which is about 100-150 cells, and that occurs when the zygote is about 5 days old. That doesn't occur when a woman goes to an abortion clinic. It's your uninformed blather that holds back this incredible field and causes problems like the one President Obama is having to sort out right now.

I should have been a little more blunt in my reply, which I've added below.

"So any stories equating embryonic stem cells with fetuses, or with abortion, are just outright lies." And, people who attempt to spread such deliberate misinformation regarding one of our most promising scientific avenues should be ashamed of themselves.

That is all...

One other issue with embryonic stem cell's is the factor that they come from a foreign "downer" which, when the cells differentiate into adult cells, is known to be rejected from the host.

a quote;
" It is true that embryonic stem cells are not rejected, but saying that there is a lack of rejection is shrewdly deceptive. The cells must mature into a particular type of cell to be functional in therapy. The immune system recognizes cells that have matured as foreign objects and they are then rejected. Thus, some scientists argue this dilemma as a reason for human cloning so the rejection of embryonic stem cells can be avoided, but cloning carries its own set of problems and moral dilemmas."

found at www [dot]cellmedicine[dot]com/news33.asp

@pelican

i can't believe the amount of uninformed statements you make.

so now aborted babies are used for stem cell research huh?

no point wasting my time explaining to you how ignorant you are.

So if all that is true, I bet cells from real aborted fetuses would be even better then regular embryonic stem cells. We should just use aborted fetuses,
reduce reuse recycle,
This is all very sad...
And yes I do believe Idiocracy has arrived.

Anyone who has to attack/degrade someone with remarks as, "no point wasting my time explaining to you how ignorant you are"
and "It's your uninformed blather that holds back" as well as "people who attempt to spread such deliberate misinformation regarding one of our most promising scientific avenues should be ashamed of themselves" are obvious crack pots and trying to cajole you into agreeing with them instead of really making an intelligent argument. The Nazis of WWII era were known to do the exact same thing.
I leave that to the reader to infer anything.

gman -- That's very-well of you to establish such an opinion. The only problem is, while you wish to take the civil route within the dumbing-down of our national sciences ... the rest of us would like to push for progress.

By the way, I find it incredibly humorous when someone criticizing "crackpots" feels the need to inject Hitler and the Nazi's into the discussion (so, thank you for that.)

No, no ... I can perfectly see it now (how your education system would work.) We should teach the "controversy" in everything. OK class, now that we've had our astronomy lesson, pull out your astrology books. Then, after chemistry, we can dive into the fun world of alchemy! Then, after that boring evolution stuff ... I'm going to tell you how god ripped Adam's rib out!

@Chad - haha, nice...

@Gman45:

I agree with most of what you said except in regards to the follow "people who attempt to spread such deliberate misinformation regarding one of our most promising scientific avenues should be ashamed of themselves"

It is certainly true that many, hell most, statements in debates such as this are blatantly insulting and avoid the truths of the subject. However there comes a point were a well stated perspective can point out the absurdity of misinformation. He has not attacked any specific person in this statement only challenges people to know the facts behind their words. Anyone who deliberately spreads misinformation should be ashamed of themselves no matter what the topic is. The emphasis is on the deliberate, if the reason for your belief in your words are sound than there is no intent and this does not apply. If however you do not have any reason why you believe that where does the certainty come from?

All propaganda aside I find the logic: "We don't know if it is legal, so we are going to allow it until we determine if it is" slightly disturbing. That's the point of injunction in any court - to stop any activity until determined otherwise, which the first judge rightly applied. Now liberal activism at the bench turned the court into a travesty of the legal system. As long as we can find a sympathetic to our cause judge - anything goes!

We all know that "liberal activism at the bench" just means "the ruling of a judge who I disagree with"

@Capt_Tight_Pants

You do realize that anything that isn't legislated specifically against in this country is legal until a law is made banning it? If murder weren't illegal based on codified laws, it would be legal, until someone brought up a claim to its legality. And you are exactly right, that is the point of an injunction, and the only reason it can be used is because of the point I just made.

It's also ironic that you can claim "all propaganda aside" and then use the words like "liberal activism at the bench"

Capt .... yawn, .... sigh....

I hear Beck throws an awesome rally?!

I agree with Gman, in that the last part of my comment was meant to be blunt and harsh. But it wasn't in an attempt to appease my Nazi overlords, it was in an attempt to anger the target in hopes that he would delve more into the situation to attempt to prove my statements wrong, only to find that he was, in fact, quite wrong in his initial assertion. I have no qualms with being brash in regards to someone stating false facts. I find it funny that you comment on our offensive stance against the misinformation, but ignore the fact that the attack was prompted by a gross and obvious lie on the part of Pelican.

I swear I'm going to try that trick. When I have no idea what to reply to someone in personal life I'm going to pick out a media personality or news network. And with a high pitched strident voice I'll say you just watch ________.

I know I'll win the argument then. Because what can you say rationally to something like that. Nothing, that's what. I win be default. neener neener, <- another argument winner for sure.