Stem cell debate to be reopened

The Times ^ | June 9, 2004 | Roland Watson

[MadIvan]

RONALD REAGAN’S decade-long battle with Alzheimer’s disease could help to persuade President Bush to change his mind about stem cell research, senators from both parties hope.

Fifty-eight senators, including 14 Republicans, have written to Mr Bush suggesting that he is standing in the way of a potential cure by limiting stem cell research.

Nancy Reagan, the former First Lady, is expected to take a more public role backing research after she has bid farewell to her husband of 52 years on Friday.

Mr Bush set strict limits for stem cell research in 2001. Under pressure from the Religious Right he confined the use of federal money to existing research to discourage the production of human embryos purely for scientific research.

Stem cells are typically taken from human embryos and grown in a laboratory. They can multiply into almost any type of tissue when transplanted into the body. But because the embryos are destroyed when the cells are extracted, the process is opposed by some conservatives, who link it to abortion. Scientists say that the cells hold the key to discovering treatments for degenerative neurological disorders, including Alzheimer’s and Parkinson ’s disease.

White House officials played down the chances that Mr Bush will change his mind. But Republican supporters are hopeful that, as more becomes known of Mr Reagan’s final years, the suffering of an American icon will change the debate.

Mrs Reagan fiercely protected her husband from the spotlight for the last decade of his life. But she surprised many last month by saying that Alzheimer’s “has taken him to a distant place where I can no longer reach him. I just don’t see how we can turn our backs on this.”

Orrin Hatch, Republican senator from Utah and a supporter of extended research, said: “Maybe one of the small blessings that will come from [Mr Reagan’s] passing will be a greater opportunity for Nancy to work on this issue. I believe that it’s going to be pretty tough for anybody not to have empathy for her feelings.”

[Cold Heat]

I would have posted something on that earlier, but yes it is quite true. The brain diseases will likely be the last ones that will see a cure if ever.

That is why I posted to the person who insinuated why bother if it does not work.

But the fact is that there are many other ailments and injuries that have potential cures with research.

Embryonic stems are but one avenue that is being looked at, but the research is in it's infancy and they are not going to give it up any time soon. It is because those stem cells carry the information for the entire road map of cellular generation and design. Stems from the other sources have less and less chemical imprints and therefore less road map to deal with (less complicated) and that is why they are the first to bear results.

I have much writing to do this weekend, the funeral has had my attention and I must get to the several thousand words that I am behind.

Later..........................

[syriacus]

that is why they are the first to bear results.

What results have been obtained from embryonic stem cell research?

[Cold Heat]

You must be reading deficient. I did not say that or half the other stuff you have spouting.

English is my first language, do you need latin?

[syriacus]

You must be reading deficient

I admit I misread what you wrote.

Your turn....

[Cold Heat]

Stems from the other sources have less and less chemical imprints and therefore less road map to deal with (less complicated) and that is why they are the first to bear results.

The above is the sentence you chopped up and did not read. You missed 21 words.

now that is what I call skimming, not speed reading.

[Cold Heat]

OOPS! You posted before I posted my last.

As I tried to convey, the umbilical, and adult stems are so much less complicated and have already differentiated.

That is why there are no results with embryonic work.

They have very much to learn and even then, the brain is a tough nut to crack.

We are talking generations here, not months or years.

[Cold Heat]

Also, if you read back through my posts, I indicated my belief that stem cell research is not on my worry list. There are many other ethical problems on the horizon that are much more dangerous.

I think we will come up with a computer to do the work of a brain before we can repair a brain, but spinal injuries and nerve diseases of other parts of the body have potential to be cured now.(or in the foreseeable future).

ESC's may play a role in that, but I cannot say. Not enough has yet been done with them. They are way short of understanding the intricacies of them. They also have enough to work with for now.

[syriacus]

now that is what I call skimming, not speed reading.

True, I jumped to the conclusion that you were continuing to defend embryonic stem cell destruction.

Then again, you did write:

What it [this thread] concerns is the limited issue of embryonic research and how it can be done ethically, or if it can be done ethically at all.

[syriacus]

As I tried to convey, the umbilical, and adult stems are so much less complicated and have already differentiated.

True. And it looks like part of the problem with ESCR is that cells differentiate at a much earlier stage than scientists hoped.

Your destiny, from day one { Embryos differentiate early, aren't blobs}

Our body plan is being defined in the first few hours of life.

Your world was shaped in the first 24 hours after conception. Where your head and feet would sprout, and which side would form your back and which your belly, were being defined in the minutes and hours after sperm and egg united.

Just five years ago, this statement would have been heresy. Mammalian embryos were thought to spend their first few days as a featureless orb of cells. Only later, at about the time of implantation into the wall of the uterus, were cells thought to acquire distinct 'fates' determining their positions in the future body.

This article is from Nature.

[Cold Heat]

I have pretty much come to the conclusion that at present, they do not need more lines for study.

I also said and believe strongly that they should not create embryo's for this specific purpose.

I was open to argue the ethics of using cast off embryo's destined for destruction if they need for lines for study.

There are many points that one can argue in favor of this, some of which we did not get into on this thread, but I did not bring them up because the argument was not developing to use them.

They involve purpose and God, and I did not think it prudent. I started to bring this into the debate by discussing compromise and the greater good, but some cannot discuss that line of thinking without misunderstanding the conversation, and going off the page with angry rhetoric.

Ethics is a difficult subject. It is not black or white by design.

I have to get some rest. Much to do tomorrow.

G'nite

[syriacus]

Ethics is a difficult subject. It is not black or white by design

I know.

1) Current limits on scientific knowledge and
2) differences in interpretation of findings
are just two of the fuels that fire ethical discussions about medical research.

There are big grey areas.

But, even with those large grey areas, ethical consensuses do not result from throwing equal parts of all points of view into a big pot.

Sometimes forbidden actions should remain forbidden.