I'm not at all happy about the embryonic angle, either, thus far. I'm still listening, and hoping for Frist to clarify, and seeing if he's really going to try to make this a much better bill than the House's, and have it something that just is like a mid-course correction to the President's excellent (in my mind) policy.
I am troubled, as a scientist, that there turned out to be only 22 viable lines, and that we now know they are deteriorating. I am troubled by these created cells/ blastocysts/(babies?) that will just be destroyed by their parents (who I can understand may not want them "adopted" by others). [Perhaps they should not have been 'created' in the first place.]
To me, now that I've mulled this over just a bit, Frist's strongest argument is the "it seems adult stem cells may be able to be rejuvinated, but we need to have GOOD embryonic stem cells to find out if they're REALLY rejuvinated", and that in my mind is a clearly desirable line of research. He certainly knows much more about this subject than I will ever have the background to comprehend, but the need for a good "control" sample/ specimen is CLEAR to ANY scientist, and it should be clear to a layman.
I'm in total agreement that human embryos must not be commodity. It seems Frist desires that, too, and he states that the House bill will not prevent that.
I'm so up in the air about this...
Don't you think it's unusual that these guys pushing for federal funding for embryonic stem cell research don't have any animal models for anything except where a line of genetically IDENTICAL animals has been bred?
What about the stem cells in the placenta and the newborns cord?
A friend whose son after getting his PHD in gene splitting from Harvard and is now making over $250 K per year after two years said those sources were all all that he needed. His wife with the same background and employed by another company said the same.
I don't know if you saw the press conference on cspan last night with Republican House members re: this subject...
There are quite a few doctors in the House (no pun intended), and they were NOT on Frist's side on this.
One of the doctor reps. is Michael Burgess who is an ob/gyn from here in north Texas...
He explained that when Bush made the call on the first bill back in 2001, about just using the 77 lines available, which Frist NOW says is down to 22...Frist also says that the 22 aren't good because of the use of mouse cells or something...
Well, according to Dr. Burgess, the scientists involved his, were concerned about the use of the mice cells, and they didn't want to waste all lines if it proved to be a problem, which is what Frist is saying NOW...
Burgess, said that since the scientists were worried about this, the held back 31 lines that are just frozen and not been used yet....so he said really there are 53 lines then.. and that since NOTHING good had happened yet, with the ESC, this was plenty of lines to use unles/until they find that these ESC are worthy for further FUNDING>...
Does that help you at all with your dilemma?