Thanks for including me on your ping. I shot from the hip earlier, and will need to mull this over as well, but I cannot accept the notion of considering human embryoes as some commodity for research purposes. I'm all for pushing stem cell research -- using adult stem cells, cord blood stem cells, and placenta stem cells, and so forth. I have yet to see compelling evidence that embryonic stem cell research has the "promise" that its proponents claim; to the contrary, what I've read of embryonic stem cell research, it's pretty unpromising.
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...