This is not my field of study and I am not on top of what is being followed up by whom. My point is simply that many of those against hESC research give a misleading picture. There are advancements, and though there haven't been floods of cures, there hasn't been nearly enough done to claim the research path is not succeeding.
BTW, that citation link was cool - I did not realize you could embed EndNote links.
:-)
> My point is simply that many of those against hESC research give a misleading picture. There are advancements, and though there haven’t been floods of cures, there hasn’t been nearly enough done to claim the research path is not succeeding.
I would say that the ESC field has brought this problem onto themselves - too much hype, too many promises mostly unconnected to reality.
Long term, even if science manages to catch up to the hype, it is extremely unlikely that ESC will ever become a viable therapy. The problem is economics. ESCs require human oocytes, probably many human oocytes (no one knows how many because the procedure is not working yet). If the patient happens to be a reproductive-aged female, she will be able to contribute her own oocytes. Every one else will rely on donations.
On the other hand iPS have the same potential as ESCs without any moral issues and without the problem of oocyte donation.
ESC is interesting scientific research and when it’s done on animals it does not have to include any moral issues. The work on ESCs generated a lot of useful knowledge that can now be applied to iPS. Ultimately, however, it is iPS and not ESC that will become medically viable.