# More reasons to fund stem cell research



## JadecloudAlchemist (Mar 11, 2009)

http://gmy.news.yahoo.com/v/12422885

A good example of Stem cell and Acupuncture.


----------



## seasoned (Mar 11, 2009)

Stem cell research sounds very promising, provided it is monitored, and not abused.


----------



## crushing (Mar 11, 2009)

Stories like that and a great hope are the reasons that the funding of stem cell research has grown so dramatically over the last decade.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 11, 2009)

I don't have a problem with stem-cell research and development. It is probably one of the things that will help make medical science take great leaps forward. 
But I do think they need to find a better way to get stem-cells.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 11, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> .
> But I do think they need to find a better way to get stem-cells.


 
And they probably will, but in the meantime, this touches on something that I've always wondered about in the past policy-why is it not okay to use embryonic stem cells for research, but somehow already okay to dispose of embryos as waste? And I'm not referring to embryos from abortions, but those that have been stored for implantation and are no longer needed.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 11, 2009)

adult stem cells, the ones already allowed, have a lot of promise.

no one, anywhere, has achieved anything with fetal stem cells. They dont work. Stem cell research is just a smoke screen by the pro abortion folks.


----------



## cdunn (Mar 11, 2009)

How can you tell? Researchers have put their efforts where they are permitted to work. 

If you want to do research on some things with federal funding, and some things where federal funding is explicitly forbidden, you functionally required to keep two seperate facilities, with two seperate staffs. The entry barrier is functionally impassable.


----------



## Grenadier (Mar 11, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> adult stem cells, the ones already allowed, have a lot of promise.


 
These projects have come a long way, since such cells are hearty enough to survive without severe modifications.  



> no one, anywhere, has achieved anything with fetal stem cells. They dont work. Stem cell research is just a smoke screen by the pro abortion folks.


 
Human embryonic stem cells are extremely fragile, and so far, as TF has pointed out, nobody has overcome this limitation while still keeping these cells usable.  The only way such cells have been produced en masse, is by fusing them with mouse cells, rendering them unusable for human use.  

The only one who even dared claim that he overcame such barriers, was Hwang Woo Suk, now the laughingstock of the world's research community, a soiled embezzler, and a national disgrace for the Republic of Korea.  

Despite the lack of US government funding, regarding embryonic human stem cells, such research still had a lot of private funding to support it, and they still haven't come up with a way to stabilize such cells in a usable fashion, and neither has the rest of the world.  

On a side note, it is interesting to see, that people critical of the previous administration, failed to point out that adult stem cell research projects were well-funded, and were never opposed by the Bush Administration, or any of the GOP.  In fact, George W. Bush gave a strong endorsement for the funding of such projects.


----------



## crushing (Mar 11, 2009)

Grenadier said:


> On a side note, it is interesting to see, that people critical of the previous administration, failed to point out that adult stem cell research projects were well-funded, and were never opposed by the Bush Administration, or any of the GOP. In fact, George W. Bush gave a strong endorsement for the funding of such projects.


 
Are you sure? (that was rhetorical)  Because most MSM headlines make it appear the funding restriction was an outright stem cell ban that prevented any stem cell research.

Some headlines taken from a google news search:

Researchers react to lifting of stem cell research ban
What The Stem Cell Ban Means To One Scientist
Individual States Ready to Revoke The Stem Cell Ban Reversal? 
MIT professors embrace stem cell bans end 
Langevin will be there when Obama lifts stem cell ban 
Stem Cell Ban Lift Renews Hope for Disease-Ridden


----------



## Flea (Mar 11, 2009)

> Stem cell research is just a smoke screen by the pro abortion folks.




Interesting.  I'm confused about it from the other end - what could be more pro-life than finding cures for intractable diseases?  I'm not asking to pick a fight, it's a sincere question.


----------



## cdunn (Mar 11, 2009)

Flea said:


> Interesting. I'm confused about it from the other end - what could be more pro-life than finding cures for intractable diseases? I'm not asking to pick a fight, it's a sincere question.


 
Embryonic stem cells, perforce, come from a human embryo - created en masse for a fertility treatment. Typically, these are frozen, and then implanted 2-3 at a time until 1-2 takes hold. 

You then have a problem of leftovers. The next couple doesn't want them in the grand majority of cases. So, what do you do with them? Do you throw them out in the trash? Do you hold on to them in the freezer until they are no longer implantable, before throwing them out on the forlorn hope someone that's had the entire procedure bomb on them tries with them? They are potential human life - a potential that will never be realized, an honest ethical dilemma, a form of the old save the one, or save the many hypotheticals.

Meanwhile, fundamentally, the abortion question is rather similar, hinging on the answer to the question of whose rights superceed whose - the unborn's right to life against the mother's right to self determination. There is a concern that should one question be answered in one way, the other must fall in line, regardless of the differentiation between them.


----------



## Nolerama (Mar 11, 2009)

cdunn said:


> Embryonic stem cells, perforce, come from a human embryo - created en masse for a fertility treatment. Typically, these are frozen, and then implanted 2-3 at a time until 1-2 takes hold.
> 
> You then have a problem of leftovers. The next couple doesn't want them in the grand majority of cases. So, what do you do with them? Do you throw them out in the trash? Do you hold on to them in the freezer until they are no longer implantable, before throwing them out on the forlorn hope someone that's had the entire procedure bomb on them tries with them? They are potential human life - a potential that will never be realized, an honest ethical dilemma, a form of the old save the one, or save the many hypotheticals.
> 
> Meanwhile, fundamentally, the abortion question is rather similar, hinging on the answer to the question of whose rights superceed whose - the unborn's right to life against the mother's right to self determination. There is a concern that should one question be answered in one way, the other must fall in line, regardless of the differentiation between them.



To me, the whole stem cell/abortion association thing is a clear-cut example that our legislation is not very effective when it comes to moral gray areas; areas where certain situations are defined differently by different people.

Fundamental questions like "what's your definition of life?" come into play.

I think stem cell research should be fully funded, researched, and implemented within the medical community. History has shown that medical research isn't always for the queasy or the morally-inclined; but great strides can come from it.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 11, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> no one, anywhere, has achieved anything with fetal stem cells. They dont work.



Don't work because they don't work, or don't work because we haven't figured out yet how to make them work?

Empirical research is always the answer.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 11, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Don't work because they don't work, or don't work because we haven't figured out yet how to make them work?
> 
> Empirical research is always the answer.


 
Ask a scientist.....:lol:


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 11, 2009)

the REST OF THE ENTIRE WORLD has been able to work with fetal stem cells

they have produced NOTHING

Bush supported ADULT stem cell research, and it has achieved a LOT

the press makes it SOUND like Bush blocked ALL stem cell research, which is an outright LIE

why waste money looking into fetal stem cells, which DONT WORK when you can look into adult stem cells, which DO and do not require the destruction of any embryos?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 11, 2009)

I agree with Twin Fist that the embryonic stem cell controversy has been severely manipulated by the press.

President Bush banned federal funding - not research.  Several states voted to fund it anyway.  Other nations have also funded it.  

If you read headlines, it does appear that the press reports that President Obama changed President Bush's policy forbidding stem cell research, but there was never any such ban.  President Bush even permitted the ongoing use of the few embryonic stem cell lines that had already been created, but many scientists complained that the number was insufficient and had been accidentally contaminated.

To date, nothing has come of embryonic stem cell research.  That is not to say nothing ever will - but that just that nothing has so far.

TF is also correct that there have been treatments and cures found for diseases using adult stem and cord blood cells.

In addition, scientists have since discovered a number of ways to manipulate adult stem cells to become embryonic cells again.  Some scientists say that more work is necessary for this to be useful, but it has been done.

So I agree with TF that there is probably another agenda at work here.  When Michigan recently had a plebescite on embryonic stem cell research, I was approached a number of times by volunteers seeking my signature to put it on the ballot.  When I refused, I was verbally abused and accused of 'wanting people to die'.

I'm not sure I'm against embryonic stem cell research, but it is against my religion (sometimes I go along with my religion and sometimes I don't).  I am somewhat suspicious of the motives of those who have pushed this so hard.  I don't know what it is they want.

However, apparently the majority of people in the US are in favor of allowing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 11, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> why waste money looking into fetal stem cells, which DONT WORK when you can look into adult stem cells, which DO and do not require the destruction of any embryos?



1) totipotency
2) no proliferation limit
3) no immune reaction

Why does it not shock me in the slightest that you haven't reviewed the relevant literature before spouting off?  Here is a review discussing ES cell derived endothelial cell therapy for vascular disease.  Here is a review discussing the same thing for heart disease.  There have also been a variety of promising results in experimental models, which other reviews discuss.  You can use that website to search on your own if you like.

Furthermore, ES cells are an important topic of research all on their own, apart from therapeutic purposes.  They provide important insights into early cellular development, transcriptional control patterns, differentiation, and far more.

No one is saying that adult stem cells shouldn't be used.  However, for some purposes, they will be unsuitable.  Don't halt science and medicine for the sake of clumps of cells which haven't even reached the blastula stage, and which will die anyway.

Seriously, this is what is being destroyed.  Does it look like a person to you?


----------



## crushing (Mar 11, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Seriously, this is what is being destroyed.  Does it look like a person to you?



Looks can be deceiving.  My eyes aren't trained, so that might be a dog or mouse rather than a person and I wouldn't know it.  A DNA test would tell us more than looking at it.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 11, 2009)

Empty hands

THEY DONT WORK

adult stem cells DO

what part of that do you not get?


----------



## cdunn (Mar 11, 2009)

Bill, the problem that the researchers have is this: The underlying science is interconnected. Without the basic research, which typically comes out of academia, we are dealt massive setbacks in the ability to push forward towards the ultimate goal - the _in situ_ cloning of your own, or otherwise immune-compatible flesh as necessary. 

I went poking through Google scholar. Well... Take a look for yourself at how the research propagates. That one simple paper was used to build the foundation for eighty four other projects, some of which further extend our knowledge, some of which lead to direct attempts to make treatments. Many of those other extensions will further lead to direct attempts to make treatments. We will learn, and we will do it most quickly and most effectively if we are not hogtied. 

This is the essence of the 'agenda'. Many people are confused about the issue, and do not understand the underlying way that the knowledge learned by scientists works together. But, they do understand that there is tremendous promise in the science, and they want it realized as soon as possible. They want themselves and their family and friends relieved of suffering. 

As I mentioned above, there is a real ethical question at the root of the debate. At some point, society will have to come to a consensus of what is allowed in the arena, what is disallowed, and much more importantly, why, so that we can apply those ethics. 

As a personal opinion, I believe that the research should move forwards. The benefit to society far outweighs the "lives" of unfeeling, unknowing lumps of cells, already ordained to death.

(Cross posted with EH. Thank you, sir.)


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 11, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Empty hands
> 
> THEY DONT WORK
> 
> ...


 
John, with the greatest of respect it might help to try leaving emotional reactions aside.  After all, who do you think is more likely to have the clearer knowledge of the realities of the situation with regard to this matter?

Arguing with a qualified practitioner in a field when the one doing the disagreeing is not so qualified is not showing due honour to the knowledge that has been hard won.

When things are a matter of opinion, then the layman can have an equivalent platform to a professional.  When the points under discourse are matters of professional or scientific 'fact', for want of a better word, then surely it is better to take on board what the qualified person says, perhaps noting it for later avenues of personal study?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 11, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> 1) totipotency
> 2) no proliferation limit
> 3) no immune reaction



http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13603 (immune reaction problems)



> Why does it not shock me in the slightest that you haven't reviewed the relevant literature before spouting off?  Here is a review discussing ES cell derived endothelial cell therapy for vascular disease.  Here is a review discussing the same thing for heart disease.  There have also been a variety of promising results in experimental models, which other reviews discuss.  You can use that website to search on your own if you like.



I read your links.  They all make it clear that there is potential for treatments derived from embryonic stem cells, but also discusses significant problems - and as TF stated - there is no treatment yet. 



> Furthermore, ES cells are an important topic of research all on their own, apart from therapeutic purposes.  They provide important insights into early cellular development, transcriptional control patterns, differentiation, and far more.



I'm sure you are right about that.



> No one is saying that adult stem cells shouldn't be used.  However, for some purposes, they will be unsuitable.  Don't halt science and medicine for the sake of clumps of cells which haven't even reached the blastula stage, and which will die anyway.



That is indeed the crust of the biscuit and that's where I still get stuck.



> Seriously, this is what is being destroyed.  Does it look like a person to you?



I frankly think that's insulting and unlikely to win any converts to your point of view.  If I were to take the view that a human embryo is indeed 'human life' and therefore to be protected, I would not really appreciate being told that it was worthless because it didn't 'look human' yet.

I have the same objection, by the way, to the pro-lifers who parade huge signs with photos of aborted foetuses up and down the street.  Unlikely to win any converts, in my humble opinion.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 12, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Empty hands
> 
> THEY DONT WORK
> 
> ...


 
Thats like saying that '69 GTO in my neighbors driveway should be ignored cuz his 98 Hyundai runs, and it doesnt.

One just needs more work. The GTO is by far better, IF HE SPENDS THE TIME AND MONEY to get it to work. 

The theory is the same for the Stem Cells. 

Hell, TF, by your logic we shouldnt have anything... at one time computers didnt work, or Internal Combustion Engines, or Guns, or watches, or chemical adhesives... only thru continued experimentation, trial and error, and eventual total success or failure can we really know.

The argument that "the rest of the world tried and failed" is weak at best, since a) The time period durring which said research was carried out has been short, in relative terms, and b) We all know that America is better than the rest of the world... whats wrong with you, are you some kind of COMMIE?


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 12, 2009)

the government didnt FUND those things with tax payer dollers


game, set, match

see ya in the funny papers


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 12, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> game, set, match


 
What?  That doesn't even make sense.  Game set match?  

Guess what?  You dont get to go "I win!" and actually win.  What are you, 3?  Name one adult that does that?  I mean one other than you.  How do you expect anyone to take you seriously? 

As far as I can tell The government funds all kinds of actual "killing" with tax payer dollars.  I don't get how harvesting cells from Placentas, Umbilical cords and Frozen discarded Embryo's is worse, especailly when it is being used to save lives as opposed to, well, ya know, just kill people.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 12, 2009)

....sigh

look Hoss
the whole cruxt of the issue of embryonic stem cell research os government funding. No one cares if it is researched with PRIVATE funds.

you just listed a bunch of technologies that didnt work, At FIRST. And you are absolutely right. None of those worked at first.

and I pointed out that the government didnt FUND those technologies.They were paid for by the people that stood to make a profit off of it.

that effectivly shuts down the debate, and I won. We dont need government funding of embryonic stem cells. Just like we didnt for computers, cars, etc.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 12, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> ....sigh
> 
> look Hoss.


 
HOSS?

Are you callin me a fat ignorant Texan?


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 12, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> that effectivly shuts down the debate, and I won. We dont need government funding of embryonic stem cells. Just like we didnt for computers, cars, etc.


 
And, um, so sorry...

The government HAS funded research into Computer Systems, Guns, and many other technologies

Or does the Military use Windows 98 on Off the Shelf Dell Servers, Fight with Rocks, Etc, Etc...? 

Uh huh. Let look at some origins: Mobile Phones, Military, Government Funded: GPS Technolgy, Military, Government Funded: SUV'S, Military, Government Funded (i.e. Jeep, Hummer) Etc Etc...

In fact, I'll argue that MUCH of Civilian Technology started out as Military tech paid for with our Tax dollars... Effectivley funded by the Government.

Wanna keep playing "Game Set Match?" with me, cuz I just shot your damn ball out of the court buddy... Next Lame argument...


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 12, 2009)

uh, cryo?

Hoss, like little joe, adam, and ben crartwright all were NEVADANS, not texans.

and hoss was not ignorant by any means......

and actually, you didnt shoot anything but yourself in the foot.

the things you mentioned, in your initial post, were not funded by the government.
they didnt need to be, and niether does fetal stem cell research


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 12, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> uh, cryo?
> 
> Hoss, like little joe, adam, and ben crartwright all were NEVADANS, not texans.
> 
> ...


 
Well, I dont watch cowboy movies, So you got me there... Big Ignorant Nevadan then.

But, I'm not the one who is wrong, your "Belief system" doesn't change, um, well, FACTS. The Government Can, Does, Will Probably continue to, and DID, Fund research into AT THE VERY LEAST Computers and Guns, two of the things I mentioned in my initial post. 

My god man, you cannot CANNOT seriously expect anyone to believe they don't... unless you live in some Bizzare alternate reality... 

I know, we'll check:

Lets see a show of hands who believes the Government funds research into Guns and Computer Technology, and who thinks they dont?

I'll Start:

Cryo: 1 for.
Twin Fist: 1 Against.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 12, 2009)

Come along chaps, I know the internet can effortlessly make for heated arguments, some of which can be fun admittedly.  

But when someone has nailed their colours to the mast then they're never going to admit they're wrong.  So unless this exchange is going to simply be for the joy of crossing swords then there really is no point to it.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 12, 2009)

you never watched Bonanza?

i cant even talk to you now..........


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 12, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Empty hands
> 
> THEY DONT WORK
> 
> ...



Did you read the reviews I linked?


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 12, 2009)

yep, all maybe's, might be, maybe could's and possibilities, 

zero actual...results

oh, and flavored with a sprinkle of GIVE US TAX PAYER DOLLARS

no thanks


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 12, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I read your links.  They all make it clear that there is potential for treatments derived from embryonic stem cells, but also discusses significant problems - and as TF stated - there is no treatment yet.



Experimental treatments have been tried, both in people and in experimental models.  They have not been approved for widescale use yet, but it is false to say none exist.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I frankly think that's insulting and unlikely to win any converts to your point of view.  If I were to take the view that a human embryo is indeed 'human life' and therefore to be protected, I would not really appreciate being told that it was worthless because it didn't 'look human' yet.



It's human, I never said otherwise.  I used the word "person" for a very specific reason.  Embryos are literally clumps of cells at this stage.  They lack any necessary attributes to what we would define as a person, which is what we tend to assign rights to.  There is nothing recognizable as even an organ.  There is no brain, no nervous system.  No ability to feel pain, or to reason.  A brain dead adult is more of a person than these embryos, and yet we allow relatives to "murder" brain dead adults without much fuss.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 12, 2009)

forget all that "it's a person" "no it's not" stuff, it cant be decided because that is ultimately a matter of opinion

WHY should tax dollars pay for the research?


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 12, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> yep, all maybe's, might be, maybe could's and possibilities,
> 
> zero actual...results



So you didn't actually read the linked reviews.  No surprise.

Here's some pertinent quotes:
"For example, hESC-ECs implanted with a mouse mesenchymal precursor cell line (10T1/2) in a fibronectin-collagen gel into the cranial windows of SCID mice could form cord-like networks."

"In contrast, transplantation of fetal cardiomyocytes has been shown to confer protection against the induction of ventricular tachycardia in experimental myocardial injury models. Furthermore, results from multiple laboratories suggest that fetal cardiomyocytes can couple functionally with host myocytes, stimulate formation of new blood vessels, and improve myocardial function. While it is neither practical nor ethical to test the potential of fetal cardiomyocytes in clinical trials, embryonic stem (ES) cells serve as a novel source for generation of unlimited quantities of cardiomyocytes for myocardial repair. The initial success in the application of ES cells to partially repair and improve myocardial function in experimental models of heart disease has been quite promising."

In other words, they work.

It doesn't make a lick of scientific sense anyway to suggest that a totipotent stem cell population would be useless while a pluripotent stem cell population would be useful.  Ideology does funny things to people.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 12, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> WHY should tax dollars pay for the research?



Because it's useful and will be for the public benefit.  Why else would you fund research?


----------



## crushing (Mar 12, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> It's human, I never said otherwise. I used the word "person" for a very specific reason.


 
You're right.  The word "person" is quite ambiguous and gives much wiggle room.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person



Empty Hands said:


> Embryos are literally clumps of cells at this stage.


 
Curious.  At what stage is the developing human (but not necessarily person?) not literally "clumps of cells"?

I'm not opposed to stem cell research, even embryonic stem cell research, but the way some of the hard core advocates approach it and how they begin defining terms starts to become disquieting and has me questioning whether I should be, if not more critical, maybe even opposed to it.  Follow the money!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 12, 2009)

crushing said:


> I'm not opposed to stem cell research, even embryonic stem cell research, but the way some of the hard core advocates approach it and how they begin defining terms starts to become disquieting and has me questioning whether I should be, if not more critical, maybe even opposed to it.  Follow the money!



Precisely.  I'm not sure how I feel about it (sometimes I just don't know, go figger).  But the ugly _"it's not even human-looking at this stage"_ stuff just creeps me out.  Like what, it might become a dandelion or a goat instead of a human?  Yeah, it's just clumps of cells.  Human cells.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 12, 2009)

crushing said:


> Curious.  At what stage is the developing human (but not necessarily person?) not literally "clumps of cells"?



Ha, you got me there.  I should be more precise in my terms, that could refer to you and I.  I would say the presence of neuronal cells communicating with each other would be the minimum necessary standard for personhood.  Not necessarily at that point, but that would be the minimum.  Otherwise, there is no capacity for reason, pain, directed response, or anything else that we associate with personhood.



crushing said:


> I'm not opposed to stem cell research, even embryonic stem cell research, but the way some of the hard core advocates approach it and how they begin defining terms starts to become disquieting and has me questioning whether I should be, if not more critical, maybe even opposed to it.  Follow the money!



I don't use human ES cells, there is no monetary benefit to me.  My position is informed by the scientific potential, and by the knowledge that there is no reason to consider these embryos as meaningful human lives.  After all, they will all die in a freezer anyway, something no one seems to have a problem with.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 12, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yeah, it's just clumps of cells.  Human cells.



You destroy clumps of human cells every single day of your life without thinking twice about it.  Clearly, the fact that cells are human doesn't mean much to you.

Why then do you privilege these clumps of cells?  They have nothing you would associate with a person, such as a brain or even a heart.  You probably wouldn't have a problem with an adult brain dead human being allowed to die by their family, and their organs harvested for transplant.  Why then the problem here?

Is it because if they are "left alone" they will eventually become a person?  Well, no, if left alone they will eventually perish in a freezer.  Even if used, most of them will be discarded by the fertility technicians for low quality, and of those implanted, only a percentage will take and develop.  Even among naturally fertilized eggs, only 39% will make it to term.  Think of all those precious human lives lost...

Potential isn't enough.  The potential is almost never realized.  Potential is destroyed on a daily basis in men, and a monthly basis in women.  Even most fertilized embryos will never make it.  Personhood is what matters.  Actual developed human beings who can feel, cry, reason and hold your hand.  Chasing after the rest of it has no real logical basis.  Especially when some of that lost potential can be used to make the lives of thinking, feeling human beings better.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 12, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Potential is destroyed on a daily basis in men, and a monthly basis in women.


 
OMFG!

ROTFLOL!

Dude... Seriously? Everyone in my office is rolling with laughter at this right now...


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 12, 2009)

here you go Empty hea.......hands

Using endothelial cells for therapeutic angiogenesis/vasculogenesis of ischemia diseases has led to exploring human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) as a *potentially* unlimited source for endothelial progenitor cells. With their capacity for self-renewal and pluripotency, hESCs and their derived endothelial cells (hESC-ECs) *may* be more advantageous than other endothelial cells obtained from diseased populations. However, hESC-ECs' poor differentiation efficiency and poorly characterized in vivo function after transplantation present *significant challenges* for their future clinical application. This review will focus on the differentiation pathways of hESCs and their therapeutic potential for vascular diseases, as well as the monitoring of transplanted cells' fate via molecular imaging. Finally, cell enhancement strategies *to improve the engraftment efficiency* of hESC-ECs will be discussed.


that sounds a LOT like "it dont work yet, we want money"

ok, you have a reason whyit should be researched

but you still havnt answered the question

why must tax payer dollars go to this?

why isnt public funding enough?


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 12, 2009)

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*_

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Mark A. Beardmore
-MT Moderator-


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 12, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> here you go Empty hea.......hands



Nice.



Twin Fist said:


> that sounds a LOT like "it dont work yet, we want money"



Only because that is what you wanted to see.  The other quotes showed that fetal cardiomyocytes engrafted and improved heart function in models of heart disease.  That human ES cells formed branched neural cells in mouse brains.  Talking about "significant challenges" means "room for improvement and research" not "OMGWTFFail!".



Twin Fist said:


> why must tax payer dollars go to this?
> 
> why isnt public funding enough?



Public funding is enough.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 12, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> OMFG!
> 
> ROTFLOL!
> 
> Dude... Seriously? Everyone in my office is rolling with laughter at this right now...



I'm not sure what is so funny, but I'm glad I could entertain you today!


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 12, 2009)

I think it was the part about men wasting 'potential' everyday - it's low brow but some do call it humour (indeed we had a series of films titled "Carry On xyz" based on just such smut over here ).


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 12, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> I think it was the part about men wasting 'potential' everyday - it's low brow but some do call it humour (indeed we had a series of films titled "Carry On xyz" based on just such smut over here ).



Ha, I was thinking too scientifically!  Sperm are broken down and reabsorbed by the body every day.  I wasn't thinking of the more, er, _fun _method of wasting.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 12, 2009)

A-ha! See, even an emotionally controlled Englishman like me didn't twig that that cold, biological, fact was what was meant  and  again.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 12, 2009)

i went for the cheap joke, sorry

why isnt funding FROM the public enough?

why must tax dollars be used?

seriously

i am convinced that it should be studied

but i am unconvinced that tax dollars should fund it

convince me


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 12, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> why isnt funding FROM the public enough?
> 
> why must tax dollars be used?



Medical research in this country basically works as a partnership between government funded academic research and privately funded drug company research.  Academics make the biological discoveries - they figure out basic mechanisms, figure out which proteins do what, how you can turn stem cells into a muscle cell or a nerve cell, etc.  By and large, this sort of research is not immediately commercially useful.  Knowing the mechanism doesn't give you a drug.

So what generally happens next is the private drug companies take the *freely available, public *data generated by the academics and use it to design drugs.  They say "Aha, protein X is important in this cancer pathway, let's design a drug to hit protein X!"  They then design, research, test and bring to market the drug.

Thus, the research strategies are separate and complementary.  Public money funds the really basic stuff that isn't commercially viable (yet).  Private money uses that information to design commercially viable drugs.  In short, public money funds *basic research*, private money funds *applied research*.  It makes little sense for each to do the work of the other for business reasons.

So at this stage, ES cell work mostly belongs in the academic, publicly funded sector.  Academics need to figure out how these cells work, how to successfully differentiate them into the various cell types, and various strategies to complement successful therapy.  What happens if the academic sector doesn't do it?  *It mostly won't get done*.  The drug companies have very little incentive to do this kind of research.  It will cost a lot, and there is little guaranteed return.  Plus, this is the way we've been successfully doing it for 50 years or so.

Don't mess with a good strategy!


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 12, 2009)

the entire rest of the world can do that

why do WE, here in the US, with our economic woes, need to use tax dollars to fund research that has, so far, shown absolutely ZERO results?


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 12, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> the entire rest of the world can do that
> 
> why do WE, here in the US, with our economic woes, need to use tax dollars to fund research that has, so far, shown absolutely ZERO results?



Again, it hasn't shown zero results.  I've posted evidence from the literature.

We have the best and most prolific research enterprise in the world.  The best students in the world come here for their training - because the best of the best are here.  It will get done better and faster here.  We will reap the benefits sooner.  And our companies will have first crack at developing the technology.

We've been doing it this way for almost 60 years now.  In cancer, heart disease, gene therapy and a hundred other areas of inquiry.  Why get squirrely now?


----------



## Marginal (Mar 12, 2009)

Grenadier said:


> Human embryonic stem cells are extremely fragile, and so far, as TF has pointed out, nobody has overcome this limitation while still keeping these cells usable.  The only way such cells have been produced en masse, is by fusing them with mouse cells, rendering them unusable for human use.


That doesn't say much though since research in the US for the past 8 years has been restricted to pre-existing lines. Lines which have been virtually useless to researchers for years.


----------



## crushing (Mar 12, 2009)

Marginal said:


> That doesn't say much though since research in the US for the past 8 years has been restricted to pre-existing lines. Lines which have been virtually useless to researchers for years.


 
Has there been restrictions on the research, in addition to the federal taxpayer funding limitations? Would that mean states like California, New Jersey, Florida, Missouri, Maryland, Iowa and others as well as public and private organizations and businesses are doing the research illegally?

Here is a restriction, but it isn't 8 years old:

*Feb. 28, 2007:* Iowa's Gov. Chet Culver signs legislation easing limits on types of stem-cell research in Iowa. The new legislation allows medical researchers to create embryonic stem cells through cloning. While allowing for further research, it *prohibits reproductive cloning of humans*.

I'm sure other states have also restricted research,

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7447911
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9244363
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1978747

While looking for more information on President Obama's decision, it appears that restrictions on the research will remain

"We cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction," Obama said. "It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society." * -President Obama*

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/fir...bama-says-government-open-door-human-cloning/

Unfortunately, I didn't find anything about when such restrictions on research began.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 12, 2009)

crushing said:


> "We cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction," Obama said. "It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society."



I've always been curious about this reasoning, although it is extremely common.  You are essentially creating identical twins separated in time.  Your own twin.  We don't consider identical twins as "profoundly wrong."  Why then do we consider the process of cloning wrong?

Is it because you are deciding to create your own clone?  Your own clone won't be you.  It would be actually a bit less like you than a real identical twin, since you wouldn't share a womb.  It would have all it's own thoughts and feelings, and would be a normal person in every respect.

Is it because we are using technology instead of "nature" to accomplish the birth?  We have been using technology to assist reproduction for some time now.  Few seem to have a problem with it.  No one is trying to ban it.  Although we don't do gene therapy or select embryos based on genetic content (yet), we do select embryos based on quality.  That seems qualitatively similar.  "Nature" is not deciding.

Is it because the process might cause defects in the individual?  This is a real concern, as Dolly the Sheep has shown us.  However, this is a concern which will greatly diminish in time as the technology improves.  Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer is a ****** method of cloning, we will undoubtedly come up with something better.

So what is it really?  Is there a true, principled opposition to cloning, or is it all based on the "ick" factor?  I know the bioethicist Leon Kass has argued for the "morality of disgust", but I disagree.  Many things which we consider disgusting have no moral bearing.  Feces aren't immoral.  Gay sex isn't immoral.  And so on.

Ideas?


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 13, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> We've been doing it this way for almost 60 years now..... .  Why get squirrely now?



hmm, so by that logic, gays in the military, a no no for many many more than 60 years, shouldnt be changed now......


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 13, 2009)

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

wrong answer

thanks for playing.Research is NOT restricted, just not funded by tax payer dollars.



Marginal said:


> That doesn't say much though since research in the US for the past 8 years has been restricted to pre-existing lines. Lines which have been virtually useless to researchers for years.


----------



## Marginal (Mar 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> BZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
> 
> wrong answer
> 
> thanks for playing.Research is NOT restricted, just not funded by tax payer dollars.


Uh, actually, denying funding is a restriction. Especially when it hinged upon an arbitrary date. 

http://www.bioethics.net/articles.php?viewCat=2&articleId=38



> The prospect of using embryos as a source of stem cells set off an enormous debate earlier this year that was only quieted when the president said that the federal government would continue to finance stem cell research  but only if stem cells produced before Aug. 9, 2001 were used in the work.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 13, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> I've always been curious about this reasoning, although it is extremely common. You are essentially creating identical twins separated in time. Your own twin. We don't consider identical twins as "profoundly wrong." Why then do we consider the process of cloning wrong?
> 
> Ideas?


 
Mind you I am all for cloning, and clone research, especially if it can lead us down a path like "Altered Carbon" where we can switch our conciousness into a new body to prevent death, woo hoo!

But one of the arguments I have heard bandied about a lot, is that cloning technology will lead to cloning whole humans to harvest healthy organs for the orignatior with minimal risk of rejection since it would be in essence "original tissue", and it raises ethical questions about doing that, and the definition of a person. 

Not saying I'm for that argument, just that its one I have heard bandied about.  Personally, I could use a new liver.  

:cheers:


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 13, 2009)

wrong again

it can be and IS funded through private donations.

again, I guess there is no reason why TAX dollars should be used, I have been asking for a reason for 3 days, and nothing......



Marginal said:


> Uh, actually, denying funding is a restriction. Especially when it hinged upon an arbitrary date.
> 
> http://www.bioethics.net/articles.php?viewCat=2&articleId=38


----------



## Marginal (Mar 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> wrong again
> 
> it can be and IS funded through private donations.
> 
> again, I guess there is no reason why TAX dollars should be used, I have been asking for a reason for 3 days, and nothing......


Thing is, the federal funding was kept in place, but they restricted the research to the pre existing lines. 

You provided proof in your first post why tax dollars should be used. Private funding hasn't accomplished much.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 13, 2009)

more money isnt always the answer

it might just not work, and since it doesnt work currently, and there is no reason to think it will since no one else, anywhere in the world has accomplished anything, seems like a waste of money.

particuarly NOW when 1/3 of all american wealth is gone.....

private donations? sure

tax dollars? nope


----------



## crushing (Mar 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> wrong again
> 
> it can be and IS funded through private donations.
> 
> again, I guess there is no reason why TAX dollars should be used, I have been asking for a reason for 3 days, and nothing......


 
Actually TF, in addition to public organization, private donations, and corporate interests; billions of federal and state level tax dollars are already being used (or at least set aside) to fund embryonic stem cell research.

There are always strings (aka restrictions and requirements) attached to government funding.  Google 'goverment funding strings'.  As pointed out previously, President Obama stated outright that restrictions on research will continue.

I hope that the research does find cures.  Maybe our great-grandchildren or great-great-grandchildren that will be paying for todays federally funded research will get some benefit from it?


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 13, 2009)

true enough

henry ford didnt get tax money
Alexander bell didnt either


i dont know


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> again, I guess there is no reason why TAX dollars should be used, I have been asking for a reason for 3 days, and nothing......



I alone have given you several.

Stop being deliberately obtuse.


----------



## cdunn (Mar 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> true enough
> 
> henry ford didnt get tax money
> Alexander bell didnt either
> ...


 

Unfortunately, it is not so simple as 'not taking tax money'. A great deal of the level of research that needs to be done is generally accomplished at the university level. which have, since their foundation, relied upon grants and patronages of the local authority. In the US, many of these institutions are specifically public schools, established by state legislatures, and funded in part through money given the states by the Federal government. 

Yes, there are private universities. The only difference is that the student walks out of a private university roughly $100,000 deeper in debt than the public school student. Any research still requires outside funding resources, typically both governmental and private.

Now, with the way the rules are written, when one is forbidden to use tax money for a particular purpose, anything whatsoever purchased with even one penny of money from the government cannot be used in that purpose, no matter what else I am using it for... including things like rooms, electricity, microscopes, etc. Every jot and tittle paid for by the government must be accounted for, and it still belongs to the government. It gets used wherever permitted, but not for the research that you can't spend federal money on. 

Asking a public university, which is likely already cash-strapped, to go out, solicit tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars, in order to build and staff duplicate labs is a ridiculous waste of resources. Therefore, it is simply not spent. The restriction of spending becomes an effective ban on research at these facilities.

Even if not one single further federal dollar is spent, allowing those private institutions who desire to do work with the universities to do so is a major furthering of the art. Just letting the extant biopharmaceticals and research foundations actually use the existing infrastructure is huge.

Goverment Money, however, is generally requested and spent by the agency, and there are going to be two agencies lining up at the universities - Health and Human Services.. and the Pentagon, through the branch research labs. The price of 1 F-22 can pay for dozens, if not hundreds of research projects dedicated to putting wounded soldiers back together. They want it, and the military is nothing if not forwards looking when it comes to research.

PS: Much of Bell's work rested on research coming out of German universities - funded traditionally by nobility, and later, the government. He also spent at least some time working on the predecessor to the telephone while employed as a professor at a publically chartered university.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 13, 2009)

all of which amount to nothing and have convinced me of nothing. Boil them all down and it all amounts to "because I say so and because I want it"

Mind you, i dont think the government should be funding much research at all, in any field.

alternative energy

and

thats about it

everything else, IMO should be funded by those that stand to make a profit from it.

provide for the common defense
promote the general walfare
secure the blessings of liberty
to ourselves and our prosperity

now, where in there is funding for research (that can only come from the destruction of embryos, which many find objectionable) that has YET to show ANY viability, during a recession when we are already running the largest deficit in history?


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 13, 2009)

quit being an unsufferable, and insulting, then you can think about throwing stones, Mr Glass house



Empty Hands said:


> I alone have given you several.
> 
> Stop being deliberately obtuse.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> promote the general walfare


 
So research into feilds which have the _*potential*_ for saving lives, curing afflictions, saving the paralyzed etc... doesnt promote the general welfare for US citizens.  

OOOOOOHHHHHKAYYY then.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 13, 2009)

can you say with 100% honesty that the only problem is not enough money?

can you promise that it WOULD work if they just had more research money?

seriously, can you say with 100% certainty that it will work?


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> can you say with 100% honesty that the only problem is not enough money?
> 
> can you promise that it WOULD work if they just had more research money?
> 
> seriously, can you say with 100% certainty that it will work?


 

Ok, Ill be an obstanant *** too.

*Yes.* I guarantee that with ENOUGH Money and 100 years worth of Time it WILL work, or in 100 years I personally will refund what *you* paid to *you.*


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> can you say with 100% honesty that the only problem is not enough money?
> 
> can you promise that it WOULD work if they just had more research money?
> 
> seriously, can you say with 100% certainty that it will work?


 
And while we are playing the Obstanance game: 

can you say with 100% honesty that your only problem with it is FEDERAL money?

can you promise that it WON'T work EVEN if they had more research money?

seriously, can you say with 100% certainty that it will NOT work?


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 13, 2009)

yes, my ONLY problem with it is that I dont think TAX dollars should go to it, or to most of the things we spend tax dollars on.

I agree that it needs to be researched, but not paid for by the public.

I have said that all along.

and I will even go further towards meeting you in the middle, IF the economy wasnt in such bad shape, i might even agree to tax dollars being spent.

but not NOW, not with what we have going on NOW.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 13, 2009)

sorry, this is above and beyond the call. Outright personal attacks are agaisnt the rules.



Cryozombie said:


> Ok, Ill be an obstanant *** too.
> 
> *Yes.* I guarantee that with ENOUGH Money and 100 years worth of Time it WILL work, or in 100 years I personally will refund what *you* paid to *you.*


----------



## blindsage (Mar 13, 2009)

Two Fist, were you against stem cell research before the economy went bad?

And in response to you saying no one has answered your questions, you've been responded to clearly by Empty Hand and others. 

The research _has_ shown results.

The reason for public funding is because the basic research needed to get to new medicines and other advancements won't get done otherwise. The expense of basic research is prohibitively high for private industry, they don't see enough return on investment to make it worth their while. It's the profit motive, if they don't see a profit, they have no motive.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 13, 2009)

blind, in general terms, I am against MOST federally fnded research, i do not think it is a function of government

embryonic stem celss have accomplished nothing, adult stem cells have shown results, and that is already funded.

and EH ansswers dont really answer anything, or amount to anything other than "well,,,,we just SHOULD"

that isnt good enough to convince me. Sorry.

hell i am all for stem cell research, hell, I am all for cloning, I would like to be able to buy a new set of lungs one day.

but private business, not the government should fund it.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> sorry, this is above and beyond the call. Outright personal attacks are agaisnt the rules.



 Says the man who called Empty Hands Empty head.  Cant take what you dish out????  Or do the rules only apply when they work in your favor?


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 13, 2009)

Double post


----------



## blindsage (Mar 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> blind, in general terms, I am against MOST federally fnded research, i do not think it is a function of government
> 
> embryonic stem celss have accomplished nothing, adult stem cells have shown results, and that is already funded.
> 
> ...


 
Private business _won't_ fund it. It's not in there economic interest.


----------



## crushing (Mar 13, 2009)

blindsage said:


> Private business _won't_ fund it. It's not in there economic interest.


 
From the discussion I'm taking 'private' as meaning non-government and not meaning non-publicly traded.

BrainStorm Cell Therapeutics (OTC BB : BCLI)
Pluristem Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq : PSTI)
HemaCare Corporation (OTC BB : HEMA) 
Epistem Ltd. (London Stock Exchange : EHP)
Stem Cell Innovations ( SCI ) (OTC BB : SCLL)
StemCells, Inc. (NASDAQ : STEM)
Geron Corp. (NASDAQ : GERN) 
Aastrom Biosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ : ASTM)

Stock Focus: Stem-Cell Companies
http://www.forbes.com/2001/08/03/0803sf.html

Biotech Companies, Investors Look to Adult Stem Cell Research
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/science/july-dec08/stemcell_07-18.html

Venture capitalists invest in stem cell research initiative
http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2004/10/11/focus3.html


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 13, 2009)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Brian R. VanCise
-MartialTalk Assistant Administrator-*


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 14, 2009)

and I got a mod warning for it, as should you.



Cryozombie said:


> Says the man who called Empty Hands Empty head.  Cant take what you dish out????  Or do the rules only apply when they work in your favor?


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 14, 2009)

i love it, Obama just outlawed funding for stem cell research, two days after he signed an executive order allowing it.


LOL

thats CHANGE we can believe it....


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 14, 2009)

Really?!  That's just crackers (Limey speak for 'crazy').  

Indecisiveness is anathema to any leader and it's hard to see such a reversal in a positive light.  

Without knowing the background to the decision change, it's bound to smell of political pressure being applied by some extremist group with influence.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 14, 2009)

mark,
you cant make this stuff up


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 14, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> i love it, Obama just outlawed funding for stem cell research, two days after he signed an executive order allowing it.


----------



## Marginal (Mar 15, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> i love it, Obama just outlawed funding for stem cell research, two days after he signed an executive order allowing it.
> 
> 
> LOL
> ...


Interesting way to put it. It's because of the Dickey-Wicker amendment which is automatically put into the omnibus spending bill. Part of the compromise Obama worked on the stem cell reversal was that what was allowed was left up to the legislature.

The amendment is already being attacked on the floor. It may very well cease to be soon enough. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/fir...tem-cell-research-needs-congressional-action/


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Jun 4, 2009)

Some more breakthrus in Stem cell. I find China is making alot of progress in Stem cells.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20090604/hl_hsn/pigstemcellscreated


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 4, 2009)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> Some more breakthrus in Stem cell. I find China is making alot of progress in Stem cells.



Only a breakthrough by the caveat of "from a hooved animal."  The basic deprogramming required to create stem cells from other differentiated cells was worked out several years ago by two non-Chinese groups.


----------

