Stem Cell Research - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dc_dux · 10-25-2006, 08:03 AM

Quote:

These stem cells are pretty much worthless for any disease research, its basically nothing beyond an egg. They are totally non-differentiated, and there isn't much we can do with them except let them differentiate, aka develop.

Ustwo....can you source that please....wtih a credible medical source?

Ustwo · 10-25-2006, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Ustwo....can you source that please....wtih a credible medical source?

Sure hes my source:

Ustwo, B.S. D.D.S. M.S., worked in a genetics lab for two years as well. Now taking out the pure dentistry stuff, that’s 11 years of biology study after high school. Its also something anyone who was a basic biology major should be able to figure out on their own without any advanced work. What they are talking about is a fertilized egg, or at most a blastocyst. There isn't much we are going to learn from a human fertilized egg beyond what we know in other mammals because the initial stages of development are all almost identical. The only real use I can see of it is to perfect human cloning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

Ustwo: I refer you to the post right above yours. If we're willing to sacrifice the lives of Iraqis, I don't understand the unwillingness to use these embryos.

The comparison is a huge stretch, imo; on the one hand you have discarded embryos that have never been born or lived, and on the other you have adult humans who have lives, memories, and families.

Ok this is quite funny really. Instead of Iraqi's you could use someone who died in a police hostage standoff, or maybe the 40k a year who die in car crashes in the US every year.

Lets try it on for size....

If you are willing to sacrifice 40,000 people a year in traffic accidents I don't understand the unwillingness to use those embryos.

Or maybe this one.....

If you are willing to eat apples I don't understand your unwillingness to eat oranges.

Ok now that I got that silliness aside, I am IN favor of using those dead babies but I can respect those who view it as murder. The difference is I don't play philosophical games to sooth my conscious over it. I think abortion is murder, I just don't care that much since I view it as genetic selection removing undesirable traits from humanity. If people want to step out of the gene pool in such a selfish and brutal manner I don't want those genes in the next generation, and we might as well get some good from their irresponsibility.

hiredgun · 10-25-2006, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Ok this is quite funny really. Instead of Iraqi's you could use someone who died in a police hostage standoff, or maybe the 40k a year who die in car crashes in the US every year.

Lets try it on for size....

If you are willing to sacrifice 40,000 people a year in traffic accidents I don't understand the unwillingness to use those embryos.

Or maybe this one.....

If you are willing to eat apples I don't understand your unwillingness to eat oranges.

That doesn't make any sense.

The Iraqi deaths I'm talking about were preventable and are a direct result of a political decision to go to war, one that you support. In this case, the loss of life is, to you, worth what we might potentially achieve (but so far have not done).

But when it comes to stem cell research, it appears that the possible or potential benefits to medicine are not worth the loss of mere embryos.

You don't see a contradiction there when it comes to the value placed on life? What's 'silly' about this?

Willravel · 10-25-2006, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Sure hes my source:

Ustwo, B.S. D.D.S. M.S., worked in a genetics lab for two years as well. Now taking out the pure dentistry stuff, that’s 11 years of biology study after high school.

Now I'm really confused. You have experience in the field that pertains to this discussion, so you get to call upon and cite your training and experience in order to make you an expert, but meinwhile:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yea well thats your opinion, I have mine, though mine doesn't have cool red letters. You can also find people who think you shouldn't spank your child, and I don't agree with them either, just like you can find psychologists who think violent behavior is due to low self esteem. I'm willing to go with the opinion of all of human history over some psychobabble.

Personally I'd hope they use a case by case basis. Some people will crack easily under torture, others will respond better to kindness, I would hope we have our own interrogation experts deciding whats the best method with each individual.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=70

...you ignore other prople's expertise, training and experience. A BA, and well on my way to getting a Masters in psych puts what I say above "psychobabble", doesn't it? Just like your 11+ years of bio training after high school means that you are qualified to give an (basically) expert opinion on stem cells?

So either you have to start listening to other experts, or you yourself will cease to be an expert. You can't have it both ways.

The_Jazz · 10-25-2006, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Well here's a bit more rational thought for you: who funds most scientists? Is it more scientists?

The funding fairy? Alan Greenspan? Ustwo?

Just kidding about that last one. We all know he wouldn't fund anything that wasn't already pure evil.

Seriously, I don't see the point of your question to my response. Mine was more of "the good ideas have already been thought of already" variety. If scientists figured out how to do their research with more readily available materials, they're going to do it, especially if the results are going to yield easy cures for fatal diseases. If you're implying that scientists are ignoring easily available material in pursuit of more funding, let's see your proof. I assume that's not what you're trying to tell me, though.

/interruption of the dick-measuring contest

Willravel · 10-25-2006, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

The funding fairy? Alan Greenspan? Ustwo?

Just kidding about that last one. We all know he wouldn't fund anything that wasn't already pure evil.

Seriously, I don't see the point of your question to my response. Mine was more of "the good ideas have already been thought of already" variety. If scientists figured out how to do their research with more readily available materials, they're going to do it, especially if the results are going to yield easy cures for fatal diseases. If you're implying that scientists are ignoring easily available material in pursuit of more funding, let's see your proof. I assume that's not what you're trying to tell me, though.

/interruption of the dick-measuring contest

Hey, he called mine small....

The idea is that scientists and researchers might be hindered in their abilities and exploration by those that fund them is nothing new. I know that scientists and researchers are out there to cure this and that, but they have to pander to their benificiaries or lose their funding. We all know that. It would be niave to say that science isn't effeced by politics. Did we already forget about the Dickey Amendment? Clinton signed federal legislation that prohibited the HHS from using appriopriated funds for any stem cell research in which the embryo is destroyed. I'm sure Ustwo can tell you that does cut a lot of funding for stem cell research, and it's a decision made on (religous?) morality, not science. They aren't ignoring anything, they simply aren't funded so they CAN'T do their research.

Yakk · 10-25-2006, 10:03 AM

Yes, you'd have to build up a completely different instuition in order to do research unretricted by the Federal ban provisions on fetal stem-cell research.

This is basic research. The kind that helps everyone in the USA -- a damn good use of Federal money. Instead, Federal money is making it harder to do the research.

The fetal stem cells are the least differentiated human cells out there. Learning how to convince them to differentiate and turn into arbitrary tissue is ridiculously interesting research.

Do you object to having the Federal government fund fundamental scientific research? Do you understand the economic basis for why funding fundamental scientific research is a damn good idea?

The_Jazz · 10-25-2006, 10:25 AM

Will, are you seriously telling me that there's a vast conspiracy amongst the research institutions of the world to use embryonic stem cells solely? Or that umbilical stem cells and embryonic stem cells are even the same thing (I honestly don't know).

dc_dux · 10-25-2006, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Sure hes my source:

Ustwo, B.S. D.D.S. M.S., worked in a genetics lab for two years as well. Now taking out the pure dentistry stuff, that’s 11 years of biology study after high school. Its also something anyone who was a basic biology major should be able to figure out on their own without any advanced work. What they are talking about is a fertilized egg, or at most a blastocyst. There isn't much we are going to learn from a human fertilized egg beyond what we know in other mammals because the initial stages of development are all almost identical. The only real use I can see of it is to perfect human cloning.

Then should no trouble citing a collaborating source.

Ustwo · 10-25-2006, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Then should no trouble citing a collaborating source.

*Sigh* I'm not here to do your homework, look it up yourself. You posted the bill, I showed you why it has nothing to do with 'stemcell research' as a cure for a disease, and you want me to prove to you basic developmental biology?

If I'm wrong show me, otherwise accept it from someone who has forgotten more biology than you will learn in your lifetime.

dc_dux · 10-25-2006, 11:13 AM

Perhaps this letter of support for the bill in question from the American Association of Medical Colleges:

Quote:

"The therapeutic potential of pluripotent stem cells is remarkable and could well prove to be one of the important paradign-shifting advances in the history of medical science. These cells have the unique potential to differentiate into any human cell type and offer real hope of life-affirming treatments for diabetes, damaged heart tissue, arthritis, Parkinsons, ALS, and spinal cord injuries, to name but a few examples. There is also the possibility that these cells could be used to create more complex organ structures that could replace vital damaged organs..."

http://www.aamc.org/advocacy/library...005/030205.pdf

And since I didnt know what pluripotent stem cells are:

Quote:

Pluripotent stem cells are descendants of the totipotent stem cells of the embryo. These cells, which develop about four days after fertilization, can differentiate into any cell type, except for totipotent stem cells and the cells of the placenta.

http://www.stemcellresearchfoundatio...bout/FAQ.htm#1

hmmmm....weighing the credibility....Dr two v AAMC

Willravel · 10-25-2006, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Will, are you seriously telling me that there's a vast conspiracy amongst the research institutions of the world to use embryonic stem cells solely? Or that umbilical stem cells and embryonic stem cells are even the same thing (I honestly don't know).

Worst strawman ever. So I say that some researchers are and could be losing funding because of legislation, then I cite prescedent, then you claim that I am suggesting that there is a massive conspiracy? Are you and Ustwo doing a tag team thing now? It's like I can't say anything without people trying to valiently stop me from making another far-fetched conspiracy claim. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, people.

Yakk · 10-25-2006, 12:13 PM

What is more important, in the short term, than the ethics of stem cell research is the political impact.

The banning of any institution accepting federal funding from doing embryonic stem cell research -- what have been, and will be, the political effects of it?

It did enhearten the anti-abortion troops -- it was a concrete step in vaguely that direction. In the short term, it couldn't help but bring volunteers to the Republicans, and motivate the anti-abortion voters to come out to the polls.

The other hand is the emotional impact of ads like Fox's. Getting in the way of extremely promising medical research that could cure thousands if not millions of people -- one can make political hay against the Republicans using that arguement.

The worst possible case would be if one of the non-Federal funded Embryonic Stem Cell research institutions where to pull off a breakthrough. This isn't likely in the short term -- we are talking about basic research -- but it would probably make a heck of alot of political ammunition.

...

As for the ethics of it... There are 4 kinds of stem cells:

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiki

* Totipotent stem cells are produced from the fusion of an egg and sperm cell. Cells produced by the first few divisions of the fertilized egg cell are also totipotent. These cells can differentiate into embryonic and extraembryonic cell types.

* Pluripotent stem cells are the descendants of totipotent cells and can differentiate into cells derived from the three germ layers.

* Multipotent stem cells can produce only cells of a closely related family of cells (e.g. hematopoietic stem cells differentiate into red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, etc.).

* Unipotent cells can produce only one cell type, but have the property of self-renewal which distinguishes them from non-stem cells.

Adult stem cells are only 2 of the above 4 types. I am not aware of that any Pluripotent or Totipotent stem cells exist in adults. Maybe one can transform existing Puripotent stem cells backwards and to other kinds?

Possibly cutting open human brains and scraping out brain stem cells could be used for research. Personally, I'm against cutting peoples brains open and using an ice cream scoop. Somehow, I think that using fertilized eggs that are going to be discarded anyhow seems like a cleaner way to get nerve-cell precurors...

I suppose they could just scoop the brains of brain-dead people to harvest neuron stem cells?

That still doesn't get us access to nerve-cell (as opposed to brain-cell) precursors, as far as I know there aren't any in an adult body...

The_Jazz · 10-25-2006, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Worst strawman ever.

Thank you, thank you all. I'm so excited to have even been nominated! There are so many people to thank that I hope that the orchestra doesn't play me off. Top of the world, ma!

Quote:

So I say that some researchers are and could be losing funding because of legislation, then I cite prescedent, then you claim that I am suggesting that there is a massive conspiracy? Are you and Ustwo doing a tag team thing now? It's like I can't say anything without people trying to valiently stop me from making another far-fetched conspiracy claim. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, people.

No, what you suggested was that all scientists working on a problem were deliberately ignoring a potential source of material and that in their hellbent scheme to secure funding for embryonic stem cell research they buried the concept of using umbilical stem cells. Now I was a history major and I'm an insurance guy so I have no idea if that's even viable. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I'm, as you already put it, just a poster on a message board not a scientist. Maybe Ustwo can tell you, but I'm sure that he's off drinking more water to keep his urine production up to keep pissing in everyone's Cheerios. Again, if you've got evidence that umbilical stem cells can fit the purpose of embryonic ones, I'd love to here it.

Speaking of Ustwo, I'm sure he's as offended as I am at the thought of being tag team partners. Don't make me go all Randy Macho Man Savage on you.

Willravel · 10-25-2006, 01:53 PM

So I said all? Show me, or end the theadjack.

The_Jazz · 10-25-2006, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

So I said all? Show me, or end the theadjack.

See your posts #35 and #46. Relevant quotes:

Quote:

There are other sources of stem cells, too. Did you know that the umbilical cord blood is a great source of stem cells? We've know about this for years. And babies are born almost every minute of every day. If we were able to immediatally collect all the umbilical cords (after the infant is done with it), I doubt we'd need another source for stem cells. I even just came up with a motto: Save a life, donate an umbilical cord. Or maybe: Save an embryo, donate an umbilical cord.

Quote:

The idea is that scientists and researchers might be hindered in their abilities and exploration by those that fund them is nothing new. I know that scientists and researchers are out there to cure this and that, but they have to pander to their benificiaries or lose their funding. We all know that. It would be niave to say that science isn't effeced by politics. Did we already forget about the Dickey Amendment? Clinton signed federal legislation that prohibited the HHS from using appriopriated funds for any stem cell research in which the embryo is destroyed. I'm sure Ustwo can tell you that does cut a lot of funding for stem cell research, and it's a decision made on (religous?) morality, not science. They aren't ignoring anything, they simply aren't funded so they CAN'T do their research.

Maybe I read to much into it, but given our exchanges, these are the starting points of your arguements. See my post #45 for earlier confusion in your point and trying to clarify.

FoolThemAll · 10-25-2006, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

Fine. What about the lives of Iraqis?

Well, it depends.

The Iraqis who attempt violence against U.S. troops and/or other Iraqis? Self-defense. Whatever their reasons, no matter how noble, a response to lethal force can still fall into the realm of self-defense.

The Iraqis who didn't attempt violence, yet were killed? It's that unfortunate, not-yet-eliminated cost of war known as collateral damage.

I'm suddenly a little confused as to what you consider the great big inconsistency here, and moreover I'm wondering why it's relevant to this thread if there's an inconsistency. It's possible to be wrong about one issue and right about another. Would you prefer a foolish consistency?

lewk · 10-27-2006, 04:36 AM

Who's dime is it all on?

I'm all for making it legal so Michael J. Fox can invest his money in discarded fetuses to try to cure a disease he didn't care about until he realized he had it, but, please, keep my tax dollars out of this.

hiredgun · 10-27-2006, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Would you prefer a foolish consistency?

Would I prefer a shred of internal consistency over seeming hypocrisy? Yes, actually.

And the reason I introduced the idea into this thread is because it's a relevant criticism of people's objections to this research. What's stopping you from considering embryos to be the collateral damage of curing disease and advancing human knowledge? It is, by any measure, a smaller toll than the lives of full grown humans.

dc_dux · 10-27-2006, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lewk

Who's dime is it all on?

I'm all for making it legal so Michael J. Fox can invest his money in discarded fetuses to try to cure a disease he didn't care about until he realized he had it, but, please, keep my tax dollars out of this.

Despite Ustwo's unsupported claim that embryonic stem cells are pretty much worthless for any disease research, the greatest benefit of public funding is to ensure that the intellectual property rights gained from such research is accessible for both further public and private research to build on.

Ustwo · 10-27-2006, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Despite Ustwo's unsupported claim that embryonic stem cells are pretty much worthless for any disease research, the greatest benefit of public funding is to ensure that the intellectual property rights gained from such research is accessible for both further public and private research to build on.

When did I say that?

You don't understand the biology at all, yet have strong opinion on it, and thats just wonderful.

If you don't know the difference between a fetus, a embryo, a blastocyst or a fertilized egg, and what is going on at that point you have absolutely no business trying to discuss it beyond the most vague terms. If you have such a strong opinion that you feel the need to voice it here do some reading first and then come back.

I'll even do the first google for ya...
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ult...velopment.html

Now when you have a grasp of cell differentiation, and development and what that bill you posted entails, come back.

FoolThemAll · 10-27-2006, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

Would I prefer a shred of internal consistency over seeming hypocrisy? Yes, actually.

I don't see the value of consistency when it's a consistency composed of bad ideas. Hypocrisy strikes me as preferable.

Quote:

And the reason I introduced the idea into this thread is because it's a relevant criticism of people's objections to this research.

Or, instead, a relevant criticism of people's acceptance of collateral damage. The problem: you don't really have any control over which it is.

I could say: "Okay, you're right, both collateral damage and embryonic stem cell research should be legal."

Or I could say: "Okay, you're right, both collateral damage and embryonic stem cell research should be illegal."

Or - and this'll be my final answer, Regis - I could respond in this way:

Quote:

What's stopping you from considering embryos to be the collateral damage of curing disease and advancing human knowledge?

War, in its entirety, should be an act of self-defense and/or defense of others. If it's neither, it is an unjust war. Collateral damage is a cost of such defense. If the war is properly justified, then the collateral damage is justified. Or rather, less worse than the alternative of no military response ever.

Embryonic stem cell research, on the other hand, cannot be properly considered self-defense or defense of others. The aggressor is nature, not man, and to respond to the injuries of nature by attacking man is wrong. Think of it this way: you wouldn't approve of harvesting organs from healthy infants in order to sustain the life of a sick adult, would you? Obviously this isn't a comparison of identical situations, experimenting with a clump of cells is a hell of a lot easier to rationalize for one, but I see a valid comparison there with no relevant difference. Beating nature isn't worth nonconsensual sacrifices of human life.

And that, I believe, is where our truly relevant disagreement lies. We may disagree on the whether collateral damage is acceptable in war, but I'm betting that we actually agree that collateral damage isn't acceptable in medical research. If not, well, then we have two relevant disagreements...but collateral damage in war remains irrelevant. Even if there is inconsistency remaining, it says nothing about whether I'm right on this issue.

The big question reverts back to this: does the lethal use of embryos for medical purposes differ in a morally significant way from doing the same with infants?

Quote:

It is, by any measure, a smaller toll than the lives of full grown humans.

Perhaps from the perspective of the victims' friends (embryos aren't very social), but not for the victims.

dc_dux · 10-27-2006, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

When did I say that?

You don't understand the biology at all, yet have strong opinion on it, and thats just wonderful.

If you don't know the difference between a fetus, a embryo, a blastocyst or a fertilized egg, and what is going on at that point you have absolutely no business trying to discuss it beyond the most vague terms. If you have such a strong opinion that you feel the need to voice it here do some reading first and then come back.

I'll even do the first google for ya...
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ult...velopment.html

Now when you have a grasp of cell differentiation, and development and what that bill you posted entails, come back.

I was simply referring to your analysis of the section of the bill I posted:

Quote:

The bill: (1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.

Your analysis: These stem cells are pretty much worthless for any disease research, its basically nothing beyond an egg. They are totally non-differentiated, and there isn't much we can do with them except let them differentiate, aka develop. This is very useful for the study of cloning (an identical twin is a natural clone) but won't make M.J. Fox stop shaking.

You are absolutely correct that I have no expertise in cell biology.

I do understand the public policy process fairly well, which requires interested observers, including members of Congress who ultimately make the decisions, to objectively evaluate the testimony and analysis of the experts on this or any subject up for public debate. I choose to give more credence to experts other than you.

Yakk · 10-29-2006, 07:28 AM

Where, exactly, is the "collateral damage" in taking discarded human cells, and using it?

The cells are going to be killed. You may object to the process that led to cells going to be killed, but once you have some being who has no ability to think, is doomed to die, and has useful organs or cells -- where is the ethical problem with harvesting it?

You do know that what I described is the source of almost all human organ transplants.

xxSquirtxx · 10-29-2006, 06:35 PM

Sadly, it appears that MJF was not as informed as he thought he was.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2006/10/...ng-initiative/

dc_dux · 10-29-2006, 07:15 PM

I dont particularly care if Fox read the details of the MO initiative or not. He was aware that it allows only stem cell research that complies with federal laws and regulations and that it prohibits human cloning.

That said, the position of Senate candidates on federal stem cell legislation should be more important to the rest of the country (whether you are for or against a federal bill) and the current Senator in MO voted against the bill that passed in both the House and Senate.

magictoy · 10-29-2006, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

When did I say that?

You don't understand the biology at all, yet have strong opinion on it, and thats just wonderful.

If you don't know the difference between a fetus, a embryo, a blastocyst or a fertilized egg, and what is going on at that point you have absolutely no business trying to discuss it beyond the most vague terms. If you have such a strong opinion that you feel the need to voice it here do some reading first and then come back.

I'll even do the first google for ya...
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ult...velopment.html

Now when you have a grasp of cell differentiation, and development and what that bill you posted entails, come back.

You certainly nailed that down. Today more news came out along these lines, but squirt posted it first. Here is a different link than his, plus a quote:

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/2...ell-amendment/

Quote:

Stephanopoulos: In the ad now running in Missouri, Jim Caviezel speaks in Aramaic. It means, “You betray me with a kiss.” And his position, his point, is that actually even though down in Missouri they say the initiative is against cloning, it’s actually going to allow human cloning.

Fox: Well, I don’t think that’s true. You know, I campaigned for Claire McCaskill. And so I have to qualify it by saying I’m not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I’ll agree with it in spirit, I don’t know, I— On full disclosure, I haven’t read it, and that’s why I didn’t put myself up for it distinctly

filtherton · 10-29-2006, 07:25 PM

Yeah, but i would wager most politicians don't know the page-to-page content of most bills.

magictoy · 10-29-2006, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I dont particularly care if Fox read the details of the MO initiative or not. He was aware that it allows only stem cell research that complies with federal laws and regulations and that it prohibits human cloning.

Not according to George Stephanopoulos and Jim Caviezel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

That said, the position of Senate candidates on federal stem cell legislation should be more important to the rest of the country (whether you are for or against a federal bill) and the current Senator in MO voted against the bill that passed in both the House and Senate.

Yes, you would be well advised to attempt a subject change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Yeah, but i would wager most politicians don't know the page-to-page content of most bills.

Then if George Bush misspeaks on an issue, or doesn't choose the best course of action, he's doing nothing worse than the rest of Congress.

Nice to know you'll be cutting him slack for the rest of his term.

dc_dux · 10-29-2006, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magictoy

Not according to George Stephanopoulos and Jim Caviezel.

Yes, you would be well advised to attempt a subject change.

Magic. I wonder if you or Squirt have you read the MO initiative?

Quote:

2. To ensure that Missouri patients have access to stem cell therapies and cures, that Missouri researchers can conduct stem cell research in the state, and that all such research is conducted safely and ethically, any stem cell research permitted under federal law may be conducted in Missouri, and any stem cell therapies and cures permitted under federal law may be provided to patients in Missouri, subject to the requirements of federal law and only the following additional limitations and requirements:

(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.

(2) No human blastocyst may be produced by fertilization solely for the purpose of stem cell research.

(3) No stem cells may be taken from a human blastocyst more than fourteen days after cell division begins; provided, however, that time during which a blastocyst is frozen does not count against the fourteen-day limit.

(4) No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures....

full text: http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006...ppStemCell.asp

I am sure we can find competing analyses of the MO initiative, but the fact is that Fox said in a later interview that he knew it was limited only to stem cell research that complies with federal laws and that is why it is important for MO to have a senator that supported the bill that the majority of Congress (and the American people) wanted.

magictoy · 10-29-2006, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Magic. I wonder if you or Squirt have you read the MO initiative?

Yes. In much the same way that you seem to have been too busy to click on Squirt's link, you were also too busy to read the entire initiative.

I won't post the link to the initiative again. You didn't read it when you posted it yourself.

Quote:

(2) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

And, the following from Squirt's link:

Quote:

The act of implanting an embryo in a woman’s womb, performed with IVF embryos many times every day, is not what makes human cloning different. What is different is the act of cloning — somatic-cell nuclear transfer — by which the embryo is originally created. Cloning to produce an embryo to be developed to birth and cloning to produce an embryo to be destroyed for research are both human cloning, carried out identically. As James Battey, chair of the NIH Stem Cell Task Force, told a congressional committee in March, “The first step, the cloning step, is the same, but the intended result is different” (emphasis added). But the initiative, by redefining cloning, protects the practice while pretending to prohibit it.

Moreover, the combination of the first and second sections of the initiative would mean that the Missouri constitution would first privilege and protect the creation of cloned human embryos for research (as long as federal law did not prohibit it) and then would mandate the destruction of these embryos.

I'm sure Filtherton would be willing to give the framers of the initiative a break. They were probably too busy to read what they were writing.

host · 10-29-2006, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxSquirtxx

Sadly, it appears that MJF was not as informed as he thought he was.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2006/10/...ng-initiative/

Some of the state legislators in Missouri are batshit crazy religious fundamentalists. IMO, the purpose of the Missouri initiative 2 on the Nov.7 ballot is to prevent the legislature from narrowing whatever stem cell research federal law allows, and to prevent the state government from using funding restrictions to further narrow federal law:

Quote:

http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2006_...54131821528523
Missouri: Where mules and Jesus are king

Rep. David Sater
Missouri House of Representatives

Dear Rep. Sater,

I want to thank you personally for sponsoring the resolution making Jesus Christ <a href="http://www.radicalruss.net/blog/2006/03/missouri_proposes_making_christianity_the_official.html">the Official God of the State of Missouri</a>. It's about time the state recognized that Jesus deserves the same exalted status as mules and paddlefish. I can't wait to see the poster.

I hope your bill is only the first step toward remaking Missouri into the new Zion. I long for the day when I see blasphemers, Buddhists, and sabbath violators locked up in stocks on the courthouse lawn. That'll set society right in a hurry, won't it.

But there are a couple of other tasks that need to be completed before the pillorying begins. First, you'll need to cleans the legislature of Satan's minions. You might consider starting with Rep. Susan Phillips. Sure, she seems like a god-fearing woman--her bill defending the parental rights of fathers who impregnate their daughters is proof of that--but her strange mutterings and the fact that her eyebrows don't move have convinced me that she might be a witch. If you're unsure, you might consider sitting next to her at a hearing and sticking her repeatedly with a pin to see of you can locate her devil's mark.

Next, you'll need to destroy Branson. If Las Vegas is the new Sodom, then Branson is definitely the new Gomorrah. Think about it. Aren't you ashamed that a town in your state markets itself as the home of acts like the Baldknobber's Jamboree and the Tall Timber Lumberjack Show. I bet the place is crawling with homosexuals.

Some might defend the Baldknobber's Jamboree for perpetuating positive stereotypes about the state and, thereby, counterbalancing the negative stereotypes the coastal elites promote about us, but dammit, the show is called the Baldknobber's Jamboree--I think that tells us all we need to know about their true agenda.

Others might argue Branson isn't all bad, citing shows like Act for God and the Lowe Family as examples of traditional family entertainment. But in Act for God's case, the title may be misleading. A picture on their website shows a skit featuring body parts. If you look closely, you'll notice a not-man standing between the head and the left hand. She's holding a ball. Case closed.

The Lowe Family is the exception that proves the rule. The part of their show where they re-enact raising the flag at Iwo Jima, albeit while wearing Liberace wear, is proof that they are not a part of Branson's hedonistic culture. Like Lott and his family, the Lowes should be spirited out of this New Gomorrah before it is leveled.

Well, that should be enough to give you a good start.

Heterosexually yours,

Gen. JC Christian, patriot

Update: I was going to call this update, David Sater is a better Christian than you. After all, he's not only a Baptist, he's a Methodist too. Then, I noticed that he's the music minister at the Methodist church in Shell Knob and that sounds just a little too dirty to me.

From his official House bio:

Rep. Sater is both a member of the First Baptist Church of Cassville and the United Methodist Church of Shell Knob, where he is with the music ministry of the church.

posted by Gen. JC Christian, Patriot | 3:06 AM

Quote:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...D?OpenDocument
News > St. Louis City / County > Story
Stem cell debate heats up over wording
By Matt Franck
POST-DISPATCH JEFFERSON CITY BUREAU
10/29/2006

The political battle over a constitutional amendment to protect embryonic stem cell research has increasingly placed the ballot measure itself under the microscope, fueling bitter disagreement over its legal meaning.

At issue is how the 2,000-word amendment, which would protect all forms of federally legal stem cell research, would relate to the Missouri constitution and existing laws.

With a Nov. 7 vote approaching, television and radio ads by opponents have attempted to portray the measure as deceptive on issues such as human cloning, state funding and egg donation.

But some arguments against the amendment are based on shaky legal footing, such as a claim that the measure would allow fetuses to be aborted to harvest human tissue. In fact, that practice is federally banned.

Other arguments have more to do with semantics than substance, particularly over dueling definitions of the term "human cloning."

But those on both sides of the debate agree the ballot affects fundamental constitutional matters, such as the authority of the Legislature to pass laws and appropriate state funds.

And some legal experts say judges may have the final say on how some details of the amendment would play out.

An indirect approach

Disagreement on the issue roots largely from legal structure of the amendment, which some regard as unusual.

"It's peculiar in a lot of ways," said Carl Esbeck, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Esbeck is referring to the indirect way in which the amendment would protect certain forms of stem cell research.

In essence, the amendment does three things at once:

First, it states that all research legal under federal law shall be legal in Missouri. Second, it limits the authority of state and local governments in regulating the research. Finally, the amendment seeks to ban forms of research that are widely rejected by ethicists. Those include a ban on using cloning technology for reproductive purposes, as well as restrictions on the sale of human eggs.

The restrictions were include because there's currently virtually no regulation of the research at the federal level.

But much of the uproar over the amendment focuses on whether it truly bans what it claims to ban, particularly as it concerns human cloning and the sale of eggs.

The rest of the fight largely deals with the limits the amendment would place on state and local governments.

Legislators would retain the right to regulate health and safety issues, but not if doing so is designed to hamper research. Similar language limits legislators' ability to withhold state funds from institutions conducting research.

But exactly how those limits would play out in unclear.

"It does get tricky," Esbeck said.

"No" is called easier

Donn Rubin, of the Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, which supports the measure, said opponents have purposefully exaggerated claim about the measure, finding loopholes where there are none.

He describes the campaign as one of desperation, born from a realization that most voters have no moral objections to embryonic stem cell research.

"The strategy of defeating an amendment is to create doubts," he said. "It's easier to vote 'no' than to vote 'yes.'"

Opponents, meanwhile, aren't letting up with their strategy to portray the measure as deceptive, even if it means downplaying larger moral questions.

That was true in a recent statewide radio debate, in which a lead opponent of the measure twice refused to answer the question of whether the research destroys human life.

"No, that's really not the issue here," said Jaci Winship, of Missourians Against Human Cloning. "The issue here is a bold attempt to deceive the Missouri voter."

The argument that the amendment proposition "allows adult human cloning" is a key provision of the disinformation campaign of those who oppose the amendment's passage. IMO, if there were not "fringe" legislators who have already introduced state legislation proposals to officially designate Missouri as "Jesus Land", there would be no need for this amendment.....

Here's the relevant portion of Michael J. Fox's ABC interview transcript:

Quote:

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?sec...ics&id=4707455
Oct. 29 - The actor tells ABC News' "This Week" about his disease, those controversial ads, and answers Rush Limbaugh's suggestion that he may have played up his illness for political effect. Read the full interview.......

.......Stephanopoulos: You mentioned the Steele campaign. Both the Steele campaign and the Talent campaign have said you're not being fair to them, because they want to expand stem cell research, too, they say, but it's adult stem cell research.

Fox: Right, and I agree with them on adult stem cell research. I mean, let's talk about what we agree on. I agree that stem cell research is fantastic; we should pursue it. I agree that we should have no human cloning. We're against that. We're against egg farming, that notion. We agree on all of that.

The only thing is, we would like to include embryonic stem cell research, which our scientists say has the best hope for cures and breakthroughs.

See, we're in agreement. I think that when they say talk about not being fair, there has been, again, not as much focus on the content of the ad. It's really the appearance of the ad. But really, because all the statements are verifiable and to direct comparison, it is, in effect, an ad for their position. If you see the ad and you agree with their position, and there are people that do, then it should incentive you to vote for them.

Stephanopoulos: In the ad now running in Missouri, Jim Caviezel speaks in Aramaic. It means, "You betray me with a kiss." And his position, his point, is that actually even though down in Missouri they say the initiative is against cloning, it's actually going to allow human cloning.

Fox: Well, I don't think that's true. You know, I campaigned for Claire McCaskill. And so I have to qualify it by saying I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I'll agree with it in spirit, I don't know, I-- On full disclosure, I haven't read it, and that's why I didn't put myself up for it distinctly.

But I've made this point before, and I really am sincere in it, that anybody who's prayed on this, and thought about it, and really considered it and can't get their mind around or their heart around the idea of embryonic stem cell research, I'd go to war for your right to believe that. And you're right to feel that. I respect it. I truly do.

My point is, and our point as a community, is we have a very good and supportable conclusion that a vast majority of people in this country are in favor of science playing a leading role in making changes in the future and believe in embryonic stem cell research.

So we're just saying, know that we have prayed on it, too, and we have thought about it, and we are good people, and we are family people, and we are people that take this very seriously, and we're as concerned as you are.

And we've decided that we would like to take this step and to do it with caution and to do it with oversight and to do it with the strictest adherence to ethics and all of the principles this country stands for.

But, allow us to do that without infusing the conversation with inflammatory rhetoric and name-calling and fear-mongering. It doesn't help.

Stephanopoulos: Do you think there's any way to finally find common ground with people who do believe in the end that this is tampering with tiny lives?

Fox: Well, again, the point has been made that these lives are going to be thrown away, anyway. They are marked for destruction -- thousands of frozen embryos that are a byproduct of in vitro fertilization. We have routinely, before this conversation started on stem-cell research, we have for years thrown them away.

And that's the other thing, you know, this idea of snowflake babies: We're in favor of that. The truth of the matter is that it is only going to account for a tiny fraction--

Stephanopoulos: Those are the embryos that are adopted and then brought

Fox: Absolutely. Who would have a problem with that? That's fantastic.

But it will, in the end, account for only a tiny fraction of those eggs. And so our point is that the pro-life position is to use that -- what up to this point is waste, of literal waste that is going to be thrown away -- use it to save lives and to ensure lives for the future. I mean, they talk about unborn. Unborn kids are going to be born with diabetes. People are going to be dealing with a genetic predisposition to Alzheimer's or to Parkinson's or kids that are going to be injured, have spinal cord injury.

That those kids may be born into a world that has the answers for that. That's our position.

dc_dux · 10-29-2006, 08:05 PM

Quote:

. In much the same way that you seem to have been too busy to click on Squirt's link, you were also too busy to read the entire initiative.

Magic.....You and I can read Squirts link, Host's link or any number of differing analysis, and its not likely to change either of our opinions.

I will continue to support candidates who would vote for the stem cell bill that Bush vetoed, against the majority support of Congress and the people, and I appreciate Michael J Fox's active involvement in the issue, particularly in light of the ridicule and criticism he has encountered.

filtherton · 10-29-2006, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magictoy

Then if George Bush misspeaks on an issue, or doesn't choose the best course of action, he's doing nothing worse than the rest of Congress.

Nice to know you'll be cutting him slack for the rest of his term.

Are you trying to bust me out because you think i have more deference to congress than the president? Oooh, burn. They're all full of shit.

Anyways, i hope that you revile the president with as much vitriol as you have for mr. fox the next time he does something stupid, which, you know, should be any fucking minute now.

host · 10-30-2006, 01:54 AM

The religious right and elected republican officials in Missouri have a track record of interfering with women's access to reproductive information, treatment, and contraceptives...to a much more radical extent than at the federal level:

At the following link, Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt allows the display of a deliberate, inciting falsehood:
RU-486 is never dispensed by pharmacists to prescription holders....

Quote:

http://www.oa.mo.gov/bp/bib2007/Pro-Life.pdf
2006 Legislative Priority
Conscience Protection for Pharmacists
2006 Legislative Priority
Tax Credits to Support Alternatives to Abortion
25
2006 Legislative Priority
Prohibiting Abortion Providers from Teaching in Schools
2006 / Fiscal Year 2007 Priorities
Representing Missourians’ Values Currently, some school districts around the state allow Planned Parenthood and other abortion
providers to offer sex education in their schools. Governor Blunt believes that these providers
should not be providing information to Missouri school children. The Governor proposes
legislation:
• That will prohibit any public elementary or secondary institution from allowing abortion
providers to present sex education programs to students.
Currently, Missouri law provides conscience protection for certain medical professionals with
respect to abortions. Recently, pharmacies have taken action against pharmacists who refuse to
fill prescriptions for RU-486 or the so-called morning after pill. The Governor proposes
legislation that:
• Protects the conscience rights of pharmaceutical professionals.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mifepristone#_note-26

.....In the United States it is sold by Danco Laboratories under the tradename Mifeprex. (In some countries including the United States and Australia, the drug is still commonly referred to as "RU-486".).....

.....Mifepristone was approved under the second part of sub-section H. The result is that women cannot pick the drug up at a pharmacy but must now receive it directly from a doctor. Due to the possibility of adverse reactions such as excessive bleeding which may require a blood transfusion and incomplete abortion which may require surgical intervention, the drug is only considered safe if a physician who is capable of administering a blood transfusion or a surgical abortion is available to the patient in the event of such emergencies.[30] The approval of mifepristone under Subsection H included a black box warning.
http://www.fda.gov/ola/2006/mifepristone0517.html

<a href="http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t51505.html">"If you hand out contraception to single women, we're saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that," Phillips, R-Kansas City, said in an interview.</a>

The deliberation in the Missouri state senate in 2005 over this bill was the motivation for the vote on a constitutional amendment. Republicans who are not batshit crazy from religious influences, including gov. Matt Blunt, are presumably in favor of keeping the state on an equal footing with the rest of the countryas far as in the development of this science:

Quote:

http://www.missouricures.com/news_040605SLPD.php
NEWS ARTICLE
April 6, 2005
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Missouri Senate shelves proposal for ban

By Matthew Franck
Post-Dispatch Jefferson City Bureau

JEFFERSON CITY, MO - After five hours of debate that pitted Republicans against Republicans on the most fundamental questions of human life, the Missouri Senate shelved a bill Wednesday that seeks to ban stem cell research involving cloning.

Now even the bill's sponsor, Sen. Matt Bartle, questions whether he has the political support to bring the matter back to the Senate floor later this session. "It's become pretty obvious to me a long time ago that there is more than enough political will to kill the bill," said Bartle, R-Lee's Summit.

Bartle's remarks came at the end of what some senators described as an agonizing debate over a research procedure that's viewed alternately as a salvation for the sick or the destruction of the earliest forms of life.

The debate saw senators sparring over genetic science in arcane detail. They spoke passionately of the ravages of disease and paralysis, including that of one of their Senate colleagues. And above all, they clashed over when life begins and how that definition holds up to technologies once unforeseen.

At issue is whether to ban research involving somatic cell nuclear transfer, often referred to as therapeutic cloning. The procedure is used to harvest stem cells, offering hope of one day curing diseases.

Senate Republican leaders have been hesitant to cast votes on an issue that pits Republican Gov. Matt Blunt against some of his anti-abortion supporters while splitting two of the party's key constituencies. On one end are abortion opponents who oppose the procedure on moral grounds; on the other are business leaders and Blunt, who see the research as an engine of economic development.

Bartle agreed to shelve his bill after several lawmakers threatened to filibuster it. In doing so, he worked out a deal with Senate Majority Leader Charlie Shields, R-St. Joseph, to seek a compromise bill to bring back to the floor later this session.

Shields said he'd like to see an alternative bill that would ban cloning that results in a human child, but allow research involving cloned cells.

But Bartle said he would not concede to such a bill. Instead, he said he would seek support for a three-year ban on the cloning research to give lawmakers a chance to study the issue.

<h3>Bartle opened debate on the bill with 40 minutes of remarks that sought to equate the human cells produced through somatic cell nuclear transfer as human life worthy of legal protection.</h3>

Under somatic cell nuclear transfer, the nucleus of an unfertilized human egg is removed and replaced with the nucleus of an ordinary human cell. The cell is then stimulated to divide into a group of cells from which stem cells are harvested. Many hope those cells could be used in the future to form into a variety of human cells, potentially repairing human hearts, lungs and spinal cords.

Bartle argued that the cells produced through the process are human life that if implanted in a womb could result in a human child.

Bartle said that if senators doubt whether the process does, in fact, result in life, they should "err on the side of protecting human life."

But most of the Senate debate was dominated by opponents of Bartle's bill. Leading the charge was Sen. Chris Koster, who had for weeks been viewed as undecided on the stem cell issue.

Koster, R-Harrisonville, argued that the cells produced through somatic cell nuclear transfer would only take on human characteristics if they were implanted in a womb.

"What makes us human occurs in the womb, not the petri dish," Koster said.

Koster borrowed Bartle's own rhetoric, arguing that if senators lack the science to declare the cells human life, they should err on the side of protecting the lives of those who await cures for disease.

Koster alluded to Sen. Chuck Graham, D-Columbia, who lost the ability to walk after an auto accident as a teenager. Without mentioning Graham by name, Koster spoke in intimate detail of the nature of Graham's disability.

Graham joined Koster in arguing against the bill. He recounted how he has waited as the promises for breakthrough in spinal cord injuries have not been realized. He said supporters of the research ban have focused on the "margins of life," while ignoring the hope such research offers to thousands.

Prior to Wednesday's debate, some had questioned whether Bartle's bill would even reach the Senate floor, given the opposition of many Republicans.

Blunt has said he would likely veto the bill. The governor said he does not believe the process produces human life, since no egg and sperm are involved in producing the cells.

An earlier version of Bartle's bill would have spelled out felony criminal penalties for those who engage in the research. A substitute version presented Wednesday instead spells out up to a $50,000 civil fine.

During debate, some anti-abortion senators expressed frustration over Bartle's unwillingness to compromise by offering a bill that would ban reproductive cloning but allow cloning research.

Sen. John Griesheimer, R-Washington, who had been a co-sponsor of Bartle's bill, blamed Bartle's inflexibility for creating a rift between Republicans.

"It's sad that we're fighting against ourselves," he said. "And it's sad that it's come to this."

Bartle's bill is SB160.

Two pieces follow that helped me to understand the science better, and potential treatment of disease:

Quote:

http://bluegalinaredstate.blogspot.c...endment-2.html
Thursday, October 26, 2006
The Missouri Vote: Amendment 2

Here in Missouri, we are going to the polls on November 7, just like everyone else. However, here in Missouri, we have a constitutional amendment to consider and the emotions are running high on both sides.

Amendment 2, The Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative, is the hot-button issue this year. On one side you find the Catholic Church and Missouri Right to Life. On the other side you have a whole host of medical research foundations and Jack Danforth.

In the breach, you have me. I will say up front that I am in the "Pro" camp. I will, however, attempt to explain why I take the stand I do. In plain English. And without going on for pages.

First lets clear up a huge misconception. Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) is technically "cloning" - up to a point. In the sense that cloning means replication. But it stops there.

The amendment specifically outlaws human cloning. When the opposition says it legitimizes cloning, they are disingenuous at best, and more likely they are flat-out, intentionally, being dishonest.

In SCNT, eggs are extracted and the nucleus is removed from the egg with a very tiny glass pipette. The same procedure is used to remove the nucleus of a source cell, and the nucleus is injected into the vacated (enucleated) egg cell. If we say just the right magic words in the perfect pitch and cadence, this cell will begin to replicate. At five days, we have a blastocyst of stem cells, and we can harvest those undiferentiated cells. Remember that word. It is going to be revisited a bit down the page.

Passage of Amendment 2 will assure that Missourians have access to any and all stem cell therapies that might be developed in the future (embryonic stem-cell research is only about five years old) that would be available to other patients from other states. Passage of Amendment 2 will ensure that medical institutions in Missouri would be able to conduct research to help develop new cures to horrific diseases so long as those treatments are not prohibited by federal law. Many scientists, myself included, feel these cells provide the most promising treatments for traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries, organ failure, neuro-muscular diseases, Alzheimers, organic brain disorders, and a whole host of others...including, yes, Parkinsons.

If Amendment 2 is not passed, members of the Missouri legislature would be able to outlaw therapies that are developed that use embryonic stem cells. Those with private insurance or resources could gain treatment out of state, such as in Massachusettes or California. Those who are reliant on Missouri Medicaid (a high percentage of disabled and diabetic patients) will be out of luck. The state would not pay for the treatment. So the bottom line is the state legislature could pass laws that prohibited low income people from accessing cures available to those who are better off.

I don't believe that the opponents are intentionally discriminating against these future patients. I don’t think they have even thought about them, but they should. Especially since they are not only picking up the tab for long-term treatment, they are consciously denying them any hope for a cure, possibly without even realizing it. I have heard people say they don't oppose it across the board, they just don't want it here. I have changed a few minds when this has come up in conversation. I see what I have come to refer to as "the look" cross their faces, and they often say "Wow. I never thought of that." or "Why isn't that part of the debate?"

I don't know why it isn't part of the debate. I don't fancy myself the smartest person in Kansas City, let alone the entire state, but nobody else seems to be considering this facet of the argument.

The research is going forward, in this country, and cures will be found. Failure to pass this amendment will impact the economy of our state because research will move away under threat that the work could be criminalized. This will hurt the economy of Missouri while helping the economies of states on both coasts. If the amendment fails, and the legislature bans all embryonic stem cell research, this state will deny Missouri residents therapies that will be readily available to patients in other states.

Those who oppose the Amendment say something along the lines of "Embryonic stem-cell research hasn't produced a single cure, and besides we already have adult stem cell therapies available, and adult stem cells are readily available."

This is true - but we are also exploring a totally new science in embryonic stem cell research. (Edison's lightbulbs didn't work at first, you know.) Embryonic stem cell research is so promising precisely because we have had success with adult stem cells. Bone marrow transplantation is a form of adult stem cell therapy. Success with them is how we even got to where we are. Currently, adult stem cells are most often used in cancer treatment, and indeed many lives have been saved because of these therapies.

Embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated. In other words, they can become anything. Let's say that you or someone you love has diabetes and is facing a future of insulin dependence that will lose effectiveness and it will lead to amputation, organ failure and death. Embryonic stem cells can, in theory, be used to grow healthy cells for implantation into your pancreas. The idea is that healthy cells can be introduced and will replicate to replace the unhealthy ones. This is the only hope that currently exists for a cure for diabetes and many other diseases, as well as spinal cord injuries.

Or perhaps you will be in an auto accident and your spinal cord is severed. Or your child falls while roller skating and lands just right and is paralyzed. Embryonic stem cells are the only cells that have been coaxed into replicating as nerve cells. Animal studies have successfully restored movement after spinal cords were surgically severed. This is something we never thought possible even ten years ago. The factsheet from Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures is here.

This is an area where I have a little more than an opinion. I am a working scientist, a science educator and a grad studednt in science. I am also a member in good standing of the <a href="http://www.ascp.org/">American Society of Clinical Pathologists</a>. I have been an associate researcher (read uncredited student lackey) on papers published in respected journals by my professors.

Yeah. I got some game here. Any questions you might have about this issue, pose them in comments and I will attempt to give an unbiased answer that provides information to allow you to make an informed and well-though-out decision as to where you stand on the issue.

Quote:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...n-disease.html
Stem cell trial to combat childhood brain disease

* 12:13 25 September 2006
* NewScientist.com news service
* Helen Phillips

The first clinical safety trial of a purified human fetal stem cell product is about to begin in the US for a rare and fatal childhood brain disease. The trial could pave the way for neural stem cell transplants to treat a range of brain and spinal cord disorders.

A team from the Oregon Health and Science University Doernbecher Children’s Hospital plan to treat six children suffering from the inherited neurodegenerative condition, Batten’s disease – also known as neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis (NCL). There is currently no alternative treatment for the disease.

The team expect to treat the first child before the end of 2006. The children will receive injections of neural stem cells that have been purified – isolated from other cell types – and grown from donated human fetal tissue. The stem cell product and isolation technique was developed by StemCells Inc, of Palo Alto, California, which is sponsoring the trial.

Children with Batten’s disease suffer seizures, motor control disturbances, blindness and communication problems. As many as 600 children in the US are currently diagnosed with the condition – death can occur in children as young as 8 years old.

The children lack an enzyme for breaking down complex fat and protein compounds in the brain, explains Robert Steiner, vice chair of paediatric research at the hospital. The material accumulates and interferes with tissue function, ultimately causing brain cells to die.
Neuron support

Previous tests on animals demonstrated that stem cells injected into the brain secreted the missing enzyme. And the stem cells were found to survive well in the rodent brain.

Once injected, the purified neural cells may develop into neurons or other nervous system tissue, including oligodendrocytes, or glial cells, which support the neurons, say the researchers. Steiner is hopeful that the treatment will work for the 25 or so other hereditary brain diseases related to Batten’s disease.

In addition to secreting enzymes, Steiner says these cells can become the type of nerve cells found in spinal cord, and so they could potentially help after spinal cord injury. The stem cells can form into neural cells found in the brain or nerve cells found elsewhere in the central nervous system, he explains.

However, Stephen Minger, director of the stem cell biology laboratory at Kings’ College London, believes that despite Steiner’s claims about the versatility of the new purified cells, their use is limited to Batten’s disease. “The cells in question have little clinical relevance to other neurological disorders,” he says. ....

FoolThemAll · 10-30-2006, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

Where, exactly, is the "collateral damage" in taking discarded human cells, and using it?

The cells are going to be killed. You may object to the process that led to cells going to be killed, but once you have some being who has no ability to think, is doomed to die, and has useful organs or cells -- where is the ethical problem with harvesting it?

You do know that what I described is the source of almost all human organ transplants.

There may be a very good point here. Two caveats:

1. The cells that "are going to be killed" - are they to be killed because they can no longer be implanted successfully, or killed by request or for storage issues? If it's one of the latter two, then I don't see the inevitability that you do. I would argue that destruction of cells with a potential future should not be allowed. And that just goes back to my problem with in vitro in general. If it's the former, though, then I'm close to agreeing with you.

2. The only remaining problem I'd have - and I'm undecided on this - is that I might still oppose the use of the embryos because it could encourage/increase the creation of nonviable embryos. Tossing that around in my head right now.

roachboy · 10-30-2006, 06:31 AM

Quote:

I would argue that destruction of cells with a potential future should not be allowed

what a strange statement.
do you mean this?

FoolThemAll · 10-30-2006, 06:34 AM

edit: Oh, I see. Context is needed.

By 'cells', I mean the cells of an embryo. I don't mean just any ordinary collection of cells - I mean a human organism.

AXP_Crow23 · 10-30-2006, 09:44 AM

read to today in the paper (Metro) Fox admits that he doesnt even know what the stem cell legislation will do. Always nice to support something when you know nothing about it. Gives you lots of credibility.

host · 10-30-2006, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AXP_Crow23

read to today in the paper (Metro) Fox admits that he doesnt even know what the stem cell legislation will do. Always nice to support something when you know nothing about it. Gives you lots of credibility.

Read my posts.....you aren't adding anything to the discussion, IMO. Why not go the rest of the way.... and comment on the other "content" on the linked page that xxSquirtxx posted earlier:
http://www.floppingaces.net/2006/10/...ng-initiative/

Quote:

So basically Michael made an ad, in which he was purposely overmedicated, to support McCaskill because of her stand on this initiative. An initiative he never read nor understood.

This campaign issue is not a partisan issue....it is fueled by religion influenced ignorance.... The partisan dimension is that one party panders to the issues of religious zealots in order to attract their political support.

In Missouri, there is a running political battle between religious zealots who are trying to transform that state into a "Jesus Land". Michael J. Fox is interested in all Americans enjoying the same potential for medical research breakthroughs to bring relief from symptoms of illness, and to reverse deterioration and death that too often is the result of disease that medicine has inadequate or no treatment for.

<h3>That is his "agenda"....what is yours? Why are you posting a repetition of earlier attacks on Michael J. Fox, here, and by Rush Limbaugh?</h3>

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2128188.shtml
Oct. 26, 2006

........."The irony is that I was too medicated. I was dyskinesic," Fox told Couric. "Because the thing about … being symptomatic is that it's not comfortable. No one wants to be symptomatic; it's like being hit with a hammer."

His body visibly wracked by tremors, Fox appears in a political ad touting Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill's stance in favor of embryonic stem cell research. That prompted Limbaugh to speculate that Fox was "either off his medication or acting."

Fox told Couric, "At this point now, if I didn't take medication I wouldn't be able to speak."

He said he appeared in the ad only to advance his cause, and that "disease is a non-partisan problem that requires a bipartisan solution."

"I don't really care about politics," Fox added. "We want to appeal to voters to elect the people that are going to give us a margin, so we can't be vetoed again.

Though Fox, a native of Canada who became an American citizen in 2000, has been politically active for Democratic causes, he said he has voted for and would vote for a Republican. "Arlen Specter is my guy," he said of the Republican senator from Pennsylvania. "I've campaigned for Arlen Specter. He's been a fantastic champion of stem cell research. I've spoken alongside Mike Castle, who's a Republican congressman. Absolutely."

"This is not about red states and blue states," added Fox, who has also lobbied Congress to lift President Bush's restrictions on funding for stem cell research. "This is not about Democrats and Republicans. This is about claiming our place as the scientific leader in scientific research and moving forward and helping our citizens. That’s all it is. It’s that simple." .....

Why not add to this discussion, instead of attacking Michael J. Fox? Your post and others of similar vein are unseemly. You're attacking a very ill man with an incurable disease who is using his celebrity to attempt to counter the political influence and activities of religious zealots who have abridged the access to medical research, medical appliances, medicine, hygenic education, and to safe, approved, medical procedures that their relgious beliefs influence them to object to and motivate them to attempt other people from receiving.....IMO, Michael J. Fox is being much too polite in his response to the efforts and the propagandizing of these misguided, ignorant, selfish, and religiously intolerant people. In Missouri, they've already succeeded in keeping birth control options from the working poor.....options routinely offered in many other states to low income workers who are poor, but do not qualify for medicaid..... aid that was offered in Missouri clinics before these religiously energized folks were elected to the state legislature....

10-25-2006, 10:03 AM	#47 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	Yes, you'd have to build up a completely different instuition in order to do research unretricted by the Federal ban provisions on fetal stem-cell research. This is basic research. The kind that helps everyone in the USA -- a damn good use of Federal money. Instead, Federal money is making it harder to do the research. The fetal stem cells are the least differentiated human cells out there. Learning how to convince them to differentiate and turn into arbitrary tissue is ridiculously interesting research. Do you object to having the Federal government fund fundamental scientific research? Do you understand the economic basis for why funding fundamental scientific research is a damn good idea? __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

10-25-2006, 10:25 AM	#48 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Will, are you seriously telling me that there's a vast conspiracy amongst the research institutions of the world to use embryonic stem cells solely? Or that umbilical stem cells and embryonic stem cells are even the same thing (I honestly don't know). __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

10-29-2006, 07:28 AM	#64 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	Where, exactly, is the "collateral damage" in taking discarded human cells, and using it? The cells are going to be killed. You may object to the process that led to cells going to be killed, but once you have some being who has no ability to think, is doomed to die, and has useful organs or cells -- where is the ethical problem with harvesting it? You do know that what I described is the source of almost all human organ transplants. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

10-29-2006, 07:15 PM	#66 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I dont particularly care if Fox read the details of the MO initiative or not. He was aware that it allows only stem cell research that complies with federal laws and regulations and that it prohibits human cloning. That said, the position of Senate candidates on federal stem cell legislation should be more important to the rest of the country (whether you are for or against a federal bill) and the current Senator in MO voted against the bill that passed in both the House and Senate. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

10-30-2006, 06:34 AM	#78 (permalink)
FoolThemAll Walking is Still Honest Location: Seattle, WA	edit: Oh, I see. Context is needed. By 'cells', I mean the cells of an embryo. I don't mean just any ordinary collection of cells - I mean a human organism. __________________ I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

10-25-2006, 01:53 PM	#55 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	So I said all? Show me, or end the theadjack.

10-27-2006, 04:36 AM	#58 (permalink)
lewk Upright	Who's dime is it all on? I'm all for making it legal so Michael J. Fox can invest his money in discarded fetuses to try to cure a disease he didn't care about until he realized he had it, but, please, keep my tax dollars out of this.

10-29-2006, 06:35 PM	#65 (permalink)
xxSquirtxx More anal, less shenanigans Location: Always lurking	Sadly, it appears that MJF was not as informed as he thought he was. http://www.floppingaces.net/2006/10/...ng-initiative/

10-29-2006, 07:25 PM	#68 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Yeah, but i would wager most politicians don't know the page-to-page content of most bills.

10-30-2006, 09:44 AM	#79 (permalink)
AXP_Crow23 Upright	read to today in the paper (Metro) Fox admits that he doesnt even know what the stem cell legislation will do. Always nice to support something when you know nothing about it. Gives you lots of credibility.