Suck it, clown.
I’d bet that if somebody had been following you around with a camera for the last coupla decades, they’d have gotten some pretty funny pictures of you, too. In fact, I’ve got an idea for a clever side-by-side right now. Pucker up, and we’ll put a picture of that next to a picture of an asshole.
I’ll bet the resemblance is uncanny.
Isn’t Bush forgetting that stem cells could help save one of the most popular Republicans ever–Ron Reagan?
I dare him to look Nancy square in the eye and tell her that he is prohibiting people from possibly finding a remedy that would maybe help if not her husband countless others who must suffer the same disease.
I think Reagan was a terrible president but I would not wish his condition on anyone.
Cargogal I think the point you’re missing is that you have a very different view of what embryonic cells are than Bush does. He, and I’m assuming many others on the Religious Right, believe that we should not perfrom experiments on human embryos. He places an inherent value on human embryos, that you do not.
It is a fundamental belief of his that once a human life is started (I suppose at fertilization) it has a value beyond that of a “clump of cells”.
I’m sure there is a point at which you would not feel comfortable performing experiments on human cells. You certainly wouldn’t experiment on a newborn, he is just placing that cutoff point way earlier in the development process than you. He knows very well what it is you want to do, and what you want to experiment with, he’s just saying no.
It doesn’t change the fact that you disagree with it, and that it limits research, just throwing it out there…
So what you’re saying is that we should ban cadavers in med school now?
You know, the interesting thing (according to the debate which my roommate participated in) is that much of the time the cells are going to be destroyed anyone. I think they said dissolved in a culture. Personally, in this situation I think that using the cells for research, thus helping to advance medical treatments which could help the human race, is showing the cells–and the potential life–more respect.
But that’s just me.
I’m anything but a GWB fan, but in this case he has a point IMHO. Politics have to take a lot of factors into account, one of which are scientific achievements (and I can understand scientists would love to make use of those achievements, so I also understand they can get angry if one wants to prevent them from doing it).
But that’s not everything. Politics also have to take ethics and respect of life into account, and this obviously is what the anti-stem cell research advocates are doing.
And does GWB have a clue of what your research is about? Possibly not. But he doesn’t have to. Hell, he can’t be an expert in anything.
Ah, but the vast majority of scientists feel strongly enough about this to sign on to a document disagreeing with Dubya’s action. We’re not talking about a splinter group, here.
I am just very, very certain that morality has not met information on this topic.
I take exception to your statement that the organism will grow noramally. What you should say is that no deviations from normalcy have been detected, which is a far cry from there being no such deviations. So, say someone came up to you and said “Hey, we have a procedure for removing cells from your body that won’t do you any harm. Or at least, we haven’t found any harm. By the way, you don’t have any choice in the matter”. Wouldn’t you be a bit annoyed?
Cite?
Rascism is not cool. It doesn’t matter what color skin someone has, just as long as they are really good-looking.
Cite:
Science, Vogel 291 (5509) 1683b:
Abstract:
Nobel Laureates Lobby for Stem Cells
Gretchen Vogel
Eighty Nobel Prize winners have signed a letter urging President Bush to allow government-funded researchers to work on human pluripotent stem cells. In a letter faxed to the White House on 22 February, they argue that the cells–which have the capacity to develop into any tissue type–could help treat a variety of diseases. The Bush Administration is under pressure from antiabortion groups to block federal funding for work on embryonic stem cells.
As to the first issue: There are two types of development, mosaic and non. The first type is exemplified by the nematode C. Elegans - if you ablate a cell, there will be a section of worm missing when the embryo develops. The cells cannot fill in for each other. Mammals are less mosaic - and unless you want to say that twins are less human than the rest of us, you have to admit that the fill-in is so complete as to make the point moot.
You can get stem cells from a variety of sources. Some are from aborted fetuses; some are from cord blood, some from bone marrow. The research is too preliminary, too new, to say which are ‘better’ right now. A global ban on ES cell work is mind-bogglingly narrow.
The Europeans, usually much more knee-jerk anti-scientific manipulation than the US, have no such ban.
It’s that ‘aborted fetuses’ thing, Cargogal. The right-to-life movement is working to eliminate as many abortions as possible. Then along comes something that makes use of the final product. This creates the possiblity, small but there, of aborted fetuses being harvested and abortions even financially encouraged in the name of scientific research. To many who are anti-abortion, this is akin to Nazi experiments on Jews and other ‘undesirables’ years back.
Yes, capacior, but there is a vast difference between “It is possible that this action might, under certain circumstances, result in y” and “This action will result in y.” * Previously* aborted fetuses are one source for ES cells.
Yes, Cargogal I have done mice work. However, Bush’s ruling didn’t effect mice ES* cells, it effected hES** cells. So your work shouldn’t be effected at all.
I think the problem here is pretty obvious. You surely don’t think that it would be a good idea to extract cells from a human embryo, and then allow that embryo to be implanted? If you do think this is a good idea, I think that you may have more problems than just those of Bush’s ruling.
All of the embryos form which the current cell lines were developed were indeed embryos that were to be destroyed. Generally when a woman undergoes fertility treatments via in vitro fertilization there are several embryos that are not implanted and frozen for later use. The fertility clinics keep these embryos frozen, and the “parents” are supposed to pay a storage fee. However, many of these embryos are abandoned. The fertility clinics are simply destroying them by allowing them to thaw. This is an issue that may require congressional oversight. One of the issues regarding the existing cell line was that of informed consent of the embryo’s parents.
and none of these are banned, included those from aborted fetuses. In fact, none of these are even considered hES by the US gov’t.
Then maybe they should get on the ball and ban this!!
Look this is a complex debate. I’m not infavor of the ruling, but the federal government has every right…nay they have a duty, to decide on what projects our tax dollar will be spent.
If you don’t like it, go work for a private company. I did. Of course, I got tired of working under grants. The only thing worse than working under a grant, is writing a grant request.
*Embryonic Stem
**human Embryonic Stem
Bush has the mental capacity of a 4 year old. I’ve never seen someone so stupid rise to such power. Just proves that something’s wrong with the society of The United States. He is set in his way of bringing down technology which won’t pay off before the next election so that he can spend more time on his friends oil businesses.
Amen. I’ll address the rest tomorrow; I’m tired.
clayton_e, I would like to inform you that similar debates have come up in every industrialized nation, not only the US, and that other countries apart from yours are about to outlaw certain forms of research.
clayton_e, thanks for your input :rolleyes:
So, I’m guessing you don’t like Bush? Shesh!
As for the OP, I don’t know enough biology, organic chemistry, bio-ethics, etc. to give my opinion… so I’ll, wisely, stay silent.
Well, as someone who stands a good chance of developing Parkinsons( mother and grandmother both had it), I am always hopeful that a cure will be found. Not allowing the ability to fully explore an area that may provide such a cure is somewhat infuriating to me. Yes, private research can still be conducted but the process will be so much slower. I can’t help but think that Bush is simply placing politics (by appeasing the religious right) over potential scientific progress. I understand he has the right and the power to do what he is doing. Still, I hope he is out of office quickly so that maybe someone will replace him who has less conservative views on this issue. I understand there are ethical issues but we are talking about trying to find cures for people who are suffering horribly. Is there not something unethical about preventing that?
Are you seriously arguing 80 compose a “vast majorty of scientists”? What, there are less than 160 scientists in the entire country? In fact, there’s nothing in that abstract to suggest that any of these people are scientists (or Americans). You do realize that Nobel Prizes are awarded for catgeories other than science, don’t you?