In addition to this he apparently also mentioned juvenile diabetes and a number of other ailments to be cured if we vote for Kerry.
Some problems.
First, Bush did NOT ban stem cell research, NOR did he ban federal funding of it.
The existing embryos are still qualified for federal funding as are any projects involving adult stem cells. The radical left wants you to believe otherwise. Also, embryonic stem cell research is NOT banned. That little niche requires private funding. Private, not public, doesn’t mean it’s outlawed.
Second, the argument that embryonic stem cells CAN cure more diseases POTENTIALLY than adult stem cells.
This is such a volatile ethics issue, I’d feel better seeing it proven with limited ailments from adult cells, than chase all moral/ethical debate aside and charge ahead full steam to see what we can come up with. This isn’t a proven cure for anything, yet.
In addition, he never says how long Kerry will heal the sick. Will it be Jan. 22nd? Will it be 3 years later? Promises and no timeline. Should have known. But damnit we better vote for him. These bastard researchers the world over haven’t done shit for spinal cord patients. :rolleyes:
Except that in the original comments, besides the one that is quoted, Edwards doesn’t say that these diseases will be cured, only that they could be cured. Also, the quote starts with “If we do the work that we can do in this country…”, so it’s not a definite statement and fits into context as a hopeful comment. Or were you planning to slam Jerry Lewis for his “we will beat this someday”-type comments during the MD telethons, etc?
Plus in this sort of instance, the outlawing of public funding means no government grants, which is where a lot of pure research funding comes from. Pharmaceutical company funding usually only comes into play when there are patentable, marketable things at stake, which is questionable in this case, and that leaves the odd charity and philanthropist; these just don’t match up in sheer funds to government and pharmaceutical funding. So it’s not forbidding such research to continue (though with the venom many people use against the concept of embryonic stem cell research, you’d think that’s the next step), but it is essentially doing so by default.
I guess I wasn’t clear enough. There IS federal funding for stem cell research, including embryonic research. There just isn’t any funding for NEW embryos to be used.
Look, my grandmother died of Alzheimer’s and both my parents died of cancer. I’m right at the front for wanting something from stem cells. However, nothing has been shown to prove that stem cells of any kind can cure any disease. I’d like to see some clinical proof before entering the next Roe v. Wade debate over harvesting embryos for this purpose.
I’ll try an analogy. Would you rather your kid learn to drive in your new Porche or the family Chevy?
Sounds like he’s being ‘positive’ and ‘hopeful’ about what research (generallY) may be able to do.
and it’s rather disingenuous to suggest (as you seem to do here) that Bush’s stance wrt Stem cell research has no effect on that research.
point being that the two men, Kerry and Bush have very different stance wrt the stem cell research. One is more open to it than the other. It would seem obvious that having it ‘more open’, ‘more accessible’ would lend to it being used more, which would hardly delay potential results.
Even if Edwards really did mean what the OP says, it’s still better to accelerate medical progress and grossly exaggerate about it, than to slow it down.
He could claim the stem cells will resurrect my dead relatives and make my dick ten feet long, and Kerry/Edwards would still be a much better choice that Bush/Cheney if you care about stem cell research.
No, let me say this slower. The only difference is Kerry wants to publicly fund a specific type of stem cell, in addition to those Bush is already funding. Spin away, or show me where Bush has cut off federal funding for stem cell research.
If anybody has them, I’d like some raw facts on this matter. Which, if any, embryonic lines are still uncontaminated and available for use by researchers? (Because, quite frankly, if you ban funding for NEW embryos, and there are no existing embryos left, you’ve banned funding for embryonic research.)
I hear your slowly stated position and raise you a correct one: you’re full of shit.
Basic scientific research is nearly impossible under the restrictions imposed by Bush. Period. As a scientist, I can tell you that in a field as new and unexplored as embryonic stem cells, forcing scientists to only use the (mouse-contaminated) existing cell lines is tantamount to trying to learn to drive without being allowed to start the car or go anywhere. I have friends who are biologists and biochemists who will tell you the same thing.
Embryonic stem cell research has enormous potential for medical research and treatments. And as much as you might wish it to be otherwise, that potential will remain untapped until true basic research can be done. Bush’s policies do not allow for true basic research.
and I’ll type slower so you can understand. Yes, Bush is “allowing” public funding for certain already in process of being used stem cell research. Which is, of course, less than the number of stem cells available for research. One of the issues, from what I (the non science major) understood, was that there was concern that the existing stem cell lines (as in ‘those stem cells being currently used for research being paid for by public $$’, ie, the exact and only stem cell lines Bush policy will allow for public $$), that they were deteriorating, etc. Don’t recall the specifics, but the scientists who wanted to do the research wanted additional lines for a reason other than yanking the chain of the extreme right wing.
you are welcome to your personal beliefs wrt begining of life etc, and you have my sympathies wrt to your family situations, however neither gives you a ‘pass’ for not understanding that there is indeed a fundemental difference in the scope of allowed research being supported by the two men, nor does it give you a pass on inflammatory rhetoric, intentionally skewing what Edwards actually said.
Personally, I’m more concerned with the reasons that Bush has for restricting federal funding for new lines of stem cells. Religious beliefs should not form the basis for either public or scientific policy, as they so often seem to have done with the current Administration. You may be completely correct that new lines of stem cells will not significantly accelerate research. You may also be wrong. Why don’t we let the scientists figure it out?
IIRC, aside from the contamination issues and the degredation issues, there’s certain types of research which the existing lines are unsuitable for, so that research can’t even be undertaken in the US. I think that if a treatment is developed elsewhere using the non-approved lines, we won’t be able to use it in the US because of the wording of the restrictions. How’s that for smart regulations?
Let’s also not forget about the benefits of live organ transplants which many people are opposed to.
That analogy would apply if you wanted funding for a jet engine before the Wright brothers flew at Kitty Hawk. You have to crawl before you walk. And I don’t remember reading about the government funding the efforts of Orville and Wilbur.
And we can get the proof from adult stem cells before harvesting embryos for the express purpose of experimentation. Let’s see it work before getting into the ethics of using cells from life forms not able to consent to it. Rolleyes, indeed.
I can think of at least 2 societies in the recent past that have used any and all means of human experimentation to come up with wonderful new cures. And damn the consequences, even if there was no cure to be found.
Again, I want the research to continue. I want these cures to be found. But give us a little taste of what is to be from the funding available. Shit, even give us a correlation of cures from adult stem cells and embryonic, and we can get a step further.
This is uncharted territory here, and I just think we should have an idea if it’s practical before going full bore on unproven science.
While we’re at it, to all saying lack of funding for ***embryonic stem cell research ** * is keeping scientific data from being collected, CITE!
I have to be misunderstanding this. You need a cite that it takes funding to collect scientific data? That scientists don’t work for free, and science equipment costs money?
Oh, I don’t know – the Pit sounds like an excellent place for it.
So, let me get this straight. You want to see degenerative diseases and crippling injuries cured, aren’t positive that stem cell research will produce results, but are willing to grant that it might, recognize the difference between Kerry’s and Bush’s actual stands on stem cell research and what the extremists on either side are incorrectly saying about their opponents, and this adds up in your mind to John Edwards identifying John Kerry as Jesus?
Would you mind at all filling in the blanks in that series of syllogisms? I can understand political hyperbole – but that one just went a little too far off the deep end for my taste.
