Full Version: Stem Cell Research
QUOTE
Nancy Reagan has aged, but she's also grown.
The First Lady who presided over the Dazzle Years of her husband's presidency has become First Advocate for research on Alzheimer's, the disease that felled her husband.
The guardian of her husband's legacy is making history in her own right as she presses the administration of George W. Bush to open the way for research on human embryonic stem cells in hopes of finding better treatments for Alzheimer's and other diseases.
Even though the research is controversial because it involves the destruction of five-day-old human embryos. Even though the research incites the fury of the religious conservative base of the Republican Party. Even though stem cells from human embryos are unlikely to become a cure for Alzheimer's disease any time soon, if at all.
But this research holds promise for treating many other conditions from Parkinson's to spinal cord injuries. It offers hope to patients and opportunity to scientists.
The First Lady who presided over the Dazzle Years of her husband's presidency has become First Advocate for research on Alzheimer's, the disease that felled her husband.
The guardian of her husband's legacy is making history in her own right as she presses the administration of George W. Bush to open the way for research on human embryonic stem cells in hopes of finding better treatments for Alzheimer's and other diseases.
Even though the research is controversial because it involves the destruction of five-day-old human embryos. Even though the research incites the fury of the religious conservative base of the Republican Party. Even though stem cells from human embryos are unlikely to become a cure for Alzheimer's disease any time soon, if at all.
But this research holds promise for treating many other conditions from Parkinson's to spinal cord injuries. It offers hope to patients and opportunity to scientists.
Someone started a thread not too long ago exploring ways to honor Reagan's legacy. Suggestions such as placing him on US currency or even adding his face to Mount Rushmore were opined. Neither of these things could change people's lives.
But what if the agonizing death of Reagan could make a difference in the lives of millions? What if some put aside their objections to stem cell research so maybe a cure could be found for Alzheimers?
Questions for debate:
Should we stop framing human embryonic stem cell research as a moral issue and start addressing it as a medical imperative?
Do you believe Nancy Reagan could make a difference in changing the minds of those who oppose this research?
QUOTE(Beladonna @ Jun 15 2004, 07:04 PM)
QUOTE
Nancy Reagan has aged, but she's also grown.
The First Lady who presided over the Dazzle Years of her husband's presidency has become First Advocate for research on Alzheimer's, the disease that felled her husband.
The guardian of her husband's legacy is making history in her own right as she presses the administration of George W. Bush to open the way for research on human embryonic stem cells in hopes of finding better treatments for Alzheimer's and other diseases.
Even though the research is controversial because it involves the destruction of five-day-old human embryos. Even though the research incites the fury of the religious conservative base of the Republican Party. Even though stem cells from human embryos are unlikely to become a cure for Alzheimer's disease any time soon, if at all.
But this research holds promise for treating many other conditions from Parkinson's to spinal cord injuries. It offers hope to patients and opportunity to scientists.
The First Lady who presided over the Dazzle Years of her husband's presidency has become First Advocate for research on Alzheimer's, the disease that felled her husband.
The guardian of her husband's legacy is making history in her own right as she presses the administration of George W. Bush to open the way for research on human embryonic stem cells in hopes of finding better treatments for Alzheimer's and other diseases.
Even though the research is controversial because it involves the destruction of five-day-old human embryos. Even though the research incites the fury of the religious conservative base of the Republican Party. Even though stem cells from human embryos are unlikely to become a cure for Alzheimer's disease any time soon, if at all.
But this research holds promise for treating many other conditions from Parkinson's to spinal cord injuries. It offers hope to patients and opportunity to scientists.
Someone started a thread not too long ago exploring ways to honor Reagan's legacy. Suggestions such as placing him on US currency or even adding his face to Mount Rushmore were opined. Neither of these things could change people's lives.
But what if the agonizing death of Reagan could make a difference in the lives of millions? What if some put aside their objections to stem cell research so maybe a cure could be found for Alzheimers?
Questions for debate:
Should we stop framing human embryonic stem cell research as a moral issue and start addressing it as a medical imperative?
Do you believe Nancy Reagan could make a difference in changing the minds of those who oppose this research?
QUOTE
Should we stop framing human embryonic stem cell research as a moral issue and start addressing it as a medical imperative?
I don't think you can take the moral issue out of it.
My husband suffers from Parkinson disease, and he doesn't support anything more than President Bush has authorized.
QUOTE
Do you believe Nancy Reagan could make a difference in changing the minds of those who oppose this research
Nancy has a right to her opinion as do others. I admire her greatly,but doesn't mean that I agree with her.
Should we stop framing human embryonic stem cell research as a moral issue and start addressing it as a medical imperative?
For some, it will ALWAYS be a moral issue. For others, using embryos that would otherwise be destroyed anyway will NEVER be a moral issue.
Can't labs can get around the federal regulations by just refusing to accept federal moneys? I was never clear on this. Yes, it would be nice if the federal government helped pay for research to solve this problem, but I can also see that numerous drug companies would want to set up independent/non-subsidized labs to create drugs and protocols to handle Alzheimer's and other diseases using stem cells from embryos outside of the "authorized" lines. And, of course, labs outside of the USA aren't hampered by USA federal regulations.
But it makes treatment using those stem cells tricky. Will we see protesters outside of doctor's offices where stem cell implantation is done?
Do you believe Nancy Reagan could make a difference in changing the minds of those who oppose this research?
Those who oppose are convinced their moral viewpoint is right. I'll be surprised if you can successfully argue that a person's beliefs (as opposed to facts) are wrong and should be changed.
However, she can put a real and popular face on the issue for Republicans who were otherwise supportive of Bush and make them think about whether 4 more years of faith-based science is in the best interest of our planet.
For some, it will ALWAYS be a moral issue. For others, using embryos that would otherwise be destroyed anyway will NEVER be a moral issue.
Can't labs can get around the federal regulations by just refusing to accept federal moneys? I was never clear on this. Yes, it would be nice if the federal government helped pay for research to solve this problem, but I can also see that numerous drug companies would want to set up independent/non-subsidized labs to create drugs and protocols to handle Alzheimer's and other diseases using stem cells from embryos outside of the "authorized" lines. And, of course, labs outside of the USA aren't hampered by USA federal regulations.
But it makes treatment using those stem cells tricky. Will we see protesters outside of doctor's offices where stem cell implantation is done?
Do you believe Nancy Reagan could make a difference in changing the minds of those who oppose this research?
Those who oppose are convinced their moral viewpoint is right. I'll be surprised if you can successfully argue that a person's beliefs (as opposed to facts) are wrong and should be changed.
However, she can put a real and popular face on the issue for Republicans who were otherwise supportive of Bush and make them think about whether 4 more years of faith-based science is in the best interest of our planet.
QUOTE(amf @ Jun 15 2004, 10:42 PM)
Those who oppose are convinced their moral viewpoint is right. I'll be surprised if you can successfully argue that a person's beliefs (as opposed to facts) are wrong and should be changed.
However, she can put a real and popular face on the issue for Republicans who were otherwise supportive of Bush and make them think about whether 4 more years of faith-based science is in the best interest of our planet.
However, she can put a real and popular face on the issue for Republicans who were otherwise supportive of Bush and make them think about whether 4 more years of faith-based science is in the best interest of our planet.
Those that are convinced that experimenting on human beings is wrong are "faith-based science" nuts too
.Stem cell research involves experimenting on human embryos. Some nutcases think these are humans. Some nutcases think experimenting on humans is wrong.
Would you agree to experimenting on human adults to figure out how the brain works? How about harvesting organs from the mentally handicapped?
Seriously, disparaging someone because they hold a certain viewpoint simply doesn't advance the debate.
Sorry, Bela, but your article is full of fallacies. Reagan turned a blind eye on AIDS research... oh, sorry, the direct quote is:
QUOTE
This is a long way from the attitude toward health care that was prevalent during her husband's presidency. The message from Reagan's Washington: Don't look to the government to solve your problems! In those years, another wasting disease was seizing headlines and causing havoc. AIDS was a new and misunderstood illness.
But the Reagan administration turned a deaf ear to those early cries for help. The disease -- like research on embryonic stem cells today -- was cast in moral terms. Called the 'gay plague' by some, it inflamed prejudice against homosexuality.
But the Reagan administration turned a deaf ear to those early cries for help. The disease -- like research on embryonic stem cells today -- was cast in moral terms. Called the 'gay plague' by some, it inflamed prejudice against homosexuality.
But these assertions are completely erroneous.
A lie about Reagan.
QUOTE
"I can remember numerous sessions of the domestic-policy council where the surgeon general provided information to us, and the questions were not whether the federal government would get involved, but what would be the best way. There was support for research through the NIH. There also were questions about the extent to which public warnings should be sent out. It was a question of how the public would respond to fairly explicit warnings about fairly explicit things. Ultimately, warnings were sent out."
"As I recall, from 1984 onward — and bear in mind that the AIDS virus was not identified until 1982 — every Reagan budget contained a large sum of money specifically earmarked for AIDS," says Peter Robinson, a former Reagan speechwriter and author of How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life. "Now, people will argue that it wasn't enough," Robinson adds. "But, of course, that's the kind of argument that takes place over every item in the federal budget. Nevertheless, the notion that he was somehow callous or had a cruel or cynical attitude towards homosexuals or AIDS victims is just ridiculous."
In February 1986, President Reagan's blueprint for the next fiscal year stated: "[T]his budget provides funds for maintaining — and in some cases expanding — high priority programs in crucial areas of national interest…including drug enforcement, AIDS research, the space program, nonmilitary research and national security." Reagan's budget message added that AIDS "remains the highest public health priority of the Department of Health and Human Services."
"As I recall, from 1984 onward — and bear in mind that the AIDS virus was not identified until 1982 — every Reagan budget contained a large sum of money specifically earmarked for AIDS," says Peter Robinson, a former Reagan speechwriter and author of How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life. "Now, people will argue that it wasn't enough," Robinson adds. "But, of course, that's the kind of argument that takes place over every item in the federal budget. Nevertheless, the notion that he was somehow callous or had a cruel or cynical attitude towards homosexuals or AIDS victims is just ridiculous."
In February 1986, President Reagan's blueprint for the next fiscal year stated: "[T]his budget provides funds for maintaining — and in some cases expanding — high priority programs in crucial areas of national interest…including drug enforcement, AIDS research, the space program, nonmilitary research and national security." Reagan's budget message added that AIDS "remains the highest public health priority of the Department of Health and Human Services."
Reagan spent over $5.7 billion on AIDS research.
Stem cell research is a completely different animal. Stem cells are touted as some kind of cure all for every ailment under the sun. Diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's. But there are real problems with the Stem Cell panacea.
Clone the Taxpayers
QUOTE
News that a South Korean researcher created 30 cloned human embryos has stoked the hype machine once again. Perhaps a decade from now, the story line goes, tissues taken from human clones made from patients with serious illnesses can be used in miracle treatments for such diseases as Alzheimer's, diabetes or Parkinson's.
More likely a pipe dream. Many scientists now acknowledge that even if "therapeutic cloning" can be perfected--a huge "if," despite the South Korean success--it would probably be too impractical and expensive to ever become widely available. A September 2003 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for example, reported that it would cost up to $200,000 per patient just to pay for the human eggs needed to derive one usable stem-cell line suitable for a "therapeutic cloning" treatment. Indeed, the potentially high cost of, and intense controversy over, therapeutic cloning have made venture capitalists reluctant to invest in human cloning biotech.
More likely a pipe dream. Many scientists now acknowledge that even if "therapeutic cloning" can be perfected--a huge "if," despite the South Korean success--it would probably be too impractical and expensive to ever become widely available. A September 2003 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for example, reported that it would cost up to $200,000 per patient just to pay for the human eggs needed to derive one usable stem-cell line suitable for a "therapeutic cloning" treatment. Indeed, the potentially high cost of, and intense controversy over, therapeutic cloning have made venture capitalists reluctant to invest in human cloning biotech.
The stance of the religious community is not some "See No Evil, Hear No Evil" approach that has a blindfold and earplugs. The stance is a considered one: Stem-Cell Research--How Catholic Ethics
QUOTE
But there is another question that is, I think, equally as important as the ethics of the use of human embryos in research. That question is a public policy question: Should we continue with our policy of research into high-tech, expensive therapies that may not be available to many citizens because they are uninsured, underinsured, or because their insurance plans might not cover experimental treatments? The dominant trend in American medicine is high-tech intervention to cure or try to maintain the status quo of a patient. The implantation of a new model of an artificial heart is another example of such high-tech intervention. Clearly many of these interventions do save lives. And significant developments have been made in the treatment of many forms of cancer. But some perceptions of the success of these interventions are inflated. One study showed that on television shows the success rate of cardiopulmonary resuscitation is over 70%. In real hospitals, however, the success rate is under 5%. This is not in itself a reason not to do CPR, but perhaps we might question whether it is appropriate in the particular circumstances of this patient.
The stem-cell debate might be an opportunity for us to ask if we should not, as a nation, begin to focus on prevention rather than cure as our dominant health-care strategy.
Prevention will not prevent all diseases and will not help if there is a trauma such as a car accident. But a strategy of prevention including services such as care for pregnant women including proper diet information, well-baby exams including vaccinations, and information on lifestyle issues such as diet, smoking and excess drinking would go a long way to preventing the early onset of many diseases.
The resistance to removing or restricting the use of soda and candy machines in elementary and secondary schools shows that we have a long way to go in even thinking about the most elemental forms of prevention of disease.
Of course prevention is rather boring. It certainly would make for very dull TV shows. Who would not rather watch the fast-paced, high-tech ER than a physician instruct a person in a proper diet? Anyway, who wants to watch his or her diet all the time? Who has time for exercise and all the other things we learn are good for us? Prevention is a hard sell. But, in the long run, it is better to try to prevent heart disease than repair a damaged heart. It is better to manage one's diet than take insulin continuously or have a leg amputated because of circulation problems resulting from diabetes.
The stem-cell debate might be an opportunity for us to ask if we should not, as a nation, begin to focus on prevention rather than cure as our dominant health-care strategy.
Prevention will not prevent all diseases and will not help if there is a trauma such as a car accident. But a strategy of prevention including services such as care for pregnant women including proper diet information, well-baby exams including vaccinations, and information on lifestyle issues such as diet, smoking and excess drinking would go a long way to preventing the early onset of many diseases.
The resistance to removing or restricting the use of soda and candy machines in elementary and secondary schools shows that we have a long way to go in even thinking about the most elemental forms of prevention of disease.
Of course prevention is rather boring. It certainly would make for very dull TV shows. Who would not rather watch the fast-paced, high-tech ER than a physician instruct a person in a proper diet? Anyway, who wants to watch his or her diet all the time? Who has time for exercise and all the other things we learn are good for us? Prevention is a hard sell. But, in the long run, it is better to try to prevent heart disease than repair a damaged heart. It is better to manage one's diet than take insulin continuously or have a leg amputated because of circulation problems resulting from diabetes.
The science is understood by Catholics. But the problems are also realistically assessed, unlike, perhaps, in the research community.
Don't make the mistake of believing that the objections to stem cell research and human cloning are based in "pseudo-science".
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jun 16 2004, 10:08 AM)
QUOTE(amf @ Jun 15 2004, 10:42 PM)
Those who oppose are convinced their moral viewpoint is right. I'll be surprised if you can successfully argue that a person's beliefs (as opposed to facts) are wrong and should be changed.
However, she can put a real and popular face on the issue for Republicans who were otherwise supportive of Bush and make them think about whether 4 more years of faith-based science is in the best interest of our planet.
However, she can put a real and popular face on the issue for Republicans who were otherwise supportive of Bush and make them think about whether 4 more years of faith-based science is in the best interest of our planet.
Those that are convinced that experimenting on human beings is wrong are "faith-based science" nuts too
.Stem cell research involves experimenting on human embryos. Some nutcases think these are humans. Some nutcases think experimenting on humans is wrong.
Would you agree to experimenting on human adults to figure out how the brain works? How about harvesting organs from the mentally handicapped?
Seriously, disparaging someone because they hold a certain viewpoint simply doesn't advance the debate.
Where exactly in my posting did I use the word "nuts" or "disparage someone"?? Seems you brought some baggage to the table with your response. Or are you saying that Bush doesn't/didn't use his faith/religious beliefs as a reason to strangle scientific research in this case?
If a competent adult human AGREES to be part of an experiment, my liberatarian (and liberal
) side says "so what?". If the embryo is going to be destroyed anyway (and can be at any time by the parents) but could be used for scientific purposes instead, with the consent of the parents of that embryo, "so what?"And you can't really equate an adult human to an embryo. The analogy doesn't fit. You're closer with the handicapped person, but even then it doesn't really fit that well. It's an emotion-based argument and doesn't hold water when you separate out the emotion. Or your personal moral indignation.
Should we stop framing human embryonic stem cell research as a moral issue and start addressing it as a medical imperative?
Is it essential to separate these two points? Can't the moral issue of the possibility in the improvement in the quality of lives be the same as the medical imperative of developing improvements in health that we can provide?
I think we should have a clear honest an open debate. In Bush's major national address on this issue he exaggerated the number of existing lines available to researchers as adequate. This was not an argument that stem cell research should be stopped because it is morally wrong, it was a hedge position between the two.
Bush Speech
Researchers Cite Stem Cell Shortage
If it is morally right to work on one stem cell line, then it is morally right to work on 1000.
Now, the real moral issue here might actually be whether it is ethical to create so many human embryos in fertility clinics. If these embryos are either going to be destroyed or turned over to scientists, what is the difference?
Do you believe Nancy Reagan could make a difference in changing the minds of those who oppose this research?
I think Nancy Reagan could make a tremendous difference and right now. There are calls for making tributes to Ronald Reagan. His wife thinks an appropriate tribute would be lifting the stem cell limitations. This could be a way of getting around the opposition of a portion of the republican party to the support of this type of research. I don't see why this research has to be considered a panacea. It offers hope to help understand serious diseases and their effects on the human body. With that understanding genuine medical breakthroughs could happen. I would like to face old age without worrying about Alzheimers (sp?).
Is it essential to separate these two points? Can't the moral issue of the possibility in the improvement in the quality of lives be the same as the medical imperative of developing improvements in health that we can provide?
I think we should have a clear honest an open debate. In Bush's major national address on this issue he exaggerated the number of existing lines available to researchers as adequate. This was not an argument that stem cell research should be stopped because it is morally wrong, it was a hedge position between the two.
Bush Speech
Researchers Cite Stem Cell Shortage
If it is morally right to work on one stem cell line, then it is morally right to work on 1000.
Now, the real moral issue here might actually be whether it is ethical to create so many human embryos in fertility clinics. If these embryos are either going to be destroyed or turned over to scientists, what is the difference?
Do you believe Nancy Reagan could make a difference in changing the minds of those who oppose this research?
I think Nancy Reagan could make a tremendous difference and right now. There are calls for making tributes to Ronald Reagan. His wife thinks an appropriate tribute would be lifting the stem cell limitations. This could be a way of getting around the opposition of a portion of the republican party to the support of this type of research. I don't see why this research has to be considered a panacea. It offers hope to help understand serious diseases and their effects on the human body. With that understanding genuine medical breakthroughs could happen. I would like to face old age without worrying about Alzheimers (sp?).
QUOTE(amf @ Jun 16 2004, 10:24 AM)
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jun 16 2004, 10:08 AM)
QUOTE(amf @ Jun 15 2004, 10:42 PM)
Those who oppose are convinced their moral viewpoint is right. I'll be surprised if you can successfully argue that a person's beliefs (as opposed to facts) are wrong and should be changed.
However, she can put a real and popular face on the issue for Republicans who were otherwise supportive of Bush and make them think about whether 4 more years of faith-based science is in the best interest of our planet.
However, she can put a real and popular face on the issue for Republicans who were otherwise supportive of Bush and make them think about whether 4 more years of faith-based science is in the best interest of our planet.
Those that are convinced that experimenting on human beings is wrong are "faith-based science" nuts too
.Stem cell research involves experimenting on human embryos. Some nutcases think these are humans. Some nutcases think experimenting on humans is wrong.
Would you agree to experimenting on human adults to figure out how the brain works? How about harvesting organs from the mentally handicapped?
Seriously, disparaging someone because they hold a certain viewpoint simply doesn't advance the debate.
Where exactly in my posting did I use the word "nuts" or "disparage someone"?? Seems you brought some baggage to the table with your response. Or are you saying that Bush doesn't/didn't use his faith/religious beliefs as a reason to strangle scientific research in this case?
If a competent adult human AGREES to be part of an experiment, my liberatarian (and liberal
) side says "so what?". If the embryo is going to be destroyed anyway (and can be at any time by the parents) but could be used for scientific purposes instead, with the consent of the parents of that embryo, "so what?"And you can't really equate an adult human to an embryo. The analogy doesn't fit. You're closer with the handicapped person, but even then it doesn't really fit that well. It's an emotion-based argument and doesn't hold water when you separate out the emotion. Or your personal moral indignation.
My point was that it is NOT "faith-based science".
It is YOUR opinion that you cannot equate an embryo with an adult human.
But that wasn't the focus of my argument.
The argument is that stem cell research, even if successful, is enormously expensive. People complain about the cost of health care now, but what happens in 20 years when we have to subsidize million dollar stem cell cloning and transplantation. No one has thought of the drawbacks to the direction that research is taking.
Also, although some scientists see great things coming out of stem cell research, there is nothing proven yet. There is no guarantee that this research will be the miracle cure to every ailment on Earth.
There are real ethical AND scientific issues here. Will Nancy Reagan alone be able to dispel those issues? I highly doubt it.
Should we stop framing human embryonic stem cell research as a moral issue and start addressing it as a medical imperative?
I have always believed that the decision to conduct stem cell research should never have been up to the politicians. Scientists should seek to advance science for the sake of science. These so called "faith based" decisions should never enter into the decision process.
History is filled with examples of scientists holding unpopular positions which later turned out to be right, and a great increase in human knowledge. Gallieo's position that the world wasn't flat readily comes to mind here.
Restraining science based on faith-based decisions will only be a detriment to our society in the long run.
Do you believe Nancy Reagan could make a difference in changing the minds of those who oppose this research?
I would highly doubt that she will, no more than hundreds of years of scientific research has convinced them that the earth "evolved".
What she may succeed in doing is making this another sideline political issue for the upcoming election, distracting the country from addressing the real issues at hand.
That is misleading Amlord. There is the potential that stem cells could cure a lot of diseases we have no cure for today. In principle this is possible considering stem cells can become any type of cell in the human body, and these diseases could potentially be treated by growing new tissue. The trick is stimulating the cells to become what you want them to be, which hasn't been figured out yet.
But if we don't do the research we'll never know if this is possible or not.
Isn't any new procedure very expensive initially? Until it becomes accepted and we get some economies of scale, of course the procedure would be expensive, this is the way everything works with medical science. Case in point - lasik surgery. When this procedure first came out it was incredibly expensive, several thousand dollars per eye. Now you can go into the doctor's office, pay less than $1000 for both eyes and be home the very same day. Not only has the procedure gotten cheaper, but the technology has advanced at the same time. They even have financing plans for it now.
What about artificial hearts or bypass surgery, how many people could afford that 10 or 15 years ago?
You argument is a very poor reason not to spend money on stem cell research. It would irresponsible not to pursue this research up until the point scientists discover it won't work.
These people are in the vast minority in the scientific community, most scientists would laugh you out of the room if you tried to tell them that a 5 day old embryo was any more alive than your skin cells or the sperm that produced it in the first place.
The rest of your argument is merely slippery slope rhetoric. Those issues are completely unrelated to stem cell research. They are also illegal and frowned upon by virtually every scientist.
I have always believed that the decision to conduct stem cell research should never have been up to the politicians. Scientists should seek to advance science for the sake of science. These so called "faith based" decisions should never enter into the decision process.
History is filled with examples of scientists holding unpopular positions which later turned out to be right, and a great increase in human knowledge. Gallieo's position that the world wasn't flat readily comes to mind here.
Restraining science based on faith-based decisions will only be a detriment to our society in the long run.
Do you believe Nancy Reagan could make a difference in changing the minds of those who oppose this research?
I would highly doubt that she will, no more than hundreds of years of scientific research has convinced them that the earth "evolved".
What she may succeed in doing is making this another sideline political issue for the upcoming election, distracting the country from addressing the real issues at hand.
QUOTE(Amlord)
Stem cell research is a completely different animal. Stem cells are touted as some kind of cure all for every ailment under the sun. Diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's. But there are real problems with the Stem Cell panacea.
That is misleading Amlord. There is the potential that stem cells could cure a lot of diseases we have no cure for today. In principle this is possible considering stem cells can become any type of cell in the human body, and these diseases could potentially be treated by growing new tissue. The trick is stimulating the cells to become what you want them to be, which hasn't been figured out yet.
But if we don't do the research we'll never know if this is possible or not.
QUOTE(Amlord)
The argument is that stem cell research, even if successful, is enormously expensive. People complain about the cost of health care now, but what happens in 20 years when we have to subsidize million dollar stem cell cloning and transplantation. No one has thought of the drawbacks to the direction that research is taking.
Isn't any new procedure very expensive initially? Until it becomes accepted and we get some economies of scale, of course the procedure would be expensive, this is the way everything works with medical science. Case in point - lasik surgery. When this procedure first came out it was incredibly expensive, several thousand dollars per eye. Now you can go into the doctor's office, pay less than $1000 for both eyes and be home the very same day. Not only has the procedure gotten cheaper, but the technology has advanced at the same time. They even have financing plans for it now.
What about artificial hearts or bypass surgery, how many people could afford that 10 or 15 years ago?
You argument is a very poor reason not to spend money on stem cell research. It would irresponsible not to pursue this research up until the point scientists discover it won't work.
QUOTE(Amlord)
Stem cell research involves experimenting on human embryos. Some nutcases think these are humans. Some nutcases think experimenting on humans is wrong.
Would you agree to experimenting on human adults to figure out how the brain works? How about harvesting organs from the mentally handicapped?
Would you agree to experimenting on human adults to figure out how the brain works? How about harvesting organs from the mentally handicapped?
These people are in the vast minority in the scientific community, most scientists would laugh you out of the room if you tried to tell them that a 5 day old embryo was any more alive than your skin cells or the sperm that produced it in the first place.
The rest of your argument is merely slippery slope rhetoric. Those issues are completely unrelated to stem cell research. They are also illegal and frowned upon by virtually every scientist.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jun 16 2004, 11:14 AM)
But that wasn't the focus of my argument.
The argument is that stem cell research, even if successful, is enormously expensive. People complain about the cost of health care now, but what happens in 20 years when we have to subsidize million dollar stem cell cloning and transplantation. No one has thought of the drawbacks to the direction that research is taking.
Also, although some scientists see great things coming out of stem cell research, there is nothing proven yet. There is no guarantee that this research will be the miracle cure to every ailment on Earth.
The argument is that stem cell research, even if successful, is enormously expensive. People complain about the cost of health care now, but what happens in 20 years when we have to subsidize million dollar stem cell cloning and transplantation. No one has thought of the drawbacks to the direction that research is taking.
Also, although some scientists see great things coming out of stem cell research, there is nothing proven yet. There is no guarantee that this research will be the miracle cure to every ailment on Earth.
But your argument over cost isn't the topic here either. It's about the moral issue of using embryonic stem cells vs. the current Administration's position that it's morally wrong to create new ones and the existing 19 ones are all the federal government will allow research labs to work with and still get research money from the government.
As for the cost: SDI was a huge cost, but you probably didn't balk at that price tag, didja?
As to the guarantees, nope, there's no guarantee that research into using embryonic stem cells will produce the results we need. But it's pretty much a done deal that it WON'T work if it's not allowed to proceed. And this Administration does not want it to proceed without unreasonable constraints. Your argument is a "slippery slope" one (it might get worse!) and we know how poor that type of argument is.
Back to the topic: morally, since when does the government get to say an embryo that can be discarded at any time is more important than an adult who suffers from Parkinson's?
Should we stop framing human embryonic stem cell research as a moral issue and start addressing it as a medical imperative?
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. At least I hope they aren't.
Do you believe Nancy Reagan could make a difference in changing the minds of those who oppose this research?
Now we've entered the political arena I think and it's possible that Mrs. Reagan's support for stem cell research could change some minds. For sure it has renewed the debate and that's a good thing. I would however caution Mrs. Reagan about becoming overly involved in this from a pure emotional standpoint. Stem Cell therapy itself is not the panacea that some profess it to be, partcularly in the area of Alzheimer's Disease as this article shows. Some proponents of Stem Cell research have gone a little overboard on selling it as a sure-fired "cure" for a variety of afflictions and according to many researchers, it's probably not. It has promise in some areas perhaps and under the current policy, the research is continuing. I lost my dad to Diabetes and Pancreatic Cancer and my best friend to Brain Cancer not long ago and it's pretty easy to get caught up in the hope that cures for those things are "just around the corner". That makes for an emotional debate, not a reasoned one.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. At least I hope they aren't.
Do you believe Nancy Reagan could make a difference in changing the minds of those who oppose this research?
Now we've entered the political arena I think and it's possible that Mrs. Reagan's support for stem cell research could change some minds. For sure it has renewed the debate and that's a good thing. I would however caution Mrs. Reagan about becoming overly involved in this from a pure emotional standpoint. Stem Cell therapy itself is not the panacea that some profess it to be, partcularly in the area of Alzheimer's Disease as this article shows. Some proponents of Stem Cell research have gone a little overboard on selling it as a sure-fired "cure" for a variety of afflictions and according to many researchers, it's probably not. It has promise in some areas perhaps and under the current policy, the research is continuing. I lost my dad to Diabetes and Pancreatic Cancer and my best friend to Brain Cancer not long ago and it's pretty easy to get caught up in the hope that cures for those things are "just around the corner". That makes for an emotional debate, not a reasoned one.
Should we stop framing human embryonic stem cell research as a moral issue and start addressing it as a medical imperative?
Yes, in my opinion we should, but unfortunately, the rabid evangelical right holds too much power for that to ever happen. These groups don't seem to understand that if they're "pro-life" then maybe that should include those already alive and breathing and existing on the planet, sometimes with horrible diseases or conditions that would benefit from research using the cluster of cells the group insists on calling "human beings".
Do you believe Nancy Reagan could make a difference in changing the minds of those who oppose this research?
I'd like to think so, since she is held in such high regard by them, but instead I think they will turn their enmity on her, and accuse her of betraying all they stand for.
How do you square the rosy picture quoted in your source article with all these? Let's start with an article written in 1988 at the midst of the AIDS crisis:
This from a professor at Darmouth:
Even with the right's beatification of Reagan, history cannot be completely revised or erased.
Yes, in my opinion we should, but unfortunately, the rabid evangelical right holds too much power for that to ever happen. These groups don't seem to understand that if they're "pro-life" then maybe that should include those already alive and breathing and existing on the planet, sometimes with horrible diseases or conditions that would benefit from research using the cluster of cells the group insists on calling "human beings".
Do you believe Nancy Reagan could make a difference in changing the minds of those who oppose this research?
I'd like to think so, since she is held in such high regard by them, but instead I think they will turn their enmity on her, and accuse her of betraying all they stand for.
QUOTE(Amlord)
Sorry, Bela, but your article is full of fallacies. Reagan turned a blind eye on AIDS research... oh, sorry, the direct quote is: <snip>
But these assertions are completely erroneous.
But these assertions are completely erroneous.
How do you square the rosy picture quoted in your source article with all these? Let's start with an article written in 1988 at the midst of the AIDS crisis:
QUOTE
Newday August 3, 1988
Reagan AIDS Agenda
Laurie Garrett
President Ronald Reagan, sidestepping the central recommendations of his own AIDS commission, yesterday released a plan of action for the AIDS epidemic that fails to support national antidiscrimination laws aimed at protecting the growing number of people hit by the deadly disease.
Instead, he referred proposals for antidiscrimination legislation to the attorney general for a 30-day review. Such a process would indefinitely delay federal action on what many saw as the commission's key recommendation.
<snip>
In defense of the president's reluctance to support antidiscrimination legislation, Dr. Donald MacDonald, special assistant to the president for drug-abuse policy, said said yesterday that the problem seems to be working itself out at the local level. "In the three biggest AIDS cities in the country," MacDonald said, "New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, discrimination is not a problem."
Dr. Mervyn Silverman, president of the American Foundation for AIDS Research, denounced MacDonald's statement as "utter nonsense."
"Even in San Francisco," Silverman said, "which is a liberal area, I've got a list a mile long of people who have lost their jobs, been thrown out of their apartments, just because they are infected with the AIDS virus. To say it doesn't exist is pure Pollyanna."
Reagan AIDS Agenda
Laurie Garrett
President Ronald Reagan, sidestepping the central recommendations of his own AIDS commission, yesterday released a plan of action for the AIDS epidemic that fails to support national antidiscrimination laws aimed at protecting the growing number of people hit by the deadly disease.
Instead, he referred proposals for antidiscrimination legislation to the attorney general for a 30-day review. Such a process would indefinitely delay federal action on what many saw as the commission's key recommendation.
<snip>
In defense of the president's reluctance to support antidiscrimination legislation, Dr. Donald MacDonald, special assistant to the president for drug-abuse policy, said said yesterday that the problem seems to be working itself out at the local level. "In the three biggest AIDS cities in the country," MacDonald said, "New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, discrimination is not a problem."
Dr. Mervyn Silverman, president of the American Foundation for AIDS Research, denounced MacDonald's statement as "utter nonsense."
"Even in San Francisco," Silverman said, "which is a liberal area, I've got a list a mile long of people who have lost their jobs, been thrown out of their apartments, just because they are infected with the AIDS virus. To say it doesn't exist is pure Pollyanna."
QUOTE
News24
"But he did as much as any man on the planet to hold back social progress for lesbians and gay men.
"We wonder today how far we would be in solving the Aids crisis if Reagan had both recognised the scope of the tragedy and had more respect for the plight of gay men who were dying by the thousands from Aids," he said.
"But he did as much as any man on the planet to hold back social progress for lesbians and gay men.
"We wonder today how far we would be in solving the Aids crisis if Reagan had both recognised the scope of the tragedy and had more respect for the plight of gay men who were dying by the thousands from Aids," he said.
QUOTE
SF ChronicleReagan could have chosen to end the homophobic rhetoric that flowed from so many in his administration. Dr. C. Everett Koop, Reagan's surgeon general, has said that because of "intradepartmental politics" he was cut out of all AIDS discussions for the first five years of the Reagan administration. The reason, he explained, was "because transmission of AIDS was understood to be primarily in the homosexual population and in those who abused intravenous drugs." The president's advisers, Koop said, "took the stand, 'They are only getting what they justly deserve.' "
QUOTE
Encyclopedia of AIDSWhen AIDS was first reported in 1981, Reagan had recently assumed office and had begun to address the conservative agenda by slashing social programs and cutting taxes and by embracing conservative moral principles. As a result, Reagan never mentioned AIDS publicly until 1987.
<snip>
In the early 1980s, senior officials from the Department of Health and Human Services pleaded for additional funding behind the scenes while they maintained publicly, for political reasons, that they had enough resources. The Reagan administration treated AIDS as a series of state and local problems rather than as a national problem. This helped to fragment the limited governmental response early in the AIDS epidemic.
<snip>
In the early 1980s, senior officials from the Department of Health and Human Services pleaded for additional funding behind the scenes while they maintained publicly, for political reasons, that they had enough resources. The Reagan administration treated AIDS as a series of state and local problems rather than as a national problem. This helped to fragment the limited governmental response early in the AIDS epidemic.
This from a professor at Darmouth:
QUOTE
Source
Rather, his appalling lack of leadership and vision — which led directly to enormous setbacks for HIV/AIDS research, discrimination against people with AIDS and the lack of any comprehensive outreach for prevention or education work, thus adding to the already-staggering tally of deaths — was a product of indifference, disdain, self-imposed ignorance and a political capitulation to the rising wave of a new, staunchly reactionary and religious Republican constituency that was to reshape not only the party but the state of American politics.
Rather, his appalling lack of leadership and vision — which led directly to enormous setbacks for HIV/AIDS research, discrimination against people with AIDS and the lack of any comprehensive outreach for prevention or education work, thus adding to the already-staggering tally of deaths — was a product of indifference, disdain, self-imposed ignorance and a political capitulation to the rising wave of a new, staunchly reactionary and religious Republican constituency that was to reshape not only the party but the state of American politics.
QUOTE
WikipediaIn deference to the views of the powerful religious right, who saw AIDS as a disease limited to the gay male community and spread by immoral behavior, Reagan prevented his Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, from speaking out about the epidemic. When in 1986 Reagan finally authorized Koop to issue a report on the epidemic, he expected it to be in line with conservative policies; instead, Koop's Surgeon General's Report on Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome greatly emphasized the importance of a comprehensive AIDS education strategy, including widespread distribution of condoms, and rejected mandatory testing. This approach brought Koop into conflict with other administration officials such as Education Secretary William Bennett.
Even with the right's beatification of Reagan, history cannot be completely revised or erased.
I have always wondered why cord blood is never brought up in these sorts of discussions. Cord blood is usually just thrown away, but is rich in stem cells. I think it should be a medical imperative to ask every expectant parent if they would like to donate the cord to a research facility. That would be an easy first step in the process, without stepping on anyone's ethical toes.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jun 17 2004, 07:43 PM)
I have always wondered why cord blood is never brought up in these sorts of discussions. Cord blood is usually just thrown away, but is rich in stem cells. I think it should be a medical imperative to ask every expectant parent if they would like to donate the cord to a research facility. That would be an easy first step in the process, without stepping on anyone's ethical toes.
Very good idea! Doesn't the placenta also have stem cells. That is usually just thrown away. Why couldn't that be used also, with the parents consent.
QUOTE(Lethalletha @ Jun 17 2004, 06:13 PM)
Very good idea! Doesn't the placenta also have stem cells. That is usually just thrown away. Why couldn't that be used also, with the parents consent.
Yes, apparently the placenta also has many stem cells.
Edited to add: Unfortunately, there's this
QUOTE
It is unclear if the placental stem cells more closely resemble embryonic or adult stem cells, thus making it difficult to determine if this research could indeed replace the need for embryonic stem cell research.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.