Stem Cells And Micheal J Fox
- Thread starter jimmoyer
- Start date
CNN Anderson Vanderbilt's 360 program had Micheal J Fox on last night.
The interview was so less informative than Anderson's discussion with 2 doctors on the subject.
One Doctor explained quite well as did Micheal Fox himself about the symptoms we see resulting
from drugs rather than the lack of them, since the disease starts shutting down movement and the
drugs cause over-movement.
The other doctor, however, echoes the doctor Kreskin quoted earlier in this thread, saying how unwise
it is to waste tax dollars on a less productive promise as embryonic for 3 reasons:
1. ethical
A lot of sorting out and regulation on the Frankenstein implications must be discussed WHICH
in the meantime wastes time for the researchers who want to get on with exploration.
2. medical
Umbilical cord and Adult stem cells appear now to show as much versatility and more stability
than the embryo stem cells which often cause tumors, a big stumbling block right now.
3. practical
Why not send taxpayer money towards the most promise NOW ? Inevitably cord blood and
adult stem cell research will overlap with benefits towards the holy grail of embyro research.
Perhaps there is a maniacal focus on embryo stem cell as a natural anti-reaction
to right wing christian conservatives pissing off liberals ?
Who cares about demonizing each side of this ?
The above 3 points seem reasonable.
The interview was so less informative than Anderson's discussion with 2 doctors on the subject.
One Doctor explained quite well as did Micheal Fox himself about the symptoms we see resulting
from drugs rather than the lack of them, since the disease starts shutting down movement and the
drugs cause over-movement.
The other doctor, however, echoes the doctor Kreskin quoted earlier in this thread, saying how unwise
it is to waste tax dollars on a less productive promise as embryonic for 3 reasons:
1. ethical
A lot of sorting out and regulation on the Frankenstein implications must be discussed WHICH
in the meantime wastes time for the researchers who want to get on with exploration.
2. medical
Umbilical cord and Adult stem cells appear now to show as much versatility and more stability
than the embryo stem cells which often cause tumors, a big stumbling block right now.
3. practical
Why not send taxpayer money towards the most promise NOW ? Inevitably cord blood and
adult stem cell research will overlap with benefits towards the holy grail of embyro research.
Perhaps there is a maniacal focus on embryo stem cell as a natural anti-reaction
to right wing christian conservatives pissing off liberals ?
Who cares about demonizing each side of this ?
The above 3 points seem reasonable.
He went to the differentiated vs undifferentiated argument on embryo vs adult/cord. It is my understanding that that argument is a red herring, since both are pluripotent and extremely similar in potential. An entire embryo is totipotent because it will develop all the cells in the body (become an entire human being) but extracted stemcells are pluripotent not totipotent. And even if they were totipotent why would anyone need to grow an entire human being for a stemcell therapy?
And if I may repeat myself....
Nature herself accommodates shedding of these cells by women on a regular basis from their first menses on....until cessation .... and nobody is complaining the methods by which nature has determined....what is so terrible about using everything and anything available.
Those who create clones can be charged with breaking the law or some restriction put into effect for
that particular research.
If religious belief is holding back discovery of cure for all diseases - I would seriously question where that
particular regligion is headed - certainly not for the enlightenment of mankind.
Nature herself accommodates shedding of these cells by women on a regular basis from their first menses on....until cessation .... and nobody is complaining the methods by which nature has determined....what is so terrible about using everything and anything available.
Those who create clones can be charged with breaking the law or some restriction put into effect for
that particular research.
If religious belief is holding back discovery of cure for all diseases - I would seriously question where that
particular regligion is headed - certainly not for the enlightenment of mankind.
I am not religious at all. I'm interested in the non-religious argument. He made a 10 second quote to brush of adult stemcells as being less than embryonic because of differentiation. That's the extent of the media coverage on the most important aspect of the issue. That is what I want to see hotly debated. The media let those statements stand on face value, which is what Cooper did.
If religious belief is holding back discovery of cure for all diseases - I would seriously question where that
particular regligion is headed - certainly not for the enlightenment of mankind.
------------------------------------Curiosity------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to the "religious types" they are reminding us that some serious issues are at play,
as we manipulate life forms.
It used to be the enlightened writers like George Orwell and the Sci Fi writers warned us as
we head pell mell into a strange future. It used to be the liberals were horrified by Nazi experimentation.
Are we so confident and smug none of this will happen ?
particular regligion is headed - certainly not for the enlightenment of mankind.
------------------------------------Curiosity------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to the "religious types" they are reminding us that some serious issues are at play,
as we manipulate life forms.
It used to be the enlightened writers like George Orwell and the Sci Fi writers warned us as
we head pell mell into a strange future. It used to be the liberals were horrified by Nazi experimentation.
Are we so confident and smug none of this will happen ?
Last edited:
Keskin
You mean Anderson Cooper at CNN? Of course he wasn't allowed to delve any farther than he did - CNN play it safe in all matters unless they have an agenda they prefer to push. Cooper (if that is who you mean).... is very passive in his interviews. Which is good in certain topics - not in others.
JimMoyer
I agree religion should have their input as should all groups, but not to refuse to allow science to proceed.
They can speak their wishes, assist in putting common sense regulatory restrictions and let the advocates and researchers do their job.
My god if religion had its way, we would not be doing experiments on animals either - which is cruel and inhumane - but look where it has brought us.
Nazi experimentation was the hallmark of madness. I think there are too many valid research people at work on cell research and cure to be unaware of something else going on.
Still as I write this I know many countries look away when people sell their kidneys to the black market so they can live another year with food in the bellies....
I prefer to think mankind has a higher goal and would hope religion would have some trust in those who are NOT of their faith, rather than impeding and delaying their work.
What if the embryonic cells were separated into various uses immediately so there would be no "complete cloning possible"....?
You mean Anderson Cooper at CNN? Of course he wasn't allowed to delve any farther than he did - CNN play it safe in all matters unless they have an agenda they prefer to push. Cooper (if that is who you mean).... is very passive in his interviews. Which is good in certain topics - not in others.
JimMoyer
I agree religion should have their input as should all groups, but not to refuse to allow science to proceed.
They can speak their wishes, assist in putting common sense regulatory restrictions and let the advocates and researchers do their job.
My god if religion had its way, we would not be doing experiments on animals either - which is cruel and inhumane - but look where it has brought us.
Nazi experimentation was the hallmark of madness. I think there are too many valid research people at work on cell research and cure to be unaware of something else going on.
Still as I write this I know many countries look away when people sell their kidneys to the black market so they can live another year with food in the bellies....
I prefer to think mankind has a higher goal and would hope religion would have some trust in those who are NOT of their faith, rather than impeding and delaying their work.
What if the embryonic cells were separated into various uses immediately so there would be no "complete cloning possible"....?
I am not religious at all. I'm interested in the non-religious argument. He made a 10 second quote to brush of adult stemcells as being less than embryonic because of differentiation. That's the extent of the media coverage on the most important aspect of the issue. That is what I want to see hotly debated. The media let those statements stand on face value, which is what Cooper did.
-----------------------------------------------Kreskin----------------------------------------------------------------
1. religion.
You don't have to be religious and you don't have to like the messenger but the message about a
frankenstein future is legit. I'm not so confident that we should ignore such warnings.
2. I thought Cooper's interview of Micheal Fox was highly UN-INFORMATIVE.
But his interview of the Doctor mentioning Umbilical Cord and Adult Stem cells was interesting.
My question is what more of the adult stem cell info did you want emphasized or discussed ???
-----------------------------------------------Kreskin----------------------------------------------------------------
1. religion.
You don't have to be religious and you don't have to like the messenger but the message about a
frankenstein future is legit. I'm not so confident that we should ignore such warnings.
2. I thought Cooper's interview of Micheal Fox was highly UN-INFORMATIVE.
But his interview of the Doctor mentioning Umbilical Cord and Adult Stem cells was interesting.
My question is what more of the adult stem cell info did you want emphasized or discussed ???
I don't think anyone who is informed on the issue needs any more information regarding the efficacy of the adult or cord stem cells. These methods are indeed very promissing. I just don't think we should be so limiting in our research. Given the opportunity that adult stem cells have had, I'm sure that embryonic cells could produce similar results. I really stress the fact that IVF embryos are destroyed after they are not needed. Granted it's only a small portion of the 400,000 embryos in cold storage( I believe that figure is for American clinics), but even a few embryo's can produce a large yield of stem cells. They can replicate for well over a year in the laboratory, after 6 months you can have millions of cells.
Despite what some people may tell you, the only way a human can form from the stem cells is if some of the stem cells are coaxed into becoming trophoblast tissue, that is the tissue which implants into the uterine wall. The trophoblast tissue is destroyed when the stem cells are harvested. Any attempt to do something of this nature would be highly unethical in my mind, after all, why would you destroy an embryo only to turn around and coax it into another human.
Despite what some people may tell you, the only way a human can form from the stem cells is if some of the stem cells are coaxed into becoming trophoblast tissue, that is the tissue which implants into the uterine wall. The trophoblast tissue is destroyed when the stem cells are harvested. Any attempt to do something of this nature would be highly unethical in my mind, after all, why would you destroy an embryo only to turn around and coax it into another human.
There are some practical problems that I see from relying on excess embryos. One: many clinics already use excess embryos for non-stem cell research when consent is provided. Stem cell researchers aren't the only ones attempting to access the supply. Two: when embryos are destroyed it means patients have already denied the use for research.
I saw this quote in the article linked below. It is very true. That mindset can be more conducive to allowing embryos to pass on in peace than in research. For many the idea of letting go at all is very difficult.
"Parents variously conceptualised frozen embryos as biological tissue, living entities, 'virtual' children having interests that must be considered and protected, siblings of their living children, genetic or psychological 'insurance policies', and symbolic reminders of their past infertility," he wrote in the society's journal, Fertility and Sterility, last year.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1939377,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12
I saw this quote in the article linked below. It is very true. That mindset can be more conducive to allowing embryos to pass on in peace than in research. For many the idea of letting go at all is very difficult.
"Parents variously conceptualised frozen embryos as biological tissue, living entities, 'virtual' children having interests that must be considered and protected, siblings of their living children, genetic or psychological 'insurance policies', and symbolic reminders of their past infertility," he wrote in the society's journal, Fertility and Sterility, last year.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1939377,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12
A lot of people are arguing that adult stem cell research is more promising than embryonic stem cell research. That may very well be true. BUT, why should politicians (or us citizens), who are not experts, restrict federal funding? I say, remove restrictions on funding. It is the scientists that should decide which research has the most potential and therefore where the money should go, they are the experts. If they decide that adult stem cell research is more promising, that is where the money will go. If they decide it's embryonic stem cell research, that is where the money will go. Let the scientists decide which research has more potential, and therefore should receive funding, NOT the politicians.
I agree that this has become too much of a political issue for both sides.
I agree that this has become too much of a political issue for both sides.
Let the scientists decide which research has more potential, and therefore should receive funding, NOT the politicians.
----------------------------------------gc------------------------------------------------
You don't have to be religious and you don't have to like the messenger but the message about a
frankenstein future is legit.
I'm not so confident that we should ignore such warnings.
I recall the mad scientist in Sci Fi deciding things ? And if the cartoons stereotypes of an Orwellian
future don't bother you, why shouldn't the investors funding the scientists show you where their bread
is buttered ?
----------------------------------------gc------------------------------------------------
You don't have to be religious and you don't have to like the messenger but the message about a
frankenstein future is legit.
I'm not so confident that we should ignore such warnings.
I recall the mad scientist in Sci Fi deciding things ? And if the cartoons stereotypes of an Orwellian
future don't bother you, why shouldn't the investors funding the scientists show you where their bread
is buttered ?
What is it with the Frankenstein and Orwellian politspeak? I don't see how villlainizing this issue is constructive. We have allready shown how the morals and ethics are no different than expired IVF embryos. It's not like we're robbing graves, or forcing some indoctrination on anyone here.
I fully agree with letting the scientists decide where the funding should go. They need an equal playing field before a decision can be made. If embryonic stem cells fail time and again once the research is free to take place, I'm sure that they would change directions, no scientist wants repeated failure on their resume.
I fully agree with letting the scientists decide where the funding should go. They need an equal playing field before a decision can be made. If embryonic stem cells fail time and again once the research is free to take place, I'm sure that they would change directions, no scientist wants repeated failure on their resume.
Do you honestly believe that embryonic stem cell research will lead to a "frankenstein future", or are you purposely exaggerating for effect? Isn't that what this whole thread is arguing against, false claims?
If that is what you truly believe, please explain to me in detail (step by step) how embryonic stem cell research for medicinal purposes will lead to frankenstein?
Why scientists don't make the final decision:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. You don't let a doctor decide on a loved one WITHOUT your okay, do you guys ???
2. Nor does a local government meeting let a lobbyist (as in expert or scientist or investor) decide the final result.
3. We'll hear the experts and then we taxpayers get to decide on the matter.
4. Scientists don't make the final call, regarding taxpayer money.
5. We're all told to get 2nd opinions, right ?
6. We're told to ascertain to the best of our ability what different scientists and doctors say, and not
take just the say-so of the expert. They are not Gods.
As for the Frankenstein future ?
Would it be easier to explain why we should have no worries ?
A
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. You don't let a doctor decide on a loved one WITHOUT your okay, do you guys ???
2. Nor does a local government meeting let a lobbyist (as in expert or scientist or investor) decide the final result.
3. We'll hear the experts and then we taxpayers get to decide on the matter.
4. Scientists don't make the final call, regarding taxpayer money.
5. We're all told to get 2nd opinions, right ?
6. We're told to ascertain to the best of our ability what different scientists and doctors say, and not
take just the say-so of the expert. They are not Gods.
As for the Frankenstein future ?
Would it be easier to explain why we should have no worries ?
A
I won't speak for everyone here, but I am certainly not advocating for total control by doctors. As far as lobbyists go, well they are pretty effective at getting what they want. This totally is a breath of second opinion, I mean the congress and senate did vote to open it up did they not? If the research proves to be ineffective, then they will focus on the other options.
It would be easier to understand if you actually explained your reference to Frankenstein here. I'd like to hear how you feel this would be like Frankenstein. The only similarity I can see is if the law remainsd the same, and some scientist decides to go ahead anyways. But I would like to hear your thoughts on this Frankenstein comparison.
It would be easier to understand if you actually explained your reference to Frankenstein here. I'd like to hear how you feel this would be like Frankenstein. The only similarity I can see is if the law remainsd the same, and some scientist decides to go ahead anyways. But I would like to hear your thoughts on this Frankenstein comparison.
Actually, they already do. How do you think grants are distributed? It is the scientists that decide.
Actually in some cases they do. Or rather they can decide to withhold treatment without your consent in certain circumstances.
I don't see how this is the issue with embryologic research though. The eggs/embryos donated are donated freely. They aren't taken without the consent of their owners. Like it or not they are still considered commodities, not people. If they were people we wouldn't be throwing thousands in the trash every year.
It would be easier to understand if you actually explained your reference to Frankenstein here. I'd like to hear how you feel this would be like Frankenstein.
----------------------------------------------------Tonington----------------------------------------------------------
You, Tonington, and Kreskin have been enormously informative in this thread and the discussion
is far more interesting because of you guys.
But !!!
It may be unfair of me to bring up Frankenstein and not explain, but perhaps I'm more interested
in why you think this embryo research is without troublesome implications and why you appear quite
sanguine and trusting on the matter.
----------------------------------------------------Tonington----------------------------------------------------------
You, Tonington, and Kreskin have been enormously informative in this thread and the discussion
is far more interesting because of you guys.
But !!!
It may be unfair of me to bring up Frankenstein and not explain, but perhaps I'm more interested
in why you think this embryo research is without troublesome implications and why you appear quite
sanguine and trusting on the matter.