• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

More spin exposed

A

Anonymous

Guest
Recently that "liberal" media went bonkers claiming that the new "breakthrough" on converting skin cells into stem cells showed George W. Bush was right to refuse to support stem cell research. He wasn't.

Taking Exception
Standing in the Way of Stem Cell Research

By Alan I. Leshner and James A. Thomson
Monday, December 3, 2007; Page A17

A new way to trick skin cells into acting like embryos changes both everything and nothing at all. Being able to reprogram skin cells into multipurpose stem cells without harming embryos launches an exciting new line of research. It's important to remember, though, that we're at square one, uncertain at this early stage whether souped-up skin cells hold the same promise as their embryonic cousins do.

Far from vindicating the current U.S. policy of withholding federal funds from many of those working to develop potentially lifesaving embryonic stem cells, recent papers in the journals Science and Cell described a breakthrough achieved despite political restrictions. In fact, work by both the U.S. and Japanese teams that reprogrammed skin cells depended entirely on previous embryonic stem cell research.

At a time when nearly 60 percent of Americans support human embryonic stem cell research, U.S. stem cell policy runs counter to both scientific and public opinion. President Bush's repeated veto of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which has twice passed the House and Senate with votes from Republicans and Democrats alike, further ignores the will of the American people.

Efforts to harness the versatility of embryonic stem cells, and alleviate suffering among people with an array of debilitating disorders, began less than 10 years ago. Since then, scientists have continued to pursue embryonic stem cells because of their ability to transform into blood, bone, skin or any other type of cell. The eventual goal is to replace diseased or dysfunctional cells to help people with spinal cord injuries, neurodegenerative disorders, cancer, diabetes, heart disease and other conditions.

Since 1998, many strategies for addressing sanctity-of-life concerns have been pursued. While commendable, these efforts remain preliminary, and none so far has suggested a magic bullet. In the same way, the recent tandem advances in the United States and by Shinya Yamanaka's team in Japan are far from being a Holy Grail, as Charles Krauthammer inaccurately described them. Though potential landmarks, these studies are only a first step on the long road toward eventual therapies.

Krauthammer's central argument -- that the president's misgivings about embryonic stem cell research inspired innovative alternatives -- is fundamentally flawed, too. Yamanaka was of course working in Japan, and scientists around the world are pursuing the full spectrum of options, in many cases faster than researchers in the United States.

Reprogrammed skin cells, incorporating four specific genes known to play a role in making cells versatile, or pluripotent, did seem to behave like embryonic stem cells in mice. But mouse studies frequently fail to pan out in humans, so we don't yet know whether this approach is viable for treating human diseases. We simply cannot invest all our hopes in a single approach. Federal funding is essential for both adult and embryonic stem cell research, even as promising alternatives are beginning to emerge.

Unfortunately, under the policy President Bush outlined on Aug. 9, 2001, at most 21 stem cell lines derived from embryos before that date are eligible for federal funding. American innovation in the field thus faces inherent limitations. Even more significant, the stigma resulting from the policy surely has discouraged some talented young Americans from pursuing stem cell research.

Discomfort with the notion of extracting stem cells from embryos is understandable. But many of the life-changing medical advances of recent history, including heart transplantation, have provoked discomfort. Struggling with bioethical questions remains a critical step in any scientific advancement.

A solution that might be more comfortable for many people already exists but cannot be pursued unless the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act becomes law. Some percentage of the hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos from fertility clinics will eventually be destroyed. American couples meanwhile are not being given the choice to donate their frozen embryos to federal research to help others through stem cell advances.

It remains to be seen whether reprogrammed skin cells will differ in significant ways from embryonic stem cells. We remain hopeful, but it's too early to say we're certain.

We hope Congress will override the president's veto of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Further delays in pursuing the clearly viable option of embryonic stem cells will result in an irretrievable loss of time, especially if the new approach fails to prove itself.

Alan I. Leshner is chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of the journal Science. James A. Thomson is a professor of anatomy at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. He was the first scientist to create human embryonic stem cells and is the senior author on the recent Science paper describing a method for reprogramming skin cells.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/02/AR2007120201636.html
 

Steve

Well-known member
More SPIN exposed

an interesting article filled with spin,.. nice example ff..

American couples meanwhile are not being given the choice to donate their frozen embryos to federal research to help others through stem cell advances.

Now lets look at this one line...there are many... but for the sake of time..

American couples are not prevented from donating the frozen embryos to research ... so in fact they may have other places to donate them to.. isn't that spin?.. using such a narrow view to make a point..



Donate to research
The use of embryos in research is a high profile topic in the media today. Recently, many patients have inquired about this option. Patients interested in pursuing this option are responsible for identifying the research program they are interested in donating their embryos to. The ultimate responsibility of transferring your embryos to any research program lies with the patient, however CARS will help you with identifying shippers and executing the appropriate release/consent forms.

Center for Advanced Reproductive Services Position Statement

Harvard Stem Cell Institute (HSCI)
Stem Cell Research exploring a cure for diabetes and neural diseases
Shipping of embryos managed and paid for by HSCI
Please see attached for more information

Genevieve Saphier, Coordinator
(781) 718-6184
[email protected]

That took me all of two minutes to find,.. a starting point to donate the embryos for research... If a person goes through all the effort and expense to make the embryo, they should be able to make a phone call or send off an e-mail to find a suitable research program able and willing to donate their embryo to..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
What's your point, Steve? Dr. Leshner doesn't say it's illegal to donate or that people aren't allowed to donate. He simply says they aren't being offered the option. Even if they want to donate, what will a lab do with it? If the lab receives any Federal funding for their lab (as most University labs do), they have to jump through hoops to prove they're not using a cent of it for embryonic stem cell research! Even to the point of setting up seperate purchasing programs!

Dr. Leshner is a leading researcher in the field. He apparently has a source of embryonic stem cells. The skin cell "breakthrough" only came about because of previous research on human embryo stem cells. Scientists don't even understand how stem cells work, yet. How can they find out if they don't research them? If they don't even know how they work, how can they identify substitutes? :roll:
 

Tex

Well-known member
Conservatism is a political philosophy that favors tradition and gradual change, where tradition refers to religious, cultural, and nationally defined beliefs and customs. com servare, to preserve; "to protect from loss or harm".
Sounds exactly what the "Islamofascists" want/do/believe.
 

passin thru

Well-known member
Quote:
Conservatism is a political philosophy that favors tradition and gradual change, where tradition refers to religious, cultural, and nationally defined beliefs and customs. com servare, to preserve; "to protect from loss or harm".

Sounds exactly what the "Islamofascists" want/do/believe.

Sounds like you are trying to start something by responding to a sig line. Go try peeing on your own rice krispies
 

Steve

Well-known member
ff
He simply says they aren't being offered the option. Even if they want to donate, what will a lab do with it? If the lab receives any Federal funding for their lab (as most University labs do), they have to jump through hoops to prove they're not using a cent of it for embryonic stem cell research! Even to the point of setting up seperate purchasing programs!

if you look at my post you will see a source that wil take your embryos.. notice the bolded lines...

it took me two minutes to not only find a resource but one willing to "help you with identifying shippers and executing the appropriate release/consent forms. ,...and Shipping of embryos managed and paid for by HSCI "

The topic was "More spin exposed" so I exposed more of the liberal spin for what it is...spin...

why does the goverment have to do everything for liberals?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Conservatism is a political philosophy that favors tradition and gradual change, where tradition refers to religious, cultural, and nationally defined beliefs and customs. com servare, to preserve; "to protect from loss or harm".

tex
Sounds exactly what the "Islamofascists" want/do/believe.

It never fails when you and gp have nothing to add to a discussion, you lower yourself to an insult.. or some rude comment,.. between you, econ101 and gp the level of debate is lowered to new insulting childish levels... hiding behind an anonymous screen.. no wonder communities are now having to come up with cyber-bully laws to deal with scum like yourself..
 
Top