Bush vetoes Stem Cell Research

[Ben Kenobi]

Both of those articles are really dealing only with specific investigations rather than the broad possibilities of use of embryonic derived stem cells in new treatment strategies.

They deal with specific successes and treatments already used by adult cells. Which is why I find your statement puzzling that adult cells in the short run are going to be less valuable. Most embryonic stem cell researchers are forced to argue just the opposite, since embryonic stem cell research has garnered no successes whatsoever.

I base my opinion on my contact with catherine verfaillie. I was interviewing for an opening in her lab and I asked if she thought her work implied that research involving embryonic stem cells should be curtailed if those resources could then be applied to adult stem cell research and she made clear that she felt that embryonic stem cells could probably lead to clinically useful treatment strategies for some applications earlier than could be accomplished by relying entirely on adult stem cells. This was only 4 years ago.

And lots has happened in this field in just 4 years. So her view has really shown to be incorrect given the successes that adult cells have had.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Ever try for an overseas adoption? It's a nightmare in both logistics and cost. IVF is really a desperate shot for many of having a kid, and I think that if they could they would opt for embryo adoption instead.

IVF is EXPENSIVE. You don't seem to get this at all. You have the costs of the the procedure, but you still have all the related costs of a pregnancy which really add up. In most cases, I believe overseas adoptions actually tend to be cheaper, although this may be distorted by what health insurance companies pay for.

Most people who go through with this have a desire to have their kids be their own flesh and blood.

[Ben Kenobi]

First of all in the overwhelming number of cases, the creators of the embryo will not be willing to let someone else bear their genetic material unless you pass a law saying "use it or lose it" which takes their rights on this matter away.

Interesting words. The FATHER and the MOTHER don't want to give up on their CHILD, which is understandable. Actually I would say there ought to be such legislation in place restricting couples to implant all the embryos conceived. This is one way they could prevent having more then they desired by just conceiving one and then implanting one at a time.

Secondly, in the overwhelming number of cases, adoption involves couples who have previously had serious fertility problems, and therefore can't bear the implanted embryos, or at least you're simply killing them in a less obvious way by having them placed in people who will almost certainly miscarry them.

In about 60 percent that is the case. The other 40 would have success through this method since infertility isn't just associated with the mother but also with the father. Then there's the folks that would love the connection they would have with these children unavailable through other means.

Even in those adopting for humanitarian reasons, many of them will not view an embryo as a human being, and therefore see no need to prioritize this method over adopting an orphan from somewhere in the world. Another minor point is adoption is obviously less physically painful than childbirth is.

And less bonding then a snowflake adoption. I really can't see why this would be a problem for the couples who wanted to try this route. The couples that didn't would be perfectly free not to bother with it.

The reality is the overwhelming portion of the population has no interest in bearing some else's genetic material. This is why only slight over 100 people have so far agree to the method you talked about.

Most of the hurdles are regulatory, and the fact that the system is not set up to offer them this option. Why aren't the IVF clinics saying, 'why don't you give up these kids for adoption?' The answer being that they are paid by the researchers to get them as many embryos as possible.

The only real solution to the creation surplus of embryos which keep getting thrown out would be banning a large portion of the invitro fertilization techniques currently used.

Or modifying how IVF is done to prevent creating more children then the parents themselves want.

Given Bush has not advocated this, he is taking an illogical position that is deeply immoral.

Why immoral? I don't understand why advocating embryo adoption over throwing embryos in the trash is immoral.

[Ben Kenobi]

IVF is EXPENSIVE. You don't seem to get this at all. You have the costs of the the procedure, but you still have all the related costs of a pregnancy which really add up. In most cases, I believe overseas adoptions actually tend to be cheaper, although this may be distorted by what health insurance companies pay for.

Most people who go through with this have a desire to have their kids be their own flesh and blood.

I agree it is both expensive, and they have a desire for their own kids. However, if a lower cost alternative were present, many who could not afford IVF would take advantage, and many who don't want the risk of IVF would also prefer an alternative.

[Ben Kenobi]

Some animals also received transplants of neural stem cells that secreted the nerve growth factor GDNF into the sciatic nerve (the sciatic nerve extends from the spine down the back of the hind leg). GDNF causes axons to grow toward it.

We found that we needed a combination of all of the treatments in order to restore function," Dr. Kerr says

So Mordoch, this is an adult stem cell therapy since the only rats that actually showed improvement in function were the ones give neural cells from their own bodies.

Which btw is precisely the same technique lifted in 2001.

So thanks for proving that embryonic cells are so successful.

[Arrian]

One the one hand, I disagree with Bush's decision.

On the other, I am not outraged. I think he's wrong, that's all.

-Arrian

[Mordoch]

Most of the hurdles are regulatory, and the fact that the system is not set up to offer them this option. Why aren't the IVF clinics saying, 'why don't you give up these kids for adoption?' The answer being that they are paid by the researchers to get them as many embryos as possible.

Or modifying how IVF is done to prevent creating more children then the parents themselves want.

Why immoral? I don't understand why advocating embryo adoption over throwing embryos in the trash is immoral.

The reality is NO-ONES INTERESTED IN ADOPTION of frozen embroyos. Its a pathetic rhetoric to justify the evil actions of those opposing embryonic stem cell research.

You're insane if you think clinics have an incentive to prevent this from happening. THE OVERWHELMING PORTION OF FROZEN EMBRYOS ARE THROWN AWAY RIGHT NOW. Stem cell researchers have more frozen embroyos available that are about to be discarded than they know what to do with.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi




So Mordoch, this is an adult stem cell therapy since the only rats that actually showed improvement in function were the ones give neural cells from their own bodies.

Which btw is precisely the same technique lifted in 2001.

So thanks for proving that embryonic cells are so successful.

You're simply PATHETIC. You might actually try doing RESEARCH rather than making outragious assertions.

If you READ THE ARTICLE CAREFULLY, you'll notice that all treatments were tried seperately, and the results were DRAMATICALLY better when both adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells were used together in the treatment. Since no-one is claiming adult stem cell research shouldn't be allowed, this is a pretty irrelevant point. However the research DOES SHOW that treatment for paralysis has more promise when embryonic stem cells are used as part of the procedure. Note that 2001 case didn't allow the person to walk again like these rats can in this case.

I don't appreciate people trying to disort the science to justify their religious views.

[Arrian]

You would have more success if you beat your head against a brick wall, Mordoch. Ben is a fanatic.

-Arrian

[Drake Tungsten]

One the one hand, I disagree with Bush's decision.

On the other, I am not outraged. I think he's wrong, that's all.

[Arrian]

****, apparently I said something wrong...

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

You're simply PATHETIC. You might actually try doing RESEARCH rather than making outragious assertions.

I read through your article, and the fellow made it very clear. The only rats which showed any progress at all are the ones that received adult cells. Embryonic cells alone did nothing.

If you READ THE ARTICLE CAREFULLY, you'll notice that all treatments were tried seperately, and the results were DRAMATICALLY better when both adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells were used together in the treatment.

Show me where the fellow says that they tried the adult cells alone. I don't see it.

The cells were transplanted into eight groups of paralyzed rats. Each group received a different combination of treatments. Some groups received injections of a drug called rolipram under the skin before and after the transplants. Rolipram, a drug approved to treat depression, helps to counteract axon-inhibiting signals from myelin. Some animals also received transplants of neural stem cells that secreted the nerve growth factor GDNF into the sciatic nerve (the sciatic nerve extends from the spine down the back of the hind leg). GDNF causes axons to grow toward it.

So some received adult cells and some did not, all of them received embryonic cells.

Since no-one is claiming adult stem cell research shouldn't be allowed, this is a pretty irrelevant point. However the research DOES SHOW that treatment for paralysis has more promise when embryonic stem cells are used as part of the procedure. Note that 2001 case didn't allow the person to walk again like these rats can in this case.

Again, all he has shown is that when you use adult cells you have success. Embryonic cells alone did nothing to help the rats.

Why doesn't the headline say, 'combination treatment successful?'

I don't appreciate people trying to disort the science to justify their religious views.

Where have I distorted anything? I cited and quoted your own source!

[Ben Kenobi]

The reality is NO-ONES INTERESTED IN ADOPTION of frozen embroyos. Its a pathetic rhetoric to justify the evil actions of those opposing embryonic stem cell research.

Excuse me. Folks are interested in embryo adoption. Do I have keep saying it? Why are the actions of those who oppose embryonic stem cell research evil? Gosh, you'd think you were the religionista speaking about evil and all.

I don't think I've said the folks who do embryonic research are evil, yet you would not only convict me without evidence, you label me as evil.

You're insane if you think clinics have an incentive to prevent this from happening. THE OVERWHELMING PORTION OF FROZEN EMBRYOS ARE THROWN AWAY RIGHT NOW. Stem cell researchers have more frozen embroyos available that are about to be discarded than they know what to do with.

True, but I ask the question again, do they pay the clinics for the embryos? Do the clinics advertise the option of snowflake adoptions?

[Odin]

If the Far Right actually cared about thier rhetoric they would ban IVF because the unused embryos are distroyed. This whole charade is nothing but an election year stunt. the Republicans need to distance themselves from Bush while getting the religiously insane out to vote, so they pass this so it looks like they are distancing themselves from Bush, Bush then "supports" the religiously insane voters by vetoing it, then the Republicans in Congress set it up so that the veto overturn just barely fails so it looks like their fake independence from Bush is sincere.

[Arrian]

I wouldn't be surprised if the religious right wanted to ban IVF, Odin.

-Arrian