Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
View Poll Results: Should Embryonic Stem Cell research be encouraged and federally funded in the USA?
No Way - It's immoral, no matter the potential medical benefits.
3
9.38%
No - but for other reasons.
4
12.50%
Maybe - I'm not sure.
2
6.25%
Yes - I have concerns, but potential benefits outweigh any reservations.
2
6.25%
Absolutely - No qualms at all - The US should lead the way in this research.
There are almost half a million frozen embryos already. The vast, vast majority will never be implanted. They will therefore eventually be thrown out. The number of wasted embryos increases every year.
Why not let the parents sign basically an organ donor agreement for the surplus embryos - same as they could choose to do for a child killed by a car or an illness - rather than incinerate or flush the embryos? It's the parents' choice. No one is creating embryos just for research purposes. (Also, no one having an extra child so they can obtain umbilical cord blood to medically treat an ill older child -which distresses me a lot more than a nano-spoonful of embryonic cells.)
If ESC research pays off in treatments for Alzheimers, Parkinson's, MS, and MD alone, we're potentially talking about 5-10% of the population right there. Add some forms of cancer, some forms of heart and lung disease, traumatic or degenerative spinal cord injuries, and juvenile diabetes, and you are maybe talking 20% of the population - minimum. The financial savings will be in the hundreds of billions over a period of a few years - not to mention an incredible reduction in human tragedy.
The US should lead the world in this research. States and the gov't can hold patents, not just individuals and corps. It may not just be private industry that benefits financially.
__________________
oderint dum metuant (Latin for 'let them hate, so long as they fear').
Well, in truth I'm actually not a total hawk, but I'm not a dove either -- I'm more like an angry pigeon flying over the political arena after a really big meal. -Abba Gav
Actually the federal involvement might be a moot point.
Due to GW imposing federal funding restrictions... that it has actually created more independent initiatives from the states and actually creating more embryonic stem cell lines than would have been produced by the feds.
Heck - California is gonna be spending $300 million annually for the next 10 years. This not only exceeds the federal level - but every other country as well by a large margin. Here's their web page: http://www.cirm.ca.gov/
Do you have I love W tatooted on your arm?
__________________
"Let the rabbits wear glasses."
If stem cell research has such promising potential, let the pharmacutical companies fund the research, as they will certainly be the beneficiaries of the income derived from any resultant remedies.
The aquisition of stem cell lines/embryos should be regulated by the federal government, but there should not be federal funding of the research.
True. For as much harping that happens on this board about "Big Corporate" and their "Big Breaks", it seems hypocritical. Either give companies breaks or don't
__________________
The greatest lies are told before a marriage, after a hunt and during an election - Count Bismark
There are almost half a million frozen embryos already. The vast, vast majority will never be implanted. They will therefore eventually be thrown out. The number of wasted embryos increases every year.
Why not let the parents sign basically an organ donor agreement for the surplus embryos - same as they could choose to do for a child killed by a car or an illness - rather than incinerate or flush the embryos? It's the parents' choice. No one is creating embryos just for research purposes. (Also, no one having an extra child so they can obtain umbilical cord blood to medically treat an ill older child -which distresses me a lot more than a nano-spoonful of embryonic cells.)
If ESC research pays off in treatments for Alzheimers, Parkinson's, MS, and MD alone, we're potentially talking about 5-10% of the population right there. Add some forms of cancer, some forms of heart and lung disease, traumatic or degenerative spinal cord injuries, and juvenile diabetes, and you are maybe talking 20% of the population - minimum. The financial savings will be in the hundreds of billions over a period of a few years - not to mention an incredible reduction in human tragedy.
The US should lead the world in this research. States and the gov't can hold patents, not just individuals and corps. It may not just be private industry that benefits financially.
The problem with your argument is that it's based on rationality and logic.
The religious extremists that are against it base their argument on irrationality and faith.
They are a minority, albeit a very noisy and active one.
People like us are live and let live - they want everyone to live as THEY do.
__________________
"Seachicken - it's what's for dinner" - me (until the 'Hawks sweep the Cards)
Check out Dephinger on our MySpace page.
True. For as much harping that happens on this board about "Big Corporate" and their "Big Breaks", it seems hypocritical. Either give companies breaks or don't
give a company help if the goal is the improvement of public health.
give them no help if it's to line the bigwig's pocket or ship American jobs overseas.
__________________
"Seachicken - it's what's for dinner" - me (until the 'Hawks sweep the Cards)
Check out Dephinger on our MySpace page.
give a company help if the goal is the improvement of public health. give them no help if it's to line the bigwig's pocket or ship American jobs overseas.
And what pray tell makes you think that Pharm companies and Pharm CEOs are any different than CEOs at GM, Ford, United, etc?
__________________
The greatest lies are told before a marriage, after a hunt and during an election - Count Bismark
give a company help if the goal is the improvement of public health.
give them no help if it's to line the bigwig's pocket or ship American jobs overseas.
You mean they don’t buy huge houses, luxury cars, expensive jewelry, and take off two days a week off to play golf for the good of all the poor/sick people that need help. I thought that was all part of helping the public health.
I am not saying they should not get paid well but don’t kid yourself. They are in it for the money just as much as anyone else.
Do we put a limit on the grants/tax breaks that if they show a profit they do not get any more help.
__________________
There will never be enough questions answered to eliminate faith
good one...
Linear Mode
