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.
Should Embronic Stem Cell research be actively encouraged in the United States?
Should Federal research grants be available to ESC researchers as is the case with most other major developments in medical and basic science?
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
__________________ Hoping for Audacity
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
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.
__________________
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
-Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Location: on the run from johnny law... ain't no trip to cleveland
Posts: 9,352
A$FN: 1,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardLogic
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.
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/
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/
I suppose this is better than the federal gov't funding it but only slightly. This is still funding by taxpayer support. Yet if there are any "breakthrough technologies" as a result the corporate entities will collect the income, certainly not the taxpayers.
As I stated, if the field is so promising then there ought not to be any need for government support of the research.
__________________
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
-Samuel Langhorne Clemens
I suppose this is better than the federal gov't funding it but only slightly. This is still funding by taxpayer support. Yet if there are any "breakthrough technologies" as a result the corporate entities will collect the income, certainly not the taxpayers.
As I stated, if the field is so promising then there ought not to be any need for government support of the research.
On the flipside...taxpayers would directly benefit from whatever "breakthrough technologies" that come forward. It may not be income...but it certainly could be a disability or a life.
One study estimates that 1,000 scientists at more than 30 firms spent $208 million experimenting on embryonic and adult stem cells in 2002. I'm willing to bet that private funding has gone up significantly since then.
On the flipside...taxpayers would directly benefit from whatever "breakthrough technologies" that come forward. It may not be income...but it certainly could be a disability or a life.
One study estimates that 1,000 scientists at more than 30 firms spent $208 million experimenting on embryonic and adult stem cells in 2002. I'm willing to bet that private funding has gone up significantly since then.
Only a small percentage of taxpayers are likely to directly benefit; those whom are recipients of any resultant therapies.
Re: increased private funding. Great!!, so long as their source of stem cell lines is obtained through existent sources. I consider the procurement of embryos strictly for the purpose of destroying them to conduct research ethically objectionable.
__________________
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
-Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Only a small percentage of taxpayers are likely to directly benefit; those whom are recipients of any resultant therapies...
1% of lets say 100,000,000 taxpayers is still a million.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardLogic
...Re: increased private funding. Great!!, so long as their source of stem cell lines is obtained through existent sources. I consider the procurement of embryos strictly for the purpose of destroying them to conduct research ethically objectionable.
Methinks that is the center of the issue in this whole thing.
I'm sure you would agree that private firms will not be 'encumbered' (I can't think of a less harsh word)...unlike state/federal funded programs inwhich ethical/moral standards are in place for R&D.
Photograph by Yorgos Nikas, M.D.A mere speck
nestled in the eye of a needle, a five-day-old
embryo (photographed using an electron
microscope) contains controversial stem cells.
By Rick Weiss
Stem cell research has been living up to its reputation for being fast-paced. In the few weeks since the July National Geographic cover story went to press, several important advances were reported—along with some significant political milestones.
On May 19, a team of South Korean researchers led by Woo-Suk Hwang of Seoul National University announced it had created 11 human embryos that were genetic twins of patients with various diseases and had successfully extracted stem cells from those embryos—the first important steps toward therapeutic cloning. Most important, they achieved the feat with remarkable efficiency. When the same team became the first, in 2004, to derive a line of stem cells from a cloned human embryo, they reported that they had needed almost 250 human eggs to get just one embryo healthy enough to generate the precious cells.
This time it took only 17 donated eggs, on average, to get each line of cells—a more than tenfold increase in efficiency thanks to modest changes in technique. It's not unusual to get about that many eggs from a single cycle of ovarian stimulation of the kind routinely performed for fertility purposes. T
That means that, for the first time, an already accepted medical procedure has the potential to create for a patient a self-replenishing colony of genetically compatible stem cells. Suddenly, therapeutic cloning became much less hypothetical, and the international stakes to develop such therapies got raised even higher as the Korean government announced it would pump even more money into the endeavor.
On the same day, Alison Murdoch, a fertility doctor at Centre for Life in Newcastle, England, announced that she had at last succeeded in creating a cloned human embryo using the less-than-perfect eggs she is currently allowed to use under British regulations. The difficulties she has had, she said, suggest there are great advantages to using fresh eggs, and she hinted that Britain's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority may have to allow scientists to use healthy fresh eggs if that country is to keep abreast with developments in countries such as South Korea.
On the political front, the U.S. House of Representatives made history by passing the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, which would loosen the restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research imposed by President George W. Bush in August 2001.
The 238-to-194 vote included 50 Republicans, despite Bush's threat a few days earlier that he would veto the bill if it came to his desk. Now it is up to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a surgeon, to decide if and when he will bring the identically worded Senate version of the bill to the floor for a vote. Last year, 58 senators signed a letter to Bush asking that he loosen his rules, which indicates there is an excellent chance the Senate would pass the bill. As of this writing, a veto by Bush would be the first of his presidency and it remains unclear if Congress has enough votes to override.
If current research trends continue, however, perhaps the ethical and political problems surrounding stem cell research will succumb to a technical solution.
At least three teams of researchers in the United States and Australia have recently reported encouraging results suggesting it may be possible to generate embryonic stem cells—or at least cells that are functionally equivalent to embryonic stems—without having to create or destroy embryos in the process.
Several hurdles remain. But the work strongly suggests that the fantasy of someday being able to turn ordinary cells—from, say, a person's skin—into personalized stem cells capable of becoming replacement tissues for various ailing organs may not be so many years away.
I am a strong supporter of Stem Cell Research. To limit it in any way is just doesn't make sense.
I'm a Cancer survivor and Stem Cell research may be my only hope if I relapse. Every day we limit research could delay possible cures. The US has the greatest minds in the world. Why handcuff them?
I say that any cure or medication that is discovered using Stem Cell research should come with a notification that the patient must sign. That way people agianst it won't have to subject themselves to cures that are against their beliefs.
__________________ Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day; teach that person to use the Internet and they won't bother you for weeks.
Embryonic cells have shown more promise in animals for the "holy grail" or nerve tissue regeneration. However, adult stem cells have 40 years of research and some applications. To compare the two is not a very equal comparison.
__________________
We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it.
Absolutely - No qualms at all - The US should lead the way in this research.
All the moralist have no leg to stand on here and should not probhibit stem cell research, its just eggs people...
If they are agianst it, then don't use the research's benefit. This is no more against "God's Plan" than usining any other science to cure cancer, sickness, etc.
Enough with the science- fiction ,horror- movie, apocolyptic theories and reasoning as why not to use the research.
Humans play god every day and this is no different than anything else.
Linear Mode
