Mike Voice says:

You just need to find a copy of the soundtrack to Monty Python’s “The Meaning of Life” movie, and listen to the “Every Sperm is Sacred” song.

Need I say more?

Tom Guerin says:

This article refers to research done with stem cells gathered from bone marrow. As far as I have heard, no Republican is against research using stem cells derived from marrow.

Many of us do believe that human life, with all the rights, honors and privileges thereunto pertaining, begins at conception. We are against research on stem cells produced from human embryos, as this destroys (murders) a unique human with his or her own DNA. That is the only type stem cell research that the Bush administration has tried to stymie.

Experimental therapies using adult stem cells have shown great promise, as in the article you linked and here. Embryonic research has actually proved less promising, and sometimes with tragic results, like tumors.

Ed Campbell says:

Bush believes in a God that tells him crap like that. Bush Republikans want to run the nation so badly they’ll put up with any spooky shit — just to be in charge.

I don’t give credence to Freudian garbage like “egos”; but, there are a lot of emotionally-lame folks out here and seeking power over other folks and how they live [or die] seems to be the preferred means to justify their existence.

But, then, social cripples have always been cannon fodder for demogogues.

Sanjay Parekh says:

I don’t approve of restriction of federal funding for research but let me explain the stance of the administration.

The current Bush administration has banned federal funding for embryonic stem cell research which is different than the stem cells used in the experiment in this story. The stem cells in this story appear to have been derived from bone marrow cells, presumably from bone marrow donated from an adult. Therefore, there is no loss of life in harvesting these cells. The problem with stem cells from a source like this is that they are already on a path, so to say, of what they could become. So you can�t use bone marrow cells to generate optic nerve cells. Therefore, if you can�t grow a viable stem cell line for the part of the body you want to treat, you�re out of luck through this method. Also, there is a argument that these stem cells may not reproduce forever.

Embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated stem cells that can become nearly anything. One batch from an embryonic stem cell line could be coached to become a kidney and another set could be coached to become muscle tissue. Also, these stem cells seem to be able to reproduce forever with no degradation in the quality of the cells. But to get new embryonic stem cells, you have to have viable embryos which are destroyed in the stem cell harvesting process. So for the current administration, this is equivalent to abortion and ending the life of something that could eventually become a human being. Of course, this ignores the fact that most all embryos used for stem cell harvesting are �extra� embryos from in-vitro fertilization that would normally have been discarded anyways.

So why do you need more than a single line of embryonic stem cells? There is some discussion that there are still potential differences in embryonic stem cell lines and by reducing the possible sources of stem cells costs will remain high (and potentially be mired in ownership rights issues) for the researchers looking to do stem cell research. http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/04.22/99-StemOver.html
>Harvard�s Stem Cell Institute has made a bunch of embryonic stem cell lines inexpensively available to researchers (although using them would preclude a researcher from getting federal funding).

Hope that clears it up.

Augie De Blieck Jr. says:

The fact is, the Bush administration is the first one to fund stem cell research. They just don’t support it in certain cases.

It is NOT banned, as several others have pointed out. Given how the Big Lie seems to be working so well in this case, though, I figure some counterprogramming by repetition of the /truth/ might come in handy.

-Augie

Mike Voice says:

So why do you need more than a single line of embryonic stem cells?

While the cells are “undifferentiated” – which can become just about any kind of cell in the body – there is also the concern of what genes are contained inside the cell.

That is one reason there is a need for diversity in the stem cell’s “gene pool”.

The question is, how much diversity is needed?

I support embyonic stem cell research, but aren’t the existing lines sufficient to perform the important experiments – at this stage of research? Do scientists need more, or just want more? An important distinction, in my opinion.

Thomas says:

> Do scientists need more, or just want more?
> An important distinction, in my opinion.

True, but do we *need* more research? I mean we already have plenty of people on the planet. Do we really *need* to find cures for diseases like Parkisans?

When I think of the Bush Administration’s stance of embryonic research, I think of the “every sperm is sacred” skit in Meaning of Life.

T.C. Moore says:

One of the best South Park episodes ever stars Christopher Reeves eating “embryonic stem cells”, recovering from his injuries, and walking again. A styrofoam ice cooler arrives, and he reaches in and grabs a fetus, breaks it in half at the scruff of the neck, and sucks the juices out of it.

It’s the most disgusting and preposterously hilarious thing I have ever seen. I’m laughing at the audacity of it and at the same time I’m turning my head and wincing, which I never do.

Not only do they get away with murder on that show, but the show consistently makes some of the most obvious and provocative political statements on TV. Even after 5,6 years, it’s still great adult entertainment. I’m just glad I don’t have kids.

Mike Voice says:

If scientists need more stem cells to find a cure for Parkison�s then let�s get them some.

I agree. I am just concerned with the possible backlash from people who strongly-oppose this type of research. If we destroy embryos – just to have a wider selection with which to experiment with, and not because the current supply is limiting research – it will increase the opposition to research that I support.

We shouldn�t stop research that will be used to cure horrid diseases just because some group of the population is living in the dark ages.

They haven’t stopped the research, just the government funding of it. They may have won a victory, but it is a hollow one.

DAD says:

If my daughter and millions like her had cancer, they could hope to be cured, or in remission, or at least for a day without medicine. My daughter and millions like her hope that their kidneys don�t malfunction, that they don�t lose their eyesight, have a heart attack or stroke, or lose a foot or leg to amputation.

It is my contention that there is no incentive to cure juvenile diabetes because there is too much money to be made, and that shareholders are more important than patients. A representative of a foundation funded by a major insulin manufacturer told me that �it was against their corporate policy to ever support anything that would cure diabetes � after all, look at the good things we do with some of the profits from insulin sales!� According to its 2003 Annual Report, 20% of Eli Lilly�s gross profits of over $12 billion for 2003 were derived from its sales of insulin alone.

I beg of you � No more gadgets or gizmos � IT�S TIME FOR A CURE!