For all of those interested in contributing to the stem cell research movement, rather than throwing your cash at political candidates or political parties, simply put your money into the research itself. The Hughes Institute is one of the leading facilities that has been conducting research with its own lines for years. They were featured on a recent "60 Minutes". No, stem cell research is not banned and government money is being spent on the research (on 21 or so lines), but MUCH more money is being spent at the Hughes, and they have their own lines that they're working on. Don't buy into the hype. If you want to cure diseases, rather than donating to Amnesty International, the American Cancer Society, or the many other worthy groups, give some of your hard-earned money to the Hughes.

This is a nice link, SM. Stem cell research has been all over the news lately, from Ron Reagan Jr. to Michael J. Fox to the late Christopher Reeve, all pushing for it. Here's my question: what hype should we not fall for? I assume you mean that anti-Bush activists have been saying he opposes stem cell research, which is patently false. But doesn't the inability to develop NEW lines of stem cells stifle research?

My worry here, as with some other Bush administration policies, is that the religious convictions of our President (and his people) are influencing medical advancements that could help millions. But maybe I misunderstand the policy...you might be able to clarify it.

pE,

It's my understanding that government research is limited by the $25 million budget and the existing 21 lines. However, private research is unlimited in terms of dollars that can be spent and lines it can utilize. Again, research is not banned. It's simply a political wedge issue. Why don't more people complain that we're not putting billions of dollars into cold fusion research? Such an invention could solve all of our & everyone else energy problems forever? Or put a stop on all rain forest clearing because of the possibility of eliminating plant life that could cure diseases?? I put stem cell research into those groups. Sure, each might solve major human crises, but they all cost $$$$. The choice to fund stem cell research is just another place to spend American taxpayer money. Sure, some folks (not me) would rather not spend taxpayer money on admittedly speculative research using discarded embryos, and they have the right to their opinion. If voters would rather the goverment spend 1 billion on this kind of research, then vote for it. But my point is this: much like other health research issues, private money is going to be the backbone of this movement, just like it is for cancer research. If only folks like Theresa would give some of her $$$$ to private stem cell research facilities like the Hughes rather than spouting off about it so much, we might find a cure to some diseases. But she won't. She'd rather USE the issue as a polical wedge. Let's not.

Nice points, all, SM. Your understanding of the issue is the same as what I had assumed was the case. I think making the issue overly political is a strategy BOTH sides are using, but the fact that private research is being conducted is, for me, the crucial issue. If you're opposed to stem cell research on discarded embryos, then by all means, DON'T donate to Hughes. But I'm not sure that those same people would refuse whatever treatment might be developed from the use of said stem cells... The government can keep working on the 21 lines...let private research take care of the rest.

Thanks for the tip...I'll donate to the Hughes in the very near future.

Not that I have anything to do with that institute, of course... It's just not widely reported.

On the ethical note, I'm pro choice. But even if I weren't, I don't think I'd have a problem with the research. For example, if a guy was murdered, and his body wasn't claimed, I'd have no problem with scientists using his body parts for scientific research. Would I be advocating murder by taking this position?? HELL no. I'm just suggesting that once the deed is done, and you have a potentially valuable body of material, why not put it to some kind of use. Enough of me on this topic!

quote:

---

Originally posted by SparkleMotion:
For example, if a guy was murdered, and his body wasn't claimed, I'd have no problem with scientists using his body parts for scientific research. Would I be advocating murder by taking this position?? HELL no. I'm just suggesting that once the deed is done, and you have a potentially valuable body of material, why not put it to some kind of use. Enough of me on this topic!

---

Again, I'm in total agreement with you, SM. But there is an argument I've heard against even doing research on aborted fetuses, which is roughly akin to the question, after WWII, as to whether or not we should use the data gathered by Nazi scientists on human subjects. I am, by no means, trying to equate the two things...but the argument is, if you gather data or make scientific progress using immoral means (fill in your immoral means here), you are not entitled to use the information. The ends can never justify the means.

That being said, it's not as if fetuses are being CREATED for use in stem cell research. Although that is precisely what Laura Bush was railing against in recent interviews. The fetuses being used would have been aborted anyway, as far as we can tell, so now they are merely becoming part of science. If they were conceived, for example, to be SOLD for stem cell research, that would be another story. But I'm not aware of anyone offering $$$ for people to get pregnant and have abortions...

Regardless, your point is a good one. And, for the record, I think the default position for ALL people in our society should be organ donor. If you want NOT to be a donor, you should have to get a card saying so, rather than the other way 'round.

I recently had to do a debate on the subject, so now I actually am informed on the issue. The materials that are used are eggs that would not have even been planted into a woman (excess). They are about a week old, at a week old they do not even have brain waves and are nothing really, not a girl nor boy, nothing just cells. America is banning funding on stem cell research not anybody actually doing it. Therefore since it is unsupervised by the US it gives private researches more of a chance to actually do something like cloning. The supposed 60 lines are actually more around 12 now. That is what I know.

What you say is true, Mike, but it misses the crux of the argument for many of the pro-lifers: a week old conceptus, regardless of whether it is implanted or not, is a PERSON. For many (not all...don't think I'm pigeonholing here) pro-lifers, life begins at conception, when the new human DNA code comes into being. This is, for example, the Catholic position, although not all Catholics hold it true. A seven day...even a seven MINUTE conceptus is due the same respect as a living person. Despite the fact that it is a cellular organism, smaller than the head of a pin, it is no different than you and I. And, as such, it deserves some sort of respect.

But that misses the point, even after sex conception takes hours to actaully form something. It seems absurd to think that an embryo is entitled to human rights. These embryos are not identifiable. Why isn't stem cell research a good reason to invest money. Bush seemed to think it was okay to research the power of prayer. And Clinton spent millions to find homosexuals in the army. Why not a good reason?

Given my own feelings on the divine, I'm probably the last person who should speak on behalf of those with deeply held religious beliefs, but I think pE is right, Mike. Brain waves or not, no small number of people believe that at the very moment of conception, that mass of cells is imbued with a soul and that to destroy it for any reason is a mortal sin.

On a side note, Mike, I hope you don't let Business classes take up all of your time when you get to the U of F. You seem like a Liberal Arts major at heart to me. It may not pay the bills as well, but it sure is a lot of fun.

Now Playing: "The Summer Sun" Chris Stamey with Yo La Tengo V.O.T.E. (Yep Roc) <-- this is an album that has really come in under the radar...too bad...it's terrific!

quote:

---

Originally posted by LinnTate:


On a side note, Mike, I hope you don't let Business classes take up all of your time when you get to the U of F. You seem like a Liberal Arts major at heart to me. It may not pay the bills as well, but it sure is a lot of fun.

---

If the U of F you're speaking of is Florida, then I'll second LT's comment, and recommend that you dip your toes into the up-and-coming Philosophy department at Florida. It's been a so-so program for a while, but it's got some great profs there now. We tried to get a pair of them at Wash U but failed for political (read: tenure) reasons, and they moved to Florida.

If this stuff (stem cells, etc) is of interest, then take a Biomedical Ethics course and you'll get immersed in the debate (both sides of it).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike:
But that misses the point, even after sex conception takes hours to actaully form something. It seems absurd to think that an embryo is entitled to human rights. These embryos are not identifiable. Why isn't stem cell research a good reason to invest money. Bush seemed to think it was okay to research the power of prayer. And Clinton spent millions to find homosexuals in the army. Why not a good reason?

---

There's also another problem...some forms of birth control (the pill, the patch) make the uterus an inhospitable environment but don't always prevent eggs from being produced and fertilized. So, you may have a fertilized egg (a person, in some people's minds) being "wasted" because it cannot implant in the uterine lining. This is called, by some, chemical abortion, and is a justification for many physicians to not prescribe birth control, even if the pill is not for birth control reasons but for hormones, cramps, etc.

In some states, PHARMACISTS are refusing to fill prescriptions for the Pill and the patch for these same reasons. Legislation has proposed in several states (Wisconsin, for sure) which would allow for pharmacists to conscientiously object to filling prescriptions for moral reasons.

I have been thinking about taking a couple of courses in philosophy at the UF (When I get there of course), I think that the benifits of taking these courses far exceeds the capital necessary, philosophy is so interesting. Thankyou for the suggestions LT and PE.

Yet again, America "Home of the Free" is taking rights away from people due to religious beliefs carried out by our "Beloved" president. Women have the right to have sex and the right to not have children, they are essentially trying to take away the right to not have children away when taking away birth control. This is being backed by Bush, who promotes abstinence only programs, we all know that kids in high school are already having sex, why take away their education? What I mena by that is that they are going to have sex if they have birth control or not this just makes more of them have children, which takes away their opportunities for further education. This is yet another example of Bush imposing his religion upon others, and him of course letting other impose their religion on others.(The pharmicists)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mike Angelo,