Loving stem-cell research

[Vagabond -SC2-]

Actually, yes they probably do need a law. For one, the actual deviation of grant monies is not done by fed gov. employees (not directly by politicians). Two, funding areas of research can be very fickle and driven by public opinion (he sort of like politicians), if you would, driven by "sexy science". If there is no law to prevent monies funding research X then anyone who has strong influence, either scientifically or publicly, could pull funds into that area. Then again we can not dictate to the gov where our tax monies are spent so should they dictate to the science where they spend their money?

 

 

Also, I liked the point about if it WOULD cure diseases and if the US is such an evil money making entity why are we not madly funding this area? Because, unlike gene therapy there has not be one single proof of concept that ESC will work and cure anything. I will only mention Dr. Hwang (as damaging ESC research). On the other hand ESC has not been ruled out either. Just think about how long ago gene therapy was passed to the public as the cure all, and just now it is making headway.

 

Ok, I rambled sorry.

[Zythryn]

Actually, the proof of concept is there. Many studies have studied the behavior of ESCs. However, as far as I know, you are correct, no human treatments have been designed at this point.

Just as no viable fusion plant which generates more power than it consumes has yet become fully functional:)

 

Both are good things to continue to research in my opinion.

[HydrogenBond]

The American attitude toward stem cell research is a little Puritain. But it makes the point that if it was allowed, not only would waste embryontic cells be used, but a new market will appear connected to the waste products of pro-choice, i.e., getting paid for an abortion. Science would then become an alchemy race to see who can turn bio-lead into bio-gold.

 

The conservative/moral American attitude does not affect all the scientists in the rest of the world who are able to pursue this angle. If even some of the promised breakthroughs come through, social attitudes will change due to economics and health advantages. If nothing extraordinary happens, America would have saved time, money, etc,.

 

With only a small trickle of results appearing so far, everyone seems disappointed that America doesn't turn this into a space race investing billions to make it work. If it takes that much resources to work, maybe their are simpler alternatives.

[Michaelangelica]

Stem cell breakthrough that could end the storm

By FIONA MACRAE Last updated at 22:05pm on 7th January 2007

 

A major breakthrough in stem cell science could quell the controversy surrounding the cutting-edge medical research, it was revealed.

 

Scientists have shown for the first time that amniotic fluid is a rich source of stem cells, suggesting the powerful cells can be ethically harvested.

Stem cell breakthrough that could end the storm | the Daily Mail

[InfiniteNow]

Stem cell breakthrough that could end the storm | the Daily Mail

 

<cough> http://hypography.com/forums/medical-science-news/9812-scientists-discover-new-readily-available-source.html </cough>

[Michaelangelica]

<cough> http://hypography.com/forums/medical-science-news/9812-scientists-discover-new-readily-available-source.html </cough>

Sorry, but I blame the lousy Hypography Seach Engine/function which has let me down yet again!

[InfiniteNow]

Sorry, but I blame the lousy Hypography Seach Engine/function which has let me down yet again!

 

Overall, Michaelangelica, you do a wonderful job of trying to tie the information you are sharing to the appropriate thread. :thumbs_up

 

We're all only human. Cheers. :beer:

[Tormod]

Sorry, but I blame the lousy Hypography Seach Engine/function which has let me down yet again!

 

<cough> yeah, well, but the story is also listed in the news items at the top right... </cough>

 

:thumbs_up

[HydrogenBond]

There is a lot of debate about human stem cell research. The question I have is why aren't scientists using animal stem cells to practice with? This would build up skills and provide a noncontroversial way to prove that the basic theory works. I realize human stems cells are more interesting and more directly transferable to humans. But don't most medicines and cures start by practicing on animals first. The debate for "human" stem cells appears political instead of scientific since no where else in medicine are the animal middle men cut of out of the picture.

[Zythryn]

The question I have is why aren't scientists using animal stem cells to practice with?

 

I believe they have been.

I have heard of a number of studies using stem cells to stimulate repairs of structures in mice.

While I don't recall specifically that mice stem cells were used as opposed to human stem cells, I would be very surprised if that wasn't the case.

[Michaelangelica]

Stem cell links

 

Technology Review: Special Reports: Stem Cell Science

[HydrogenBond]

It is good that animal stem cells are being used. There is preliminary plenty of things to do, at that level, without needing human stems cells. It should also be able to most provide something tangible that supersedes more tradtional approaches for the same thing. This approach is sort of like engineering; one builds an inexpensive pilot facility to test the concept before scale-up into production. This allows one to test the concept and iron out the bugs, before committing resources to a facility that may not do the job or may become obolete before it gets going.

 

I get the impression that the skip-step way of doing business is an attempt to commit a lot of resources to something that isn't all that certain. Maybe the thinking is, if we throw enough money at it, it will reach the point of no return, to guarentee enough long term commitment to make "something" happen. A pilot study may have the oppisite affect and needs to be avoided if possible.