(h/t Drudge) By now you probably are aware of the pro-stem cell research political commercials featuring Michael J. Fox. The first and most talked about is one for Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill, and now for Maryland Democratic S…

“Pretty much everyone”, but again, that doesn’t always stop a thing from occuring.

If it’s a thing we have control over it does. It’s all we’ve got, and we’re going to have to live with that.

I can see your argument that two is better than one (though I simply disagree in this particular case), but with that being the case, why is it that the discussions are almost always on ESC while ignoring the benefits of ASC?

ESC’s can do things that ASC’s cannot. ASC’s can do some great things, and they have that benefit, that you can over come rejection through autologous stem cell treatment. But they can’t and won’t be able to do the things that ESC’s, and even CBE’s can do.

As for the level of discussion, ASC’s aren’t the least bit controversial. We don’t spend a lot of time talking about genetically targetted drugs like Gleevec, either. But they’re way cool and there’s fascinating science behind them. There’s not much discussion because there’s no argument.

There is a significant difference in benefit between ASC’s and ESC’s. ESC’s are undifferentiated and can be coaxed into an unlimited number of directions. ASC’s will only do so many different things, depending on the type. ESC’s are far more versitile. then there’s cord bllod, which may wind up doing the much of the heavy lifting without the ethical concerns. And there’s the new process than can prune an ESC without harming the embryo. I just don’t see where there would ever be a need to farm, which revolts pretty much everyone.

Pablo on October 24, 2006 at 3:58 PM

“Pretty much everyone”, but again, that doesn’t always stop a thing from occuring.

And actually, ASC are far more versatile than they were previously believed to be.

From an article I posted above:

Adult stem cell breakthrough

The scientists’ work also adds to the body of evidence that shows adult stem cells are more versatile than previously thought.

Adult stem cells not only avoid these moral issues, it is possible they will be more effective as well.

The researchers found that adult stem cells from bone marrow can differentiate into several cell types of the central nervous system.

Scientists hope to replace the damaged areas of the brains in patients with diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis.

If they use embryonic of foetal cells to do this, there is a danger that patients’ bodies may reject the new cells.

But if the stem cells used come from the patients’ own adult tissues then there is no danger of them being rejected and the treatment is much more likely to work.

Dr Yu told the BBC he hopes to start clinical trials with stroke patients using their own stem cells in a year’s time.

And herein lies one of my biggest problems with ESC. They appear to be less effective because of the risk of rejection which ASC do not have as they can come from the patient him/herself.

And this is also why I hate to see things like this ad as they seem to distract from ASC research, which is much further advanced, in favor of ESC, which may not be even as beneficial as ASC.

If people really wanted the cures these stem cells are promising, they’d go with ASC as it would be easier to receive funding (not even a hint of a moral dilema for anyone who might be listening), and it’s much further along in its research.

I can see your argument that two is better than one (though I simply disagree in this particular case), but with that being the case, why is it that the discussions are almost always on ESC while ignoring the benefits of ASC?

I suggest you see a film from last year called “The Island” which illustrates this nightmare of the future rather well.

Oooh! Movies! Can we go see The Day After Tommorow next?

Oy.

In this case, the preservation of you and Michael Fox are apparently worth offing the rest of us for our genetic and biochemical parts because you just declared those who oppose you like me an “idiot” and therefore Ground Zero for your first harvest of my usable bodily materials.

Does anyone want this brain? Anyone? Bueller? It would make a nice stew! Anyone?

Some would argue that the results would be made quicker with embryo farming, but maybe you’re right.

ESC’s are ESC’s. Once there’s a fair number of stable lines, there’s not going to be a need to keep going back to the well. Each line we’re currently using came from an embryo that was destroyed well over 5 years ago. One of the biggest things we’ve learned is hot to NOT process them…like in contaminated mouse media.

I fail to see why the argument holds weight with you here but not when I made it earlier for ASC.

There is a significant difference in benefit between ASC’s and ESC’s. ESC’s are undifferentiated and can be coaxed into an unlimited number of directions. ASC’s will only do so many different things, depending on the type. ESC’s are far more versitile. then there’s cord bllod, which may wind up doing the much of the heavy lifting without the ethical concerns. And there’s the new process than can prune an ESC without harming the embryo. I just don’t see where there would ever be a need to farm, which revolts pretty much everyone.

Selling eggs, or surrogate mothering? Huh. I stand corrected. Perhaps I’m thinking of local law, but I thought the actual sale was prohibited, just as you can’t sell organs.

Maybe it is a local law where you are, but in Texas, it seems to be legal and financially lucrative. I even considered it for a brief moment, but I doubt my husband would be alright with it.

Sure you can’t sell organs, but you can sell plasma (though I don’t recommend it, been there and all) and even sperm, so I can see where eggs could slip in.

There’s no reason to support embryo farming. There’s no real benefit involved that couldn’t be derived otherwise.

Some would argue that the results would be made quicker with embryo farming, but maybe you’re right.

Even still, that’s the same argument I’m making about ASC versus ESC anyway. I fail to see why the argument holds weight with you here but not when I made it earlier for ASC.

There’s no reason to support embryo farming. There’s no real benefit involved that couldn’t be derived otherwise.

After all that, you won’t go the full distance?
Surely, you jest!
As Esthier and I have been maintaining, cloning, embryo farming, and body farming are the next “logical” step–they’ve already cloned cats, but because they’re plentiful and not quite as important as people, there was no market for them. But human cloning?
Oh, some psychos would see enormous economic potential for cell, embryo and body farming, not just for the cure of diseases but possibly to clone oneself or make a human clone to be a source for all kinds of spare body parts.
Why keep just an embryo on ice when you can keep cells on tap to make a liver, lungs or a heart?
I suggest you see a film from last year called “The Island” which illustrates this nightmare of the future rather well.

Pablo, I’m getting real tired, as I’m sure Esthier is too, of arguing this with you.

You may quit whenever you like. You’re not doing a very good job anyway.

The Left/Democrats wouldn’t present embryo farming and cloning on their own evil terms, they’d couch it in cozier, caring and disingenuous language and images like this ad under discussion.

I really don’t give a rat’s ass what the left wants or how they frame their positions.

Honesty has never been the Left’s strong point.

Which is why nobody is buying into their policies.

And the bottom line of virtually all of this—abortion, cloning, Dr. Frankenstein’s Lab experimentation with the very building blocks of life like ESCs, DNA “choosing”–is EUGENICS.

It’s official. You’re an idiot.

Hello, Hitler.

Godwin’s Law. Thanks for playing and don’t let the door hit you where the good Lord split you.

If that’s true, then why do I see ads in my paper every day asking for people to sell their eggs for as much as $3,500?

Selling eggs, or surrogate mothering? Huh. I stand corrected. Perhaps I’m thinking of local law, but I thought the actual sale was prohibited, just as you can’t sell organs.

Not that what the people think matters anyway, since Roe was decided by 9 unelected judges and not the American people.

True. Sad, but true.

You think the people are more likely to support a selfish act (abortion) rather than an act that could possibly save lives?

There’s no reason to support embryo farming. There’s no real benefit involved that couldn’t be derived otherwise.

You’ve also got the problem that you can’t sell eggs.

If that’s true, then why do I see ads in my paper every day asking for people to sell their eggs for as much as $3,500?

Roe v. Wade was supposedly about a woman’s “right” to choose (to kill her baby). I don’t see any argument that would cause the majority of people to support embryo farming.

And seriously? You think the people are more likely to support a selfish act (abortion) rather than an act that could possibly save lives?

Personally if I had to choose one (currently I’d choose neither), I’d take the latter, but that’s just me.

Not that what the people think matters anyway, since Roe was decided by 9 unelected judges and not the American people.

You’ve also got the problem that you can’t sell eggs. Where does the supply come from? Then there’s this which, if they’re right, may eliminate the need to destroy embryos for ESC’s at all. Then, I guess we’ll go back to throwing them away when they’re not going to be used.

But arguing that if we expand a federal funding mechanism it might make us change our laws in the future…well, there’s no there there. There’s no slope to slip on.

And why is that? We are a country that has already said the life of an embryo is not even worth the discomfort of a woman who decided to engage in an act of procreation.

You’re telling me we’ll stop at creating life for the purposes of destroying it even if ESC are the panacea MJF seems to believe it is?

It used to be that women couldn’t vote, waaay back when our country was founded. It also used to be that Blacks had to sit in the back.

Ultimately, I’d like to think that we change our laws to reflect our acquired wisdom, though it ain’t necessarily so.

But arguing that if we expand a federal funding mechanism it might make us change our laws in the future…well, there’s no there there. There’s no slope to slip on.

And almost nobody was talking about this whole internet thing ten years ago. Your point?

I made my point originally. My point was just that the slippery argument (while admitting it’s a pathetic argument in most and arguably all cases) cannot apply to something that has been around since the founding of this country.

It’s assinine to say having a Christian in the White House is going to create any slippery slope towards theocracy since our country was founded by Christians/Deists/religious people (I’m only putting the slashing because I don’t care to have the debate on what specifically the founding fathers practiced).

We already knew before Bush became president that Christians can be president without turning America into a theocracy. So obviously the slippery slope argument had no merit when people were making it in reference to Bush and theocracy.

However, seeing as ESC research has not quite been around as long as America, the argument has significantly more credence than the one that was made about Bush.

That’s all.

And Pablo, you keep saying that because it is illegal, no one will go down the path of creating life for the purpose of destroying it, but abortion, alcohol, illegal immigration (joke–kinda) and many other things were once illegal as well. So what is illegal now will not always be illegal in the future.

That’s the point I am trying to make. I have no reason to believe that creating life for the purposes of destroying it will always be illegal, and I will feel even less secure about this if ESC actually produces any results.

Our laws change. Do you have some guarantee this one won’t? If so, don’t hold back here.

I’m not up to speed on the Missouri measure which I believe is a pending ballot initiative, but what does it have to do with this Senate race?

Pablo, as the big proponent for ESC research, I thought you and the DNC knew.
Does it really matter?
Their point is to imply that Jim Talent is a mean Republican who wants America’s sweetheart Michael J. Fox to be sick and die and that his Dem opponent Claire McCaskill really cares about Fox and doesn’t want him to sway around anymore and if ESC research and cloning will make that happen, well then by God, why are we even having a debate about it?!?

It’s an attack ad about an icky, evil issue (or really several icky, evil issues–to wit: abortion, the use of human embryos for mad science, cloning, eugenics) that makes good God-fearing Americans barf.
Praise the Lord that I live in Texas where Hutchinson and Cornyn have no real opposition in this election and mercifully, I won’t have to suffer watching this damn ad anymore!

Stem Cell research, specifically within the relm of public opinion, is not.

And almost nobody was talking about this whole internet thing ten years ago. Your point?

Guess what, noone openly supports organized crime either. Why? Well, because it’s….wrong.

And that’s why we prosecute people who do it. You can play the fool all you like, but the law is the law and it’s perfectly legal to do ESC research, but not at all legal to do all the hysterical stuff you’d like to conflate into the issue. This debate doesn’t change a molecule of that truth. It’s a strawman. Something very much like HR 810 is going to be the law sooner or not much later. You can bank on it.

Jen,

Esthier, your remarks are very much on message, as I just heard Rush Limbaugh explain on his show that the measure up for passage in Missouri is about cloning, but the public is being misled (especially by this ad) that the issue is ESC research.

I’m not up to speed on the Missouri measure which I believe is a pending ballot initiative, but what does it have to do with this Senate race?

but the public is being misled (especially by this ad) that the issue is ESC research.

Even worse, embryonic isn’t even a word heard throughout either of these political ads.

If you cannot even say Embryonic Stem Cell research, then maybe you shouldn’t be doing it.

No, we’ve been doing it since August 2001, when Bush authorized the first ESC funding.

I appologize, I meant to write “relatively uncharted teritory”. Considering many of the Founding Fathers openly spoke of their faith when this country was founded, Bush expressing a similar faith is, at the risk of being redundant, familiar teritory.

Stem Cell research, specifically within the relm of public opinion, is not.

Freelance, right on, my brother!