Comments on: Science Returns To America

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:36:07 +0000

Oh and by the way,

Under fire from congressional Republicans for lifting restrictions on stem-cell research, President Barack Obama got a powerful endorsement for his move Monday from Nancy Reagan, the former’s president’s wife.

“I’m very grateful that President Obama has lifted the restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research,” she wrote in a statement. “These new rules will now make it possible for scientists to move forward. I urge researchers to make use of the opportunities that are available…”

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:47:05 +0000

You’re arguing cruelty to embryos? Seriously?

By: ed

ed — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:54:31 +0000

Sean wishes Scientific Ethics weren’t a valid question, but wishing doesn’t make it so. If you base your decisions purely on science, with no regards for ethics, you wind up with Mengele and Tuskeegee.

There’s a reason that the phrase “cruelty-free” even exists, and it isn’t because people put science first.

Nobody said Scientific Ethics weren’t a valid question, straw boy. But nice try. Invoking “cruelty-free” is pretty rich from a torture endorser.

So SF: you pro-Stem Cell Research, or anti?

By: mambochicken23

mambochicken23 — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:41:48 +0000

Dammit, Farris, there’s a world of difference between embyronic stem-cell research and human cloning. And Obama never claimed that ethics ought not to be a consideration when in the pursuit of science. No one, NO ONE thinks that. It’s the reason I have to deal with the Animal Research Committee at my university to assess the merits of my work relative to the discomfort/invasiveness of my experimental procedures on rats and pigeons. It’s the reason that every reputable scientific institution that does human testing has to go through an intensive review process to get permission to do their work.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

By: Sean D. Martin

Sean D. Martin — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:22:08 +0000

Actually, Sean wishes Farris didn’t have such a track record of ignoring the topic at hand to bring up some straw man from left field. It would make it easier to consider whether he actually may be making a point.

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:12:29 +0000

There’s a reason that the phrase “cruelty-free” even exists, and it isn’t because people put science first.

By: Sean D. Martin

Sean D. Martin — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:58:19 +0000

Shorter Farris: Look, over there!

By: Syco

Syco — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:57:04 +0000

Farris thats quite simple….

Do we really need another T.O., McCain, Palin, Hillary Clinton, etc.

Banning cloning would prevent the recreation of the worst the world has to offer.

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:48:55 +0000

How does one rationalize Obama’s call for “Politics-free science” with his ban on human cloning? I mean, if the Science is there, what’s the harm?

By: Parthenon

Parthenon — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:19:27 +0000

The opposition to this just dumbfounds me. I get the abortion thing, but if the embryos are already getting roundfiled, what’s the deal?

Even if you DO believe abortion is murder, if somebody was murdered and something on their body could save somebody else’s life, who’d say no?

By: ed

ed — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:13:47 +0000

In the modern Republican party’s defense, Science has a well known and well documented Liberal Bias.

By: Sean D. Martin

Sean D. Martin — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:18:17 +0000

OW: Those embryos are GOING TO BE THROWN OUT ANYWAY, why not get some value from them for a few cells.

Exactly. Ask those opposed to using stem cells which would otherwise be thrown in the trash how they feel about organ donation.

By: Sean D. Martin

Sean D. Martin — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:17:10 +0000

Mel: Unfortuantely the research I’ve read about has actually had problems with Embryonic stem cells, such as tumors developing in the mice they tested on.

If that is true then a reliance on actual Science would, as you note, naturally move research away from using embryonic stem cells. Yet another argument for relying on science and not ideology.

By: ed

ed — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:58:14 +0000

Unfortuantely the research I’ve read about…

And where was that, pray tell? The New England Journal of Medicine? The Johns Hopkins Medical Review? Nature? You may wish to source that.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:25:35 +0000

Unfortuantely the research I’ve read about has actually had problems with Embryonic stem cells, such as tumors developing in the mice they tested on.

Because there haven’t been new lines of stem cells suitable for research for 9 years. Those cell lines must be getting tired by now.

By: SpiderJ

SpiderJ — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:24:37 +0000

Since the embryos are not yet living beings, there’s no death involved there, either.

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:06:13 +0000

Those embryos are GOING TO BE THROWN OUT ANYWAY, why not get some value from them for a few cells. Also, Adult Stem Cells have some use, but for many things they can’t do the job.

By: Mel

Mel — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:50:54 +0000

This is really sad. The headlines make it sound that nothing in the stem cell research has been done, but that is wrong. With a diabetic child I’ve been following some research done in this area. Wonderful advancements have actually happened in using ADULT stem cells. No need to kill embryos to advance disease research. They have great hope to cure diabetes and several other diseases. They are hoping to go to human trials within 5-10 years. Yet the news says nothing of these advancements. Unfortuantely the research I’ve read about has actually had problems with Embryonic stem cells, such as tumors developing in the mice they tested on. Look around, there is work being done but money-grubbing people can only see through their tunnel vision glasses. Forget baby cells, lets really use science and focus on what it really promising -Adult Stem Cells = no death involved!