Bush 4 more years?

[Morphine Child]

Those cells are already differentiated...

If they are, they they are not "stem cells".

After cells leave the embryonic stage, they become pluripotent; pluripotent is specific to a certain area of the body, or a certain function. They are still "stem cells", they are called "pluripotent stem cells" though. While in the embryonic stage they are totipotent which means they could develop into any cell in the body still. Thus, "totipotent stem cells".

That is why they want the embryonic stem cells...there is a lot more possibility in them.

[bassjones]

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/aug/06081804.html

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/aug/06082401.html

http://www.pharma-lexicon.com/medicalne ... wsid=55666

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6101420.stm

http://journals.bcdecker.com/pubs/JIM/v ... _05043.pdf

Traditional dogma maintains that there are few adult (tissue
or postnatal) stem cells present in the body and that
they are difficult to isolate and grow in culture and
extremely limited in their capacity to generate new cell
types, being limited to forming more cells from their tissue
of origin. However, an explosion in publications in the last
few years is overturning this dogma and showing a
remarkable flexibility for these cells.32 In a 2001 publication,
evidence was presented that a single adult bone marrow
stem cell could contribute not only to marrow and
blood but also to formation of liver, lung, digestive tract,
skin, heart, and muscle.33 Several examples now exist of
some adult stem cells with pluripotent flexibility, including
cells from bone marrow,34–36 peripheral blood,37 the
inner ear,38 umbilical cord blood,39,40 nasal mucosa,41
amniotic fluid,42 and the placental amniotic membrane.43
Many of these published studies also document that these
particular pluripotent adult stem cells can multiply in culture
for extensive periods of time while still retaining their
ability to differentiate and providing sufficient numbers of
cells for clinical treatments.

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/2 ... ations.pdf

The other lesson from this report is a cautionary tale regarding embryonic stem cells in
general. This is not the first report to document their tendency for abnormal growth and
genetic changes. Previous studies have noted that embryonic stem cells are prone to genetic
variability (5) and chromosome changes associated with tumor formation (6), especially
when compared to normal adult cells (7) . And these changes occur in any embryonic
stem cell. For example, the new human embryonic stem cell lines produced by Doug Melton
at Harvard showed the same tendency for chromosomal changes (8)
Thus embryonic stem cells pose an unusually high risk for genetic changes and tumor formation,
with the risk increasing the longer the cells are grown, thus making their therapeutic
use even more speculative and problematic. By contrast, adult and cord blood stem
cells are usually not grown for extensive periods, so do not pose this potential of accumulating
mutations. Instead, adult stem cells are generally used in patients shortly after they
are harvested (or retrieved from frozen storage), and have already benefited thousands
worldwide.

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm


we'll leave it there for now...

[Morphine Child]

cool...thank you for the links...I will be reading over them after the Lakers game, or over my morning coffee!

[Morphine Child]

I read the articles, and they all seem to point away from embryonic stem cells. Maybe I'm just goofy.

[bassjones]

Yes they do indeed. Now those are all admittedly one side of the argument, but they make a solid case don't they? Those are peer reviewed scientific studies too, not political puff pieces.

[subgenius88]

Those are peer reviewed scientific studies too, not political puff pieces.

I don't know about that. Their "founding statement" includes:

"Congress should maintain the existing ban on harmful federally-funded human embryo research and make explicit its application to embryonic stem cell research."

If they were a purely scientific research group opposed to a political action group, I don't think they'd come to a conclusion on the subject at the time of their founding, or have these listed as objectives:

COALITION OBJECTIVES

1. To advance the development of medical treatments and therapies that do not require the destruction of human life, including the human embryo.
2. To educate and inform public policy makers and the general public regarding these ethically acceptable and medically promising areas of research and treatment.
3. To support continuation of federal laws prohibiting the federal funding of research that requires the destruction of human life, including the human embryo

Here's a link to their mission statement:
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/statement/statement.htm

I think it's fair to say they have a political agenda. Just the term coalition is a give-away. Coming to conclusion on the subject matter when your organization is founded is a little outside the accepted scientific approach, as far as I'm aware..

Their findings don't appear to have been published in any type of academic journal, either, so I'm not sure what makes you think they have been reviewed. Where did you get that information?

[bassjones]

The studies they cited have been. No one is even arguing the merits of the studies, just the agenda. I have yet to hear anyone launch a challenge to one of the studies they've cited. They're simply a collection site basically. As I said they're very one-sided, but the science seems to support their conclusions.

They believe in the sanctity of life and believe it unethical to destroy embryos for research purposes. Rather than just say that, they've also taken the trouble to research whether or not it's even the best route scientifically and the conclusion thus far is "no it's not."

[Oliver's Army]

I am glad that jforbes stuck around to participate in this thread.




Theatre, meet fire-shouter.

[bassjones]

that's okay, at least the discussion's been good, even if it does deserve a Devito for straying off course - my fault again - of course

[jforbes]

Whoa I have been checking this thread periodically.
I was kidding by the way although I did vote for bush I am well aware of his short comings. I think he has done an incredible job considering the circumstances. I am fairly confident that he has done a better job than Kerry or Gore would have given the same experiences.

I didn't participate because I know very little about Stem cell research. I decided to keep my mouth closed before i ended up putting my foot in it.

The four more years was a joke. Pure and simple. ( I have a very odd sense of humor)

And to the guy who posted this:
Amendment XXII:

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

I am well aware of this and most other amendments. please don't quote them to me. Again I was just kidding about Bush.


But maybe d*ck Cheeney will run in '08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

[WBOB]

You need to be made aware of the TIC meter
sometimes used here.

T - Tongue
I - In
C - Cheek

TIC = 90%

[jforbes]

That's fine I'm just new here so certain people humor won;t always strike me as such. I will try to remember this.

[stevel]

Certainly if Cheney runs, the VP spot will be highly contested, as his survival rate should run into the dozens of days.

[jforbes]

Beautiful


See above.