PDA

View Full Version : Senate approves embryonic stem cell funding


RVD
Jul 18th, 2006, 11:55 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13918363/from/RS.1/
Quick Bush veto promised as early as Wednesday

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Video/060718/n_stemcell_vote_060718.300w.jpg

Updated: 29 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Tuesday after two days of emotional debate to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, sending the measure to President Bush for a promised veto that would be the first of his presidency.

The bill passed 63-37, four votes short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override Bush's veto. The president left little doubt he would reject the bill despite late appeals on its behalf from fellow Republicans Nancy Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"The simple answer is he thinks murder's wrong," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "The president is not going to get on the slippery slope of taking something living and making it dead for the purposes of scientific research."

-----------------------------------------

Why is Bush the only one who doesn't 'get it'?

Anyway, this is the right move in the right direction. And the Senate approval numbers 'for' this issue is improving. Just four move votes and Bush will be powerless to veto the next time around. :)

Wigglytuff
Jul 19th, 2006, 12:06 AM
its really simple, nutjobs will be against stem cell research till someone they know personally suffers from something they think might be helped by the research. but they dont care what the impact is until it affects them personally.

RVD
Jul 19th, 2006, 12:13 AM
its really simple, nutjobs will be against stem cell research till someone they know personally suffers from something they think might be helped by the research. but they dont care what the impact is until it affects them personally.The Reagan family is undeniable proof of this. :)

égalité
Jul 19th, 2006, 12:15 AM
"The simple answer is he thinks murder's wrong."

:haha: :haha:

Well, that explains the war in Iraq. And his being pro-death penalty.

fufuqifuqishahah
Jul 19th, 2006, 12:16 AM
[url
"The simple answer is he thinks murder's wrong," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "The president is not going to get on the slippery slope of taking something living and making it dead for the purposes of scientific research."


The simple answer is that the president wants to garner more socially conservative support.

Wigglytuff
Jul 19th, 2006, 12:51 AM
The Reagan family is undeniable proof of this. :)
so very very very true :)

Scotso
Jul 19th, 2006, 04:40 AM
Republicans are pissed at Bush right now. Him being so unpopular is costing them a lot of votes... now this. A Republican vetoing a bill on Stem Cell research will lose them a lot of votes from moderates and conservatives alike.

It would be so awesome if they could manage to get the votes together to override his veto. :D

Lord Nelson
Jul 19th, 2006, 01:56 PM
The Reagan family is undeniable proof of this. :)
So what, it is the thought that counts. Ms. Reagan was courageous and oh not all Republicans are against stem cell research. McCain seems to be in support of it.

samsung101
Jul 19th, 2006, 04:43 PM
Embryonic stem cell research is not illegal in the USA.
Bush only signed off on preventing federal funds being
used for embryonic stem cell research.

Any private group or state (like California) can do it
right now.

What he has opposed, and I think w/good reason, is
the creation of embryos for science only. We are not
told what happens to the thousands or millions of
embryos that will not be used or are used unsuccessfully.
That's the problem area of all of this. What are we
doing with embryos? Who has the power over them?
Who has the last say?

Fact is, as even the Wash. Post pointed out this week,
embryonic stem cell science is not as great as it has
been hyped...it isn't the cure all promised.

Truth is that adult stem cell science is and has been
far more promising.

Truth is that Bush has authorized more federal funds
for adult stem cell research than any other President -
Clinton punted on this issue for 8 years.

Fact is that Bush also authorized more embryonic stem
cell research from the lines that they already had. He
put millions into it.

Much like global warming, we're being told there is
a done deal - it's all a fact, the science is in, when in
fact, it isn't.

Why would a private company invest money into embryonic
stem cell research, when it can get paid by the federal
govt. to do it, if they can push the idea and agenda to
get it. Billions are at stake - do they invest their own
money or wait to get paid to do the research?

SelesFan70
Jul 19th, 2006, 04:59 PM
Embryonic stem cell research is not illegal in the USA.
Bush only signed off on preventing federal funds being
used for embryonic stem cell research.

Any private group or state (like California) can do it
right now.

What he has opposed, and I think w/good reason, is
the creation of embryos for science only. We are not
told what happens to the thousands or millions of
embryos that will not be used or are used unsuccessfully.
That's the problem area of all of this. What are we
doing with embryos? Who has the power over them?
Who has the last say?

Fact is, as even the Wash. Post pointed out this week,
embryonic stem cell science is not as great as it has
been hyped...it isn't the cure all promised.

Truth is that adult stem cell science is and has been
far more promising.

Truth is that Bush has authorized more federal funds
for adult stem cell research than any other President -
Clinton punted on this issue for 8 years.

Fact is that Bush also authorized more embryonic stem
cell research from the lines that they already had. He
put millions into it.

Much like global warming, we're being told there is
a done deal - it's all a fact, the science is in, when in
fact, it isn't.

Why would a private company invest money into embryonic
stem cell research, when it can get paid by the federal
govt. to do it, if they can push the idea and agenda to
get it. Billions are at stake - do they invest their own
money or wait to get paid to do the research?

They won't listen to facts on this board when it comes to Bush. :o

Philbo
Jul 19th, 2006, 05:27 PM
Embryonic stem cell research is not illegal in the USA.
Bush only signed off on preventing federal funds being
used for embryonic stem cell research.

Any private group or state (like California) can do it
right now.

What he has opposed, and I think w/good reason, is
the creation of embryos for science only. We are not
told what happens to the thousands or millions of
embryos that will not be used or are used unsuccessfully.
That's the problem area of all of this. What are we
doing with embryos? Who has the power over them?
Who has the last say?

Fact is, as even the Wash. Post pointed out this week,
embryonic stem cell science is not as great as it has
been hyped...it isn't the cure all promised.

Truth is that adult stem cell science is and has been
far more promising.

Truth is that Bush has authorized more federal funds
for adult stem cell research than any other President -
Clinton punted on this issue for 8 years.

Fact is that Bush also authorized more embryonic stem
cell research from the lines that they already had. He
put millions into it.

Much like global warming, we're being told there is
a done deal - it's all a fact, the science is in, when in
fact, it isn't.

Why would a private company invest money into embryonic
stem cell research, when it can get paid by the federal
govt. to do it, if they can push the idea and agenda to
get it. Billions are at stake - do they invest their own
money or wait to get paid to do the research?

Interesting post Samsung.. Definitely made me take a step back and think.. I do appreciate your opinion on this topic..

Apart from your mention of global warming (where apart from a few sidelined scientists, the OVERWHELMING majority of the scientific evidence is all in agreement) it was a good thought provoking post...

jbone_0307
Jul 19th, 2006, 06:00 PM
Embryonic stem cell research is not illegal in the USA.
Bush only signed off on preventing federal funds being
used for embryonic stem cell research.

Any private group or state (like California) can do it
right now.

What he has opposed, and I think w/good reason, is
the creation of embryos for science only. We are not
told what happens to the thousands or millions of
embryos that will not be used or are used unsuccessfully.
That's the problem area of all of this. What are we
doing with embryos? Who has the power over them?
Who has the last say?

Fact is, as even the Wash. Post pointed out this week,
embryonic stem cell science is not as great as it has
been hyped...it isn't the cure all promised.

Truth is that adult stem cell science is and has been
far more promising.

Truth is that Bush has authorized more federal funds
for adult stem cell research than any other President -
Clinton punted on this issue for 8 years.

Fact is that Bush also authorized more embryonic stem
cell research from the lines that they already had. He
put millions into it.

Much like global warming, we're being told there is
a done deal - it's all a fact, the science is in, when in
fact, it isn't.

Why would a private company invest money into embryonic
stem cell research, when it can get paid by the federal
govt. to do it, if they can push the idea and agenda to
get it. Billions are at stake - do they invest their own
money or wait to get paid to do the research?



I'm sure they could establish some regulatory commission or propose a bill that would set specific guidelines for embryonic stem cell use. Science and technology are always changing so you just can't say that adult stem cells are more promising. We probably haven't put enough research into embryonic stem cell research to obtain any valuable information. If I can recall, in an experiment scientist injected embryonic stem cells into a mouse that was completely paralyzed and after a couple of days, he regained 70% movement within his legs. Scientist are doing the exact same thing in S. Korea and other countries. All areas in this research must be explored and FUNDED. The discovery of stem cells is fairly new (98) so you can't compare the research on something that has been federally funded and known since in 1960's to something that is privately researched and only know in existence for 8 years. Why wouldn't this research be put forward. Millions of lives are at stake

jbone_0307
Jul 19th, 2006, 06:01 PM
Republicans are pissed at Bush right now. Him being so unpopular is costing them a lot of votes... now this. A Republican vetoing a bill on Stem Cell research will lose them a lot of votes from moderates and conservatives alike.

It would be so awesome if they could manage to get the votes together to override his veto. :D


They were 1 vote away (I think) from the 2/3 majority so it is possible.

tennislover
Jul 19th, 2006, 06:31 PM
well done

jbone_0307
Jul 19th, 2006, 09:27 PM
He just vetoed the bill. The Senate was 4 votes away from a 2/3 majority. If Bush is soo against the killing of innocent lives, them why did we invade Iraq, why does he support Israel in their terror rant (granted that Hezbollah was asking for it). why hasn't he attacked the infertility clinics, and the biggest of all why hasn't he supported that embryonic stem cell research be banned all along. He is a mumbling idiot and has no idea what he is talking about, he just says the word moral and everything is justified. He lied to the American people not only in the beginning of the stem cell debate but the end just as this article outlines.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13935219/

RVD
Jul 19th, 2006, 10:21 PM
Embryonic stem cell research is not illegal in the USA.
Bush only signed off on preventing federal funds being
used for embryonic stem cell research.

Any private group or state (like California) can do it
right now.

What he has opposed, and I think w/good reason, is
the creation of embryos for science only. We are not
told what happens to the thousands or millions of
embryos that will not be used or are used unsuccessfully.
That's the problem area of all of this. What are we
doing with embryos? Who has the power over them?
Who has the last say?

Fact is, as even the Wash. Post pointed out this week,
embryonic stem cell science is not as great as it has
been hyped...it isn't the cure all promised.

Truth is that adult stem cell science is and has been
far more promising.

Truth is that Bush has authorized more federal funds
for adult stem cell research than any other President -
Clinton punted on this issue for 8 years.

Fact is that Bush also authorized more embryonic stem
cell research from the lines that they already had. He
put millions into it.

Much like global warming, we're being told there is
a done deal - it's all a fact, the science is in, when in
fact, it isn't.

Why would a private company invest money into embryonic
stem cell research, when it can get paid by the federal
govt. to do it, if they can push the idea and agenda to
get it. Billions are at stake - do they invest their own
money or wait to get paid to do the research?In essence, Bush's reasons are Religious and personal. The White House has already demonstrated that they are not scientifically or biologically savvy.
They've gotten rid of all those scientists purely on the basis that they did not agree with the Republican Party's position. However, that's all besides the point.
This article addresses much of what you have posted above. Right or wrong, this is the reality.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15068192.htm

Most scientists refute White House appraisal of stem cell research

Posted on Tue, Jul. 18, 2006

Chicago Tribune

(MCT)

When White House political adviser Karl Rove signaled last week that President Bush planned to veto the stem cell bill being considered by the Senate, the reasons he gave went beyond the president's moral qualms with research on human embryos.

In fact, Rove waded into deeply contentious scientific territory, telling the Denver Post's editorial board that researchers have found "far more promise from adult stem cells than from embryonic stem cells."

The administration's assessment of stem cell science has extra meaning in the wake of the Senate's 63-37 vote Tuesday to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The measure, which passed the House last year, will now head to Bush, who has vowed to veto it.

But Rove's negative appraisal of embryonic stem cell research - echoed by many opponents of funding for embryonic stem cells - is inaccurate, according to most stem cell scientists, including a dozen contacted for this story.

The field of stem cell medicine is too young and unproven to make such judgments, experts say. Many of those researchers either specialize in adult stem cells or share Bush's moral reservations about embryonic stem cells.

"(Rove's) statement is just not true," said Dr. Michael Clarke, associate director of the stem cell institute at Stanford University, who in 2003 published the first study showing how adult stem cells replenish themselves.

If opponents of embryonic research object on moral grounds, "I'm willing to live with that," Clarke said, though he disagrees. But, he said, "I'm not willing to live with statements that are misleading."

Dr. Markus Grompe, director of the stem cell center at the Oregon Health and Science University, is a Roman Catholic who objects to research involving the destruction of embryos and is seeking alternate ways of making stem cells. But Grompe said there is "no factual basis to compare the promise" of adult stem cells and cells taken from embryos.

Grompe said, "I think it's a problem when (opponents of embryonic research) make a scientific argument as opposed to stating the real reason they are opposed - which is (that) it's a moral, ethical problem." :worship:

Last week, the journal Science published a letter from three researchers criticizing the claim that adult stem cells are preferable to embryonic stem cells. The authors included Dr. Steven Teitelbaum of Washington University in St. Louis, who has used adult stem cells to treat bone diseases in children. The authors wrote that the exaggerated claims for adult stem cells "mislead laypeople and cruelly deceive patients."

The bill headed for Bush's desk would expand federal funding of work on stem cells taken from embryos. Such cells come from extra embryos originally created for in vitro fertilization. Many experts believe embryonic stem cells one day could help regenerate damaged tissue for patients with conditions such as diabetes, spinal cord injury or Parkinson's disease - though embryonic cells have not yet been tested in humans.

Adult stem cells, which usually come from bone marrow transplants or umbilical cord blood, are widely considered less flexible than embryonic stem cells in forming many types of tissue. Yet adult stem cells already are in common use for certain conditions, such as replenishing immune cells after cancer treatment and treating some bone and blood disorders.

Bush allowed limited funding of embryonic stem cell work in Aug. 2001, but he banned funding of cells taken from embryos after that date. Many scientists and lawmakers argue that the limitation has hindered progress - a view shared by several officials at the National Institutes of Health who submitted testimony to the Senate in April 2005.

"The NIH has ceded leadership in this field," wrote Elizabeth Nabel, director of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.

White House spokesman Ken Lisaius on Tuesday could not provide the name of a stem cell researcher who shares Rove's views on the superior promise of adult stem cells.

One of the only published scientists arguing that adult stem cells are better is David Prentice, a former professor of life sciences at Indiana State University and now a fellow at the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy group.

The letter to Science last week was critical of a list Prentice compiled of 72 diseases that have been treated with adult stem cells. U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), an opponent of embryonic research, entered Prentice's list into the Senate record in May.

Yet most of the treatments on the list "remain unproven," wrote Teitelbaum of Washington University and his co-authors, who claimed that Prentice "misrepresents existing adult stem cell treatments."

Prentice said in an interview that the Science authors "put words in our mouths" - he never claimed that the adult stem cell therapies were proven, only that they had benefited some patients. But he said some of his citations were unwarranted.

"We've cleaned up that list now," he said. Asked how the errors occurred, he said, "I think things just got stuck in."

One of the scientists on Prentice's list is Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg, a pediatric hematologist at Duke University Medical Center who has used umbilical cord blood to treat Tay-Sachs disease and other rare disorders. Kurtzberg said it's wrong to see stem cell science as a competition with only one winner.

"We don't know enough about the potential of either kind of cell," Kurtzberg said. "I don't think one type is going to be the answer to everything."

--------------------------------------
So once again, Bush and company have manipulated the data to falsely indicate a biased result. This is the exact same type of 'mislead and decieve' approach they used in proving their case to go to war in Iraq. And look at where we stand today.

The truth of the matter is Bush is preventing further research based on his religious beliefs. And once again, people will die because of it. Stem cells are not found solely through the production of embryos. Stem cells are also found and harvested from the umbilical cords. Regardless, this is yet more proof of Bush's religious fundamentalism getting in the way of [scientific] progress. :shrug:

Wigglytuff
Jul 19th, 2006, 10:45 PM
In essence, Bush's reasons are Religious and personal. The White House has already demonstrated that they are not scientifically or biologically savvy.
They've gotten rid of all those scientists purely on the basis that they did not agree with the Republican Party's position. However, that's all besides the point.
This article addresses much of what you have posted above. Right or wrong, this is the reality.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15068192.htm

Most scientists refute White House appraisal of stem cell research

Posted on Tue, Jul. 18, 2006

Chicago Tribune

(MCT)

When White House political adviser Karl Rove signaled last week that President Bush planned to veto the stem cell bill being considered by the Senate, the reasons he gave went beyond the president's moral qualms with research on human embryos.

In fact, Rove waded into deeply contentious scientific territory, telling the Denver Post's editorial board that researchers have found "far more promise from adult stem cells than from embryonic stem cells."

The administration's assessment of stem cell science has extra meaning in the wake of the Senate's 63-37 vote Tuesday to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The measure, which passed the House last year, will now head to Bush, who has vowed to veto it.

But Rove's negative appraisal of embryonic stem cell research - echoed by many opponents of funding for embryonic stem cells - is inaccurate, according to most stem cell scientists, including a dozen contacted for this story.

The field of stem cell medicine is too young and unproven to make such judgments, experts say. Many of those researchers either specialize in adult stem cells or share Bush's moral reservations about embryonic stem cells.

"(Rove's) statement is just not true," said Dr. Michael Clarke, associate director of the stem cell institute at Stanford University, who in 2003 published the first study showing how adult stem cells replenish themselves.

If opponents of embryonic research object on moral grounds, "I'm willing to live with that," Clarke said, though he disagrees. But, he said, "I'm not willing to live with statements that are misleading."

Dr. Markus Grompe, director of the stem cell center at the Oregon Health and Science University, is a Roman Catholic who objects to research involving the destruction of embryos and is seeking alternate ways of making stem cells. But Grompe said there is "no factual basis to compare the promise" of adult stem cells and cells taken from embryos.

Grompe said, "I think it's a problem when (opponents of embryonic research) make a scientific argument as opposed to stating the real reason they are opposed - which is (that) it's a moral, ethical problem." :worship:

Last week, the journal Science published a letter from three researchers criticizing the claim that adult stem cells are preferable to embryonic stem cells. The authors included Dr. Steven Teitelbaum of Washington University in St. Louis, who has used adult stem cells to treat bone diseases in children. The authors wrote that the exaggerated claims for adult stem cells "mislead laypeople and cruelly deceive patients."

The bill headed for Bush's desk would expand federal funding of work on stem cells taken from embryos. Such cells come from extra embryos originally created for in vitro fertilization. Many experts believe embryonic stem cells one day could help regenerate damaged tissue for patients with conditions such as diabetes, spinal cord injury or Parkinson's disease - though embryonic cells have not yet been tested in humans.

Adult stem cells, which usually come from bone marrow transplants or umbilical cord blood, are widely considered less flexible than embryonic stem cells in forming many types of tissue. Yet adult stem cells already are in common use for certain conditions, such as replenishing immune cells after cancer treatment and treating some bone and blood disorders.

Bush allowed limited funding of embryonic stem cell work in Aug. 2001, but he banned funding of cells taken from embryos after that date. Many scientists and lawmakers argue that the limitation has hindered progress - a view shared by several officials at the National Institutes of Health who submitted testimony to the Senate in April 2005.

"The NIH has ceded leadership in this field," wrote Elizabeth Nabel, director of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.

White House spokesman Ken Lisaius on Tuesday could not provide the name of a stem cell researcher who shares Rove's views on the superior promise of adult stem cells.

One of the only published scientists arguing that adult stem cells are better is David Prentice, a former professor of life sciences at Indiana State University and now a fellow at the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy group.

The letter to Science last week was critical of a list Prentice compiled of 72 diseases that have been treated with adult stem cells. U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), an opponent of embryonic research, entered Prentice's list into the Senate record in May.

Yet most of the treatments on the list "remain unproven," wrote Teitelbaum of Washington University and his co-authors, who claimed that Prentice "misrepresents existing adult stem cell treatments."

Prentice said in an interview that the Science authors "put words in our mouths" - he never claimed that the adult stem cell therapies were proven, only that they had benefited some patients. But he said some of his citations were unwarranted.

"We've cleaned up that list now," he said. Asked how the errors occurred, he said, "I think things just got stuck in."

One of the scientists on Prentice's list is Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg, a pediatric hematologist at Duke University Medical Center who has used umbilical cord blood to treat Tay-Sachs disease and other rare disorders. Kurtzberg said it's wrong to see stem cell science as a competition with only one winner.

"We don't know enough about the potential of either kind of cell," Kurtzberg said. "I don't think one type is going to be the answer to everything."

--------------------------------------
So once again, Bush and company have manipulated the data to falsely indicate a biased result. This is the exact same type of 'mislead and decieve' approach they used in proving their case to go to war in Iraq. And look at where we stand today.

The truth of the matter is Bush is preventing further research based on his religious beliefs. And once again, people will die because of it. Stem cells are not found solely through the production of embryos. Stem cells are also found and harvested from the umbilical cords. Regardless, this is yet more proof of Bush's religious fundamentalism getting in the way of [scientific] progress. :shrug:
:worship: :worship:

but like i said before, you cant talk logic or reason with these people, they could care less about the reality or the degree of suffering, all they care about is some crazy "moral" agenda. but i would bet several billion dollars that they WILL change their mind on this the SECOND they think someone they know personally has been affected by something that would be helped by stem cell research.

its nothing to do with moral anything, because if it did people would not flip flop on this as much and as easily as they do.

tterb
Jul 19th, 2006, 11:08 PM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ReeVeeDynasty again.
:sad:

But to ReeVee's post #16: :worship:.

Philbo
Jul 20th, 2006, 09:33 AM
In essence, Bush's reasons are Religious and personal. The White House has already demonstrated that they are not scientifically or biologically savvy.
They've gotten rid of all those scientists purely on the basis that they did not agree with the Republican Party's position. However, that's all besides the point.
This article addresses much of what you have posted above. Right or wrong, this is the reality.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15068192.htm

Most scientists refute White House appraisal of stem cell research

Posted on Tue, Jul. 18, 2006

Chicago Tribune

(MCT)

When White House political adviser Karl Rove signaled last week that President Bush planned to veto the stem cell bill being considered by the Senate, the reasons he gave went beyond the president's moral qualms with research on human embryos.

In fact, Rove waded into deeply contentious scientific territory, telling the Denver Post's editorial board that researchers have found "far more promise from adult stem cells than from embryonic stem cells."

The administration's assessment of stem cell science has extra meaning in the wake of the Senate's 63-37 vote Tuesday to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The measure, which passed the House last year, will now head to Bush, who has vowed to veto it.

But Rove's negative appraisal of embryonic stem cell research - echoed by many opponents of funding for embryonic stem cells - is inaccurate, according to most stem cell scientists, including a dozen contacted for this story.

The field of stem cell medicine is too young and unproven to make such judgments, experts say. Many of those researchers either specialize in adult stem cells or share Bush's moral reservations about embryonic stem cells.

"(Rove's) statement is just not true," said Dr. Michael Clarke, associate director of the stem cell institute at Stanford University, who in 2003 published the first study showing how adult stem cells replenish themselves.

If opponents of embryonic research object on moral grounds, "I'm willing to live with that," Clarke said, though he disagrees. But, he said, "I'm not willing to live with statements that are misleading."

Dr. Markus Grompe, director of the stem cell center at the Oregon Health and Science University, is a Roman Catholic who objects to research involving the destruction of embryos and is seeking alternate ways of making stem cells. But Grompe said there is "no factual basis to compare the promise" of adult stem cells and cells taken from embryos.

Grompe said, "I think it's a problem when (opponents of embryonic research) make a scientific argument as opposed to stating the real reason they are opposed - which is (that) it's a moral, ethical problem." :worship:

Last week, the journal Science published a letter from three researchers criticizing the claim that adult stem cells are preferable to embryonic stem cells. The authors included Dr. Steven Teitelbaum of Washington University in St. Louis, who has used adult stem cells to treat bone diseases in children. The authors wrote that the exaggerated claims for adult stem cells "mislead laypeople and cruelly deceive patients."

The bill headed for Bush's desk would expand federal funding of work on stem cells taken from embryos. Such cells come from extra embryos originally created for in vitro fertilization. Many experts believe embryonic stem cells one day could help regenerate damaged tissue for patients with conditions such as diabetes, spinal cord injury or Parkinson's disease - though embryonic cells have not yet been tested in humans.

Adult stem cells, which usually come from bone marrow transplants or umbilical cord blood, are widely considered less flexible than embryonic stem cells in forming many types of tissue. Yet adult stem cells already are in common use for certain conditions, such as replenishing immune cells after cancer treatment and treating some bone and blood disorders.

Bush allowed limited funding of embryonic stem cell work in Aug. 2001, but he banned funding of cells taken from embryos after that date. Many scientists and lawmakers argue that the limitation has hindered progress - a view shared by several officials at the National Institutes of Health who submitted testimony to the Senate in April 2005.

"The NIH has ceded leadership in this field," wrote Elizabeth Nabel, director of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.

White House spokesman Ken Lisaius on Tuesday could not provide the name of a stem cell researcher who shares Rove's views on the superior promise of adult stem cells.

One of the only published scientists arguing that adult stem cells are better is David Prentice, a former professor of life sciences at Indiana State University and now a fellow at the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy group.

The letter to Science last week was critical of a list Prentice compiled of 72 diseases that have been treated with adult stem cells. U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), an opponent of embryonic research, entered Prentice's list into the Senate record in May.

Yet most of the treatments on the list "remain unproven," wrote Teitelbaum of Washington University and his co-authors, who claimed that Prentice "misrepresents existing adult stem cell treatments."

Prentice said in an interview that the Science authors "put words in our mouths" - he never claimed that the adult stem cell therapies were proven, only that they had benefited some patients. But he said some of his citations were unwarranted.

"We've cleaned up that list now," he said. Asked how the errors occurred, he said, "I think things just got stuck in."

One of the scientists on Prentice's list is Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg, a pediatric hematologist at Duke University Medical Center who has used umbilical cord blood to treat Tay-Sachs disease and other rare disorders. Kurtzberg said it's wrong to see stem cell science as a competition with only one winner.

"We don't know enough about the potential of either kind of cell," Kurtzberg said. "I don't think one type is going to be the answer to everything."

--------------------------------------
So once again, Bush and company have manipulated the data to falsely indicate a biased result. This is the exact same type of 'mislead and decieve' approach they used in proving their case to go to war in Iraq. And look at where we stand today.

The truth of the matter is Bush is preventing further research based on his religious beliefs. And once again, people will die because of it. Stem cells are not found solely through the production of embryos. Stem cells are also found and harvested from the umbilical cords. Regardless, this is yet more proof of Bush's religious fundamentalism getting in the way of [scientific] progress. :shrug:

Well you certainly came along and claimed ownership of this thread.

Why does Samsung disapear whenever someone asks a sincere probing question of him?

Wigglytuff
Jul 20th, 2006, 10:37 AM
They won't listen to facts on this board when it comes to Bush. :o
hmmm seems like all the responses to your post have been deleted... what who are you blowing that people cant respond to you? :tape:

anyway, what i had originally said was thus:

:baby: :baby: :baby:

Lord Nelson
Jul 20th, 2006, 01:07 PM
I am all for ebyonic stem cell research. But there needs to be a process of accountability and transparency. We don't need no people like the Korean chap who is now viewed as a fraud nd who may have used unethical means for unprodutive results that he tampered with. His snuppy dog may not even be a clone.

Helen Lawson
Jul 20th, 2006, 02:23 PM
If there was something in the bill that all the stem cell research would be on black and mexican embyos, he probably wouldn't have vetoed it.

korben
Jul 20th, 2006, 03:03 PM
GWB :silly:

Who needs cure for cancer, aids or any other uncurable deceace anyways ?

Not that they are automaticly found via stem cell recearch. But afaik more scientists search, more likely they are to come out with cure.

fufuqifuqishahah
Jul 20th, 2006, 03:23 PM
the most important thing is prevention! not curing! but i think stem cell research could help with that too....

tonythetiger
Jul 20th, 2006, 04:20 PM
its really simple, nutjobs will be against stem cell research till someone they know personally suffers from something they think might be helped by the research. but they dont care what the impact is until it affects them personally.

Why is everybody a nutjob if they don't agree with you? As much as I don't like or support Bush, I am not for using federal dollars to terminate life in order to improve the quality of life of others. And it doesn't matter if my love ones would benefit or not. I just think it's morally wrong to do this.

samsung101
Jul 20th, 2006, 04:42 PM
Federal funding for embryo stem cell funding.
That's the issue.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and George Soros
could each contribute funds to embryonic stem
cell research right now that would probably
match or beat what the govt. is being asked
to put up.

Private and state funding of this is legal.



It's all about funding for corporations, but, I guess
it's okay to support big corporations sometimes.....


When it suits the political cause at hand.

The Senate voted to give federal funds to big
and deep pocket medical and pharmacy
corporations so they can do embryonic stem
cell research, and get paid for doing it.

Billions at stake.

jbone_0307
Jul 20th, 2006, 06:56 PM
Federal funding for embryo stem cell funding.
That's the issue.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and George Soros
could each contribute funds to embryonic stem
cell research right now that would probably
match or beat what the govt. is being asked
to put up.

Private and state funding of this is legal.



It's all about funding for corporations, but, I guess
it's okay to support big corporations sometimes.....


When it suits the political cause at hand.

The Senate voted to give federal funds to big
and deep pocket medical and pharmacy
corporations so they can do embryonic stem
cell research, and get paid for doing it.

Billions at stake.




Which is it?? A moral issue or a money issue?? I don't care whos getting paid if this type of research is producing results. Millions of lives are at stake. Many of the fetuses aren't even used and are discarded. I would rather them go to scientific research than the trash. I fail to see how immoral this bill is. People are acting as if these EMBRYOS are fully developed humans. They have the POTENTIAL to become, but many are just sitting in a cryogenic freezers. Maybe i'm just being inconsiderate but I would rather use this type of technology if it could possibly benefit millions.

RVD
Jul 20th, 2006, 11:22 PM
:worship: :worship:

but like i said before, you cant talk logic or reason with these people, they could care less about the reality or the degree of suffering, all they care about is some crazy "moral" agenda. but i would bet several billion dollars that they WILL change their mind on this the SECOND they think someone they know personally has been affected by something that would be helped by stem cell research.

its nothing to do with moral anything, because if it did people would not flip flop on this as much and as easily as they do.Politicians toss the word MORAL around as if they actually possess some. :tape: and what's really funny is that people honestly believe that governments are run by morally astute leaders, when the truth of the matter is that these so-called leaders are only interested in their personal impact on history. That is why folks like Bush and Reagan makes statements about ‘History’ being their judge. This is especially true in America.

To make matters worse, the federal government is a business entity and thus will do whatever is necessary to turn a profit not for the good of ‘the people’, but for the good of special interests investors, cohorts, and family].

I think people quickly forget because it’s so much easier to do nothing and say nothing against your government, than to speak up and go the distance. That, and the fact that Homeland Security has the power to jail anyone for any reason with ever charging folks with a crime. But all this is tangent to the topic. Sorry. :wavey:

RVD
Jul 20th, 2006, 11:29 PM
Well you certainly came along and claimed ownership of this thread.

Why does Samsung disapear whenever someone asks a sincere probing question of him?:haha: The question are never easy sometimes. But they need to be asked.

I think Samsung is intelligent, without a doubt. But I usually get the impression that he/she is speaking out of someone else's mouth. :lol: Like taking the most convincing arguments of the 'far-right’ and mixing it all up in hopes of making a point.
Again, that's just the impression I get. :shrug:

RVD
Jul 20th, 2006, 11:31 PM
hmmm seems like all the responses to your post have been deleted... what who are you blowing that people cant respond to you? :tape:

anyway, what i had originally said was thus:

:baby: :baby: :baby:Yeah, I see what you mean. :scratch:

WHAT'S THE DEAL MODS?!?! :shrug:

RVD
Jul 20th, 2006, 11:37 PM
I am all for ebyonic stem cell research. But there needs to be a process of accountability and transparency. We don't need no people like the Korean chap who is now viewed as a fraud nd who may have used unethical means for unprodutive results that he tampered with. His snuppy dog may not even be a clone.AGREED!!

As with any new or burgeoning technology or science, stem cell research should abide by a regulatory standard that all can agree to. AND there should be some reliable level of oversight not tied solely to that of the federal government. Maybe a committee composed of Federal, scientific, and private entities.

RVD
Jul 20th, 2006, 11:42 PM
If there was something in the bill that all the stem cell research would be on black and mexican embyos, he probably wouldn't have vetoed it.:haha: Sort of like Reagan and AIDS. :hehehe:

But come on sweetheart...
We all know Bush loves Black people. I mean he's been dippin' in the chocolate sauce for darn near six years now. :lol: ;) Heck, he sees Rice-puppy more often than wifie. And we all know Laura is none too happy about that. :lol:


I'm soooo bad! :devil:
But it feels soooo good. :angel:

RVD
Jul 20th, 2006, 11:48 PM
the most important thing is prevention! not curing! but i think stem cell research could help with that too....Equally important, my friend. :wavey:

For instance, if a beloved family member is diagnosed with breast or prostate cancer, I'd like for their to be a reliable cure so that they will survive these presently incurable disease. Prevention goes without saying, but as you may not be aware of, man has and can unknowingly create illnesses that there are no cures for. Cancer just happens to be a major example of this.

RVD
Jul 20th, 2006, 11:57 PM
Federal funding for embryo stem cell funding.
That's the issue.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and George Soros
could each contribute funds to embryonic stem
cell research right now that would probably
match or beat what the govt. is being asked
to put up.

Private and state funding of this is legal.



It's all about funding for corporations, but, I guess
it's okay to support big corporations sometimes.....


When it suits the political cause at hand.

The Senate voted to give federal funds to big
and deep pocket medical and pharmacy
corporations so they can do embryonic stem
cell research, and get paid for doing it.

Billions at stake.With all due respect, there are more than a few issues to be considered here.

*The 'moral' ramification. (I certainly wouldn't be adverse to satisfying a few of the more logical religious concerns) :angel: Especially the 'When does life begin' question.
*Who should finance this new technology until it become independently sustainable.
*Benefits vs. Risks ...namely, who will this technology benefit, and which sectors of society should be served first.
*What is the potential for abuse and how do we guard against such.

...just to name a few.

RVD
Jul 21st, 2006, 12:05 AM
Which is it?? A moral issue or a money issue?? I don't care whos getting paid if this type of research is producing results. Millions of lives are at stake. Many of the fetuses aren't even used and are discarded. I would rather them go to scientific research than the trash. I fail to see how immoral this bill is. People are acting as if these EMBRYOS are fully developed humans. They have the POTENTIAL to become, but many are just sitting in a cryogenic freezers. Maybe i'm just being inconsiderate but I would rather use this type of technology if it could possibly benefit millions.RIGHT!! What do people think goes on in fertility centers around the world. All fertilized eggs are not used. And if they aren't used, then what's been done with them these past decades?
However, if even these can be used to save lives, and why not use them for such.

It's interesting that people are quick to sign on for the war effort, which disregards the lives of millions, but would not even consider the possibility of saving the lives of (potentially) millions.

I don't get it. :confused:

Wigglytuff
Jul 21st, 2006, 03:28 AM
Politicians toss the word MORAL around as if they actually possess some. :tape: and what's really funny is that people honestly believe that governments are run by morally astute leaders, when the truth of the matter is that these so-called leaders are only interested in their personal impact on history. That is why folks like Bush and Reagan makes statements about ‘History’ being their judge. This is especially true in America.

To make matters worse, the federal government is a business entity and thus will do whatever is necessary to turn a profit not for the good of ‘the people’, but for the good of special interests investors, cohorts, and family].

I think people quickly forget because it’s so much easier to do nothing and say nothing against your government, than to speak up and go the distance. That, and the fact that Homeland Security has the power to jail anyone for any reason with ever charging folks with a crime. But all this is tangent to the topic. Sorry. :wavey:

complete trueness!!!

kosmikgroove
Jul 21st, 2006, 06:32 AM
Federal funding for embryo stem cell funding.
That's the issue.
Is it now? That's funny because just earlier you said this:
What he has opposed, and I think w/good reason, is
the creation of embryos for science only. We are not
told what happens to the thousands or millions of
embryos that will not be used or are used unsuccessfully.
That's the problem area of all of this. What are we
doing with embryos? Who has the power over them?
Who has the last say?
Care to rethink your last statement?

Fact is, as even the Wash. Post pointed out this week,
embryonic stem cell science is not as great as it has
been hyped...it isn't the cure all promised.
I'd be a little more careful throwing around definitive terms such as 'fact is' in light of recent evidence to the contrary.

It's all about funding for corporations, but, I guess
it's okay to support big corporations sometimes.....
Again, I thought you said that this was about "What are we
doing with embryos? Who has the power over them?
Who has the last say?"

The Senate voted to give federal funds to big
and deep pocket medical and pharmacy
corporations so they can do embryonic stem
cell research, and get paid for doing it.

Billions at stake.
Wrong again, Millions are at stake... Millions upon millions of lives, NOT dollars.