Blah blah blah the political implications don't astound me. Even if skin stem cells can cure disease, we could cure more by opening up the embryonic line to federal funding as well. But, my scientists and science writers, is this
as big of a deal as it's portrayed to be? Enlighten me.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Win for science?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I'd say so. I'm definitely more in the science writer camp than in actual science, but we're closer than ever to really successful, dependable therapeutic cloning for stem cell research (http://tinyurl.com/2q4vbr), and some people are very unhappy about that.
You (and Arlen Specter) are dead on that we'd be better off looking at embryonic stem cells--or both routes--but who knows if that's going to happen.
I'd say that this is pretty meaningful for science in that researchers interested in using stem cells might be able to do it without having to first debate about it, but only insofar as there are "political implications." It seems to me like a case where this is less of a win purely for science as an idea, but still a pretty big deal for science as it is in the real world, mired in politics and pragmatics.
so, I read the science article about it. I don't know much about the abbreviations for the various human cells, genes, etc., but it would appear that they used fetal skin and foreskins after circumcision to create induced stem cells. Which I find somewhat fascinating. I'm just waiting for the white house to have a campaign: "don't kill your fetus, just cut off his wang"
Since I have no real knowledge about stem cells, i don't know if this is far less reliable than embryonic stem cells. To me, it's a huge deal for science; the political implications are vague and confusing to me.
I applaud your open mindedness to become more informed. The problem with politicizing the "easy" solution of using embryonic cell research is that that far too many want to place all the research dollars down one path and this path is far from proven to be a direction that can actually produce results.
Is it not interesting that other stem cell research has produced far more results than embryonic stem cell research.
There is also plenty of offshore embryonic stem cell research... what has it produced? In reality, not too much in comparison to several other types of stem cell lines that are now being perfected for various items such as skin regeneration, enzyme replacement therapies, and cellular marker lines for research, and a few more.
So before jumping on the "we must have embryonic stem cell research paid for by the government" cool aid drinking talking points... please let us inform ourselves of what other stem cell research has already produced and what is the real needs of embryonic stem cell research (aside from large cellular masses which is easier to work with).
Post a Comment