Paralyzed Woman Walks Again

mgv writes "It's been promised for years, but it's just become a reality. Stem cells taken from cord blood have enabled a paralysed woman in South Korea to walk again for the first time in 20 years. The details are on the Sydney Morning Herald Site which requires registration, but can also be seen on the World Peace Herald. Too late for Christopher Reeve, but not for the thousands of new injuries worldwide each year or the millions of paralysed people from other diseases in the world."

Adult stem cells

[by Anonymous Coward]

Cord blood stem cells are considered to be adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. Just wanted to get that out before all the Bush bashing starts.

Re:Adult stem cells

[bombadillo (706765)]

However, embryonic stem cells are the cells which hold the real promise for research. This modern debate on embryonic stem cells is similar to the ban on using corpses for medical training and analysis in 16th century Europe. Sure you could learn some things by cutting open a dog. However, the real learning and advancement began once Human corpses were allowed for Medical research. History will view the ban on stem cells the same way. Think of all the good medicine we would not have today if some brave people did not push the issue of using corpses for medical research. Let the Bush Bashing resume.

Get the facts straight

[nwbvt (768631)]

Embryonic stem cell research was not banned. Federal funding was given for embryonic stem cell research but limited to pre-existing lines.

There is a huge difference between the two.

Re:Get the facts straight

[magefile (776388)]

Pre-existing lines that are contaminated with pathogens and mouse cells, many of which have reached the end of their useful lifespans. It's effectively a ban on federal funding, period.

Re:Get the facts straight

[Tiroth (95112)]

Regardless, it is more than no funding at all (like how it was before Bush)

This comes up a lot, and I think it is a very disingenuous argument. There was no funding before Bush because stem cell research as we contemplate it today is essentially an entirely new field of research; there wasn't significant work being done on human embryoes before Bush, hence no funding.

Reference below. It was not until 1999/2000 that scientists proved that these cells could be forced to differentiate into things like nerve cells that were previously thought to be impossible to regenerate.
http://www.laskerfoundation.org/news/ stemcell/hist ory.html

Re:Get the facts straight

[Tiroth (95112)]

1. There was no existing work, due to this being a new discovery
2. Bush prevented work from being funded for embryonic cells (with usual caveats)

Whether or not this is "halting work" is purely a matter of sematics.

The ideas were NOT around much prior to the Bush Administration: it was not until 1998 that embryonic cloning was possible and 1999/2000 that the first breakthroughs in differentiation were made. Please see the link, which has an obvious slashcode-inserted space.

Re:Get the facts straight

[gad_zuki! (70830)]

>There is a huge difference between the two

Yet in practice there isn't. A lot of these lines have been ruined by mouse DNA and other issues. The best stem cell research, predictically, isnt from these lines but from others and most notably from foreign nations.

Bush could have left the Clinton-era laws alone, but chose to give this as a handout to his religious right base. Its dirty politics any way you slice it. The moral issue is as manufactured as the PC you're using to browse this site.

Re:Adult stem cells

[RealProgrammer (723725)]

• However, embryonic stem cells are the cells which hold the real promise for research.

Embryonic cells are growing too fast, and are too unstable. They end up growing into a mess, since they can't be told what to grow into.

Adult cells are by definition those that are stable, having already grown into whatever their "children" will be. Embryonic cells (found in embryos with 1024 or fewer cells) can still grow into any type of cell, which we can't yet control.

It's true that embryonic cells hold "promise", but it comes at a cost. While we're trying to figure out (through the research you want) how to keep a group of embryonic stem cells from growing into an amorphous blob of cells for a discordant mixture body parts, how much effort and money are we spending on it that could be better spent on adult cell research, or even more efficiently by developing a cholesterol-enhancing french fry?

There's only so much money to go around. It's a balance between the far-off possibility of taming the embryonic cells versus the reality of using adult cells to fix broken bodies today.

See:http://www.stemcellresearch.org/stemcellreport [stemcellresearch.org]

Re:Adult stem cells

[GigsVT (208848)]

Is it really surprising that most of the advancement has come from research that hasn't been effectively banned?

That's like saying there hasn't been any advance in the theraputic use of cocaine or heroin.

Re:Adult stem cells

[magefile (776388)]

How about this then: they're not dead yet, but they will be. Why not allow federal funding for research on "surplus" embryos taken from IVF facilities (i.e., embryos that are not going to be implanted, but that are going to be flushed down the drain?)

Re:Adult stem cells

[Reality Master 101 (179095)]

How about this then: they're not dead yet, but they will be.

The problem is that you can make that argument about any human. Someone's in a coma, they're never going to come out, why not do some experiments on them? They're going to die anyway, why let a perfectly good body go to waste?

Or even a newborn that's not wanted. A newborn isn't sentient (that takes another few months); if the parents don't want it, why not allow post-birth abortions?

Now, I recognize that a lot of embryos are going to be "flushed down the drain", and that it's not quite the same as the above, but that doesn't mean there aren't ethical considerations. If embryos are OK, what about two cells? 1024 cells? One week gestation? One month? Eight months, when the mother wants a late-term abortion?

I'm uncomfortable with drawing arbitrary lines on this. It just seems intrinsically wrong to experiment on a living cell with human potential.

Re:Adult stem cells

[DarkBlackFox (643814)]

I'd argue an embryo becomes a human when a recognizable brain forms, and detectable brain activity occurs. Prior to that point, the embryo is a clump of cells indistinguishable from any other mamal's embryo. Humans are still animals- the only thing separating us is brain functionality/capability. It's alright to kill off frogs, or sheep, or cattle at any point to disect and use for research, so what is the difference from a human embryo, provided it hasn't developed a brain yet?

The big issue is not whether killing a fetus is morally right or wrong (I myself am pro-choice, but only up to a certain point of development. I do think killing off a fetus is wrong, but ejecting an embryo is fine), but at what point the embryos become a Human fetus. I've heard every argument from conception, to the development of a heart, to the development of a brain/brain activity. The later makes the most sense to me.

Re:Adult stem cells

[asoap (740625)]

I have a different perspective, but I agree with you. This is my perspective.

I am kinda pro-life/pro-choice. I've had the issue of abortion very close to me. If my mother wasn't so dead against it, she would probably have taken the doctors recommendation to abort me.

Although, I've learnt to admit that what a woman does with her body is ultimately her decision, even if it includes murder. No sarcasm intended. When it comes to your body, you have the only choice.

Anyway, let's get back on topic. The way that the church works is that they believe that God created things a certain way. So if God made things a certain way, then that must be holy. The Church is against gay marrige, because they think that a man and a man can not procreate, so it goes against God. Abortion stops Gods miricale of birth right in it's tracks.

This is where I totally disagree with the Church, and I think that it should take a back seat to logic. If it is proven that people are born homosexual, then the church should be FORCED to accept them, because that's how God created them.

As for medicine, the church believes it's ok, because God gave us the gift of our minds, and the ability to defend ourselves to live longer. This is argueable to, because God also creates death.

Anyway, I think I'm finally getting to my point. With embryonic stem cells there is no sperm involved. So the "natural" course of life has been diverted. So this is not something that is naturally happening. Also what you are left with is a bunch of cells, that don't make up life. They may have the potential for life, but there is none. So as long as we don't let those cells turn into life, I don't see a problem at all. I also don't see how the Church and Chrstian extremists can possibly have a problem.

I for sure have no problem with any form of stem cell research, as long as the cells in the petri dish are not allowed to mature into life.

-Derek

What is holy

[anomaly (15035)]

I can't speak for all of the Christian world, but I have to take issue with a couple of your points above:

1. If God made things a certain way, then that must be holy.
In fact, the Hebrew scriptures (read Old Testament) and the New testament affirm that the world in which we live is flawed as a result of the sin of Adam. Humans - as they are naturally - are not holy. In fact, humans are not naturally able to relate to God. It is only through the combination of God's reaching out to man and man's response to that call that give people any hope of relating to God. (There are many internal discussions about the nature of that call, and man's ability to respond, but the core belief is that man as he is born, is unholy.)

People are born with a prediliction to reject God in a myriad of ways. Some alcoholism has been shown to have physiological roots, but that does not prevent the church from condemnation of abuse of alcohol. Even if homosexuality is demonstrated to have a physiological cause, it will not mean that the church needs to change its stance.

Homosexual behavior is condemed by the church, as is idolatry, lying, theft, greed, slander, swindling, gluttony, and much else.

Why are these behaviors condemned? Because God made us, and He knows how we work. You can drive nails with a Rolex, but it wasn't made for that. There are many things you can do with and to your body - but it wasn't made for those things.

The maker - designer - knows what is good for you, and what is not. He can set whatever standards He wants. God gives us the free will to follow His direction or reject it. I'm sure that the Rolex folks won't recommend driving nails with your watch. If you do it anyway, there are consequences. It's the same with God.

As it stands, the revealed word of God says that sexual acts outside of marriage, and also with two people of the same gender are not acceptable. In fact, Jesus Himself said that when a man looks at a woman lustfully he has already sinned - and that sin carries the same penalty as homosexual acts do!

2. with embryonic stem cells there is no sper involved
I believe that you misunderstand the definition of embryonic stem cells. An embryo is the joining of sperm and egg. Evangelicals typically believe that life begins at conception, not at a later point. When life begins, it must be protected.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Have you read it yourself?

[anomaly (15035)]

The old testament, and new testament affirm nothing.

Have you read the Bible yourself? All of it?

While you may believe that it is merely a collection of nice stories that are used to prove a point, I would suggest to you that your belief may not be completely accurate.

The Bible is quite remarkable in terms of ancient literature. There are many many 'holy books' that are revered by religious peoples around the world. None of them have had the impact on Western culture and society that the Bible has.

We know that what is written there has been preserved since its original versions because of the vast number of copies that we have. There are more accurate copies of the Bible than ANY other ancient work. (The alleged discrepancies that many of you want to point out as you read this are completely irrelevant to all major doctrines of the Christian faith.)

To suggest that it's merely a collection of stories on a par with mother goose is a bit...unreasonable.

In terms of disease, the Christian faith teaches that we all are diseased, and are in need of an ultimate physician to heal us. The disease is sin, evidenced by our selfishness and pride. This is what separates us from a Holy God.

God does give us free will. Doing what He says is wrong is, as I mentioned in my last post to you, akin to smashing your gold Rolex on a galvanized nail.

If you do what God says is wrong, you can expect that there will be consequences. That's the way it is. You don't have to like it, but you can't change it, either. The only way to avoid the consequences is to believe that you are imperfect, recognize that perfection is required to have relationship with a holy God, and ask Him to accept you in your imperfection, beacuse of Christ's sacrifice on your behalf.

This is completely unrelated to procreation. Procreation is not at issue if you look lustfully at a woman, and Christ called that sin, too.

WRT your embryonic stem cell point, I believe that you are mistaken. This site [nap.edu] states that embryonic stem cells require a fertilized egg.

Re:Adult stem cells

[cayenne8 (626475)]

But,the thing I look at is this. An egg that is fertilized outside the womb is nothing more than potential life. Unless it is implanted, it is only potential life, at this point in science, there is not way on earth it will live and develop into a functioning human being.

So, at this point, we are banning research on things that 'potentially' under the correct circumstances become life? If that's they case...we could take it to ridiculous length. Why not ban male masturbation? Potentially, this lost sperm ("every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great..") under the correct circumstances, could be come human life. Obviously, gay people are really withholding their contribution to potential life...etc. Ridiculous stretch there grant it, but, just to illustrate my point. Embryos that are created outside the body...unless implated are not life...they will not live without scientific intervention. So, I have a hard time calling it destruction of a human life for science.

I consider myself to have fairly deep religious feelings and beliefs, but, embryonic stem cell research doesn't bother me...

Re:Adult stem cells

[TopShelf (92521)]

My wife and I have 8 embryos in cryogenic storage, left over from when we did IVF (our twins are now 2.5, and it was worth every penny that's still on our charge cards). We pay a yearly fee to maintain that storage, but after a period of time, once we're sure we don't want to have any more kids, we'd love to donate those embryos for research rather than have them destroyed.

There are indeed ethical considerations, but I think those are on the part of the parents involved and are a private matter.

Re:Adult stem cells

[bombadillo (706765)]

Stem Cells are not the same as embryo's. A stem cell is called a cell for a reason. The human body sloughs off millions of cells a day. Also, stem cells are often left over from invitro fertilization. Are you against invitro fertillization? Whats wrong with using any left over cells which cannot continue to exist and using them for research?

Re:Adult stem cells

[Orne (144925)]

That's funny, because every scientifically minded religious person such as myself always points out that it is only the "embryonic" stem cells that have the moral qualms surrounding them. It has been known for some time that (1) stem cells can be cultured from adult hosts through hormonal treatments, (2) they have none of the rejection issues that embryonic stem cells do (recall, you will be implanting cells from another individual with different genetic makeup; your body will reject the new cells just like any other organ donation) and (3) you avoid all of the discussion over whether you are destroying a life or not.

In my experience, it is that secular mass media often assumes that the religious want to ban all stem cells, because they fail to differentiate between cellular sources.

Simple google search [google.com] shows the "major" media outlets routinely leave off the word embryonic when discussing the topic. Drawing a distinction between the two would better inform the public.

Catholic [catholicweekly.com.au] news letters define the difference, and promote more research into adult stem cells as the intelligent alternative.

Re:Adult stem cells

[flyingsquid (813711)]

promote more research into adult stem cells as the intelligent alternative.

This is great that cord blood cells work here. However, I'm still left with two questions:

(1) are cord blood cells capable of doing everything that embryonic stem cells can do?

(2) if not, then haven't we sort of sidestepped the issue of whether ethical objections to destroying small clumps of human cells (which could potentially, but will not, produce babies) trump the research benefits of embryonic stem cell research.

Re:Adult stem cells

[Rich0 (548339)]

haven't we sort of sidestepped the issue of whether ethical objections to destroying small clumps of human cells (which could potentially, but will not, produce babies) trump the research benefits of embryonic stem cell research.

Well, the problem isn't whether those clumps of cells can potentially produce babies, but whether those clumps of cells are in fact already babies. This is a very heated area of dispute.

If embryos are human beings, then it is immoral to manipulate or destroy them for personal benefit. It would clearly be wrong to kill a one-month old (that is, one month after birth) even if the tissue you harvested from them could save 100 people. Now we're debating over where the line gets drawn. Is it OK to kill a fetus just before it is born in order to harvest tissue to benefit those same 100 people? Is it OK to do it one month after conception? A week?

It really isn't as simple an issue as the rhetoric would have you believe...

Re:Adult stem cells

[foooo (634898)]

It is often impossible to separate "moral" issues from "legal" issues. For example... why is murder illegal?? Because it's immoral to murder someone.

This is why abortion and embryonic stem cell research are such touchy issues. The issue at hand is not "is murder wrong" it is instead "is this considered a person? and therefore ceasing it's existance is considered murder??"

Statements such as:

"Justification with something so simple as "my morals happen to be correct" isn't acceptable. The government either needs to stop making moral issues legal issues. Doing so would have the potential to save thousands of lives."

are childish, in that they completely ignore that law is entirely based on moral issues. We define what constitutes life, liberty and property entirely based on morals. Law simply codifies our societal morals.

Re:Adult stem cells

[Liselle (684663)]

I will worry about playing God as soon as you can prove scientifically that there is a god. At no point should scientific research be affected by any religious beliefs and surely not the religious beliefs of one particular religion.

Alright, that's completely unfair to the OP. I am not a religious person, I understand what "playing God" means, and it has nothing to with a all-powerful diety. If you don't like that cliché because it sounds religious, here's another one for you: too often scientists will ask themselves "can I do this", instead of "should I do this?"

Unless you beleive that all non-religious people are morally bankrupt anarchists, I think you can grant that scientists are bound by ethics that have nothing to do with a god of any kind.

Re:Nonsense!!!!

[stanmann (602645)]

Q: In 1 Ki 7:23 and 2 Chr 4:2-5, does the Bible say the value of pi is 3? A: No. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.328 claims, "The explanation is, of course, that the Biblical writers were not mathematicians or even interested in mathematics and were merely giving approximate figures. Still, to those who are obsessed with the notion that every word in the Bible is infallible (and who know a little mathematics) it is bound to come as a shock to be told that the Bible says that the value of pi is 3." Asimov had a Ph.D. in chemistry, so he should have known better. There are three different possibilities. Rounding with significant digits: Assume the circumference was exactly 30.0 cubits. Since they only gave the dimensions in whole numbers, which number would Asimov have them use? A perfectly round basin with no rim would give a value of 9.55, and that is closer to 10 than to any other number. A rim: Assume either the inner circumference was exactly 30.0 cubits, or that the thickness of the basin made the inner and outer circumference almost the same. A diameter that included a rim of 4 inces (0.22535 cubits) would give a ratio of exactly 3 to 1. A flare: Nothing says the walls of the basin were perfectly vertical. If the basin had a very slight flare of 0.75% at the top, then the outer circumference at the narrow part and the outer or inner diameter at the top would give a ratio of exactly 3 to 1.

11/10/03 "Sir-In the News story about scientists' response to creationists, the scientists `comment that the Bible says that PI is 3, not 3.14' (Nature 398, 453; 1999). The biblical verse quoted (1 Kings 7:23) reads in part: `...measuring 10 cubits from rim to rim... It took a line of 30 cubits to measure around it". Indeed, 30/10 equals 3, but further on in verse 26 it says: `It was a handbreadth in thickness...' Assuming that a cubit measured 18 inches and a hand breadth 3 inches, the inner diameter of the bowl would be 174 inches (10 x 18 - 2 x 3), and the inner circumference would be 540 inches (30 x 18). This yields a value for PI of 540/174 or 3.10. This is about a 1 per cent error from the typical value for PI of 3.14. Although we do not know the exact length of a cubit or a handbreadth, this result is very close to the actual value of PI." (Peil K., "Biblical answer to cooking up pi," Nature, Vol 399, 10 June 1999, p.522)

Walking is nice and all....

[gunmenrock (742305)]

But can they use stem cells to make my wife put out again?

Mundus vult decipi decipiatur ergo.
-Xaviera Hollander

What is the problem?

[TiggertheMad (556308)]

But can they use stem cells to make my wife put out again?

I don't get it. I have no problem getting your wife to put out. All my friends say she is insatiable in bed.

Re:There's a much simpler cure for that...

[LDoggg_ (659725)]

I tried that, but after all that work I was tired and went to bed with a headache.

Other Links

[lamz (60321)]

No subscription required for the story [rednova.com] here, either.

Good Science

[rdc_uk (792215)]

How much better science is this than rubber tails for dolphins?!?

Sounds like good work to me.

Enough Stem Cells for Adult?

[sepluv (641107)]

The article doesn't explain the important thing which is how they managed to inject enough stem cells into adult (for the adult to not reject them) from the small amount of blood available in an umbillical cord. There has only traditionally been enough (that the body's normal blood's anti-body won't attack) for a child's blood. Unless, they are talking about injecting it into the actually spine or something...I'm confused...

Hold on

[Auckerman (223266)]

A press conference is not a peer reviewed journal. A woman walking in from of a camera does not mean a single stem cell helped her. Wait for journal publication, review, and commentary from experts before going around talking about how great this is.

Excellent point

[artemis67 (93453)]

My sentiments, exactly; I wish I had mod points.

I had a friend who broke his neck from a fall, so I've researched the topic a little bit. It is possible, in a very small number of cases, that people will spontaneously regrow the damaged nerves. This could be one of those cases.

One isolated incident does not make for a medical breakthrough. They need to demonstrate that this is repeatable.

Umbillical Cord Use Actually WORSE

[syntap (242090)]

Because now you have to grow the fetus into an embryo, kill it, and harvest the cord to get the cells. How is this better ?!?

Why can't we just get the stem cells from plants? Stems are abundant with them!

Journal Publication?

[dead sun (104217)]

Anybody have a link to a respected medical journal that's running the findings of this research?

I really, really hope that what's being reported is true, but I'd really like to see it in a peer reviewed journal and have the findings reproduced before getting too excited. Because things like cold fusion have been announced via press release before, with no journal paper forthcoming. Without it being reproducable it's just another faith healing.

That said, please, please be good, reproducable research.

Healthy skepticism is warranted

[euthman (209060)]

In lieu of any detailed description of this case in peer-reviewed scientific literature, this news item should be taken under advisement with appropriate skepticism.

The spinal cord is an enormously complex structure, the exact neural connections of which are formed in early embryonic life. That you could simply inject multipotential cells into a damaged cord and expect them to differentiate and grow into mature neurons, complete with appropriate connections, is asking an awful lot. In addition, in this patient, "paralyzed" for two decades, you have the issue of muscles, bones, and joints that haven't been in use all that time.

It would be wonderful if this account is true, but I'm not getting my hopes up until I see more of the fine print.

Re:Healthy skepticism is warranted

[pz (113803)]

Agreed. IAAN (I am a neuroscientist) and at the Society for Neuroscience meeting a few weeks ago, there was a substantial amount of work being presented on spinal chord repair using stem cells. One researcher's results were scary: while the subject (rats if I recall correctly) were able to recover from SRI (Spinal Chord Injury) with the injection of stem cells, they developed allodynia, the condition where normal touch sensation of the skin is painful. This was because stem cells were not selective enough when making connections to existing fibers, and many of the new connections were incorrect. While this research does not mean the Korean team hasn't managed a substantial advance, it does mean that things aren't as simple as we might hope, and one should definitely view the Korean results carefully.

The responses so far

[HarveyBirdman (627248)]

- "Hah! Take that redneck Bushies! Nyah nyah nyah neener neener neener" --- 25%

- "Uh, this is the sort of stem cells the Bush Administration supports, you ignorant dumbass." --- 25%

- "Well, yeah, but, Dumbya cut funding! And this is you: duh doo duh doo duh doo" --- 25%

- "Uh, Bush was the first to federally fund ANY stem cell research. And this is you: bibblebibblebibble pppbbbffffttttt!" --- 25%

And then the same people wonder why nothing works right anymore.

Re:Not for the US

[brandonp (126)]

You're wrong.

This was done by using umbilical cord stem cells. This has far fewer ethical problems and George Bush said on many occassions he fully supports the use of umbilical cord stem cells.

This is a huge advance, getting results without the ethical issues that many people struggle with.

Brandon Petersen
Get Firefox! [spreadfirefox.com]

Re:Time for political will to change???

[danheskett (178529)]

That's not interesting:

1. There is no ban on stem cell research in the US.

2. There has never been proposed or discussed a ban on stem cell research in the US.

3. Cord blood is just that: cord blood. Not embroynic stem cells. Unless someone can point me to something that suggests otherwise, this is not covered by the Federal ban on stem-cell research funding.

4. This treatment could have been derived in the US at various research universities. The fact that South Koreans made the breakthrough at this time does not detract from the US but rather should be an item of pride for the ingenuity and dedication of the South Koreans involved.

Snippy, snide, child-like comments aside, this development bolsters the claim that we do not need embroynic steam cells for the type of treatments and remedies that would help so many people. This was achieved withour US federal funding, without embroynic stem cells. The otherwise of the issue would have you believe that banning Federal funding of embroynic stem research on new lines is akin to calling the earth flat.

Re:They already do

[Trailwalker (648636)]

Prior to Roe v. Wade this was the case. The wealthy have always had access to safe abortions, either in the US or overseas.

Lesser members of the human race had coathanger abortions in alleys, or just had kids. All Roe v. Wade really did was to allow poorer people the same access to abortion as the wealthy.

.

Re:Take that, Bushies!

[corbettw (214229)]

and show the Bushies that they are dumb (at least as far as science goes).

At least we know how to RTFA. The stem cells used were umbilical stem cells. You know, the type Bush wants to encourage people to use? As opposed to fetal stem cells, which are just covered in ethical and moral dilemmas.

Re:Hmmm

[Perl-Pusher (555592)]

Not at all. These are not created by aborting a fetus. In fact most attempts at using embryonic stem cells have met with tumors and rejection. But cord stem cells have been used successfully used to treat 75 illnesses. And to set the record straight, Bush didn't ban stem cell research in the US. He only increased government funding but limited it to those embryonic stem cells already harvested. Big difference, he didn't say you could not donate your money to the research. Just that the estimated 60 million people who find it morally apprensible to abort babies to harvest cells don't have to pay for it too.

Yes, the gov't should fund it, and here's why...

[Arkhan (240130)]

Okay, I'll bite on the last part, at least.

Your question is misleading. The government should be in charge of funding basic scientific research that drives forward our understanding of physics, biology, chemistry, etc, and creates the platform on which industry can develop specific products.

Why should the government do this? Because the results of fundamental research must be completely open and available to all scientists and entrepeneurs who would do something useful with it. Industry will *never* do that.

Government-funded researchers invented the calculus, the mechanical (and electronic) computer, and the internal combustion engine, and gave that research to the public, so that commercial and charitable use could be made of them. Industry, on the other hand, is busy trying to patent your *genes*!

"Stem cell research", as you can tell from the name, is not medicine, nor is it a commercial product. It is a fundamental piece of scientific research that advances our entire base of technology.

So yes, the government should fund it.

Re:Yes, the gov't should fund it, and here's why..

[mforbes (575538)]

Government-funded researchers invented the calculus

Um... Isaac Newton invented calculus when he was still a student at Trinity College. The school was on break for two years as a result of disease sweeping the area, and having little else to do, he spent his idle time thinking very productively.

There was no government funding involved in his inventing calculus, sorry. He invented it out of curiosity, not because he was paid to do so.

Re:Lets get this out of the way

[SunPin (596554)]

ask who should be in charge of developing medicine - the government or industry?

Be real for a second and review industry's track record. Drugs for phantom depression. Drugs for sex enhancement. Drugs for obesity. None of these result from real societal problems and the greatest tragedy is that they aren't funding smaller problems with the major profits. They are just inventing more problems.

Perhaps a better question is "who do you want to define research priorities--government or industry?"

A government of the people should

Re:Lets get this out of the way

[American AC in Paris (230456)]

That's true, but make no mistake that Bush's policies have done more to hinder progress than accelerate it.

For starters, it's a bureaucratic nightmare for labs--if so much as a single "bad" sample makes its way into an experiment, they can lose all government funding in a heartbeat. Labs end up having to spend a surprising and frustrating amount of time and money simply to meet the ever-growing list of compliance demands for federal funding. Angling for private funding is all well and good, but there's a severe lack of funding for pure science; corporate sponsors are far more interested in applied science. Applied science is important, but pure science is equally important and would suffer badly if it weren't for federal funding.

Second, the stem cells in question are coming from discarded embryos from in-vitro fertilization clinics which are already slated for destruction. To ban these stem cells from research is hypocritical, at root--if the issue at hand is the destruction of a human life, they should be fighting just as hard to outlaw the practice of freezing embryos in the first place. That they're attacking the scientific link in this chain suggests that they're more against using these wasted embryos for scientific study (which, for various banal reasons, is seen as the arch-enemy of religion by many,) than they are upset about the wasting of embryos in the first place.

It's a shame that the debate such that the scientific community is being made out to be the villian here. The real villian is the IVF industry; science is simply stepping in and trying to conduct incredibly promising research with something that'd otherwise be flushed down the drain without so much as a second thought.

This ball was never in Bush's court to begin with

[mark-t (151149)]

The Bush administration only outlawed funding for _fetal_ stem cell research. This was from the umbilical cord and is sanctioned by the US's current government.

Why is it that when some people hear the term "stem cells" the same sort of knee jerk reaction happens just like when some people hear the term "nuclear power"?

Re:Cord blood vs. embryonic?

[MagicM (85041)]

From here [rednova.com]:

So-called "multipotent" stem cells -- those found in cord blood -- are capable of forming a limited number of specialised cell types, unlike the more versatile "undifferentiated" cells that are derived from embroyos.

Re:Rise, and WALK!

[nizo (81281)]

It looks like people like Christopher Reeve are walking again

Wow, not only fixing paralysis but raising the dead too? Will the wonders of modern science never cease! Then again, I have seen enough zombie movies to know this can't turn out good in the end...

Re:Adult Stem Cells :)

[tgibbs (83782)]

There's something wrong with a bunch of blood thirsty, power hungry mongrals who are willing to draw attention to something that has so far been proven in 100% of laboratory tests to be totally useless

Do you really feel that your argument is so weak that it is necessary to lie? If you go to PubMed [nih.gov] and type in "embryonic stem cells," you will see a long list of laboratory studies supporting their value.