Paralyzed Woman Walks Again 1196
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."
Cord blood vs. embryonic? (Score:3, Interesting)
Enough Stem Cells for Adult? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Lets get this out of the way (Score:4, Interesting)
The difference between Republican presidents and a hypothetical liberal president (we haven't had a liberal president in many many years) is that the Republicans would give companies research money ("corporate welfare") and then allow the companies to patent their discoveries for the purpose of making the most profit from every person who needs that medicine. At some level, there's going to be someone who is too poor to get cured.
The hypothetical liberal president would also fund research, but publicly funded research would belong to the people who paid for it: the taxpayers. Everyone would have access to the new medicines, and even the poorest would be treated with them.
Of course, you're thinking "that's not fair to the companies, and they'll go out of business". Note that I never said that. If companies want to make money, they can fund their own research with their own money, and sell their drugs themselves. Liberals aren't opposed to business and people getting rich. Liberals are just opposed to them getting rich at the expense of the taxpayers, or in an unfair/unethical manner.
Re:Waiting for Verification (Score:3, Interesting)
And this South Korean group has a track record of making at least as much noise as progress. (Check for the previous articles linked here about them.)
It would be fantastic if it works, and Chosun University isn't a fly-by-night institution but I'm having trouble working up much optimism. We'll see.
BTW, you may want to lay off the line breaks a bit...;-)
Re:Poor Chrisopher Reeve (Score:3, Interesting)
All over the world (Score:4, Interesting)
A couple of weeks ago, a brazilian woman who had recently had a stroke was helped by a stem cell transplant.
Although doctors claim the healing could have happened naturally, they also report that "there is biological activity (in the area affected by the stroke)... "
Interesting, let's hope all these stories help build a united front.
The link here http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=
Adult Stem Cells :) (Score:2, Interesting)
Now the controversy will start, so I'll try to pre-empt this with a few things from myb log on this [blogspot.com].
First, notice these are adult stem cells. This likely couldn't have been done with embreyonic stem cells; every test with embreyonic stem cells has failed, or has caused tumors. I'm not a biologist, but I'm going to guess that since embreyonic stem cells are totipotent and regrow entire bodies, that they "try" (*cough*) to regrow something other than just surorunding tissue (when they actually graft), and thus simply turn into blobs of useless, random tissue (tumors). Adult stem cells have treated over a hundred diseases already. :)
That should be sufficient to undercut any "OMFG EMBREYONIC ONES R BETTAR" arguments. Let's try political arguments. Before bashing politicians, think about how they bat embreyonic stem cell research around as a political hand grenade, without mentioning adult stem cell research. 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, while ignoring the other component which has displayed genuine results and greater future promise, just for their own political agenda. I'll hold one party at fault more than the other for this; but when your opponents lie, you should take up myth busting and put them back in their place for it. It's still a fault that conservatives don't come out and lay down the low down like I have on my blog.
So I've bounced technical and political arguments here now. Anything I missed?
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh, an embryo can continue growing, a corpse can't.
Are either of them anything more than a collection of cells that cannot think or feel?
A newborn can't think (its brain is still undeveloped). It can sort-of feel, but can't really process what it means to feel anything.
Is an embryo more alive because you consider it to have some mythical soul or because under the right conditions it may become alive?
Religion is irrelevent to these issues. The only question is whether we assign value to human life.
Re:Lets get this out of the way (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's take a vote: How many people think that we could advance science by conducting experiments on Pxtl? Sorry, Pxtl. Off to the labs with you. You won't mind giving your life for the chance of advancing science, right? I mean, you're not some "stupid fundie" who thinks your life has some greater value than science, right?
C'mon, buddy. Walk the talk.
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is the big deal about it. Why not let the states fund it - California is doing so already and other states may soon follow.
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, this assumes that there's a god (or gods) in the first place. Which, as someone already said, there is no scientifically provable evidence for.
Isnt it true that there is so much medical science today that is ethically questionable?
Well, leading from your "playing god" mention...Are people objecting to some of these things because it really conflicts with their personal ethics, or because it conflicts with what their religion mandates and they're afraid of being sent to *insert place of eternal suffering here*?
Re:Lets get this out of the way (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no funding for creating new lines. Why haven't all the old lines that were created come up with any results? If there are such miracle cures available, why aren't the drug companies funding the research so they can get rich? There is a huge profit potential.
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Rise, and WALK! (Score:2, Interesting)
Modern fundamentalist religions, like those that oppose abortion, stem cell research, or equality for women, are headed for a direct confrontation with people that want to believe in a wider range of spirituality. The issue of stem cell research highlights this, because many people now respond to it in terms of the soul, whereas that was not at issue when abortion was originally made illegal in the US [prochoice.org] in the the middle and late 1800s. This concern for the soul and the sanctity of life shows a trend towards more holistic and 'superstitious' views of the world.
This view has actually been encouraged by the emerge of recent sciences including chaos theory and quantum dynamics. The cycle will continue, but if you want to know what's coming, asking high school and college students their opinions. Not the ones that are eager to answer, but the ones that are reserved about their opinions. They're the ones that are still considering the issue, and their opinions will shape decision on the subject thirty years from now. Since I think that there are a lot of undecideds on this issue, I see a big fight coming once a large number of them have made up their minds and raised children with those views.
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:2, Interesting)
Check on the current practice (Score:1, Interesting)
They do, with family consent. Perfectly common. They also wait to pull the plug on organ-donors until the transplant recipient is ready to recieve.
They even do experiments on living humans. It isn't even contraversial, it's just an accepted way to pick up drinking money. Granted if you're a perfectly healthy human being the ethical contraints are a little firmer, but there are many degrees of grey.
For example, people who were fully blind and having an eye removed for whatever reason were used to test how much damage a laser does to a living human retina. Consent, naturally.
So yes. It's established that you can experiment on living adults with consent. It's established that you can use the organs of the brain-dead to save lives with family consent.
I agree with one line in your post. It's wrong to draw arbitrary lines on this. We're just already way over on the side of accepting that those who are going to die may help others to live.
The only place we *don't* accept it is the fetus/embryo, ostensibly because such a thing cannot give consent. If you're going to flush it anyway, consent is irrelevant, so let's go for it.
Informed participants (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a not a "President Bush vs. everyone-else" argument and he has taken heat for federally funding adult stem cell research - It was his administration that pointed out a very reasonable question (one that Californians obviously didn't hear or read) - "If stem cell research has such potential, why isn't there more private funding and effort?"
Follow the money. Determine why private research funds (even at some universities) are not being spent on stem cell research.
The abortion fanatics (all of 'em) are using this as another means to inculcate their rhetoric into the debate. Unfortunately, the bystanders in this side show are employing simple repetition and not doing the homework to get at the underlying issues to which they are voicing an opinion.
Re:Healthy skepticism is warranted (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:5, Interesting)
There are indeed ethical considerations, but I think those are on the part of the parents involved and are a private matter.
Re:Healthy skepticism is warranted (Score:2, Interesting)
In certain ways, it's analogous to reattaching an amputated arm. If the surgeons line up and resew the nerve sheath, the axons will grow back out from the spinal cord and reinnervate the muscle. Of course, the spinal cord is more complicated, but if external intervention can make the right conditions, I bet the same process can occur.
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
What type of hormonal treatments? Would these treatments harm the host? Are they as viable as the cord cells or even the controversial stem cells? Do you have a link that I can read regarding your claims?
(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)
Correct me if I am wrong. However, I believe the South Korean woman was treated by a stem cell from an umbilical cord. This cell was not from her body. So I do not think I can agree with your rejection hypothesis.
I really don't see anything informative or citing of research in your post. The only thing I can agree with you on is your 3rd point.
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:3, Interesting)
Considering the argument at hand, it would be the ethical alternative.
generational deterioration? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:It was fun while it lasted (Score:3, Interesting)
anti-science agenda? I'm afraid you have it wrong, friend. My father was admitted to the hospital 2 years ago for what was thought to be a heart attack. As it turned out he had at some point in his past gotten an infection that had weakened the tissue of his heart. In a relatively short time with therapy and medication he resumes a normal life. 10 or 15 years ago he'd had gotten a "you're SOL, sucker" excuse from the industry. Today he has another chance.
But you mention the government. OK, let me play devils advocate here. Let's take the recent Vioxx incident. If the FDA didn't force companies to fork out millions and million in drug trials (which translated into higher drug costs passed on to you) these incidents would be much more common. Not only that but civil suits would run otherwise well meaning companies out of business. Again this would translate into higher costs for you.
So what will it be? A higher cost of treatments that work, a government heavy health system that would depend on others to make progress because it can't afford serious R&D itself or shoddy treatments that are little more than a band-aid for a shotgun wound to the head?
If I ever see a doctor, it'll probably be due to a trip to the emergency room.
Good job. Pay for insurance but don't use it. Go to the doctors and chances are you won't be lying in ER at 3:30 in the morning with chest pains and a doctor you've never met before treating you. If Americans were more in tune with the idea of preventive medicine we'd probably have fewer in the hospitals and fewer who end up on maintenance drugs for the rest of their lives. But I know the story; eat, smoke, drink yourself into a bad medical position and complain that medical science can do nothing for your life of excess. Perhaps not you in particular, but many live their lives just like that. Maybe things weren't this bad 20 years ago because people had enough common sense to see that you pay to play and now that it's starting to swing around and take down the baby boomers we have too many casualties from fast and easy living at one time. The system is being burdened and our sue-happy society isn't helping matters any.
Re:Rise, and WALK! (Score:3, Interesting)
Selfish Gene Propagation (Score:2, Interesting)
Not quite true. I think it was in The Selfish Gene where they pointed out that traits that may not benefit an individual may still help propagate the gene itself if it profits relatives. If one could argue, say, that a homosexual male would be better at acting as a caretaker for children (And no, I don't have any argument in that area), then having an individual like that pop up periodically would mean that relatives of his (nephews, nieces, etc) would be more likely to survive, quite possibly carrying large amounts of his genetic code due to the common ancestry.
Perhaps a more practical example might be the argument that homosexuality occurs as population control. (Supposedly, studies have shown that homosexual behavior in animals increases as a population starts to outgrow its space. Perhaps related, it's been shown that the later a child is in birth succession, the more statistically likely it is for them to be homosexual) By reducing the chance of population overgrowth in the area, the gay person increases the chances of survival for their relatives.
Re:Just a side note.... (Score:3, Interesting)
2 - It doesn't matter whether Sagan is right or not. What matters is that he's the author who wrote the novel Contact and they insulted him by writing an ending to the movie with a message directly opposite of the one he gave while still alive. It's a travesty because it's an insult to the author of the work, much like if Peter Jackson had decided to have Sauron win the war of the ring in the movie version of JRR Tolkein's work.
3 - What about Einstien?
Re:Get the facts straight (Score:2, Interesting)
Well then how about instead he actually do something to encourage more research? Stem cells are an extraordinarily promising medical tool. Anyone under the age of 40 now is likely sacrificing years off their lives by encumbering research. It may well be that if you can survive another 30 or 40 years that you will then survive another few hundred years beyond that. Oh, and your children too, and everyone around you that you care about. Opposing stem cell research is, frankly, medieval.
fun with bounds (yay for syntactic ambiguity puns) (Score:3, Interesting)
Then don't draw *an* arbitrary line, just do what every other computer scientist / mathematician does when they can't find a tight bound on something: draw 2 arbitrary lines!
If you believe that it's obvious that a small hunk of cells is decidedly not human, and if it will be flushed and will thus not become a human, then that's ok for research.
A newborn baby is obviously already human and has the potential to develop further so we'll say no killing newborns.
There. No single arbitrary line. The trick is, to me, to just go with what is definately OK, and leave the more questionable stuff alone. That way you have no absolute declaration of when life/dignity begins/becomes valuable and thus no slippery slope.
Comfy?
Re:Selfish Gene Propagation (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree, you would think that if there were a "gay gene" that it would have been removed from natural selection.
I've heard of studies saying that homosexuality can simply be the result of to much of the wrong hormone at the wrong time.
One of the interesting things about this was that if you look a man's hand. The ring finger, is longer then the pointer finger. If you look at a women's hand, then those two fingers are almost the same length. Yet if you look at gay men's hands (apparently some of them), will have those two fingers closer to the same length. Which is more like a women's. Interesting stuff.
I'm not saying that there is a "gay gene" or not. I really don't know. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that there is something in us that causes us to have gay children. I really don't know.
What I do know is that, I'm not going to tell someone how they can run there life. I'm also deffinately not going to do it because some man man behind a podium simply says so.
-Derek
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:3, Interesting)
As love for God is fairly hard for society to even notice, that rule is not that important when relating to others. And the second basically boils down to 'treat everyone as your brother' or 'be excellent to each other', or any one of a million ways that concept has been stated since the dawn of mankind.
But there are literally hundreds of tiny rules that have nothing to do with either of these rules, and I'm not even talking about rules Christians can't agree with, like the homosexuality prohibition. Even things that pretty much all denomications (At least, all the big ones popular in the US) agree on, like the prohibition on consensual 'wife swapping', don't fit.
Whis is interpeted as being against the 7th commandment: Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread.
Wait, wrong 7th commandment. Here we go: You shall not commit adultery.
It's a rule that no denomination thinks twice about, yet it has nothing whatsoever to do with the 'ethical base' of Christianity.
It's like if Kant had tacked onto his categorical imperative 'Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Also don't wear white after labor day, it's unethical.'.
Now, not wearing white after labor day is a fine guideline, but it's not an position on ethical behavior. Likewise, various people in the US use the myrid rules in the Old Testement, and even the New, to attempt to enumerate a list of ethical actions, completely disregarding the fact that the Bible presents an general purpose ethical standard that applies in all circumstances. By ignoring the fact there's a general rule, they can interpet specific rules without following the guidelines of the general rule.
There really are only about a half a dozen basical ethical positions in this world. Kant has the 'What if everyone did that' position, millions of people have 'Whatever I can get I deserve' position, some people do 'I treat people how they treat me', almost every religion says 'You should treat people with compassion, not as a means to an end.', doctors and some buddhists 'do no harm' under any circumstances (At least, medically, for doctors), etc.
The problem is that people wander around 'organizing' religions, aka, codifying explicit examples into the base ethical behavior, and then refuse to change them when they no longer apply. Or, even worse, codifying secular laws or even politicial positions as ethical positions. And currently, instead of codifying new rules, we've gotten such confusing and conflictory texts that we just have people reading whatever they want into them.
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:3, Interesting)
Other issues don't line up so well. Believing that it's immoral to wear hats isn't likely to spread to others, since there's probably no benfit to such a belief. It's also unlikely to become a law in the US, since the law does nothing to benefit society, and in fact only takes away the rights of non-believers.
This is why murder is illegal, swearing is legal, stealing is illegal, praying is legal, abortions are legal, and the uprising against "gay marriage" will fail. Our laws are based on what is fair to everyone - or at least that's what we're trying to aim for. Laws sometimes align with the majority's idea of "morality," but I like to think that this is the result of common goals (fairness) rather than drawing on arbitrary rules about what's right and wrong.
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:2, Interesting)
Interesting.. if the process of IVF is "ok" and generally there is left over embryos that are just destroyed after the parents decide they've had enough children why not give the option of allowing the parents to decide?
I don't know any numbers off hand but would the number of embryos in storage that are not used be enough to keep the stem cell research going?
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:2, Interesting)
My understanding is that one of the major benefits of adult stem cells over embryonic stem cells is this:
Embryonic stem cells have a problem with knowing when to "shut off", when reproducing to recreate tissue (isn't that cancer?), while adult stem cells do not seem to have this problem (and provide the same functionality as embryonic stem cells).
That's what I heard on NPR.
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:3, Interesting)
Thanks.
We cannot transfer the morals of one religion on to our society as a whole.
I totally agree. It's worth pointing out that we, as a society, do legislate morality all the time. In Religious Studies, you'll hear the term "Civil Religion" used to denote that body of beliefs and morals that we as a society have chosen to accept as core to our collective well-being. Murder and theft, for example, are against our shared civic morality, and we treat those acts thusly.
I would argue that including even the earliest forms of human life (embyos, fetuses, etc...) in the list of rights-protected entities would benefit us more than hinder us on the whole. I'd also argue that it is not the same as requiring, say, a Buddhist to respect the Sabbath or a Jew to pray to a cross. It's a hard line to define, and it hasn't ever been made clear legislatively, which is a shame. It'd make all this a great deal easier.
All that said, I don't harbor any illusions that my views will be made law. Even if Roe-v-Wade were overturned tomorrow, the outcry for formal legislation would be immediate and the right to an abortion would be reinstated in a New York minute. That is, to me, sad, but I respect the process enough not to step outside of it to accomplish my goals. Just as with the last election, while I did not vote for Bush, nor did I want him to be President for four more years, I concede that many people did want him as President, so I will tolerate that and wait til the next vote, where I will decide who should follow him in the Oval Office. Voting is all I can do.
Are you accepting of the fact that it's legal to do invitro fertillization.
I'd use the term 'tolerant' rather than 'accepting' but, yes. I'm not looking to go out and shoot anyone over it, if that's what you mean. That would be adding suffering to tragedy in my opinion. I would also never get in someone's face about IVF (unless they first got in mine). If asked, I offer my opinion, if the opportunity arises to do so politely, I offer it. Other than that, I'd rather lead by example. People learn far more from our actions than from our words. My wife taught me that.
I'm adopting a girl from China right now (Documents went to China less than an hour ago! W00t!). I could have kids on my own, so IVF wasn't needed, but were it, I'd do the same thing. Adoption is just a great choice, I think. The world has plenty of kids that need parents, and I was looking to be a parent, so the efficient programmer side of me was drawn to that solution.
do you think it should be banned?
Yes, but it won't be, so I'll just have to deal with the situation as it is rather than as I want it to be. I can do that. The world rarely bends to my will, much to my dismay.
then what do you think about embryonic stem cells? Either way, embryos are being created and later destroyed.
Well, going under the realistic assumption that it won't be banned, I'd say that we still should bring them to term if possible. I am against any sort of destruction of human life (yes, that would include the death penalty, even if perfectly applied). I seriously doubt I'll ever get my way on this though. I truly wish there were a way to do this research without embryonic destruction, and I'd be all for if we could, but that isn't a choice we're given.
Re:Walking away with it. (Score:3, Interesting)
There are two points you're missing. First is something people get confused on all the time--the government not funding something is different than not allowing it. The federal government is not regulating embryonic stem cell research, only limiting federal funding to existing lines. While this may be because the Bush Administration is influenced too much by the reglious right, it is not inconsistent with deregulation or smaller government philosophy. (There are however numerous other examples of where Bush has been inconsistent.) There are no barriers to you, I or any other individual or company preventing us from doing whatever research we want.
Second, and even more importantly, you've missed a critical detail to this story. The stem cells used to treat this woman which led to the amazing recovery were from cord blood and are adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. While embryonic stem cells have much potential, adult stem cells are currently providing successful results today. From what I've read, the very quality of embryonic stem cells that gives them so much potential--the ability to change into the most different types of cells--also makes them more difficult to actually use successfully. If anything, the success of the South Korean woman in the article should show that using stem cells from cord blood is providing real breakthroughs where embryonic are still mostly "potential" right now. It certainly doesn't detract from the potential of embryonic cells--but hopefully it will generate more attention to the less controversial form.
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:2, Interesting)
when does it attain a soul?
I'm not being sarcastic or serious, but that seems to be that non-scientific aspect that causes so much difference of opinion on this type of issue.
What you say makes sense to me. At some point, the living tissue becomes recognizable as human (by one standard or another).
>I've heard every argument from conception, to the development of a heart, to the development of a brain/brain activity
that's the sticky bit, isn't it -- who decides where to draw the line, based on science, morality, religious belief?
The ignorance in here is stifling (Score:1, Interesting)
Once the primary research is completed, then almost all stem cell treatments will be from the patient's own stem cells. Thus, the need for embryos/fetuses will greatly decrease.
To all the religious nutcases:
All biological life has the same value - very little. Humans are simply apes with less fur and bigger brains. To piss and moan about fetuses brings us back into the dark ages.
It's funny that people chortle with glee at the murder of hundreds of thousands of sentient beings who live half-way across the globe, yet mention one fucking clump of cells or fetus being exterminated, and suddenly it's "wrong."
If you eat meat, you have no recourse in arguing against any type of murder. Murder is murder, regardless of the species. Guess what? I don't have a problem with it. Perhaps your screwed up social view needs some readjustment.
Hypocrisy is the last resort of the damned.
You people make me sick.
regulated it by restricting it... (Score:1, Interesting)
Pretty simple.
What we will get without those avenues is definitely at most exactly what we would get with those avenues, and very very likely less.
It is disingenuous to pretend that you can't see how restricting research can have at best a neutral and very likely a negative effect on the developments.
Thus, restricting the research is not a good thing. Unless of course it violates your religious principles and you feel everyone should live according to your principles.
I'm glad someone was helped with non-fetal cells. Seriously I am. But just because something else shows promise doesn't mean we shouldn't look into fetal cells. If both methods work equally well, be sure that the non-fetal cell version will win out in the marketplace due to the abundance (cheapness) of non-fetal cells.
As to the California thing, that's a different issue. I am Californian, and I voted against the $3B corporate welfare program. I feel that if these treatments really do show promise, then we will find plenty of companies that are willing to invest some money to get a reward later. There's no reason to throw money at the probem. But that doesn't have any reflection on the actual merit of the work.
So when the bible says... (Score:2, Interesting)
When the bible says that you should stone a disobedient child, that seems pretty clear, too.
Deuteronomy 21:18 "If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them,
Deuteronomy 21:19 then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his hometown.
Deuteronomy 21:20 "They shall say to the elders of his city, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.'
Deuteronomy 21:21 "Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear.
So, believers have two choices. Either they follow all the rules of the bible, and start stoning disobedient children, or they don't follow any of the rules of the bible, and don't try to force those rules on others. You can't pick and choose what rules to follow based on how you feel about certain issues. Well, you can, but then I can call you a hypocritical idiot.