What Bush essentially did was to find a middle path
that could satisfy both lobbies. He said the
government would provide federal funding for all
existing embryonic stem cells - adding up to 60
genetic lines - and deny it to any new stem cell
generation. Why? Because, these stem cells have been
already generated and so he or his government is not
responsible. And why not, any more? So as to satisfy
the fundamentalist Christian lobby with the message
that no new embryos were being killed.
The lines, as I mentioned, are genetic lines. Since
embronic stem cells have the potential to develop into
adult cells of any kind, the more the genetic pool
available, the more versatile the research can be.
As for the 60 genetic lines, it is said that less than
50% are ready for research. Also, proponents of stem
cell research say that many more genetic lines are
necessay to make significant discoveries.
The stem cell political debate is essentially a take
off on the abortion political debate. If you noticed
Bush / Kerry debates, Bush has a single point answer
to this issue - you are either anti-abortion or
pro-abortion. Kerry has a nuanced view - he supports
pro-life but on certain conditions wants the girl to
choose - like when her life is in danger.
--- ram Sarangapani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Rajib, that was a pretty good explantion.
>
> I was discussing about this a few days ago with a
> right-leaning friend of mine, and he kept pointing
> out
> that Bush has allowed some 70 odd existing lines of
> stem cells. And that these were 'more than enough'
> for
> any future research. These were inexhaustible and as
> such embryonic cells were unnecessary.
>
> So, (you may know this) what are these 'lines'?
>
> I agree that stem cells should not have been an
> issue
> at all. And yes, it is surprising how the most
> advanced country in the world could be held ransom
> to
> to such levels of ignorance.
>
>
>
> >embryonic stem cells are UNDIFFERENTIATED cells
> that
> >are not adult cells but can grow into any - in
> other
> >words, they are not yet a human being that can be
> >killed. Moreover, one source for most cells for
> >research are SURPLUS embryos donated with specific
> >consent in situations such as invitro fertilization
> >when these cells are felt no longer required. In
> >other words, these would, in any case, have been
> >thrown away.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Rajib Das <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > As far as I understand, and I am a layman,
> embryonic
> > stem cells are UNDIFFERENTIATED cells that are not
> > adult cells but can grow into any - in other
> words,
> > they are not yet a human being that can be killed.
> > Moreover, one source for most cells for research
> are
> > SURPLUS embryos donated with specific consent in
> > situations such as invitro fertilization when
> these
> > cells are felt no longer required. In other words,
> > these would, in any case, have been thrown away.
> >
> > Obviously it is felt that these embryonic stem
> cells
> > are important for discovering cures for many
> > diseases
> > such as Parkinsons etc.
> >
> > A stem cell, as per fundamentalist Christians, is
> > the
> > equivalent of an unborn baby. Since there are
> tonnes
> > of such types in the current administration (or it
> > finds tonnes of supporters), the administration
> has
> > the position that embryonic stem cell research
> > should
> > be banned. Never mind the fact that the embryonic
> > stem
> > cell is not yet an adult cell and that the supply
> > comes from sources where such cells would have
> been
> > destroyed anyway.
> >
> > I am flabbergasted this issue finds ANY space in
> > political debate let alone a central space. That
> too
> > in a developed country, that supposedly has
> > universal,
> > secular adult education. I believe Western Europe
> > (another Christian region) has no such
> compunctions.
> > My cousin was in Israel involved in Stem Cell
> > Research
> > - so I assume the Jews don't have much of an
> > objection
> > either. India has no problems on this account so
> the
> > Hindus don't object too. The Arabs, I am not too
> > sure,
> > are aware of stem cell research :-). So it is
> here,
> > the new bible belt, that such issues find any
> > credence.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Tilok Hatimuria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > O'Ram da:
> > >
> > > Aapuni thikei koise. Hema tu xosai poetic.
> Gotike
> > > cell-gila daam thoka bostu
> > > hoboi.
> > >
> > >
> > > >Also, should ethics even be an issue when
> > > >hESCs are drawn from frozen embryos?
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, yes. Indeed ethics are of importance. Only
> > > problem is with the question
> > > of what is more ethical? Is it more ethical to
> > > declare war on a country not
> > > at war with us, on false pretenses, or is it
> more
> > > ethical to prohibit
> > > destruction of fertilized human embryos to
> harvest
> > > Hemar poetic cells? Is it
> > > more ethical to prevent playing God or saving
> > lives
> > > with embryonic stem
> > > cells or is it more ethical to go kill innocent
> > men,
> > > women and children
> > > along with all those that are branded
> 'terrorists'
> > -
> > > never mind if they
> > > really are or not. Is it more ethical to gloat
> > over
> > > shock-and-awe over
> > > destruction of the innocent with the guilty
> while
> > > expressing shock over
> > > Godless scientists working on embryonic stem
> > cells?
> > >
> > > These are complicated issues. Hypocrisy of
> course
> > is
> > > not something that one
> > > needs to bother with. Certainly not so, when
> with
> > > one neat label of
> > > "terrorists" we can cleanse our consciences of
> all
> > > guilt at snuffing out the
> > > innocent with the guilty, or those seen ming to
> be
> > > guilty.
> > >
> > > Looks like the label has really caught on. Even
> > back
> > > in the old country,
> > > poets and policemen, generals and governors,
> goons
> > > and the gentry, all are
> > > getting into the red-hot business of terrorist
> > > labeling, defining and
> > > hunting business with a vengeance.
> > >
> > > Nothing like a good tide to wash-off all the
> dirt
> > > around us, isn't it?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yours truly,
> > >
> > > Tilok Daktor(in a bad mood)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The debate on stem cells has become an important
> > > issue
> > > in the Presidential campaign , the last debate,
> > and
> > > the passing away of Chris Reeves.
> > >
> > > While most of us have a basic understanding of
> > SCs,
> > > and the Nat'l Institutes of Health in its
> website
> > > does
> > > answer most of the questions, one keeps
> wondering
> > > why
> > > the President is so opposed to something most
> > > scientists would agree its a good thing for a
>
=== message truncated ===
_______________________________________________
Assam mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
Mailing list FAQ:
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html
To unsubscribe or change options:
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
