On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Mary Jo Sminkey <[email protected]> wrote: > > Okay, I had to go read the article and I have to say, I don't see how it's > possible to make the conclusion that adult stem cells are a full replacement > for embryonic.
I agree and I don't think he or I said that. > It clearly mentions some of the additional issues that are faced with ESC but > also clearly states that with adult cells, you have a limited range of > possibilities. This is a known issue. There are a great many therapies that > can never be realized with ASC, period. The issuing of grants for one over > the other has no reflection on the trust of this. In this case, these grants > are specifically for research that has a good chance of producing results in > 4 years. Certainly in many therapies, ASC is well ahead of ESC research > because of the previous restrictions, and also some therapies are better > suited for use with ASC. It's not like none of the grants went to ESC > projects at all. We might see this balance change in the future as 1. ESC > projects become more mature with more cultured lines to draw from and 2. the > issues with controlling the differentiation of ESC is solved. > That's what I've been saying. ASC results are for results now, ESC are for the future, maybe. Given the choice of where to invest, they went with the better odds. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:306838 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
