On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Mary Jo Sminkey <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. > > This statement: > > "Turns out the immediate fix was adult cells all along." > > Implies that adult cells are a "fix" for the diseases people are looking to > correct with stem cells, period. This is simply not true.
ASC are already working. Tested, proven and marching ahead. ESC is a giant wish list. Has a lot of promise but we don't know if or what it can fix. Much of the big money set aside for ESC was re-directed to the proven science so we can realize results sooner. I never said it was a replacement. Why spend all of your money on a maybe for twenty years down the road when you can realize results in three or four with something that has already proven to work? Yes they should and will still invest in the ESC for the future. When I said fix I meant for this decade. > The fact that any money was directed to ESC research would indicate > otherwise. Adult cells are not a "fix" for the use of ESC, they are just > further along in the process for those conditions that can conceivably be > treated by either, and considerably so for those conditions for which ESC > will never be useful (as mentioned in the article, one example being > generating new heart muscle). I'm not sure if there's anything ESC can do that ASC can't. > Choosing to direct more money to ASC research means nothing about the > effectiveness of one over the other. I'm not saying one is better, I'm say one we know works so lets get the ball rolling. Why ignore a working cure for a hypothetical one? > There are many examples in science where the most effect ways of treating > something were the hardest to develop. Cancer research in particular ABOUNDS > with examples of this type. It's easy enough to bombard the entire body with > radiation and/or chemicals, but medical researchers have with years of effort > been making more selective ways of targeting cancer cells without the side > effects that come from systemic treatment. Such therapies are vastly more > difficult to develop and test, and require years of commitment to achieve. > The fact that they take much longer though means nothing about how much more > effective they are. Excellent point. What about all the lives saved using kemo and or radiation while these other methods were being developed? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:306856 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
