April 13, 2007

Quote of the Day: On Stem Cell Research

From Life News:

We know this much about embryonic stem cell research — besides the ethical concerns, not one human has received a successful treatment with them. People are being cured and treated every day with adult stem cells. It seems pretty obvious where the funding should go.

But that ISN’T where it’s going.

When does it become OK to ask how many lives that could have been saved or improved by other stem cell research efforts have instead been sacrificed because of money diverted to the “Hail Mary” black hole of embyronic stem cell research?


UPDATE: Recall this post, which though it doesn’t use the word, is about being pluripotent, and ask yourself what embryonic research might possibly accomplish that the life-safe results described at the post, if carried through, won’t.



  1. This from Life News? Shocking. ;-) So we are to think because “not one human has received a successful treatment” we don’t fund research when scientists clearly indicate this research is promising due to the concept of pluripotency? That is some killer logic there.

    “Not one human has stepped foot on the moon. Cancel the space program now!”

    This is not a mutually exclusive issue and you’d do good to quit treating it in this way. “Hail Mary black hole” is probably the most negative thing I’ve ever heard you say. You should be in good practice with the positivity posts.

    Money is finite and budgets what they are. We also spend a shit ton more on “defense” than we do on alternative energy research which could have prevented current conflicts in which “defense” is engaged. Ever stop to ask why there?

    Pluripotency. Look it up.

    Comment by Eric — April 13, 2007 @ 11:34 am

  2. #1, logic does seem to shock you more than it should.

    The fact is that non-embryonic research is being given the back of the hand, while life-taking ESCR is getting uncalled-for favoritism, despite the scams (Korea) and the unsupported hype (Advanced Cell Technology). The people treating it as mutually exclusive are, for example, the people who put a $3 billion initiative on Cali’s ballot and avoided telling people it was about ESCR only.

    More on that over the weekend, but (the funding issue being investigated wasn\’t definitively proven, so there won\’t be a post until/if there is proof — Ed.) look where the study had to be done. Why wasn’t this work done in the US?

    Write it down: 5 years, even 10 years from now, ESCR will still be almost nothing but promise, while other SCR will at a minimum have done another 5-10 years of blocking and tackling, and may itself achieve all the breakthroughs Hail Mary black-hole ESCR promises — *someday*. That would include pluripotency, as there are beyond-early indications that ASCRs can be trained to be pluripotent. If realized, that achievement would, and should, consign life-taking ESCR to the ash heap of history.

    Speaking of someday — someday, you’ll have to show me how spending more on alternative energy research would have prevented 9/11.

    Comment by TBlumer — April 13, 2007 @ 12:10 pm

  3. [...] Bizzy asks the question: “When does it become OK to ask how many lives that could have been saved or improved by other stem cell research efforts have instead been sacrificed because of money diverted to the ‘Hail Mary’ black hole of embyronic stem cell research?” [...]

    Pingback by Plunderbund - » Say it With Me: Pluripotency — April 13, 2007 @ 12:42 pm

  4. Cali and New Jersey are leading the way since the Feds are up to know obstructionary. Somebody has to. Trained to be pluripotent is a nice idea. Why not just use the cells that are naturally pluripotent?

    I’m assuming your view of ESCR as “life-taking” would put you in agreement with the Catholic Church that IVF is wrong and fertility problems are a call from God to adopt? That would seem to be the “logical” conclusion anyway. You’re entitled to such beliefs surely.

    BTW, I’m not arguing solar energy could or would have prevented 9/11 (pretty sure you know this). I’m arguing resource wars are not necessary if you invest more in sustainable sources and eschew those that require you to drill in foreign lands and station troops to secure the supply. Not a hard concept.

    Comment by Eric — April 13, 2007 @ 12:51 pm

  5. PS – I did just write that down and we’ll have beers over how wrong you are in 10 years…

    Comment by Eric — April 13, 2007 @ 12:53 pm

  6. #4, ESCs have yet to be *trained* not to go cancerous or tumorous (if that’s a word) and to otherwise, unscientifically stated, not to freak out. Good luck.

    The Church has the primary advantage of being completely, utterly, airtight consistent. This is a problem for those who can’t handle it, but ridiculing that wondrous consistency doesn’t change the fact the ESCR is life-taking and, as we shall see, wholly unnecessary.

    If ESCR had so much potential, the private sector would be funding it more. The Feds’ position on funding or not funding ESCR ties private investors’ hands in no way.

    Also, see the Update.

    Comment by TBlumer — April 13, 2007 @ 1:02 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.