Joanne Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> Thanks, I will read them.

You're welcome.

>
> I did not say it was. You've reproduced what I
> wrote, but apparently misread it. I specificall
> said "the problem is that people are fooling
> around with nonsense and danger like the hybrid
> sheep/human and battling over embryonic stem
> cells, when they could focus on adult stem cells"
> The "nonsensical and dangerous" applies only to
> the sheep/human hybrid. The "battling over
> embryonic cells" is another matter, hence the
> "and". As I understand it, time and resources are
> being spent on campaigns and lobbying rather than
> research, as far as embryonics cells go.

You're right, you did say that and I did misread it. I've been very tired lately. I would wholly agree. Money would be far better spent where it most needs it--helping the sick and dying, as opposed to politics about it.

>
> From what was discussed in the show I saw, there
> are some serious practical problems with embryonic
> cells that advocates fail to mention. Personally,
> I am not against research in this area, unless
> it's demonstrable that it's unlikely to help as
> much as adult cells.

Well, the thing about stem cell research of either type is that it has very broad applications from organ regeneration, gene therapies, to correcting errors that create chronic illness. From what I have read (and that's alot because I have a strong interest in it due to chronic illness), there are cases where one type of stem cell is going to be better for certain things while the other will be better used for different things. Understanding the pros and cons of each and in what ways either could be used so that the best stem cell is being used in its best way is probably the ideal. Not discarding one for the other.

>One of the doctors
> interviewed said that embryonic cells are
> unpredictable and uncontrollable, and that they
> act more like cancer cells in that they can grow
> out of control. For reasons that are not clear,
> the adult cells, don't do this. Understanding why
> that happens probably would help, but I can't see
> wasting resouces if something else looks truly
> promising.

I haven't read anything about embryonic stem cells growing out of control like a cancer. The one major problem with them seems to be more of immune rejection, which is pretty much the same risk for any other type of transplant whose source comes from a foreign host. The thing about embryonic stem cells is that they have infinitely more diverse capabilities in comparison to adult stem cells. They are pluripont whereas very few adult stem cells seem to have that capability and at least not in enough numbers for organ regeneration. It's like going ahead and fixing part of the problem but not the entirety.

Both are incredibly important to research, imo. It's not really a case of one being better than the other. Both have enormous potential to help people.

> You don't say if you watched the show or not. I am
> well aware of Catholic bias against abortion and
> the use of fetuses in research; however, I did not
> find this particular show to have been dictated by
> any religious dogmas. I saw it offering a
> different perspective from the constant scientism
> promoting of the networks.

Catholic church is very much against the use of embryonic stem cells because they are harvested from human fetuses. Pope John Paul II felt that it was an attack on innocent life much like abortion and euthanasia. I didn't watch the show but from the things that you've mentioned, it seems to be very clearly slanted towards one view.

Stephanie




In every man there is something wherein I may learn of him, and in that I am his pupil.--Ralph Waldo Emerson