Dr. Andrews Using Stem Cells to Speed Recovery??

[Lotus]

It is striking how opposed some people are to stem cell research despite the obvious benefits of stem cell medicine. Hence the need for hush hush on this.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

It is striking how opposed some people are to stem cell research despite the obvious benefits of stem cell medicine. Hence the need for hush hush on this.

Whats stiking is that you would question why some people are opposed to embryonic stem cell research - whether you agree with their point of view or not.

There was arguably scientific benefit to the horrific research the nazis did experimenting on prisoners in WWII. I hate to use such a extreme comparison to prove a point, as no rational person would equate what the nazis did to embryonic stem cell research, but the underlying principle is the same - Scientists can't just perform research because of the potential benefits. Ethical concerns should be weighed against potential benefits in any type of research.

The reasons many peope oppose research using embryonic stem cells are obvious. Whether you agree with their point of view is entirely another matter, and its entirely reasonable for a person to have no problems with embryonic stem cell research.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Whats stiking is that you would question why some people are opposed to embryonic stem cell research - whether you agree with their point of view or not.

There was arguably scientific benefit to the horrific research the nazis did experimenting on prisoners in WWII. I hate to use such a extreme comparison to prove a point, as no rational person would equate what the nazis did to embryonic stem cell research, but the underlying principle is the same - Scientists can't just perform research because of the potential benefits. Ethical concerns should be weighed against potential benefits in any type of research.

The reasons many peope oppose research using embryonic stem cells are obvious. Whether you agree with their point of view is entirely another matter, and its entirely reasonable for a person to have no problems with embryonic stem cell research.

Just for clarity, nothing in this article or thread was talking about embryonic stem cells except your post.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Just for clarity, nothing in this article or thread was talking about embryonic stem cells except your post.

Just for clarity my response was to Lotus' post, which in turn was a comment on other peoples comments indicating opposition to "stem cell research."

No sane person is opposed to "stem cell research." SOME PEOPLE are opposed to EMBRYONIC stem cell research for ethical reasons. That is the context of my post. It wasnt a rant on stem cell research by someone who didnt read the article, because i did read the article.

The purpose of my post was to explain why SOME PEOPLE are opposed to EMBRYONIC stem cell research -a distinction Lotus didnt make in his post by just referring to "stem cell research" in the general sense. The distinction is important.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Just for clarity my response was to Lotus' post, which in turn was a comment on other peoples comments indicating opposition to "stem cell research."

No sane person is opposed to "stem cell research." SOME PEOPLE are opposed to EMBRYONIC stem cell research for ethical reasons. That is the context of my post. It wasnt a rant on stem cell research by someone who didnt read the article, because i did read the article.

The purpose of my post was to explain why SOME PEOPLE are opposed to EMBRYONIC stem cell research -a distinction Lotus didnt make in his post by just referring to "stem cell research" in the general sense. The distinction is important.

Not really, because Lotus' point was that people would get into histrionics at the mere mention of stem cell research (ie AW's post) instead of looking at the facts that make it a viable research alternative. In fact your response was, in my opinion, exactly the response Lotus was saying was frustrating. If I want to talk about effective US stem cell therapies then by definition, and US laws, I am not talking about Embryonic stem cells.

You introduced that topic, and now here we are ranting on it, rather than just talking about how fascinating valid stem cell therapy may become.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Not really, because Lotus' point was that people would get into histrionics at the mere mention of stem cell research (ie AW's post) instead of looking at the facts that make it a viable research alternative. In fact your response was, in my opinion, exactly the response Lotus was saying was frustrating. If I want to talk about effective US stem cell therapies then by definition, and US laws, I am not talking about Embryonic stem cells.

You introduced that topic, and now here we are ranting on it, rather than just talking about how fascinating valid stem cell therapy may become.

I disagree with you 100%. NO ONE gets in hysterics about stem cell research in general. Its only embryonic stem cell research that causes concern in this country. In this country, if you are referring to stem cell debate, its UNDERSTOOD that youre talking about embryonic stem cells. I think it is important to make the distinction, to avoid confusion. I also dont understand youre reference to "valid" stem cell therapy. "Valid" is a subjective term.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I disagree with you 100%. NO ONE gets in hysterics about stem cell research in general. Its only embryonic stem cell research that causes concern in this country. In this country, if you are referring to stem cell debate, its UNDERSTOOD that youre talking about embryonic stem cells. I think it is important to make the distinction, to avoid confusion. I also dont understand youre reference to "valid" stem cell therapy. "Valid" is a subjective term.

ok we can leave it at agree to disagree.

edit: for sake of my statement, valid stem cell therapy meant any stem cell therapy which can be accomplished legally under current US laws. Sorry if that was not clear.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Whats stiking is that you would question why some people are opposed to embryonic stem cell research - whether you agree with their point of view or not.

There was arguably scientific benefit to the horrific research the nazis did experimenting on prisoners in WWII. I hate to use such a extreme comparison to prove a point, as no rational person would equate what the nazis did to embryonic stem cell research, but the underlying principle is the same - Scientists can't just perform research because of the potential benefits. Ethical concerns should be weighed against potential benefits in any type of research.

The reasons many peope oppose research using embryonic stem cells are obvious. Whether you agree with their point of view is entirely another matter, and its entirely reasonable for a person to have no problems with embryonic stem cell research.

Of course scientific research must follow ethical paths. There is no question in that. The question is, which ethics? The ethical stance which conflates stem cell research with abortion issues? Or the ethical stance which holds that healing people is a central good, so stem cell research should be expanded?

It seems to me that RGIII's case is an example which teaches that we should be expanding stem cell research of various types rather than being, as a society, so squeamish about stem cells. Just my opinion.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Of course scientific research must follow ethical paths. There is no question in that. The question is, which ethics? The ethical stance which conflates stem cell research with abortion issues? Or the ethical stance which holds that healing people is a central good, so stem cell research should be expanded?

It seems to me that RGIII's case is an example which teaches that we should be expanding stem cell research of various types rather than being, as a society, so squeamish about stem cells. Just my opinion.

I agree with you - its just that to my knowledge, society isnt squeamish about stem cells - well "educated" society isnt anyways. To the best of my knowledge, the only real debate is over embryonic stem cell research and whether THAT is ethical or not. I highly doubt anyone would have a problem with grabbing stem cells from RGIIIs pelvic bone and injecting it into his knee.

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Whats stiking is that you would question why some people are opposed to embryonic stem cell research - whether you agree with their point of view or not.

There was arguably scientific benefit to the horrific research the nazis did experimenting on prisoners in WWII. I hate to use such a extreme comparison to prove a point, as no rational person would equate what the nazis did to embryonic stem cell research, but the underlying principle is the same - Scientists can't just perform research because of the potential benefits. Ethical concerns should be weighed against potential benefits in any type of research.

The reasons many peope oppose research using embryonic stem cells are obvious. Whether you agree with their point of view is entirely another matter, and its entirely reasonable for a person to have no problems with embryonic stem cell research.

The Nazis did horrible things, but the West surely used this research to advance society. The list goes on forever. The research has been used.