IMHO, the fingerprints of the Carville/Begala Tsunami Slime Machine are all over these kinds of comments. Same for the Kerry/Edwards slur of Mary Cheney, and the DNC voter intimidation memo.

Whether you agree or not with Bush's stance on federal funding of stem cell research, would you agree that it's a flat-out lie to claim he's outlawed such research?

"... would you agree that it's a flat-out lie to claim he's outlawed such research?"

Yes

Charles is (or was) a member of the Presidents Council on Bio Ethics so I guess that put's him in a good position to determine that Edward's's statement is in fact an outright lie. Krauthammer is certainly a biased rightist but his comments are straight from the heart on what an absolute slimy sh*t Edwards is.

This issue of raising false hopes for the spinally injured has always been a hot button for CK and it's not the first time he's gone to bat on it.

Miracle of miracles, if John Kerry and John Edwards are elected the blind will walk and the lame will see.

I will explain this only once, my American friends:

STEM CELLS HAVE BEEN FOUND IN LIVING ADULT HUMANS.

You don't need to do any more stem-cell exerimentation on human fetuses. Spare the unborn. End of issue.

-A.R.Yngve
http://yngve.bravehost.com

"I will explain this only once, my American friends:
STEM CELLS HAVE BEEN FOUND IN LIVING ADULT HUMANS."

There is a problem with this being the end all of the discussion on stem cell research.

Here's a quote from the "American Society of Hematology."

"Adult stem cells can be derived from several different adult tissues, including bone marrow and blood, but are more differentiated than embryonic stem cells, and probably have less ability to form cells of all body tissues than do embryonic stem cells."

And

"Recent studies in adult stem cell research have shown promise, but because these cells are not as pliable as embryonic stem cells, they may not be as useful for therapeutic interventions."

Read the whole article at:
http://www.hematology.org/government/policy/avenues_of_stem_cell.cfm

The start of the stem cell research with the present 60+ groups available should be an excellent research indicator as to how viable stem cells can be for therapy. It may also aid in telling researchers how to use adult stem cells for therapy and negate the need for using embrionic stem cells.

The goverment is even providing the funding for these stem cell groups, but strangely enough very little actual use of these groups has even been begun.

If this is so important as the Kerry camp has been bellowing, why all the whining and so little activity on research?

These stem cell groups are already available and not viable for the creation of a human life. So research on them is not killing anything. So the Hard Right may wish to chill out a little.

ANOTHER topic where you only here from the unreasonable edge groups.

"Adult stem cells can be derived from several different adult tissues, including bone marrow and blood, but are more differentiated than embryonic stem cells, and probably have less ability to form cells of all body tissues than do embryonic stem cells."

That's a feature, not a bug.

Back in 2000, I believe, there was an article in Nature about the results of putting embryonic stem cells into Parkinson's patients' brains.

Some of the cells made new brain cells. Others made bone cells, and hair cells. Not the kind of thing you want in your brain.

A whole lot of basic research needs to be done. All that basic research can, and should, be done using animals, not humans. Which means using animal stem cells (including animal embryonic stem cells), not human.

There are no restrictions on using Federl funds for research using stem cells from animal embryos.

The obsession with using human embryonic stem cells is politics, not science.

If Charles were to stand he would be too big for the room.

We are always giving false hope to people. My issue with this example is you have no idea if that hope is false. It might not be tomorrow but until you get started it certainly won't be tomorrow. You never know until you try.

"The obsession with using human embryonic stem cells is politics, not science." No, the obsession among religiously motivated non-scientists with lecturing scientists about what they should or should not be doing in the lab is damned ignorant presumption and deserves to be met with scorn.

It hasn't been mentioned, but Bob Shieffer threw out a softball question to Kerry regarding embryonic stem cell. He dodged it.

So, perhaps, Edwards' slimy behaviour already has cost the campaign.

Steve:

"...that Krauthammer has been in a wheelchair since his days as a med student."

I didn't know that! Ya' learn something new every day!

He sure doesn't dwell on it much in his writings, so I would have never guessed.

what softball question regarding embryonic stem cell research? i must have missed that and i even wondered why they never brought it up. i think this issue in general isn't very important to how most undecideds are going to vote and if it is, it doesn't speak well for Bush.

Just to be clear, by the way, I do think "loathsome demagoguery" is a very apt description of Edward's remarks.

Krauthammer sums up the lesson of Pandora's jar extremely well--why Hope was in a jar of Evils to begin with, and why it was caught under the lid when the Evils were released into the world. Hope can be both a good or bad thing, depending on the circumstances.

We live in an absolutely unprecedented era of medical advancement. Drugs and procedures are introduced weekly that extend the lifespan and improve the human condition.

Unfortunately, the United States disproportionately suffers the high cost of this research and advancement. Most of the industrialized world has succumbed to socialized health systems that stifle investment and progress for well-understood economic reasons. Yet this is exactly the direction the Democrats propose.

I agree with the Kerry/Edwards particular position on stem cell research, but they don't exactly seem like the guys to usher in a new era of medical miracles.

Britton, it was easy to miss because it was coupled with a question regarding abortion. I don't think Kerry simply forgot the other part of the question; he avoided it, I think, because of the insipid Edwards remarks.

You are right: this is an issue that would have worked for Kerry and Edwards, but the latter's disgusting behaviour neutralized it.

As an aside, and since you are a Kerry supporter, what if anything do you think Edwards brought to the ticket? I didn't understand the selection at the time, and still don't.

I don't think its neutralized it. I think people believe Edwards as much as they believe some of the over the top things the Bush campaign says. People are gullible. Like I said, I think this is a non-issue for the election. I don't see many single issue voters on this subject and if there are, they are most likely going to favor Kerry/Edwards. In any case, I still missed the question and even in regards to abortion, I'm not really sure I remember a question that could have been perceived as related to stem cell research. Not to say it wasn't, but if it was I missed it.

Britton, here is a partial transcript:

SCHIEFFER: Senator Kerry, a new question for you.

The New York Times reports that some Catholic archbishops are telling their church members that it would be a sin to vote for a candidate like you because you support a woman's right to choose an abortion and unlimited stem-cell research.

What is your reaction to that?

KERRY: I respect their views. I completely respect their views. I am a Catholic. And I grew up learning how to respect those views. But I disagree with them, as do many.

I believe that I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith.

I believe that choice is a woman's choice. It's between a woman, God and her doctor. And that's why I support that.

Now, I will not allow somebody to come in and change Roe v. Wade.

The president has never said whether or not he would do that. But we know from the people he's tried to appoint to the court he wants to.

I will not. I will defend the right of Roe v. Wade.

Now, with respect to religion, you know, as I said, I grew up a Catholic. I was an altar boy. I know that throughout my life this has made a difference to me.

And as President Kennedy said when he ran for president, he said, "I'm not running to be a Catholic president. I'm running to be a president who happens to be Catholic." My faith affects everything that I do, in truth. There's a great passage of the Bible that says, "What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead."

And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people.

That's why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth.

That's why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith.

But I know this, that President Kennedy in his inaugural address told all of us that here on Earth, God's work must truly be our own. And that's what we have to -- I think that's the test of public service.
________________(END)_____________
__________________________________

I have never thought Kerry would win. As I read this answer, as well as the rest of the transcript, it has become more apparent why I believe such: there's no there there. This isn't having it both ways, or to be charitable, nuance. It's no core, and no ability to emulate a core.

I agree stem cell research will not be decisive, but when you look at this answer along with others it becomes apparent why Kerry hasn't and can't walk away with this election. Someone with no convictions cannot be elected. Period.

Steve LaBonne,

1: The general public damn well has the right to tell scientists how those scientists are going to spend the public's money.

2: I am a bioinformatics programmer, with a long and strong background in molecular biology. So don't get all high and mighty with me.

3: For the last 50+ years, biologists have greatly expanded our knowledge by doing research on animals. Then, when they figured out the basics, they've brought the research to humans.

In the late 1990's, researchers sold the public a bill of goods about what embryonic stem cells could do. I know, because I was one of the people who believed them.

It's quite possible they believed what they were saying. That you could just put embryonic stem cells into a damaged place, and they'd grow in a fix the problem.

However, this turned out not to be the case. As I mentioned in my last post, the cells did sometimes grow into brain cells. But they also grew into bone and hair cells. Showing that it's a bad idea to implant pluripotent stem cells someplace when you don't know how to restrict the cell's differentiation.

People are now doing work with animal ESC, doing the basic science (see, for example, this article. Note that the article incorrectly says that all ESC come from human embryos. I wrote the author of the study. He confirmed that they used mouse embryos, and that there are no federal restrictions on using animal ESCs. I wrote the editor at HealthDay. He defended their screed. I won't be believing anything they write).

When we figure out the basics, then it might become reasonable to push for Federal funding of research using human embryonic stem cells. On the other hand, it might not. Because I see no reason why the Federal Government should be paying for pharmaceutical companies' applied research. Use our tax dollars to pay to figure out how to fix a monkey parapalegic. Once that's done (and it will involve a lot of dead monkeys, which is why you do it on monkeys, not humans), let the companies that want to sell the cures pay to transfer the results to humans.

There is no good scientific reason why we should be experimenting with human embryonic stem cells at a time when our basic knowledge is so pathetically limited. (See the article I linked to. There is no way you would do that research on humans, no matter who was providing the funding.) IMHO, the people pushing that funding break down into three groups: pro-abortion fanatics pushing a political agenda, "science" zealots who think that being called a "scientist" means you have an unlimited call on the public trough, and those who've bought the snake oil being peddled by the first two groups.

Small point, but the general public isn't involved all that often in how our public funds are spent. So not sure you're on base with that one. Our public funds are spent on plenty of things we have no say in.

Greg, I was trained as a geneticist and developmental biologist (though my research didn't involve humans; I do forensic work nowadays), so don't get all high and mighty with ME. As a bioinformatics programmer who comes from the computer rather than the biology end of the field, your'e at best a semipro as a biologist. No scientist worth his or her salt will listen complacently to outsiders' lectures on what scientists in their field do or don't "need" to be doing to make progress. Yes, the public has the right to tell them what they can't do. But it has no intellectual basis for contradicting them when they point out the losses in potential knowledge that will be caused by prohibiting certain lines of work. That's where the insupportable effrontery comes in. Intellectually honest opposition to embryonic stem-cell research would simply say that it's ethically off-limits, without having the impudence to go on to lecture scientists in the field who don't agree with your theologically derived ethics that they "don't really need to to" that of which you disapprove. Of course, I object even more when that line of BS comes from politicians, especially ones as ignorant as Bush.

P.S. I take my "libertarian-ish"ness seriously, and so I don't take kindly in general to the idea of the government trying to enforce the tenets of a particular religious persuasion that many people, including me, don't share.

P.P.S Do you also believe that the public has a right to ban privately funded embryonic stem cell research, and if so from what principles do you deduce this right?

"Deliberately, for personal gain, raising false hope in the catastrophically afflicted is despicable. "

But then, Edwards *is* a personal injury lawyer by profession.

Wow, I too had no idea that C. Krauthammer was wheelchair bound. I am going to have to look into this... (not that I doubt it I just need to know the historical background, how it happened and all that)

Britton:

The general public, through elections, most certainly IS involved in how public funds are spent.

I realize "liberals" don't like that, but it's still the case, at least in America.

Steve L,

1: Since you seem to have forgotten what you wrote, let me remind you of it:
"No, the obsession among religiously motivated non-scientists with lecturing scientists about what they should or should not be doing in the lab is damned ignorant presumption and deserves to be met with scorn."

1: I'm not "religiously motivated". I'm agnostic.

2: As I said before, calling yourself a "scientist" does not give you an unlimited call on the public's money. "He who pays the piper, calls the tune." You don't like that, fund your own damn research.

3: I started with the biology before I did the computers. I stuck with the computers because they pay better, and because I hate lab work. So stop getting snotty about how you're "a pro", and deal with the facts and logic of my argument.

Or admit that you're throwing around the ad hominem BS because you can't challenge the logic of my arguments.

4: "No scientist worth his or her salt will listen complacently to outsiders' lectures on what scientists in their field do or don't "need" to be doing to make progress."

What you're talking about there is religion, not science. A real scientist, as opposed to a stuck up snob who's been educated beyond his (or her) competence, will be quite ready to talk about why his chosen research topic is of the greatest importance, and entirely deserving of massive funding. He will be ready to say why other approaches are inferior, and be happy to say it in great detail. Your main problem will be shutting him up, not getting him talking.

5: "But [the general public] has no intellectual basis for contradicting them when they point out the losses in potential knowledge that will be caused by prohibiting certain lines of work."

Why yes, it does. I gave it in my original post, with arguments you entirely failed to respond to. Perhaps you're simply blind to everything that doesn't conform to your biases, so missed it? Well, here it is again:

For the past 50+ years, biology has made a great deal of progress by doing experiments on bacteria / yeast / other "lower" and less complicated forms of life, then taking those results and using them as the basis for experiments on more complex organisms. Thus we have the concept of "model organisms" where we can study things quicker, easier, and cheaper. Following this path might make it take a bit longer to get things working in humans. But, OTOH, it might not. Because biology is very complicated, and doing research on humans brings with it a lot of challenges, both moral and practical.

For example, if you want to use embryonic stem cells (ESCs) to repair brain damage, then you're going to start by inflicting brain damage on a number of subjects, adding ESCs, testing the subjects to see if they've recovered the brain functions you destroyed, and then cutting open the subjects at regular time intervals so you can see what has actually happened in their brains. Not something you're going to do on humans. Even if you start with humans that already have brain damage, you don't have nearly as much control over them as you do over your animals, so your experiments are less controlled (your human subjects won't have all received the same damage in the same way. They might object to you cutting open their heads every other month. They may want to eat what they want, instead of the scientifically controlled diet you want them to eat ...).

If you're a flaming optimist, you can start by injecting human ESCs into human brain damage victims, and hope that the ESCs will fix everything. That was tried about 5 years ago, and it failed. Perhaps you missed all that?

In short, you are full of shit. My objections are scientific, not moral. If you have any scientific response to them, any good reasons why we should experiment on humans first, I'd love to hear it.

But cut the religious BS about how your high priesthood is above challenge. No one is above challenge.

Blah, blah, blah. When I want to know what the exciting lines of work are in a field and what needs to be done next, I ask the people working in the field, not random members of the general public, or God help us politicians, who happen to have an uninformed opinion about the matter. Gee, what a concept.

P.S. I already acknowledged that, IF you can convince a majority (not just a noisy minority) that a given line of work is genuinely unethical, a democratic government has the right to ban it. Again, just stop there and spare us the sanctimonious lecture about how the banned approach wasn't really necessary anyway. Nobody really knows yet what can and can't be done with adult vs. embryonic stem cells- that's why they call it "research".

I am amused. Steve "the expert" LaBonne is willing to tell me I'm not qualified to talk about a subject, but is not willing to tell me what's wrong with my claims on the subject.

Which is because I'm right, and he knows it. Thus he says nothing about doing the research in animals.

Thanks, Steve, for showing me I'm right.

In your dreams. My comment obviously applies even more forcefully to research with animals. The reason basic research is done is because nobody knows yet which approaches will work best for what purposes. Of course, if you really had the scientific training you claim to have, you'd know that.

Steve,

So, are you really as stupid as you're acting, or are you just desperate to avoid admitting you're wrong?

"The reason basic research is done is because nobody knows yet which approaches will work best for what purposes."

That's right. It's good to see you understand at least something.

Now, do we know "which approaches will work best for what purposes" when using embryonic stem cells?

I say no. What do you say? (BTW, if you say yes, I'll have a great time making fun of you, pointing out that news of success using embryonic stem cells of any sort is rather rare.)

Given "no", is it not then the case that a lot of basic research is needed? Which is to say, a lot of research using animals, not humans.

Which is to say, research that the Bush Administration has not restricted at all.

In other words, Bush has the exactly correct policies on this subject. The Federal Government can fund basic research, and let the private sector fund the snake-oil salesmen and the occasional (mythical?) real researcher who is actually close to finding a product that can help humans.