Nose cells are the best cells there are, IIRC.

Federally-approved embryonic stem cells, you mean. The federally approved adult stem cells (which includes cord blood) are what they're cracked up to be.

I think it's a bit unfair to accuse Leon Kass of not understanding problems. He simply has an ethical concern (about growing embryos in order to kill them) that you don't share. It doesn't make him dense.

I'm not a vegetarian, nor do I even mind the various types of farm-raised meat that some people object to, but I understand their ethical point of view, even if I don't share it. But I guess most people have problems with others who have different views of morality.

So the embryonic stem cells lines have been contaminated. Now the white-coated lab technicians are saying that if they can have some of my tax dollars to kill some more babies, next time they will try to keep the lab-rats from crapping in the petridishes? I'm about to start having a problem with this.

I've seen commentary that this is not such a big deal, since animal cells are commonly used for such purposes, and that there remain frozen, uncontaminated embryonic stem cell lines available for use.

Plus, of course, if you feel this is such a crying need you are welcome to pay for it yourself. But how about not getting the men with guns make ME pay for it.

BTW, let's count again the number of effective treatments using adult stem cells, versus those using embryonic stem cells.

Are there ANY of the latter? There sure are of the former, so I'd kind of like to see any of my money go in that direction.

Or is this just a matter of "We're SURE we just need to kill a few more babies to give us a justification for having killed any at all - and then for killing babies in perpetuity."

Wait, when did the government start killing babies for stem cell research? Did I miss a step somewhere??

It's just uterine contents, CM.

Or maybe tube contents.

I know Sandy...I was just wondering where the jump from "stem-cell research" to "government-funded infant harvesting" came from. I feel like maybe something like that would have made the news...you know?

C'estMoi, I believe she is talking about a possibility. Embryonic stem cells are harvested from babies aborted simply for their stem cells. Now, if the government fiscally supported harvesting embryonic stems cells, then they would be supporting harvesting them from the above mentioned aborted babies.
(P.S. if you were being sarcastic, disregard. I never can tell on the net.)

Dear Sirs,

This is nothing more than hauter. If Mr. Devitt wishes to advance an opinion to influence policy then he had best state his case far more clearly than "us scientists know, you guys paying the bills shouldn't trouble your little minds about the details".

Regards,
Roy

If it hasn't got a brain, it can't be a person, at least as far as I can tell.

So I don't see any moral problem with harvesting embryos that haven't yet developed functioning brains. But I do see a moral problem with interfering with the use of such embryos to develop lifesaving treatments.

On the other hand, none of this has been outlawed - just not Federally funded.

On the other hand, none of this has been outlawed - just not Federally funded.

That is the point that a hell of a lot of people miss.

You're free to do whatever you want to stem cells in the US, so long as it's done on YOUR dime, not Uncle Sam's. All Bush did was restrict the use of federal money for this kind of research, private money can fund whatever research it wishes.

If stem cells were the cure for everything that some people think they are, private money would be stampeeding to fund stem cell research, and there would be no need for federal money to fund it.

Of all the people I'd expect to have to remind of this, a small-l libertarian is very, very low on the list...

Just more proof there is common sense and there are scientists and never the twain shall meet.

The administration's policy has always been that the sanctioned cell lines are not supposed to be used for treatment, just research.