Embryonic stem cells: Outmoded science

Human embryonic stem cell research is the $10,000 toilet seat of the 21st century. Years ago, science created a cell that appears to be, in the words of an MIT study published last month, "virtually identical" to an embryonic stem cell but is cheaper, promises better compatibility to patients and kills no embryos.

These new induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) "do all the things embryonic stem cells do," explains the father of human embryonic stem cells James Thomson. Harvard's David Scadden agrees that iPSC technology "is absolutely changing the field." IPSCs "perhaps even eliminate the need for human embryos as a source of stem cells," says Keisuke Kaji of the University of Edinburgh. IPSCs even caused the man who cloned Dolly the sheep to abandon cloning three years ago because "changing cells from a patient directly into stem cells has got so much more potential."

When I wrote ‘America, We Need To Talk’, right after Bush blocked federal funding for any new embryonic stem cell lines, I stated then that the goal of working with ESC was to understand how the progression occurs, what enzymes, etc are involved, and to learn if science may ‘back cells up’ along that line of progression, to derive cell lines for certain targeted body tissues. The ideal would be to be able to do that with a patient’s own cells, but researchers would try to develop genetic grouping cell lines to treat diseases in genetically similar peoples. In an odd sort of way, we can thank ol’ George Bush the younger for this advancement ... but then, entrepreneurial advance happens best when federal funding is withheld.

It’s always about the funding. First, there is the lobbying to support the Academic research. Then,funding of Abortion Factories. Funding of lame research. Funding of fake drugs. Funding of Fake studies about the lame research and fake drugs. Then there are the Congressional hearings about the lame studies and fake drugs. And finally, the carrion eating trial attorney’s and their law suits against the people who did the lame research, prescribed the fake drugs. And in the end WE THE PEOPLE GET TO PAY FOR THIS ENTIRE FALSEHOOD.

Some advice....

When you’re fighting two wars and want to seem credible to the public as a war leader.....don’t try to sell yourself as a bleeding heart....

It really hurt Republicans after a while for them to be arguing that we were so full of “love” for Muslims that we were fighting two wars....

Or that men and women needed to fight and kill and be killed or maimed.....but Bush’s heart and Santorum’s heart were bleeding for frzoen embroyos...

I don’t like government subsidizing the creation of an embryo-farming industry, either-—but in fact, it’s hard to sell yourselves as both warriors AND bleeding hearts.

Republicans started sounding phoney and lost the Catholic vote because of it.....I think most of all, it’s Catholics who move between the two parties more than any other people....

I think that the argument against stem-cell funding using embryos should have been the common sense fiscal conservative one-—that we didn’t have the money just to fund just one kind of open-ended research over others at a time when we need to hold spending down because of war and the Boomer’s retirement...

Better to offer rewards for actual cures than fund the research/ Plus, funding such research creates a feedback loop of corruption...

Our money goes to fund the research and they keep telling us “the cure is in the mail” and we have NO PROOF that they are spending the money wisely—but they keep on kicking back part of the money in campaign contributions to keep the gravy train rolling......and the politicians who fund the gravy train stay in office to dole out pork for many years....

Then IF a cure is found, the researches patent it and cash in on it and the taxpayer never gets paid back....in fact, we pay for it AGAIN....when patients start receiving the treatments....

Speaking as a researcher, I have to say that research is extremely unpredictable. One must have a well-developed research plan in order to get any grant money whatsoever, but just because we have a plan doesn't mean that the research will unfold the way we tried to predict. It is impossible to say, for example, that we're setting out on a project to develop a cure for melanoma, and then produce that cure right on schedule.

Also, I don't know of any researchers who kick back the funding in the form of campaign contributions. We are accountable for all of the money we spend, and we must show progress (for basic science, that means publishing papers detailing our research).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.