backtop


Print 47 comment(s) - last by ConcernedCalif.. on May 10 at 4:17 PM

Mouse skin cells were turned into cardiac cells needed for heart repair

Around the country, researchers are pouring massive amounts of time and money into stem cell research and how the research can be applied to treating disease and other conditions in the human body. A couple problems exist with some methods of getting the stem cells needed for the research. One problem is that the best source of embryonic stem cells are from human fetuses and the second is that stem cells from other donors still pose a risk of rejection by the patient.

Stem cell researchers from UCLA announced that they have been able to create a type of stem cell directly from the donor in animal trials. The researchers were able to take skin cells from a mouse and reprogram the cells to have similar properties to embryonic stem cells.

The cells used are called induced pluripotent stem cells or iPS cells. The study findings show that the researchers were able to differentiate the iPS cells into the three types of cardiovascular cells needed to repair the heart and blood vessels.

Dr. Robb MacLellan said in a statement, “The discovery could one day lead to clinical trials of new treatments for people who suffer heart attacks, have atherosclerosis or are in heart failure.” MacLellan is a researcher at the Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research at UCLA and senior study author.

MacLellan continued, “I believe iPS cells address many of the shortcomings of human embryonic stem cells and are the future of regenerative medicine.”

The researchers point out that while iPS cells are believed to be similar to embryonic stem cells; further study needs to be done to confirm the differentiation potential. Dr. Miodrag Stojkovic, co-author of Stem Cells says, “Theoretically, iPS cells are able to differentiate into 220 different cells types. For the first time, scientists from UCLA were able to induce the differentiation of mouse iPS cells into functional heart cells."

The study researchers cultured the iPS cells on a protein matrix known to direct embryonic stem cells into differentiating into cardiovascular progenitor cells. This type of cell is an immature heat cell that can become heart cells that perform different functions.

The researchers then isolated the iPS cells that differentiated into the cardiovascular progenitor cells with a protein marker called KDR. Once the cells were isolated they were coaxed into becoming mature heart cells that control heartbeat called cardiomyocytes, endothelial cells and vascular smooth muscle cells. Once matured the cardiomyocytes beat in the petri dish.

MacLellan concluded by saying, “Our hope is that, based on this work in mice, we can show that similar cardiovascular progenitor cells can be found in human iPS cells and, using a similar strategy, that we can isolate the progenitor cells and differentiate them into the cells types found in the human heart.”

In April DailyTech reported that the U.S. Army was conducting similar research into using a patient’s cellular structure to grow replacement body parts like ears and fingers.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Religious right, get over it
By Adonlude on 5/5/08, Rating: 0
By omnicronx on 5/5/2008 2:34:53 PM , Rating: 2
I am going to laugh when other countries get miles ahead of the US in stem cell research just because of the limitations you have mentioned. Its not like the US is the only nation with the technology, so whether you guys like it or not, it looks like its going to happen, not that I care, more pie for the rest of us ;)


RE: Religious right, get over it
By geddarkstorm on 5/5/2008 2:36:07 PM , Rating: 5
From the same article:

quote:
When embryonic stem cells are injected directly into the heart in animal models, they create tumors because the cells differentiate not only into cardiac cells but into other cells found in the human body as well. Likewise, using embryonic stem cells garnered from other sources than the patient could result in rejection of the injected cells.

The use of iPS cells may solve those problems. If the iPS cells come from the patient, rejection should not be an issue. Additionally, the use of cells that are already partially transformed into specific cardiac cell types may prevent tumor growth. The use of iPS cells also sidesteps the controversy some associate with deriving pluripotent stem cells from embryos or eggs, MacLellan said.


Embryonic stem cells are not the most promising biologically for medicinal purposes, though interesting for developmental biology and pattern formation. On the medical front, iPS are far more powerful as they circumvent the glaring faults of embryonic stem cells for that use.


RE: Religious right, get over it
By wordsworm on 5/5/2008 8:57:57 PM , Rating: 2
Where have you been? There are clinics in Thailand that will inject you with embryonic stem cells. They had a Discovery special on the subject. These are just some of the things I remember: eye sight was given to someone who was previously blind; a man who was a quadriplegic got the use of his hands, and was working on getting his legs back. Those are only the two I remember. They just injected the stem cells right into the area which then figured out what was needed and corrected the problem. That's downright miraculous.

For correcting vision problems, laser surgery sucks. It corrects one problem and another arises. I'm hoping that in the next 5-10 years I'll have enough money and the procedure itself will be cheaper so that I can get stem cells in my eyes. They also suggest that they could be used to grow new teeth. Might as well pull teeth rather than having a dentist give me fillings and caps, followed by the insertion of stem cells which would grow into new teeth.

If only they could make someone younger.


RE: Religious right, get over it
By tmouse on 5/6/2008 8:03:44 AM , Rating: 3
Oh well yes if it’s in a Discovery special then it must be true...

I used to feel cable channels like Discovery and the history channel would be a way of melding education with entertainment; but they have become more tabloid the education.

Simple FACT: it’s no where near the time to use embryonic stem cells for clinical applications. As someone who has worked in this area for the past decade I assure you that. Even in the heart, the data from the largest heart stem cell study to date showed no advantage after 5 years from the control groups. The early data was promising but it looks like the additional cells just stimulated marginal additional vascular growth, it has some promise but at the current stage it will not be a simple quick cure. You can find places that will inject you with just about anything, and smear you with things like monkey placenta; that does not mean it’s safe or effective. I did not see the special you mentioned but either the Discovery crew was duped or your memory of what was actually said is faulty. Like the article stated embryonic stem cells have promiscuous differentiation, can cause tumors and do present rejection problems, NO ONE to date has overcome this. If you do save your pennies for an ocular treatment also invest in a Braille keyboard or some good speech to text software. Suggesting stem cell therapy in place of Lasik is simply nonsense. Lasik works somewhat for most; it is simply difficult to carve the cornea to compensate for a hardening of the lens. You are just making a permanent contact lens (which cannot be adjusted). The lens will continue to harden with age and stem cells simply cannot fix existing tissue. They MAY, eventually allow re-growth of the cornea for new surgery but that’s a way off, and as for producing a new lens well that still more science fiction than science at this point in time.


RE: Religious right, get over it
By wordsworm on 5/6/2008 9:05:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh well yes if it’s in a Discovery special then it must be true...


You know, for someone who portends to be educated, you seem to make no effort at all to research our contending opinions. A simple search online shows results which confirm what the Discovery program purveyed. Using the following search criteria via Google, "stem cell therapy for eyes." Here's a few links: http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002392.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6721685.stm
http://www.esf.org/media-centre/press-releases/ext...

Simple FACT: doctors in the US have been slowed down by US legislation. Regardless of whether or not this is good on a moral stance is an argument I'm not prepared to make. In fact, as time is showing, it's allowing researchers to discover new ways of getting cells to do what they wish.

As far as stem cells causing cancer is concerned:
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?art...

As someone who has worked in this area for the past decade, you seem quite out of touch with current events. Perhaps you should read less fiction and watch more Discovery.

Stem cell therapy has the potential to be far better than laser surgery. That's a FACT. Growing the cornea so that it is complete rather than deforming it is a no brainer as far as I'm concerned.

In any case, before you dispute what another person says you perhaps ought to look around to see if there's something to it.


RE: Religious right, get over it
By tmouse on 5/6/2008 10:43:27 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
As far as stem cells causing cancer is concerned:http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?art...


First off you clearly do not understand what you are talking about, I NEVER said stem cells cause cancer, I SAID embryonic stem cells can cause cancer (see the difference). Now READ YOUR OWN REFFERENCE. They are addressing the issue that the current iPS cells require Myc (an oncogene) to continue to proliferate. Also most critical stem cell genes can act as oncogenes it simply a matter of the extracellular milieu. The group your reference points to is trying to use retrovirus constructs to overcome these limitations. These are NOT embryonic stem cells; there are NO federal restrictions on this type of research PEROID.

Again in your "quick search" you totally misrepresented my point. The cornea is a modified epithelium like your skin. It has the ability to grow and repair itself. When the area between the cornea and the sclera (called the limbus) is damaged corneal transplants fail. What the group in question did was a simple graft taking healthy SOMATIC cells from the healthy eye and transplanted them to the damaged one. Yes this uses "stem cells" but it is a far cry from restoring sight to the blind.

In many ways the slow down has benefited the scientific community. First off the animal work was and in many ways is still in its early stages, there was never the need to rush into human embryonic stem cell work (except for the glory). Do you realize dozens of people died one French cardiac stem cell trial with severe arrhythmias? The trials had to be stopped and now the patients are worse off than before and there was simply no reason to rush into them except for the glory (which almost NEVER results in good science). Similar "trials" are under way in South America where the rules are lighter; is this your idea of good science? These new protocols have promise (I would not be working in this field if I did not believe in them). My information comes from scientific journals not web press, I referee papers and grants, I assure you I am up to date. While I appreciate the interest the mass media has for emerging technologies its coverage is spotty at best. Many of my colleagues are grossly misquoted (believe me I call them when I read some of the loose quotes attributed to them, they are more often than not shocked that 2/3 of their quote is left off). This simply does not serve the public interest. Awareness is important, making it "sexy" and out right misleading to boost readership is bad, pure and simple.
The large number of people writing for grants has quite simply hurt research. Work is being published which never would have seen the light of day due to gross oversights, poor design, no replication ect. Our volume is increasing but the quality is diminishing. There is a rush to be first, more and more papers come out which cannot be duplicated and nothing else is published as follow up even from the authors. This drowns the fields and just confuses things. Public misconceptions about where we are and what is or is not allowable does not help; that is why I try to limit the over enthusiasm posts like your provoke.


RE: Religious right, get over it
By tmouse on 5/6/2008 2:28:17 PM , Rating: 2
Having re-read my reply I realize it was a bit harsh in places. I apologize if it seemed like a personal attack, it was not meant to be, it has been a tough day. I guess I am seeing too many good basic grants (I’ll admit my own included) getting triaged for more "sexier" work and receiving comments like why don't you use human es cells? Genetics, pure and simple I cannot seem to get across you cannot make sense of a complex system by using another complex system.


RE: Religious right, get over it
By tmouse on 5/7/2008 8:06:05 AM , Rating: 3
Although I should have said this sooner; the title of this article demonstrates one of my points above. Robb MacLellan did not create induced pluripotent stem cells, and he would never state that. Maybe the author of the blog did not mean to imply this but the title does. The credit goes to Drs. Kazutoshi Takahashi and Shinya Yamanaka at the Institute for Frontier Medical Sciences, Kyoto University and the Japan Science and Technology Agency in 2006. It may not be important to most but it is important to those of us in the field to have credit given where it is due..


RE: Religious right, get over it
By ConcernedCalifornian on 5/7/2008 1:44:41 PM , Rating: 2
A german researcher at UCLA was also involved in the original research. I don't recall her name, but lets not leave her out.


By ConcernedCalifornian on 5/7/2008 1:51:16 PM , Rating: 2
Her name is Kathrin Plath....I couldn't leave it alone so I looked it up ;)


RE: Religious right, get over it
By tmouse on 5/8/2008 9:19:28 AM , Rating: 2
I was certainly not trying to leave her out, merely referring to what I believe (from talking with Rudy J) was the first paper about IPS published in Cell 2006 (Takahashi & Yamanaka).


RE: Religious right, get over it
By ConcernedCalifornian on 5/8/2008 1:41:11 PM , Rating: 2
AAh...when I google this work. I get the people you mentioned and Plath in some of the older links.


RE: Religious right, get over it
By tmouse on 5/9/2008 8:31:14 AM , Rating: 2
I was using pubmed to look for the actual publications. Kathrin Plath (has done and still does)important work but I believe she was still working with Rudy when this paper came out.


RE: Religious right, get over it
By therealnickdanger on 5/5/2008 2:49:37 PM , Rating: 1
Pagan Left, stop being jerks! </tongue-cheek>

As part of the "religious right", I fully endorse stem cell research - just not at the expense of life. Science is proving that we don't need to kill unborn babies to obtain stem cells, so I see no dilema with this research or the advancements in medicine it brings.

Don't buy into the lie that religion or conservatism is holding back progress. Abortion isn't progress, stem-cell research is. Don't combine them and there won't be a problem.


RE: Religious right, get over it
By aegisofrime on 5/5/2008 3:02:29 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I will be flogging the dead horse again, but I have to say it.

In Vitro fertility treatments routinely create embryos that are either frozen, or destroyed. Instead of letting them go to waste they can be used for Embryonic stem cell research.

We do not need to kill unborn babies to obtain stem cells, so that pro-life argument is moot, unless you want to ban in vitro fertilization, which is basically contradictory to the whole pro-life thing anyway.


RE: Religious right, get over it
By mikefarinha on 5/5/2008 4:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure of the point you are making.

People that are pro-life are against the destruction of human life after the stage of conception.

It seems that you are trying to imply that pro-lifers are not against IVF. Pro-Lifer's are in-fact are against in vitro fertilization for the very reason you state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IVF#Religious_objecti...


RE: Religious right, get over it
By jlips6 on 5/5/2008 5:41:29 PM , Rating: 2
Quote: people that are pro-life are against the destruction of human life after the stage of conception.

Really? I always thought that there were infinite shades of gray when it came to opinions.


By mikefarinha on 5/5/2008 9:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really? I always thought that there were infinite shades of gray when it came to opinions.


There are as many opinions about things as there are people, but I fail to see how that has any bearing on what you quoted from me.


By zinfamous on 5/5/2008 8:05:39 PM , Rating: 2
Well dubya, of all people, came out in full support and praise of in vitro fertilization.

the fact that in vitro creates more life for people than would otherwise be possible, exposes a lot of the hypocrisy in the pro-life movement.

further, when dubya endorses in vitro fertilization, and condemns stem cell research, it shows the lack of understanding towards this technology shared by those who attack it and restrict it.


By geddarkstorm on 5/5/2008 4:03:46 PM , Rating: 2
There's another faucet of this issue often overlooked.

What's more abundant and renewable: Embryos from in vitro fertilizations, or your skin cells?


RE: Religious right, get over it
By Hellburn on 5/5/2008 3:33:15 PM , Rating: 2
As I understand it, this research is a far more valuable path to follow.

Relying on embryonic stem cells for research in an ethical manner severely limits the supply with which to experiment. If techniques such as this are perfected, then there would be an endless supply allowing ever more rapid innovation in a totally ethical manner.

And besides which, how are you supposed to apply stem cell therapy to a patient if all research is based on embryonic stem cells, which will be largely unavailable for most people on the planet? You need a way to reverse engineer stem cells for the patient's own DNA, which is basically what this line of research is providing.


Right is RIGHT!
By mjcutri on 5/5/2008 4:19:56 PM , Rating: 4
This article proves that you do not need embryonic stem cells to do real research. If anything, these researchers benefited from the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, because now they have access to money that otherwise would have been funneled to someone else's research.

Every big break in stem cell research is in non-embryonic stem cells. The more we learn about stem cells, the more we realize that embryonic stem cells are not as necessary as once thought and that host stem cells are actually much better suited since they have a greater chance of being accepted.

Embryonic stem cell research and non-embryonic stem cell research have to be two of the most mis-understood topics on both sides in this country. Supporters always greatly overvalue the research on embryonic stem cells, while mis-stating the ban on federal funding of research as an out-and-out ban on research all together; you can do embryonic research, you just won't get federal money for it. Meanwhile, critics of embryonic stem cell research tend to mischaracterize all stem cell research as embryonic. This is also a misrepresentation of the truth and only goes to perpetuate mis-information on stem cell research in this country.

In conclusion, stem cell research is good, but embryonic stem cell research isn't all it's cracked up to be and is most likely unnecessary.




RE: Right is RIGHT!
By Bioniccrackmonk on 5/5/2008 5:21:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In conclusion, stem cell research is good, but embryonic stem cell research isn't all it's cracked up to be and is most likely unnecessary.


I personally believe that ALL research in this field is important so we can discover as many cures as possible for all of mankind's ailments. To say embryonic stem cell research is "most likely unnecessary" this early in the research would be equal to saying we live in a geo-centric universe because we didn't look at all aspects of it. It's not a true scientific approach.

Thankfully for those of us in the states, other countries actually operate under the "seperation of church and state" and fully fund this research so mankind can benefit from it sooner than later.


RE: Right is RIGHT!
By Reclaimer77 on 5/5/2008 7:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thankfully for those of us in the states, other countries actually operate under the "seperation of church and state"


Is there a " Church of the United States " ? No. But there is a " Church of England " ran by the UK government, which is exactly what our forfathers set out to prevent, and did. We truly do have separation of church and state.

What you and others like you want that to mean is no moral compass or values. No mention of god anywhere. Etc etc.

quote:
fully fund this research so mankind can benefit from it sooner than later.


By mankind you mean the ones that you decide should live I take it ?

Your being played and don't even know it. The " anti abortion = anti medical progress " argument is nothing but a leftist handwringing smoke screen to further the cause of abortion.

I personally don't care either way, but its pretty obvious. Especially when expert after expert state that contrary to what you see on the news, stem cell research is 20 years away from a practical application. And there is NO, repeat, NO evidence that stem cells from embryos are more viable than host stem cells.

So tell me, where exactly are the breakthroughs from these other countries that are so much better than us ? Keep waiting buddy. Good luck with that...


RE: Right is RIGHT!
By Bioniccrackmonk on 5/5/2008 11:46:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What you and others like you want that to mean is no moral compass or values.


Wow, skip all the other possible meanings and go straight to the extreme, no moral compass and no values. Are you serious? This has to be the dumbest response you could have made. So are you saying that if not for religion, no one on this entire planet would have any morals or values at all? Last time I checked, a lot of religions have a very ugly history. I guess us heathens will just get burned at the stake to teach us our values and morals.

<Gives a very sarcastic 2 thumbs up>

quote:
By mankind you mean the ones that you decide should live I take it ?


Sure, that can be a start. Or we can get a panel to decide. How about we let them do it the way the did before ESC became mainstream. We could also try it the same way other countries do.

quote:
Your being played and don't even know it. The " anti abortion = anti medical progress " argument is nothing but a leftist handwringing smoke screen to further the cause of abortion.


Proof?

quote:
I personally don't care either way, but its pretty obvious.


It is pretty obvious which way you care, couldn't agree more.

quote:
Especially when expert after expert state that contrary to what you see on the news, stem cell research is 20 years away from a practical application. And there is NO, repeat, NO evidence that stem cells from embryos are more viable than host stem cells.


http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/24159.php - May 11th, 2005 - First page of Google search.

Imagine how much closer if, not already created, we would be to a new treatment for anyone with a recent spinal injury.

http://ajpheart.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/28...
Title - Stable benefit of embryonic stem cell therapy in myocardial infarction

I will sum it up for you, they helped, big time.

There are many more, all you need to do to be completely informed is to go to your preferred search engine and go to town. The only catch is that you should also read the ones you are skipping over/ignoring/pretending to be not be there.

quote:
So tell me, where exactly are the breakthroughs from these other countries that are so much better than us ?


Thailand is one place, as a someone else here has already mentioned. They use ESC to treat numerous people, including Americans, on a daily basis.

quote:
Keep waiting buddy. Good luck with that...


Ditto.


RE: Right is RIGHT!
By Reclaimer77 on 5/6/2008 1:27:58 AM , Rating: 1
Nevermind the fact that your entire rant was based on a " ban " that never happened. Bush didn't ban stem cell research or even embryonic research. He banned abortions for the express purpose of harvesting the cells. There is a big difference. In fact we are, and have been, federally funding stem cell research from embryos that already have been aborted for other reasons. Now why didn't you know that ? Why are you assuming we're " banning " life saving research because of some religious ideal ? Oh ya, this is why.

quote:
Your being played and don't even know it. The " anti abortion = anti medical progress " argument is nothing but a leftist handwringing smoke screen to further the cause of abortion.


Look familiar ?

quote:
Proof?


Scroll up buddy. Your own ill-informed perception of reality is proof enough.

quote:
So are you saying that if not for religion, no one on this entire planet would have any morals or values at all?


Hmmm I don't recall saying that. I personally am not a Christian and I'm not even sure if there is a god. But I am sure that your an idiot if you believe man is essentially good.

Oh and nice of you to ignore the part where I showed you were dead wrong about us not having separation of church and state. No search engine rescued you from that one ?

quote:
There are many more, all you need to do to be completely informed is to go to your preferred search engine and go to town.


All I need to be completely informed is read from the Internet Google searches. Ah, how wise of you.

quote:
Imagine how much closer if, not already created, we would be to a new treatment for anyone with a recent spinal injury.


Every time I get into an argument with people like you, I can't help but think how much closer we would be today if your own mother furthered the cause 12-15 years ago.


RE: Right is RIGHT!
By sld on 5/6/2008 5:12:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Every time I get into an argument with people like you, I can't help but think how much closer we would be today if your own mother furthered the cause 12-15 years ago.

Touché.


RE: Right is RIGHT!
By Bioniccrackmonk on 5/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Right is RIGHT!
By Myg on 5/6/2008 2:30:31 PM , Rating: 2
Whenever I see conversations like this, I imagine the doctors and nurses in the back rooms of the German 'hospital' wards in concentration camps during the 2nd world war...

Can see them now... Conversing about how much scientific progress will be gotten from it, since they know most of the people are going to die anyways.

Think about it for a minute, see where your point of view fits in with history; because thats the whole point studying it, right?


RE: Right is RIGHT!
By Bioniccrackmonk on 5/6/2008 4:01:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whenever I see conversations like this, I imagine the doctors and nurses in the back rooms of the German 'hospital' wards in concentration camps during the 2nd world war...


You can think of what ever you want to about anything you want as that is your right, however, for you to compare ESC research to that of the Nazi's genocide is completely ludicrous and unfound. Taking cells from something that has POTENTIAL to be life, and killing millions of people who are by all definitions living beings, are two completely different things.

quote:
Think about it for a minute, see where your point of view fits in with history; because thats the whole point studying it, right?


The point of studying history is to make sure we don't make the same mistakes twice, you are correct. However, if you want to cite history lets compare apples to apples and not apples to the theory of relativity. You bringing the holocaust into this conversation just shows the lengths that people will go to bring a negative light to something they don't understand/agree with.


RE: Right is RIGHT!
By Reclaimer77 on 5/6/2008 5:16:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Taking cells from something that has POTENTIAL to be life


Nice distinction your trying to make there. As if the successful conception to term birth rate in this country isn't extremely high. Embryos ARE life by the way. Or are you now going to argue that point ?

I agree that his comparison was a bit extreme. But at least he demonstrated free thinking, so him=1 you=0.


RE: Right is RIGHT!
By xRyanCat on 5/6/2008 10:36:30 PM , Rating: 2
If we could convert other stem cells into the cells needed to create embryos and foster life would you consider them life too? Would you feel bad about cutting your hair because it could become a child? Embryos are not life. They are dependent on their host, they resemble nothing of a final human child, if anything they are just a bunch of cells grouped together.

Next you're going to tell me wasting semen and menstrual cycles are destroying life too.


RE: Right is RIGHT!
By Reclaimer77 on 5/6/2008 5:04:29 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It's as clear as day what you are trying to say with this sentence and now you are trying to ignore what you wrote. Keep back pedalling, you are only making yourself look like a fool.


So because I think people are better off having morals and believing actions have consequences, that means I MUST be a right wing christian wacko ? Riiiight.

I'm not an activist and never have been. About anything. Ever. Just because I think harvesting potential human beings for research that may or may not benefit us is wrong doesn't make me a Christian or anything else. If you are trying to make me regret my position you have a long way to go.

And by the way, I'm a taxpayer. I don't know about you. Since you made federal funding part of your 'point'. Its my right as much as anyones to voice their opinion on this issue. Not just with forum posting, but with votes.

quote:
Everyone has the potential to be good or evil


Well apparently not everyone. Since your so enthusiastically in favor of taking potential lives and giving it to others.

quote:
just go to your local court house and pose with the ten comandments, or the cross above the judges desk, or watch the news about our supreme court chief justice John Robert's talking about the bible. It's all out there for you to see yourself, you just have to not be naive.


I see you still don't get it. Thats not a church and state issue. Separation of Church and state, AGAIN, was put into the Constitution so that the GOVERNMENT could not start,fund, or run a church. Period. Thats it. There is no Church of the United States.

quote:
You are a perfect example of the typical American


Why thank you ! And here I was thinking you didn't like me. Thats the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me on DT. But since you made this statement I have to ask, are you even an American ? If not, thanks for wasting my time.

quote:
But you just go on ahead and keep making up stuff since you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence to bring credit to your claim. In the professional world, we would say you are full of BS.


Well using your 'proven' " if you searched it on Google, it must be true " logic, here is some 'evidence'. I have no idea who its from, or how credible it is. But hell, I got it off the Internet so it must be true.

http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/

http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/pros_cons.htm...

http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interr...
( This one is an interview with a professor who is also a PHD. And as we learned from the lib media, professors and or PHD's are smarter then you, therefore always correct )


RE: Right is RIGHT!
By ConcernedCalifornian on 5/7/2008 1:59:33 PM , Rating: 2
I think it is safe to say that this reseach would not have been possible at this time without the advances made in ebc research. We may have come to a point where we can focus more on adult stem cell research, which I don't believe, but stem cell research in general would not be where it is today without ebc research.


Put your money where your mouth is...
By ConcernedCalifornian on 5/6/2008 9:13:08 PM , Rating: 2
If the religious right is so happy about this research, why aren't they funding it? This research was made possible by private stem cell funding that was not limited to adult stem cell research, most likely liberal leaning donors. Follow the links and see where the money came from.

If the religious right would rather scientists work with adult stem cells as opposed to embryonic stem cells, all they have to do is give money to support adult stem cell research.

Once scientists can prove that adult stems cells are the better path, this whole issue will go away.




RE: Put your money where your mouth is...
By tmouse on 5/7/2008 7:48:20 AM , Rating: 2
In case it’s not clear this is adult stem cell research and as such can be fully federally funded, it just happens to have been done at UCLA's stem cell center. Just because a center has someone’s name on it does not mean they fund all (or any) of the work done in it (it usually means they contributed to the construction of the facility). Also it is a misconception that embryonic stem cell work cannot be federally funded, the work is limited to the approved stem cell lines, which have some problems; some of the "new" lines in other projects have also been shown to have similar problems. Investigators may do federally funded embryonic work and privately funded work on non-approved lines however the necessity to keep the books totally separate usually means no one does.


By ConcernedCalifornian on 5/7/2008 1:39:14 PM , Rating: 2
Your reply says nothing about private funding, nor if conservative groups feel the need to fund adult stem cell research.

So am I to assume that conservative groups feel it is unnecessary to fund anything that might already be funded by the federal government? I don't believe this is the case. Your argument seems to be that because this research might have had federal funding in some way, private conservative groups should feel no obligation to support it. I believe this goes against most conservative ideologies.

I am unsure why you brought the Bush lines into the discussion. My question had nothing to do with the validity of ebc research.

It appears you added a lot of unneeded information in order to hide the fact that you didn't answer the original question.


RE: Put your money where your mouth is...
By geddarkstorm on 5/7/2008 2:41:37 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/200...

There's an example of adult stem cell research being funded by conservatives. Just do a google search next time, I guess. Albeit, finding lists of all groups who fund research, their affiliations, and what research they are funding, is very tricky and not something I have time to waste doing at the moment. Google is your friend, even if you have to wade through pages on pages of junk.


By ConcernedCalifornian on 5/7/2008 3:01:22 PM , Rating: 2
Umm...Korea? Thanks for the link, but I did look and haven't found anything regarding private funding from US conservatives.


By ConcernedCalifornian on 5/7/2008 3:11:06 PM , Rating: 2
and..
I must say, that is a VERY impressive amount of money. The S. Koreans are very heavy into stem cell research. Now if they can just keep from falsifying data...ok, that was a little unfair.


RE: Put your money where your mouth is...
By tmouse on 5/8/2008 8:20:21 AM , Rating: 2
Your own qoute:

quote:
most likely liberal leaning donors.


You have also provided no evidence that this research was funded by any particular group. Just because research was done at a particular institute does not mean that the work itself was or was not funded by a particular ideology. I have been at many fund raisers for my own institute and can tell you the people who donate run the complete gambit for far left to far right. I am unaware of any influence of any political/religious leanings on wealth nor political/religious leanings on philanthropy. People who give to research usually have some personal reason to do so (usually personal or family events) and sickness and disease are also not influenced by political/religious ideology.

quote:
Your reply says nothing about private funding, nor if conservative groups feel the need to fund adult stem cell research.


How does your own post address this? You just threw up a "most probably" that is hardly proof of anything. You provided absolutely no evidence what so ever that adult stem research is being predominately funded by any ideology but your post suggests that religious people do not fund stem cell research of any type.

quote:
am unsure why you brought the Bush lines into the discussion. My question had nothing to do with the validity of ebc research.


I am at a loss here what "Bush line" am I bringing into the discussion? I do not see any discussion of EBC work's validity in my reply. I am pointing out that the VAST majority of stem cell work IS publically funded. ALL animal work can be funded, ALL adult stem cell work can be funded and ANY embryonic work using the approved lines can be funded these groups constitute the majority of the published research in this field that I read daily.

quote:
It appears you added a lot of unneeded information in order to hide the fact that you didn't answer the original question.


I do not feel that pointing out that the majority of stem cell work is pubicly funded is "unneeded".

quote:
If the religious right is so happy about this research, why aren't they funding it?


Since the majority is publicy funded the point is moot.The only point that is true is that religious individuals “probably” will not fund embryonic work and would not contribute to institutes the conduct this type of work. That in no way, shape or form suggests that they do or do not fund adult stem cell work and you have provided no evidence to support this extrapolation. To do so you would have to demonstrate that a overwhelming majority of adult stem cell work is funded by “liberal leaning donors” and this simply cannot be shown.


By ConcernedCalifornian on 5/8/2008 2:01:45 PM , Rating: 2
You'll have to forgive me for not using the quote method...after the first time, it gets tedious to read.

If you google the research...a number of the links show the donors responsible for the project, the Broad family. The Broads have been giving to the DNC for years. They give to science, arts, education..millions of dollars. This particular grant was for stem cell and regenerative research. I am sure your institute receives general grants and specific grants...as far as I can tell, this grant was specific.

Well, I asked a question and was hoping one of these religious people would be able to instantly have an answer. I did a good amount of searching myself and found nothing. I have asked on other sites...and nothing. I cannot say for 100% that the far right does not fund adult stem cell research, but I can say I have honestly tried to find some evidence of it and have to this point failed.

This discussion is not about public funding. The government funds many things, but private people and organizations also fund projects they support. Public funding of stem cell research is moot in this discussion.

And to your final point...I am sure it can be shown that most private funders of stem cell research do lean to the left. The Broads were easy enough to find and they donated 20 million...and this is just one instance.

Sometimes I wonder if the right does not fund science because sometimes science conflicts with their religious ideology. In this particular case, the science supports their argument and I would think they would be throwing money at it and doing it in a very public manner.


RE: Put your money where your mouth is...
By tmouse on 5/9/2008 8:23:47 AM , Rating: 2
Not to be too much of a prig but your confusing contributors for the stem cell institute with funding the research. The Broad family did NOT directly contribute to this work. This work was supported by gifts from the Laubisch Fund (to W.R.M.) and NIH Ruth L. Kirschstein Grant 5T32HL007895-10 (to K.S.-L.),NIH Ruth L. Kirchstein National Research Service Award GM07185 (to K.E.R.), and Grants P01-HL080111 and R01- HL62448 (to W.R.M.). Now I cannot tell you the leanings of the directors of the Laubisch fund but they fund many different types of research form heart to cancer. Most of the others are career development funding and just pay salary. The key ones are the P01-HL080111 which is a NIH Project grant (funds many principle investigators) and R01- HL62448 (which is Robbs main grant. These funded the most of this research.


By tmouse on 5/9/2008 8:26:52 AM , Rating: 2
As an aside you are correct that the stem cell institute itself probably dose not receive any funding from religious groups; as they do fund other types of stem cell work.


By ConcernedCalifornian on 5/10/2008 4:17:52 PM , Rating: 2
Upon further review...you are absolutely correct.


By ConcernedCalifornian on 5/8/2008 3:37:22 PM , Rating: 2
The closest thing I can come to on the far right is Bloomberg and he is more of a Rock. Rep. than a social conservative.


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook

Did You Partake in "Black Friday/Thursday"?
Did You Partake in "Black Friday/Thursday"? 





0 Comments
Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki