The idea that embryonic stem cell research promises miracle cures not available from adult stem cell research is old science. It is based on the idea that cells once differentiated are fixed and cannot be reset back to pluripotency or totipotency. Over the past 30 years more and more discoveries showing that cells can be reprogrammed have occurred. The promise of embryonic stem cell therapy has become largely a matter of popular superstion no longer supported by real science. There is an important role for embryonic stem cell research. By studying them, we can learn how to reprogram adult stem cells. This is the only valid role for embryonic research today. There is no valid expectation of important clinical therapies using embryonic stem cells.

There are major systemic problems with embryonic stem cell therapy which do not exist with adult stem cell therapy. These originate with the immune system and rejection of foreign materials. Therapeutic cloning is supposed to be the miracle solution for this problem. However, it introduce two new and significant kinds of risk for a patient which do not exist with adult stem cell therapy. 1) The cloning process itself runs the risk of altering the DNA, or subtle factors like the methylization of DNA, thus causing unpredictable disorders in the patient. 2) The clone is a genetic chimera containing the mitochondrial dna of the egg and the nuclear dna of the patient. Modern discoveries have shown that mitochondrial dna is more active and plays a larger role in metabolism than previously though. How that chimera will work in the body is unknown and potentially the source of many new and unknown disorders. None of these roadblocks exist with adult stem cell therapy.

The role of embryonic stem cell research is very narrow and does not include actual therapy on real patients. It has a role in the laboratory to help isolate the factors which allow the reprogramming of adult stem cells. It is basically useless for clinical therapy.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1515236,00.html#

There are three reasons why people persist in the basically superstitious belief in miracles from embryonic stem cell therapy. 1) Some scientists have spent their lives on it and find it hard to realize that they have spent their lives following a dead end. 2) Some political groups have used it to further their own political agenda and find it difficult to realize that they have deluded themselves and their followers. 3) Desperate people will believe anything if it gives them hope of a cure, no matter how farfetched or unrealistic it may be.

The third reason is both sad and ugly. A couple of years ago some medical hotshots in Florida wanting more organs for transplant introduced a program for handling injured young adults which essentially killed them in order to harvest their organs. This was discovered, and some conscientious proponents of organ donation objected. After doing so they found themselves subjected to hatred by people who up to then had been their friends. Many people with desperate medical conditions or with loved ones with desperate medical conditions are willing to do anything for a cure. Even murder you or me in cold blood.

In a way the faith in embryonic stem cell therapy is the modern equivalent of faith in human sacrifice. It makes a kind of emotional sense to believe that if you take the life of a pure perfect infant before it has differentiated its magical life force will cure your disease. It is the same psychology which has traditionally made 4 year old boys the favorite candidates for human sacrifice. A practice that continues in some parts of East Africa today and which has resulted in at least one ritual murder in London.

It is sad, absurd, and ugly. Desperate people do desperate things and they do not really respect the right to life of others. Desperation destroys their reason.

If your god goes apeshit ballistic over your eating fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, join the queue of Christian Scientists with appendicitis. Medieval Europe - when Yahweh strode the Earth unchallenged - was a midden of human and animal manure, dead babies, diseased flesh, bloody battles, and fat priests. The Dark Ages were not so named for lack of fluorescent lighting.

Dominus et magister noster Iesus Christus dicendo "Poenitentiam agite adpropinquavit enim regnum caelorum" omnem vitam fidelium penitentiam esse voluit.

Buncha crap. YOU go squat in a mud puddle. Civilization is building roads, driving cars, and enjoying flush toilets.

Do you have anything to say based on modern scientific developments, Uncle Al? Science is constantly changing. My statements are pretty much in keeping with a growing consensus in the field of stem cell research.

It is difficult to explain the mass appeal of embryonic stem cell therapy without assuming it is because of the subconscious resemblance to human sacrifice.

It is theoretically possible to culture an unlimited supply of new embryonic stem cell lines without killing a single embryo. In in vitro fertilization, zygotes are developed to the full blastocyte stage before being implanted. Cells are removed to test for genetic or chromosomal irregularities at this time.

This provides a window of opportunity to extract a few cells to culture as embryonic stem cell cultures. No one is investigating such non-destructive methods of creating new embryonic stem cell lines.

Why? Because not killing an embryo does not have the emotional impact of killing one. It does not satisfy primitive emotions, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. People simply do not feel that stem cells produced without ritual sacrifice will be a powerful as stem cells produced through ritual sacrifice.

It is you who are defending primitive superstion, Al, not me.

Actually Arrogathor you are completely out of the loop. I have no clue of the source of your opinion as you didn't feel it important to cite a single reference. I presume you know the difference between science and references and a authorless editorial article.

No serious scientist, unless pounded senseless by theological crap, would agree with you. There is a very substantial difference between embryonic and other stem cell cultures.

So until you are prepared to hold a wake for every miscarriage and until you can define "death" your statements are basically of zero value except to raise the level of noise.

As Monty Python used to sing:
"Every Sperm Is Sacred"...

From: The Meaning Of Life
by the Monty Python Team

There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.
I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.
You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,

Because

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood!

Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
God needs everybody's.
Mine! And mine! And mine!

Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaate!

Thanks. I needed that.

I continue to be amazed by people that are incapable of defining "death" but feel compelled to define for others the word "life."

A tribe of hypocritical, barely sentient, self-righteous morons. Did I miss anything? ;-)

It is probably useless to attempt to use reason and logic on Mr. Morgan, but it may help others reading this forum to understand the issues involved.

Statement. By inserting DNA from specialized cells into an egg we can change the environment sufficiently to cause it to reprogram as a totipotent or pluripotent cell.

Statement. By changing the chemical environment of DNA in cells sufficiently we can cause it to reprogram as a totipotent or pluripotent cell.

Both of these statements are the same with regards to fundamental theory. The only difference is the method used. In one method, a shotgun approach is used where a total change in the dna environment is accomplished by placing it in an egg cell.

In the second method a surgical approach is used where specific environmental changes are used to produce specific changes in the behavior of the DNA.

But, in theory, both assume that DNA which has specialized can be reprogrammed by environmental changes to act as though it had not. The theoretical assumption is identical, it is only the method which is different.

Cloning is a radical technique. It introduces a large and unknown set of changes many of which are the result of the cloning process itself and not intended changes. It is roughly equivalent to a heart transplant.

Adult stem cell reprogramming is less radical, more like a change of diet and exercise. It does not introduce as large a set of unknown variables into the procedure.

Both procedures require knowledge from the same data set. I.E. the data set describing how DNA is triggered to express itself in one way or another.

Therapeutic cloning, to be safe, requires an additional data set which is not required by adult stem cell therapy. It also requires knowledge of how mitochondrial DNA fits into the system and what long term effects it will have.

The changes in reprogramming adult stem cells requires only the knowledge of that part of the data set of cell DNA interaction associated with that particular change. Therapeutic Cloning requires a total and complete knowledge of all kinds of cell DNA interaction which might have been injured or effected by the cloning process itself before it can be used safely.

The data set from the set cell DNA interactions needed for the safe clinical application of adult stem cell therapy is much smaller than that required for the safe clinical application of therapeutic cloning. In addition, in order to be safe for clinical therapy the data set mitochondrial DNA actions must be completely understood for the use of therapeutic cloning in clinical therapy.

In order to use adult stem cells for all the potential possible uses of embryonic stem cells, you need a much smaller part of the same data set needed to do therapeutic cloning safely. By the time you know enough to do therapeutic cloning safely, you will know enough to do adult stem cell therapy for all theoretical uses of embryonic stem cells as well. The knowledge data sets required for both procedures are the same. It is just that adult stem cell therapy can be done safely with a much less complete knowledge of that data set than therapeutic cloning can.

It follows, therefore, that by the time enough is known to use therapeutic cloning almost safely as clinical therapy, adult stem cells will have been being used for all possible application of stem cell therapy for several years before that.

Even at that point, because of the presence of mitochondrial DNA in the cloned cells, therapeutic cloning will still be more dangerous than adult stem cell therapy. Also, even when screening of therapeutically cloned cells is advanced enough to provide safety, the problem of human error will still exist. This will mean that problems in cloned cells will be occassionally missed making it inherently more risky for patients than adult stem cell therapy.

It follows, therefore, that there is no clinical therapeutic application of embryonic stem cells. They will play a key role in stem cell research in building the data base necessary for adult stem cell therapy, but researching them for clinical uses is a dead end, a blind alley.

Yes there are more dangers using embryonic stem cells from others. Non embryonic stem cells taken from a patient to be used for the same patient's benifit, IS inherently safer.
Even a standard blood transfusions have a modicum of danger, that may take years to surface.
Stem cells are multiversal items present in all life. But its also a new science barely out of its infancy. Have a little more faith in the researchers of stem cell science today, before stateing there are any 'dead ends'.

INTERESTING STEM CELL CURES

An insulin-dependent Argentinean man was injected with non-embryonic stem cells taken from his hip and his pancreas has begun creating insulin again. In fact, the man's glucose levels have returned to normal and he does not require medication to keep them there. Clinical trials will continue, with 35 patients who have volunteered for the experimental treatment.
AND
Stem cell treatement being carried out at the Queen Victoria Hospital, East Grinstead UK, has already helped 40 people see again.
The surgery at the hospital has been developed over the past five years.
Stem cells from the patient or a donor are used to redevelop the cornea, the transparent film at the front of the eye which lets in light. Opthalmic surgeon Sheraz Daya said: "Many people who've had injuries to their eyes, or even people born with congenital deficiencies of stem cells, land up having a problem with the top layer of their cornea.
"Even if we do a corneal transplant, that will not stay clear, it'll cloud over and fail. "So what we need to do is replace those stem cells that are missing."
Among the 40 people who have already had their eyesight restored is Deborah Catlyn. She was blind in one eye from the age of seven and then became partially-sighted in the other eye after an acid attack in a nightclub. The treatment at Queen Victoria Hospital meant Ms Catlyn could see her daughter properly for the first time.
"I thought, 'My God, is that really my baby, look at her she's beautiful'," she said.

I think the history of the issue contradicts your position Mike. 30 or 40 years ago it was thought that the human organism was pretty much fixed and nonmalleable. This is why the early emphasis on embryonic stem cells, as opposed to older specialized cells. Over the past decade or so numerous discoveries in virtually all fields of medicine has shown that keyed with the right stimuli the human organism is neither fixed or nonmalleable but can be coaxed into almost anything, including taking adult stem cells from bone marrow and fat, and getting them to form a large number of different cell types.

Recent discoveries in epigenetics, the methylation of DNA governing gene expression which is heritable but also changed by environment. I.E. a study in Northern Europe showing that grandchildren were still having epigenetic effects from a famine their grandmothers endured during WWII, show how complex the DNA cell interactions are and how much is unknown, increasing the risks and difficulties involved in therapeutic cloning.

All of the scientific progress and discoveries in the last 30 years or so in this field tend towards the conclusion that the primary reason for focusing on embryonic stem cells as a means of therapy is false. That primary reason being that adult cells cannot be stimulated or coaxed to act like embryonic cells. This coupled with the increasing knowledge of the dangers potentially introduced by the use of embryonic stem cells indicate that embryonic stem cells as a direct source of therapy are a research dead end. Studying embryonic stem cells in the laboratory, learning the mechanisms which trigger and govern changes is essential to developing stem cell therapy, but in the long run, it is adult stem cell therapy which will be safe and effective. It is theoretically possible that there may be one or two rare conditions which only therapeutic cloning can be used to treat, it seems highly unlikely, given the modern developments in this field.

I never said anything about stem cell therapy being useless or a dead end. I said embryonic stem cell therapy is a dead end. It seems apparent at this point in science in this area that adult stem cell therapy will be able to perform all the functions that embryonic stem cells could theoretically be used for and in a much safer way for the patient. It is important to make this point. Embryonic stem cell therapy has become a religious or superstitious mantra for certain irrational political and media factions. It was a good idea given the science 7 years ago when embryonic stem cells were first discovered., it is a wild goose chase given the science today. Indeed by the mid 90s around the time that ESCs were first discovered new discoveries were already showing the greater plasticity of adult tissues and stem cells than had been the assumption in the past.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1826
Embryonic stem cell research into fundamental cell metabolism and triggers for specialization is essential to developments in this field. Therapeutic cloning, farming embryos, etc. is a wild goose chase. A waste of research money and time. It is true that if you spend billions on therapeutic cloning, you will find cures. The same billions spent on adult stem cell research would produce the same cures faster, and in a form which is inherently safer for the patient. The embryonic stem cell therapy issue has ceased to be science and become superstition.
http://www.nationalreview.com/smithw/smith200409090835.asp

You said, "Stem cells are multiversal items present in all life. But its also a new science barely out of its infancy. Have a little more faith in the researchers of stem cell science today, before stateing there are any 'dead ends'."

You do not ask me to have faith in embryonic stem cell research but in stem cell research in general. I never dismissed stem cell research as a blind alley, but only the idea of embryonic stem cell therapy producing miracle cures not achievable with other forms of stem cells. You say the science is in its infancy. That may be true, but because of the data set issues I described in my previous post, the infant adult stem cell therapy is a vital and growing baby while the infant embryonic stem cell baby appears to have been still born.

"Adult stem cells
Stem cells can be found in all adult and young adult beings. Adult stem cells are undifferentiated cells that reproduce daily to provide certain specialized cells?for example 200 billion red blood cells are created each day in the body from hemopoietic stem cells. Until recently it was thought that each of these cells could produce just one particular type of cell?this is called differentiation (see Morphogenesis). However in the past few years, evidence has been gathered of stem cells that can transform into several different forms. Bone marrow stromal stem cells are known to be able to transform into liver, nerve, muscle, hair follicle and kidney cells."

"Adult stem cells may be even more versatile than this. Researchers at the New York University School of Medicine have extracted stem cells from the bone-marrow of mice which they say are pluripotent. Turning one type of stem cell into another is called transdifferentiation."

"In fact, useful sources of adult stem cells are being found in organs all over the body. Researchers at McGill University in Montreal have extracted stem cells from skin that are able to differentiate into many types of tissue, including neurons, smooth muscle cells and fat-cells. These were found in the dermis, the inner layer of the skin. These stem cells play a pivotal role in healing small cuts. Blood vessels, the dental pulp, the digestive epithelium, the retina, liver and even the brain are all said to contain stem cells."

"Adipose derived adult stem (ADAS) cells have also been isolated from fat, e.g. from liposuction. This source of cells seems to be similar in many ways to Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) derived from bone marrow, except that it is possible to isolate many more cells from fat. These cells have been shown to differentiate into bone, fat, muscle, cartilage, and neurons. These cells have been recently used to successfully repair a large cranial defect in a human patient [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell#Cord_blood_stem_cells"

"The breakthrough in embryonic stem cell research came in November 1998 when a group led by James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin-Madison first developed a technique to isolate and grow the cells. Embryonic stem cell researchers are currently attempting to grow the cells beyond the first stages of cell development, to overcome difficulties in host rejection of implanted stem cells, and to control the multiplying of implanted embryonic stem cells, which otherwise multiply uncontrollably, producing cancer."

I saw the image of MOUSE having an EAR !!!
I dont how much it will the deaf person but I am surprised at the cost we are ready to pay for this ....
We are going to torture a MOUSE by making its LIFE void of any natural habitat and natural progress in the wild.He will have purpose in life but to serve us.. we will make them our slaves... and GOD knows that whenever we have tried to do this ... we were told freedom is the eternal principle for MAN and ANIMAL ...
And the person who is going to get benfitted out of itwill be most unfortunate human being because he will be held responsible for making the MOUSE's Life miserable...Thankfully we do not have stringent Animal protection policy in place.
I am sorry to say but we HUMANS ARE VERY SELFISH..
WE ARE SO RICH,POWERFUL and EDUCATED THAT WE DONT ALLOW ANY OTHER SPECIES TO LIVE INDEPENDENTLY IN THE WILD... WE HAVE LONG WON THE BATTLES AGAINST THOSE LESSER ANIMALS BUT STILL WE ARE ENJOYING THEIR HUMILIATION ... JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT INTELLIGENT ENOUGH DOESNOT MEAN THEY ARE POWERFUL IN THE GAME OF SURVIVAL ... ASK A CROCODILE..

Quit shouting.

Have no fear dkv:
The ear image you see on Scienceagogo's front page
Were cartilage cells that were allowed to grow on a piece of Nylon mesh, dipped in a nutrient broth. The Nylon had been shaped into the form of a human ear. Later it was transplanted onto a mouse, but could just as easily have been attached to a person who had lost his/her ear.

A better piccy 'hear'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1949073.stm

PS.
The Bible states that- God has put every living plant and animal upon this Earth for mans use.

Very nice find, Mike. I wonder what has happened in this field since 2002. So much in the way of science has been overshadowed by the 9-11 thing that I wouldn't be surprised if soon we could grow GW a "bran-new" brain. It would be easy to implant as he demonstrably has a shortage thereof. Perhaps there is some hope for us yet....

So what's the big deal again?
The US Federal Gov't doesn't subsidize research on new stem cell strains (or whatever they're called), but continues to subsidize the others with taxpayer money. Meanwhile private capital continues to pour in to research on all stem cell strains, without any government interference.

Which part of this am I supposed to be getting worked up about?

True , freedom and progress have come under the dark shadow of 9/11.. but given the amount of progress we have made and the kind of freedom we enjoy...
we should not allow this kind of incident to kill the our faith in the spirit of Humanity and Harmony...inside and outside.

As I understand it one of the reasons advocates of embryonic stem cell therapy are pushing for government funding is because private companies are not funding the research as they seem to have concluded it is a dead end.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm749.cfm

"Private investors aren?t funding embryonic stem cell research. They are funding adult stem cell research, which is an ethical alternative. Some of the most startling advancements using adult stem cells have come in treating Parkinson?s disease, juvenile diabetes, and spinal cord injuries.

The scientific data on embryonic stem cell research simply does not support continued investment in research. Even if the research were successful, it is morally bankrupt and endangers women. Federal funding should not be used to pay for research that many Americans know is morally wrong and scientifically unsound. That makes embryonic stem cell research a bad investment for our tax dollars."

and

" want to read to you a fascinating quote from William Haseltine, CEO of Human Genome Sciences, Inc., of Rockville, Maryland. He is a leading advocate for embryonic stem cells, but here's the interesting thing he said: ?The routine utilization of human embryonic stem cells for medicine is 20 to 30 years hence. The timeline to commercialization is so long that I simply would not invest. You may notice that our company has not made such investments.?"

Big business has decided that embryonic stem cell therapy is a scientific dead end. Meanwhile 'miracle' cures are being almost routinely produced using adult stem cells.

This is simply the state of modern science. The idea that embryonic stem cells offered a set of cures not available from any other source was based on the belief in the non-plasticity of the adult organism. Beginning at about the same time that embryonic stem cells were discovered other discoveries began making this idea obsolete or old science. By this time, so many discoveries about the much greater plasticity of cells from adult organisms have been made that the idea that embryonic stem cells offer any great potential for 'miracle' cures not available from other sources is now becoming about as obsolete as geocentric astronomy.


http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.2106/pub_detail.asp
"At a May 11 hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee on Aging, for example, Johns Hopkins Alzheimer's Disease expert Peter Rabins and Washington University Alzheimer's researcher John Morris both told the senators that they do not expect embryonic stem cells to play a role in Alzheimer's treatment. Experts on other diseases speak with similar restraint. In the end, the research may bear therapeutic fruit and it may not ? we cannot know in advance. It may cure some diseases and not others. But by seeming to promise medical salvation without limits, stem-cell advocates risk blurring the difficult ethical questions that surround this new science."


http://www.news.wisc.edu/10654.html This is a good example of private funding of embryonic stem cell research. Here is the objective.
"Those undertaking the study seek to show how determining the biological mechanisms involved in embryonic stem cell pluripotency will make it possible to understand how to reprogram adult stem cells to a pluripotent state.

The reversibility of the differentiated state in adult stem cells represents a true paradigm shift for developmental biologists. It was previously thought that differentiated adult stem cells could not go "backwards." Reprogrammed adult cells could be used to generate, for instance, tissues for transplantation genetically matched for an individual and thus not rejected by the immune system." This is the key role that embryonic stem cell research, not embryonic stem cell therapy, is going to play in producing 'miracle' cures.

When you come down to it, my initial analysis stands. Some scientists who have devoted years of their lives to Embryonic Stem Cell Therapy still want to believe in it. Even though the fundamental belief that made it seem so promising a decade ago, the lack of plasticity in the cells of the adult organism, has been essentially proven false. Some people with incurable medical conditions hang onto belief in it desperately because they are simply desperate. These people combine to lobby for federal spending on it even though the people who make the money decisions in business have decided that it is a waste of research funds.

It is worth noting that under Bush the Feds are spending 20.3 million or so on embryonic stem cell research. This is up from 0 dollars in federal funding under Clinton.

Seems like you're beating up on a strawman. Haseltine says his company isn't investing because he doesn't see a pay-off in 30 years. I don't know that the researchers have a definite timeline of when they expect a pay-off. Also, he doesn't say that it won't pan-out; only that it will take a while. What I've read is that investigators think it's something worth investigating.

Your sources in this tend to be information filtered through conservative and religious "think-tanks".

Embryonic stem cell research is still in the basic research phase. We should proceed or not without regard to religious superstitions.

According to the NIH web site, http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/chapter8.asp embryonic stem cells shows promise for sufferers of ALS. I'd take the direct words of the scientists over those with a religious or political axe to grind any day.

"in a way the faith in embryonic stem cell therapy is the modern equivalent of faith in human sacrifice"

Wow! There's a huge leap in your argument here. Before you go about making claims like this you should first try and prove to us that an embryo can be construde as a sentient being. In my opinion it is not equatable with killing a baby.

Well Artificial, you raise an interesting point, one that is worth discussing to illuminate the fundamental fallacy of your reasoning. There is no relevance between the question of whether a zygote is a sentient being and whether it is or is not perceived as human by other humans.

Both are questions of fact, but they are questions of fact in two different areas of science. One is the question of when sentience begins, more than likely a question to be answered by biological science. The other is the question of how humans perceive the world, a question to be answered by psychological science.

There is, quite clearly, a gap between reality and perception of reality.

The statement about humans probably believing in the miracle cures resulting from embryonic stem cell therapy because of its subconscious resemblance to human sacrifice is based on an analysis of human psychology, in fact the evolutionary psychology of abortion. Questions about when a developing zygote actually becomes sentient are completely irrelevant and out of context.

Now for The Fallible Fiend. The direct word of scientists? The Federal Government is the direct word of scientists? One minute the Federal Government is anti-scientific and the next it is spouting the one true gospel of science.

You are argueing from authority, not citing facts. As noted in previous posts, there is an element in the scientific community which has been working on embryonic stem cell therapy for a decade or more. People with that much time and effort devoted to a field of research are not going to ever admit that it was a waste of time.

Just as Einstein was not accepted by physicists until the older generation died off and a new generation came along, the older generation of embryonic stem cell researchers remain devoted to ideas that have been rendered obsolete by modern developments. One major political party is also wedded to these outdated fictions. Between the two you can find lots of 'scientific' support for the future of embryonic stem cell therapy.

You cannot find any practical support outside of this biased community. Everyone making serious decisions knows that it is a waste of research money and time.

Yes, you can find cures using embryonic stem cells, but simply, factually, you will find the same cures faster and in a form inherently safer for the patient by spending the same money and effort on adult stem cell therapy.

So when you cite passages from heritage foundation and catholic bishops that's arguing with facts and not argument from authority?

As I'm not an authority on stem cells and don't plan on becoming one, I think it's reasonable to accept the word of actual scientists above that of political action groups. This is nothing less than what a judge does when he acccepts expert witness testimony from scientists, engineers, doctors, etc.

You're making claims about what 'everyone' knows, but the only support you've given is your own authorities - catholic bishops and the heritage foundation.

Also, you have presented a false dichotomy here. The 'government' is not monolithic. There are politicians who work in the government and there are scientists who work in the government.

P.S. While the report was published by NIH, the actual research cited was done at John's Hopkins. No idea whether that work was federally funded.

If there is a fallacious argument, Arrogathor, it is only because you made it first. In your statement that I quoted above you claim that embryonic stem cell therapy is equivalent to human sacrifice. You are so blinded by your dogmatism that you cannot see that what you are actually saying is embryo = human. What I said was that an embryo does not equal a human because it is not sentient, with the added caveat that an embryo is of course human in origin and could be considered a potential human. If you want to call those relationships irrelevant then your own statement embryo = human is also irrelevant because you are making your own assumption that the embryo should be considered human.

Furthermore, the major arguments against embryonic stem cell therapy intersect because they relate to whether an embryo is sentient and whether because of this it can be considered a human. I find it difficult, therefore, to understand how you consider them not to be relevant.

In short, do you really equate the existence of a zygote with that of an independent human being?

I have no idea what you are talking about in your third paragraph regarding psychology, human sacrifice and abortion. Feel free to elaborate, it seems to make no sense or have any relevance.

"You are so blinded by your dogmatism that you cannot see that what you are actually saying is embryo = human." and "I have no idea what you are talking about in your third paragraph regarding psychology, human sacrifice and abortion."

The topic is somewhat complex. Obviously, the second sentence I quoted invalidate the first sentence that I quoted. If you don't know what I am saying, you don't know that it is dogmatic.

Assume for the sake of argument that evolution is real. I realize that this might blow your mind, but just for the sake of argument assume that Darwin was right.

If Darwin was right, then we have instincts like other animals. We feel certain things to be true because of those instincts. Our ability to educate those instincts out of us does not exist. We have to be careful dealing with them and how we attempt to educate around them.

Those instincts are a part of our psychology, i.e. how we perceive the world. This is one manner in which the human or non-human status of the unborn can be determined.

Another manner is the question of when the unborn become sentient. That is a biological question. Both are issues of fact. One is a question of fact about how we are driven by instinct to perceive the world. The other is an issue of when an unborn becomes sentient.

There is no reason to believe that they are congruent. There is also no reason to believe that telling the vast masses of people that beings they are driven by instinct to recognize as human are not really human accomplishes that. No matter how clearly the factual evidence may prove that they are not sentient.

Sentient and human are not necessarily congruent either. Morons are human and chimpanzees are not, but chimps, gorillas and orangutans all have IQs higher than morons. Equating sentient with human is a straw horse argument. A popular one but not really relevant or material.

Now, when humans talk about killing something they are driven by instinct to perceive as human in order to produce miracle cures, there is an obvious paralel to the long standing and still ocurring practice of sacrificing human beings to produce miracles. Ergo, the psychological paralel between embryonic stem cell therapy and human sacrifice.

If you believe in evolution and are capable of logically working out its implications for this issue, you will understand what I am saying.

I am sure that you claim to believe in evolution. I am also sure that you completely reject any application of it in the real world. One of the most amusing ironies in this entire field of debate is that only a creationist could be in favor of abortion or embryonic stem cell therapy, logically speaking. While evolutionists should be adamantly opposed to them.

I got bored with playing video games so I visited again to futilely wave the flag of logic and factual reality in the face of the religious fanatics here.

"Now, when humans talk about killing something they are driven by instinct to perceive as human in order to produce miracle cures, there is an obvious paralel to the long standing and still ocurring practice of sacrificing human beings to produce miracles. "

The parallel is all the more obvious to someone who ascribes motives and reasoning to people which they do not possess. Not all people are driven by instinct to believe that embryos are human beings. It's doubtful that anyone thinks of embryos as human beings out of instinct.

Some people may consider the promise of embryonic stem cell research to be a miracle, but those are the people who are already prone to believe in fairy tales. That some people have unreasonable expectations doesn't mean everyone does. For the most part, this is a strawman created and fostered by religious fanatics. So far as I can see, most people who support this kind of research have no expectation of pay-offs in the near term.

"I got bored with playing video games so I visited again to futilely wave the flag of logic and factual reality in the face of the religious fanatics here. "

One hopes you are better at video games than you are at logic.

It is always amusing to see someone make a post which is completely out of touch with reality. Can you produce any evidence that humans are not driven by instinct to project a construct of personhood on the unborn?

The fundamental flaw here is emotional. The person calling himself 'The Fallible Fiend' is reacting emotionally and not rationally.

He sees the discussion of the evolutionary psychology of the mass popular appeal of embryonic stem cell research as a personal attack on the character of people involved in such research.

This is enormously silly. Every single post I have made on the topic has differentiated between three or four different groups of proponents of Embryonic Stem Cell Therapy.

The Scientific professionals who believe in it because they have spent years in the field and are committed to it.

The polticians who support it because it is part of their party platform.

The desperate people suffering from currently incurable diseases who are willing to grasp at any straw.

The masses of people who for some reason believe in it.

In not a single post have I suggested that group 1 or 2 above sees embryonic stem cell therapy as emotionally equivalent to human sacrifice. He is essentially defending his communtity against a charge that has never been made.

All I have done is suggest that the idea appeals to the masses because of that subconscious similarity.

He says, "The parallel is all the more obvious to someone who ascribes motives and reasoning to people which they do not possess. Not all people are driven by instinct to believe that embryos are human beings. It's doubtful that anyone thinks of embryos as human beings out of instinct."

He is forced to deny the influence of evolution on human psychology in order to make the above statement. As I stated before only a nutcase creationist could believe what he believes and integrate it logically with his belief system.

Of course the mass of humans is driven by instinct in how they perceive the world. Of course reproductive behavior is one of the most strongly instinctively driven areas of human behavior. Ergo, seeing the unborn as human must be instinctively driven to prepare for the arrival, they do require tremendous care. They are among the most helpless of all young in the biosphere.

For more factual evidence relating to this issue you might try reading
http://www.overalltech.net/huff/YAbortion.htm

His emotional involvement is clearly shown by his inability to make a coherent statement.

"Some people may consider the promise of embryonic stem cell research to be a miracle, but those are the people who are already prone to believe in fairy tales. That some people have unreasonable expectations doesn't mean everyone does. For the most part, this is a strawman created and fostered by religious fanatics. So far as I can see, most people who support this kind of research have no expectation of pay-offs in the near term."

Let us take his sentences, "That some people have unreasonable expectations doesn't mean everyone does. For the most part, this is a strawman created and fostered by religious fanatics."

Does this make any sense? He is apparently either saying that religious fanatics fostered the belief in miracle cures from embryonic stem cell therapy or that the idea there is a belief in such cures is fostered by the religious nutcases.

Anybody familiar with the popular debate is fully aware that the entire reason for seeking government research money for embryonic stem cell therapy is because of the belief in such miracle cures.

Every speech made by a proponent of the idea in Congress includes a poignant and heartrending description of some individual suffering from Alzheimer's or some other disease who will be denied his miracle cure because of President Bush's heartless religious fanaticism.

The idea is quite clearly that miracle cures are not only offerred and guaranted but that they will be available in 6 months or a year if only that evil religious fanatic nutcase Bush were not in office.

The Fiend does admit that no real scientist expects any tangible results from embryonic stem cell research in the near future. Thirty years is probably a realistic estimate, if ever.

Meanwhile, adult stem cell therapies are already in clinical trials and being readied for public use.

The argument for government sponsorship of embryonic stem cell research is the promise of miracle cures for desperate people currently suffering. All of those people will be dead by the time any results from Embryonic stem cell therapy are available. By that time, everything that it makes available will already be provided by adult stem cell therapy and in a form which is inherently safer than embryonic stem cell therapy.

Science changes and you have to keep up with it. The idea that embryonic stem cell therapy offered promise not provided by other means is based on the assumption of a total inflexibility in the adult organism. Virtually every scientific discovery in this area since the discovery of embryonic stem cells has undermined and tended to refute this assumption.

It is outdated, antiquated, science, like a geocentric universe.

"It is always amusing to see someone make a post which is completely out of touch with reality."

A self-descriptive statement if ever there was one.

"Can you produce any evidence that humans are not driven by instinct to project a construct of personhood on the unborn?"

Can you produce evidence that they do? Argument by assertion is not a valid form of reasoning. You also aren't very good at following the point. I wasn't talking about 'humans', but specific individuals. There may be - and probably are - some people who do have such an innate sense that foetuses are human. That isn't all people. That isn't even most people.

The fundamental flaw is that you yourself are reacting emotionally and are cloaking your pseudointellectualism - your scientism - in obtuse language.

"In not a single post have I suggested that group 1 or 2 above sees embryonic stem cell therapy as emotionally equivalent to human sacrifice. He is essentially defending his communtity against a charge that has never been made ... All I have done is suggest that the idea appeals to the masses because of that subconscious similarity."

Cavilling is not valid argument. Your wordplay is convincing only to yourself.

"It is outdated, antiquated, science, like a geocentric universe. "

Argument from assertion is not valid.