Comments on: The Stem Cell Thing http://gfmorris.com/2006/07/21/the-stem-cell-thing/ The Life and Times of Geof F. Morris Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:03:05 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: vika http://gfmorris.com/2006/07/21/the-stem-cell-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-6086 vika Wed, 02 Aug 2006 22:40:34 +0000 http://ijsm.org/archives/2006/07/21/the-stem-cell-thing/#comment-6086 Chris (and Geof), Yeah, I know they're ex-frozen embryos. I don't think their lives were saved by stem cell research; they were enabled by it, as IVF procedures themselves were greatly improved by SCR. As for Chris' position, I think he implicitly stated it by writing out what he would rather have had Bush say, science advisors and all. If his science advisors had told Bush that "very little embryonic stem cell research has shown promise to date," they should've been fired for incompetence. Chris (and Geof),

Yeah, I know they’re ex-frozen embryos. I don’t think their lives were saved by stem cell research; they were enabled by it, as IVF procedures themselves were greatly improved by SCR.

As for Chris’ position, I think he implicitly stated it by writing out what he would rather have had Bush say, science advisors and all. If his science advisors had told Bush that “very little embryonic stem cell research has shown promise to date,” they should’ve been fired for incompetence.

]]> By: Geof F. Morris http://gfmorris.com/2006/07/21/the-stem-cell-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-6087 Geof F. Morris Wed, 02 Aug 2006 22:12:00 +0000 http://ijsm.org/archives/2006/07/21/the-stem-cell-thing/#comment-6087 I believe, but am not 100% sure, that Chris is correct---those kids were embryos left over from IVF and given to adoptive parents who were unable to conceive on their own. I believe, but am not 100% sure, that Chris is correct—those kids were embryos left over from IVF and given to adoptive parents who were unable to conceive on their own.

]]> By: Chris http://gfmorris.com/2006/07/21/the-stem-cell-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-6088 Chris Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:44:30 +0000 http://ijsm.org/archives/2006/07/21/the-stem-cell-thing/#comment-6088 Vika, I'm not sure what side of the fence you are putting yourself on; I don't think Geof came down with a huge position either way; it was more observation that position. I also am wondering if you're a biyt confused about the "Snowflake Children" - these aren't children who are alive today because their health was saved due to embryonic research; they are children who were once frozen embryos but then given the opportunity to continue life and be born. Or maybe I misunderstood your comment and reasoning? Vika,

I’m not sure what side of the fence you are putting yourself on; I don’t think Geof came down with a huge position either way; it was more observation that position.

I also am wondering if you’re a biyt confused about the “Snowflake Children” – these aren’t children who are alive today because their health was saved due to embryonic research; they are children who were once frozen embryos but then given the opportunity to continue life and be born.

Or maybe I misunderstood your comment and reasoning?

]]> By: vika http://gfmorris.com/2006/07/21/the-stem-cell-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-6089 vika Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:47:36 +0000 http://ijsm.org/archives/2006/07/21/the-stem-cell-thing/#comment-6089 (Hi! I got here through Live Granades.) Seems like I'm on the other side of the fence from you on this issue, but that doesn't necessarily mean I know exactly what to say. What Jon Stewart said a few Daily Shows ago, struck me as true, though: Bush made his announcement about the veto while surrounded by... what are they called? Snowflake children? Children, anyway, that wouldn't have been there if not for stem cell research, both embryonic and adult. In light of that, the argument that not much good has come of this research seems a bit spurious to me. (Hi! I got here through Live Granades.)

Seems like I’m on the other side of the fence from you on this issue, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I know exactly what to say. What Jon Stewart said a few Daily Shows ago, struck me as true, though: Bush made his announcement about the veto while surrounded by… what are they called? Snowflake children? Children, anyway, that wouldn’t have been there if not for stem cell research, both embryonic and adult.

In light of that, the argument that not much good has come of this research seems a bit spurious to me.

]]> By: Geof F. Morris http://gfmorris.com/2006/07/21/the-stem-cell-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-6090 Geof F. Morris Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:24:58 +0000 http://ijsm.org/archives/2006/07/21/the-stem-cell-thing/#comment-6090 I hadn't thought about that, and that sucks. [But thanks for driving a Mack truck through that hole in my argument, Dr. Evil.] Given that adult stem cells have shown more promise early on, I'm wondering if this is one of those situations where things reverse field when embryonic work is a little further along and the therapeutic reasons for doing so can outweight the foofy bioethics of the extreme right-to-lifers. [Or, we wait until 2009 and there'll be a new POTUS who will almost assuredly sign such a bill.] I hadn’t thought about that, and that sucks. [But thanks for driving a Mack truck through that hole in my argument, Dr. Evil.] Given that adult stem cells have shown more promise early on, I’m wondering if this is one of those situations where things reverse field when embryonic work is a little further along and the therapeutic reasons for doing so can outweight the foofy bioethics of the extreme right-to-lifers.

[Or, we wait until 2009 and there'll be a new POTUS who will almost assuredly sign such a bill.]

]]> By: Stephen http://gfmorris.com/2006/07/21/the-stem-cell-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-6091 Stephen Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:18:00 +0000 http://ijsm.org/archives/2006/07/21/the-stem-cell-thing/#comment-6091 It also means something else: the funding is most likely to come from private for-profit companies, not from foundations, and thus any resulting treatments will be heavily-patent-encumbered and expensive. It also means something else: the funding is most likely to come from private for-profit companies, not from foundations, and thus any resulting treatments will be heavily-patent-encumbered and expensive.

]]>