Good on you Obama.....

[blue]

LINK to an NIH site with info about stem cells - both embryonic and adult.

From your link.

A potential advantage of using stem cells from an adult is that the patient's own cells could be expanded in culture and then reintroduced into the patient. The use of the patient's own adult stem cells would mean that the cells would not be rejected by the immune system. This represents a significant advantage as immune rejection is a difficult problem that can only be circumvented with immunosuppressive drugs.

[Grace]

Also from my link -

Human embryonic and adult stem cells each have advantages and disadvantages regarding potential use for cell-based regenerative therapies. Of course, adult and embryonic stem cells differ in the number and type of differentiated cells types they can become. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin.

6 of one; half a dozen of the other. Both of us can come up with facts to back up each of our view points. Neither of us is wrong - we simply have differing thoughts on this subject.

[blue]

From March 4th 2009.

Even as the future of embryonic stem cells has dimmed, adult stem cell research has scored major wins evident just in the past few months. These advances involve human stem cells that are not derived from human embryos. In fact, adult stem cells, which occur in small quantities in organs throughout the body for natural growth and repair, have become stars despite great skepticism early on. Though this is a more difficult task, scientists have learned to coax them to mature into many cell types, like brain and heart cells, in the laboratory. (Such stem cells can be removed almost as easily as drawing a unit of blood, and they have been used successfully for years in bone marrow transplants.)

Source.

[Grace]

And I repeat again -


6 of one; half a dozen of the other. Both of us can come up with facts to back up each of our view points. Neither of us is wrong - we simply have differing thoughts on this subject.

[blue]

Some facts are more outdated then others, half a dozen of one, six of another.

ETA: Found this.

Mr. Obama has put the proposed Clinton policy into effect, but Congressional restrictions remain. Researchers are still forbidden to use federal financing to derive new human embryonic stem cell lines. They will, however, be allowed to do research on new stem cell lines grown in a privately financed lab.

[Twisterdog]

Now i know this is a very controversial subject,however i wanted to say that I am thrilled with the latest announcement that Obama is over-ruling the Bush Regime, with the decision to allow stem cell research to go ahead. ... However i just want to say THANK YOU Obama,your are tops in my books.

Agreed.

[blue]

The ban on public funding preceded the Bush Regime.

The work was ineligible for public funding because of a ban placed by Congress on NIH-funded human embryo research. In 1995, Congress attached the ban to the bill appropriating funds for NIH. It has been retained in each successive appropriations bill (appropriations bills are passed annually), and until 2001, no public funding was ever provided for hESC research in the United States. The following is the text of the ban, originally authored in 1995 by then-Rep. Jay Dickey (R-AR), as it appeared in NIH's fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill (H.R. 3010, Sec. 509):

(a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for—
(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).
(b) For purposes of this section, the term 'human embryo or embryos' includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.

Source.

[blue]

Another alternative - there was a wonderful article in a recent Good Housekeeping magazine about a couple in Minnesota or Wisconsin. They had fertility problems and went the frozen embryo route. After having twins they decided that was enough for them. Rather than trash what was left, they passed them on to a couple in Virginia. That couple had twins, also, and then the two women passed the remaining ones on to a couple in California. This last couple also had twins.

Grace, sorry I didnt quote this earlier. I agree with this practice.

[carole]

Blue forgive me if I am not quite on top of it all with your politics, gee it takes me long enough to understand my own, let alone that of America,ok so it was before the Bush Regime, my error, apologies, but that is the one I am aware of , and really does it matter.?

I am all for it 100 per cent either way adult or embryonic !!! for me personally there is nothing un-ethical about it either way.

[kuhio98]

Blue forgive me if I am not quite on top of it all with your politics, gee it takes me long enough to understand my own, let alone that of America,ok so it was before the Bush Regime, my error, apologies, but that is the one I am aware of , and really does it matter.?

I am all for it 100 per cent either way adult or embryonic !!! for me personally there is nothing un-ethical about it either way.

I have no problem with the ethics of it. What I have a problem with is it being financed by the government -- Any government. I love my country, but our government has given us $2000+ toilet seats for NASA.

I would rather see the private sector fund the research. I feel that it would far more likely to be productive than to have yet another wasteful government agency overseeing something as important as this.

[carole]

Lisa please inform me,as i would like a better understanding of it all, has not the private sector being doing just that up until now,? would not the research be of more value and go further if it were government funded though, please fill me in, thanks.

[kuhio98]

Lisa please inform me,as i would like a better understanding of it all, has not the private sector being doing just that up until now,? would not the research be of more value and go further if it were government funded though, please fill me in, thanks.

I feel that the private sector has more qualified scientists to do this research. If the government pays for the research, it will go slower as committee after committee is formed to "study" the problem.

Research will come to a screeching halt every few years when Congress runs for office. As new administrations come in, the direction will change.

If the private sector does the research, they will own the product. They will be accountable to their stock holders who will fire their "a$$es" if they don't deliver. If several companies are competing, we will get results faster. They will be working as quickly as possible, because research costs money.

They don't have time to waste because time is money. Our Congress has wasted so much time and money passing stuff like "National Doughnut Day" and "National Underwear Day".

I really believe if we had waited for a Government to develop computers for personal use, we would still be waiting for them to hold yet another meeting on defining what exactly a "personal" computer was. I am a big proponent of entrepreneurship.

I don't want the Government dictating what research can be done. If they are footing the bill (or contributing), that will give them more say. Maybe I'm cynical, but I've never seen timely results from a Government Agency.

[carole]

Thank you Lisa, that explained it well, I can understand where you are coming from now, cheers.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Much of the money would be grant money - not spent by government scientist but by grants to universities and other institutions to do the research.

[Alysser]

He is certainly a savior. 100% in agreement with Carole!