You really hate embryonic stem cell research, don't you?

You really hate embryonic stem cell research, don't you?

Do you mean this US News and World Report I just found 2 minutes ago?

link:[health.usnews.com]

Should embryos be researched?  In theory, everything should be researched because we won’t know what advancements can come of it until it’s done.  But what about embryonic research in regard to treatments and the great stem cell debate? 

So what if embryonic research has been 100% fruitless (in regard to generating treatments) for well-funded and government supported scientists around the world for the last 11 years.   Maybe the U.S. scientists can discover amazing new things given enough time and money.  Because we will never know what advances and benefits that research may bring us.

So what if Dr James Thomson, father of embryonic research said about embryonic research: “…embryonic stem cells are not being used in any clinical applications yet, while alternatives such as adult stem cells figure in scores of therapies.”

So what if the world’s best embryonic scientists believe that Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPSC - adult cells modified to be able to become any cell in the human body) seem to have all of the benefits of ESC with significantly less of a rejection issue, without the political & religious controversy or the tumor and cancer potential that ESC do?

So what if Time magazine named iPSC innovation No. 1 on its “Top 10 Scientific Discoveries” of 2007, and the journal Science rated it the No. 1 breakthrough of 2008?

So what if they can make testes cells into pluripotent cells.

So what if the iPSC findings even prompted Ian Wilmut, who led the team that cloned Dolly the sheep, to abandon his license to attempt human cloning, saying that the researchers “may have achieved what no politician could: an end to the embryonic stem cell debate.”

link:[www.washingtonpost.com]

So what if 3 weeks ago, Dr. Bernadine Healy, director of the National Institutes of Health under the first President Bush, wrote in U.S. News & World Report that these recent developments “in the first six weeks of Obama’s term, several events reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells, once thought to hold the cure for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes, are obsolete….. 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.” link:[health.usnews.com]

So what if Dr James Thomson, father of embryonic research said about iPSC: “Already these reprogrammed cells (iPSC) have eclipsed the value of those harvested from embryos, because of significantly lower cost, ease of production, and genetic identity with the patient. They also bring unique application to medical and pharmaceutical research, because cells cultivated from patients with certain diseases readily become laboratory models for developing and testing therapy. That iPS cells overcome ethical concerns about creating and sacrificing embryos is an added plus.”

What now? They can't predict the future?  They are uninformed? 

Tell you what, forget about rebutting the 2 or 3 greatest or most informed ESC research minds above.  Answer one simple question. 

Why are you so against my position of getting treatments asap for dying people?

Should embryos be researched?  In theory, everything should be researched because we won’t know what advancements can come of it until it’s done.  But what about embryonic research in regard to treatments and the great stem cell debate?  

Good. We're making progress.  I'm glad you agree that we won't know what advancements can come from embryonic stem cell research until we had made a real and sustained effort.

So what if embryonic research has been 100% fruitless (in regard to generating treatments) for well-funded and government supported scientists around the world for the last 11 years.   Maybe the U.S. scientists can discover amazing new things given enough time and money.  Because we will never know what advances and benefits that research may bring us.

Yes.  So what.  A decade of research is not enough.  Should we abandon efforts to find an AIDS vaccine because we've had no luck after more than 20 years?  Some medical advances don't come so easy.  It doesn't mean we stop trying.  And once again, and not to diminish the worldwide embryonic research to date, if the US were on board with this effort and combined efforts with the international community, it would be a substantial shot in the arm.  To give up before we start is to fulfill a pessimistic prophecy of doom.

So what if Dr James Thomson, father of embryonic research said about embryonic research: “…embryonic stem cells are not being used in any clinical applications yet, while alternatives such as adult stem cells figure in scores of therapies.”

You are recycling your propaganda.  We already went over this.  You deliberately took this quote out of context to misrepresent his position:

One is the basic science, and simply having better access to the human body. That’s the most important legacy. I’m very hopeful that there will be some transplantation applications for this technology, but they’re going to be very challenging. And it’s been so hyped in the press that people expect it to come the day after tomorrow.

Ten or 20 years from now, I’m actually currently optimistic that there will be transplantation-based therapies, but even if there was none, and it was a complete failure, this technology is extraordinarily important.

So what if the world’s best embryonic scientists believe that Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPSC - adult cells modified to be able to become any cell in the human body) seem to have all of the benefits of ESC with significantly less of a rejection issue, without the political & religious controversy or the tumor and cancer potential that ESC do?

So what if Time magazine named iPSC innovation No. 1 on its “Top 10 Scientific Discoveries” of 2007, and the journal Science rated it the No. 1 breakthrough of 2008?

So what if they can make testes cells into pluripotent cells.

So what if the iPSC findings even prompted Ian Wilmut, who led the team that cloned Dolly the sheep, to abandon his license to attempt human cloning, saying that the researchers “may have achieved what no politician could: an end to the embryonic stem cell debate.”

link:[www.washingtonpost.com]

So what if 3 weeks ago, Dr. Bernadine Healy, director of the National Institutes of Health under the first President Bush, wrote in U.S. News & World Report that these recent developments “in the first six weeks of Obama’s term, several events reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells, once thought to hold the cure for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes, are obsolete….. 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.” link:[health.usnews.com]

So what if Dr James Thomson, father of embryonic research said about iPSC: “Already these reprogrammed cells (iPSC) have eclipsed the value of those harvested from embryos, because of significantly lower cost, ease of production, and genetic identity with the patient. They also bring unique application to medical and pharmaceutical research, because cells cultivated from patients with certain diseases readily become laboratory models for developing and testing therapy. That iPS cells overcome ethical concerns about creating and sacrificing embryos is an added plus.”

What now? They can't predict the future?  They are uninformed? 

Tell you what, forget about rebutting the 2 or 3 greatest or most informed ESC research minds above.  Answer one simple question. 

So what if Time magazine named iPSC innovation No. 1 on its “Top 10 Scientific Discoveries” of 2007, and the journal Science rated it the No. 1 breakthrough of 2008?

So what if they can make testes cells into pluripotent cells.

So what if the iPSC findings even prompted Ian Wilmut, who led the team that cloned Dolly the sheep, to abandon his license to attempt human cloning, saying that the researchers “may have achieved what no politician could: an end to the embryonic stem cell debate.”

link:[www.washingtonpost.com]

So what if 3 weeks ago, Dr. Bernadine Healy, director of the National Institutes of Health under the first President Bush, wrote in U.S. News & World Report that these recent developments “in the first six weeks of Obama’s term, several events reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells, once thought to hold the cure for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes, are obsolete….. 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.” link:[health.usnews.com]

So what if Dr James Thomson, father of embryonic research said about iPSC: “Already these reprogrammed cells (iPSC) have eclipsed the value of those harvested from embryos, because of significantly lower cost, ease of production, and genetic identity with the patient. They also bring unique application to medical and pharmaceutical research, because cells cultivated from patients with certain diseases readily become laboratory models for developing and testing therapy. That iPS cells overcome ethical concerns about creating and sacrificing embryos is an added plus.”

What now? They can't predict the future?  They are uninformed?

Everyone has their best guess and greatest hopes.  It would be tempting to assume iPSC are equivalent in every way, and just move on.  But science doesn't work that way.  Science looks to affirm hypotheses with empirical evidence.  Scientists test the Bohr model of the atom (Bohr was not uninformed), and this testing lead to quantum mechanics and relativity.  Scientists test Special and General Relativity, and there isn't an honest scientist alive today who can honestly tell you with perfect certainty that the theory of relativity is the whole story and will never be supplanted.

The recent advances in iPSC research are great.  This endeavor may someday obviate the need to perform research with embryonic stem cells.  But that day is not here yet, and premature talk about knowing all we need to know about embryonic stem cells is the height of hubris.  As Dr. Shinya Yamanaka, a pioneer of iPSC research said:

I don't know if you are a Battlestar Galactica fan, but I will use this analogy.  Humans created Cylons and Cylons were seemingly perfect emulations of humans in almost every regard.  It would be a mistake to assume that Cylons were humans.  It would be a tragedy to dispense with human beings altogether, out of a dogmatic assumption that Cylons were superior or preferable to work with.  You shouldn't be so quick to assume that iPSC can do everything that embryonic stem cells.  The differences may someday surprise you.

Tell you what, forget about rebutting the 2 or 3 greatest or most informed ESC research minds above.  Answer one simple question. 

So what if Time magazine named iPSC innovation No. 1 on its “Top 10 Scientific Discoveries” of 2007, and the journal Science rated it the No. 1 breakthrough of 2008?

So what if they can make testes cells into pluripotent cells.

So what if the iPSC findings even prompted Ian Wilmut, who led the team that cloned Dolly the sheep, to abandon his license to attempt human cloning, saying that the researchers “may have achieved what no politician could: an end to the embryonic stem cell debate.”

link:[www.washingtonpost.com]

So what if 3 weeks ago, Dr. Bernadine Healy, director of the National Institutes of Health under the first President Bush, wrote in U.S. News & World Report that these recent developments “in the first six weeks of Obama’s term, several events reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells, once thought to hold the cure for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes, are obsolete….. 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.” link:[health.usnews.com]

So what if Dr James Thomson, father of embryonic research said about iPSC: “Already these reprogrammed cells (iPSC) have eclipsed the value of those harvested from embryos, because of significantly lower cost, ease of production, and genetic identity with the patient. They also bring unique application to medical and pharmaceutical research, because cells cultivated from patients with certain diseases readily become laboratory models for developing and testing therapy. That iPS cells overcome ethical concerns about creating and sacrificing embryos is an added plus.”

What now? They can't predict the future?  They are uninformed?

Everyone has their best guess and greatest hopes.  It would be tempting to assume iPSC are equivalent in every way, and just move on.  But science doesn't work that way.  Science looks to affirm hypotheses with empirical evidence.  Scientists test the Bohr model of the atom (Bohr was not uninformed), and this testing lead to quantum mechanics and relativity.  Scientists test Special and General Relativity, and there isn't an honest scientist alive today who can honestly tell you with perfect certainty that the theory of relativity is the whole story and will never be supplanted.

The recent advances in iPSC research are great.  This endeavor may someday obviate the need to perform research with embryonic stem cells.  But that day is not here yet, and premature talk about knowing all we need to know about embryonic stem cells is the height of hubris.  As Dr. Shinya Yamanaka, a pioneer of iPSC research said:

I don't know if you are a Battlestar Galactica fan, but I will use this analogy.  Humans created Cylons and Cylons were seemingly perfect emulations of humans in almost every regard.  It would be a mistake to assume that Cylons were humans.  It would be a tragedy to dispense with human beings altogether, out of a dogmatic assumption that Cylons were superior or preferable to work with.  You shouldn't be so quick to assume that iPSC can do everything that embryonic stem cells.  The differences may someday surprise you.

Tell you what, forget about rebutting the 2 or 3 greatest or most informed ESC research minds above.  Answer one simple question.