http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0701/articles/condic.html
This offers a rather more sophisticated development of the “embryonic stem cell treatment is pie-in-the-sky” argument. I’ll be interested to hear your responses to it. jhc? You still here?
There’s more, but I’m sick of typing.
Does not understanding something (tissue development) warrant an abandonment of research on that topic?
Of course not. It might very well warrant holding off on human research, though- even aside from the usual ethical objections, it seems like there are very real practical problems that should give one pause before attempting a treatment in humans. By all means, try to figure out why stem cells tend to cause tumors and a bunch of other problems, and try to come up with a way to stop that. But maybe you oughta accomplish that goal with some lab rats before insisting on human stem cell research- particularly as you have no pressing need for the treatment, because you don’t even have an actual treatment just yet.
We have spent 20 years on HIV research and we still do not have a vaccine or a cure.
This must be your attempt at “grantsmanship.” No, we don’t have a vaccine for AIDS, but we dang sure have a whole bunch of effective treatments for it. You aren’t seriously comparing the hunt for an AIDS cure to embryonic stem cell research, are you?
“Grantsmanship” is a quality a good scientist has.
Laughing. Grantsmanship has nothing to do with good science. Maybe they sometimes go fortuitously hand in hand. Sometimes not. Get real.
**In a similar vein, scientists ask for funding to DISCOVER things. No one can forecast scientific advancement. **
You’re killing me. You should send that memo to the legions of scientists and supporters who forecast cures for everything from PD to aging, maybe within 10 or 20 years, if only they had unlimited funding.
The same article could be written about space exploration. There are no more usable elements for the periodic table. It is not the make or break environment for protein crystallization (an important promise of experiments in zero gravity). So what if there’s water on Mars? It doesn’t mean life.
Err . . . what? Is there a coherent, cogent point in there somewhere?
Stem cells may not be THE answer, but they might be AN answer.
They MIGHT be an answer, and they might NOT be an answer. And before you can really start to figure that out, you have to overcome all the medical obstacles that stem cells present in mammals- apparently larger for humans than others- and so far, you haven’t. Even in animals. You don’t even know that those obstacles CAN be overcome. Maybe that should be first. You know, just common sense-wise.
I don’t dispute any of your points, it is just that they are beside the point of this excellent article.
The point of the article to me was its providing a really good description of just why all the hype about embryonic stem cell research is just meaningless hype. There are huge, possibly impossible obstacles to getting any useful treatment ever out of embryonic stem cells. This article also clarified in my mind why it is that embryonic stem cell treatment and cloning are in many ways just two sides of the same coin.
In recent political campaigns we have had stem cells as a political issue promising a cure from everything from Alzheimers to Parkinsons to paralysis to organ regeneration. This is all exactly 100% bunk. I always knew that since I can smell political bunk from a mile away, but this article lays out exactly why such hype is total nonsense.
So far the record is spotless. We have exactly zero treatments from embryonic stem cells. It is a pretty good bet that will be the case ten years from now as well, no matter who you vote for.
Just wait until January. Once the Dems are in power, Michael J. Fox will be cured within weeks and Christopher Reeves will be resurrected and running in the Ironman World Championship in October 2007.
Sorry, I was under the impression you wanted responses to this article. I didn’t realize you just wanted to argue.
Also, it didn’t escape my notice that you did not refute any of my points.
Your points are generally valid, just not particularly significant. Try my response if you don’t like slowguy’s.
I always knew that since I can smell political bunk from a mile away
So I guess the explanation for your obsequious devotion to the Republican party is that you’ve had a very bad head cold for the last 6 years???
Firstthings is hardly a worthy news source just a religious propaganda website. Looking up the author’s name you’ll find 4 pages of articles about immoral research on prolife sites and one science article. Many of her previous anti-stem cell articles were moral arguments printed in catholic propaganda sites. I’m guessing she decided to change tactics and maybe she would be taken more seriously. The other thing to be pointed out is she works on neural regeneration using genetic manipulation so she apparently doesn’t have a problem fixing god’s mistakes just killing unborn frozen cell clusters. Her work will also be competing against stem cell research for the same dollars . You can hardly expect anyone to take her article seriously given her obvious bias.
Attack the person. Ignore all the offered facts and reasoning. Pretty weak.
“Attack the person. Ignore all the offered facts and reasoning. Pretty weak.”
Irony alert!!!
Just messin’ with ya Art.
What does that mean? “Try my response if you don’t like slowguy’s”? Slowguy hasn’t even posted on this thread.
And how, exactly is my argument not significant?
This topic is similar to a lot of other research topics which have enjoyed a buttload of funding. It’s just that religious fanatics like this author are over-critical of progress made as an afterthought because people won’t listen to their ethical/moral rhetoric anymore.
Sorry, I meant vitus.
The point of the article is that the line of research is not promising, at least certainly not in the short or near term, for a long list of very good scientific reasons. Embryonic stem cells have produced exactly diddly so far, and that is going to continue to be the case for a long time in all likelihood. In particular, the promise of the line of research has been way over sold and probably over funded given its promise.
It is not like I haven’t been down this path before. I don’t know how many wonder cures for cancer I have heard ballyhooed as the silver bullet. I remember the interferon hype of the 80’s. Fine stuff, and it has fullfilled about 1% of its hype, which is actually a big win. Just don’t drink the Koolaide.
Adult stem cells on the other hand produce useful treatments today, and promise to produce more tomorrow.
Your points are basically that ignorance and sickness are bad, and research and health are good. No one disagrees with that, at least no one worth listening to. The point is that embryonic stem cell research is a big deal because it aligns with a political, not scientific agenda. I grant that could change at some point, but that point is likely a long way off. In the meantime, it certainly seems other avenues are more promising.
Coming from someone whose entire argument operandi is deflect, deflect, deflect…another Republican shown to be a hypocrite.
Oh my god, this argument is insane. Scientific agenda? What the hell is that? Please define “scientific agenda” for me.
As for political agenda, this is SUPPOSED to be a reflection of what the governed people find important, is it not? Forget it. It doesn’t matter.
**Embryonic stem cells have produced exactly diddly so far, and that is going to continue to be the case for a long time in all likelihood. **
This sounds a lot like the case for HIV vaccine research (very well funded field). We don’t have a vaccine. HIV vaccine research has been going on for twice as long. (I mentioned this)
I don’t know how many wonder cures for cancer I have heard ballyhooed as the silver bullet.
I think one was gene therapy. The same technology is now used in studying single retroviral replication in cell culture. So it may not be safe today as clinical therapy, but it is an invaluable tool to scientists in a different discipline.
…the line of research is not promising, at least certainly not in the short or near term, for a long list of very good scientific reasons.
Please indulge me in these good scientific reasons that it is not promising. I now know from this article one interpretation of why it has *yielded little *(you used the phrase “produced exactly diddly”), but please tell me why stem cell research is not promising. I’d be interested to hear what insurmountable, no matter the dilligent effort, technical and fundamental problems which have escaped scientists who are still under the delusion that their research has value.
Finally “short or near term” you say. Is this the yardstick of what should be funded? Short term results?
**Grantsmanship has nothing to do with good science. Maybe they sometimes go fortuitously hand in hand. Sometimes not. Get real. **
The reality is, vitus, that if you can’t sell your idea, you can’t get funding. If you can’t get funding, you can’t do research. Grantsmanship is a very important part of science. “Fortuitously”? That doesn’t make sense in the context you used it.
**You aren’t seriously comparing the hunt for an AIDS cure to embryonic stem cell research, are you? **
Why shouldn’t I? Is it because you don’t have an intelligent response?
You don’t even know that those obstacles CAN be overcome. Maybe that should be first.
There is no equation to figure out if something can be overcome before you actually do it. If that were true, I would never HAVE to do an ironman to prove that I could. Few obstacles cannot be overcome, at least the obstacles we fully understand. Should we understand more about early tissue development? See #1 above. Stop telling me stuff I just told you.
Err . . . what? Is there a coherent, cogent point in there somewhere?
Yes, it’s that we throw away money in bigger and more frivolous ways. Very simple point. You should have gotten it.
**…you have to overcome all the medical obstacles that stem cells present in mammals- apparently larger for humans than others… **
(and)
By all means, try to figure out why stem cells tend to cause tumors and a bunch of other problems, and try to come up with a way to stop that. But maybe you oughta accomplish that goal with some lab rats before insisting on human stem cell research- particularly as you have no pressing need for the treatment, because you don’t even have an actual treatment just yet.
WOW!!! Good idea!!! You should tell this to developmental biologists. I bet they don’t know. This is not the issue, vitus. No one is aguing this point.
A list of serious obstacles is presented in the article. As per LR tradition, the article and author are being trashed without a single fact to contradict the presented analysis.
I meant to say short or intermediate term. Yes, the expectation of zero return on investment is a good reason to not invest, or at least limit investment. Very little private money is going into ESCR for a very good reason. At least for now, the prospects suck. Even if you want to dispute that, it is hard to dispute the prospects are not being wildly oversold for political reasons.
A scientific agenda would be that of following the objectively most promising line of research in quest of actually accomplishing something. Some might define it as getting grant money, but that would not be my definition, except maybe on a bad day.
Yes, money is poured down a rat hole searching for an HIV vaccine. Not that some work shouldn’t be done, or that there hasn’t been some positive results, but in the absence of actually decent ideas, questioning priorities is legitimate. The money could likely be better spent on prostate cancer research, for example, but that is not a politically correct disease compared to HIV.
If anyone disputes the analysis presented in the article, I would really like to hear some substantive arguments.
I love you arty
.
Yes, obstacles. Obstacles are present in all research. Stem cell research is no different.
How the hell is prostate cancer a less politically correct disease than AIDS?
“Poured down the rat hole for an HIV vaccine”? Did you really just say that?
I disagreed with no facts in the article. I disagreed with the analysis. I was very clear about that.
So yes, looking for responses, just make sure you don’t disagree with vitus or ajfranke. Because, although they have no evidence to argue their points, they will argue it into the ground.
“How the hell is prostate cancer a less politically correct disease than AIDS?”
Because prostate cancer affects males, especially older white males. They are not politically favored compared to gays (AIDS) and women (breast cancer) so very little research is done. In the last couple years this is starting to change.
The facts presented in the article show huge obstacles to actually accomplishing something like curing anybody of anything. Does that mean it is hopeless? No. Are embryonic stem cells interesting and worthy of study? Sure. Is there any reason to believe any of the current hype? No. Are there enough good ideas in the field in search of funding to even justify current levels of funding given other priorities? Probably not.
If you want to know what an actually interesting research idea looks like, check out this link on a potential diabetes breakthrough: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=a042812e-492c-4f07-8245-8a598ab5d1bf&k=63970
On the one hand you say vitus and I offer no evidence. One sentence earlier you say you disagree with no facts (i.e. evidence) in the article. I would be curious to see you reconcile those two statements.