- Joined
- May 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,949
- Reaction score
- 8,832
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
That's not true, the fraudulant research in Korea is not the only reported success. I've already linked the results with paralyzed mice, and if you look around you'll see things like this coming from scientists:faithful_servant said:Sorry, but that's not true. The only reported success in thias area turned out to be a fraud.
" There is no doubt among biologists that embryonic stem cells have vast potential. There are no other cells that can perform the same biological feats as embryonic stem cells."
"It is not too unrealistic to say that this research has the potential to revolutionize the practice of medicine and improve the quality and length of life"
"There is almost no realm of medicine that might not be touched by this innovation."
http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/stemcells/retro.html
I think investors are being driven off by things like putting a hold on Federal funding in 2001 while the NIH reviews the matter. It's not a smart investment when the government is questioning the legal and ethical implications of the thing you want to invest in.faithful_servant said:The biggest reason this is ven an issue is that there is a bunch of federal money to be sucked up by the researchers. If this line of research had any real potential, investors would be lining up to invest in it. But strangely enough they aren't. I wonder why......
Of course it's just my opinion that they should fund it. For the same reason I think they should fund the military - the public good. You might (I hope) never have a spinal chord injury, but what about prostate cancer or diabetes? People who know more than me about this stuff are pretty much in agreement when they say it has the potential to cure these things and more, so why not fund it?Goobieman said:Doesnt matter.
Fact is, that the government doesnt fund it doesnt mean it won't be funded.
Your position presupposes that government -should- fund this, but that's just a presupposition on your part.
Your turn, got a link for that? I'm not sure about the word "better."DeeJayH said:interesting but not impressive
seeems adult stem cells is seeing better results
The problem with adult stem cells is that they can only differentiate into cell types of their tissue of origin. That essentially means doctors can't grow a body part for someone who was born without it. The only known advantage of adult stem cells over embryonic cells is a "potential" advantage, they haven't confirmed it yet.
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp