Redstate

I take it that Kerry is Jesus now.

But in a quick search, I did not find a link to those comments other than a conservative blog. Can you point me in the right direction? I worry it's a canard.

Too bad there isn't a second VP debate. Question to Edwards: Will the blind see? Will the mute talk? Will the deaf hear again?

It simply boggles the mind that normally intelligent people will vote for someone who:

think that reducing terrorism the level of a 'nuisance' will be 'good enough' for the American people, that we can live with the occasional bombing or massacre;

would pander to the dreams of the handicapped among us by promising that if they are elected people with spinal cord injuries will walk again.

What

That terribly annoying fact that under Bush, stem cell research was never banned. I guess the $25m towards the research means W is against it 200% in Edwards-land and Kerry-topia.

Stem cell research and in particular embryonic stem cell research is an active area of research. All one needs to do is examine the extensive publications using the PubMed Central database at the National Library of Medicine. Below is the cite for a 1999 paper published in Nature Medicine [December 1999 Volume 5 Number 12 pp 1410 - 1412]

TITLE: Transplanted embryonic stem cells survive, differentiate and promote recovery in injured rat spinal cord

AUTHORS: John W. McDonald, Xiao-Zhong Liu, Yun Qu, Su Liu, Shannon K. Mickey, Dorothy Turetsky, David I. Gottlieb & Dennis W. Choi

Here is part of a response to a query regarding the authors use of appropriate testing criteria

"We used the well-accepted BBB open field locomotor rating scale, designed to measure functional changes in voluntary hindlimb function, particularly in intermediate portion of the scale (8-12). Although reflex-like movements can contribute to lower BBB scores (1-4), we feel that the voluntary weight-supported ambulation that we found in rats transplanted with embryonic stem cells, but not in control rats, is promising. Finally, although we agree that serotonergic or noradrenergic drive is important for proper locomotor function, it is clear that myelination of long tracts, impaired in diseases like multiple sclerosis, is also important for such function."

Are the rats walking no but clearly the ability of embroyonic stem cells to differentiate is at the very least promising as can be evidenced by the continued efforts in the scientific literature.

As to the scarring issue the researchers used a standard laboratory simulation of real spinal cord injury ... namely adult rats were contused at T7-9 cord level with an electromagnetic or weight drop device.

Here.

I'm still a little doubtful as to accuracy.

I heard the clip on the radio earlier (Rush) and saw the video last night on Special Report.  Charles Krauthammer, to say the least, was disgusted.

Please refrain from doing this in the future.

Last year I attended a wonderful lecture at the National Institutes of Health from a Professor from MIT, talking about the work he was doing with protein scaffolding and stem cells.  In one experiment that blew my mind, they took two mice and severed their spinal columns surgically.  In the control, they immediately wrapped the severed location with a protein scaffold (think diamond shaped wire mesh).  In the experimental, the scaffold was simply coated with mouse embryonic stem cells.

They then showed video of the two mice.  The control could do little besides drag it's motionless hind legs behind it, while the experimental had regained 70% mobility.  Sure, it walked funny, but it walked.  And this was a result of the experimenters thinking "hey, what if we put stem cells on it as it was healing".  Imagine were we could be in four years of serious research.

Granted this was in mice and human success would be years away and it wouldn't have saved reeves in time, but it's a strong possibility.  So, in conclusion, John Edwards knows what he's talking about, and under them, people will walk again.

notslapshot57

We've cured many conditions in mice that have not translated to humans.  To assume that something that might have efficacy in mice is just a hop, skip and a jump from human use is terribly naive.

Also, have they compared these results with similar treatments using adult mouse stem cells?

We have much to learn about this.  You are the one who has no idea what he is talking about if you think this leads in a direct line to 'people will walk again.' in the next eight years.

Saying "we've cured many conditions in mice that have not translated to humans" is not much of a rebuttal.  Science is as much about the dead ends as it is about the successes.  And a success like this in a mouse cell points to significant advances in human conditions.  We aren't that different after all.

And now, I'm not claiming we'll do it in 8 years.  But it might be a difference between 10 and 40.  And I do have much to learn about this.  Fortunately it's part of my field of study in the Hopkins grad program

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2003/stem-1022.html

By the way, this guy is something of a god in Chemical Engineering, if anyone's interested I recommend poking around his site.  He does really cool stuff

And I shall look upon the people with my glory and bestow my blessing upon the masses.   And the heavens will be opened, and the needy will be fed, and the lion will lie down with the lamb, and global warming shall halt through the power of my presence in the Oval Office.  And behold, there will be windsurfing over the face of the deep.  And it shall be great.

Hoop100 you of course have it nearly ass backwards. The more relevant factor is that there is almost nothing significant in the biomedical community (including drug discovery, surgical advances, etc)that has first not occurred in mice/dog/pig.

Here is a challenge for you. For each single instance of something cured in mice but not in human I'll name you a drug, a surgical procedure, and a medical device that whose utility was first demonstrated in animal models.

An interesting note, one of the most bandied about examples of cured in mice but not humans was cancer inparticular the role of inhibitors of tumor vasculatur. This work has not cured humans yet but has led to numerous animal trials and will almost certainly eventually lead to human applications. The foundation of this work was done over 20 years and in the last 4 has accelerated dramatically

Yes, Langer is famous in Tissue Engineering. Along with the Vicantis, Bob Nerem, Tony Mikos, Tony Atala, Buddy Ratner,Jeff Hollinger....

But if you're a grad student at Hopkins in this area, you understand that this research is in danger of being groosly oversold to the public as a cure-all.    

Saying 'we aren't that different after all' from mice is not a rebuttal, either.  You know that many, many treatments just don't make the jump.  So, to point to one piece of reseach and say, 'see Edwards is right' is disingenuous.

Recall the fetal tissue debacle some years back, where some reserchers were screaming 'luddite' and those who worried about the ethical implications, only to find the science didn't have nearly as much promise as originally thought.

Kerry and Edwards are dismissive of those who even want to consider the ethical dilemma to which the use of embryonic stem cells gives rise.

They are also dismissive of the use of adult-derived stem cells, which have great research promise, minus the previously mentioned ethical issues.

Saying the lame will walk, because of a vote cast for Kerry/Edwards, and they won't if Bush/Cheney win sounds like a bit of a god complex to me....at the very least it is a distortion of the real situation.

Really, their only interest in this issue is as a tool to hammer the president with, to try and promote their own election.

Tommy Thompson has actually proven to be fairly friendly to this area of research.

where were you with in vitro fertilization?  and if we are going to condemn that, at least let the scientists have the embryos that will be discarded if the donors approve.  Think of it as a form of organ donation.  The hundreds of thousands of embryos frozen at present only to be thrown away are more than anyone would ever need.

And yes, adult stem cells are interesting as well, however they are further differentiated than embryonic sc and may not be as flexible.  And it may take work with embryonic stem cells to figure out how to make the adult sc viable in treatment.  I dislike how many with ethical dilemmas throw researchers the bone of adult sc and say "work with that".  They may work wonderfully, they may not work as well, but scientists should have input on this, while Bush seems to enjoy stacking his scientific advisory boards with ethicists.  

And if we knew how everything we were researching was gonna turn out, it would not be called science, it would be called theology.  There is no certainty other than that you are not going to discover anything if you refuse to look.

Finally, isn't everything a tool to hammer away at the other at this point?  And I like how you threw out a bunch of names, they added a lot to the discussion, showed you know what you're talking about.

Compare this to the brouhaha over Cheney's comments that a Kerry presidency would make us more susceptible to terrorism.  Democrats were livid over this, even though Cheney couched his comment in an examination of Kerry's record and what can be gleaned from his stump speeches about when he plans to do regarding terrorism.  Based on that, and what Bush & Cheney have done and plan to do, Mr. Cheney was well within his rights to render his opinion on the subject.  

However, he was accused by Democrats of trying to scare people into voting for him.  But while his opinion was buttressed by Kerry's record, this pronouncement by Edwards is pure fantasy and is, in my mind, worse than anything Cheney has said.  Edwards is both trying to add an irrational euphoria to his own campaign, based on nothing but his say-so, while scaring folks that, by implication, Bush wants to keep disabled people in their wheelchairs.  

While doing this, he has no record whatsoever to point to in order to support his argument.  Adult stem cell research has been showing a lot of promise (see my blog posts here and here for just a couple of examples).  Embryonic stem cell research, in spite of continued funding (and it is being funded) hasn't given us anything yet, and 4 years is way too short to go from a standing start to a cure for spinal injuries.  But that, of course, doesn't stop Edwards from messianic promises like this.

You talk as if Bush has banned science. It is simple. If you want to experiment on embryonic stem cells, get your own private funding. Bush hasn't told them to "work with only this" or "not that," just that he isn't paying for that and they are free to find someone else to pay for it. George Soros comes to mind...

It is the proper decision that government should not be funding controversial research of that nature.

It's wrong to destroy innocent people, even if your goal is to help other people.  

we fight for what we belive in.  Some fight for science, some for belief, some for money, some for love, some for justice.

I just believe this is something worth fighting for, you don't.  It may turn out to be useless, it may revolutionize the world, but there's only one way to find out.  

And you can get private funding, sure.  We'll just be behind countries who put money behind it, and we'll see even more brain drain to England we're they've started putting serious money behind it.  And you're kidding yourself if you think drug/medical companies make discoveries without a large contribution from government financed work.

I believe it is something worth fighting against. And frankly I don't care it it could revolutionize the world or if we don't find out. Nor do I see a problem with ethicists being involved in science. For a frame of reference, look at the Nazi's to see what science divorced of ethics looks like. Hey maybe invasive brain experiments on orphans might revolutionize the world too. We'll never know if we don't try, you know!

So maybe if more energy was spent fighting for private funding, you might actually have your research. That is the way it goes.

you fight against it, we'll end up somewhere in between probably, with each of us claiming victory.  And does Godwins rule encompass Nazis or is it just the first person to bring up hitler that loses the arguement?

we have a difference of opinion where life begins, that's fine.  Where I see a cell with great potential, you see a human life.  

And I have no problem with ethicists involved in science.  My problem is with the Bush administrations tendancy to quietly replace all their hard science people on their advisory boards with ethicists, consisting mainly of people picked for their views or industry people.

but as for your ethics, are you aginst In-vitro fertilization?  How about an embryo created from an adult skin cell?  Animal testing for scientific breakthroughs?  Are this all held over practices of Nazis?

You know the point was very clear--that anybody but the most morally bankrupt among us knows there are ethical limits to where science should go. So it isn't just about what revolution might be waiting for us as you implied previously. The question is where the line should be drawn. And if there is a wide grey area and lack of concensus, government should be cautious in promoting what may ultimately be wrong.

And it was just plain dishonest for you to imply that Bush is preventing anything or telling anyone they can't pursue certain lines of stem cell research. That was the other problem with your earlier post. But I see that at least you aren't defending that position anymore.

everyone knows what the proper morals should be, that's why they're called MORALS.  If you don't agree with me, obviously you are a dense heathen and not worht my time, right?  But wouldn't that mean you'd be against in vitro fertilization too?  hundreds of thousands of extra embryos produced only to be destroyed to create life.  Truly a barbaric practice that anybody but the most morally bankrupt among us should condemn.  Be sure to tell that to all the kids, how the parents murdered their brothers and sisters to produce them.  And taking a hundred of those embryos (because due to the longevity of these cells, that would satisfy most researchers) that were going to be thrown away anyways, that would just be abhorrent.

and I never implied Bush was stopping the science.  Hindering by years, maybe decades, yes, but science will perservere.  What was dishonest was Bush claiming to fund research for 70 stem cell lines, which would have been great.  However, that was news to some of the scientists who created those lines, as most of them were known to be worthless/contaminated

Not sure where you are coming from. Most people would call the Nazi experiments atrocities. I was assuming you would too. In fact, I only referenced a complete lack of morals to what they were doing. That is called finding common ground such that we can agree that not all science is worth pursuing. Now either you agree with that simple point, or you are advocating a free-for-all for science. If you agree, then you also agree that the issue becomes where the line should be drawn, not "anything for a revolution". So maybe you need to read a little better next time.

I even clarified the point, and somehow you persist in putting your head where the sun doesn't shine and went off on some wild tangent ranting and raving about whatever it is you like to rant and rave about. I said there is an area of greyness that we aren't going to agree on in terms of exactly where the line should be drawn and that is why government should stay away from drawing it. Is that so complex?

You said: "There is no certainty other than that you are not going to discover anything if you refuse to look."

So what the heck does that mean in the context of government simply not participating in the looking? The looking is going on, just not with tax dollars. So it isn't a matter of looking or not looking, but rather WHO is looking. So yes, in your attempt to make it into a binary issue, you did imply that Bush is stopping critical research. Otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned anything about "refusing to look" and other blather like that.

"The more relevant factor is that there is almost nothing significant in the biomedical community (including drug discovery, surgical advances, etc)that has first not occurred in mice/dog/pig."

Most procedures have to be proven in animal models before approval.  You generally have to prove it in mice before you can even expect NIH funding to do heavy duty research that might lead to later testing in humans.

My point was that a lot of promising research--almost all of which occurs first in animals--doesn't always make the leap to humans.  Of course most of it starts with mice.  They're the model of choice.  It should start there and there is nothing wrong with that, but there is a lot of research that never gets beyond that point due to physiological differences, or some other factor that makes a treatment unacceptable in humans.

To say that something works in mice, so then it must work in humans is just plain dishonest.  That was my point.

Apparently you did not understand.

Both of you.

"where were you with in vitro fertilization?  and if we are going to condemn that, at least let the scientists have the embryos that will be discarded if the donors approve."  

I don't really have a problem funding the ones that already exist.  What I disagree with is providing government funding that encourages the creation of embryos for the purpose of research.

:And yes, adult stem cells are interesting as well, however they are further differentiated than embryonic sc and may not be as flexible.  And it may take work with embryonic stem cells to figure out how to make the adult sc viable in treatment. "

True.  But, we can learn a lot from non-human embryonic stem cells.  We know very little about them, and they also don't raise an ethical dilemma.

"And if we knew how everything we were researching was gonna turn out, it would not be called science, it would be called theology.  There is no certainty other than that you are not going to discover anything if you refuse to look."

Science is a kind of theology, but that's another discussion...I'm not advocating not performing scientific research.  However, it is valuable to ask the question "Should we do this?" along with "Can we do it?"  You seem to have disdain for ethicists.  Science without asking ethical questions?  Do you really want that

"And I like how you threw out a bunch of names, they added a lot to the discussion, showed you know what you're talking about."

You were the one who dropped Langer into the conversation AND pointed out that you are a graduate student in this area.  

Finally, I'd point out that at no point have I asked for a ban on this research, I just have a problem with the government using my tax dollars for, what is in my view, the harvest one human life for the benefit of another.

Here.

"We will do stem cell research," he vowed. "We will stop juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and other debilitating diseases. America just lost a great champion for this cause in Christopher Reeve. People like Chris Reeve will get out of their wheelchairs and walk again with stem cell research."

Will refrain.

"Yeah we've assumed your intelligent"

stand on its own.

see, that seems fair to me, the no tax payer money for future destruction of embryos.  My problem is, we have hundreds of thousands of embryos that are just going to be tossed, and there are enough people out there who would sign off to give researchers more than they would ever need.  There is a practical solution here that no one is addressing.

science is a theology.......good point, that made me smile

and I don't have a disdain for people asking ethical questions, but the Bush administration made me hate the word "ethicists", because the term became synonymous with "another scientist got kicked off an advisory panel because he disagreed with this administration"

and I was just giving you good natured grief about the names

I proposed common ground first:

you fight against it, we'll end up somewhere in between probably, with each of us claiming victory

you missed it in the beginning of one of my rants.  They can be confusing I know.  in another one of my rants I stated that Bush's policies could add decades to time till a cure is found, because the government plays a crucial role in basic science, as well as in funding universities which add greatly to the wealth of knowledge.  But, this discussion isn't going anywhere any more, it's been a pleasure trading barbs

to the fact that I commented that the Nazi's were morally bankrupt and you couldn't seem to read that properly. And also irrelevant to the fact that I provided an example of science without ethics as the Nazi's who experimented on people, and yet you tried to invoke Godwin's over that.

And now you try the "Oh, I tried the common ground first" like in junior high when people argued over who listed to some band first. Cute and mature.

You made the comment about Bush policies adding decades, blah blah blah AFTER you originally made the dishonest implication that Bush was stopping the research. You also made the comment about ending up somewhere in between AFTER I made the comment implying that ethics are vital to science, otherwise atrocities occur. I know reading is difficult, but sometimes you just have to try a bit.

Embryonic stem cell implants in humans have had devastating consequences.  May I suggest my paper from 2002 for further reading?  There's an appendix chock full of peer-reviewed studies on the subject.

For at least witty insults.

For the illuminated version of the Edwards quote:

Amen, amen, I say unto you...

It's funny.