 |
 |
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 17:38:04 +0200 "M.Schild" <[log in to unmask]> writes: > > Adult Stem Cells - 3, Embryonic Stem Cells - 0 > > > > by Daniel McConchie > > isnīt the source, Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity ( > www.cbhd.org), a > little biased? > Maryse cg john 75,15 > I agree they are more than a little biased - as are some of McConchie's cited sources, and some are dated as well, such as www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/factsheet-04-03-02.htm Checking the home page of web sites such as stemcellresearch.org - they pretend to provide unbiased, scientific information, but in reality they only present information that supports their viewpoint and proclaim it is " scientific fact." I'm sure that for every study he cites, other research could be found reporting progress with embryonic stem cells. One isolated study doesn't prove anything. It is too early in the research process to know which type of cells will work best for which diseases. Medical research progresses on both the successes and the failures of earlier research. It is constantly evolving. Limiting either embryonic or stem cell research will delay finding the best treatments for Parkinson's and other dieseases. How much farther along could we have been today if the U.S. government had given its full support and funding to ESCR years ago? Don't we all know people whose Pd has advanced to debilitating stages during the last 4 years - might they have been helped? For an understandable, balanced view of where stem cell science is today and where it might be heading, see: "The Life in a Cell Stem-cell researchers find fresh hope for curing deadly diseasesalong with new controversies" By Claudia Kalb Newsweek June 28, 2004 issue Currently available online at: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5251749/site/newsweek/ Linda Herman ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn