 |
 |
a.. Article b.. Comments (7) Janet Rowley, Tony Perkins Debate Embryonic Stem Cell Research Posted March 23, 2009 President Obama repealed a federal funding ban on human embryo stem cell research. Advocates say that such research could cure afflictions that include spinal cord injuries and Alzheimer's disease, but critics say it involves destroying human life unnecessarily. Should such research proceed? Should stem cell research be permitted? Pro Janet Rowley Professor of medicine at the University of Chicago and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics. The decision to end many restrictions on embryonic stem cell research has removed a key barrier to research and discovery. Scientists are driven by the desire to succeed as fervently as our most success-driven businessmen, entrepreneurs, or lawyers. But for years they have contended with research limits that prevent innovation but do not serve a clear moral purpose. A responsible expansion of embryonic stem cell research can advance a vital goal-the search for new medical treatments-while respecting the dignity of human life.... Read more >> Con Tony Perkins President of the Family Research Council, promoting "the sanctity of human life in national policy." Proponents of embryonic stem cell research must view the future with great hope. After all, on Monday, President Barack Obama reversed President George W. Bush's decision to shut the door on such research in August 2001 when he restricted federal research funds to a limited number of embryonic stem cell lines. One might also think that with all the talk about the promise of human embryonic stem cell research since 1998 (mouse embryonic research started in 1981), patients would be seeing some benefit using these stem cells by now.... Read more >> Reader Comments Read all 7 comments about this article Both forms of stem cells needed Adult stem cell research has been studied and funded for fifty years. Human embryonic stem cells only about ten-- and it has only received about one-seventh the amount of money given to adult stem cell research. Not surprisingly, adult stem cell research has a head start. But to imply that adult stem cell research replaces embryonic stem cell research is a major error-- they are different tools. Both forms of research should go forward. The Lipinski-Forbes bill referred to is just another way to block funding for embryonic stem cell research. The same folks tried the same bill once before, only they called it the Hope Act. Don Reed of CA May 19, 2009 05:59:19 AM [permalink] [report comment] Support all embryonic stem cell research The religious right keeps claiming that embryonic stem cell research "murders" persons. If that is true, why can IVF clinics dispose of extra embryos without penalty? Blastocysts are microscopic undifferentiated C-E-L-L-S, not fetuses, babies or people. How does one murder a cell? Most of the claims for adult stem cell cures are phoney. Dennis Turner was for years claimed as an ASC "cure" even when his Parkinson's disease had returned. The religious right is a completely unreliable and dishonest source of influence and opinion on this controversy. As a person who has suffered from Parkinson's for 13 years, I wish they would confine themselves to prayer and let scientists do their jobs. Rayilyn Brown of AZ May 19, 2009 00:02:30 AM [permalink] [report comment] It isn't murdering embryos in a sense It isn't murderering embryos when they are using embryos that would have in other wise been discarded. Instead of letting those embryos that would have been put to no use why don't we use them to save people's lives and save them from suffering? anonymous of IA May 05, 2009 01:35:20 AM [permalink] [report comment] Read all 7 comments about this article Rayilyn Brown Director AZNPF Arizona Chapter National Parkinson Foundation [log in to unmask] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn