Originally posted by soficrow
President Bush banned the creation and cloning of embryonic stem cell lines in the USA, effectively prohibiting research and development of stem cell
therapies.
*Sigh*
Please get your facts straight. President Bush
loosened restrictions on embryonic stem cells research, much to the dismay of conservatives.
There are
no restrictions on research involving stem cells harvested from adults.
This does
not prohibit research and development of stem cell therapies. In fact, more than four dozen stem cell therapies have already been
developed--all with
adult stem cells.
You see, embryonic stem cells have a disturbing tendency to keep growing and growing. This is fine in a human embryo, which has to grow into a viable
being within about nine months, give or take. This is definitely
not fine in adults, in whom uncontrolled cellular growth is called
cancer.
This is why there hasn't been a single human test of an embryonic stem cell therapy. Every time one has been tested in a laboratory animal, it's
developed cancer.
This is the real situation: A promising therapy derived from adult stem cells, which can be developed without destroying a single growing life,
versus an unproven, untested, and so far unpromising therapy that requires the creation and destruction of human embryos.
(Which, by the way, seems like a temptation for the big biotech companies to create a new profit center. Somebody has to harvest the human
eggs--unless the embryos are transgenic creations of human DNA inserted into cow or pig eggs, which has already been done--and then kill them, harvest
the stem cells, and sell them at a tidy markup to research labs. If Bush is pushing a pro-biotech agenda, wouldn't he be
for embryonic stem
cell research?)
Given that choice, which is better--logically if not morally?
To review the score:
Embryonic - 0
Adult - 56
Why is this even an issue?