SEEM!!!! No ARE!!!! The jury is out, because they, meaning stem cell researchers, have yet to produce results in humans. I am of the opinion that we should fund what is producing results, gene therapy. It has nothing to do with the morality of either process, it is purely results. I want to see my buddies from the Army walk and talk again, and not have to ride around like Stephen Hawkings because of ALS.
All of the academic research I have seen towards a Parkinsons, MD or ALS cure is with stem cells. That is fine with me as long as they do not destroy a human embryo to produce them. Hell, I'll submit to lyposuction so stem cells can be harvested from my fat ass and belly if it will help. But the commercial research seems to be concentrating on, or at least producing results with, gene therapy research? Why is this, could that be where viable results are at this time? Politicizing the debate about stem cells (and I only oppose the use of embryonic stem cells that result from destroying an embryo) only hurts the research in the short and long term. Get the scientists out of politics and the politicians out of science, and I'll be more open to thier arguments. >EXACTLY! > >The science is simple: stem cells SEEM to be our best direction for >research into cures. I don't think anybody is saying they ARE a cure, >only that they're the best direction for research. That's science. > >Politics is saying that the research can't progress because there's >morality concerns. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:218469 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
