What are some major fundings of embryonic stem cell research? [i know bush was close to or did something with funding embryonic stem cell research...]
i'm trying to prove the point that lots of money are wasted on embryonic stem cell research, and no progress has been made on them [i know thats false, but i'm against SC for this debate] because there has been no practical treatments...using embryonic SC with humans.
2007-01-11 23:25:32 · 7 answers · asked by Sapphire 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
How is a lot of money wasted? Do you know how many millions of embryo's are just thrown out of fertility clinics? If those clinics would donate just half of the amount they throw out to research it would save millions.
I don't see how it's a waste of money considering the fact that it just might be able to help people live in the long run..
How can you deny someone the hope of finding a cure?
Besides, billions of dollars are blown elsewhere. SCR is the least of our problems.
2007-01-12 00:16:48 · answer #1 · answered by ♥ Scorpio X 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Notice that this precisely reverses the great "engineering" error of the 20th century. "Social engineers" believed that nature was malleable and that education could reshape it. Human nature turned out to be hard to manipulate, however, and the great socialist experiment failed for that reason. Today's genetic engineers believe the opposite. Nature -- the genome -- is everything and each cell is centrally directed by some genetic program that we don't understand yet. In the simplified model that biologists have worked with, most things worth knowing about the cell are located in the nucleus -- in the DNA. Francis Crick did us no favor in claiming that in explaining DNA, he was explaining life. That was hubris, pure and simple. Life is far more complicated than DNA
The idea that the cells of the growing body "learn" by coming into contact with one another is something that scientists would prefer not to think about. It means that understanding the cell will turn out to be a hundred times more difficult than it already is. Another consequence is that the stem-cell dream might have to be postponed indefinitely. A recent New York Times article, headlined "Some Scientists See Shift in Stem Cell Hopes," hinted at this. Many "no longer see cell therapy as the first goal of the research," but envisage "a longer-term program," Nicholas Wade wrote. He added that "work since 2001 has produced no significant advance."
2007-01-12 08:19:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think with the recent discoveries embryonic stem cell research is not needed.
2007-01-12 08:42:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Embryonic stem cell research must be stopped if there is no benefit derived from it because the project is very costly.
2007-01-12 07:30:42 · answer #4 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
actually.. there are a lot of useful purposes for ESC
just recently, scientists have been able to make some nerve cells and even heart valves using amniotic stem cells
and those arn't even as good as embryonic ones because they're already partially differentiated
2007-01-12 19:01:04 · answer #5 · answered by hgb765 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you need to back up a bit. If a line of research is productive, it will be profitable, so it will get funded by business. It is only unprofitable issues that need government (read "taxpayer dollar") funding. The thing the "Government" is best at (in fact the main thing it does) is mis-allocate resources. (that is, it wastes money) As Ronald Reagen said "The government is the problem.
2007-01-12 08:12:17 · answer #6 · answered by hasse_john 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The dirty liitle fact that all the liberals don't want anyone knowing is that there hasn't been one medical breakthrough using embrionic stem cells. There is no private money going into them. Meanwhile there is tons of money going into other forms of stem cell research. Too bad the liberals won't acknowledge this. The ESCR debate is all about abortion.
2007-01-12 07:48:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋