blackpundit.com

LOS ANGELES - The University of Southern California has received a $25 million donation to build a stem cell research center, school officials said.

Philanthropists Eli and Edythe Broad donated the money to build the Broad Institute for Integrative Biology and Stem Cell Research, officials said Thursday. Groundbreaking is scheduled for the fall.

The 215,000-square-foot facility is expected to be the largest stem cell research center in California when it opens in 2008, the university said.

I know there is a lot of controversy over stem cell research, but I am actually for it, regardless of all the abortion and moral issues. I honestly think there are ways around those issues. Hopefully in years to come, we will have a major break through with Stem Cell Research and maybe we can finally have a cure for Cancer, Parkinson disease, and the likes.

Two-thirds of Swiss voters said yes on a government proposed stem cell research, although religious and left-wingers opposed. Switzerland, which is one of the world leaders in medical and pharmaceutical research, says they believe stem cells may hold the key to treatments for illnesses including Parkinson’s and diabetes.

The Swiss restricts embryonic stem cell research to embryos less than seven days old and which are left over from fertilization treatment that are due for destruction. The Swiss is using my same argument that I believe the US should do. Use embryonic stem cells that are due for destruction anyway.

The Swiss next step: cloning…

Also, breaking news on a paralyzed woman now walking due to stem cell therapy. Hwang Mi-Soon, 37, has been confined in bed for the past 20 years since damaging her back. Last week, she walked again with the help of a walking frame at a press conference in South Korea.

The US should follow the Swiss steps to give us the edge on groundbreaking science and technology, especially the race on stem cell research and possibly cloning.

Both presidential candidates Pres. George Bush and Senator John Kerry both agree that embryonic stem cell research is the new frontier in science. The main difference between the two points of views is the limitation of embryonic stem research. Since there is an abortion issue, President George Bush meets both sides of this issue in the middle. He does this by allowing federal funding to explore its potential, but limits the number of strands in existence. Scientist says that only one third of the strands are available because the others were not useful. Also, scientists are saying the amount of strands are not enough and it is slowing down breakthroughs.

Kerry believes (and so do I) that scientists should be able to use embryonic stem cells from fertility clinics which are no longer wanted by parents, so longs the parents give their consent. The fate of these unwanted embryos are being destroyed anyway.

There was a Harris Interactive poll done that showed many people think that it is ok to use embryos for stem cell research if a parent gives their consent. These respondents consisted of Republicans, Democrats and independents. The polls showed that 72 percent of 2,242 people that was interviewed agreed with a +/-2 percent error.

This is about the only issue I agree with Senator John Kerry (that’s scary). When it comes to scientific research like stem cells, limitation will only prolong this research. There are still a lot of unknowns to this research and lifting these limitations will help solve these unknowns at a faster rate. I look at it like this, “if you are going to do something, do it right.” And I think using unwanted embryos from fertility clinics with a parent’s consent is doing it right and fair.

There have been some new advances at The Rockerfeller University with stem cells. The researchers at Howard Hughes Institute took some stem cells from the skin of a mouse and renewed itself in the form of skin, hair and oil glands.

Researchers at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute at The Rockefeller University have isolated stem cells from the skin of a mouse, and showed, for the first time, that an individual stem cell can renew itself in the laboratory and then be used in grafts to produce skin, hair and oil glands.

This stem cell topic never seems to go away. It came up again at work yesterday. Maybe it was I with my passion about this topic, that brings it up subconsciously. Well anyway, I was forwarded an article with more information about embryonic stem cell research from Times Magazine. I cannot blockquote any excerpts from this article because the article was scanned and was forwarded to me as a jpeg file. Well instead of blockquoting excerpts, I’ll post the image file:

A friend of mine (Kevin) and I were discussing stem cell research and its issues in my office yesterday. While discussing this topic, I brought up the main point of this article: “Since fertility clinics destroys far more human embryos than stem cell research ever would, why not use the embryonic stem cells that are thrown away or frozen for stem cell research?” I did not say this in exact words, buy my argument was close enough. Kevin then made a good point saying that if we used these destroyed stem cells, that would then create motive for the clinics to sell the stem cells to researchers. This is a common argument. But I, the BLACKPUNDIT, think I have a solution for this. The main motive for this issue is money. If we controlled motive by forbidding monetary exchange for destroyed embryos, this will then solve the motive issue. If the clinics donate embryos to researchers instead of selling it, this will then be a choice and not a motive.

The famous HispanicPundit and I (BlackPundit) had a good yahoo IM debate about federal spending for stem cell research. I though this topic was quite interesting so I decided to post it. I know its long, but read it anyway. Parental Guidance is Advised!

HispanicPundit: I have been meaning to talk to you about your stem cell discussion
HispanicPundit: you miss a subtle point on one of your responses
BlackPundit: what was that
HispanicPundit: Federal funding can boost research for quicker results. Let me ask you this, did the private sector get us to the moon? No, federal funding did.
HispanicPundit: that’s what you wrote
HispanicPundit: but like I explained to your bud BJ, you can’t use the moon example to rebut the private sector argument
BlackPundit: why not
HispanicPundit: there was NO compelling reason for the private sector to get into going to the moon, no money to be made, so the federal government had to fund it, or it wouldn’t go anywhere, HOWEVER, with Stem Cell Research there is HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY TO BE MADE *if* the predictions turn out to be true, so the fact that they are still reluctant to enter, is a clear indicator that even the non-partisan market doesn’t believe all the hype
BlackPundit: but still, just for the fact that federal spending will boost results that is a benefit in itself
BlackPundit: but it is a good enough comparison
HispanicPundit: but remember, your not asking for federal funding per se, since Bush already is giving more than any past president, your asking for MUCH MORE
BlackPundit: and who’s to say going to the moon cannot make any money. that is not true, that is the same technology that gets satellites to orbit the earth
HispanicPundit: no, its a horrible comparison, the main reason people bring up the “private sector argument” is because everybody knows that the markets are VERY efficient, they are an objective measure of true potential, as objective as you can get, and this objective measuring stick isn’t buying all the hype behind embryonic stem cell research, so you never addressed that aspect of the argument, the STRONGEST part of the argument
HispanicPundit: cost/profit ratio of getting to the moon is horrible
BlackPundit: that is not a horrible comparison
BlackPundit: nope, not true
HispanicPundit: if you understand the power of the argument it is
BlackPundit: all these satellite companies that uses the same approach to get to the moon
HispanicPundit: think about this T
HispanicPundit: it costs the US BILLIONS to get to the moon, HUGE amounts, if you adjust for inflation, it cost the US more than the whole of Qualcomm is worth
HispanicPundit: there is no way any private sector could have recuperated that from the technology it invented
HispanicPundit: to get us there
HispanicPundit: it would have been a dead idea, worse than globalstar
BlackPundit: there are thousands of companies that use satellites
HispanicPundit: right, they would have got some of the money back, but not a lot of it
HispanicPundit: they would have still been negative
BlackPundit: we would not have all these cool technologies w/o satellites
BlackPundit: especially military benefits
HispanicPundit: yes we would have
BlackPundit: so your argument is not true
HispanicPundit: were going off on a tangent here
HispanicPundit: my point with the satellite thing is not to say that it was worthless
BlackPundit: we are talking about the comparison of fed spending for going to the moon vs fed funding stem cell research
HispanicPundit: I am only saying that any private sector company could not have been able to recoup its $$
HispanicPundit: it invested
HispanicPundit: w/ the moon
HispanicPundit: but w/ embryonic stem cell research, if the promises were there, they would recoup WAY MORE than what they invested
BlackPundit: with all these sat companies, yes they have
BlackPundit: do you not know how many sat are in orbit
HispanicPundit: fool, look at Globalstar that alone tanked
HispanicPundit: tanked
BlackPundit: one technology, woopty doo
HispanicPundit: so did Motorola
BlackPundit: look at military advances
BlackPundit: Boeing, Lockheed Martin, direct TV, there are thousands of satellite companies
HispanicPundit: right, but the private sector does not make money off of military
BlackPundit: that is not true
HispanicPundit: Boeing, and military contracts are like 10% of the private sector
BlackPundit: Boeing is private sector
BlackPundit: which makes money of military, and tons of it.
HispanicPundit: right, but it just doesn’t work for the military
BlackPundit: exactly
HispanicPundit: ok, you’re not getting my point
HispanicPundit: and I don’t want to keep typing the same point over and over
BlackPundit: they are private sector that making money because of the results of federal spending for going to the moon
BlackPundit: that is my point
HispanicPundit: I am NOT arguing against that
BlackPundit: yes u is
HispanicPundit: I am arguing that no private sector would have made profits by being the ones that got us to the moon
HispanicPundit: notice the difference
HispanicPundit: ?
BlackPundit: u said I couldn’t compare fed spending for going to the moon cause there was no money to be made
HispanicPundit: I am arguing that no private sector would have made profits by being the ones that got us to the moon
HispanicPundit: please try and grasp my point
BlackPundit: ok I understand that, but that doesn’t mean my comparison is not correct w/ stem cell
HispanicPundit: yes
HispanicPundit: because that is not the same case with embryonic stem cell research
HispanicPundit: any company that invents a cure for any one of these diseases it is supposed to cure will go from small to HUGE over night
BlackPundit: my comparison is that fed funded going to the moon, private sector made money off of it. stem cell funded by feds, private sector makes money off of it
BlackPundit: that is my comparison
BlackPundit: which is true
HispanicPundit: but when your the private sector, you are asking yourself can YOU AS THE PRIVATE SECTOR make money on it
BlackPundit: eventually they will
BlackPundit: once fed boost the research
HispanicPundit: no way, they would OVERNIGHT
HispanicPundit: with embryonic stem cell research
BlackPundit: huh?
HispanicPundit: if I owned a company, and my company through embryonic stem cell research discovered the cure for Alzheimer’s, you don’t think that I would become HUGELY rich over night
HispanicPundit: ?
BlackPundit: of course
HispanicPundit: that is what I am trying to say
BlackPundit: but at this time that is not the case
BlackPundit: there are still a lot of issues with the stem cell theory
BlackPundit: and that is why I feel it is a good idea for feds to fund it to boost getting these issues out the way
HispanicPundit: right, but if the potential for making cures really there, private sectors themselves would start the much needed research, since there was so much money to be made if a cure did come out
HispanicPundit: THAT’S MY POINT
HispanicPundit: if the potential were really there, it would get the funding from the private sector
HispanicPundit: because of what may happen when these results come out
BlackPundit: like my article said, it is the theory that is promising
HispanicPundit: but if that theory really is promising, why haven’t the private sectors RUSHED TO IT?
BlackPundit: plus, each technology is approached differently
BlackPundit: there are still a lot of bugs
HispanicPundit: Qualcomm invested BILLIONS into CDMA when EVERYBODY thought it couldn’t be done, that it was “impossible” yet it got its much needed research from the private sector
BlackPundit: what im saying is, let fed fund it to get out all the bugs and then the private sector will come in and take over
BlackPundit: you cannot compare all technologies the same
HispanicPundit: look T
HispanicPundit: you are still missing my point
BlackPundit: no I am not
HispanicPundit: we are debating whether those bugs are SERIOUS or not
HispanicPundit: that is the debate
BlackPundit: Man you have chaged this debat like thee different times. Can you let me know when youa are going to chage it again. I completely understand what you are saying
HispanicPundit: we both agree the fed shouldn’t just throw money at who ever ask for it
HispanicPundit: you are not understanding my point
BlackPundit: at the point of time, the bugs are that serious where the private sector is hesitant to fund it completely
HispanicPundit: right, so if the private industry sees embryonic stem cell research as not worth pouring in the money into it, why should the fed do it?
BlackPundit: like technology, you cannot expect things to be perfect at the beginning of research
BlackPundit: because the theory is promising
BlackPundit: it needs to be looked at
HispanicPundit: you see, your begging the question
HispanicPundit: you can’t assume “the theory is promising”
BlackPundit: it is!
HispanicPundit: that is precisely what we are debating here
HispanicPundit: HOW PROMISING
HispanicPundit: not talking about imagination promising, but the scienctifical promising
BlackPundit: if we had your mentality, we would be a third world country
HispanicPundit: obviously the private sector doesn’t think it’s promising enough to invest money into it
HispanicPundit: if we had YOUR mentality, we would be a third world country
BlackPundit: lol
HispanicPundit: your advocating throwing money at anything that sounds good
BlackPundit: look, some things you have to look at and make a call on what to do. and I think this research is worth gambling on.
BlackPundit: if we can be the first ones to make a big break through with this technology, we will be the SHIT
BlackPundit: I understand what you are saying. I guess the difference between you and me is that I am the gambler and you are not
HispanicPundit: no, the difference between you and me is that I want my taxes smaller, so I hate government waste
HispanicPundit: for anything to get federal funding it has to pass some level of “true promising” for me to allow my tax dollars to go to it
BlackPundit: this is something I would not mind spending my tax dollars on. Just like spending my tax dollars on going to the moon.
HispanicPundit: yes, but if you had this same mentality to all federal funding, we’d be paying 90% taxes
BlackPundit: yea and we will be a third world country with no advances in technology and a weak military
BlackPundit: well maybe I’ll send stem cell research a donation
BlackPundit: cause I want to live forever
HispanicPundit: besides, the question isn’t federal funding, REMEMBER, Bush is already spending MUCH MORE federal funding than any past president, what y our are asking for is MORE THAN IS ALREADY GIVEN
BlackPundit: I’m not asking for more
BlackPundit: I’m happy for what he has done

I was commented by my Kerry misleading the public on Bush funding ESC post and some really good questions were asked. So I decided to post the question and answers.

If embryonic stem cell research holds so much potential to cure all that ails humanity why aren’t private companies willing to put their own money into the research? Why all the clamouring for government money?

Samantha, for your first question, I would like to state that there is still a lot unknown about stem cell research. Therefore, at this time it is very risky for the private sector. The theory of stem cell research is promising. That is why so much focus is on federal funding. Federal funding can boost research for quicker results. Let me ask you this, did the private sector get us to the moon? No, federal funding did. Also, here is a good article about the private sector funding stem cell research.

Why do people rarely make the distinction between embryonic stem cells and adult stems?

People do make distinction between the two. My article about stem cell research explains the pros and cons of both embryonic and adult stem cell. Kerry is making the distinction by saying President George Bush is banning embryonic stem cell research.

From what I’ve read adult stem cells are much more reliable and they don’t stir up the ethical dilemma that using embryonic stem cells does.

True, adult stem cell research is much more reliable because there is no rejection to the immune system. But adult stem cell is not as promising as embryonic stem cell. Embryonic stem cell can evolve in to any type of cell where as adult stem cell are limited to which kind of cell it can evolve to. My stem cell article explains this.

Another question, can stem cell research really deliver on all that has been promised?

This is still in the making. Like any other science revolution, it starts by either theory or being stumbled over.

Samantha, these were some really good questions and I hope I answered all of them.

Currently, there are two types of stem cell research being tested. Adult stem cell which are stem cells that are derived from bone marrow, muscle, liver, blood, and umbilical cord, etc… And embryonic stem cell research (ESC) which are stem cells derived from fertilized embryos less than a week old. Both stem cell research has its pros and cons.

Embryonic stem cell research:

(pros) ESC have the ability to form any adult cell.

(cons) Controversy about abortion since they are derived from fertilized embryos. There is vitro fertilization which is a process that ESC are made in the labs and the embryos never see the inside of a woman’s uterus. But the argument with this is anti-abortionist claims that life starts at conception. Therefore, the abortion issue still arises. Another con for ESC is that ESC from a donor introduced into a patient could cause transplant rejection from the immune system. There have been theories to clone stem cells to prevent the immune system rejection, but that is opening another can of worms.

Adult stem cell research:

(pros) No abortion issue. The use of the patient’s own adult stem cells would mean that the cells would not be rejected by the immune system.

(cons) Adult cells are already specialized, their potential to regenerate damaged tissue is very limited. Stem cell derived from skin cells will only become skin cell, etc.. Also, there are not many stem cells in vital organs. Meaning, if you have any lung or heart diseases, stem cell will not help you much. And to close this con, adult stem cells are difficult to grow in the lab and their potential to reproduce diminishes with age.

Technically speaking, I do feel abortion is wrong, but the reality is abortion will be here for a very long time. Science has a chance to extremely prolong life, and find cures for diseases scientist haven’t even came close to finding a cure. This will enable grand parents to see further down their generation line. Before cars or planes were invented, people lived without these concepts and was able to survive decently. Could you imagine not having a car or plane today? Do you see how advanced life is and how much better life is from having the inventions of cars and planes? Same for stem cell research. I’m pretty sure 20 to 50 years down the line after stem cell has been fully tested and used, people can not image living without it and its benefits. And I know someone out there is still yelling “abortion is wrong”. What will it take from you to agree with embryonic stem cell research? Would it take for you to have Parkinson disease to agree? Would it take for you to have all of your hair falling out from chemotherapy? Or would it take for you to be on your death bed because of heart failure to agree with ESC research? I don’t know what would it take for you to agree. You tell me!

Back in 2001, President George W. Bush has decided to endorsed limited federal funding of embryonic stem cell (ESC) research. Sen. John Kerry is once again misleading the public about President Bush banning stem cell research to deter votes away from President Bush.

John Kerry has repeatedly spoken of President Bush’s “ban” on stem cell research. Kerry knows very well it isn’t a “ban” or that Bush isn’t “shutting down” research. But “ban” is a powerfully emotional word. It has more impact on swing voters than “allowing private research, but not using taxpayer money for work on stem cell lines derived after Aug. 9, 2001.”

Kerry seems to talk about ESC research like there are no moral issues involved. Kerry, can you say “abortion”! When President George Bush decided to fund ESC back in 2001, he compromised between the moral issue of abortion and for the people who does not see moral issues of ESC.

But Bush did not impose ideology; he came out with a compromise that gave each side of the stem cell debate half a loaf, allowing federal funding and research, but not federal support for work on new stem cell lines. Politicians almost always seek compromises, and here Bush was trying to accommodate people who see no moral problem in working with microscopic embryos, and those (count me in) who don’t want to pay scientists to create human beings so they can dismember them for research.

Final note of false impression:

The lobby for embryonic stem cell funding is deeply dishonest. It involves a “ban” that isn’t a ban, a claim of cures “right on our fingertips” (John Kerry) that falsely implies an early cure for Alzheimer’s, and a discounting of promising stem cell research that doesn’t involve the creation and destruction of embryos (cells from adult bone marrow, teeth and umbilical cords). Kerry and the Democrats have a case to make. They just don’t want to make it honestly.