What is Digg?Sponsored by Threadless
This Game Sucks view!
threadless.com - Grab this epic gaming tee for only $12 during the Threadless Holiday Sale!
109 Comments
- jrm71588, on 04/16/2009, -6/+53Did anyone else think they treated the first person ever to have a stroke in the US?
- Apokalyps2547, on 04/16/2009, -2/+38Sentence structure fail.
- apec766, on 04/16/2009, -0/+28Dugg for the advancement of medicine.
- drowe, on 04/16/2009, -3/+24<5 minutes later>
"Why are we not funding this!?!"
http://www.adultswim.com/video/?episodeID=8a25c392 ... - zirconx, on 04/16/2009, -3/+19This has always been allowed, its just that Bush prevented federal spending on EMBRYONIC research since its so controversial.
Obama lifted this restriction, then 3 days later signed a spending bill (THE spending bill) that once again prohibited any federal money from being spent on it.
And they guy in this article was not treated with EMBRYONIC stem cells anyway. - drcreek, on 04/16/2009, -2/+18And now he can fly.
- anexanhume, on 04/16/2009, -2/+17He already lifted them. Besides, there's nothing that you can do with embryonic stem cells you can't do with adult stem cells, it's just more difficult. Each type has its own specific advantages, though. For instance, adult stem cells have carry no fear of rejection, since they are from your own body. Embryonic are advantageous in that they are more adaptable.
- serif69, on 04/16/2009, -3/+15It seems to me that if we can harvest stem cells from our own bodies, then we don't really need to waste our time growing embryos in a lab to harvest from them. And everyone would be happy. Look at that guy. He seems happy.
- HunterKiller, on 04/16/2009, -1/+9Badly worded title.
- UselessTrivia, on 04/16/2009, -2/+10The reason we need embrionic stem cells is because they're more "potent" than adult stem cells. Ultimately the holy grail of stem cell research would be to make adult stem cells behave like embrionic stem cells. That's why we want to study those, so that we can figure out how they work and how to replicate that behavior.
Adult stem cells are far more likely to yield practical medical advancements, but the research on fetal cells will be fundamental in getting there. - anexanhume, on 04/16/2009, -0/+7No, there's no research restrictions.
- Buckwyld, on 04/16/2009, -0/+7Hate to break it to most of you, but Cancer patients have autologous and nonautologous stem cell transplants all the time. This has nothing to do with the Bush banned stem cell practices. This is just the first time it's been tested on a stroke patient.
I personally went through tandem (this means 2) autologous stem cell transplants to beat Hodgkins Lymphoma.
With all that being said, I hope this works for all those stroke patients out there. - HunterKiller, on 04/16/2009, -0/+6I have two uncles that are stroke victims... if we can advance on this, and eventually have the general public benefit including my family, words couldn't express how grateful I'd be.
- ousthouse, on 04/16/2009, -0/+5We have been - for many years. Federal and private funds.
- GhostInAShell, on 04/16/2009, -0/+5Super-exciting.
I'm an inorganic chemistry student, and I recently saw a presentation using inorganic molecules used for imaging of stem cell progression through damaged brain tissues-namely how the cells actually migrate to the most damaged areas first and repair the location of the stroke to provide a near-perfect image of a healthy brain.
This ***** works, America. - TheUngod, on 04/16/2009, -4/+8Huh, I would have figured the first stroke patient ever would have you know....died...a long time ago....probably from a stroke.
- fleischner, on 04/16/2009, -15/+19Why, because you don't like the fact that adult stem cells have been shown to be as useful (if not more so) than embryonic ones, and that just doesn't satisfy your retarded liberal agendas?
And if you actually case to learn something: there were no "restrictions on stem cell research", draconian or otherwise. There were restrictions on FEDERAL FUNDING for EMBRYONIC stem cell research only. But feel free to keep either lying or just not being aware enough to know the facts. - inactive, on 04/16/2009, -1/+5The ban that was lifted that you were uninformed on didn't prevent anyone from researching anything using their money or anyone else's money who wanted to pay for it. It prevented my tax money from being used. But I doubt you knew that either.
- pinchduck, on 04/16/2009, -2/+6He used his own stem cells, which has never been banned. Using embryonic stem cells was never banned, it was just de-funded. So other than having the wrong facts on the wrong issue, your comment shows a stunning reliance on Congress. Tell me, how has their track record been as stewards of the economy and public finances? So now you want them in charge of biology? You are a sucker.
- rv361162, on 04/16/2009, -2/+6Double wrong form of "they're"....
"How long was I in there? 5 min. Why are we not funding this!?"
There, I fixed it for you. Be more careful (and learn english) next time. - bizzarry, on 04/16/2009, -1/+4The "right wing" stance has always been about saving babies. Regardless of what force is trying to abuse a life that cannot protect itself. (yes yes, digg down as you wish) In this case, it just happens to be embryonic stem cell research.
The Republican position is not apposed to adult stem cell research. Thus, this is actually another feather in the cap towards the argument that far more medical advances have been found in the use of adult stem cells than embryonic ones.
This coming from someone who has not researched much in this area recently. I'd be very interested to know if I am wrong about the lack of advances in embryonic research. - rv361162, on 04/16/2009, -0/+3So what exactly are you 'breaking to us'?
Glad you dominated the lymphoma Bucky. - inactive, on 04/16/2009, -5/+8So you think his liberal agenda consists of aborting babies solely to harvest stem cells? That's logical thinking.
- Justinius, on 04/16/2009, -0/+3I dug you down because you make it sound like this couldn't have been done under Pres. Bush. Since this used adult stem cells it could have been. That and I found the reply to yourself funny.
I'll tell you my name and address if you tell me yours.
That way maybe we can have a discussion. - BurntHombre, on 04/16/2009, -0/+3I opened the comment thread just so I could point and laugh at all the people who think this kind of stem cell research was restricted by Bush.
*points*
*laughs*
Now go read up on the distinction between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. - inactive, on 04/16/2009, -3/+5My bad, found the article... has to do with funding. Again, my bad.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/us/politics/09st ... - inactive, on 04/16/2009, -2/+4Thanks for the well reasoned reply. My understanding of the topic was not entirely accurate as I now see.
I remember reading an article in NYTimes about Obama allowing some decisions regarding stem cell research restriction be left up to Congress, hence my confusion. - inactive, on 04/16/2009, -2/+4We should have been doing this years ago.
- pattyman5000, on 04/16/2009, -1/+3When do we start tests with Cylon blood?
- wafflesomd, on 04/16/2009, -1/+3Yah.
- atchon, on 04/16/2009, -4/+6Federal funding via NIH grants are what drives most of the research in the U.S., so in other words it was pretty restrictive. Especially since instruments used for stem cell research couldn't be shared with non stem cell research which was federally funded.
Adult stem cells have been largely shown to be more useful due to the lack of research on embryonic ones. One day we won't need embryonic stem cells because we will be able to turn normal cells into stem cells, but to get there we need to do embryonic research. Also the methods already there for reverting cells don't quite make them into embryonic stem cells, though it is an improvement. - inactive, on 04/16/2009, -2/+4Goddamn, I guess I really do need to use the /s tag every time on Digg.
- LordVance, on 04/16/2009, -0/+2"Frist Stroke Patient Ever in US" is the subject, "Treated" is the verb
Is it that hard? It's absolutely poorly worded... - UselessTrivia, on 04/16/2009, -1/+3It was never a legislative restriction, it was an executive order banning the NIS from granting public money to fetal stem cell research.
Legal legislation was proposed a time or two, but stem cells have a pretty high approval rating nationally, so it never went anywhere. - Bainemo, on 04/16/2009, -1/+2WOOSH
- LastVisibleDog, on 04/16/2009, -3/+4NO - see what happens when you are a sock-puppet?
Aftchon, et al. - WRONG! The Bush funding ban allowed research on existing stem cells but would not fund the creation of new stem cell lines (although this could still be done without federal funding). No laws were created or attempted - just limits on funding
Do a little research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controversy
CLUE: Bush was the first president to allow federal funding of research on embryonic stems cell (nit wits) - he was just against the creation of new stem cell lines
Don't just parrot like a sock-puppet or make ***** up - DaNuKaSAN, on 04/16/2009, -1/+2Was the patient Peter Griffin?
- bluto36, on 04/16/2009, -3/+4dont use facts, just makes the left stem cell eaters nervous
- LastVisibleDog, on 04/16/2009, -0/+1You are a Biochemist...really. OK.
Funny - you come across like, say, a guy going to a Catholic college in western Pennsylvania hoping to graduate next year....with a boofy hairstyle that makes you sort look like a girl in a Pat kind of way.
As for the Geron product - that was my point. Creating new cell lines was not necessary in the creation of the first ever actual product just as federal funds were not needed.
Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research never stopped...tens of millions of dollars each year.
Remember - currently embryonic stem cells have never been used to treat a human disease.
As for research moving to Europe...
Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, and Ireland DO NOT allow the creation of new stem cell lines (see it is not just the "evil Bush")
Singapore and India were supposed to be the new "hot bed" of stem cell research yet the proof is in the pudding - the FIRST ever embryonic stem cell product to go into clinical trails for the treatment of human diseases was right here in the good old US of A.
Also - don't believe the male bovine fecal matter hype (currently the key to the Obama presidency)
VERY LITTLE HAS CHANGED. This is how the Obama presidency has worked - sell the masses a line of crap and they will believe it and not do their own research.
The Dickey-Wicker provision is still in place - Obama sneaked it in inside the Ominpork Bill - Dickey-Wicker bans federal funding of "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death" So federal funds STILL can not be used to create new embryonic stem cell lines. All that has changed is federal funds can be used in research that uses new stem cell lines that were created in the private sector (look it up).
This is what happens when nobody reads the bills they are voting on.
Like with pretty much all of the Obama presidency - when you look at the reality of the situation, very little has changed and many things have gotten worse.
...I will have to look up the Mercyhurst offices of NIH...
Go Lakers!
Say hi to Louie for me...
- atchon, on 04/17/2009, -0/+1Again as from above...
This is a real pain with all the posts separated as such, but here is a more comprehensive rebuttal.
2.) Clinton was a supporter of stem cell research it was congress who really tried to suppress it under him
"President Clinton rejected part of these recommendations and directed the NIH not to allocate funds to experiments that would create new embryos specifically for research. But for the Gingrich-era Congress that took up the matter in 1995, funding any work with human embryos was going too far, and the recommendations created an uproar. "
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/dispatches ...
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/embryon ...
Paraphrasing similarly as the PBS article states that Clinton was against the creation of embryos specifically to create new stem cell lines. He was for the use of IVF embryos.
"In 1999, the president's National Bioethics Advisory Commission recommended that hESC harvested from embryos discarded after in vitro fertility treatments, but not from embryos created expressly for experimentation, be eligible for federal funding. Even though embryos are always destroyed in the process of harvesting hESC, the Clinton Administration decided that it would be permissible under the Dickey Amendment to fund hESC research as long as such research did not itself directly cause the destruction of an embryo. Therefore, HHS issued its proposed regulation concerning hESC funding in 2001. Enactment of the new guidelines was delayed by the incoming George W. Bush administration which decided to reconsider the issue."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controversy
3.) I agree Bush was the first president to actually allocate funds.
4.) The poor stem cells were due to a couple reasons. I was also not stating that all lines that were initially allowed were "poor" I was merely stating that newer lines are better as techniques have improved.
"As scientists note, dozens of other stem cell lines have since been created with private funds, some of which are easier to access, easier to maintain in the lab, easier to turn into cell types of interest—and more likely to contribute to actual human cell therapies, since they have not been in contact with mouse cells (as have all of the Presidentially approved lines)."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/dispatches ...
"While the 2001 compromise effectively opened up the field of embryonic stem cell research in the United States, researchers have been calling for expanding the number of lines approved for federal funding because existing lines have been shown to accumulate genetic mutations that, while not a serious impediment to scientific research, make the lines questionable for therapeutic use. What's more, some scientists say additional lines are needed to ensure broad diversity in order to better match patients with cells and gain a more comprehensive understanding of disease as it affects people with different genetic backgrounds."
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=15160
"Meanwhile, hundreds of new lines of embryonic stem cells have been derived since 2001, using superior methods that enhance the cells' biomedical potential - in compliance with strict ethics guidelines crafted by the national academies."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 ...
As for the countries.
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=318
Most allow governmental funding for imported lines. France as of 2006 are able to create their own lines." In late 2006, Spain became the fourth country in Europe - after Britain, Sweden and Belgium - to legalize therapeutic cloning." Other countries in Asia, Middle East, and South/Central America also have guidelines which allow research on stem cell lines.
As for Obama not changing the position much. Obama has allowed federal funding to go to all lines created since the 2001 date, though no new funding can go into the actual creation of lines. The Dickey-Wicker was a congressional thing and therefore Obama can't personally do much about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controversy
I also for the record do not blindly hate Bush. Though I think he was in fact a terrible president, I acknowledge he did some very good things. His aid to Africa was extraordinary, and I supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Still can't figure out who this is... - Suricou, on 04/16/2009, -0/+1"HINT: I work at NIH."
As a cleaner, perhaps.
Ok, to be fair, I don't see you making any factual errors about biology. I do see you as one of the most hateful, ranting idiots on the internet. I can just visualise you screaming, spit flying from your mouth, face red with rage, shouting incoherent nonsense in which expressions like 'loony left' can sometimes be heard.
It doesn't matter how good your arguments are - noone will listen if you can't manage a single post which doesn't attempt to make a blanket accusation that somewhere in the region of half the population of the US are somehow retarded because they didn't vote for the same party you voted for.
You arn't even very good at it. Being properly insulting takes skill, but all you can do is string together one-liners you have obviously copied from the many blogs you must read to fuel your anger. - LastVisibleDog, on 04/17/2009, -0/+1atchon: "I still maintain the fact that Bush hindered stem cell research by not allowing federal funding."
It did to some degree - and what Obama has done in not that much better.
"Last name? I can't figure out who this is."
Luke, I am your father.
Hint: "The Wonders"
- Suricou, on 04/16/2009, -0/+1I think you are a little out of date. I've been watching right-wing media for years.
When stem-cell research was a new topic, they were against it in all forms - adult, embryonic, made no difference to them. Stem cells were evil. It took them a while to get enough of a grip on the science to distinguish between the two. Today, though, they arn't just permissive of adult cell research - they strongly support it. Every time you see any hint of success with adult cells, I get to read an FRC newsletter email gloating about how this proves embryonic cells are not just unethical, but ineffective too.
I've noticed they tend to be a bit selective in their reporting though... if there is even a hint of success somehow relating in even the most tenuous way to adult stem cells, they'll act like someone just uncovered the fountain of youth. They even have a list of sixty studies in which adult stem cells have been used to cure real diseases... most of which arn't even using stem cell technology, just have titles that are vaguely suggestive of it. - atchon, on 04/16/2009, -2/+3Federal funding keeps science alive in the U.S. NIH funds universities, government labs, and gives grants to some private companies. By limiting funding he was effectively banning it from the best labs in the U.S.
Bush was the first president to allow funding on embryonic stem cells from embryos which had already been destroyed. As I said many of these were collected and maintained using methods which are no longer current yielding poor stem cells for research.
If you think the loss of federal funding was just a small issue explain why the U.S. lost many of its top stem cell researchers to overseas? - brainal, on 04/16/2009, -0/+1Clicked in here just to see this. Props
- atchon, on 04/17/2009, -0/+1Still not following...why doesn't digg have a messaging system.
I assume I get the "Luke, I am your father", but "The Wonders" and I don't believe I know a Louie
ktempemail9@gmail.com - rv361162, on 04/16/2009, -1/+2Oh, must be listening to Rush, sorry, I'll try again after his show is done...
- rv361162, on 04/16/2009, -1/+2So, how'd that vote for McCain/Palin thing work out for ya?
- partrow, on 04/17/2009, -0/+1This wasn't the "first stroke patient ever in the U.S.".
The first stroke patient in the U.S. lived centuries ago, and would be difficult to treat now. - atchon, on 04/17/2009, -0/+1This is a real pain with all the posts separated as such, but here is a more comprehensive rebuttal.
2.) Clinton was a supporter of stem cell research it was congress who really tried to suppress it under him
"President Clinton rejected part of these recommendations and directed the NIH not to allocate funds to experiments that would create new embryos specifically for research. But for the Gingrich-era Congress that took up the matter in 1995, funding any work with human embryos was going too far, and the recommendations created an uproar. "
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/dispatches ...
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/embryon ...
Paraphrasing similarly as the PBS article states that Clinton was against the creation of embryos specifically to create new stem cell lines. He was for the use of IVF embryos.
"In 1999, the president's National Bioethics Advisory Commission recommended that hESC harvested from embryos discarded after in vitro fertility treatments, but not from embryos created expressly for experimentation, be eligible for federal funding. Even though embryos are always destroyed in the process of harvesting hESC, the Clinton Administration decided that it would be permissible under the Dickey Amendment to fund hESC research as long as such research did not itself directly cause the destruction of an embryo. Therefore, HHS issued its proposed regulation concerning hESC funding in 2001. Enactment of the new guidelines was delayed by the incoming George W. Bush administration which decided to reconsider the issue."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controversy
3.) I agree Bush was the first president to actually allocate funds.
4.) The poor stem cells were due to a couple reasons. I was also not stating that all lines that were initially allowed were "poor" I was merely stating that newer lines are better as techniques have improved.
"As scientists note, dozens of other stem cell lines have since been created with private funds, some of which are easier to access, easier to maintain in the lab, easier to turn into cell types of interest—and more likely to contribute to actual human cell therapies, since they have not been in contact with mouse cells (as have all of the Presidentially approved lines)."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/dispatches ...
"While the 2001 compromise effectively opened up the field of embryonic stem cell research in the United States, researchers have been calling for expanding the number of lines approved for federal funding because existing lines have been shown to accumulate genetic mutations that, while not a serious impediment to scientific research, make the lines questionable for therapeutic use. What's more, some scientists say additional lines are needed to ensure broad diversity in order to better match patients with cells and gain a more comprehensive understanding of disease as it affects people with different genetic backgrounds."
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=15160
"Meanwhile, hundreds of new lines of embryonic stem cells have been derived since 2001, using superior methods that enhance the cells' biomedical potential - in compliance with strict ethics guidelines crafted by the national academies."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 ...
As for the countries.
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=318
Most allow governmental funding for imported lines. France as of 2006 are able to create their own lines." In late 2006, Spain became the fourth country in Europe - after Britain, Sweden and Belgium - to legalize therapeutic cloning." Other countries in Asia, Middle East, and South/Central America also have guidelines which allow research on stem cell lines.
As for Obama not changing the position much. Obama has allowed federal funding to go to all lines created since the 2001 date, though no new funding can go into the actual creation of lines. The Dickey-Wicker was a congressional thing and therefore Obama can't personally do much about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controversy
I also for the record do not blindly hate Bush. Though I think he was in fact a terrible president, I acknowledge he did some very good things. His aid to Africa was extraordinary, and I supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Still can't figure out who this is... -
Show 51 - 100 of 111 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is