On stem cells, CNN gives equal billing to conservative activist, scientific consensus
SUMMARY: A CNN report on stem cells
derived from amniotic fluid equated an opponent of embryonic stem cell research
who has peddled a discredited list of ailments purportedly treatable from adult
stem cell research with "other scientists" who "argue that
embryonic stem cells are unique and hold the power to potentially cure many
diseases."
While reporting on a study released January 7 that found stem cells could be derived from amniotic fluid, CNN correspondent Mary Snow equated researcher David A. Prentice, Ph.D., senior fellow of life sciences at the conservative Family Research Council, with "other scientists" who "argue that embryonic stem cells are unique and hold the power to potentially cure many diseases." Snow did identify Prentice as an "opponent" of stem cell research, but did not note that, to argue against embryonic stem cell research, he has repeatedly claimed that adult stem cell research has yielded some 65 current therapies for various ailments, and has created a discredited list of diseases that he claims adult stem cell therapy currently treats. Nor did Snow note that among the scientists who disagree that the study might obviate embryonic stem cells was the study's author himself.
As Colorado Media Matters has noted (here and here), researchers Shane Smith, William Neaves, and Steven Teitelbaum have refuted Prentice's claim in a letter to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) for publication in the association's magazine, Science. The three found that FDA-approved adult stem cell treatments are available for only nine diseases. In a review of the references Prentice used in support of his claim, Smith, Neaves, and Teitelbaum wrote, "Prentice not only misrepresents existing adult stem cell treatments but also frequently distorts the nature and content of the references he cites."
Neaves and his colleagues cited several examples of diseases for which they said Prentice misrepresented the effectiveness of adult stem cell therapies. They wrote: "The reference Prentice cites for testicular cancer on his list does not report patient response to adult stem cell therapy; it simply evaluates different methods of adult stem cell isolation." Similarly, "The reference Prentice cites on non-Hodgkin's lymphoma does not assess the treatment value of adult stem cell transplantation; rather, it describes culture conditions for the laboratory growth of stem cells from lymphoma patients."
Researchers at the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University School of Medicine found that embryonic stem cells derived from amniotic fluids -- the fluid surrounding the fetuses of pregnant women -- were reportedly capable of growing "muscle, bone, fat, blood vessel, nerve and liver cells in the laboratory." In her report, Snow did not note that, included with "other scientists" who argue "that embryonic stem cells are unique" was Dr. Anthony Atala, the amniotic stem cell study's lead researcher.
As Reuters reported, amniotic cells are considered to be "easier to grow than human embryonic stem cells" and do not appear to form tumors as embryonic stem cells have in early research. Atala expressed hope that the cells could "give rise to any type of tissue in the body - blood, nerve, muscle" as embryonic stem cells are capable of doing. But, according to Reuters, Atala noted that the "amniotic fluid-derived cells are a close second" to the more controversial embryonic stem cells, which "are considered the most malleable of the various types of stem cells." The Washington Post also reported that Atala "emphasized that they don't believe the cells will make embryonic stem cells irrelevant."
From the January 8 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
SNOW: A new stem cell class, but one that is just being learned about. Researchers say preliminary tests in patients are years away. Embryonic stem cell opponents are wasting no time in applauding the discovery.
PRENTICE: You do away with the ethical problems associated with embryonic stem cells, but you get all of the positives that most scientists say they want.
SNOW: Other scientists say, "not so fast," and argue that embryonic stem cells are unique and hold the power to potentially cure many diseases.
JOHN D. GEARHART, Ph.D. (professor, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine)*: They're the only ones we know about that can form all 220-some different cell types that constitute the human body. Now, that's remarkable.
SNOW: The new stem cell research comes as House lawmakers plan to introduce a bill Thursday to expand stem cell research. One of its sponsors says the latest study won't alter the debate.
What an oxymoron. Over and over again the right wing is wrong. According to these so called scientist.
Using discarded clusters of cells is murder.
Evolution is a lie.
Global warming does not exist.
And in each of these cases the overwhelming scientific evidence says the exact opposite. I would ask when will they learn. But I already know the answer. NEVER!
Threat to an unwavering belief? Fear of discrimination (therefore, actively rile the troops...)
However, we all use science and technology daily and, mostly, without a second thought... that includes some of the loudest opponents of hard science (cell phones, posting that rightwing blog message, taking antibiotics for that fever, or surgically - under sterile conditions - removing that fat tumor)... What about all the scientific research that's gone into making the modern cigarette? We don't hear much about that, huh? Hell, we'll be able to eat cloned beef here soon. Is that okay? It's absurd... we can eat a cloned burger...but we can't use throw-away cells to potentially save lives?
Therefore, the dullard who claims they think science or scientists are lying or are disavowing some faith is either lying themselves or has some alterior motive (ie. power/money grab).
is an oxymoron?
so all science is politics? sounds like a great reaosn to disregard science...no...try again
It are the conservatives that constantly want to mix politics with science. True scientists look objectively at the facts to make determinations. Conservatives are the group that try to push their faith upon the rest of us. We don't ignore science. And when science does not agree with the Conservative doctrine we hear statements like "liberal elitists". So you try again.
Any "scientist" from one of these advocacy groups should be asked a few basic questions at the beginning of the interview like:
"Approximately how old is the Earth?", "What is at the center of the solar system?" and "Earth: Flat? or round?"
That should at least give the viewers at home some insight into the views and/or motivations of the interviewee.
that they have found that you can find embryonic stem cells in amniotic fluid. How they gonna respond now that the baby was born?
"ug. you is killing potential twins. ug. put it back in and see if it grows. ug."
I think behind your derision there is an honest question.
Those of us uncomfortable with abortion still want diseases cured. Any development that allows for cures without destroying a developing human being is to be applauded.
Many parents are having the umbilical cords of their infants preserved (frozen) in the hope that this will enable their kids to survive some diseases now terminal. It looks like they may be proven right, based on this research.
Could you explain the difference between destroying an embryo and discarding an embryo? If an embryo is to be discarded, how is ESCR worse than just putting the embryo in a trash can?
And since so many embryos are discarded, shouldn't people start to work to outlaw invitro fertilization? I don't understand all of the inconsistencies.
Discarding something means getting rid of excess. Those that object to abortion generally also object to the discarding of excess embryos, where the used embryos develop into human beings, raised by couples who for whatever reason cannot have children in the tradional way. This is the "bad enough" case.
Here's even worse: fertilizing eggs solely for their destruction in the otherwise noble attempt at medical cures.
Distinction: excess, which can be minimized if people try, versus the intentional generation for destruction.
I know that reasonable people can focus on the potential for cures and block out any concerns of the detruction of the early phase of defined human beings. However, other reasonable people remain concerned about the destruction of human beings in their early development, and want cures that do not rely on such destruction.
Okay, I have wondered this from the beginning of this debate (larger national, not just here).
First off, you do realize that in the process of invitro fertilization many more embryo's are created than are needed, because the process is not 100% and in many cases (mostly unreported) couples try 3, 4, or even 5 times before it works. Thats why they create all these extra embryos.
After the couple has their child, most wish to keep the extra embyos in storage (which is kinda freaky if you believe life begins at conception). Just in case they want another child later.
In truth in nearly all of these cases the couple never uses the stored embryos and never will.
Now the issue is has two parts 1. The embryo will be destroyed if not used by that couple. That is a fact.
2. These embryos can be used to help others
Now my question: Why do you consider it wrong for these embryos to be used to help other people?
(And please I want an honest answer, no blanket statments regarding life and religion. No abortion is murder. Please I really want to know, every time I ask this question to conservatives I get these broad non-answers. These statements that never answer anything and just make me thing all christians are idiots.)
Embryo Choice #1: Use it in research or toss it out: Morally better to use it in research
Embryo Choice #2: Yse it in research, toss it out, donate to another couple: Morally best to give it to another couple.
Here in Missouri we passed the Stem Cell Initiative, you know, the thing Michael J. Fox supports, even though he admits he never read its provisions. When you sort out its wording, women can be paid for their eggs, so they can be fertilized and destroyed in research. I know it explicitly says in one part that eggs cannot be sold, but when you read later on, there are no restrictions on what the women can be paid by a fertility clinic.
"Embryo Choice #2: Yse it in research, toss it out, donate to another couple: Morally best to give it to another couple."
But there is one issue I feel I have to point out about that. There are not a lot of people out there wanting to have these extra embryos implanted. This means they will never leave the storage facilities.
Sure there may be a handful of people who are willing to carry some one else's child, but these are very few and would still lead to thousands of embryos still being destroyed. Yes I think it should be an option, implantation, but if there is no one willing or availible then research is better.
"the thing Michael J. Fox supports"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Michael J. Fox ran an advertisement supporting McCaskill(sp?), a candidate for the Senate (a Federal Office, BTW). It was not for the state initiative. Get your facts straight next time.
You are being disingenuous...yet again.
"Here's even worse: fertilizing eggs solely for their destruction in the otherwise noble attempt at medical cures." --missourishowme
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When did this happen? Can you provide a link to demonstrate that has actually occured? Show me!
missourishowme gave everyone who asked honest answers to mainly honest questions, yet you continue to harrass the person into giving EXACT times and days when events happen that discredit your ideals. You weren't really looking for honest answers, were you? You thought you'd be able to trip missourishowme up and give more credance to your all important embryonic stem cell research machine. Well it turns out that scientists may have another way of getting cells that can give them the same information that embryonic cells give and you denounce the possibility with such vigor that it appears you don't WANT amniotic cells to be able to save lives or cure maladies. Are you so in love with even the 'appearance of killing people' that you refuse to accept there may be a safer way of performing scientific research? Why aren't you celebrating that science is advancing to a point beyond having to destroy potential human life in order to save a human life? Why do you feel that embryonic stem cell research HAS to be the end of the line? Don't you think it's possible that embryonic cell research is the lower rung on the ladder of stem cell research and finding a better way IS NOT a bad thing?
How about honest answers to some of those questions? If any of you are as brave as missourishowme is.
Please don't claim to know why I did anything. As far as I know you do not have the power to read my mind. I really wanted to know, what another blogger had to say.
Now I'm done with you. Go flame away some where else.
" After the couple has their child, most wish to keep the extra embyos in storage.....Just in case they want another child later. "
Sorry, I just thought since YOU seem to have the power to read minds and know why people keep embryos in storage, then others have the same power as you. I guess not, you must be one-of-a-kind. So, why is it you're afraid to take on a serious q-a session concerning scientific advancements?
I know I said I was done with you, but I had to respond one more time.
....I am not reading other people's minds I am just stating facts, I know that may be a new concept for you. But this has actually been established as fact.
Fertility specialists, interviews with couples who use these treatments, reports and research regarding this issue. If you wish go to [link to www.cbsnews.com] to learn more.
Also with family sizes decreasing, i.e. families usually consist of 1 to 2 childern, instead of 5+ childern as they did in the past, most families have thier one or two childern and stop having more. This is due to a number of causes, social norms, financial, etc. and varies from family to family. Add to that the families that on thier first attempt have multiple childern.
Also add to all of this, in reality it would be very difficult, if not imposible for most women to be implanted with all of the embryos created. Unless of course she decides to be implanted again and again only waiting a couple of months between births (although its recomended that women wait at least 3 months or more between treatments, according to the fertility clinic websites I found.) I personally know few women who would go through carrying a child and childbirth again and again without a break.
Okay now I am done with you, if you feel like responding go ahead, I'm done with you and do not wish to deal with people simply looking for a fight. If you actually have a real question or really want to talk and not just attack (what you precieve to be my views.) I am an open minded person who would like to hear what others have to say. When people have actual facts or information to share I read it and hope that it helps shape my perception of the world around me. I dislike dishonesty and lies (i.e. james dobson) but I still read what they have to say because it helps me understand how they think and how I should deal with thier statements in the future.
Have a good day and please learn at least one thing: while it may be fun to go on-line and attack people, it actually makes you a smaller person. Each time you do this you make yourself a little less important in the grand desgin of the world. i.e. love thy neighbor / he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Thanks for posting
He/She made a quite specific assertion. It is his job to support it. You are apparently attempting to deflect the point with your inane mind-reading ability and puffery.
Show me simply needs to answer the question (or not if it is not possible to provide any evidence).
women to 'resuce' those 150-200 thousand currantly instorage?
cricket noises....
Come all you 'christian' daddies, get you 12 year old daughters pregnant this way instead.
I have been involved in my life in 3 decisions for or against a woman choosing an abortion. Thankfully 2 of those times they decided to have the kid. Both beautiful babies and now teenagers. The third was so damaged before birth it would not have lived long. NOBODY was 'comfortable' with abortion, and in the one case she needed a lot of time to heal from the experence. but not in my or her husbands opinion as long as she (and he) would have needed after months of a child she could not touch or hold sinec it would have to be kept in isolation.
The only part of you post that is offensive to me is your blithe ASSumption that only special folks like you are 'uncomfortable' with a medical proceedure that is sometimes needed. And that you and you alone have the right to decide for other people how they should live their lives.
A hint for you: People do not support ABORTIONS they support CHOICE
Concerning the abortion issue, I have this point of view, so you can retreat on your attempts to determine my assumptions:
I have been in amateur theater, and one assignment I have had is "follow spot", in which the job is to shine a spotlight on a character no matter where that person moves on stage.
I think we individuals aim our own "follow spots" in life. Concerning abortions, I see the Pro-Choice group with their follow spots on the pregnant woman. Their concerns are focused on her, and it is hard to get them to think about anything else. The Pro-Life group has their follow spots on the fetus, the developing human being, and it is hard to get them to think about anything else.
Those are my assumptions. What are yours?
Once the fetus is born, the "follow spot" will abandon it--and its possibly unwed, unprepared mother--to their ignominious fates. After which it will search for the next endangered fetus, lighting its way from the womb, but blithely unconcerned about its future quality of life, bathed in its own sanctimonious, self-consuming warmth.
Useful metaphor, although not in the way you'd like.
if stem cells can be harvested from amniotic fluid then there is no need for embryos. further there is evidence that mature cells can be regressed. oh well lets just use embryos. libs say its best and i know how they hate people to think
If you read the entire article you would have noticed that the amniotic stem cells do not appear to have the same potential (at this point) as embryonic stem cells. Perhaps they will one day. As far as regressing other cells that is a great idea. However, we will get there faster using research on ALL types of cells. Not just the cells conservatives want to use.
"If you read the entire article you would have noticed that the amniotic stem cells do not appear to have the same potential (at this point) as embryonic stem cells"
That's merely the pro embryonic stem cell scientists' opinion. I'm sure that a conservative site like the MRC could come up with statistics backing the scientist who opposes embryonic stem cell research. There's two sides two every story, and the American people should get to hear both sides. Let them decide who is more credible. CNN did the fair and balanced thing (For once) They actually aired both sides of the issue. That's the way it is supposed to be. Fair and balanced means that both sides get to make their case, and the people get to decide which side is more credible.
I would agree with you if the person who was on the amniotic stem cell side was an expert in his field who had not had a past of misrepresenting facts. But CNN did not find that person. Instead they used someone who sounded good but had no substance. You can't have an honest debate without the people involved being honest.
"if stem cells can be harvested from amniotic fluid then there is no need for embryos. further there is evidence that mature cells can be regressed. oh well lets just use embryos. libs say its best and i know how they hate people to think" -rrastro
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thank you for your input Mr. Science! But the article makes it pretty clear that amniotic stem cells aren't the same as embryonic stem cells. If the two were absolutely equal, I would agree with you:
...according to Reuters, Atala noted that the "amniotic fluid-derived cells are a close second" to the more controversial embryonic stem cells, which "are considered the most malleable of the various types of stem cells." The Washington Post also reported that Atala "emphasized that they don't believe the cells will make embryonic stem cells irrelevant."
" But the article makes it pretty clear that amniotic stem cells aren't the same as embryonic stem cells. "
That's a good point to make, open_mind. How long have they been studying embryonic cells? How long have they been studying amniotic cells? You put all your trust in one article and deny the possibility that there could be another solution. Very open minded. Are you afraid that science may find a safer way of curing illness's? One that doesn't require harming a created human life?
The reasoning is fairly plain. When amniotic stem cells are found to be absolutely equal in use or potential to embryonic stem cells, I will advocate their preferred use. (Not that it would make much difference.) I do not believe in using embryonic stem cells out of pure spite for people with views like yours (as it appears you believe).
You would have to simply be irrational to even suggest such a thing.
" I do not believe in using embryonic stem cells out of pure spite for people with views like yours (as it appears you believe). You would have to simply be irrational to even suggest such a thing. "
The way you highlight certain words in order to embolden their meaning, you make it sound as if you will still be skeptical when/if amniotic cell benefits bypass embryonic cell benefits (yes, I do think many of you believe solely in embryonic cell research out of spite for life...I would like to be proven wrong). But, it is good to hear you will be open minded on the subject. Keep that in mind as they get more research done on amniotic cells, you may be put to the test during the next election cycle.
You need to avoid speculation about motives of people in this case and many others you have mentioned before. It appears to be unreliable. Most mind-reading is just awful.
I will give you some advice and you can take it or leave it: It is much better to ask people what their intentions are than to assign the most venal possible motive to them. That method does not appear to encourage polite and/or informative discussions.
"On stem cells, CNN gives equal billing to conservative activist, scientific consensus"
Wow! Imagine CNN giving equal time to both sides. Why that's just unheard of and absolutely awful. The media should never report the conservative side of any issue. Only the liberal side should be reported by the media, because only liberalism is the absolute truth. Good job MMFA for pointing out that giving both the conservative side and the liberal side is indeed conservative misinformation. The only way to be fair and balanced as well as responsible is by only giving the liberal side. Way to go!
CNN gave equal time to a discredited scientist. Next time, try reading the post, and not just the headline. Thanks.
Both sides of a debate is fine. Treating junk science as somehow equivalent to the real thing is not.
This is not reporting the conservative vs liberal side. This is about reporting the conservative side vs the scientific side. They should be reporting competing scientific sides. Instead they show a scientist who has been caught exaggerating facts and give him the same billing as a scientist who is in the tops of his field. Or if they really wanted to they could have used a religious person. At least then people would not mistake that this is a science vs religion argument. Because that is what the argument really is. Should our scientists be held back by the religious beliefs of some people in this country. I don't think religion should be able to regulate science.
for showing both sides. of course i thought media matters was for fairness and balance..my mistake.
isnt junk science usually just the side you dont like?
Junk Science is the side that's not based on any science.
The point of the item here, for the fetus-fetish posters, is that Fox's twisted version of "fair and balanced" is to present an actual scientist against a conservative puppet, and portray them as having equal credibility.
I know this is tough on the ol' noodle, but there is not an equal and opposite position for every issue in the world ( world is round, dogs are mammals, innocent lives are lost in war, thunder is not God bowling), and although you could find somebody on the planet to argue the opposite of each of these "theories", it doesn't mean you're biased if you don't seriously consider their position.
Get it?
I realize that you hate Fox News, but try to stay on topic.
Fox News has nothing to do with this MMFA citation.
Get out of autoresponse mode.
'fair and balanced' lie in the post above him. How about you get out of frustrated school-marm with a ruler and an attitude mode?
from a Fox item. Please substitute CNN, or whichever corporate media source is cited in place of Fox, and I hope I didn't derail your train of thought too badly with that horrendous error. Ha!
your focusing on that meaningless typo tells me you read the rest of my post, and may have even learned something. You're welcome.
I think what's happening is that the death-mongering posters, here, are denying the possibility that the very science they need to continue their death count may not need them any more so you're clouding facts with your own reasoning. Get it?
"death-mongering posters" -proud christian
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What exactly do you think will happen to the frozen embryos that are never used or implanted? Do you think that if not for embryonic stem cells, these embryos will all be born?
Death is involved no matter what here. I think you are being more than disingenous here. Surprise! Surprise!
" Death is involved no matter what here. I think you are being more than disingenous here. Surprise! Surprise! "
No, I'm not. This may be a shock to you, but some people (me included) don't believe that science should be in the business of "creating" life. Some believe they should be more worried about saving lives than creating lives. I know, I know...I'll here the complaints about how some mothers "can't have children without 'help' ". There are still a hundred thousand kids who need to be adopted....still kids that need a good home.
Hey, not everyone believes like you. Trust me on this one...some people have different beliefs.
It's like Al Franken has said, the media doesn't have a liberal bias, but a sensationalist bias. Anything out of the ordinary or "sensational" tends to get more of the media's attention that it really deserves. With issues like stem cells, evolution, global warming, the Iraq War, minimum wage and gun control, to name a few, conservatives currently occupy the extreme side of these debates. But these extreme views almost always receive equal time with the mainstream media because, presumably, because Americans find extremism intriguing. But as this and other issues illustrate, perhaps equal time is not always warranted when the minority view is either so entrenched in the minority as to make it obsolete, or so thoroughly disproven as to make it insane for anyone to continue to advance it.
So I think we can we at least agree that when stem cell opponents, Iraq war optimists, and global warming skeptics get equal time, that pretty much debunks the whole "liberal media bias" myth.
...the conservatives in this country are very good at passing off junk science or outright lies, as factual research. This has happened in many "debates."
I use the quotation marks because many of these "debates" staged by neo-cons are nothing but show. They have a real scientist, who spent 4, 6, or 8 years in college learning about thier field of study; and then a mouth piece for the neo-con response. Because the two are paired together the hope is that the average person on the street will think, "well they are on stage together so that must mean they are equal."
The neo-cons are getting into trouble for using to real science to push thier social agenda. Just see how mr. dobson used a real scientist's research and her response to him: [link to www.youtube.com]
Its funny, I hope he quotes her again and she takes him to court. Not that I hate him, but he and other neo-cons need to get actual facts before they debate or share their opinions with the public.
who you're responding to, PC, but I don't really understand what your post means. Something about death -mongerers and death counts and science not needing somebody?
Critics of Dr. Prentice note there are only 9 FDA approved treatments using Adult stem cells. How many FDA approved treatments are there using embryonic stem cells? I was not able to google even one. I must conclude the number is zero. Further googling for Chinese, Korean or other Asian sponsored treatments of this kind also reveals zero. These are places where this kind of research has no restrictions.
Who is this 'scientific consensus' you are quoting in criticism of Dr. Prentice? Media Matters has failed to fully identify Dr. Neaves. Perhaps this is because William Neaves is the president and CEO of Stowers Institute, a 521 non-profit research corporation atthe center of the Missouri Amendment 2 debate. [link to www.stowers-institute.org] He is apparently not an actual researcher and his job is to promote support for embryonic stem cell research.
James Stowers, the endower of Stowers Institute, the source of the $25 million war chest used to fund the Missouri Amendment 2 campaign, and the man behind Dr. Neaves, has a huge conflicct of interest in this debate. The commercial exploitation rights to any discoveries made at the Stowers Institute are apparently not held by the Institute. They are held by a for-profit company, BioMed Valley Discovery, Inc. [link to 72.14.209.104] Notice that this company is controlled by a partnership headed by Mr. Stowers.
These people are influence pedalers manipulating government policy for their own profit. I thought you liberals didn't countenance that.
I had this very detailed reply to your post, with a dozen links and various bits of info (then I lost my internet connection and it was all lost). So here is the short version.
1. you can't google a lot of this research, because it has not been published yet, read [link to www.ama-assn.org]
2. as stated in the above link, due to the limited number of stem cell lines in the US it is difficult to experiment more than we already have. The fear is that with each test the stem cells that we currently have are diminished.
3. Asian countries, China does not do a lot of invitro like we do, (that whole one child things, invitro often produces more than one). Also the leaders in this field are here in the US and in Europe.
4. Critics of Dr. Prentice are well founded in thier critizism. Also see links inside the story, including the discredited list of "cures". [link to www.sciencemag.org] While yes one of the researchers is a involved with the
5. The american family association (of which Dr. Prentice is part of) has a very bad reputation in the scientific community. They tend to publish incorrect or falsly quote other people's research. And everything they do has a political agenda, research results that conflict with thier views is disgarded or altered to fit what they wish to hear.
6. One issue with Dr. Prentice himself. I am unable to find any research, papers, or other information published by him in any peer-reviewed journal.
7. As for Dr. Neaves, maybe reading would help you. William B. Neaves ..... he served in various positions at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, including Professor of Cell Biology, holder of the Doris and Bryan Wildenthal Distinguished Chair in Biomedical Science, Dean of Southwestern Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Dean of Southwestern Medical School, and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs.
As far as I know Professor of Cell Biology makes him some one who may know a little about stem cells. Just to be sure I asked my dad, who studies cancerous growth in human cells, he confirmed this for me. Usually to be a Professor of Cell Biolgoy, you have to A. know about cells B. do research, even while you teach C. know a wide range of topics if you wish to become a Dean of a medical school.
8. Why does Dr. Neaves' position at a non-profit cause a conflict of interest? Dr. Pentice works for the non-profit AFA. The AFA has its own agenda does it not?
Okay that was not as short as I thought. But you get the gist of the arguement. 1. Dr. Pentice is not an expert/scientist (politics & science, not good) 2. Researching topics before rants, good 3. Dr. Neaves critisim was published in a peer reviewed journal, accepted and published. Dr. Pentice's views were not.
Now tell me what proportion of the animal model trials using existing embryonic stem cell lines here in the US have resulting in cancers developing in the test animals? Isn't it true this number is on the order of 60%? I didn't see ANY of that information in this thread.
Neaves is more credible than Pentice despite his job as a professional promoter of stem cell research? Come now! As I read his CV, Neaves hasn't been an active researcher in many years. He is on his own right no greater authority than Prentice regardless of what his degrees say.
The fact you had to try to explain away James Stowers' connections with the Institute, Missouri Amendment 2 campaign funding [$25M, over 95% of all money spent on the issue], and BioMed Valley Dioscovery says it all. You did not disagree at all with the eesentials of the business relationship I outlined there. there is potentially a lot of money riding on this assuming embryonic stem cells can actually be used for some sort of therapy. Mr. Stowers seems to have bought himself a state law to cover his operation's rear.
Speaking of the Asian embryonic stem cell experience and the credibility of 'Science' [a journal for the uninitiated], the journal in which the quoted Neaves article appears. Can you now tell us about Dr. Hu Suk Hwang and Science's publication of his work?
And last, is it not true that there are neither approved nor experimental stem cell therapies either embryonic or adult that will treat Parkinson's Disease despite Michale J. Fox's televised appeals to the contrary?
Doesn't this whole stem cell thing in Missouri just reek of special interests, deception and corruption?
Also, one thing I forgot
According to info I found about Stowers and the info you provided in your link. The institute came first, all of its researchers entered the field to help
The Institute does do research, it is not just a advocacy group for stem cells. Well read what you linked to especially the last paragraph:
• Will focus on finding the best commercial home for new discoveries arising from laboratories devoted to basic biomedical research; • Will have the exclusive right to seek, patent, develop and market all the discoveries arising from the laboratories of the research partners; • Will eventually benefit those institutions in Biomed Valley that agree to become Research Partners, and • Will go as far from Kansas City as necessary to find discoveries worthy of commercialization. Declaring that the Stowers Institute stands ready to become the first Research Partner of Biomed Valley Corporation, he said one of the requirements will be that the Institute turn over all of its future scientific discoveries to Biomed Valley Discovery for development and marketing. In return, scientists of the Institute “can look forward to having an excellent company especially created to patent, develop and market discoveries arising from their research. This enables scientists to focus on their basic biomedical research while still being rewarded with half of all the profits derived from their discoveries.”