Comments on: Stem Cell Decision Fallout: What’s Next, and Who Were the Plaintiffs?

By: Jennifer Angela

Jennifer Angela — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 22:32:21 +0000

I feel true compassion for Eric and his family. I assume Ian is attempting to save potential (we don´t know if these cells would actually mature or not – given the chance) lives, but at what expense?! It´s a huge pity my Grandmother was not provided with stem cell research (which wasn´t available two years ago). It could have saved her life. I would like to know one thing only: Are these embryoes dead already? If yes, what exactly is the point of not letting them save people´s lives or rescue Eric´s child from increasing blindness? Even (and I don´t mean this in an offensive way) from a catholic point of view a dead embryo is dead and thus cannot be rescued from dying. Being a catholic myself I am not going to insult Ian, but I am not going to hinder progress either. I don´t consider it uncatholic to NOT be opposed to embryonic stem cell research. I am not against it. I also think it´s about time to enable female priests of access to the catholic church and that a female pope would be fun. And I am not the only one. I´ve read that in certain corners of this planet people were attempting to change the world of catholics into a new, more progressive place with female priests and potential female popes. Certainly, this would alter catholic people´s perspective on when life begins. Now I suppose it´s time for Ian to rage.

By: Eric

Eric — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 03:41:39 +0000

…and the fact remains that the end result of this ruling is putting the brakes on promising research. We had hope. Hope that a cure for our daughter’s progressive blindness could be found through stem cell research. There is no cure for her illness, Usher Syndrome, the leading cause of deafness and blindness. Recent studies have found that embryonic stem cells can transform into damaged or missing retinal cells that could cure blindness. Now, the injunction by Judge Lamberth will halt federal funding for stem cell research. Now, millions of dollars earmarked for research to cure maladies such as Alzheimer’s , Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, spinal cord injuries and my daughter’s blindness…is no longer available. NIH researchers say they are devastated. Imagine our frustration.

By: AlexB

AlexB — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 00:38:23 +0000

judging by these comments, this article must have been linked to in a religious blog…
Sherley and Deisher are hindering scientific progress for their own religious purposes.
And Ian, dont twist science to fit your point of view, human life does not begin at conception. a zygote is merely a mass of cells, not a human.
youll find very few scientists to agree with you, despite your arrogant confidence

By: Wil

Wil — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:29:51 +0000

It is a bit unsettling and disgusting that, rather than discussing the merits of the judge’s reasons for making this decision, the only purpose of this article was to smear the plaintiffs personally.

Just because the author does not like this decision, does not mean that it was factually or legally incorrect. But we’ll never know either way from this article, because the detailed facts of the case were never even brought up. Only sneering (and utterly irrelevant) personal attacks.

By: Eliza Strickland

Eliza Strickland — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:55:54 +0000

@ m: Yes, DISCOVER has often covered advances in stem cell research. You may be referring to induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) -- those are specialized adult cells, like skin cells, that are reprogrammed to act like multipurpose stem cells. We've covered the advances in making these reprogrammed cells safer. But we've also covered findings that suggest that these iPS cells aren't as strong and healthy as embryonic stem cells. Still more fascinating science: Researchers have recently found ways to transform one type of specialized adult cell into a different type, entirely skipping the iPS cell stage. For example, in one mouse study they changed skin cells into neurons. --Eliza, DISCOVER online news editor

By: Gil

Gil — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:07:07 +0000

@4: They are post hoc philosophical rationalizations of religious positions. It’s silly to equate a zygote with a human being. It lacks any of the qualities that make a human being different from a culture of human epithelial cells.

By: Ian

Ian — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:22:34 +0000

@3, yes, it is clever but this is isn’t just about religious views, there are philosophical and scientific facts that cannot be ignored.

As Dr Mark Lowery, professor of moral theology at the University of Dallas puts it “One hallmark of the Catholic tradition is that it prizes such arguments that take place on the level of reason alone. The reason the Church can hold such methodology in high esteem lies in her famous principle, enunciated best by St. Thomas Aquinas, that grace does not cancel out nature, but presupposes and perfects it. Applied here, this means that the argument based in human nature as derived by reason alone is fully affirmed by the Church.”

By: Gil

Gil — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:09:16 +0000

Pretty clever to get the most promising competition to your research hobbled while advancing religious views simultaneously…

By: m

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:23:18 +0000

stem cells are readily available without the need for embryo’s. i’m pretty sure it was Discover that ran that article about being able to convert ones own cells into stems.

By: Ian

Ian — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 07:43:57 +0000

The scientific facts speak for themselves – human life begins at conception. Therefore, the human embryo (the embryonic human) has a right to life.

Also I would take issue with the LA Times’s use of the phrase “struggling firm” to describe AVM. Just how many therapies have adult stem cells succeeded in delivering compared with those based on the use of Human ESCR? I would say that AVM stand a very good chance of succeeding.