Re: [asa] Houston bioresearch center killed.

At 09:04 PM 6/25/2006, Dawsonzhu@aol.com wrote:

> On the other hand, merely cutting a whole
> project can also be premature and
> irresponsible. I don't see what Prof. Hwang's fraud has to do with=
  Houston?

@ His fraud has nothing to do with Houston. Did
you carefully read the article and followed the
links? If so, your response is
inexplicable. Note the words, "..setting aside
the fact that some of the research ...was... faked,...".

> Does this mean that the scientist who might have
> been employed there in Houston would also do fraudulant work like
> Prof.=
  Hwang?
>
> The article does not say much of anything about
> what was wrong with the actual plan. Are they
> accusing all scientists of "killing embroyos" if
> they don't find some way to support only the Bush stem cell line? ..."

@ "Does this mean...?", and, "are they
accusing..? No and no. I don't understand how
you can be so defensive if you read the
article. I've excerpted (below) some of the
more salient points that you may have missed.

(NOTE: also see, "as an aside" below).

"...The kind of basic science being done in the
labs for the moment is well served by stable,
thoroughly characterized lines of stem cells like
those funded by the Bush policy. In fact, since
last year=92s vote we have learned just how well
the so-called =93Bush stem-cell lines=94 have served
the needs of researchers. Contrary to the
assertions of those who oppose the Bush policy,
it turns out the funded stem-cell lines are used
in the vast majority of all human
embryonic-stem-cell research; a study in the
April issue of Nature Biotechnology showed that
more than 85 percent of such research around the
world has used these lines, and most of it in the
past four years. The $90 million spent by the
federal government on such research has surely
helped the field, but it is also clear from these
figures that many researchers who do not receive
NIH funding are using the Bush stem-cell lines. ......

These technical arguments against the lines were
key to the further assertion, frequently heard a
year ago, that the Bush policy was causing
America to fall behind other countries in
stem-cell research. ... setting aside the fact
that some of the research ...was... faked, her
larger comment about =93other countries=94 moving
=93ahead of the United States=94 was totally wrong.
The same April Nature Biotechnology study (online
here) that showed how widely the NIH-funded lines
are used also showed that American scientists are
by far the world leaders in embryonic-stem-cell
research=ADpublishing 46 percent of all articles on
the subject, with the remainder divided among 17
other countries. American publications in the
field have been growing each year (from 3 in 2002
to 20 in 2004). Publications around the world
have also been accelerating, of course, but no
single country comes close to America=92s dominant position. .....

....A year after the House vote, very little
remains of the arguments that seemed so
persuasive then. On the contrary, developments in
techniques to derive embryonic-like stem cells
without requiring the destruction of embryos have
given new ammunition to supporters of the current
policy. The momentum has shifted firmly against
the Castle-DeGette bill, even if most advocates
continue to spout the same arguments, and many in
the press continue to parrot them. What this
will mean politically remains an open question.
But it is undeniable that much has happened in
the field of stem-cell research this year that
should make Senators look at the Castle-DeGette
bill in a new light, and better appreciate the
Bush policy=92s successful effort to balance
science and ethics. =AD Eric Cohen Access the
above-underlined hot links and lots more - by
clicking on the full article here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?
q=3DMzUzZjg2OGIyM2Y2MTZmMGZhZjE4N2YxNTE0M=
mQwOGM
=3D

~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 28 13:52:58 2006