Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
824 bytes added ,  12:54, April 18, 2007
no edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:     
I'll wait to see how long this topic survives before I spend any time writing about this.  The clock is, again, ticking.  [[User:Seekcommon]]
 
I'll wait to see how long this topic survives before I spend any time writing about this.  The clock is, again, ticking.  [[User:Seekcommon]]
      
: It amazes me how much the media sings the tune for embryonic stem cells when zero has been accomplished. Probally has to do more with the Bush bashers (his veto), than any logical reason for promoting a big big maybe. John Kerry claims embryonic stem cells saved a little old mouse. Is that not the most pathetic augument ever--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)?
 
: It amazes me how much the media sings the tune for embryonic stem cells when zero has been accomplished. Probally has to do more with the Bush bashers (his veto), than any logical reason for promoting a big big maybe. John Kerry claims embryonic stem cells saved a little old mouse. Is that not the most pathetic augument ever--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)?
 +
:: Research in medicine is slow and the medications and treatments we enjoy today are the result of years of painstaking efforts by people all around the world.  When we examine history, we realize that there was horror at scientists/medical doctors interested in dissection of cadavers, experimentation on animals - certain religious groups do not believe anything other than their faith can cure all illl - and oppose all modern medical interventions.  There is slow progress being made on understanding how stem cells (adult and embryonic) can be programmed/taught to develop along particular lines for transplantation/therapy/ and yes, initial progress is usually demonstrated in small animals, particular mice.  So, NO, it is NOT a pathetic argument whatsoever, it indicates we are making progress.  [[User:Seekcommon]]
107

edits

Navigation menu