Im against embryonic stem cell research

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Of course I am not against umbilical stem cells or adult stem cells.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

People!  Let's stop the fighting.  

If embryonic stem cells were so useful, how is it that there hasn't been news of private drug companies successfully making use of them?  

 

Because that is not easy!   Without the govt funding, that was near impossible.   And that's the whole reason behind the push to remove the ban.   The universities and big institutions are where the big research is at.  You can't just believe everything you hear.   It is completely irrational to say (as one person in this thread claimed) that on the one hand, the govt ban didn't at all hamper the research, since it could have been done by private companies, and on the other hand, where are all the private company success stories?    Obviously, it was hampered.    And in truth, when someone makes that argument, they really highlight the pointlessness of the ban.   They are saying 'hey for all you people who are against the ban, look private companies could have done x y and z and still done the es cell research' - well, in that case, stop limiting these people and let them do the research full force.  

ESC research has nothing to do with abortion.   If you can't see them as separate issues, you simply don't understand the ES cell issue and have been misinformed by the propaganda that comes out of the anti-stem-cell-research camp (often religious propaganda or "republican" talking points).

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

The reason why stem-cell corporations had to go to Uncle Sam with their pockets pulled, asking for a handout is because their so-called research had led to nothing and not enough investors were financing them as a result. They feared that they would go under if it wasn't for Uncle Sam bailing them out. Stem-cell programs have been being funded privately though for more than a decade (despite the propaganda saying otherwise), and has led to absolute jack squat in the way of medical cures.

Spending money on "stem-cell research" is just like the AIDS rathole.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

that by the time embryonic stem cells become of real use...  there is a VERY high probability that ...

What do you mean by the time they become of real use?   They already were (at the time Bush banned new lines) and are of real use.   Overnight cures are not to be expected.   And that certainly is not the case with adult cells either.

BECAUSE there seems to be SO MUCH MORE potential with these new breakthroughs of reprogramming.  

If there is potential with adult cells, great.   And if umbillical cord cells, also great.   Neither of these take away from the potential that also exists with ES cells.  All should be worked on.   In the case of ES cells, if it is not immoral, there is no reason to stop working on it, just because other areas of research are also promising.   That's like saying, stop studying chemistry because genetics is all the rage right now and biochemical genetics will be the foundation of modern science in the next generation.   Great, but we still should not stop studying chemistry.     So it comes down to, is chemistry (or in our case, ES cells) wrong to study or is it not?   From my standpoint, it is not wrong.   So therefore there is no reason to prevent it.    And there will be advance in the field of chemistry as well.    But again, I do not agree with you that adult stem cell field has surpassed the potential of ES cell research.

Even the left-wing media has stopped pushing this as a major issue.  

 
They were never greatly behind this issue other than the token Bush-bashing, which they will do for any of his decisions.   It quickly passed away and was never a major sticking point.   They were much too obsessed with Iraq wars, tax cuts, halliburton, 9/11 and a whole array of other issues to stick him on.

They have been embarrassed by the extraordinary progress of adult cell re-programing...

   
There is nothing embarrassing about this.   This progress is also positive.   Very positive indeed.

and find it harder and harder to justify their position.  

I'm not much concerned with the "left wing media's" position on this issue or what they feel they can justify or not justify.   A bunch of ignorant self-obsessed money-crazed America-hating fiends are irrelevant to this issue.   It's the scientists who can justify and have been justifying their position for a whole array of reasons since the beginning.   And none of this has changed just because the media shut up about it, ceased giving it attention, found other issues to hammer away at their whipping boy (bush) with instead, or because there was success in another direction.    The crux of the issue is, is it right or wrong.   If you don't find it wrong or immoral, there is no sane rational or logical reason to prevent this type of research.   And it's not as if the govt is going to now start giving grants to things they don't think will work.  In individual cases, if a submitted grant proposal has demonstrable potential, just like any other project for any other type of grant, including an adult stem cell project, it will get funding.   If not, not.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

The reason why stem-cell corporations had to go to Uncle Sam with their pockets pulled, asking for a handout is because their so-called research had led to nothing and not enough investors were financing them as a result. They feared that they would go under if it wasn't for Uncle Sam bailing them out. Stem-cell programs have been being funded privately though for more than a decade (despite the propaganda saying otherwise), and has led to absolute jack squat in the way of medical cures.

Spending money on "stem-cell research" is just like the AIDS rathole.

As usual, all rhetoric and no substance.   This is a display of a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and how it works.  Ignorance is not bliss, but I guess from someone who is uninformed (except by propaganda) and has no experience in the field, I can't expect too much more (especially not with today's education system)....

[Daleksfearme]

To be even more accurate... there was a ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research other than the 20 or so lines that already had existed when the ban was enacted.

Regardless this is all a moot point... as Embryonic stem cell research is a farce... since there is FAR more promise and potential in tweaking adult stem cells into a omnipotent state.

This reflects the misinformation coming out of the "stem cells = abortion" camp, but being that I know a fair amount about this subject, I'll let you know that this is simply not true, and the ability of ES cells is incomparable.   To reverse adult stem cells back to an ES-like state is a difficult task indeed, and if you notice, the adult stem cell only becomes AS USEFUL as an ES cell when it is transformed to an ES-like state.   That just goes to show how limited it is as an adult cell (for certain research).   And I know for a fact there are limitations to the adult cells, which is why they even want to induce to a totipotent state in the first place.   

But when you say

Embryonic stem cell research is a farce

   This is weak and unfounded propaganda.   Rather sad.

As I said in my last post, Stem cells of any type will very soon not be needed to treat any type of disease, it will be much more simple to simply re program existing cells of any type to the required cell type.

[nessuno]

I have ambivalent feelings about this issue.  I often wonder, if I were the victim of some dreaded disease/illness, would I support it?  I can imagine people who are so desperate for answers.
Kahane-Was-Right BT, why isn't money from the private sector and charitable donations enough? 
Due to the controversy and debate surrounding embryonic stem cell research, shouldn't the government stay out of it?
Let some of the HollyWeirdos put their money where there mouth is or use their fame to raise the funds.

[Daleksfearme]

that by the time embryonic stem cells become of real use...  there is a VERY high probability that ...

What do you mean by the time they become of real use?   They already were (at the time Bush banned new lines) and are of real use.   Overnight cures are not to be expected.   And that certainly is not the case with adult cells either.

BECAUSE there seems to be SO MUCH MORE potential with these new breakthroughs of reprogramming.  

If there is potential with adult cells, great.   And if umbillical cord cells, also great.   Neither of these take away from the potential that also exists with ES cells.  All should be worked on.   In the case of ES cells, if it is not immoral, there is no reason to stop working on it, just because other areas of research are also promising.   That's like saying, stop studying chemistry because genetics is all the rage right now and biochemical genetics will be the foundation of modern science in the next generation.   Great, but we still should not stop studying chemistry.     So it comes down to, is chemistry (or in our case, ES cells) wrong to study or is it not?   From my standpoint, it is not wrong.   So therefore there is no reason to prevent it.    And there will be advance in the field of chemistry as well.    But again, I do not agree with you that adult stem cell field has surpassed the potential of ES cell research.

Even the left-wing media has stopped pushing this as a major issue.  

 
They were never greatly behind this issue other than the token Bush-bashing, which they will do for any of his decisions.   It quickly passed away and was never a major sticking point.   They were much too obsessed with Iraq wars, tax cuts, halliburton, 9/11 and a whole array of other issues to stick him on.

They have been embarrassed by the extraordinary progress of adult cell re-programing...

   
There is nothing embarrassing about this.   This progress is also positive.   Very positive indeed.

and find it harder and harder to justify their position.  

I'm not much concerned with the "left wing media's" position on this issue or what they feel they can justify or not justify.   A bunch of ignorant self-obsessed money-crazed America-hating fiends are irrelevant to this issue.   It's the scientists who can justify and have been justifying their position for a whole array of reasons since the beginning.   And none of this has changed just because the media shut up about it, ceased giving it attention, found other issues to hammer away at their whipping boy (bush) with instead, or because there was success in another direction.    The crux of the issue is, is it right or wrong.   If you don't find it wrong or immoral, there is no sane rational or logical reason to prevent this type of research.   And it's not as if the govt is going to now start giving grants to things they don't think will work.  In individual cases, if a submitted grant proposal has demonstrable potential, just like any other project for any other type of grant, including an adult stem cell project, it will get funding.   If not, not.

I think that the potential of ESC has been vastly over rated. To date there have not been any real widespread clnical use of ESCs. Why not just concentrate on a more effective methiod from the start?

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

"Propaganda"? ROTFLMAO.   You have clearly been falling hook, line, and sinker for eight years of mass-media Bush-bashing propaganda on the stem-cell issue. (Not that Bush was perfect--he should have banned stem-cell research entirely, but I digress). The fact is that not even any animal therapies (which require a much lesser required threshhold for proof of effectiveness and safety than human therapies) have come out of ESCR so far. Why have no dogs or cats been cured of paralysis? Why hasn't rhesus or chimpanzee diabetes been reversed?

[Xoce]

"Propaganda"? ROTFLMAO.   You have clearly been falling hook, line, and sinker for eight years of mass-media Bush-bashing propaganda on the stem-cell issue. (Not that Bush was perfect--he should have banned stem-cell research entirely, but I digress). The fact is that not even any animal therapies (which require a much lesser required threshhold for proof of effectiveness and safety than human therapies) have come out of ESCR so far. Why have no dogs or cats been cured of paralysis? Why hasn't rhesus or chimpanzee diabetes been reversed?

I am laughing right along with you, C.F.
KWR-BT needs to do a little homework.

[muman613]

KWRBT,

I admit I am not fully versed in the relevant Halacha but I will study it more. In my understanding the issue is the value of human life. Through this ESCR it seems that the value of life goes down, not increased, as it appears you suggest. I am fully supportive of technology which is used ethically but I often believe that scientists operate in a moral vaccuum because their 'morals' must be scientifically proven. Judaism is not based on scientific conclusions or hypotheses but instead are grounded in Torah. What is essential to understand is "In the image of Hashem" and as a result we learn that all life is precious.

I will learn more about halacha before I comment on it. I still hold to my original statement that there is something wrong with ESCR morally.
 

[muman613]

I found this @ torah.org:

http://www.torah.org/features/secondlook/stemcell.html

"
...
JEWISH LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

We begin the outline of the Jewish legal approach to stem cell research by stressing some general overarching principles. In contrast with other religions, Judaism has no problem with "playing G-d," provided we do so according to His rules as expressed by authentic Jewish legal mandate. Far from being shunned, "playing G-d" in the Jewish tradition is, in fact, a religious imperative: the concept of emulating G-d is implicit in the mandate to heal and provide effective medical relief wherever possible. Of note, the only two "professions" ascribed to G-d Himself are those of teaching and healing. By teaching and/or healing, we fulfill the obligation to "play G-d." There's no reason that microscopic manipulation of a faulty genetic blueprint should be any different than surgical manipulation of a defective macroscope -- that is, visible to the unaided eye -- tissue or organ. Normative Jewish law sanctions -- nay, encourages -- medical intervention to correct both congenital and acquired defects, and makes no distinction between stem and somatic (body) cell tissues.

The crucial distinction here is between the permissible act of correcting a defect and the forbidden act of attempting to improve on G-d's creations (generally proscribed by the laws of cross-breeding). For example, it would be permitted, were it possible, to correct the genetic defect which leads to Down's syndrome, but manipulating genes to produce a "perfect-bodied" six-footer with blue eyes would be prohibited.

There would, therefore, be no Jewish legal problem with using stem cells derived from adult tissue. Similarly, it would appear that using cells from umbilical cord tissue would be permissible. A rather minor concern here might be the following: May one have umbilical tissue collected and frozen so that the cells will be available in case one requires stem cell therapy sometime in the future? Is this degree of effort, in trying to ensure one's health, appropriate or excessive?

While there are few Jewish legal objections to deriving the stem cells from adult or umbilical cord tissue, the problems arise, however, with deriving stem cells from the embryonic tissue.

Post-implantation embryonic tissue (that is an embryo already implanted into the uterine wall) is after all, an early fetus; clearly no sanction would be given to aborting a fetus in order to obtain stem cell tissue. Even were fetal tissue necessary to provide life-sustaining therapy for a patient, no sanction would be given to sacrifice an innocent fetus even in the interest of saving another life. The only exception to this rule is the obligation to forfeit the life of the "non-innocent" fetus when its continued existence constitutes a danger to its mother by virtue of the fetus's pursuer ("rodef") status.

Even fetal life before the 40th day of gestation -- which is considered "mere water" -- could not be aborted in order to obtain stem cell tissue. Prior to 40 days, a miscarried fetus does not trigger birth-related purity issues, and therefore is of lesser status than a more mature fetus. (There is a large body of rabbinical writings regarding the 40-day status of a fetus.)...

TOWARD THE FUTURE

The prime source of embryonic stem cell tissue is embryos that have not been implanted into the uterine wall. As discussed above, they are usually the "by-products," spare embryos left aside during in vitro fertilization in order not to dangerously overload the mother's uterus. The Jewish legal status of these spare, non-implanted embryos is somewhat unclear. Some rabbinical opinions suggest that in addition to the 40-day milestone, an embryo doesn't reach fetal status until it is implanted into the uterus. Prior to that, while still in a petri dish, or other artificial medium, it cannot develop into a viable fetus. Therefore such early embryos have no real life potential at all and they're not considered alive. Consequently, there would be no Jewish legal opposition to disposing of them, researching on them, or deriving stem cell tissue from them.

The status of pre-implantation embryos has another potentially important Jewish legal consequence. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) offers a promising approach to prevent the birth of genetically defective children. By studying embryos before implantation into the uterus, it is possible to identify those defective genes. By selecting only genetically intact embryos for implantation, the development of genetically defective fetuses would be avoided. Assuming the pre-implanted embryo has not reached the level of a fetus, Jewish legal sanction may be possible.

The ethical issues raised by stem cell research and therapy are, of course, not only of interest to Jews. In an unprecedented national broadcast, President Bush defined some fairly restrictive regulations. Just recently the administration argued strongly in favor of banning all research into human cloning. Evidently the crossroads of medical science and the generation of life itself raises fears and genuine concern in the minds of many thinking people.

It appears that Jewish legal concerns may be more permissive than is generally understood. Clearly, it behooves us, as Jews, to avail ourselves of whatever Torah and scientific knowledge we can -- not only as we try to find the Jewish legal guidance for ourselves, but perhaps equally importantly -- as we strive to fulfill our national mandate to be a Light Unto the Nations -- to help shed light on these vexing issues for society at large.
"

[Rubystars]

Don't 'omnipotent' cells also have the potential to become a person  ?

I think you mean pluripotent, and yes even if you create stem cells from adults or other ethical sources, they could potentially be grown into embryos depending on how they are tweaked. It's quite strange.

I have been excited about stem cells from ethical sources and I support that research as long as they're careful with it.

Even though I've heard some good arguments about embryonic stem cells it just feels incredibly wrong to me, to create an embryo and then not to implant it in a womb. Even when I try to think about how the embryos will be discarded anyway I still have this strong sense that this is absolutely against G-d to do that. It would be good if they could cure diabetes and other illnesses by using ethical sources of stem cells rather than killing embryos already created.

All the frozen embryos should be given up for adoption, not discarded.

I'm also against Pre-implanation diagnosis because it allows embryos to be created and then killed if they don't have the desirable traits.

[Zelhar]

It seems to me that the smart thing is to invest mostly in adult stem cell research, however I can imagine that embryonic stem cells are still required for such research (for example to compare the manipulated adult stem cells to the embryonic ones). 

[Xoce]

http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2009/03/untold-story-radical-obama-also.html


Monday, March 09, 2009
The Untold Story: Radical Obama Also Rescinds Executive Order for Alternatives to ESCR
Wesley Smith

We all know that President Obama rescinded the Bush funding restrictions for ESCR. But that isn't all he did. He also rescinded Executive Order 13435 of June 20, 2007. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Removing-Barriers-to-Responsible-Scientific-Research-Involving-Human-Stem-Cells/

What is that? Of course, the Administration didn't have the candor or courage to publicize this part of his nasty work, but the now dead order explicitly required funding for "alternative methods," such as the new IPSCs, which offer so much promise without the ethical contentiousness. For more on that late executive order, see SHS, "Bush to Fund Stem Cell 'Alternatives' Research http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2007/06/bush-to-fund-stem-cell-alternatives.html.) Alternative methods are one of the few areas in which we can all row in the same direction, which I thought this president wanted to do.

I can think of only two reasons for this action, for which I saw no advocacy either in the election or during the first weeks of the Administration: First, vindictiveness against all things "Bush" or policies considered by the Left to be "pro life;" and second, a desire to get the public to see unborn human life as a mere corn crop ripe for the harvest.

So much for taking the politics out of science!

[Xoce]

clause from the Bush Executive Order:

    (d) human embryos and fetuses, as living members of the human species, are not raw materials to be exploited or commodities to be bought and sold.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/07-3112.pdf

[briann]

Don't 'omnipotent' cells also have the potential to become a person  ?

These terms can means something completely different in different contexts... but I am just using them for how they are generally used in stem cells.

(Pluri means more than one)

Pluripotent ... means the stem cells can be changed into many but not all types of stem cells.  IE.....   A pluripotent stem cells can change into a nerve cell OR muscle cells Or Bone Cells... etc.

(omni means ALL)
OMNI-potent (aka Toti-potent) means they can change into ALL types of stem cells including extraembryonic (Placentia, etc)

Here is a list from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell

    * Totipotent (a.k.a omnipotent) stem cells can differentiate into embryonic and extraembryonic cell types. Such cells can construct a complete, viable, organism.[4] These cells are produced from the fusion of an egg and sperm cell. Cells produced by the first few divisions of the fertilized egg are also totipotent.[citation needed]
    * Pluripotent stem cells are the descendants of totipotent cells and can differentiate into nearly all cells,[4] i.e. cells derived from any of the three germ layers.[5]
    * Multipotent stem cells can differentiate into a number of cells, but only those of a closely related family of cells.[4]
    * Oligopotent stem cells can differentiate into only a few cells, such as lymphoid or myeloid stem cells.[4]
    * Unipotent cells can produce only one cell type, their own,[4] but have the property of self-renewal which distinguishes them from non-stem cells (e.g. muscle stem cells).

[briann]

   The crux of the issue is, is it right or wrong.   If you don't find it wrong or immoral, there is no sane rational or logical reason to prevent this type of research.   And it's not as if the govt is going to now start giving grants to things they don't think will work.  In individual cases, if a submitted grant proposal has demonstrable potential, just like any other project for any other type of grant, including an adult stem cell project, it will get funding.   If not, not.

Your barking up the wrong tree here.  I am in the minority here... and I DONT beleive it is unethical.

HOWEVER.... I think 99% of the public and the media DONT understand whats going on...  If you ask the average person.. .they would say... umm.. yeahhh... Bush banned stem cells research.   The more accurate way of looking at it is....  Bush limited federal funds to emryonic stem cell research using only the 20 stem cell lines available.  And this research has been abandoned by almost everyone in the stem cell community regardless of what country they are doing the research in.

Case in point:

George Daley, made headlines by testifying in front of a U.S. Senate committee only three years ago that Adult stem cell reprogramming was “extremely high-risk” and would more than likely never achieve the pluripotency that embryonic stem cells.

Daley has now completely changed his position... and beleives that Induced pluripotency is showing far more promise.. and that embryonic stem cell cloning is going nowhere.

As a result, Daley and other scientists have progressed further using reprogrammed cells “in six months than he had in years toiling over embryonic stem cells,” according to BioEdge.

Obama and the Dems are pushing this for political reasons ONLY!!!!!   The public is being fooled. THAT is why this is a farce. (Sorry for the strong wording... but its true)

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

"Propaganda"? ROTFLMAO.   You have clearly been falling hook, line, and sinker for eight years of mass-media Bush-bashing propaganda on the stem-cell issue. (Not that Bush was perfect--he should have banned stem-cell research entirely, but I digress). The fact is that not even any animal therapies (which require a much lesser required threshhold for proof of effectiveness and safety than human therapies) have come out of ESCR so far.

This is not true at all.   There were many animal studies going on prior to the ban, and after the ban they continued using the stem cell lines that were not banned.   Problem is, after too many passages of the same cell line, it can accumulate genetic mutations and damages that make using the same cell lines for many years problematic.   This is part of the problem with the ban.    Of course, no one is going to rush into human studies until they perfect the techniques in animal studies.    This just proves how responsible the researchers are that they are not going to jump the gun with flashy superficial treatments without first proving them solidly in animals.   Whatever you are saying about ES cells the same can be said about adult stem cells (or adult stem cells which they've tried to revert to an embryonic level of plasticity).    If ES cell research is a "farce," then adult stem cell research is also a farce.   GET IT?   They both try to achieve the same type of results.   Only the adult stem cells require an additional first step - that is, induce them into a biological state that mimicks that of ES cells!   

Science takes time.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Don't 'omnipotent' cells also have the potential to become a person  ?

Even though I've heard some good arguments about embryonic stem cells it just feels incredibly wrong to me, to create an embryo and then not to implant it in a womb. Even when I try to think about how the embryos will be discarded anyway I still have this strong sense that this is absolutely against G-d to do that.

It may feel "wrong," but it is a fact that that happens.  Now the question is how to deal with it.   The embryo's are created for a different purpose, and then will be thrown out.   So why not make use of them instead of letting them be thrown away.

It would be good if they could cure diabetes and other illnesses by using ethical sources of stem cells rather than killing embryos already created.

Yes that would be good, but also not 100% necessary, and also not possible.

All the frozen embryos should be given up for adoption, not discarded.

How does one "adopt" an embryo?   You do realize that frozen embryos would have to be IMPLANTED into a female surrogate mother in order that she can than carry it to term and give birth, right?   Right now, the frozen embryos are kept frozen until they perish on their own (lose potency).   And usually the "extra" embryos from IVF procedures are considered less likely to be able to carry to term if I understand correctly.

I'm also against Pre-implanation diagnosis because it allows embryos to be created and then killed if they don't have the desirable traits.

This is insane.  If you are not against IVF procedure, then to be against this is completely illogical and coldhearted.   Once someone is doing IVF, out of the set of embryos created for that purpose, they might as well implant the one that is most likely to survive and most healthy genetically (ie, no debilitating diseases or conditions that will prevent healthy birth).  We are not talking here about selecting a tall one vs. a short one.   We are talking whether the baby will survive or have a debilitating genetic disease or not.   

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

clause from the Bush Executive Order:

    (d) human embryos and fetuses, as living members of the human species, are not raw materials to be exploited or commodities to be bought and sold.

Sorry to inform you, but under Jewish law, an embryo is not considered a living human being or member of society.   Under basic rational thought, it seems it wouldn't be either.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

   The crux of the issue is, is it right or wrong.   If you don't find it wrong or immoral, there is no sane rational or logical reason to prevent this type of research.   And it's not as if the govt is going to now start giving grants to things they don't think will work.  In individual cases, if a submitted grant proposal has demonstrable potential, just like any other project for any other type of grant, including an adult stem cell project, it will get funding.   If not, not.

  And this research has been abandoned by almost everyone in the stem cell community regardless of what country they are doing the research in.

No it hasn't.   And those who did "abandon" it, or made no progress, were forced to do so because of the difficulties of being limited to those 20 already-existing lines!

If you admit that you don't find it unethical, then again as I said before, there is really no defense or possible explanation to limiting that field of research!

And calling a type of biology research a farce, is a farce in itself!   It shows you have not worked in science and don't understand how it works.   I don't know how many times I have to say this.

[Rubystars]

It may feel "wrong," but it is a fact that that happens.  Now the question is how to deal with it.   The embryo's are created for a different purpose, and then will be thrown out.   So why not make use of them instead of letting them be thrown away.

I think that the parents of these embryos should have two choices available to them

1. To implant them in the mother
2. To donate them to another couple

Discarding them should never be an option and I think it's horrible that this is even allowed to happen. Just because an embryo is implanted doesn't mean it will survive, but I think that it should be given that chance at life, rather than discarded or destroyed.

Yes that would be good, but also not 100% necessary, and also not possible.

Why is it not possible? What if cells from ethical sources were grown to produce human insulin in a diabetic patient, for example? There are a lot of sources of stem cells that don't involve embryos, such as teratomas, adult stem cells, umbilical stem cells, stem cells from newborns, etc.

How does one "adopt" an embryo?   You do realize that frozen embryos would have to be IMPLANTED into a female surrogate mother in order that she can than carry it to term and give birth, right?   Right now, the frozen embryos are kept frozen until they perish on their own (lose potency).   And usually the "extra" embryos from IVF procedures are considered less likely to be able to carry to term if I understand correctly.

There are actually embryo adoption agencies where couples can adopt the embryos and then attempt to implant them. It's better to give them that chance at life than to let them die or discard them.

This is insane.  If you are not against IVF procedure, then to be against this is completely illogical and coldhearted.   Once someone is doing IVF, out of the set of embryos created for that purpose, they might as well implant the one that is most likely to survive and most healthy genetically (ie, no debilitating diseases or conditions that will prevent healthy birth).  We are not talking here about selecting a tall one vs. a short one.   We are talking whether the baby will survive or have a debilitating genetic disease or not.   

I don't think it's cold hearted to say that disabled people have the same rights as non-disabled people.

[briann]

   The crux of the issue is, is it right or wrong.   If you don't find it wrong or immoral, there is no sane rational or logical reason to prevent this type of research.   And it's not as if the govt is going to now start giving grants to things they don't think will work.  In individual cases, if a submitted grant proposal has demonstrable potential, just like any other project for any other type of grant, including an adult stem cell project, it will get funding.   If not, not.

  And this research has been abandoned by almost everyone in the stem cell community regardless of what country they are doing the research in.

No it hasn't.   And those who did "abandon" it, or made no progress, were forced to do so because of the difficulties of being limited to those 20 already-existing lines!

You are completely making this up.  Please do some research before you say this.

9 other nations abandoned their failed attempts to produce viable tissue and organ transplants from Embryonic stem cells derived from human embryos; they are Portugal, Austria, Brazil, Italy, Germany, Norway, Israel, Thailand and Singapore.  I beleive that each of those countries had NO morally based compunction regarding the destruction of life that sways some people’s opinion and causes controversy regarding embryonic stem cell research. They did not dispose of it for religious reasons, they abandoned that research was getting nowhere!!!  They would LOVE to get a HUGE advantage over the U.S. in this field... because of our limitations... but they just didnt see it getting anywhere.

Company after Company that has been specializing in embryonic stem cell research has been folding or switching over to adult stem cells as investors and sceintists are seeing FAR more porgress in adult stem cells.

Remember that company ESI that was started by the guy who invented dolly the sheep and who was such a HUGE E.S.C. advocate?  He was able to which raise 100 million dollars from the Singapore Government and the Australian Stem Cell Centre (a private investment group ), and other sources... and after 5 years of absolutely no success, they have abandon the Embryonic stem cell research altogether since its jUST NOT PRACTICAL and its getting nowhere!!  And it makes more sense to focus on something that is showing HUGE promise.

Again.. induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPS cells have gotten to the point where they are INDISTINGUISHABLE (Their words, not mine) from Embryonic stem cells AND they are 1000x more practical and scalable AND they are never rejected by a patient's immune system. 

[Rubystars]

It does seem like tissue from another person would run a huge risk of rejection just like with any other transplant.