On Embryonic Stem Cells, Frist Backs A Loser

Another take on why murdering unborn people may not be necessary for stem cell research. ASC (adult stem cells) do not require the destruction of an embryo, ESC (embryonic stem cells) do. On Embryonic Stem Cells, Frist Backs A Loser. ... quote!

You may have noticed no mention herein of the moral baggage that also accompanies ESCs. This is not a failure to realize it exists. It's merely that there's no point discussing it if ESCs have no obvious advantage over their ASC counterparts and anyway we'll be getting ESC without ripping apart embryos.

The case against ESCs is scientific. If the technology has a fraction of the true potential its backers claim, the market will fund it. But if you're an investor who really believes the hype, I've got a space shuttle to sell you.

... more ...

Ironically, the clamor for massively-increased public funding for ESC research is precisely because their practical applications, if any, lie many years in the future while those of ASCs are here and now. The media may go gaga over ESC researchers' pie-in-the-sky claims, but private investors know better. On the other hand, when the government has injected funding into ESC research such as happened with California's Proposition 71, huge fortunes were made or - in the case of Bill Gates - simply expanded.

This isn't to say ASC research NEEDS public funding either. But we've long accepted that deserving medical research should get public dollars. ASC researchers could easily handle far more grant money than they currently receive, without using it to gold-plate the operating instruments. As I've earlier written, prominent Harvard researcher Dr. Denise Faustman may well have found a cure for type 1 diabetes involving ASCs but cannot proceed with testing for lack of money, even as the nation's largest juvenile diabetes organization has refused to fund her but instead lobbies for more ESC research.

... and ...

You may have noticed no mention herein of the moral baggage that also accompanies ESCs. This is not a failure to realize it exists. It's merely that there's no point discussing it if ESCs have no obvious advantage over their ASC counterparts and anyway we'll be getting ESC without ripping apart embryos.

The case against ESCs is scientific. If the technology has a fraction of the true potential its backers claim, the market will fund it. But if you're an investor who really believes the hype, I've got a space shuttle to sell you.