Obama to reverse embryonic stem cell ban Monday!
- Thread starter danny
- Start date
Stem cell scientists had been concerned that the delay in Obama's long-promised lifting of the restrictions would cause them to miss their chance to apply for some of the new funding the NIH is receiving as part of the stimulus package.
While the first study testing embryonic stem cells on people could start as early as this summer, scientists cautioned that any cures from the research probably remain years away
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/06/AR2009030602285_2.html
While the first study testing embryonic stem cells on people could start as early as this summer, scientists cautioned that any cures from the research probably remain years away
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/06/AR2009030602285_2.html
Obama signs order lifting restrictions on funding for stem cell research
In case anyone missed all the hub bub, I thought this was a good recap.
Supporters say it will open up a broad front of research to find better treatments for ailments from diabetes to Parkinson's disease; opponents saying destroying embryos for research is morally wrong.
FOXNews.com
Monday, March 09, 2009
President Obama on Monday signed an order to lift restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, a move he said rejects the "false choice" between science and morality.
The order would not fund the creation of new stem cell lines, but would allow federally funded scientists to conduct research on existing embryonic stem cells that under the Bush administration were off limits.
Obama said the full promise of such research "remains unknown" but that it should be explored because of the potential for scientists to find better treatments for ailments ranging from diabetes to Parkinson's disease to cancer.
"That potential will not reveal itself on its own. Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident. They result from painstaking and costly research," Obama said.
He warned of the risks of falling behind other countries in scientific research by keeping in place government restrictions on funding.
"When government fails to make these investments, opportunities are missed. Promising avenues go unexplored. Some of our best scientists leave for other countries that will sponsor their work. And those countries may surge ahead of ours in the advances that transform our lives," Obama said. "But in recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent."
Obama cited broad bipartisan support for the order, and also issued a memorandum declaring his administration would base its policies on sound science and not political considerations.
The executive order fulfills a campaign promise, and supporters say it will open up a broad front of research.
But the issue remains controversial since days-old embryos must be destroyed to obtain the cells.
Opponents argue that research using embryonic cells is morally wrong.
House Minority Leader John Boehner issued a written immediately after the signing accusing Obama of contradicting his pledge to be "president for all Americans."
"The president has rolled back important protections for innocent life, further dividing our nation at a time when we need greater unity to tackle the challenges before us," Boehner said, adding that he fully supports research on non-embryonic stem cells.
"Non-embryonic stem cell research is not only showing great promise in the laboratory, but its applications are already being used to treat scores of diseases and medical conditions. Indeed, science and respect for human life can coexist," he said. "Politicians in Washington would be well-served to recognize this fact before they ask taxpayers to subsidize the destruction of innocent human life simply to advance a particular agenda."
Embryonic stem cells are master cells that can morph into any cell of the body. Scientists hope to harness them so they can create replacement tissues to treat a variety of diseases.
"I believe it is unethical to use human life, even young embryonic life, to advance science," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative organization.
Obama plans to use the executive order and accompanying memo to signal his commitment to shift government's priorities. But he said Monday that the government will not open the door for human cloning, calling such action "dangerous" and "profoundly wrong."
Former President George W. Bush was the first president to authorize any federal support for embryonic stem cell research but limited it to 78 known stem cell lines -- lines that were created before Aug. 9, 2001. Federal research dollars could not flow to any research on embryonic stem cell lines derived after that deadline, and some scientists objected that the Bush policy left them with too few stem cell lines to research, and that only 16 of the original 78 were even suitable.
Hundreds more of such lines -- groups of cells that can continue to propagate in lab dishes -- have been created since then. Scientists say those newer lines are healthier and better suited to creating treatments for diseases. The Obama order will give researchers access to lines derived after Aug. 9, 2001.
The proposed changes do not fund creation of new lines, nor specify which existing lines can be used. They mean that scientists, who until now relied on private donations to work with these newer stem cell lines, can apply for government money for the research, just like they do for studies of gene therapy or other treatment approaches.
Dr. Curt Civin, whose research allowed scientists to isolate stem cells and who now serves as the founding director of the University of Maryland Center for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, disagrees with those who say embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong.
"This was already life that was going to be destroyed," he said. "The choice is throw them away or use them for research."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
In case anyone missed all the hub bub, I thought this was a good recap.
Supporters say it will open up a broad front of research to find better treatments for ailments from diabetes to Parkinson's disease; opponents saying destroying embryos for research is morally wrong.
FOXNews.com
Monday, March 09, 2009
President Obama on Monday signed an order to lift restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, a move he said rejects the "false choice" between science and morality.
The order would not fund the creation of new stem cell lines, but would allow federally funded scientists to conduct research on existing embryonic stem cells that under the Bush administration were off limits.
Obama said the full promise of such research "remains unknown" but that it should be explored because of the potential for scientists to find better treatments for ailments ranging from diabetes to Parkinson's disease to cancer.
"That potential will not reveal itself on its own. Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident. They result from painstaking and costly research," Obama said.
He warned of the risks of falling behind other countries in scientific research by keeping in place government restrictions on funding.
"When government fails to make these investments, opportunities are missed. Promising avenues go unexplored. Some of our best scientists leave for other countries that will sponsor their work. And those countries may surge ahead of ours in the advances that transform our lives," Obama said. "But in recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent."
Obama cited broad bipartisan support for the order, and also issued a memorandum declaring his administration would base its policies on sound science and not political considerations.
The executive order fulfills a campaign promise, and supporters say it will open up a broad front of research.
But the issue remains controversial since days-old embryos must be destroyed to obtain the cells.
Opponents argue that research using embryonic cells is morally wrong.
House Minority Leader John Boehner issued a written immediately after the signing accusing Obama of contradicting his pledge to be "president for all Americans."
"The president has rolled back important protections for innocent life, further dividing our nation at a time when we need greater unity to tackle the challenges before us," Boehner said, adding that he fully supports research on non-embryonic stem cells.
"Non-embryonic stem cell research is not only showing great promise in the laboratory, but its applications are already being used to treat scores of diseases and medical conditions. Indeed, science and respect for human life can coexist," he said. "Politicians in Washington would be well-served to recognize this fact before they ask taxpayers to subsidize the destruction of innocent human life simply to advance a particular agenda."
Embryonic stem cells are master cells that can morph into any cell of the body. Scientists hope to harness them so they can create replacement tissues to treat a variety of diseases.
"I believe it is unethical to use human life, even young embryonic life, to advance science," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative organization.
Obama plans to use the executive order and accompanying memo to signal his commitment to shift government's priorities. But he said Monday that the government will not open the door for human cloning, calling such action "dangerous" and "profoundly wrong."
Former President George W. Bush was the first president to authorize any federal support for embryonic stem cell research but limited it to 78 known stem cell lines -- lines that were created before Aug. 9, 2001. Federal research dollars could not flow to any research on embryonic stem cell lines derived after that deadline, and some scientists objected that the Bush policy left them with too few stem cell lines to research, and that only 16 of the original 78 were even suitable.
Hundreds more of such lines -- groups of cells that can continue to propagate in lab dishes -- have been created since then. Scientists say those newer lines are healthier and better suited to creating treatments for diseases. The Obama order will give researchers access to lines derived after Aug. 9, 2001.
The proposed changes do not fund creation of new lines, nor specify which existing lines can be used. They mean that scientists, who until now relied on private donations to work with these newer stem cell lines, can apply for government money for the research, just like they do for studies of gene therapy or other treatment approaches.
Dr. Curt Civin, whose research allowed scientists to isolate stem cells and who now serves as the founding director of the University of Maryland Center for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, disagrees with those who say embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong.
"This was already life that was going to be destroyed," he said. "The choice is throw them away or use them for research."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
I think a very small minority has worked itself up to having us (and themselves too) believe that these embryos were going to do more than never be used or destroyed in the first place. I feel that science is a gift that has been given us and that this gift should be utilized to save lives and relieve suffering. I think the discoveries being made right now will eventually make embryonic use a moot point, but until then, I think President Obama has made the right choice.
Words from the opposition
Congressman Roscoe Bartlett Supports Embryonic Stem Cell Research Without Destroying Embryos
Article Date: 10 Mar 2009 - 5:00
"It is both immoral and scientifically unnecessary to destroy human embryos to obtain embryonic stem cells, so I was disappointed by President Obama's Executive Order today," said Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, who is the only Member of Congress with a PhD in Human Physiology. "I can not support the destruction of innocent human life for the potential benefit of society, especially when I know that it's unnecessary to harm or kill embryos to engage in embryonic stem cell research."
The Dickey-Wicker amendment remains in place so that without legislation, federal funds can not be used to destroy embryos to create new stem lines," noted Congressman Bartlett. "I am glad that the President said he would not take a position on this small and fragile protection of human embryos."
"I have a 100% pro-life voting record," said Congressman Bartlett. "Every human embryo is unique and could become the next Madame Curie or Albert Einstein which is why I oppose destructive embryonic stem cell research. I do support using federal taxpayers' dollars for non-destructive embryonic stem cell research. That is a path that respects both the uniqueness and sanctity of every human life as well as scientific progress."
Congressman Bartlett explained, "Because of my advanced coursework in embryology as part of my doctoral studies in human physiology, I knew it was theoretically possible to remove a few cells from an early stage embryo that could be used to produce a stem cell line without creating a clone or harming the embryo's ability to develop into a baby. I first proposed this in 2001 which was acknowledged by President Bush's Council on Bioethics in their white paper on stem cell research. A repair kit for the child might also be produced from these cells."
"I revere both life and the advancement of knowledge through science," said Congressman Bartlett. "The research regressing adult skin cells backward to an embryonic-like state and then forward to produce other types of cells and tissues is also very exciting. It holds much promise as an alternative ethical path. However, if you will talk to the researchers and the experts in this area as I have, they will tell you that the potential for embryonic stem cell application to medicine should be greater than adult stem cell applications because embryonic stem cells can produce anything and everything that is in the body. That is why it is important to pursue non-destructive ethical embryonic stem cell research."
Congressman Roscoe Bartlett Supports Embryonic Stem Cell Research Without Destroying Embryos
Article Date: 10 Mar 2009 - 5:00
"It is both immoral and scientifically unnecessary to destroy human embryos to obtain embryonic stem cells, so I was disappointed by President Obama's Executive Order today," said Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, who is the only Member of Congress with a PhD in Human Physiology. "I can not support the destruction of innocent human life for the potential benefit of society, especially when I know that it's unnecessary to harm or kill embryos to engage in embryonic stem cell research."
The Dickey-Wicker amendment remains in place so that without legislation, federal funds can not be used to destroy embryos to create new stem lines," noted Congressman Bartlett. "I am glad that the President said he would not take a position on this small and fragile protection of human embryos."
"I have a 100% pro-life voting record," said Congressman Bartlett. "Every human embryo is unique and could become the next Madame Curie or Albert Einstein which is why I oppose destructive embryonic stem cell research. I do support using federal taxpayers' dollars for non-destructive embryonic stem cell research. That is a path that respects both the uniqueness and sanctity of every human life as well as scientific progress."
Congressman Bartlett explained, "Because of my advanced coursework in embryology as part of my doctoral studies in human physiology, I knew it was theoretically possible to remove a few cells from an early stage embryo that could be used to produce a stem cell line without creating a clone or harming the embryo's ability to develop into a baby. I first proposed this in 2001 which was acknowledged by President Bush's Council on Bioethics in their white paper on stem cell research. A repair kit for the child might also be produced from these cells."
"I revere both life and the advancement of knowledge through science," said Congressman Bartlett. "The research regressing adult skin cells backward to an embryonic-like state and then forward to produce other types of cells and tissues is also very exciting. It holds much promise as an alternative ethical path. However, if you will talk to the researchers and the experts in this area as I have, they will tell you that the potential for embryonic stem cell application to medicine should be greater than adult stem cell applications because embryonic stem cells can produce anything and everything that is in the body. That is why it is important to pursue non-destructive ethical embryonic stem cell research."
GPI applauds Obama's decision
And back to those applauding the decision...............
No Time For Complacency, Tough Stem Cell Policy Fights Ahead Says Genetics Policy Institute
Article Date: 10 Mar 2009
Follows is a statement by Bernard Siegel, Executive Director, Genetics Policy Institute (GPI), on President Obama's decision to lift restrictions on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research:
"President Obama's action today marks a profound change for the better and a major victory for patients in their quest for cures. At this pivotal moment for the stem cell community, we cannot become complacent. Our most difficult work lies ahead, as we expect research foes to unleash new legal roadblocks and delaying tactics. They will continue to assert unsupported arguments playing upon ignorance and fear."
"In order to provide certainty, the next step is to protect embryonic stem cell research by legislation. Building on the momentum, it's time to repeal the Dickey-Wicker Amendment that serves as a blockade for funding research on work on embryos discarded from in vitro fertilization procedures to derive new cell lines or somatic cell nuclear transfer. All stem cell advocates applaud Congresswoman Diana DeGette who has expressed her intention to seek reversal of this fundamental funding restriction."
"President Obama delivered a striking blow in favor of sound science by lifting federal restrictions for funding ethical research, thereby delivering promised change. Millions of adults and children suffering from chronic and debilitating medical conditions now have hope that this valuable tool will have adequate funding to bring about treatments sooner rather than later."
About GPI
The Genetics Policy Institute "GPI" is a leading promoter and defender of stem cell research and other cutting edge medical research targeting cures. Through GPI's action network, world report, the World Stem Cell Summit, special projects, speaking engagements, world renowned advisory boards, educational resources, teaching initiatives and strategic relationships, GPI serves as the foremost channel of knowledge between world leading stem cell experts, patient advocates and those who make policy for the general public
And back to those applauding the decision...............
No Time For Complacency, Tough Stem Cell Policy Fights Ahead Says Genetics Policy Institute
Article Date: 10 Mar 2009
Follows is a statement by Bernard Siegel, Executive Director, Genetics Policy Institute (GPI), on President Obama's decision to lift restrictions on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research:
"President Obama's action today marks a profound change for the better and a major victory for patients in their quest for cures. At this pivotal moment for the stem cell community, we cannot become complacent. Our most difficult work lies ahead, as we expect research foes to unleash new legal roadblocks and delaying tactics. They will continue to assert unsupported arguments playing upon ignorance and fear."
"In order to provide certainty, the next step is to protect embryonic stem cell research by legislation. Building on the momentum, it's time to repeal the Dickey-Wicker Amendment that serves as a blockade for funding research on work on embryos discarded from in vitro fertilization procedures to derive new cell lines or somatic cell nuclear transfer. All stem cell advocates applaud Congresswoman Diana DeGette who has expressed her intention to seek reversal of this fundamental funding restriction."
"President Obama delivered a striking blow in favor of sound science by lifting federal restrictions for funding ethical research, thereby delivering promised change. Millions of adults and children suffering from chronic and debilitating medical conditions now have hope that this valuable tool will have adequate funding to bring about treatments sooner rather than later."
About GPI
The Genetics Policy Institute "GPI" is a leading promoter and defender of stem cell research and other cutting edge medical research targeting cures. Through GPI's action network, world report, the World Stem Cell Summit, special projects, speaking engagements, world renowned advisory boards, educational resources, teaching initiatives and strategic relationships, GPI serves as the foremost channel of knowledge between world leading stem cell experts, patient advocates and those who make policy for the general public
One more for the road
Just one more for the road. Keep in mind that this is written by a journalist so you might just want to recheck any of her facts.
March 11, 2009
Behind the Cell Curve
By Kathleen Parker
WASHINGTON -- As he lifted the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research Monday, President Barack Obama proclaimed that scientific decisions now will be made "on facts, not ideology."
This sounds good, but what if there were other nonideological facts that Obama seems to be ignoring? One fact is that since Obama began running for president, researchers have made some rather amazing strides in alternative stem cell research.
Unfortunately, the stem cell debate has been characterized as a conflict between science (as though science is always right) and religious "kooks" (as though religious folk are never right). In choosing sides, it is, indeed, easier to imagine lunch with a researcher who wants to resurrect Christopher Reeve (whom Obama couldn't resist mentioning) and make him walk again, than with the corner protester holding a fetus in a jar.
Moreover, as Obama said, the majority of Americans have reached a consensus that we should pursue this research. Polling confirms as much, but most Americans, including most journalists and politicians, aren't fluent in stem cell research. It's complicated. If people "know" anything, it is that embryonic stem cells can cure diseases and that all stem cells come from fertility clinic embryos that will be discarded anyway. Neither belief is entirely true.
In fact, every single one of the successes in treating patients with stem cells thus far -- for spinal cord injuries and multiple sclerosis, for example -- have involved adult or umbilical cord blood stem cells, not embryonic. And though federal dollars still won't directly fund embryo destruction, federally funded researchers can obtain embryos privately created only for experimentation. Thus, taxpayers now are incentivizing a market for embryo creation and destruction.
The insistence on using embryonic stem cells always rested on the argument that they were pluripotent, capable of becoming any kind of cell. That superior claim no longer can be made with the spectacular discovery in 2007 of "induced pluripotent stem cells" (iPS), which was the laboratory equivalent of the airplane. Very simply, iPS cells can be produced from a skin cell by injecting genes that force it to revert to its primitive "blank slate" form with all the same pluripotent capabilities of embryonic stem cells.
But "induced pluripotent stem cells" doesn't trip easily off the tongue, nor have any celebrities stepped forward to expound their virtues. (If only Angelina Jolie would purse those pouty lips and say "pluripotent.") Even without such drama, Time magazine named iPS innovation No. 1 on its "Top 10 Scientific Discoveries" of 2007, and the journal Science rated it the No. 1 breakthrough of 2008.
The iPS discovery even prompted Dr. Ian Wilmut, who cloned Dolly the sheep, to abandon his license to attempt human cloning, saying that the researchers "may have achieved what no politician could: an end to the embryonic stem cell debate." And, just several days ago, Dr. Bernadine Healy, director of the National Institutes of Health under the first President Bush, wrote in U.S. News & World Report that these recent developments "reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells ... are obsolete."
Many scientists, of course, want to conduct embryonic stem cell research, as they have and always could with private funding. One may agree or disagree with their purposes, but one may also question why taxpayers should have to fund something so ethically charged when alternative methods are available.
Next comes a move to lift the unfortunately named Dickey-Wicker amendment in Congress, which prohibits using tax dollars to create human embryos for research purposes. If the amendment is rescinded, then human embryos can be created and destroyed with federal tax dollars.
Good people can disagree on these things, but those who insist that this is "only about abortion" miss the point. The objectification of human life is never a trivial matter. And determining what role government plays in that objectification may be the ethical dilemma of the century.
In this case, science handed Obama a gift -- and he sent it back.
Copyright 2009, Washington Post Writers Group
Just one more for the road. Keep in mind that this is written by a journalist so you might just want to recheck any of her facts.
March 11, 2009
Behind the Cell Curve
By Kathleen Parker
WASHINGTON -- As he lifted the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research Monday, President Barack Obama proclaimed that scientific decisions now will be made "on facts, not ideology."
This sounds good, but what if there were other nonideological facts that Obama seems to be ignoring? One fact is that since Obama began running for president, researchers have made some rather amazing strides in alternative stem cell research.
Unfortunately, the stem cell debate has been characterized as a conflict between science (as though science is always right) and religious "kooks" (as though religious folk are never right). In choosing sides, it is, indeed, easier to imagine lunch with a researcher who wants to resurrect Christopher Reeve (whom Obama couldn't resist mentioning) and make him walk again, than with the corner protester holding a fetus in a jar.
Moreover, as Obama said, the majority of Americans have reached a consensus that we should pursue this research. Polling confirms as much, but most Americans, including most journalists and politicians, aren't fluent in stem cell research. It's complicated. If people "know" anything, it is that embryonic stem cells can cure diseases and that all stem cells come from fertility clinic embryos that will be discarded anyway. Neither belief is entirely true.
In fact, every single one of the successes in treating patients with stem cells thus far -- for spinal cord injuries and multiple sclerosis, for example -- have involved adult or umbilical cord blood stem cells, not embryonic. And though federal dollars still won't directly fund embryo destruction, federally funded researchers can obtain embryos privately created only for experimentation. Thus, taxpayers now are incentivizing a market for embryo creation and destruction.
The insistence on using embryonic stem cells always rested on the argument that they were pluripotent, capable of becoming any kind of cell. That superior claim no longer can be made with the spectacular discovery in 2007 of "induced pluripotent stem cells" (iPS), which was the laboratory equivalent of the airplane. Very simply, iPS cells can be produced from a skin cell by injecting genes that force it to revert to its primitive "blank slate" form with all the same pluripotent capabilities of embryonic stem cells.
But "induced pluripotent stem cells" doesn't trip easily off the tongue, nor have any celebrities stepped forward to expound their virtues. (If only Angelina Jolie would purse those pouty lips and say "pluripotent.") Even without such drama, Time magazine named iPS innovation No. 1 on its "Top 10 Scientific Discoveries" of 2007, and the journal Science rated it the No. 1 breakthrough of 2008.
The iPS discovery even prompted Dr. Ian Wilmut, who cloned Dolly the sheep, to abandon his license to attempt human cloning, saying that the researchers "may have achieved what no politician could: an end to the embryonic stem cell debate." And, just several days ago, Dr. Bernadine Healy, director of the National Institutes of Health under the first President Bush, wrote in U.S. News & World Report that these recent developments "reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells ... are obsolete."
Many scientists, of course, want to conduct embryonic stem cell research, as they have and always could with private funding. One may agree or disagree with their purposes, but one may also question why taxpayers should have to fund something so ethically charged when alternative methods are available.
Next comes a move to lift the unfortunately named Dickey-Wicker amendment in Congress, which prohibits using tax dollars to create human embryos for research purposes. If the amendment is rescinded, then human embryos can be created and destroyed with federal tax dollars.
Good people can disagree on these things, but those who insist that this is "only about abortion" miss the point. The objectification of human life is never a trivial matter. And determining what role government plays in that objectification may be the ethical dilemma of the century.
In this case, science handed Obama a gift -- and he sent it back.
Copyright 2009, Washington Post Writers Group
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090310/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_us_stem_cells_1
VATICAN CITY March 10 ....Monsignor Rino Fisichella said Obama's executive order was a "victory of politics over ethics" and suggested the U.S. administration was looking out for the interests of drug companies. Fisichella, who heads the Pontifical Academy for Life, was quoted by Italy's ANSA news agency as saying that "probably some drug companies, or some economic interests" influenced the decision to reverse the restrictions on funding imposed by the Bush administration....
VATICAN CITY March 10 ....Monsignor Rino Fisichella said Obama's executive order was a "victory of politics over ethics" and suggested the U.S. administration was looking out for the interests of drug companies. Fisichella, who heads the Pontifical Academy for Life, was quoted by Italy's ANSA news agency as saying that "probably some drug companies, or some economic interests" influenced the decision to reverse the restrictions on funding imposed by the Bush administration....
Last edited:
Unfortunately, Danny, I don't agree on this one.
The repairstemcells site (I don't even want to post the url) is run by the owner of Theravitae Don (I don't want to post his full name), and claims to be in existence to share information on stem cell clinics, doctors and sites.
In fact, it is simply there to promote them.
Saying that "the viability of embryonic stem cells is a illusion" is preposterous, since research on them was officially unlocked two days ago!!
There has to be research done to find out which ones work best, period.
This will take years. Perhaps adult cells will be found to be the sole answer, perhaps embryonic, perhaps there are facts about cells that we simply hadn't considered. I strongly suggest that you find the text of the president's speech opening up the embryonic research. He said (basically) that we need to leave science to scientists, and let discoveries be made when they happen. Danny, you have posted stuff about Osiris trials (and other articles) and believe me, I want for treatments, cures and the like to be found more than anything else. Believe me...there are discoveries yet to be found, and we don't know what person or company will ultimately take some or all of the credit for it.
Consider this about "Mr. Don..." (above)....
When embryonic, adult cells or any commercially-manipulated cells are perfected as treatments, and these treatments are paid for by insurance, he and all his stem cell clinic pals are out of business. Finished!
Then he can count his money, including the money he got me to wire transfer to him.''
This man is a fine salesman...I have met him...but he is no scientist.
Discoveries take time.
Think about MD and other diseases that real money have been poured into for decades. There have been Jerry Lewis telethons for 40+ years, tons of money poured into finding a cure for MD. Think about how much money has gone from NSF and NIH (formerly NIMH) to find cancer cures. MD and cancer are not diseases that drug companies would oppose finding a treatment for.
And yet, we have no cure for cancer or MD or many other illnesses.
Why?
Perhaps there is no cure for them, or perhaps none has been found yet.
I have no doubt that the drug companies have bad intent, but please, read the president's speech stating that scientists need to do the scientific work, that there are no timetables for discoveries, and that he intends to keep the special interests away from this work.
And, certainly, take anything "Mr. Don..." (above) with a giant grain of sand!
I wouldn't personally believe one word that he writes, nor would I increase the hits on his website.