US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

[columbusdude82]

That is meaningless. Science is not what the majority wants. Science is what the evidence supports.

If you say no to the nitrogen-carbon theory, why would you say yes to the talking-snake theory? Just because some people say they think it's true? If the majority of americans say they believe that Jupiter is smaller than Mars, should we teach that too?

[columbusdude82]

Rocky, to take your point one step further, since you believe the curriculum should be dictated by opinion polls. Let's move from the science curriculum to the geography curriculum.

Everyone knows how well Americans know their geography. If an opinion poll shows that 68% of Americans believe Ukraine is part of Russia, should we change the curricula and textbooks to reflect that too?

And if most Americans think the proper spelling of "tonight" is "tonite," should we change the English language textbooks to accomodate that as well?

These are some of the implications of the strategy you're suggesting. Rather than accuse me of wanting to have my own way and impose my beliefs, consider the implications of what you're saying.

[OzmO]

Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

I don't know if doomed is the right word, but i do think that if religious views prevent a US President from supporting things like stem cell research we can find ourselves years behind in technological & biological advancements in the field of medicine that can affect our economy long term.   BUSH was bad enough.

[columbusdude82]

OzmO, we've missed you I was just about to make a "RIP OzmO" thread

[OzmO]

OzmO, we've missed you I was just about to make a "RIP OzmO" thread

 

I just haven't seen anything recently that has got my blood flowing. 

But don't worry I'm alive an kicking!

[MCWAY]

Re: US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

I don't know if doomed is the right word, but i do think that if religious views prevent a US President from supporting things like stem cell research we can find ourselves years behind in technological & biological advancements in the field of medicine that can affect our economy long term.   BUSH was bad enough.

That's a misconception on your part, Ozmo

You forget that Bush supports and (I believe) is the first U.S. president to fund stem cell research. The only stem cell research that Bush doesn't support (as is the case with many religious people here) is embryonic stem cell research.

[OzmO]

That's a misconception on your part, Ozmo

You forget that Bush supports and (I believe) is the first U.S. president to fund stem cell research. The only stem cell research that Bush doesn't support (as is the case with many religious people here) is embryonic stem cell research.

Perhaps i should have been more specific:

The potential of embryonic stem cell research. Many scientists believe that embryonic stem cell research may eventually lead to therapies that could be used to treat diseases that afflict approximately 128 million Americans. Treatments may include replacing destroyed dopamine-secreting neurons in a Parkinson's patient's brain; transplanting insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells in diabetic patients; and infusing cardiac muscle cells in a heart damaged by myocardial infarction. Embryonic stem cells may also be used to understand basic biology and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new medicines.


That's potentially BIG business either gained or lost.

[loco]

Perhaps i should have been more specific:

The potential of embryonic stem cell research. Many scientists believe that embryonic stem cell research may eventually lead to therapies that could be used to treat diseases that afflict approximately 128 million Americans. Treatments may include replacing destroyed dopamine-secreting neurons in a Parkinson's patient's brain; transplanting insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells in diabetic patients; and infusing cardiac muscle cells in a heart damaged by myocardial infarction. Embryonic stem cells may also be used to understand basic biology and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new medicines.


That's potentially BIG business either gained or lost.

List of Benefits of Stem Cells to Human Patients
Adult Stem Cells v. Embryonic Stem Cells
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm

Forbes Magazine provided additional confirmation that adult stem cell research is far more successful that embryonic stem cell experimentation.  In their September 3, 2001 issue, page 36, they quoted an article printed in the Wall Street Journal Europe by Richard Miniter. 

“Of the 15 US biotech companies solely devoted to developing cures using stem cells, only two focus on embryos.  Embryo stem cell research is at the drawing-board stage – not for lack of funds but for lack of promising research to finance.  Venture capitalists have no agenda beyond making money; if they see embryo projects that are likely to bear fruit over the next five to seven years – the usual VC time horizon – they will fund them.  That the market is speaking so loudly against embryo stem cell research probably explains why embryo researchers are so eager to reverse the ban on government funding.”

Diane Irving, Ph.D., a former professor of biology at Georgetown University and former biochemist with the National Cancer Institute, said, “I have argued that adult stem cells are better because they are closer to the stage of differentiation than embryonic or fetal cells – therefore they do not have as long a distance to travel differentiation-wise as the younger cells.  Therefore there is far less of a chance for genetic errors to be accumulated in the implanted cells and less side effects for the patient to deal with.”
http://www.lifeissues.org/cloningstemcell/bradsarticle.html

These latest results show that the ES cells need to be genetically modified and extensive manipulation in vitro before they can be transplanted safely. Direct transplant of ES cells are known to give rise to teratomas and uncontrollable cell proliferation. There is already evidence that ES cells are genetically unstable in long term culture, and are especially prone to chromosomal abnormalities. The risks involved in using the cytomegalovirus promoter to drive over-expression of the transcription factor are undetermined. To avoid immune rejection, the ES cells have to be tissue-matched from a bank of stem cells created from ‘spare’ human embryos. Otherwise, a special human embryo has to be created for the purpose, by transferring the patient’s genetic material into an empty egg, a procedure prone to failure and morally objectionable to many, including scientists.

By contrast, adult stem cells could be transplanted directly without genetic modification or pre-treatments. They simply differentiate according to cues from the surrounding tissues and do not give uncontrollable growth or tumours. The adult stem cells also show high degrees of genomic stability during culture. There is no problem with immune rejection because the cells can readily be isolated from the patients requiring transplant. And there is no moral objection involved. Better yet, research can be directed towards encouraging adult stem cells to regenerate and repair damaged tissues in situ, without the need for cell isolation and in vitro expansion. By minimising intervention, risks are reduced, as well as cost, making the treatment available to everyone and not just the rich.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/stemcells2.php

[OzmO]

List of Benefits of Stem Cells to Human Patients
Adult Stem Cells v. Embryonic Stem Cells
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm

Forbes Magazine provided additional confirmation that adult stem cell research is far more successful that embryonic stem cell experimentation.  In their September 3, 2001 issue, page 36, they quoted an article printed in the Wall Street Journal Europe by Richard Miniter. 

“Of the 15 US biotech companies solely devoted to developing cures using stem cells, only two focus on embryos.  Embryo stem cell research is at the drawing-board stage – not for lack of funds but for lack of promising research to finance.  Venture capitalists have no agenda beyond making money; if they see embryo projects that are likely to bear fruit over the next five to seven years – the usual VC time horizon – they will fund them.  That the market is speaking so loudly against embryo stem cell research probably explains why embryo researchers are so eager to reverse the ban on government funding.”

Diane Irving, Ph.D., a former professor of biology at Georgetown University and former biochemist with the National Cancer Institute, said, “I have argued that adult stem cells are better because they are closer to the stage of differentiation than embryonic or fetal cells – therefore they do not have as long a distance to travel differentiation-wise as the younger cells.  Therefore there is far less of a chance for genetic errors to be accumulated in the implanted cells and less side effects for the patient to deal with.”
http://www.lifeissues.org/cloningstemcell/bradsarticle.html

These latest results show that the ES cells need to be genetically modified and extensive manipulation in vitro before they can be transplanted safely. Direct transplant of ES cells are known to give rise to teratomas and uncontrollable cell proliferation. There is already evidence that ES cells are genetically unstable in long term culture, and are especially prone to chromosomal abnormalities. The risks involved in using the cytomegalovirus promoter to drive over-expression of the transcription factor are undetermined. To avoid immune rejection, the ES cells have to be tissue-matched from a bank of stem cells created from ‘spare’ human embryos. Otherwise, a special human embryo has to be created for the purpose, by transferring the patient’s genetic material into an empty egg, a procedure prone to failure and morally objectionable to many, including scientists.

By contrast, adult stem cells could be transplanted directly without genetic modification or pre-treatments. They simply differentiate according to cues from the surrounding tissues and do not give uncontrollable growth or tumours. The adult stem cells also show high degrees of genomic stability during culture. There is no problem with immune rejection because the cells can readily be isolated from the patients requiring transplant. And there is no moral objection involved. Better yet, research can be directed towards encouraging adult stem cells to regenerate and repair damaged tissues in situ, without the need for cell isolation and in vitro expansion. By minimising intervention, risks are reduced, as well as cost, making the treatment available to everyone and not just the rich.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/stemcells2.php

Continuing research on human embryonic stem cells could identify how undifferentiated stem cells become differentiated. It is known that turning genes on and off is central to the process. Some of the most serious medical conditions are caused by abnormal cell division and differentiation.

Better understanding of how these processes are controlled at the genetic and molecular level may lead to:

# significant information about the cause for many diseases
# new and better treatment possibilities
# potential cures for many medical conditions

Simply put, those who support human embryonic stem cell research believe it could lead to possible cures for many diseases, including:

# Rheumatoid Arthritis
# Lupus
# Scleroderma
# Diabetes
# Parkinson's disease
# Alzheimer's disease
# Heart disease
# Cancer
# Spinal cord injuries

Human stem cells could also be used to test new drugs. According to the NIH (National Institutes of Health, "to screen drugs effectively, the conditions must be identical when comparing different drugs. Therefore, scientists will have to be able to precisely control the differentiation of stem cells into the specific cell type on which drugs will be tested. Current knowledge of the signals controlling differentiation fall well short of being able to mimic these conditions precisely to consistently have identical differentiated cells for each drug being tested."

The need for transplantable tissues and organs far outweighs the available supply. Stem cells, directed to differentiate into specific cell types, could offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat many diseases.

http://arthritis.about.com/od/stemcell/i/stemcells_2.htm

[OzmO]

more from same site:

In August 2005, Harvard University scientists announced a break-through discovery that fuses "blank" embryonic stem cells with adult skin cells, rather than with fertilized embryos, to create all-purpose stem cells viable to treat diseases and disabilities.

This discovery doesn't result in the death of fertilized human embryos, and thus would effectively respond to pro-life objections to embryonic stem cell research and therapy.

Harvard researchers warned that it could take up to ten years to perfect this highly promising process.

As South Korea, Great Britain, Japan, Germany, India and other countries rapidly pioneer this new technological frontier, the US is being left farther and farther behind in medical technology. The US is also losing out on billions in new economic opportunities at a time when our country sorely needs new sources of revenues.

[OzmO]

Since I'm in an uncommon cut and paste mode:

Embryonic Stem Cell Advantages
1. Flexible—appear to have the potential to make any cell
2. Immortal—one ES cell line can potentially provide an endless supply of cells with
    defined characteristics
3. Availability—embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics

http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/pros_cons.html

[loco]

more from same site:

In August 2005, Harvard University scientists announced a break-through discovery that fuses "blank" embryonic stem cells with adult skin cells, rather than with fertilized embryos, to create all-purpose stem cells viable to treat diseases and disabilities.

This discovery doesn't result in the death of fertilized human embryos, and thus would effectively respond to pro-life objections to embryonic stem cell research and therapy.

Harvard researchers warned that it could take up to ten years to perfect this highly promising process.

As South Korea, Great Britain, Japan, Germany, India and other countries rapidly pioneer this new technological frontier, the US is being left farther and farther behind in medical technology. The US is also losing out on billions in new economic opportunities at a time when our country sorely needs new sources of revenues.

If this is true, then that is great!  So what's the problem then?  And why follow that great news with "US is being left farther and farther behind in medical technology."?

I got the follwoing from one of the links you posted above:

"Despite public perceptions, embryonic stem cell research is legal in the US. In 2001, the President banned the use of federal funds for research. He did not ban private and state research funding."
http://arthritis.about.com/od/stemcell/i/stemcells_2.htm

[loco]

Continuing research on human embryonic stem cells could identify how undifferentiated stem cells become differentiated. It is known that turning genes on and off is central to the process. Some of the most serious medical conditions are caused by abnormal cell division and differentiation.

Better understanding of how these processes are controlled at the genetic and molecular level may lead to:

# significant information about the cause for many diseases
# new and better treatment possibilities
# potential cures for many medical conditions

Simply put, those who support human embryonic stem cell research believe it could lead to possible cures for many diseases, including:

# Rheumatoid Arthritis
# Lupus
# Scleroderma
# Diabetes
# Parkinson's disease
# Alzheimer's disease
# Heart disease
# Cancer
# Spinal cord injuries

Human stem cells could also be used to test new drugs. According to the NIH (National Institutes of Health, "to screen drugs effectively, the conditions must be identical when comparing different drugs. Therefore, scientists will have to be able to precisely control the differentiation of stem cells into the specific cell type on which drugs will be tested. Current knowledge of the signals controlling differentiation fall well short of being able to mimic these conditions precisely to consistently have identical differentiated cells for each drug being tested."

The need for transplantable tissues and organs far outweighs the available supply. Stem cells, directed to differentiate into specific cell types, could offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat many diseases.

http://arthritis.about.com/od/stemcell/i/stemcells_2.htm

OzmO,
You do realize that these are nothing but theories with no guarantee that embryonic stem cell research will ever produce any of the above results even if fully funded by the U.S. federal government.  Adult stem cells, on the other hand, have already shown results.

The following comes from the same link you yourself posted above:

"There is no guarantee that forging ahead with embryonic stem cell research will produce the desired results. That, too, is a problem for some who oppose it. The utilization of embryonic stem cells, is at this point theoretical, unlike adult stem cells which have shown therapeutic results."
http://arthritis.about.com/od/stemcell/i/stemcells_2.htm

[loco]

Since I'm in an uncommon cut and paste mode:

Embryonic Stem Cell Advantages
1. Flexible—appear to have the potential to make any cell
2. Immortal—one ES cell line can potentially provide an endless supply of cells with
    defined characteristics
3. Availability—embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics

http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/pros_cons.html

OzmO,
you are carefully reading this stuff before you post it, right?  Again, these are nothing but theories with no guarantee that embryonic stem cell research will ever produce any of the above results even if fully funded by the U.S. federal government.  Adult stem cells, on the other hand, have already shown results.

The following is from the same link you posted above:

Adult Stem Cell Advantages
1. Special adult-type stem cells from bone marrow and from umbilical cord have been
    isolated recently which appear to be as flexible as the embryonic type
2. Already somewhat specialized—inducement may be simpler
3. Not immunogenic—recipients who receive the products of their own stem cells will
    not experience immune rejection
4. Relative ease of procurement—some adult stem cells are easy to harvest (skin,
    muscle, marrow, fat), while others may be more difficult to obtain (brain stem cells).
    Umbilical and placental stem cells are likely to be readily available
5. Non-tumorigenic—tend not to form tumors
6. No harm done to the donor
http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/pros_cons.html

[OzmO]

Loco,

Much of Science initially starts with potential, theories and possibilities.

Should they have stopped research into electricity and not developed it into solid state electronics?  They would have if they based continuing research on your argument.  Most of the development in anything starts with exactly the things you put in bold.

What bothers me is that in a creationist POV funding for things like this would not be authorized.   However, I think BUSH did it for political reasons to get votes from religious conservatives.   And in turn stopped any federal funding.  Big mistake.

I BTW am for it only if it is possbile without destroying human embryos.  And it sounds like it is.

[loco]

Loco,

Much of Science initially starts with potential, theories and possibilities.

Should they have stopped research into electricity and not developed it into solid state electronics?  They would have if they based continuing research on your argument.  Most of the development in anything starts with exactly the things you put in bold.

Electricity didn't take creating human embryos with the sole purpose of killing them for research and experimentation.  As if it wasn't bad enough that babies get aborted because their conception wasn't planned, now we plan their conception with the sole purpose of killing them just to prove a theory?  And if the theory proves correct, that means only the beginning of millions more planned conceptions of human life bound for murder for the sake of science.  So much for society getting better and becoming more developed.

[Necrosis]

Electricity didn't take creating human embryos with the sole purpose of killing them for research and experimentation.  As if it wasn't bad enough that babies get aborted because their conception wasn't planned, now we plan their conception with the sole purpose of killing them just to prove a theory?  And if the theory proves correct, that means only the beginning of millions more planned conceptions of human life bound for murder for the sake of science.  So much for society getting better and becoming more developed.

life is meaningless, its about quality of life, if it works out then disease may end.

[OzmO]

Electricity didn't take creating human embryos with the sole purpose of killing them for research and experimentation.  As if it wasn't bad enough that babies get aborted because their conception wasn't planned, now we plan their conception with the sole purpose of killing them just to prove a theory?  And if the theory proves correct, that means only the beginning of millions more planned conceptions of human life bound for murder for the sake of science.

Not if they are, as they say at Harvard University, able to create these cells with out killing human embryos.  Yet, this president has refused funding for it.  That's a danger or a draw back of creationists thinking.  Just like with cloning.

So that's poses the question:  If they can do this research with out killing embryos is it ok with you loco?

[OzmO]

life is meaningless, its about quality of life, if it works out then disease may end.

If you read between the lines of the Christian Bible, life is pretty meaningless to God also.  But that's another story.

[Necrosis]

If you read between the lines of the Christian Bible, life is pretty meaningless to God also.  But that's another story.

life is meaningless in eternity even if god exists, theres no end so no ultimate lessons can be learned, it just goes on and on and on, making life pointless and our finite existence worth living to the fullest.

[MCWAY]

Perhaps i should have been more specific:

The potential of embryonic stem cell research. Many scientists believe that embryonic stem cell research may eventually lead to therapies that could be used to treat diseases that afflict approximately 128 million Americans. Treatments may include replacing destroyed dopamine-secreting neurons in a Parkinson's patient's brain; transplanting insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells in diabetic patients; and infusing cardiac muscle cells in a heart damaged by myocardial infarction. Embryonic stem cells may also be used to understand basic biology and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new medicines.


That's potentially BIG business either gained or lost.

Loco mentioned it earlier. If embryonic stem cell research were such "BIG business", the private sector biotech companies would be providing the $$$$$$ and supporters of it wouldn't be howling about the government's (President Bush, in particular) not funding it.

The other forms of stem cell research appear to be getting a healthy share of cash, on its own, in large part because such are curing diseases RIGHT NOW and they have the potential of curing other disease in the future with virtually NONE of the bioethical controversy, that comes with embryonic stem cell research.

Stem cells from placentas, baby teeth, adult skin, bodyfat, etc. are all being used to cure ailments TODAY and TOMMORROW and there's another form of type that reportedly has all the potential of embryonic stem cell research, but again with none of the controversy. I believe it's called amniotic stem cell research.

Here's a brief blurb about it from AiG:

Many proponents of stem cell research have long suggested that embryonic stem cell lines would provide the most potential benefit to mankind. The presumption had been that embryonic stem cells have the most potential for differentiation, that is, they could ultimately be stimulated to form any type of body tissue. In actuality, most of the tissue types in the body have been produced with the use of adult stem cells. To date, essentially every significant therapeutic success in this arena has been with adult stem cells.

With AFS (amniotic-fluid stem cells) there now appears to be a third option. These cells are more mature than embryonic stem cells. Even so, this new research indicates that they have lost little, if any, ability to potentially differentiate into many, if not all, types of tissues. This degree of maturity may account for another apparent advantage of AFS. These cells do not appear to present the risk of developing tumors. In contrast, the growth of embryonic stem cells is sometimes erratic and at times uncontrollable to the extent that they will form tumor cells. AFS have not shown any predisposition toward malignant transformation. Obviously this is a major advantage for AFS.

AFS appear to be very easy to work with in the laboratory. They seem to grow well and have a long life span, reportedly significantly longer than adult stem cells in culture.

While we will need much more investigation into this area, work with AFS appears to be very promising at present. The ability to easily collect and isolate viable stem cell populations is a giant step forward. Knowledge that these cells have the ability to transform into so many tissue types is welcome. The promise, if fulfilled, that this technology would be available without the destruction of human life is priceless.


What irks me about this issue is that certain folks paint Christians as people who don't support stem cell research, OVERALL; when in actuality, many support all but one form of such (and that one form just happens to be the one that hasn't cured anything, to date).

[OzmO]

Loco mentioned it earlier. If embryonic stem cell research were such "BIG business", the private sector biotech companies would be providing the $$$$$$ and supporters of it wouldn't be howling about the government's (President Bush, in particular) not funding it. They want Uncle Sam to cough the dough, because few (if anybody else) will.

The other forms of stem cell research appear to be getting a healthy share of cash, on its own, in large part because such are curing diseases RIGHT NOW and they have the potential of curing other disease in the future with virtually NONE of the bioethical controversy, that comes with embryonic stem cell research.

Stem cells from placentas, baby teeth, adult skin, bodyfat, etc. are all being used to cure ailments TODAY and TOMMORROW and there's another form of type that reportedly has all the potential of embryonic stem cell research, but again with none of the controversy. I believe it's called aminotic stem cell research.

What irks me about this issue is that Christians are almost always painted as not supporting stem cell research, OVERALL; when in actuality, many support all but one form of such (and that one form just happens to be the one that hasn't cured anything, to date).



Loco mentioned it earlier. If embryonic stem cell research were such "BIG business", the private sector biotech companies would be providing the $$$$$$ and supporters of it wouldn't be howling about the government's (President Bush, in particular) not funding it.

The other forms of stem cell research appear to be getting a healthy share of cash, on its own, in large part because such are curing diseases RIGHT NOW and they have the potential of curing other disease in the future with virtually NONE of the bioethical controversy, that comes with embryonic stem cell research.

Stem cells from placentas, baby teeth, adult skin, bodyfat, etc. are all being used to cure ailments TODAY and TOMMORROW and there's another form of type that reportedly has all the potential of embryonic stem cell research, but again with none of the controversy. I believe it's called aminotic stem cell research.

What irks me about this issue is that Christians are almost always painted as not supporting stem cell research, OVERALL; when in actuality, many support all but one form of such (and that one form just happens to be the one that hasn't cured anything, to date).

Thanks McWay, i appreciate you posting it twice.  We all can use a little repetition in our lives.   

Many things come and go and some get support while others don't.  That mere fact doesn't mean that what ever they are researching isn't worthy of funding.  Take Jet engines in the 1930's for example.  The allies virtually ended funding for it prior tot he war while the Germans continued research.  In the end it turned out to be a mistake.

Remember the only controversy here is that embryonic stem research kills human embryos.   And as Harvard has done, it is now not part of the equation. 

Which brings up back to BUSH's political motivation for not authorizing funding.  With a creationists in the White house we would see much more of that, retarding America's competitive edge in future technologies.

[MCWAY]

Thanks McWay, i appreciate you posting it twice.  We all can use a little repetition in our lives.   

Sorry!!! That was an accident    !!

Many things come and go and some get support while others don't.  That mere fact doesn't mean that what ever they are researching isn't worthy of funding.  Take Jet engines in the 1930's for example.  The allies virtually ended funding for it prior tot he war while the Germans continued research.  In the end it turned out to be a mistake.

Remember the only controversy here is that embryonic stem research kills human embryos.   And as Harvard has done, it is now not part of the equation. 

Which brings up back to BUSH's political motivation for not authorizing funding.  With a creationists in the White house we would see much more of that, retarding America's competitive edge in future technologies.

Exactly how are we behind in stem cell research? What diseases are other countries curing with embryonic stem cell research that folks in the USA are not?

And again, where's the profit from the private sector? From the link that Loco provided, only two of the 15 companies, devoted to stem cell research, are pouring any loot into embryonic stem cell research.

[OzmO]

Sorry!!! That was an accident    !!

Many things come and go and some get support while others don't.  That mere fact doesn't mean that what ever they are researching isn't worthy of funding.  Take Jet engines in the 1930's for example.  The allies virtually ended funding for it prior tot he war while the Germans continued research.  In the end it turned out to be a mistake.

Exactly how are we behind in stem cell research? What diseases are other countries curing with embryonic stem cell research that folks in the USA are not?

And again, where's the profit from the private sector? From the link that Loco provided, only two of the 15 companies, devoted to stem cell research, are pouring any loot into embryonic stem cell research.

Many things factor in 2 of 15 companies pursuing embryonic stem cell research. 

Some companies are banking on what they know they can get them a return while others are banking on things with a lesser chance of that.  Some companies have the money to venture that way and some don't.  That's where the federal government comes in with funding.

But let's go back to the reason for the controversy....

If human embryos are not killed is it ok with you?

[loco]

Many things factor in 2 of 15 companies pursuing embryonic stem cell research. 

Some companies are banking on what they know they can get them a return while others are banking on things with a lesser chance of that.  Some companies have the money to venture that way and some don't.  That's where the federal government comes in with funding.

But let's go back to the reason for the controversy....

If human embryos are not killed is it ok with you?

I don't know.  If wealthy private corporations don't want to risk flushing their money down the toilet with something that has produced no results so far, why would Americans want to flush their tax dollars down the toilet the same way?  And what would you do with all those embryos?  You are creating embryos, human life, only to use them to make the quality of life better for another human.  We are talking about human life here, but it almost sounds as if we are talking about a chicken farm instead.