Stem-cell research, a short question ...?
929966
Try to rganise a commitee that wants to petition the government to allow federal grants to stem cell research. This type of research is very important and therefore start grass root activity.
968705
I belive that Stem Cell research is basically the modification of deoxyribosnucleic acid.  By modifiying this gene sequence, you can cure disease, build strength, enhance brain power, or just about anything.  Then I'm assuming that stem cell surgery is where the gene is actually modified, I don't believe that this has happened yet as Congress is adamently against it.
83841
Women are going to have abortions. Whether it's right or wrong to do so, they are going to do it.  Why shouldn't we as a society utilize this stem cell resource?  We're more than willing to destroy the rain forests and other resources for chemical "cures".  We'll pump ourselves full of chemicals and endure side effects worse than the disease we're trying to treat when stem cells offer cures, not just symptom cover ups.
814963
Yes.  Governments fund all sorts of medical research projects as it is, so why not allow stem cell research to be a part of that?   \n\nIf you say "no" to stem cell research funded by governments because of tax money being spent as the issue (and not an objection because of moral grounds), then you should just say "no" to all research medical research by governments.  In this case, the issue appears to be that taxes should not be used for government funded medical research.  I think it extremely short-sighted.
775192
http://www.ask.com/web?o=ie7&qsrc=6&l=dir&q=Funds+for+Embryonic+Stem+Cell+Research\n\nnot really
755812
there are 2 types of stem cell used.  one is NOT from embro's and has cured about 100 diseases so far(republican).  the other is from unborn embro's and has cured ZERO diseases(democrat).  Think the chioce is that simple, it is.
699943
Opposition to stem cell research is almost entirely ethical/moral.  There are two major concerns, both of which turn on the sanctity of life and the slippery slope argument.\n\nThe first is that if any gains are realized from this research, that scientists will begin to farm human beings a la "The Matrix".  The basic fear is that even though scientists currently intend only to use cells from embryos that were going to be destroyed anyway, they will begin to create babies for the sole purpose of harvesting their stem cells.  In essence, it's a more sinister form of abortion.\n\nSecondly, many of those people who oppose cloning are against stem cell research because the methodology of conducting stem cell research is that of small-scale cloning.  More specifically, legislation legalizing stem cell research may be written such that full-on cloning would also be legal, although this is a somewhat tenuous argument.\n\nIf you want to know any more, I would suggest you look at most any Right-to-Life website.  They will likely have talking points to better explain these and other arguments.\n\nBest of luck with your speech.  Arguing against your own beliefs can often refine your own debate skills and understanding of your real position.
9488
Be cautious because there are companies (at least one I've read of) marketing stem cell therapies that have no scientific basis. There's no reason to think that what they are doing will work. This company has been charging something like ten thousand dollars for a treatment and moving from country to country as they have been shut down.\n\nI understand the need for treatments now, but it's sad for a company to take so much money from someone who is very sick by taking advantage of their illness.\n\nWhat has been offered is a transfusion with hematopoietic stem cells, which means blood stem cells. These are cells that have already "decided" to be blood cells, but still have the potential to become different kinds of blood cells, such as red blood cells, white blood cells.\n\nThere are two or three major, major problems with what this company has been offering. One is that they are saying the blood stem cells can cure non-blood related diseases, like diseases that have to do with nerves. The cells they inject have already decided to be blood cells. This is a problem.\n\nThe second problem is that, for the hematopoietic stem cells to graft, meaning to take hold and grow in a recipient, the patient would have to go through a bone marrow transplant, meaning severe treatment to kill their own bone marrow. Otherwise the immune system will kill off the donor stem cells.\n\nThe third problem is that, even if there were some stem cells in the blood that could become nerve or other tissue, if those are just injected, they run the risk of starting other cancers. This point is a little bit tricky, and that's because there is a lot of active research going on in this area. In the idea of using stem cells for therapy, they need to have some instructions (meaning molecular signals) before being injected, otherwise they form tumors. This is not ready for patients yet.\n\nThe other very serious risk is that anyone who signed up for such a treatment is putting their trust in a company that has been put out of business for doing bad science, in the case I'm thinking of. There's no way to know whether they have screened their donors for HIV and other blood borne infectious diseases.\n\nPeople are working very hard to try to come up with better treatments. I know it's not a good answer for anyone who is sick now. Research budgets are being cut at the federal level, and a lot of good labs are having to slow their work or shut down. If you want more progress faster, write your congress person and tell them you support more NIH funding. We're doing our best with your money.
704914
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_research#Controversy_surrounding_stem_cell_research for help \n\nGood Luck!!!
500314
Stem cell research and cloning are still "blockbusters", but specific antibody research, gene therapy and advanced imaging techniques (fret, for example) are hot too.\n\nOff course, I would certainly add RNA interference to the list!
320860
You answered your own question about stem cell research. I encourage you to learn more. \n\nRegarding replacing animal testing, you are comparing 2 completely different things. A stem cell is a cell. It has the functionality of a cell. It is unique because it can be treated with a variety of biochemical processes to cause it to differentiate, but it will never function as a whole living system. \n\nWhen a vaccine is studied, for example, the creators must know how the vaccine interacts with every system of the body. Sure, you can demonstrate in a petri dish that the vaccine binds flu virus. Great. That's the FIRST step! But how do you know it won't bind the interior surface of the lung in a living body? how do you klnow how it is working? How do you know what systems in the body improve its function? How do you know that 3 days after vaccination there can be an allergic reaction in people with impaired immune systems becasue the incidence of CD4 cells in the airways can cause asthma (this is a hypothetical case, BTW, used to illustrate the complexity of the issue)? The only way to know is to test it in a living body. Period. \n\nHere is a very good web site debunking the popular myths surrounding animal research: \n\nhttp://www.huntingdon.com/index.php?currentNumber=4.9&currentIsExpanded=0\n\nBy the way- two facts most people do not know:\n1) Animal research is much more strictly regulated than human\n2) At all reputable research facilities, the use of every animal used in testing must be justified to government regulatory agencies, and to a representative of public interest\n\nThe use of animals is governed by groups of people dedicated to making critical, and tough, ethical decisions, weighing risk vs benefit, and carefully assessing every proposed study. The benefit to human and animal health and well-being  is alwasy considered very carefully in each decision.\n\nI encourage to learn more about this topic, and continue to ask thoughtful questions.
900029
I don't know - nor will we ever truly know unless the research is done.\n\nEven if there is a remote chance that the possibilities suggested for stem cell research will come about, this research has to be carried out - the potential for saving human life and removing some horrible complaints is stunning.\n\nAnyone who understands the first thing about it must support the research. Only the ignorant oppose it.
374875
For embyronic stem cell:\nit will provide many cures for possibly many diseases and conditions such as diabetes and paralysis, it has proven to be effective so far and can better the lives of many, it is the cutting edge of modern medicine\n\nAgainst:\nThere are other methods of stem cell research using adult stem cells that won't use embryos at all, many believe that killing the embryos just for their stem cells is not moral, the eventual result of stem cell research could be overcrowding due to increased life span for many and/or cloning which is an issue that is also very controversial
406585
Scientists are leagues away from using stem cells to produce organs.  Below are a few sites that will help you understand where the field is now, and how far we have yet to go:\n\nhttp://www.bioteach.ubc.ca/Bioengineering/StemCells/\nhttp://www.stemcellresearchfoundation.org/About/FAQ.htm
282691
I agree too many! And you others are wrong, stem cell research is still done in privately funded centers, only government funded centers cannot perform stem cell research! Nancy Reagen funds a privately owned  research center
730714
1)  EVERY advance gained from stem cell research has come through adult stem cells\n\n2)  ZERO advances have come through embryonic.\n\n3)  When ZERO advances come along, private funding for research dries up.  Who wants to throw money at a losing proposition?\n\n4)  Stem cell research is not illegal.\n\n5)  The push for stem cell research is a veiled move to push for public funding for FAILED avenues of research.\n\n"To date there is no evidence that cells generated from embryonic stem cells can be safely transplanted back into adult animals to restore the function of damaged or diseased adult tissues. The level of scientific rigor that is normally applied (indeed, legally required) in the development of potential medical treatments would have to be entirely ignored for experiments with human embryos to proceed. As our largely disappointing experience with gene therapy should remind us, many highly vaunted scientific techniques frequently fail to yield the promised results. Arbitrarily waiving the requirement for scientific evidence out of a naive faith in "promise" is neither good science nor a good use of public funds."
949372
Dr. Mengele:\n\nThe federal government provides LOTS of money for stem cell research RIGHT NOW.  It funds research for umbilical cord and adult stem cell research and for existing embryonic cell lines.\n\nWhat it doesn't do is support the murder of additional embryoes.  But as Dr. Mengele, you don't care about murdering people.  You just want to play god.