Thank you for your response. I thought that I had misread what William had written and upon review I think I got it right. However, please be aware that my understanding of William’s position on stem cells is based exclusively on what he blogged during the Saddleback forum. If I am ignorant of other positions he has put forth, please accept my apology. However, I think you need to review what William blogged. He is clearly suggesting that “politicians tell religious people who oppose stem cell research that they are nuts.” (quotes around my paraphrase) I think my assertion follows directly from William’s comments.

On to your further assertions regarding stem cells.

You write: “The statement that we generate stem cell lines without embryonic stem cells is simply false.”

No, actually it is true. This is a common falsehood that is promoted by the AP, the NYT and other agenda news sources. Please, please, please read the links that I gave you above. Here is yet another link. This one is to Scientific American: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=no-more-cloning-around
Also you can examine the primary research journals “Cell” and “Nature” to see this information.

You wrote: ” Embryonic stem cells are produced from currently existing lines, many of which were contaminated due to poor controls. There is a limited number of these lines.”

This is only partially true. There are only handful of existing lines that were created with (and here’s the clincher) — d i r e c t g o v e r n m e n t f u n d i n g. However, there are truly thousands of lines that have been created with private funding. (And many of these private cell lines have even been patented and readily available are for sale.) The myth you quote also is mis-information that has been promoted by the NYT, the AP, the LA times and other agenda driven media. Please examine the links that I have provided above. Also you can examine the primary research journals “Cell” and “Nature” to see this information. And please give me substantive links from primary science journals that support your assertions.

Iron Pol, you write “There are, however, other options. Umbilical cord blood is a great source of stem cells (and also the one source that has produced many proven cures). We can get stem cells from individuals, process them, and reintroduce them to the individual. Again, a proven technique.”

You are correct! These are all examples of what are called ‘adult stem cells.’ (Yes, even those from cord blood are called adult stem cells. It has to do with the cells capability in their native state. And there are a wealth of cures that derive from these adult stem cells. And there are none that are derived from embryonic stem cells. Almost all Christians are for this type of stem cell research and use.

Iron Pol, you write: “However, none of these are embryonic stem cells. Those are only available from developing embryos, and the “best” source is days old embryos.” Those who oppose this process take a strong stance and say that the potential benefits are insufficient to warrant the destruction of a fetus. I think Bill is right that those who support such research should just take a darn stance. They usually try to waffle around it so they can keep the support of conservatives and the Christian right.”

You are mostly correct about the embryonic stem cells. However, the attractiveness of embyronic stem cells is principally derived from their being “pluripotent” cells. Which among other things is the cell’s ability to divide and produce other cells which in turn divide and produce other cells continously. “Pluripotent” cells have a sort of immortality which is what make them attractive to scientists. Recently ( as in two years ago) it was shown and verified that adult stem cells could be tricked to behave just like embryonic stem cells. Hence, there is no longer a need for embryonic stem cells. With induced pluripotent stem cells you have the benefit of a stem cell line that matches a patient’s own DNA — eliminating many if not all of the issues around organ rejection, and it reproduces indefinitely.

Please check out my links above.

Aubrey, I don’t know Bill’s stance on stem cells. But all he did was express a wish that pro-stem cell people would stop trying to convince those who oppose it that it is somehow morally acceptable. They should simply take a stance and stand behind it.

The statement that we generate stem cell lines without embryonic stem cells is simply false. Embryonic stem cells are produced from currently existing lines, many of which were contaminated due to poor controls. There is a limited number of these lines.

There are, however, other options. Umbilical cord blood is a great source of stem cells (and also the one source that has produced many proven cures). We can get stem cells from individuals, process them, and reintroduce them to the individual. Again, a proven technique.

However, none of these are embryonic stem cells. Those are only available from developing embryos, and the “best” source is days old embryos. Those who oppose this process take a strong stance and say that the potential benefits are insufficient to warrant the destruction of a fetus. I think Bill is right that those who support such research should just take a darn stance. They usually try to waffle around it so they can keep the support of conservatives and the Christian right.

Please inform yourself before you engage in statements like: “I wish Obama or any candidate would just tell religious people who oppose stem-cell research that they are nuts, stand in the way of scientific progress and doesn’t cause any harm to human life…”

It leaves not doubt as to the depth of your your ignorance. It’s like saying “the earth is flat” to anyone who is informed on the issue. Be aware that there is absolutely no reason for using embryonic stem cells. None. This isn’t religion. This is science. Currently we can generate stem cell lines w-i-t-h-o-u-t embryonic stem cells. This has been true for years.

Please go to the NIHS site http://www.nih.gov and read up on it. Or simply state that you are ignorant of the science behind the issue and hence don’t have an opinion.

Here’s a website that breaks out the science of stem cell research in very clear terms http://www.stemcellresearch.org/ And for those who are interested here’s a website that provides a moral perspective on biotechnology: http://www.marymeetsdolly.com/ Please just take a few moments….

didnt obama give as his reason a lack of necessary experience on the part of thomas at the time of his nomination?

that’s rich coming from a presidential candidate with a resume shorter than a matchbook and without a single accomplishment of note to his credit. don’t think that’ll be lost on people.

score it a 2.0

Great blog btw.