Bernadine Healy, the former head of the National institutes of Health and the American Red Cross says the remarkable advances of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) are beginning to subsume embryonic stem cells.I wrote a post just this weekend how adult skin cells can be turned into embryonic-acting stem cells. (Turning Skin Cells into Stem Cells) Of course, Obama argues that since some embryos will be tossed away, why not just "use them." By that same logic, why don't we just take people that die in any hospital and harvest every organ and body tissue for either organ donation or research? What's the difference? We are going to turn into Vidiians :
She wrote in U.S News and World Report that IPSC and adult stem cell research successes have "diminished" the prospect that ESCR is the future of regenerative medicine.
"Even for strong backers of embryonic stem cell research, [Obama's decision] is no longer as self-evident as it was, because there is markedly diminished need for expanding these cell lines for either patient therapy or basic research," Healy explains.
"In fact, during the first six weeks of Obama's term, several events reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells, once thought to hold the cure for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and diabetes, are obsolete," she adds.
If Obama wants to somehow "restore scientific integrity in governmental decision making," maybe he should start listening to it from an unbiased source, versus the sycophants he's surrounded himself within the echo chamber.
You make it difficult to uncover the source of information you cite in your post. I had to go through several links, mostly from LifeNews.com to get to anything close to original information. BTW, do you really think LifeNews is unbiased, as a source?
ReplyDeleteI ended up on the Bernadine Healy column page. I found the article uninspiring, and thought that it was more opinion than fact.
Using a one-time event, she castigates embryonic stem cells as having a "markedly diminished need" and even "obsolete". She even refers to the one-time event as "not an anomaly nor a surprise". Wow, great claims, but alas, no real evidence. The last nail in the coffin is that "the future of embryonic stem cells has dimmed".
Looking to her Wiki page, it is very clear she has close ties to 3 Republican presidents, and also ran for office as a Republican. If she has any sympathies or policy alignments, it is very likely conservative (by how much is unknown).
This background helps me understand her writing, and why LifeNews would refer to her. I also find her to be overtly biased.
Which again leads me to your closing paragraph; are you really asking for unbiased sources, forgoing sycophants? For this you've chosen Healy as your standard bearer?
Pot, the kettle is calling!!
Regards.