Comments Posted By The MaryHunter
Displaying 121 To 130 Of 181 Comments
IT'S NICE TO BE WELL THOUGHT OF
I will not obey any FEC regulations that restrict my freedom of speech.
My Master. ;-)
Seriously Rick, Kevin, Jay, Diamond, all: What astonishes me is that, even with Rathergate/Memogate, Blairgate, Glassgate, Korangate, Dateline NBC's Gastankgate in 1992-93 -- and how ever many more -gates yet to be discovered or perpetrated -- the mainstreem 'press' still receives respect through that moniker as a matter of government policy and law.
The irony boggles.
Comment Posted By The MaryHunter On 5.06.2005 @ 06:17
'THOSE WHO DO NOT LEARN FROM HISTORY...."
A real 'page turner', Rick, and I'm not just saying that. Hits so close to home for me. It will be interesting when the 9/11 toddler generation reaches Middle School and High School. What will the textbooks say about 9/11 - assuming it is looked upon as either the last huge act of domestic terrorism, or the first of several? Either way: how will our schools soft-peddle and sanitize? Will they actually expect the kids who lived through it (as my now-6 y.o. did, and still does every time she sees a picture of the WTC) to take the educators seriously when all the teachers and textbooks say is that "It was a horrible tragedy and nearly 3,000 people died, but the US was partly to blame"? I know my daughter will be setting them straight.
Comment Posted By The MaryHunter On 2.06.2005 @ 06:00
MEMORIAL DAY SHOULD BE FOR THE LIVING TOO
Wonderful post, Rick. It is really a joy to see a uniformed serviceman's or -woman's face light up after you say "Thank you" to them in an airport or interstate rest stop. I keep trying to set this example for my kids whenever we travel -- seems like the least we can do.
Comment Posted By The MaryHunter On 30.05.2005 @ 08:45
No no no. You just keep ahead posting science stuff, Rick, ya done good. This especially is a fast-moving, exciting, and ethically challenging biomedical research field. I'm barely keeping up with it.
Re contamination, corruption, watevah (as Raven would say): if that's also what you meant, indeed you had a good point (not to help your argument any) in the fact that the current collection of ES lines is not really usable for clinical research. This goes right in keeping with the pro-ES cell folk's desire to get that ES-cell research legislation passed. My big argument, and Penelope's, is that all this focus is on a technology that, like the Silver Bullet for cancer, is neither proven nor likely to pan out in the way everyone hopes it will... and here we have adult stem cells a plenty that are already curing people in clinics.
Take that, John "I'll Say Anything to Get Elected" Edwards, for your numbskull line in Election 2004 that (paraphrasing) "If John Kerry and I are elected, the lame will walk again" through ES cell research. Not necessary; those same-patient nose cells (olfactory ensheathing cells) I referred to in my post are doing it already with little or no risk of tissue rejection.
Comment Posted By The MaryHunter On 26.05.2005 @ 13:47
Happy to, Rick!
Sue in essence reiterates some of the points from my original post and brings up a very good point and question about funding. Yes, the restrictions are only for federally funded research. Folks researching at private research institutes with no NIH or NSF funds can go right along and fiddle, as can industry (within the law, i.e., no cloning humans).
Sue, I can't answer your thesis regarding private industry asking for gov't funding directly; however rest assured that industry is simply marching along with ES cell research, though quietly (as is their wont, for intellectual property reasons).
However this begs the more fundamental question: why the devil is human embryonic stem cell research all the rage, as compared to the more-proven adult stem cell research?
To help answer, please allow me to bring into this discussion Penelope, a new writer (and scientist by training) at my blog, who just posted the companion piece to my original post that Rick linked. In it she addresses the glamour factor of human embryonic stem cell research that reigns, despite the difficult ethics (for many) and the dubious promise (for real) that this technology holds.
Re Rick's question re "contamination" of ES lines: what's meant here is that in order to grow ES cells in culture you usually need to grow them with "feeder cells" which help provide growth factors and other goodies they need. Traditionally the feeder cells have been mouse-derived cells, which could render the ES cells useless for any clinical application. Mostly, all the however-many-there-are cell lines have such feeder cells so they could be used for research only in a limited way. However, I think that there are ways now to culture ES cells in a growth medium without feeder cells... I need to check on that.
(N.B.: Rick, now I'm going to have to wait awhile to get back to your original comment - life and work have interceded for the moment. In short: I think we're going to have to agree to disagree...)
Comment Posted By The MaryHunter On 26.05.2005 @ 11:46
This is a great post, a great distillation of cool science. Thankya big big! :)
Regarding stem cells and human embryos: you write "Embryos slated for destruction can in no rational way be construed as life. " Well I say that there is a rational way: By definition, the union of egg and sperm creates a new human genome that has never existed before in the human gene pool. The genetic code is locked and loaded, and in fact starts BOOM right off making a new person: the cells start dividing, different tissues grow and differentiate (even at just a few hours post fertilization). This, all well before the embryo has even embedded into the uterus wall and become, as abortion proponents love to call it, 'a parasite'.
If that's not life, then I don't know what is. We even give viruses the dignity of defining them as a "life form" and they are utterly dependent on a host cell.
And... though it sounds like hyperbole, I believe that the more you try to parse 'when life begins' by some value judgment or arbitrary timepoint/biologic marker, the easier it will be to redefine end-of-life issues on the basis of value judgments, and thereby cheapen the meaning of life altogether. To wit, Life becomes something less than a continuum and more like a normal or Gaussian distribution, an inverted bell curve with "time" on the bottom axis, and "quality/value of life " on the vertical axis. Then, who knows: Terri Schiavos be ware, and death row inmates could become fair game. Way oversimplification, I'll admit, but we were talking slippery slope problems with Terri Schiavo as well.
Comment Posted By The MaryHunter On 26.05.2005 @ 04:28
If only Frist had... hand. I will give him this much: he stuck to his guns with the leadership and especially not budging an inch re Up-or-Down vote with Dingy Harry Reid. Hearing Frist speak on Hannity yesterday, You'd believe he's already planned to put Meyers up next week, or anyway one of the "unprotected" nominees, just to dare the Dems to make him pull the nuke trigger anyway, despite the Seven Dwarfs.
And getting that Seven-Dwarf RINO freakshow to dance in step? Failure there sickens me but I don't lay it all on Frist's doorstep, so much doggie doo in a burning paper bag that it is. Media darling McCain put that bag there, I believe as his ultimate payback to Bush for 2000.
While I'm way pissed at the Senate GOP, I have to agree with Beth's comment over at Ogre's place (even though I seriously disliked her sanctimonious tone) that it's utterly counterproductive to swear off financial or voting support of the GOP at this stage. Then, THEY win.
What I will do is work to support, in any way I can, valid GOP senatorial candidates that run in primaries against any of the Seven Dwarf RINOs (heck, from outside SD I helped Thune beat Daschle...)
Anyway, Rick, I'm adding this well-stated post to my collection of other links on this depressing yet intriguing topic.
Comment Posted By The MaryHunter On 25.05.2005 @ 05:42
Hey, whaddidIdo? :(
Comment Posted By The MaryHunter On 23.05.2005 @ 17:21
You're right, technically NOT a spoiler... hey, maybe the rader meant something else entirely. :D
Yo, I like your take, Rick. Bummed about the radar teaser spoiler, tho.
One correction: last night I wrote that it would probably NOT be Sec. Heller but I had no good alternative 'cept perhaps someone already dead. I stand by that wishywashy prediction.
Can't wait, oh oh oh, can't wait! (happy dance) Thanks again for all the time you've put into this, Rick! :D
Comment Posted By The MaryHunter On 23.05.2005 @ 15:34
SALUTE THE TROOPS ON ARMED FORCES DAY
Rick, re NYT: was that a trick question?
Very important post, for a very important day.
Comment Posted By The MaryHunter On 21.05.2005 @ 18:38
