Michael J. Fox Makes Stem Cell Plea
tags:
Stumble ThisActor Michael J. Fox discusses his foundation for Parkinson's disease research and recent allegations made by radio host Rush Limbaugh.
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
parkinsons,stem,cell,research,Katie Couric,cbs Michael J. Fox Makes Stem Cell Plea
Comments  who voted for this video Zifnab
- siftbot
x73who has this post bookmarked thesnipe
Michael J. Fox Makes Stem Cell Plea Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote                 Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 14. Seric
(141 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments        | ||||||||||||||
Lets have a real, informed, secular debate about morality, OK?
Also, use of completely non-controversial adult-derived (and cord-derived) stem cells for treatment of adult conditions is making enormous strides. People who tell you otherwise don't know what they are talking about or have political agenda (and I happen to be a geneticist so I'm not Joe Q. on this topic. I hate to brag that cause it makes me sound like a prick, but otherwise people will just assume I'm another ...how'd you put it? "ignorant religious nutcase"). I'm all for stem-cell research. But it's unwise to rush into morally controversial territory when there is a completely non-controversial alternative that is getting more and more effective. The fact that there are destroyed embryos that could be instead used for science is another debate entirely, unfortunately. As for cloning babies? Well, I don't even have a problem with that really, a person is a person. But since the law currently allows late-term abortion in many places in the world, you could potentially clone yourself and kill the fetus late to harvest the tissue you need. I think anyone alive would find that detestable, but without the anti-cloning law, it would be legal... maybe not doable at the moment, but I give that one 3-4 years. Most of the methods needed are already worked out.
The public is only getting sound-bytes from uninformed politicians and fuming anti-theists about all this. They're being told that we need to ignore our ethics and do this NOW because PEOPLE ARE DYING!! Well, every kid in this world has 2 kidneys and that could save 2 lives for the price of one...what a deal! I mean, "people are dying" so we must act NOW!
I predict that Michael J. will be around to see adult-derived stem cell treatments for his condition.
In short, we're inches away from being able to reset certain cell types to recover most of their pluripotency. It shouldn't be long before we can take a bit of your bone marrow or (if you have it stored) cord-blood, reset the cells to a near embryonic progenitor, then tell them to become neurons or such. A few more years and we're there. Patience.
::Raspberry::
Yes we have, at the point when a birth is registered at whatever national level.
"But it's unwise to rush into morally controversial territory when there is a completely non-controversial alternative that is getting more and more effective."
It is actually wise to pursue both methodologies - this is common sense first, and scientific reasoning second. I'd like to think both of these avenues are being explored based on sound medical judgement rather than either of them being stopped for political or religious reasons. Yes it's morally controversial, just like nuclear technology has always been.
The rest of the post is just fearmongering based on "this will lead to much worse things like x,y & z"
I look forward to hearing any substantial reason why this research should not be allowed. Nobody has been able to come up with one that actually makes any sense.
You have yet to hear an explaination that makes sense to you because you are not trying to empathize with those whose beliefs differ from your own. Some cultures think cannibalism is AOK. Most don't.
You argue that science should be exploring both ESCs and adult-derived research. That's fine if you have no moral or ethical problem with both. The arguement over whether we should be using ESCs is not scientific debate. It is an ethical debate. Every university has a bio-ethics committee to consider what science is ethical what science is unethical. Just like improper use of animals is always considered, here we need to consider what we think about ESCs and embryo cloning and destruction.
Basically if you have no moral objection and no religious or philosophical aversion to it, you will never "hear any substantial reason why this research should not be allowed."
</badjoke>
I've done my own research on stem cells, and I can confirm, for those that were wondering, they are NOT practicing gay marriage. So chill out, conservatives!
The cause chooses them, not the other way around.
when he takes his meds hes very calm and looks normal.
because of this i think its ok to make a parody of this interview, it would be hilarious.
In the one time that he was said to be "off his medication" or "overacting" by Rush Limbaugh for a ad supporting stem cell research. Micheal actually was over-medicated and dyskinesic in said ad, nothing that has to do with this interview. Even in that "controversial" ad he denies trying to play up his disease in any way shape or form.
He also made a note that without his medication he wouldn't be able to speak. I don't see anyway that this incident should allow us to "parody" on his disease.
I was kidding.
1) Stick out your tongue.
2) Close your lips around your tongue.
3) Blow.
4) Clean the spittle off your monitor.
But step 4 made me laugh.
Now, another question: where the hell did they get the name raspberry from?
There is no one point at which a fertilized egg becomes a person, because the change occurs tiny bit by tiny bit, continuously. However, a fertilized egg is clearly not a person, because it cannot think anything, cannot feel anything, and cannot know anything. Is an acephalic child (a birth defect in which the baby is born with no skull, head, or brain) a person? I think not.
The potential human life argument goes nowhere. If every time you prevent a person from coming into being is murder, then every time you use a condom or abstain from sex you are comitting murder. It would be quite convenient for clergy to lead people to believe all forms of avoiding reproduction are immoral, since that would cause the population of their flocks to exceed that of competing religions. Most religion spreading occurs by fucking and indoctrinating offspring, not by conversion. Indeed clergy tried to outlaw contraception and persecute some nonchildbearing women with witch trials. But most people eventually saw through that bullshit.
Not taking anti-parkinson medication with advances Alzheimer's could mean severe motor impairment (repetitive and uncoordinated movement, inability to vocalize, etc.). There is no reason to conclude he is not taking his meds judging by his movements and speech. It is a rather unpredictable progressive disorder. http://www.umm.edu/parkinsons/signs.htm