Talk:Stem cell controversy/Archive 1

message: Are there some characteristics which distinguish cord blood stem cells from embryonic stem cells?  If not, then couldn't both sides of the "debate" just agree to use cord blood stem cells and get on witH their lives?  It appears that totipotent cells are available from the umbilical cord .  Are embryonic stem cells less expensive per cell?  Can the embryonic cells be used in research that the cord cells cannot be used in?  I'm not trying to advocate a position here, but rather to play Devil's advocate.  This article should address this issue, because a "debate" between two alternatives doesn't have much merit if there is a vastly preferable third option.  - Connelly 01:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there a debate about embryonic stem cells? 

message: There are many things that should be fixed in this article. I'm going to make many major edits; if you don't like, disagree with, or are unsure of these edits, revert and we will discuss.  
Some problems:
# The intro is wordy and redundant. 
# Blastocysts section not relevant. 
# There's too much pseudo-philosophical language about "objectification" and "feelings" and "individuals."
# The National Policy Debates section lists a dozen countries conducting stem cell research but doesn't include the US! 
# The term "stem cell" is incorrectly used in place of "human embryonic stem cell".
# The Policy Debate section incorrectly states that US federal funds cannot be used to support human embryonic stem cell research! It's very unfortunate that the entry is flat out wrong in this respect when you consider that the majority of people reading it are probably most interested in that specific point.
--Herb West 04:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also a controversy surrounding the use of human stem cells and animal cloning.--Nicholas 12:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: This article requires considerable revision. I'll just detail some of my thoughts at the moment and leave my comments open to discussion.
*The article is currently US-centric. This needs to corrected by detailing a more accurate portrayal of the dialogue - worldwide.
*The article is currently policy-centric. This can be corrected by included a detailed discussion of the 'moral', 'social' and 'ethical' issues.
*The article should include information relating the language used in the debates surrounding SCR.
*The article should avoid portraying the controversy in terms of binary opposites, i.e. popular representations of these debates are often framed in terms of absolute opposition between 'science' and 'religion'/luddites - as though there was no room for middle ground or contradictory positions. This undermines the true extent of the dialogue that is taking place and the sheer diversity of opinions on the subjects under discussion.
*The above discussion and recent edits have made it clear that the article needs to proper distinguish between the controversy surrounding embryonic SCR, and associated controversies surrounding SCR with animal cells, controversies surrounding hype, and other such controversies.
What do y'all think? --Nicholas 20:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There exists a relatively large body of social science literature in this area, which we can use to provide the necessary basis for these changes. --Nicholas 21:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My rewrite proposals 

message: oops, I waited too long on the edit page and then forgot to deleate it --Zach 00:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Is there controversy over the usage of other stem cells, other than embryonic or the opposite, a call to use them? If so, that should be included here. I have a few reference from Ireland/EU that I'll add this week when I get time, but none from the USA. Maeve
* This is true, I didn't see anything about using adult stem cells instead of embryonic ones, and I think that is a relevant point in the article. Cloud13 13:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other types 

message: I have modified the following statement in the article due to very imprecise language that adds to the misunderstanding about this topic:
:But due to their own ethical dilemas and the federal ban on stem cell research, many couples are unable to make a "dispensation decision," and as a result the number of frozen embryos has grown to an estimated 500,000.
Why?  Well, there is NOT a "federal ban on stem cell research."  This statement is just not true and it has been discussed over and over again in the various changes to this topic. Yes, I know that the the many, many stem cell articles just started out as one little stem cell article, but the discussion on that original stem cell page still applies.  Let's go over it again for future reference:  (1) "stem cell research" includes (a) adult stem cell research, (b) cord blood stem cell research, and (c) embryonic stem cell research.  (2) There research being conducted in ALL three fields right now.  There is NO BAN.  Researchers can find private money to do anyone of these areas or all three.  They are NOT banned. That is a myth created by the hype that surrounds this area.  (3) Private money can fund all three types. (4) Private money is currently funding all three types. (5) Federal money can fund ALL three types.  (6) Federal money is only funding two of the types right now; however, it is legal for the federal money to go to embryonic stem cell research if only the embryonic stem cell lines in existence on a certain date are used.  So please do not use this phrase ("federal ban on stem cell research") it is imprecise and it is hype and this is Wikipedia, an organization that attempts to be neutral, it is NOT Mother Jones, which does NOT attempt to be neutral.  --BballJones 00:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impercise Language Creeping Back Into the Article 

message: I edited the following sentence from the article because it is chucked full of imprecise and misleading wording:
::Supporters point out that critics of stem cell research don't discuss prohibiting in vitro fertilization, which leads directly to the creation and destruction of thousands of embryos each year.
This sentence is supposedly supported by the Washington Post article.  But if you read the Washington Post article, the Washington Post article does NOT state that "thousands of embryos" are destroyed "each year."  It does NOT state that at all.  What it does state is quoted below:
::Proponents of embryonic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of the embryos but which many scientists think has enormous potential to develop ways to repair organs and fight disease, say there are so few adoptions that thousands of embryos will be discarded if they are not used for research. Even if such adoptions were to increase manyfold, "it will not solve the question of what happens to the leftover embryos," said Michael Manganiello, senior vice president of the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation in Washington.
This wording comes directly from the article.  It states that proponent argue hypothetically that IF "there are so few adoptions that thousands of embryos will be discarded if they are not used for research."  That is a hypothetical point, not a fact.  As a matter of fact there is a Mother Jones article that was recently linked to in the article that specifically states:
::[D]octors are, at a certain point, technically free to dispose of abandoned embryos. But many are reluctant to take that step. They are terrified that at some point a patient will come back and sue them for—well, for something. . . "Nobody does it [destroys abandoned embryos],” says Alan DeCherney, the editor of Fertility and Sterility and a reproductive endocrinologist who is now at the National Institutes of Health. “It’s a hot topic. People think the risk of holding them is less than the risk of destroying them.” The Mother Jones article is written by a Washington Post reporter.
This quote makes it very clear that embryos are NOT being destroyed, but actually there are more and more being held in limbo in fertility clinics.  This article is getting skewed in a non-NPOV way.  The underlining newspaper article does NOT back up the claims of the Wikipedian that skewed the article's point.  --BballJones 00:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. Thinks for clarifying that destruction doesn't happen to all unused embryos.  However, this controversy section is leaning away from NPOV.  BballJones addition  "to support their claim that an embryo is not human life" is false.  Supporters of embryonic research recognize there are 23 pairs of chromosomes making the blastocycst capable of becoming a human.  The distinction is whether it has the same legal rights as a baby. --Ksargent 17:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, however, what I pointed out, from the left-wing Mother Jones article, is that destruction of embryos hardly happens at all.  Also, on the other topic, if the argument is about whether a blastocycst has the same legal rights as a baby then there would not be an argument about partial birth abortion. But clearly there is an argument over partial-birth abortion.  There are tons of groups and individuals that want to keep partial-birth abortion, as Hillary Clinton, safe and legal.  So, if the debate was really about the legal protections for a blastocycst with the 23 chromosomes then I could understand your argument, but that is NOT where the argument is in America, at least.  The debate is about where does human life begin and it cannot be narrowed down in a simple little statement as whether the blastocycst "has the same legal rights as a baby" because clearly there are many, many embryonic stem cell supporters who believe that giving birth to the child and then ripping open the child's head and sucking out the internal organs with vacuum, in the last day's of the mother's pregnancy is not an action that should be stopped by legal restrictions.  There are many, many esc research supporters who believe that action should be forever "safe and legal." So no it is NOT about whether blastocycst should receive the same legal protections of a baby, that is an oversimplification.  --BballJones 18:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've widened the scope of debate here: 1) When does human life begin? 2) What rights do women have? 3) What rights do the unborn have? 4) What type of abortion should be legal? 5) When should abortion be legal? 6) When should it be restriced? 7) Should embryonic stem cell research be legal? 8) Should embryonic stem cell research receive federal funding? Too compare partial birth abortion to embryonic stem cell research is a red herring. PBA occurs in the fifth month of pregnancy or later, when the fetus has a well developed nervous system.  And just as you claim, "many, many embryonic stem cell supporters" support partial birth abortion; I direct you to the pro-life Republicans, who just passed a bill supporting federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.  -- Ksargent 18:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course, I've widened the debate here.  That is what the Talk Page is for--to discuss the topic of the article.  I did NOT however widen the scope of discussion in the article itself.  There is a huge distinction.  I am not trying to impose my view on the article; I'm just trying to explain why some of the edits to the article do not make sense.  I was trying to make the point, I did it quite well, that all of this talk of science in the article is to divert attention from the underlining debate.  Pro-Life supporters are NOT the only groups that disagree with Esc res.  There are many scientists that disagree with it on other grounds, so the attempts to treat the destruction of the embryos as simply as a medical procedure that ALL scientists agree with is disingenuous.  All I am saying is if there are going to be edits to the article then they need to be precise and accurate and I was not seeing that.  See the example above where someone stated that "there is a Federal BAN on stem cell research."  That just seems like hysterical hyperbole to me.  I would like to ask the hundreds of scientists in the U.S. that are currently working on stem cell research if that particular edit was accurate or not.  I think that they would laugh. See here: Despite Bush Veto, Stem Cell Research Abounds --BballJones 14:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Imprecise Language Attempting to Take Hold 

message: I am going to edit the following sentence because it does not tell the whole story, only half right: Since a blastocyst can be taken from unused blastocysts leftover from couples' attempts at in vitro fertilization, proponents point out that it is a couple's choice on whether to allow medical research.  This sentence does not make sense.  Families that are going through in vitro can do anything that they want with the embryos, including having them completely destroyed. Of course, the couple can choose to destroy the embryo.  That is not the issue.  The issue is whether U.S. taxpayer's money (NIH funding) is going to be finance that destruction.  So the sentence needs to be modified where it makes sense (and I honestly have no idea what the point was), so I have no other choice but to delete.  Where is the citation for this comment??  Or this original research?  --Getaway 20:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Destruction of Embryos

message: Okay, the very first sentence of the previous version read 'current research techniques usually result in the destruction of early-stage embryos'. This is misleading on a number of fronts, not least because current research techniques necessarily require the destruction of a human embryo and also because this sentence echoes the medicalised interpretation of an embryo, through use of the phrase "early-stage embryos". The second sentence reads "Thus, the stem cell debate has divided the ‘pro-life’ movement into two camps". This is also misleading because opposition towards eSCR cannot be strictly divided into either of the two camps described. Presenting opposition in this way would seem to deny the true extent of the dialogue and the multiplicity of differing perspectives. Following on from that, recent edits referred to "pro-life groups, like the Catholic church" and then goes on to associate, the social scientist, Sarah Parry with the 'pro-life' ideas which are discussed. I could point out several further discrepancies, but I think this will suffice for the moment. I am going to revert the article back to the previous version by myself, for the second time today. --Nicholas 11:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: It should be pointed out that of the 80 lines president Bush promised existed, only about 20 were ever offered to researchers, and of those maybe 6 are actually used.  It is possible these six are also now considered contaminated, and all 20 were created using mouse cells. Embryonic stem cells could come from aborted embryos.  If a patient was not paid for donated embryos, there would be little incentive to abort them simply for research purposes. Another source could be some of the 400,000 frozen embryos--most of which will never be used or even adopted.  There are roughly 100-200 adopted frozen embryo children alive today, which means as many as 1000 frozen embryos (of the 400,000) were used for this purpose.  Couples who adopt frozen embryos are probably less likely to adopt any of the children waiting in foster homes or state funded group homes or orphanages. 192.220.217.1 04:20, 24 July 2006
::This commentary is not backed up with citations to reasonable, qualified sources.  Much of the information is just flat out wrong.  -- --Getaway 17:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, what exactly is an "aborted embryo"??? I wish 192.220.217.1 would explain what that is?? --Getaway 16:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Embryonic Stem Cell Source 

message: I think that we should wait another day.  But if after that time the editor who placed that tag there does not engage in a polite and civilized discussion of why the tag should be there then I suggest we remove it.  --Getaway 20:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me. --Nicholas 21:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV warning tag

message: is hype.  The most recent so-called breakthrough that will change the stem cell debate has turned out to be just more hype from the embryonic stem cell side of the debate.  It ranks up there with the comments of Ron Reagan, Jr, John Edwards and Hwang Woo-Suk.  I'm removing any reference to it and marking it down on the embryonic stem cell hype list.  I just can't wait until 2008 when John Edwards and Hillary Clinton tell the world that they have found the miracle and Wikipedia prints it. Please review this article from the Washington Post concerning the recent hype:  , Rich Weiss, Critic Alleges Deceit in Study On Stem Cells Report's Basic Facts Are Unchallenged Washington Post, Saturday, August 26th, 2006, page A02. Notice the title of the article, it sounds like the CBS argument about the Dan Rather doctored documents, "Fake but Accurate."--Getaway 00:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should be very vary of media publications on stem cell research.  The media is known to overhype any small scientific advancement: like science knows what causes a type of cancer, therefore a cure will be imminent - this is the basic fallacy that the media always makes to sell the news.  This article should simply report scientific findings (drawn directly from the scientific publication on which the media builds the hype).--Roland Deschain 00:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have written him a personal message urging him to find sources for his outburst and to abide by WP:NPOV.--Roland Deschain 02:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: So-called New Technology

message: Others still have high expectations for cell therapy.
Could we have some references to/quotes from medical professionals who still believe that stem cell research could directly lead to some `medical miracles'? 58.107.51.55 09:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical professionals with high expectations for S.C.R. 

message: Why is this guy trying to revert all my edits about the nature of the opposition to human emrbyonic stem cell research? Is he disputing that this is a religious issue? Is just a coincidence that he says on his User Page that he is Jewish and then he comes here and tries to suppress the fact that the vast majority of opposition against stem cell research in America comes from Christians, Jews and Musilms (who all believe in the same Adam/Eve creationist theory)? Who is REALLY trying to impose his own opinion here? 
:::This anon editor, is engaging in partisan personal attacks on Getaway.  NO WHERE on my user page does it state that I am Jewish and it never has.  Please check the edit log.  Also, there are scientific reasons to be against esc research. Not just religious ones.  Anon editor is flat out making up facts and he is distorting the issues around esc research.--Getaway 16:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getaway's edits 

message: This page seems to be entirely about embryonic stem cell research. Should the title be changed to reflect that? --Jesse Reynolds 00:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Embryonic cells are indeed at the heart of this controversy. That doesn't mean that the article shouldn't discuss other types of stem cells, but you ARE right that the article's title is inaccurate. -- 74.98.255.77 04:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No there is a controversy over human/animal chimeras, controversy over hype, and controversy over patents, amongst others. This article largely covers the controversy over eSCR, but that is because the article is incomplete. --Nicholas 09:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with you that the article is inomplete, but to stick with my original assertion just a bit longer... the hype seems to be about embryonic SCR, and the patent disputes are solely about them. The policies and polls mentioned are about ESCR. What are the controversies around adult SCR? --Jesse Reynolds 19:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this only about ''embryonic'' stem cell research? 

message: First, I would highly recommend that people who are seriously interested in editing this article, and interested in doing so on a regular basis, should be logging in under usernames. It lends no credence to the quality of articles that deal with controversial subjects to have so many anonymous entries. Please, if you believe so strongly in this issue, have the nerve to stand behind your position.
Second, I have removed the sentence that was at the end of the introductory paragraph, which read:
: "However, some believe that the death of a zygote embryo is outweighed by the millions of patients that, in theory, could be saved once stem cell treatments have been fully developed."
This is problematic for two reasons: (1) It is out of place. It is a detail in a complicated debate that isn't part of an introductory overview; (2) More importantly, it manages to be, at the same time, both enormously and subtly point-of-view. The sentence is clearly loaded against those who do not support embryonic stem cell research. The fact that millions might benefit from the research is discussed in this and other articles, but that's not the point of the sentence, is it? The sentence is a clumsy attempt to make a veiled stab at those on the opposite side of this debate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekwriter (talk • contribs) 19:42, 25 October 2006
::::: (Yes, I suppose I see the irony in creating this heading and then forgetting to sign it! :) )Derekwriter 16:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has been so completely butchered by an anon Wikipedian that it is total crap.  I don't think it is capable of being repaired.  The anon editor has stated over and over again that anyone and everyone that disagrees with embryonic stem cell research is a religious fanatic.  That is total BS and the article is just flat out shot.  I am only willing to make sure that it has the appropriate tags all over it and move on because the anon editor reverts anyone who attempts to fix the flat out lies and distortions that are contained in the article.--Getaway 20:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the article is a lost cause; however, at this point I would highly recommend bringing it to the attention of an admin and having it put on semi-protection. Derekwriter 16:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous entries and POV 

message: The whole section is an essay baased upon one, maybe two sources.  That is NOT how Wikipedia works.  There needs to be consensus, not create a whole section based upon the OPINION of one source.  The section will be cut down to size and put into context.  This is example of how this whole article has grown out of control.  It is sloppy work.--Getaway 14:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  China Policy section 

message: Substituted at 15:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment