On Cloning.

The article I reference can be found here. All following italics and emphasis is mine.

The first thing that jumps up at me is this; Indeed, the NIH reported to Congress in September of last year that anticipated spending on human embryonic stem cell research in 2006 was “just $24,300,000.”

Hello, is this supposed to denote a paltry amount of money for a reliable procedure in a field of scientific exploration? If so the history of this "procedure" is far from inspiring. That evidence shows here; Following Ian Wilmut’s production of Dolly the sheep, the world’s first cloned mammal, it was almost immediately evident that Dolly was not normal; she experienced a number of medical problems that resulted in her being euthanized, due to poor health, at the age of six years, about half the lifespan of a healthy sheep. Dolly was the only clone to survive to live birth out of the 277 cloned embryos Wilmut’s group generated, yet this success did not prove that cloning can produce a normal sheep. Dolly was merely normal enough to survive to birth. (funny, I don't remember a front page story on "Dolly's" demise. I mean, as contrasted to news of her birth.)


Who was it that said if you repeat something often enough, loud enough, people will start to believe it? He'd be proud of this; The assertion that embryonic stem cells in the laboratory can be induced to form all the cells comprising the mature human body has been repeated so often that it seems incontrovertibly true. What is missing from this assertion remains the simple fact that there is essentially no scientific evidence supporting it.

And why isn't there such a big push for adult stem cell research, especially given that; The rapid death of transplanted embryonic stem cell-derived cells stands in striking contrast to the robust survival of bona fide adult cells when transplanted to adult tissue. Could someone have an "agenda" for pushing for more dead babies being available, therefore justifying our continued embrace of abortion on demand?

As a measure of the hype given stem cell research do you remember John Edwards proclaiming that if we'd given a high enough priority to it, "Christopher Reeve would be walking today" ? As if millenium was just around the corner, held back only by the parsimony and narrowminded thinking of it's opponents. Check this out; The mysteries of embryonic development have been plumbed for more than a hundred years by some of the most brilliant biologists of history, and yet, despite the clear progress we have made, we are nowhere near the point of having a “recipe book” for cooking up cellular repair kits to treat human disease and injury.

DUH!!

And I admit to never being the smartest knife in the drawer, I hate being "talked down to". IMHO while I don't have the formal education of a lot of folks my brain can analyze information and make rational, objective judgements just as well as a college graduate's. With that attitude I really get steamed about this; In June 2004, Ron McKay at the National Institutes of Health acknowledged in a Washington Post interview that scientists have not been quick to correct exaggerated claims of the medical potential of embryonic stem cells, yet McKay justified this dishonesty by stating: “To start with, people need a fairy tale. Maybe that’s unfair, but they need a story line that’s relatively simple to understand.”

No Slick, it isn't unfair. Dishonest and condescending, designed for you to fulfill your agenda while not bruising your ego, but not unfair. Don't piss down my back and tell me it's only rainwater.