Adult Stem Cell Research Reaching New Highs

Remember back in 2006, President Bush for the first time used his veto power on bill that would have  loosened the restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research?  House Republican leaders broke ranks and attempted to override the President’s veto but fell short.

Remember how anyone opposed to ES research were portrayed as uncaring, and unloving which hindered the progress of science that would have found possible cures for certain diseases? Do you remember the tear-jerking commercials by Hollywood celebrities suggesting that only embryonic stem cells provided hope for cures to Parkinson’s and other crippling diseases?

Finally in 2009, Democrats with some Republicans and liberal scientists got what they wanted from Obama and the funding restriction was lifted.  So whatever happened to the rush for embryonic stem cell therapies once the restrictions for funding were lifted by President Obama? Induced pluripotent stem cells has practically replaced the need for embryonic stem cells.

Did you know embryonic stem cells have yet to produce one treatment? Adult stem cell research has been showing remarkable progress and was voted as the number one breakthrough in science for 2009! The bulk of the funding is now being channeled in this particular area of research which would make a lot of sense.

The first break through for 2010 was conducted with using stem cells from a unbilical cord in treating leukemia, it was deemed the first success story by science daily…

“In a study published in the Jan.17 edition of Nature Medicine, Colleen Delaney, M.D., and colleagues describe the first use of a method to vastly expand the number of stem/progenitor cells from a unit of cord blood in the laboratory that were then infused into patients resulting in successful and rapid engraftment.”

“Despite the numbers disadvantage, cord blood is a promising source of stem cells to replace diseased blood and immune systems in stem cell transplantation because the donated cells don’t need to be perfectly matched to the patient.”

“The lack of a suitable match is why about 30 percent of patients overall who need a stem cell transplant to treat cancers such as leukemia can’t find suitable donors. Among racial-minority patients the number who cannot find suitable donors is about 95 percent.”

This is absolutely great news! It goes to show how Hollywood and liberal scientists made this issue concerning ES research while making promises that had no idea what they were talking about plus they were neglecting other alternatives in stem cell research which made it very political because it was against the Bible and conservative Christians. It’s quite possible, that adult stem cell research could be once again the breakthrough in science for 2010!

Critics Of Francis Collins Say He’s Not Qualified!

Francis Collins is a leading scientist who is a major critic of creationism, and intelligent design in general, he also endorses embryonic stem cell research, and holds to the belief, evolution is fact. So what is the problem? Collins of course wrote a book professing his worldly view about God through a book called; The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.  He has a theistic-evolutionary viewpoint which has drawn criticism from those who believe only atheists should head the National Institutes of Health.

What I mean by this is, the editors of publications such as Nature, and Science as well as atheist bloggers like PZ Meyers, and even Dawkins. They claim his open belief about God will hamper raising funding even though he agrees with their story telling in science and also hinder science in general. Here is science criticism of Collins…

• Although few would disagree with a White House press notice saying that Collins’s work “has changed the very ways we consider our health and examine disease,” Collins does have critics.  Some question his support of “big biology” in the genome project portfolio—with timetables and planned targets—and some are concerned about his outspoken Christian faith.  He raised eyebrows, for example, when he recently launched a Web site, BioLogos, expanding on his 2006 book explaining how he reconciles his faith with the science of evolution.

• Although many scientists say geneticist Francis Collins will make a superb director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), not everyone is celebrating.

• A discussion about whether Collins’s very public religious views will influence his leadership of NIH played out on blogs early this spring and again in the past week.  There seems to be little evidence for such worries, but they persist.

• Richard Dawkins, the biologist and prominent antireligionist, feuded with Collins for mixing science and faith.

• This spring, Collins raised hackles again when he and several other scientists launched a foundation and Web site, BioLogos, which claims that it “emphasizes the compatibility of Christian faith with scientific discoveries about the origins of the universe and life.”

• One prominent critic, Paul Z. Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota, Morris, who runs the anticreationist blog Pharyngula, faults Collins for suggesting that altruism cannot be explained by evolution and instead came from God.  “Collins has got some big gaps in his understanding of the field of evolutionary biology,” Myers says.  In comments this spring on Pharyngula, others fretted that Collins’s beliefs could influence his decisions on topics such as stem cells and sex research.

Obama’s nomination of Collins was quite a brilliant one if you a liberal and not a militant. Collins profession of faith would give the appearance of not offending the Christian community while employing bad science policy funded by the majority who don’t agree with all of it.  Yea, the militants who only believe that in order to understand science one has to reject God would be upset because they feel one of their own wouldn’t cave to public pressure. But rather just force their brand of science on the public who funds it, and also doesn’t agree totally with it. No, this isn’t communist China, North Korea or even Russia, and no they are not the sole speakers for science.

If Newton was alive today, he wouldn’t be qualified to study gravity according to these militants because Newton  believed the Universe was designed by God. It’s pretty sad and not biblical, and it also goes against the laws of this country.

Stem Cell Research Remains Controversial And Promising

Obama’s unbiblical executive order doesn’t  not specify the source of the embryos which means scientists are free to work on any embryos including  human embryos created solely for research purposes.

Even with the restrictions lifted, it remains a political battle ground on ethics so the distinction is not normally labeled properly by proponents of ES instead, they refer to it as just “stem cell” research. Science labels it like something out of the occult, “The Enlightenment Returns.”

On the flip side, adult stem cells continues it’s rampage in progress. Science Daily reports…

“Preliminary data presented on March 28 as a late-breaking abstract at the American College of Cardiology’s 58th annual scientific session from the largest CD34+ adult stem cell study for heart disease has shown the first evidence that delivering a potent form of autologous (from the patient) adult stem cells into the heart muscle of patients with severe angina may result in less pain and improved exercise tolerance.”

More treatments include, progress in adult stem cells concerning diabetics as reported in PhysOrg…

“Hess drew human bone marrow and simultaneously isolated three different types of stem cells that co-ordinate together to form new blood vessels. These are called pro-angiogenic stem cells. They were purified to remove any inflammatory or contaminated cells, and then injected into the circulation of mice which had one of their leg arteries ligated and removed.”

“The researchers showed how these stem cells have a natural ability to hone in on the area of ischemia to induce blood vessel repair and improve blood flow. Hess says this research is clinically-applicable because they studied the function of human stem cells in immune-deficient mice.”

“The preclinical data from Hess’ research was used by a biopharmaceutical company, Aldagen to receive FDA approval for a multi-center clinical trial now underway in Houston, Texas, involving 21 patients with end-stage peripheral artery disease.”

Many scientific organizations are liberal, they reject ethics and mislead the public by not making the distinctions with their labeling between adult stem cells and ES. Obama didn’t restore science. Bush allowed more ES research than Clinton did. This is all highly political with no morality with these organizations who should be demanding more money for adult stem cell research as well as praising the remarkable progress in this area.

Federal Standards For Science?

Just like when Clinton got elected, the push increased greatly for more federal control followed. Obama’s election has liberals thinking it has opened the door once again. As you can see below…

“National standards on the teaching of Evolution and the origins of life, decided on and created by top scientists from significant scientific organizations, should direct curricula of all schools nationwide, overriding any state laws on the subjects.”

Centralizing education on the federal level is nothing new. It dates back to the the 1840s when the first public school began in Boston. Centralization became very popular during the Clinton era. Things like Goals 2000, and Outcome Based Education were the main promoters of not only federalizing education, but globalizing it too.

Generally liberals like PZ Meyers feels that it would be easier to control the standards of science if it’s centralized at the federal or global level rather than allowing individual states or local governments to decided on their own what the standards of Science should be.

It’s a socialist concept no question about it. It would be also easier for special interests rather than the voters to organized and influence the standards. This is what liberals are hoping for with President elect Obama!

No doubt about it, the battle over public and even private education will be more intense in the coming years than ever before. I say private as well because the standards will be also directed at them, to undermine their education so students would have to conform more towards government education.

I wouldn’t be surprised at future  increases in regulation under Obama concerning homeschooling. That’s another area liberals are looking at to control with government now, more than ever.

Federal standards is not a good idea for education, it lacks competition, it lacks freedom, it really has no compelling results and currently the US spends more money on education either for it’s citizens and non-citizens alike, more than any country in the world. The United States is no where near the top as far as testing with the rest of the world!

During the Puritan era, they put  a lot of emphasis on education. Massachusetts had a reputation during that time as having the best schools in the English colonies. Prof. Lawrence Cremin estimated the adult literacy in those colonies  were very high, around 70 to 100 percent.

Diversity of education was the norm back then. The standards of Colonial education was very high. The funny part was in all of this, many of them didn’t have a lot of formal school training. In fact, out of 117 men that signed the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, one out of three had only a few months at the most of formal school training.

This kind of emphasis on education is needed today. It is not surprising that the United States Constitution makes no mention of education in it’s provisions. It’s framers left it up to the parents, the communities, the churches, educator proprietors of schools, and individual states.

Only those like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams supported a free state funded school but only on a small scale. Their position was clearly in the minority.

So should the United States have “federal standards” for subjects like science? The answer is a resounding; NO!