![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Dec. 25th, 2007 12:01 amMERRY CHRISTMAS ALL :D
Dec. 25th, 2007
Stem Cell Research and the Media
Dec. 25th, 2007 09:18 pmSo I ran across this article on MSN last month. If you don't feel like clicking the link, it's about a breakthrough in stem cell research in which "skin cells [were] made to mimic stem cells." As someone who's against embryonic stem cell research, I have no problem with it. According to the article it's still risky and experimental business and isn't up to use in treating disease in humans yet.
What annoyed and bothered me about the article is that there is absolutely no mention of adult stem cell research. It makes it seem like until the discovery they made was found there was no alternative to something with the potential of embryonic stem cell research. As if there were no other kind of stem cell research. It's not like there wasn't room for it. It's an electronic article! It can be as long or short as they want. And why not mention adult stem cells? The research for it has proved not only viable but has actually helped people. So why not do it? Because it's not as "interesting" as embryonic stem cells.
I understand that adult stem cells are harder to obtain than embryonic stem cells, and that it's a more invasive process (b/c it seems to generally come from bone marrow, ouch), but it's still doable. And bone marrow is not the only place you can find stem cells. The whole point is, unless you get an article that is actually dealing with adult stem cells, like this one, the media tends not to mention adult stem cell research at all. They don't tell you whether or what kind of research and research funds are being put into it. All these claims about how right-wingers are so narrow-minded and won't even consider the benefits of embryonic stem cell research, and yet the supposed "liberal" media is only showing you one option as well.
And that's my...gripe.
What annoyed and bothered me about the article is that there is absolutely no mention of adult stem cell research. It makes it seem like until the discovery they made was found there was no alternative to something with the potential of embryonic stem cell research. As if there were no other kind of stem cell research. It's not like there wasn't room for it. It's an electronic article! It can be as long or short as they want. And why not mention adult stem cells? The research for it has proved not only viable but has actually helped people. So why not do it? Because it's not as "interesting" as embryonic stem cells.
I understand that adult stem cells are harder to obtain than embryonic stem cells, and that it's a more invasive process (b/c it seems to generally come from bone marrow, ouch), but it's still doable. And bone marrow is not the only place you can find stem cells. The whole point is, unless you get an article that is actually dealing with adult stem cells, like this one, the media tends not to mention adult stem cell research at all. They don't tell you whether or what kind of research and research funds are being put into it. All these claims about how right-wingers are so narrow-minded and won't even consider the benefits of embryonic stem cell research, and yet the supposed "liberal" media is only showing you one option as well.
And that's my...gripe.