Michael J. Fox and Embryonic Stem Cell Research

hi my name's Elissa I'm 21 years old and I've been sick sins I was 14. I have Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura over the years I've watched my mom have to deal with my illness. I myself I'm not a mother and will never get that chance, but I would never wish the pain me and my mother have gone though on any one. I feel that if there was any way to stop so many illness for future generations, for future children giving them a chances to go to school, to have friends, to live outside of thoughs four walls, to give a mother back a child then why are we fighting about it? Thanks for your time

The research began in 1991. They didn't start killing babies in 1998 - that's what you are trying to tell me, isn't it? Who's thinking skills are in trouble? Certainly not mine. I know the difference between right and wrong. Do you?

University of Wisconsin researchers first isolated human embryonic stem cells in 1998, however their research began in 1991. 1991 to 2006 equals 15 years.

That would mean embryonic stem cell research began in 1998 since according to you they didn't even isolate stem cells until that date. That would be 8 years, not 16 . I guess if this is the extent of your critical thinking skills, you may be in trouble!

You haven't refuted anything. You've simply made it clear that when it gets hot in the kitchen you leave. I've made my point that embryos are human life. You're not willing to accept that. You merely hide behind excuses that embryos are cells. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Meanwhile, those of us with repsect for life will continue to fight against ECSR, against abortion and we're sorry you can't do the same.

Believe it or not, you and I started out as an embryo, then became a fetus and then we were born. If I follow your logic, then we're all a bunch of cells walking the earth. In that case than there's no harm in killing cells in any form. Correct? So if you decided to kill me because you don't like my view points, you would get away with murder, because I'm just cells. That's all.

How's that for logic and facts, Shelley? The idiocy of your idea that embryos are cells makes me sad for the human race.

I have not destroyed my credibility. You've missed the entire moral point. Perhaps you'll need to go back and read the words.

The point being made is that Governor Jim Doyle claims to respect life while also calling for the destruction of life to further ECSR. Would he also try to further research by experimenting on live people, as Hitler did?

No one was calling anyone a Nazi or comparing them to Hitler. I'm simply making a point which you left leaning Dems seem not to realize. You only see what you want to see.

"some of your statement was a bit disturbing."
If you are going to make a statement like that, please give more info as to which statement you are referring too, please.

I'm sorry Rob, I wasn't even adressing your comment because some of your statement was a bit disturbing.

I didn't make any assumptions about you -- my comment was addressing the others who claim my research was inaccurate.

Thank you for your clarification on your viewpoints, however.

I'm not a Democrat or Republican or Liberal. I'm someone who leans to my personal interests. Which ever party happens to view things the same way I do, is the one I'm with, but I like how you made an assumption based on the fact that I do agree with stem cell research.
The thing about this research is the endless possibilities. Through every advancement, there will always be casualties. Look at history, even look at religion. it's called "The Domino Effect." The thing about this is
1. Jesus gave himself to save us. (this applies if you are religious)
2. 1.5 million abortions happen in the US. (over 5 million if you count the rest of the world.)
3. These are fetuses that were bound to die, were by miscarriages or natural abortion.)
4. It's not as if the government is taking people's unborn babies at will and using them as lab rats.
5. This shouldn't be a religious nor political debate. It should be a scientific debate. Religion prohibits anything it cannot grasp. Politicians for the most part do what is popular.
6. Hitler/Nazis had many drawbacks and unfortunately used involuntary and innocent humans for their test; however, the party had so many technological and pharmaceutical advances, that they were easily 1-2 decades ahead of society.
Now, mind you. Some will go ahead and misconstrued that last comment. I'm not saying there should be a slaughter of the embryos. I'm just saying, if people are going to have abortions, might as well use the embryos for technological advances. Is it ethical? Why shouldn't it be?
Is it ethical to let people die, when a cure could be found ?
No it is not ethical.

you made this statement "Michael J. Fox insinuated that ESCR will produce cures for these diseases with his attack ads."
In this commercial is uses the words "search for hope, hope for cure." Please revisit the video and listen to it. In no way does he assume or state that there is a cure or will be.

"His ads are misleading because he does not say the word "embryonic".
MJF is up for any type of stem cell research that could benefit his cause. Whether it's regular stem cell or embryonic. He is making a general appeal to the public to let the research be done. As consumers, intellectuals, and people with a right to choose and educate ourselves. We have to research the subject, the means, and outcome.
Once again, since I've seen that people here like to read what they want to read, rather than the whole issue. THEY WILL NOT USE INVOLUNTARILY DONATED/PURCHASED embryos. Instead, they will come predominately through abortions and women who will donate for the sake of research. No, these scientists should not be punished for finding a cure for an ailment you, me or anyone reading this might get when we are older. They are not going into people's houses and gathering pregnant women against their wills. Nor are they twisting people's arms to donate.
It's funny, as america gets older, the more uptight it gets. It's sad, because we are the country that rebelled against, religious and political castigation. Yet, we always go back to a caveman mentality when we do not agree with something or fully understand it. Just like religion does.

Wow - this is a heated post. I've posted my views on stem-cell research here: http://surrenderdorothy.typepad.com/surrender_doro... ( http://surrenderdorothy.typepad.com/surrender_doro... )

I live in Missouri and will be on the side of stem-cell research on Tuesday.

Surrender, Dorothy - When I was your age, we just let them ride in the back window.

...that Embryonic Research is important because of the increased plasticity of the cells, and the potential to study the way the causal factors of leukemia.

There is no cause, or cure, for leukemia yet. When thousands of people each year are dying because of stem cell transplants that don't work, more research needs to be done. The pluripotent nature of ESC is universally regarded by the scientific community to be important to leukemia, lymphoma and other hematopoitic cancers. I can post several studies and reviews if you like.

Amanda Shaffer, Blogher Health and Wellness Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com )

The Adventures of Cat Lady. ( http://the-cat-lady.com )

Thank you, Amanda, for that information.

It still doesn't justify destruction of human life. Do you have any links to any cures or treatments derived from specific embryonic stem cell research?

But as someone who's been around hemopoetic cancer patients for all of her adult life, I feel obligated to weigh in.

Stem cell research is currently being researched and developed into cures for many, many diseases. Johns Hopkins, in particular, is on the forefront of many new treatment methodologies for leukemia that involve stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells are important to research because they have more "plasticity," if you will, than adult stem cells. Stem cells are incredibly important to leukemia patients as they are the basis for all of the cells in our body, most notably new bone marrow cells. Embryonic cells can differentiate into more types of tissue cells, meaning that they have the potential to be more advantageous to a cancer patient whose very basis of existence (blood cells, which are responsible for nourishing every organ system in the body, as well as fight off disease) is challenged.

Embryonic stem cell research is also important for the discovery of the root cause of several types of leukemia and lymphoma, which are still unknown. Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia, the type that I am most familiar with, does not have a known cause. In the last five years, a gene marker called the "Philadephia Chromosome" has been strongly correlated with the appearance of aggressive leukemia; but the relationship between that chromosome and the appearance of leukemia is still unknown. Examining embryonic stem cells to determine how the Philadelphia Chromosome affects cell differentiation later in life is necessary to determining the cause of Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia.

The Lance Armstrong Foundation recently supported a bill that supported embryonic stem cell research, with the caveat that the cells only be obtained from by-product embryoes from IVF procedures. I supported this bill, for all of the reasons above.

Here's a source:
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp

Amanda Shaffer, Blogher Health and Wellness Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com )

The Adventures of Cat Lady. ( http://the-cat-lady.com )

Wow...I can't even believe that last post!

How long before young women consider having abortions in order to sell the parts for money? They might even see it is as a noble deed if we follow that logic!

We are not a Machiavellian society that should pursue things with an "the ends justify the means" mentality. If we were, then torture would be legal as long as we got key information, we would neglect the terminally ill and disabled among us because they're not going to get better and why waste resources, we would execute all prisoners becuase we don't have the room for them in prisons anyway.....do you see where this is going?

Just because scientific infromation was gleaned from something does not justify, the oftentimes, blatant disregard for ethics and the people being experimented upon.

That is not what this nation is about or should be about.

Terri

Wheat Among Tares ( http://wheatamongtares.blogspot.com )

It's a religious view, though, and not a compelling scientific one that mandates any clear decision in public policy, imho.

I don't consider a box of cake mix a birthday cake, and I don't consider a blob of cells to be a baby. There is far far more that is required before a baby is born.

However, I think the point is valid that if you're against ESCR, you must be against IVF. After all, that's how these embryos are created in the first place. Arguing that those embroyos should be destroyed rather than used for stem-cell research is hardly a pro-life position, yet that is exactly what happens without the research. Should not "life," as you call it, serve to potentially benefit human life rather than simply be discarded? Or should IVF be banned as well, so those embryos are never created in the first place?

--
media girl ( http://mediagirl.org )

I just thought I'd jump in right quick and tell you, this is one of those issues I sit on the fence about; and only because I have other things on my mind. But I do admire you, Dana, for taking a stand on the issue. I admire that you will not back down from your position and are ready to defend it.

Let me also respond to the fire scenario. I don't believe for one minute that it has anything to do with the issue, Dana is speaking of. In fact your scenario is a bit absurd, to say the least...in my opinion. And we are all entitled to one.

Much Love.

There's a fine thread in all of this. Sadly enough, I've worked in low income neighborhoods and I've seen parents who breed just to get more money out of the government. Consequently, their kids walk around barefooted, dirty, and unhealthy. Now mind you, my last example was that of a few, very few.
America was founded through violence and greed and though at times it should not be that way, at the end of the day most people take the fame and money and choose to look away.
As far as prison, prisoners get the death penalty all the time, only those who have a chance of getting better and contributing to society are the ones who get to live.
2ndly, I never said it was ok for women to purposely become pregnant and sell their embryos for money.
Ultimately, to further this study, they will need embryos and women are the only ones who can provide them. Every year, around 1.5 million women abort in the US alone. These aborted embryos can be used for a good cause.
It’s funny, because when you are sick, you want the medication to heel you. However, you do not neglect it. You take it and hope to feel better. Not thinking about the few who had to die (w/ consent and unfortunately without consent) to cure the millions such as yourself.
Now ethically; you spare a few embryos, who were bound to die for research to cure Parkinson’s, regenerate severed limbs, birth imperfections, or do you just put the embryos in a jar so it can look creepy in some doctor’s office?
It’s the same element as, “If you could save your brother in a burning house, but saving him meant you will not be able to save 3 lives, what would you do?”
There are extremes to both arguments and I think there are ways were the embryos can be selected without the people breeding just to sell them. However, people like to receive compensations for “their involvement” in matters and the government rewards those who lend a hand with money.

Referring to someone as Hitler in this argument is a bit harsh and a bit off the point. (I know Hitler killed many mentally/physically challenge people.) However, majority of the medicine we have now days was done through human experimentation. However, you do not boycott that. Did you know that "The Pill" was given to women as trials and many of them would have miscarriages, deformed children or even more serious side effects?
Science does not kill people it views as weak; instead, science experiments. At times, yes, at the cost of a couple of lives, to save millions.
Now mind you, a parent has the right to bring a life as well as neglect a new life. How come, you do not condemn them for killing a new life?
The issue is will research cure this effect? Chances are it will, but only time will tell. Will it be here in a yr, 5 or 10? No one knows.
But it took penicillin thousands of years to be created and at the cost of multiple lives, to save MILLIONS.
Everyone likes the meat, but they do not want to see the cow getting slaughtered.
It's the same concept here.
In everything that contributes monetarily rewards, there are people who will try to abuse it. Just like the people who have 10 kids to get welfare money to do drugs. It is up to government agencies to regulate and create a sensible guide line on how this procedure (getting the embryos) will go.
Since it doesn't affect you, you can stand there and point fingers at someone. Not until it hits you personality, do you start to view the other side more open minded.
Yes, embryos are the start of life but at that phase, they do not know what pain is. Also, all of the abortions done yearly finally can contribute to something more.

I'm sorry, how was your comment about Godwin's law pertinent to the discussion?

It's pertinent because the point here is that by referencing Nazis and Hitler, you've destroyed your own credibility, proven that you've nothing more intelligent to say, and for all intents and purposes, ended the discussion and placed yourself on the losing end of the conversation. Have a nice day.

1 in every 100 babies is born with a congenital heart defect. What if that '1' was yours?
Nova's Heart ( http://novasheart.blogspot.com/ )
Poetic Acceptance ( http://poetic-acceptance.blogspot.com )

Its not so hard. Like this:

Dana said

"Freedom from Eden puts it best:

Frankly, that makes me sick. It's a joke to hear Doyle talking about having respect for human life.

I wonder. Would Doyle have supported Nazi medical experiments on concentration camp captives?

Then came Shelley's reply:

Ever heard of Godwin's Law? How about reductio ad Hitlerum"?

This happens when those in a debate bring up either Nazism or Hitler, when they no longer have a decent argument.

THEN Dana says:
Funny you should bring that up, because when Democrats can't come up with a decent argument about the war in Iraq, the reside to calling Bush a fascist, a nazi and compare him to Hitler.

So Shelley says:
And this is in reference to this current discussion how?

THEN Dana says(wait for it...)
I'm sorry, how was your comment about Godwin's law pertinent to the discussion? Clearly determining the obvious isn't your strong point, is it?

There wasn't even any analytical skill involved in following this discussion. I could show the logical fallacies to a middle school student with nothing more than a crayon with which to draw the arrow from Dana's Nazi statement to her inexplicable rant against Democrats who call President Bush a Nazi, to her apparant confusion about how Godwin's law was related to the conversation.

Follow the lines. It doesn't get much more obvious than THAT.

Facts, Tuszke.

We have refuted your 'facts', and you've repaid it with God and snark.

See ya

I just like to know where a post is coming from, that's all. Of course, things may have changed since I was a CE - nothing wrong with that. But, to start with, my understanding was that a CE only posted on her category. Then, that was relaxed to allow cross-posting, but I seem to recall that the agreement was that the post still had to fit in the CE's assigned category. Fast forward to this post, from a CE who hadn't posted before, who wasn't listed as a CE for either of the categories her post covered...

I was just trying to understand where she was coming from, that's all. You've explained, I have no problem with that.

Anyway, I'm glad to hear that there will be coverage from the right. Always good to have their opinions on public display - reminds me of the need for vigilance.

Blog: Multidimensional.Me ( http://www.multidimensional.me.uk/ )

Because when it really boils down to it, no one 'really' believes that these early stage embryos are 'human lives' equivalent to the babies already born, not to mention we adults.

The only "no one" that doesn't believe that embryos are human lives is you. Didn't you ever learn how those babies that are already born began? With an embryo! I kid you not! It's true!

Maybe we should have a Reproduction 101 course here at Blogher.

Okay, if it means that much to you. You win. Yes, researchers of ESCR should be jailed. You're right they are destroying a human life so that should be manslaughter. That's the first point I'll agree with you on.

I mean, if you really seriously believe this is the taking of human life, then you must want to put those researchers at the U of Wisconsin into prison.

Not all of them. The ones researching adult stem cell research should continue their work.

(That was my best attempt at sarcasm, Shelley, in case you didn't notice.)

I'm sorry, how was your comment about Godwin's law pertinent to the discussion? Clearly determining the obvious isn't your strong point, is it?

as you all say, a direct taking of innocent human life, then how you not support criminalizing this? After all, that's what the legislators in my state wanted to do, which is why Amendment 2 came about.

I mean, if you really seriously believe this is the taking of human life, then you must want to put those researchers at the U of Wisconsin into prison.

Could it be because when push comes to shove, you all know that this one would shove the undecided over into voting for such amendments like 2? Because when it really boils down to it, no one 'really' believes that these early stage embryos are 'human lives' equivalent to the babies already born, not to mention we adults.

And this is in reference to this current discussion how? I don't believe that we're talking about Bush and Iraq, unless you want to bring this up as evidence of how Bush demonstrates respect for life.

Again, where are you getting the idea that I criminalize ESCR?

My point is that ESCR is wrong because it destroys human life. It should not be funded by the Federal government. I do not want my taxes dollars supporting this deliberate destruction. Politicians and celebrities should not be on television purposely misleading voters.

If you are asking me if the researchers of ESCR should be jailed for their actions my answer is no. I feel sorry that these people devote their life's work to the destruction of embryos. They will have to answer for their sins.

Ever heard of Godwin's Law? How about reductio ad Hitlerum"?

Funny you should bring that up, because when Democrats can't come up with a decent argument about the war in Iraq, the reside to calling Bush a fascist, a nazi and compare him to Hitler.

That's a very excellent point you bring up Shelley! Thanks!

But this is based on your religious beliefs. Mine differ. Which is why arguments based on belief aren't arguments, and why we should stick to facts.

Facts, Dana. Facts.

You're comparing a fire with the deliberate destruction of human embryos?

These embryos should not be cultivated for research in the first place. Did you miss that point?

But you don't respect life...

You're asking me to refute facts but yet you make personal attacks on me.

Where is your fact that I don't respect life? Don't beat around the bush. Tell me why you feel that way. Tell me where you get this idea.

I'm against the destruction of human embryos. I think this shows my great respect for life.

If you want to criminalize embryonic stem cell research, then how can you not support the criminalization of IVF? After all, this results in the 'killing' of embryos.

What differentiates this for you? Why would IVF be OK, resulting in unused embryos being tossed into the trash, but embryonic stem cell research is wrong?

Ever heard of Godwin's Law? How about reductio ad Hitlerum"?

This happens when those in a debate bring up either Nazism or Hitler, when they no longer have a decent argument.

To Michael J Fox, the only stem cell research that matters is embryonic stem cell research because adult stem cell research is not of benefit to people like him suffering Parkinson's.

Now who is misleading by saying that adult stem cell research is 'good enough'? It isn't. It is not the same thing.

Also, as I said earlier, embryonic stem cell research is too new and no human trials can be allowed at this time. We can't determine what it can or can not cure if we have to use cell lines that are flawed or contaminated, and cannot get new cell lines, and have to fight this fight based on religious belief over scientific fact and reasoning, as well as facts.

You throw around truth, but you haven't once refuted any of my facts, Dana.

A clinic bursts into flames.

Sitting next to you a 12 year old girl in a wheel chair, and in the other chair, a cooler with 1,000 frozen embryos. Which do you grab and run out the door with before the place burns down?

Shelley, where did I say I support making IVF illegal? Where do you get the idea that I criminalize these methods?

Is your opposition of my opinion that strong that your willing to make assumptions and put words into my mouth?

I stated I don't advocate it meaning I would never participate in it because of my religious beliefs. Clearly you missed the point of my comment. Perhaps you'll need to read it again.

You are quite right, Koan, I must next update the headers with our other new editors too (Ronni Bennett will cover Elders, Birdie Jaworski is talking Life and Pari Esfandiari is going to blog the Middle East).

I should also add that just every editor and many members of the community have weighed in politics. For example, the conversation Laina Dawes started earlier this week was fantastic: Are You Ready For A Black President? ( http://www.blogher.com/node/11838 )

And, actually, the first stem cell convesation on BlogHer this week was started by Roberta: Does GOD really care about stem cell research? ( http://www.blogher.com/node/11990 )

Viva the forums...

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder ( http://www.blogher.com/member/lisa-stone )
Surfette ( http://surfette.typepad.com )

The fact of the matter is, Shelley, that Michael J. Fox is advocating embryonic stem cell research. His ads are misleading because he does not say the word "embryonic". The Republican candidates in his ads want the Federal government to fund adult stem cell research because it does not cause the destruction of embryos.

Governor Jim Doyle of Wisconsin said "Allowing our scientists to search for cures to the world’s deadliest diseases is not about being liberal or conservative, it’s about being compassionate. And respect for human life means you don’t turn your back on cures that can save lives."

But there are no cures derived from ESCR. And his hypocrisy is unsettling. How can one claim he has respect for human lives when he is advocating the destruction of developing human embryos?

Freedom from Eden ( http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2006/10/michael-j-... ) puts it best:

Frankly, that makes me sick. It's a joke to hear Doyle talking about having respect for human life.

I wonder. Would Doyle have supported Nazi medical experiments on concentration camp captives?

Does he abide by any moral boundaries when it comes to medical research?

Is there anything that would make Doyle "turn [his] back on cures that can save lives"?

Perhaps using animals in research -- would that be off limits?

The fact is Fox and Doyle do the same thing. They play with the truth.

They purposely confuse the public by failing to mark the distinction between stem cell research and EMBRYONIC stem cell research.

So you also support making IVF illegal, as well as artifical insemination?

What else do you want to criminalize, Dana? Just curious.

refute facts, Dana

Facts

This was famous: here ( http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/19/stemcells.v... )

I would suggest you strongly read this article ( http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=48995 ).

"Derived eight years ago by Wisconsin developmental biologist James Thomson, in whose lab I work, the human embryonic stem cells in front of me are happy, dividing with ease in their cocktail of nutrients and growth factors.

Cared for properly, these cells will divide in culture endlessly. They are the Energizer Bunnies of cells. They never stop dividing.

Coaxed with different growth factors, the cells can migrate down any of scores of developmental pathways to become nerve cells, heart cells, bone, blood - any of the 220 types of cells or tissues in the human body.

Their abilities to replicate endlessly and become any type of human cell are the two features that make human embryonic stem cells unique. No other cells have these qualities."

Also this:

"The policy that limits our work is based on the fact that isolating embryonic stem cells requires the destruction of a human embryo.

One recent study suggests there may be ways to obtain stem cells without destroying the embryo, and that's exciting news. But that research is in its earliest stages, has yet to be replicated and may not, in fact, be the solution to our ethical dilemma.

All of the embryos used in our field are "spares," donated by the patients who created them for treating infertility. It has been reported that there are some 400,000 such embryos in cryogenic preservation in the United States.

Even if there is a way to extract stem cells without harming an embryo, what is the fate of that embryo? Will it be refrozen? To what end?

The sad fact is that the vast majority of those embryos will be destroyed anyway. Therein resides the great moral inconsistency and flaw of current policy.

The reality of IVF treatment is that it often results in the creation of more embryos than a couple is interested in using themselves.

There are several options available for the disposition of these "spare" embryos: a couple can choose to continue to freeze them indefinitely (an expensive proposition), donate them for use by another couple, discard them or donate them for scientific research.

While President Bush has stated that these embryos should be donated to other couples, the reality is couples very rarely choose that option. Most IVF patients are uncomfortable giving spare embryos to other couples, and the government is not currently in a position to compel them to do so.

Unfortunately, the favored alternate disposition is the trash can. A busy IVF clinic, I would wager, disposes of more embryos in a year than have been used to date in all of stem cell science.

On moral grounds, is that the preferred outcome? Is throwing the entire embryo into the trash a better option than using a part of it for research to improve human health?"

I think we should address those inaccuracies.

Address them?

I believe that shelleyp did:

Comment by shelleyp posted Sat, 2006/10/28 - 10:29am

I think it is you that needs to address the intellectual dishonesty that allows you and Mr. Limbaugh to claim that the vote in question was actually a vote against ESCR. It was NOT, and you have NOT addressed the substantive content of shelleyp's post.

Facts. Pesky things, aren't they?

Ben Cardin voted for which bill? I don't see the vote number in your comment.

Rachel, I understand your point a view regarding cures for chronic illnesses. I hope and pray for cures for these diseases that do not require the destruction of another human life.

I personally relate to infertility issues because of my own experiences. I used fertility drugs such as clomid to aid in my conception, but was unsuccessful. I am not an advocate of in vitro fertilization or artificial insemination, but that is due to personal religious beliefs.

You are correct, a transferred embryo may not lead to a successful pregancy which results in the birth of a baby, but that embryo is still a human life. People who undergo ferility treatments know that the embryos are not deliberately destroyed to find cures to diseases.

That's true, Priya, Limbaugh should not be excused for his attack on the integrity of Michael J. Fox. However, Limbaugh also stated the inaccuracies portrayed in these advertisements and I think we should address those inaccuracies.

I checked both of the categories listed for Dana's post, when she first posted it, and she wasn't listed as a CE for either (at that point) so I felt it was worth asking.

Blog: Multidimensional.Me ( http://www.multidimensional.me.uk/ )

But as a person living with several chronic illnesses (personally, and in the family), I want any chance for hope or cures. the MJF spot is moving and wonderful. Thank you for pointing it out.

My family has made the choice to support the life that is currently suffering. The embryos used for Embryonic Stem Cell Research are embryos that were never going to be transferred. And anyone who has ever read an infertility blog knows that even a transferred embryo does not automatically equal a baby.

I am proud to live in a state that supports ESCR, and I hope the research will help people in the future.

Rachel
A Gaggle of Girls ( http://www.kjsl.com/~imacmom/agog )
Rachel's Recipe Box ( http://skylane.kjsl.com/~imacmom/recipeblog )

Hi Koan,

I just updated our list of editors (http://www.blogher.com/node/1077) to reflect the following line-up in Politics and News:

As you know, we're an omnipartisan site. Since LaShawn Barber felt she didn't have time to continue this spring, we've been looking for an editor who could join us to cover politics from the conservative side.

Dana is going to cover politics from the right. Morra Aarons will continue to cover politics from the left and l regularly weigh in on politics too -- more as a voter than as a partisan. Erin Kotecki Vest covers news.

Hope this helps!

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder ( http://www.blogher.com/member/lisa-stone )
Surfette ( http://surfette.typepad.com )

Let me understand what you're accusing me of. Because I don't support the destruction of embryos I don't respect life? I'm afraid I'll need you to be more specific.

University of Wisconsin researchers first isolated human embryonic stem cells in 1998, however their research began in 1991. 1991 to 2006 equals 15 years.