I don't like to get involved in political things, but living around DC I'd be crazy to say I haven't developed opinions about certain thingys...
The stem-cell issue is something I watch because my father was the recipient of an autonomous stemcell replacement. It didn't go so well, but we learned a few things when he underwent this procedure. First, we learned that embryonic stem cells are of no use to adults with cancer, meaning had I saved the cord blood of my daughters for stem cells they would not have been helpful for my dad. This might be because of lack of knowledge about embryonic stem cells, but it didn't sound that way!
Second, we learned that harvesting one's own stem cells for use in procedures is much less risky than using someone else's, the whole rejection thing. This harvesting procedure for my dad took two days, one to insert a tube in his neck to retrieve the cells and the second for retrieval. We understood the typical retrieval could take up to three days, but for my dad it took one day - he was lucky! Another woman, who was donating stem cells, did not have the tube in her neck but rather IV's on both of her arms.
Thirdly, we learned that there is a lot of stem cell research going on, just not on embryonic stem cells. I think sometimes the public is falsely led to believe that there is some governmental block of any and all stem cell research, when the debate extends only to embryonic stem cells. I think the media coverage can be a little deceiving sometimes in this area.
I found this very interesting article while doing a bit of research for my cousin, who has to write a paper on stem cell research. Why do we never hear about advances like this? I'm thinking it's political, and it doesn't do anyone any good. Next time you hear about particular politicians "voting against" stem cell research, take a good look at just exactly what they were voting against. Let's be more specific, folks!
The stem-cell issue is something I watch because my father was the recipient of an autonomous stemcell replacement. It didn't go so well, but we learned a few things when he underwent this procedure. First, we learned that embryonic stem cells are of no use to adults with cancer, meaning had I saved the cord blood of my daughters for stem cells they would not have been helpful for my dad. This might be because of lack of knowledge about embryonic stem cells, but it didn't sound that way!
Second, we learned that harvesting one's own stem cells for use in procedures is much less risky than using someone else's, the whole rejection thing. This harvesting procedure for my dad took two days, one to insert a tube in his neck to retrieve the cells and the second for retrieval. We understood the typical retrieval could take up to three days, but for my dad it took one day - he was lucky! Another woman, who was donating stem cells, did not have the tube in her neck but rather IV's on both of her arms.
Thirdly, we learned that there is a lot of stem cell research going on, just not on embryonic stem cells. I think sometimes the public is falsely led to believe that there is some governmental block of any and all stem cell research, when the debate extends only to embryonic stem cells. I think the media coverage can be a little deceiving sometimes in this area.
I found this very interesting article while doing a bit of research for my cousin, who has to write a paper on stem cell research. Why do we never hear about advances like this? I'm thinking it's political, and it doesn't do anyone any good. Next time you hear about particular politicians "voting against" stem cell research, take a good look at just exactly what they were voting against. Let's be more specific, folks!
No comments:
Post a Comment