Charlie Rose

moulddni@gmail.com  06/05/2008 06:28 PM Report

rqrfvs <a href="http://moulddni0.com">cool site!!!</a> [url=http://moulddni1.com\cool site!!![/url\ http://moulddni2.com Ftyeqw4

Todd B.  06/03/2008 03:12 PM Report

I'm a person who lives with Young-Onset Parkinson's Disease everyday. I am all for embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) with government funding. Those that argue against ESCR seem hypocritical at best.

Why is it okay to discard thousands of embryonic stem cells from in-vitro fertilization clinics every year, but not okay to let science, under strict guidelines, take a look at those cells instead and see if they can help millions and millions of people suffering from illness? If you are so against ESCR, then why aren't you screaming and yelling about the thousands of embryonic stem cells being discarded every year? Shut down the in-vitro fertilization clinics and lets end this argument once and for all. It's a simple question that I have yet to hear a sensible answer to. It's seems okay to destroy these embryonic stem cells by tossing them into medical waste, or literally dump them down a drain. Yet it's not okay to instead let science take a look and gain a better understanding in how to relieve suffering in millions? That makes no sense. And yes, the argument is that simple. You only make it complicated because you can't provide a simple, honest answer.

As for government funding, again those against it make no sense. It's not okay to use government funding to try and prevent (and possibly cure) disease/illness, but it is okay to spend literally billions every year to treat disease and support disease/injury sufferers (SSI, SSDI, Welfare, etc.) after the damage has already been done. Government funds that could be spent of preventing this and providing all humans with a better life. Why is being "reactive" better than being "proactive"? And when has that method ever truly been successful, especially when dealing with disease/illness? The answer is never.

The top scientists in this country have stated, time and again, that ESCR holds great promise. This show illustrates the potential that exists if we, as a country, choose to stop being reactive to how we treat our society and become proactive. I don't know if ESCR will "cure" anything. But I have to respect and believe the scientists, such as those represented on this show, that the potential is great enough that we should move forward. And I am saddened that we are so far behind in this issue.

I live with Young-Onset Parkinson's Disease every single day and will for the rest of my life because people insist on tying the hands of our greatest scientists and not letting them utilize their skills, training, or knowledge to improve the lives of millions. As a result, millions and millions of people, like myself, suffer needlessly every day with no hope in sight. There's just no way, shape, or form that that is right in any way at all.

Thank you Charlie Rose for this show. I truly appreciated every moment of it.

qpoireq@gmail.com  05/21/2008 10:20 AM Report

dfdfafda <a href="http://qpoireq0.com">cool site!!!</a> [url=http://qpoireq1.com\cool site!!![/url\ http://qpoireq2.com ghwrty

ytupewq@gmail.com  02/21/2008 02:24 PM Report

rtrwtq4s <a href="http://ytupewq0.com">cool site!!!</a> [url=http://ytupewq1.com\cool site!!![/url\ http://ytupewq2.com ghgjtye

Brian Gillin  11/27/2007 05:53 PM Report

Faye, do you mean that you'd rather see New Jersey's money go toward research that isn't helping human beings (ESCR) rather than towards research that's already helping thousands of patients (adult stem cell research)? That's not a very pragmatic position to take.

Faye Armitage  10/18/2007 07:56 PM Report

It has been my mission to make sure the promise of hESCR is being pursued both on the federal level as well as the state level. I loved Jonathan Moreno's article titled "Hope is not Enough" and Embryonic Stem Cell Research by the numbers:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/stem_cell_numbers.html

Since March I have been trying to alert the various hESCR organizations about how NJ puts politics before progress. They have been touting the fact that they were the first or second state to appropriate funding for hESCR, yet an examination of the actual dollars awardedto hESCR (the research that the federal government has restricted),is dismal at $600,000 out of $15 million awarded so far.

As comforting as it was to know that CA did in fact decide to put $3 billion over 10 years towards hESCR, it is discomforting to know that other blue states will use the positive propaganda of hESCR, to get taxpayer support for a state program that unbeknown to them has had a track record of funding primarily non-embryonic stem cell research at 95%.

It is immoral for NJ to tout the promise of hESCR and then turn around and use funds that the public expects where intended for hESCR, to cultivate adult stem cell research in NJ instead.

I have a liberal write-up on Daily Kos, where you can get more specifics about what has happened in NJ:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/16/175354/86

Please help right the wrong in NJ.

Kevin Lynch  10/14/2007 03:22 AM Report

I was on the fence as to weather a 4 days old embryo contained a human soul within the 150 cells that make it up? Then after is was simply pointed out that this embryo could divide to produce twins, triples, etc.. I was convinced that the soul must take its place inside the simple life form at a much later stage. Other wise we are led to believe that a Human soul could divide, I think not, twins may look a like but thats as far as it goes, they are a individual as any brother/sister can be.

Sincerely

KL

Brian Gillin  09/08/2007 02:00 PM Report

It's depressing to see that, no matter how many times you explain to people that the personhood of the human embryo is a scientific fact, they'll still assert, wrongly and repeatedly, that it's merely a religious view (see James and Bill).

chircu.com  08/28/2007 12:36 PM Report

Excellent topic! Notwithstanding the absence of full Federal Government support of such research, I would like to learn more about all kinds of contributions the private sector makes (or doesn't). A step further would be to compare how much big-pharma is spending on advertising vs. stem-cell research...

Alice Thomas  08/05/2007 06:16 PM Report

I took care of my lifetime partner for 5 years 24/7 with almost no help at all. He was and is the love of my life and I am exceedingly fortnate to have had 28 years with him. It was not easy to care for him --he was 6'2" and I am 5'3" - I was not a match for him when he became aggressive during the late stages of the disease - which is typical.

I watached him deterioriate from an exceedingly intelligent, well educated man to a person who could not care for himself - I even had to feel him like a baby in later stages. He could not read or speak and had no idea who I was despite the 28 years we spent together. He had a beautiful singing voice and played romantic leads in amateur theater.

There is nothing more traumatic than watching a loved one deteriorate mentally and physically and be unable to do anything to stop the disease.

I admire Nancy Reagan for caring for Ronald Reagan, but she, at least, had sufficient $ to hire help -- I didn't. But, I have no regrets, I would care for him all over again.

It probably isn't kind of me to wish, but I hope that those who block embryonic stem cell research have the same experience I had for 5 years - and maybe they will change their opinion. What is more important? a fertilized egg in a petri dish - or a happy, healthy life for those already here.

james louloudes  08/04/2007 07:41 AM Report

The Bush Administration and the Republican Religious Right who think they represent the majority of American may think they have good reason to advocate a continued moratorium on embryonic stem cell research, but soon, the perceived societal benefits of such research will far outweigh the perceived moral objection by the mindless Republican Conservative Religious Right.

A cure for Cancer, Diabetes, MS, ACL, MD or Alzheimer is all it will take for this issue to finally reach the tipping point. What will a member of the Bush Administration or the Republican Religious Right; facing a choice between futures lives of Alzheimer or MS do when a new cure based on an embryonic stem cell becomes available. Most of President Bush's "dead-head" policies will become increasingly hard to sustain.

Here's a suggestion for the Bush Administration and the Republican Conservative Religious Right to rallying support for his stand against embryonic stem cell research. With the Fox News Network cameras rolling at the White house. The Bush Administration and the Republican Conservative Religious Right and their like-minded political friends (and their families) should gather at the White House to re-affirm their beliefs that medical treatment derived from embryonic stem cell research by signing a Presidential Proclamation stating that they all will never under any circumstances, accept any form of medical treatment for themselves or their children derived from embryonic stem cell research. Example has always been the most effective component of leadership; however two-facedness will most likely win the day.

Bill Hammond  08/03/2007 06:16 PM Report

WWJD?? Not what George W. & his right winged zealots would have you believe. New Book says ESCR not only okay, but part of Christ's ministry... A gift from God.

The Iraq war and medical research are just two of the reasons George W is driving GOD crazy.

You've got to see: www.drivinggodcrazy.us

It's clever, theologically correct and well documented. You'll love it! Get it to the right people and it could change history.

After reading this book, there should be no question that Embryonic Stem Cells are God's gift to mankind we're just now beginning to understand and continues Jesus' ministry of healing.

Brian Gillin  05/25/2007 11:00 PM Report

1. Donald: few vaccines come from actual human sources.

2. Todd: we're not talking about whether to destroy "embryonic stem cells" or not. We're talking about actual human beings who are made up of those cells. Furthermore, there hasn't been a large outcry about their being disposed only because very few people (up to this point) were even AWARE that this is a common practice (and, thankfully, one that may be about to end, as IVF technology is improving to the point at which they no longer think they'll "need" to create more embryos than they intend to implant).

Michael/Ron Mayhew: one more time. Of the 400,000 or so embryos in IVF clinics, more than 88% of them are being reserved for future attempts at pregnancy FOR THE COUPLES THEMSELVES. Of those who have been slated for research-related destruction, experts think they will be able to create, at most, 275 stem cell lines -- nowhere near the number they'd need if treatments with ESCs is ever to come to fruition, which at this point is far from a certainty in and of itself. That's why they're now pushing the creation of more embryos via somatic cell nuclear transfer, also known as cloning, but they're very careful not to call it that, as they know most Americans are opposed to creating embryos for the express purpose of destroying them.

Justin: I again point to what actual scientific resources say. None of them equates an embryo to a sperm cell. Most define the beginning of a new human life at fertilization; the others don't contradict them but rather are simply vague on the issue. As no key third component is added after that point, we know that those primary cells later differentiate on their own.

Ron Mayhew  05/21/2007 07:48 PM Report

Charlie,

Thanks for gathering the panel of experts to help educate the public and alleviate the many misconceptions. I found the information presented to be balanced and factual. As a father of a type 1 diabetic and having the belief that we should attempt to cure diseases, I support hESC research. Over 10,000 embryos are destroyed annualy and 400k+ are stored with no plans for use. Just 1 of these embryos could generate enough cells in culture to make insulin producing beta cells if a "recipe" is discovered. Just think of the human suffering that could be alleviated and the medical expenses/debt that could disappear. For those who would rather destroy embryos that could eventually help mankind, I can only say we're on a different wavelength. Perhaps your opinion may change when a friend or love one has a chronic disease or is paralyzed in an auto accident.

I appreciate and applaud the work that many MDs, PhDs and technicians are doing to advance stem cell technology.

I hope we can make this a routine topic & have more panel discussions on PBS.

Justin  05/20/2007 10:04 PM Report

Brian, I apologize for misstating your name. I was in a hurry and was not paying attention. Moving on...how dare you refer to the sperm as merely an "ingredient"? You are dehumanizing them. They are single-cell living (emphasis on "living") orgamisms that have potential to become human beings. Where is your compassion and humanity to refer to them as merely ingredients??? I hope you're getting my point. To elaborate on another point that I made earlier, the point at which they extract cells from an embryo, the embryo is just a bundle of undifferentiated cells, meaning there is no difference between one cell or the other... no heart cells...no liver cells...no brain cells, and thus no consciousness or sense of being -- operative word there is "being", as in human being.

Frank  05/20/2007 04:58 PM Report

I surprised that nobody mentioned the political economy behind the decision to not allow public research grants.

Joseph  05/20/2007 06:00 AM Report

I think if anything Charlie's series would do well to better explain the science in his science series through some of the nice multimedia that exists for these topics - e.g. a few excerpts from the free internet available 4 hour HHMI stem cell series. I believe one of the guests, Doug Melton, was the co-lecturer in this series.

Michael  05/20/2007 05:59 AM Report

Brian: Great, does this mean we can start shipping the surplus embryos to your house? I assume "your side" wants to bring these embryos into the world and raise them, rather than discard them. Since I understand there are quite a few, I hope you have a large home, a good job, and an understanding wife - her womb will be very busy. Maybe some of the "homeless people" you mention would be willing to donate their wombs to help you too (?) - probably little help with the big house and job though. I'm so glad we found someone to take care of all these discarded embryos - now we can drop the issue.

Donald G. Elitt  05/19/2007 11:44 PM Report

It is interesting to note that most of the outrage appears to be directed at embryonic stem cell research. Since all vaccines in this country were grown on two cell lines from electively aborted fetal cell lines and the embryos for stem cell research are from in vitro fertization, I am wondering where the outrage for usage of either of these areas is so muted. Could it be a case of situational ethics i.e when my situation changes, so do my ethics? How many people would reject vaccine usage knowing the source? (Maybe, they really don't want to know!) How many people would turn away from the usage of this research when confronted with a life threatening illness which might be cured by this research? Please stop the moral hypocrisy! The majority of these pious hypocrites would either act like they had no idea where the cure came from or simply put their morals aside and ask for forgiveness later.

Brian Gillin  05/19/2007 04:28 PM Report

1. I'm not sure if you were referring to me by "Bill," but I can respond, anyway. Yes, the embryo (currently) requires a womb in order to develop and grow; such as it is, a womb then serves as a hospitable environment and a source of nutrition: two things we still require as born human beings. They don't qualify as a "component" or "ingredient" in the same way that a sperm cell or egg cell does. 2. Wai, if you think this issue only affects "me," then you still miss the point. If we kill human beings for medical research, then they're obviously being affected by the decision. Your stance is not uncommon, sadly: "Well, if you don't want to be cured using embryonic stem cells, that's your decision, but let us make ours." I shall ask you if that would be your position if someone were to suggest killing 5,000 homeless people because he thinks he might be able to cure cancer. I certainly hope that it would not. I certainly hope that you would vote against ANY homeless people being killed, and not leave the decision up to each individual person. Furthermore, we're not saying "no" to children in hospitals because we're still supporting adult stem cell/adult islet cell research that is ALREADY doing miraculous things for patients with juvenile diabetes, multiple sclerosis, celebral palsy, and spinal cord injury, not to mention dozens of other conditions. And if you think that this issue is only about discarding CELLS, then you still demonstrate a lack of understanding of the issue at hand. I have plenty of stem cells in my body and will gladly donate them so that they can be used, discarded, destroyed, or whatever else. This issue is not about destroying mere cells, but rather human beings. You want me to go to Children's Hospital? I want you to go to the parents of an adopted embryo (and now a healthy born child) and explain to them that their son or daughter should have been killed for the purpose of medical research. Let me know what they say. 3. Curt: feel free to look over this thread. We don't need the Bible to tell us when a human life begins; we have plenty of medical textbooks that do precisely that. And, whether this fact is inconvenient for you or not, they tend to agree with our side, not yours.

Curt  05/19/2007 11:53 AM Report

I have 3 comments

1) By reading the Comments on this board it's clear that a lot more shows on Stem Cells and particularly ones that explain what Embryonic Stem Cells are, needs to be done. There are clearly people that have absolutely no idea what they are talking about even after seeing the show.

2) There is NO bibilical reference to when someone becomes a human, and NOTHING in the bible to prevent healing based on using cellular technology. Those opposed to Stem Cell research look for ways to USE the Bible to back up their opinions (not even based in fact) rather than actually understand the message of the Bible and in particular Jesus.

Banning Stem Cell research from cloned Stem Cells or discarded embryos (most of which were created in test tubes at fertility clinics) is no more a sin than Jesus healing on the Sabbath.

3)I do agree with the numerous posters that the "experts" on this show are a bit narrow and contrived and Charlie Rose can do better.

Would like to see more on this subject.

Particularly why would you leave the leading company in this field "GERON" out of such a discussion - they are the experts in the field. To ignore the real experts demonstrates some "other" agenda.

Wai Cheung  05/18/2007 10:28 PM Report

I hope Brian Gillin realized what he quoted from the WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA is just someone's opinion. It is like saying "This is what's in the Bible, so it must be true!" Perhaps he is right that there are people who will rather suffer from a debilitating disease than endorsing stem cell research, even if it may hold the best chance of discovering some way to cure their disease. I respect his or her decision, as long as it affects himself or herself ONLY. What gives them the rights to decide for others? I've read Buck McVeigh's comment, and broke out in tears. I'll like Brian and his friends go down to the children's hospital, look right into the eyes of these children and their parents, point to the WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA and explain to them why they are denied the best chance that they may have for a cure. Is it more right to discard the stem cells and let them rot away than to offer them to the scientists, who maybe able to use them to find a way to help some real people?

Hal Adams  05/18/2007 03:03 PM Report

The question of the morality of embryonic stem cells is philosophical. If the discussions are based on religious precepts, there is little room for argument. One can hardly attack a belief system that is based on the spoken word from God.

I think those people who say that using embryonic stem cells for medical research is tantamount to murder should equally condemn the Iraq war where thousands of soldiers, innocent men, women and children are being killed in the name of democracy. It's a holocaust. No one can hardly disagree that our war has resulted in murder. And, it still continues.

Scientists are not attempting to impose democracy on embryonic stem cells. They are attempting to understand the root cause of disease which may lead to cures. It is a new frontier with enormous potential according to our scientists.

In this country alone there are 100 million people who have an illness....40 million with chronic pain....millions of people with over 400 types of neurological diseases. Billions of dollars are being spent for drugs to mitigate symptoms. Ever ask your pharmacist if he has a pill for a cure? We need more basic medical research which will result in reducing the burden of overwhelming medical costs. The medical industry is about one-fifth of total GDP. It is too high.

One hundred years from now it is a good bet that people will look back at the morality argument of using embryonic stem cells for medical research as the "inquisition of the 21st century

Justin  05/18/2007 01:32 PM Report

Bill, I'm trying get people to think outside the box for a second and not refer to what the Book says. I'm asking people to use common sense and think for themselves. It's a philosophical question. I think everyone is fully aware at this point in the debate of what the Encyclopedia defines as a human being. But why is the line drawn there? Yes, the sperm depends on an unfertilized egg to become an embryo. But I would counter that the embryo depends on the womb to become a fully formed human. Neither the sperm nor embryo can survive and develop on its own -- they're dependent on other elements to survive. They represent different stages in becoming a human being. The sperm is a single-cell, while the embryo is a clump of cells that does not have a brain, thus no consciousness. So then my question again is... since they're both living organisms, why do we protect the embryo and not the sperm?

Brian Gillin  05/18/2007 12:35 PM Report

Perhaps I should reiterate an earlier point, as many people here are still getting it wrong: the personhood of the human embryo is not a religious concept, but rather a scientific fact. Do you folks live anywhere near a library? Good. Go check out the WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA. It states that an embryo is "an animal or plant in an early stage of its development." That means that a canine embryo is already a dog, an ovine embryo is already a sheep, and a human embryo is already a human being. The WORLD BOOK makes no mention whatsoever of "if implanted in a womb" or "unless created in vitro" or "unless it's inconvenient for us to think of the embryo as a human being." To respond to Wai Cheung, plenty of people who suffer from a spinal cord injury, or Parkinson's, or juvenile diabetes...nonetheless oppose destroying their fellow human beings in search of a cure. To answer Justin Nguyen, again, science has drawn the line at fertilization (and cloning brings about an equivalent product to the product of fertilization). Therefore, a sperm or an unfertilized ovum is not a human being, but combining them results in the creation of a human being. I hope that clears things up for you.

Buck McVeigh  05/18/2007 11:30 AM Report

Bravo, Charlie! I want to share a commentary I saw in the Denver Post back in 2001. It was written by former Denver Broncos player Reggie Rivers. My sentiments exactly.

On embryos and acorns

By Reggie Rivers

Denver Post Columnist

Thursday, July 19, 2001

I will always choose real people over theoretical people.

There's an ethical and moral debate raging about whether

scientists should use human embryonic stem cells in the

search for cures to diseases. Many people say that

extracting the cells is wrong. They believe that an embryo, even at

just a few days old, is a human being and destroying it is

murder.

I disagree. At that stage of development, an embryo

is a theoretical person. If you want to meet some real

people, go visit a children's hospital.

You'll see kids who are suffering from brain disease, heart

defects, cancer, diabetes, paralysis and a whole lot more.

You'll see parents walking out of the hospital with

exhausted, desperate faces. They're frustrated because there's nothing

they can do to take the pain away.

If someone ever tried to pick up your child and walk away

with her, you'd do anything you could to stop him, even

if it meant giving up your own life.

But what do you do when the enemy is inside your child's

body? What do you do when there's a growth or a deficiency that

is taking your child an inch at a time and all you can do is

watch?

You turn to God and doctors and technology. You pray that

they'll find a cure and that your son or daughter will be saved

before it's too late.

Go meet some of those kids and ask yourself how many of them

you're willing to let die in order to protect the lives of theoretical

people.

The answer for me is none. I want scientists to do as much

Research with as many human embryos as necessary to find the cures

for some of these diseases. I believe an embryo is a

theoretical person who should be sacrificed to benefit real people.

An acorn is not an oak tree. A seed is not a rose bush. An

embryo is not a human being.

An acorn, a seed and an embryo all have the potential to

"become" something, but that doesn't mean that they are that

something right now.

Given the right temperature, water, nutrients and exposure

to the sun, that acorn might eventually become an oak tree.

But a squirrel who eats the acorn is not killing an oak

tree, he's merely eating an acorn to sustain his own life.

A scientist who extracts stem cells from an embryo is not

committing murder, he's destroying an embryo to extend

the lives of real people.

The cells, called pluripotent, are capable of developing

into any one of the 210 different types of tissue in the human

body, so scientists believe they can use the stem cells to

regenerate nerves, organs, muscles or blood.

They would be extracted from embryos that are just a few

days old. These embryos don't have brains, they don't have

nervous systems, they don't have organs, they don't have anything

except DNA and the building blocks for making a human.

The crux of this debate is framed the same way as the

Abortion issue. When does life begin? When does a human soul develop?

Is it at conception? Are women who use birth control pills

committing murder?

I think the real issue is in the competing lives involved.

Even people who are opposed to abortion are willing to allow

it if the life of the mother is in danger. Why is the mother's

life more important? If both lives are of equal importance,

wouldn't it make just as much sense to abort the mother

to save the baby?

Of course not. The mother is a real person; the fetus is

a theoretical person. Not every acorn will become an oak

tree.

Some of those acorns are going to be consumed to sustain

the lives of others.

Jack Reed, Jr.  05/18/2007 11:23 AM Report

Correction on website address noted earlier; It is www.pfaith.org

Jack Reed, Jr.  05/18/2007 11:14 AM Report

Terrific show! It needs to be replayed all over America. It is tragic that now that a majority of both the Senate and the House have passed legislation that would put our nation back on track one man is postponing research capabilities that could potentially prevent so much human suffering. Over 11,000 Americans of many religious faiths concur that this is the more moral position. Please join our grassroots website www.pfaith .com started by a couple in Tupelo, Mississippi.

Joe  05/18/2007 04:06 AM Report

The polarization on this issue amazes me. Should the embryos simply be discarded ("killed"!)? Or, used so that others might live? I think the logic applied by many in the pro life camp is simply founded on a belief system intolerant of evidence or arguments to the contrary. I remember hearing something about how IQ is correlated with the willingness to accept all evidence in an argument, even it is contrary to your current understanding. I believe they were comparing avid consumers of biased media sources such as FOX news - guess who had the lower IQ. Go Rupert.

As someone just entering their thirties, a common pattern I've seen in those attacking the issue: is older people who are simply unfamiliar with the science, and dependant solely on a preacher to explain the issue. History would tell us that religous authorities are generally wrong on such matters, and the source of much violence when anyone opposes their view. The younger generations have learned from this example - especially in the age of free information access. My peers (<35), from various socioeconomic backgrounds, are generally pro science and against religious rhetoric. Even if they do not fully comprehend the science, they certainly do not trust the religious right. Even the former president of the Young Republicans Club at my alma mater has turned his back on the party after his disgust with the administration's behavior. He's guessing they can find someone from one of the local churches to take his place though.

In a previous generation's music, I recall a song saying something to the effect of: "Times they are a changin...get out of the way..." Perhaps this means we will have to wait until enough of this segment of the older generation dies off, or discredits themselves through further blunders - but I do believe the momentum will move right along.

cecily Surace  05/18/2007 03:12 AM Report

A very interesting discussion. However, in order to avoid any more purposeful disinformation about stem cell research, shouldn't you also invite researchers working with adult stems to explain what they are doing and their accomplishments to date. Wouldn't this be in the public's interest and make for a better informed public?

Justin Nguyen  05/18/2007 01:17 AM Report

Why stop at the embryo? The sperm is a living (single-celled) organism. Are we going to arrest postpubescent boys for being "muderers". Where do we draw the line?

Malcolm MacLeod,MD  05/17/2007 11:52 PM Report

I'm a retired pediatrician. I missed the stem cell research show,

because I had been reading Chritopher Hitchen's book and dozed

off before the show started. I think that we are behind in this

field, and look to more scientificaly energenic countries to fill

the gap. Certainly, we have many thousands of ill children who

will benefit from this effort. How can we ethically neglect that

urgent need? I'll watch the show when the video is finished.

Wai Cheung  05/17/2007 10:58 PM Report

One of your viewers' comment was she has a severely disabled daughter, and would not promote immoral research in order to cure her. I commend her for that. But at the same time, I cannot help but wonder if she would hold the same opinion if she is the one that is severely disabled. I challenge anyone with similar opinion as hers, to put his or her most love one (sometimes it may be himself or herself, sadly) in the shoes of this viewer's daughter, or Michael J. Fox. America was built on the principles of respect for everyone's own opinion, and the strong do not force on the weak. Yet here, we have a classic case of the powerful (namely President Bush) forcing his view on every American with a different view than his.

Brian Gillin  05/17/2007 09:42 PM Report

I was disappointed with the May 16 episode that focused on stem cell research. The only guests were proponents of embryonic research. Free of anyone challenging them, they perpetuated several misconceptions and flawed arguments.

One compared human embryos to skin cells, arguing that they're mere "potential" human beings. But the flaw in this (oft-repeated) analogy is easy to see: the skin cell must be combined with an oocyte (egg cell) in order to become a human embryo (via cloning). The embryo need not be combined with any third element to be a human being, according to science.

Those who oppose destroying embryos are often derisively told to "go back to Science 101." But countless science textbooks -- the ones actually USED in such courses -- make it clear that fertilization -- not implantation, birth,

or any other arbitrary moment -- is the beginning of a new human being's life. This scientific fact causes great inconvenience for people like Douglas Melton, and so he, like many others (including, it appears, some commenters here), goes on pretending that it's a mere religious belief.

Contrary to what the panelists contend, the United States has one of the world's most permissive policies on ESCR. It is illegal to destroy human embryos for research purposes in many industrialized nations, such as

Germany and Italy. Further, the practice of using "research cloning," also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer -- involving the creation of human embryos via cloning for the sole purpose of destroying them -- remains legal in the U.S., but has been outlawed in Canada and every nation in Europe except England, Sweden, Belgium, and Spain.

Mr. Melton was right about one thing: we need to have an informed discussion in this country. But he's wrong in that he levels the charge of deception at his opponents, when in reality it is his "side" that consistently does this: misrepresenting the views of ESCR's opponents, dismissing the personhood of the human embryo as "religious dogma," and desperately downplaying the real

achievements of adult, NON-embryonic stem cells to cure disease.

Almost every disease commonly mentioned with respect to embryonic research is and/or has been treated in actual human patients with adult stem cells. An exception is Alzheimer's, which affects the entire brain and therefore is

not expected to be a good candidate for any type of stem cell treatment. (Chemical therapies are far more promising.) This has been stated again and again, but supporters of ESCR continue to invoke the disease's name because they know more people will pay attention if they do.

I like that this program often seeks out multiple points of view and actually gives people more than the four-minute, multi-screen shout-a-thon found on MSNBC and the like. But this issue needs that balanced treatment just as much as any other does. There are plenty of scientists and stem cell researchers who find adult stem cells more promising and/or oppose the destruction of human embryos. How about an

episode that devotes time to them?

eligit  05/17/2007 08:48 PM Report

it's sad that there has to be such division on this subject. if you have a religious belief that the union of an egg and a sperm is the same as a human being...there really is no way to continue the conversation.

sad.

Bobbie Gordon  05/17/2007 02:11 PM Report

I sent an e-mail to your producers making a suggestion regarding presenting your program on stem cells throughout the country like Al Gore has done with "Inconvenient Truth." I believe it should be widely distrubuted. I hope you can see what I wrote. Thank you for so many great viewing sessions. It would be hard to pick out a favorite.

Susan Everett  05/17/2007 02:04 PM Report

When you say "with respect to those who have reservations," I had to laugh, Charlie. There was no respect shown for those with moral objections, and this was barely addressed on your show. I think you are confused on one point, in particular. You seem to think that if only everyone understood the "promise, potential, and possibility," that would make all the difference. It makes NO difference to a person with a firm belief in the value of those embryos. If it is wrong, it is wrong despite the justification for going forward. (I have a severely disabled daughter, by the way, and I would not promote immoral research in order to cure her.) What we should really be talking about is whether in vitro fertilization which leads to this dilemma of discarded embryos is being done in an ethical way by most doctors.

Josephine  05/17/2007 01:36 PM Report

I truly enjoyed the round table discussion that was held last nigh!

As a pharmacologist in higher education, I appreciated the commentary by one of the panelists regarding the importance of Biology and Science in secondary education. Unfortunately, if the pattern continues, America will loose it's standing in the global scientific world as a leader.

Perhaps in the future, the issue of Science curriculum in secondary education may be analyzed and discussed.

John Carini  05/17/2007 12:39 PM Report

Your panel last night on stem cell research was fantastic and deserves to be seen by a wide, wide audience. This was a very exciting, articulate and accessible discussion that clarified so many aspects of this very difficult and divisive subject. After hearing your panelists, I cannot understand why anyone would block the advancement of this important research â?? but thatâ??s another conversation.

Thanks for all of your stimulating (and often fun) programming.

John Carini

Susanne Hansen  05/17/2007 09:18 AM Report

Thank you for your report last night on stem cells. It is sad indeed that the federal restrictions have set our medical teams behind in research. I have two sons with Type I Diabetes. I want help for them and soon.

Ron Hein  05/17/2007 08:18 AM Report

Your most fifth discussion continued your panel's efforts to address key medical and ethical issues related to stem cell research and applications. It is clearly a field that needs rational exploration and clear explanations that will help all of us find ways to better understand issues based upon factual information rather than biases based upon preconceptions and personal beliefs.

Cliff Price  05/17/2007 04:44 AM Report

I vehemently disagree with specious and totally absurd arguments that embryonic stem cells should not be used in medical research because they are the beginning of human life. Yes, they formally constitute the beginning of human life, but only if they are implanted in a womb. They will not evolve into human life outside of the womb, and until then, they are technically nothing but a collection of cells. Indeed, most of them will be unceremoniously dumped. Human life is precious, and embryonic stem cell research is one of the most promising tools science has to improve life quality and longevity. Why indiscriminately waste stem cells that have no chance of attaining life when their use in research can be a crucial contribution to preserving life?

Genevieve Glassy  05/17/2007 03:59 AM Report

Charlie -

Thank you for taking a lead in gathering these amazing people to educate us all on stem cell research.

Blue skies on the horizon!

As the mother of a child with Type 1 diabetes, I truly value the newest information being made available. I am also extremely grateful for the researchers who go to work every day looking for a way to help relieve the suffering caused by so many diseases. The hope they engender for all of us is an incredible gift. We need these beacons as we struggle through 24/7 care and try to envision a healthy future for our kids.

A key point that really caught my imagination tonight was the myriad of possibilities that this line of investigation opens up.

"These are the days of miracle and wonder."

Thank You.

Jessica Thompson  05/17/2007 03:02 AM Report

Charlie, thank you for addressing this subject. While the scientists do seem to be able to recognize cells under a microscope. They don't recognize what is the beginning of a human life. Other stem cell types are not the same ethically because they are not the actual beginning of life. Life is a process, it begins at one place, and that is conception. The embryonic cells are cells that have made that transition into life. Human life has become so cheap, we throw it about and call it a clump of cells. No other stem cells are special in this way because no other stem cells are fertilized eggs having begun the life process. It is sad to me that so many research scientists believe in science at any cost. And if we don't agree with them, that it is because we just don't understand science. Perhaps they just don't understand ethics.

Joe Rogerson  05/17/2007 01:30 AM Report

I don't have a horse in this race, but neither you or any of your panel members seem to realize that federal funds should not be allocated or disbursed unless the purpose is constitutionally authorized. Art. 1, Sect. 8 of the U. S. Constitution lists all the authorized functions and powers if you're interested. Medical research is not on the list.

Theresa Ianelli  05/17/2007 01:13 AM Report

I was very disturbed by the material presented on your show regarding embryonic stem cell research. Charlie, if your mother took your "embryonic cells" you would not be standing on God's green earth. Charlie, WAKE UP!!. The unborn need you to protect them. How precious are children and why are they being dehumanized by calling them "just cells" by those crazy guests. Really disappointed in your show.

John Manchester  05/17/2007 12:01 AM Report

I hope that you don't think that your discussion re: human embryonic stem cells was a balanced presentation. You did not have one guest who seriously addressed the ethical/moral conundrum that is inherant in research on these cells. I am very disappointed in this coverage. You have done better work in the past.