This should be fun.....

[Viking12]

Scientists and Engineers for Change Accepts Challenge to Debate Talk Show Host Michael Reagan on Bush Stem Cell Policy

WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Fighting back against the roadblocks Republicans are placing in the way of promising scientific research on embryonic stem cells to fight disease, Scientists and Engineers for Change today accepted a challenge issued by conservative talk radio host Michael Reagan last week to debate the issue. According to conservative news site NewsMax.com, Michael Reagan says John Kerry and the Democrats do not understand stem cell research as well as he does, or they would share his position.

"The attitudes of the two Presidential candidates on stem cell research are dramatically different, and the American people deserve to know why President Bush's policies are a clear example of foot dragging that may very well cost human lives," said Dr. Peter Agre, 2003 Nobel Laureate in chemistry.

-snip-
Stem cell experts prepared to go on Reagan's show on behalf of Scientists and Engineers for Change include Dr. Harold Varmus, former Director of the National Institutes of Health and 1989 winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine, Agre of Johns Hopkins, winner of the 2003 Nobel Prize for Chemistry, and Dr. Bruce Conklin, genetic researcher and professor of cardiovascular disease at the Gladstone Institute, University of California at San Francisco

http://www.scientistsandengineersforchange.org/press.php

How long do you think it will last before Reagan cuts them off???

[FellowAmerican]

1. Debate is good idea

The issue of stem cell research is a relevant debate issue. There is allot made of embryonic stem cells, which has it's own controversy, but not much is being said about adult and/or umbilical cord stem cell research. I understand that the greatest advances into medical discoveries have been made using these type of stem cells, and with no restrictions to its research. There is room for debate on this. But like with many things, we should not put all of our focus on embryonic stem cells alone. I would rather see the overall stem cell research done.

Arguing who is right or wrong over this issue will accomplish nothing.

[Sarvis]

2. depends on what you are pretending to debate, and what you are doing...

The fact that advances in one area (adult stem cell research) has made progress doesn't mean that another area (embyronic stem cell research) should be ignored or restricted.

What is there to debate, other than the attempt to impose a religious agenda into science, which is what the opponents of this are trying to do? That is an issue where there is a right and wrong, and the opponents of this are wrong.

[FellowAmerican]

3. Trying to stay open minded

I was not referring to a 'religious agenda' regarding this issue of stem cells! But I am talking about ethics. In an attempt to find the answers to the universe, are you willing to subjugate the ethical aspect of this research? If we lock into an "all our way, or no way" then what are we gaining? Nothing, and both sides lose because the research will end. We as Democrats are not all for unlimited embryonic stem cell research.

Let's say that a compromise is struck that allows research on 1-2 week embryos, which is what is being asked for. What if 10-15-20 years from now the research wants to begin research into 4-12-16 week old fetuses? This is an ethical dilemma for all of us. Yes, research to a certain level, I think, is more ethically acceptable. Do you want to see 3-4 month old developed fetuses destroyed for research?

Please, don't throw "religion" at me and accuse me of anything other then keeping the debate open - not closed to one way.

[Sarvis]

4. the ethics issue is religious...

and the slippery-slope argument is just fear tactic derivative. That's my opinion. I am unaware of a scientific argument to restricting research, merely ones based on ethical definitions of the beginning of life which apparently we don't share, and which I feel are based in religion.

[FellowAmerican]

5. I disagree

that ethics, in and by it self is a religious issue. Are you a ethical person? Do you feel strongly about what is right and what is wrong? Is that based on your religion, or do you just know? Do you see what I mean - it's not exclusively a religious issue. Everybody lives by a level of morals that are either born of their religious belief, or just by what their 'gut' tells them may be wrong.

I'm sorry, but this issue is more than just scientific research and warrants the time needed to be sure that we don't embark on a slippery slope.

[Dogmudgeon]

6. The Slippery Slope goes both ways

At which point does restricting medical research in the interest of ethics start increasing mortality of its beneficiaries?

Protecting fetuses by closing off research has a very real effect on the lives of people suffering from illnesses that could be treated with stem cell products. This, too, is a slippery slope, one that the anti-stem-cell proponants do not consider, much less discuss.

The Bush White Has has already taken us down several slippery slopes, and we are paying a heavy price for his moral arrogance.

--bkl

[FellowAmerican]

7. Well,

on the issue of this 'slope' we'll just have to agree to disagree.