Not much as far as a disclaimer here... heavy on pointers and facts-as-I-hear, not much debate.

On the debate. What is, exactly, up-in-the-air as far as politics goes is whether or not federal funding should go to stem-cell research. In the past, stem-cell research has been funded, but under Clinton it was something like 'don't ask, don't tell--science style'. Funding was provided for the research, not the obtaining of cells. "As long as we don't know where (the stem cells) come from," it seemed, "we'll give you the money."

As for alternatives to embryonic stem cells, there is actually quite a bit, though little is useful. What is needed from stem cells is the reproductive material. Granted, the adult body reproduces itself constantly, and stem cells can be obtained from skin tissue, bone marrow, etc. The only drawback is that the brunt of stem-cell research will likely go toward devastating nervous diseases, such as Parkinson's. Unfortunately, the nerve cells in an adult's body no longer reproduce, rendering them useless for stem-cell harvesting.

And lastly, on numbers. Say stem-cell research didn't warrant government funding, and was entirely privately funded. That means corporations would be researching them, competing against each other in business-like fashion. Of course, they wouldn't tell each other what they were up to, so even more precious stem cells would be wasted in duplicate efforts. And, when the research was finally complete, it's highly probable that the company will slap a patent on their discoveries, costing us a pretty penny to use.

Just a thought or two... with little bits and pieces I gathered off of NPR.

--Emily--