I don't understand why you felt it necessary to mention this. I think it's half-way down in the article because it's not really the most important aspect of the conversation.

I think the fact that MS has been cured in some people for the first time is far more relevant than the source of the stemcells used to cure MS.

Simply recalling days where there was a big bugaboo over the source of stem cells and how many were claiming that research would be forever stunted without full access to embryonic stem cells.

While it likely did impact several promising areas of study it did end resulting in good research being performed in the field with what they could easily and without controversy obtain.

Oddly while some outside the field attempted to limit the areas of research some inside were unintentionally limiting themselves as well

I don't understand why you don't get it. There's a long history in the United States where people are strongly against funding stem cell research.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_laws_and_policy_in...

People who don't understand the political climate are hindering science because of various groups. We could probably be a decade farther in research if more money was available for stem cell research 20 years ago, for example.

> There's a long history in the United States

Headline: Canadian Doctors.

Americans can hide themselves away from the world in made up religious ideas, the rest of the world will get on.

Please don't be dismissive and shallow on hn. This is not Reddit.

I take his point to be substantive: if Americans continue to tolerate the religious right's war on science, we will continue to fall behind the rest of the world.

We're getting off track. America does a tremendous amount of the medical (and otherwise) science that helps progress modern medicine, and here we have a documented use of stem cells with an incredible outcome that is not encumbered at all with controversy. This is a win, no matter how calous you want to be about America. (New flash, religion affects the political climate all over the word.)

It is not a 'war on science' to oppose killing embryos for their cells any more than it is a war on science to oppose killing prisoners for their organs. Science can only answer the question of what will happen if one does one thing or another; religion/morality/philosophy must answer the question of what should happen, which implies what one ought to do.

Save for psychopaths, everyone applies some sort of moral calculus to his actions.

The religious right does comprise the largest portion of those who recognise the scientific fact that an embryo is a living human being and apply the moral principle that killing innocent human beings should be avoided (much as the religious right comprised the largest portion of those who recognised the scientific fact that blacks are human beings, and applied the moral principle that human beings ought not be enslaved, 150 years ago). It's not a war on science; it's applying moral principles to scientific facts.

This comment will be interesting to look back on in ten years if Trump wins.

We can be pretty bad here in Canada in fact my province has just made abortions legal here in this province this year 2016.

Technically abortions were legal for years but you had to leave the province drive two to four hours plus a $50 road toll, plus fuel, time off work etc.

I'm not female and never been in a situation needing one but I think it's about time it was allowed here.

So yeah the people here would probably be very vocal about stem cells at all still today. Any who knew of stem cell history would probably still assume they were fetal sources or just not care and protest anyway.

Haper is/was about as anti-science as they come, no matter his motivations for being so. Canada isn't some pancea of unencumbered science.

> Canada isn't some pancea

I did not say, nor did what I did say imply, it was.

What I replied to was putting an American debate forward as a global issue. What American policy makers do has very little to do with what research occurs in other parts of the world.

Once again, that I said the USA is deficient in one regard does not mean I am saying the rest of the world is better in every other, or even any other regard.

Well, a rather large part of the country want nothing to do with embryonic stem cells as they are linked directly with abortions. Non-embryonic stem cell research is pretty much only opposed by a small sliver of the population (generally the type that opposes everything). Treatments that use your own body as part of the cure are widely accepted as fine (well, expect by the FDA, but that's another article).

You can get a lot of non embryonic stem cells from your own placenta and cord (if it was kept). Had the cells been embryonic I wonder how many of the anti choice crowd would have changed their views.

Yep, and I've seen women keeping those for that purpose (have no idea about how the long term storage is accomplished). Probably all of the anti-choice crowd, would be a bit hypocritical to change view. They would regard it as trading souls for souls.

I wonder who owns a placenta - child or mother? Presumably it's only handy to the child.

Well, I understand that it is handy for the mother in dealing with depression. I don't have the literature handy.

Depends how you feel about stem cell research.

I feel like it's been held back for a decade or two by, mostly, the religious right, and I wonder how many people's lives are worse off as a result.

Why was it held back? The only legislation passed was around gov't funding of new embyonic stem cell lines. Private money has no restrictions.

I wonder how many more lives would have been ended had federal dollars funded research using embryonic stem cells.

The religious right (US-version):

Life begins at conception and every life is special.

Also for: guns, more prisons, war on drugs, war on terror, global warming does not exist, borderline racist social policies, george bush jr., "doesn't trust science", lack of financial success can only be the result of personal failings (and choices), and no taxes because "who needs roads" and "I did it all myself".

Not saying you (PP) share any of those, but why is it that the supposed humanitarian group when it comes to embryos tends to treat actual living members of society so poorly?

Meanwhile, the bleeding heart liberals are all baby killers (or at least, there's a rather large distinction between embryos and babies, in their opinion).

Serious question, isn't that a weird dichotomy?

A group who actively works to convince others they are victims is treating others poorly.

I long for days when it won't really matter how you feel about stem cell research.

Just as important for USA readers is the line "They then hooked her up to a machine that cycled through her blood 32 times over the course of seven hours, in order to collect stem cells. Those stem cells were then purified, wiped of any memory of the disease, to later be transplanted into Molson through a blood transfusion."

Our FDA has been making life a pain in the butt for anything that takes stem cells from a person, processes them, and then puts them back into that person.

Not just the FDA, but the EMA in Europe as well. "Non homologous use" or "substantial manipulation" makes it an ATMP (advanced-therapy medicinal product): http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scienti...