Talk:Stem cell/Archive 2

Talk:Stem_cell/Archive_1

Coverage of the US, US states, and countries beyond the US
There needs to be some discussion about what other countries are doing about stem cell research.


 * Agree. The article right now is pretty US-centric --Nectarflowed 11:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Should the section on California should have its own article?

 * IMO the whole California section should be split off (it already has its own article), and have only a very brief mention and link in the Legal section - it's not important enough to have such a large dedicated section on the main Stem cell page. Joe D (t) 19:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is an important issue - how much of the California section should be on the page and how much should be in the its own article.


 * I think dealing with the US's ban on federal research [federal funding restrictions] is incomplete without dealing with California's response to it, which [because of the following figures] [from some views may make] the federal ban irrelevant. The $300 million US that California's institute will be spending on embryonic stem cell research is 12 times the amount the main research organization that would normally be funding basic research like this in the US, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), spent in 2003 on embryonic stem cell research ($25 million US (on lines allowed by the federal ban)).  California's embryonic stem cell research amount is even 1/3 more than NIH spent on adult stem cell research in 2003 ($190 million), which is a larger field and is not controversial.
 * Some articles I've read even claim that California's institute will have the largest endowment for embryonic stem cell research in the world. Evan Snyder, director of the program in stem cell biology at the Burnham Institute in San Diego said "this is going to be the stem cell center of the world, not just the country."


 * I haven't been able to find figures on how much the countries that have been most active in stem cell research are spending, which is listed in a number of articles as the United Kingdom, South Korea, Australia, Israel, and Singapore, but it seems unlikely that these countries would be spending more than the US would. (The US's purchasing power parity GDP according to the CIA world factbookis $10.99 trillion USD(2003 est.), compared with $1.666 trillion for the U.K.,  $857.8 billion for South Korea, $571.4 billion for Australia, 120.9 billion for Isreal, and $109.4 billion for Singapore.  Although, if California can spend $300 million a year, the U.K could be spending even more.  (California's GDP is given in some articles as $1.4 trillion, but I haven't seen them give sources for this.)


 * So, it is of course limited how much we can estimate about research endowments just by looking at GDPs, but I'm saying that California's institute is spending more than the US's federal government is spending, and it seems unlikely that, based on GDPs, other countries are spending more than the US. So if California's institute makes the US federal ban irrelevant and it is the largest in the world by a wide margin, I think this makes its presence on the page important, although some of what's presently in the California section may need to be moved to its own page.--Nectarflowed 01:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Here Nectarflowed is talking a "ban." [this wording has since been clarified in the above entry] That is propaganda.  That is not a NPV.  There is no "ban" on stem cell research.  There is no "ban" on embryonic stem cell research.  That term is full of opinion and it is not NPV.  Where is the objectivity?  Also, California has only just passed 71.  It is going to take a while for it to take effect and in the meantime other states are discussing starting there own research centers--which will lead to competition for the best researchers; therefore, the comment about California getting the best researchers is just pure propaganda.  Kerry lost the election.  So the federal position will stay the same for four more years.  However, 71 passed and other states are responding to it--such as Texas.  So for the article to focus so highly on California is propaganda.  Also, Kerry did not affect the federal policy at all other than his running mate made the crazy comment that if John Kerry was elected then Christopher Reeve would have gotten out of his wheelchair and walk again.  --Keetoowah 15:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The establishment of California’s stem cell research institute changed the US research scene, as well as the global research scene. For example, US embryonic stem cell researchers will be less likely to relocate to the UK to take advantage of larger embryonic stem cell funding.


 * Until Texas endows funding comparable to $3 billion USD for embryonic stem cell research, any Texas state funding of embryonic stem cell research is not as noteworthy in the global scene as California’s institute.


 * Though stem cell research is currently a highly politicized topic, Wikipedia’s stem cell article strives for NPOV free from partisan politics and I support that effort.--Nectarflowed 02:46, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is the US still the leader in stem cell research?
In light of most of the latest developments reported on this page (from Paris, South Korea), is it really accurate (or informative) to write "However, the U.S. still leads the world in adult stem cell research and stem cell research overall in spite of the funding restriction on merely embryonic stem cell research" ? -- Oarih 00:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, the US is still the leader in stem cell research. Go take a look at all of the published articles.  The vast majority are from the U.S.  Also, the U.S. groups spend by far the most money in this area.  Second on the list is the UK and they are far, far behind.--Keetoowah 04:45, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I was more concerned with wether the US were the ones making the big discoveries anymore. They can spend all the money they want and publish all the articles they want, but if they're not making the critical discoveries I wouldn't say that they're the world leaders.  -- Oarih 05:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You are exhibiting bias. I provided a factual basis for my comment and you have rebutted me with no facts only your perception the situation.  The U.S. is making critical discoveries.  Now the two leading stem cell researchers are in South Korea but that does not mean that the U.S. is not making critical discoveries.  What factually basis are you using to support your comment that the US is not, as you would say, "making the critical discoveries."  Your statement is value laden, it is not NPV and you are not providing evidence for your assertion.  We are arguing over the premise that either:


 * 1. The US no longer leads the world in stem cell research
 * OR
 * 2. The US still leads the world in stem cell research.


 * Neither of those statements, either yours of mine, is NPV. I came the article and the assertion that the US no longer leads the world in stem cell research was already in the article.  Maybe we should just take out both assertions and simply tell the facts.  The facts are that the U.S. spends the most money.  The U.S. does the most experiments.  The U.S. has the most researchers.  The US sometimes makes ground breaking discoveries.  Also, the other fact is that the most recent ground breaking research has been happening in South Korea.  But if you demand to keep in the statement that the US no longer leads the world in stem cell research then you are deciding to leave in a comment that is not NPV and it is value-laden.-Keetoowah 15:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Support.--Nectarflowed 22:13, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should stick to the facts. I wasn't arguing (let alone demanding!) that we should write that the US isn't the leader - just that I didn't see convincing evidence to support leaving the article as it was.  Definitely better to stick to objective facts such as research money spent, studies made and what-have-you.  It might make sense to mention that some scientists, activists and/or politicians are concerned that current embryonic stem cell funding regulations might cause the US to lose ground against other countries though, since these misgivings have determined policy in some states and were certainly featured prominently in the election. -- Oarih 04:32, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why Mention John Kerry?
It seems idiotic to me to mention what a losing presidential candidate promised. I thought wikipedia is supposed to maintain a NPV? Do we mention what Bob Dole promised in 1996 or Mondale in 1984 or Goldwater, etc.??? Just take out the Kerry stuff or put it on his page. The fact that he lost means his opinion is useless here (unless he leads some senate fight, etc. regarding stem cells).
 * I'd argue that what is important is: John Kerry and the Democratic party's opposing Republican policy during the most recent US presedential election brought the debate back to lead status in the nightly news, after a few years of relative quiet. Key45 01:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also, why did Decamanus (sp?) simply revert to keep all the Kerry stuff? Try to be objective, please.
 * In general, I completely disagree with your opinion that the platform of a losing candidate is not relevant. I think they often are. My personal opinion about John Kerry is, however, not relevant. In fact, I think Bob Dole's platform in 1996 and Walter Mondale's in 1984 on certain issues are relevant too. Debates over issues do not happen in a vaccuum of history. A story about the flat tax without a mention of Jerry Brown's position in 1992 and Steve Forbes's position in 1996 would hardly do the subject justice (note: our article did not mention either of these men and their highly visible positions: I have since added a paragraph on it). A history of the gold standard would be quite remiss if it did [not] mention that William Jennings Bryan (who lost the presidential race three times) made the removal of the gold standard in the U.S. as one of his core issues, giving one of the most famous speeches in U.S. history on the subject (the "Cross of gold speech"). Bryan was defeated, but he was later vindicated in spades many years later by Richard Nixon, who completely removed the gold backing of U.S. currency. Issues don't go away. It's important for history to record who advocated what, even if it did [not] become policy immediately. Defeated candidates and their ideas sometimes ring loudly through history and emerge victorious in the long run. Even when they don't (as the flat tax advocates so far have not), it is very much worth mentioning. Stem cell research, and its complications, will certainly not go away soon. It is, in my opinion, very much worth mentioning that Kerry made certain changes in policy about it part of his platform. -- Decumanus 02:34, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Added some missing negatives in []. Please check. Mr. Jones 17:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) BTW, The policies are the Democrats' not Kerry's, no? Mr. Jones 17:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) Precis. The fact it is relevant to mention the representatives of parties whose positions were at one time relevant to the article does not necessarily mean it is here. Mr. Jones 18:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Talk of a ban is misleading
The several references to a "ban" are misleading.

Clinton banned all federal funding for embryonic stem cell research in 1996. In 2001, the Bush administration reversed the earlier ban with respect to existing embryonic stem cell lines.
 * See my response to this topic at #Presidential_and_Congressional_Background_to_Stem_Cell_Research
 * The ban was from the congressional Dickey Amendment. The funding process for embryonic stem cell research was started under Clinton when we he published his guidelines.  Some critics believe his guidelines exploited a loophole in the Dickey amendment, and there was substantial congressional opposition to the method the guidelines used to get around the Dickey amendement.
 * Bush implemented Clinton's guidelines, with the alteration that ESC lines created after Aug. 2001 were prohibited from the federal funding.--Nectarflowed 03:48, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are stem cells cancerous?
From http://www.indcatholicnews.com/lanclon.html (Note this is from a creationist viewpoint). "Embryonic stem cells are designed to grow rapidly. This is why embryonic stem cells generate fast growing cancers when implanted and why they are so hard to control. On the other hand, adult stem cells exist throughout the adult body and have a long term role in the replacement of damaged tissue throughout our development. This is what makes adult stem cells, and not embryonic stem cells, ideal for use in cellular replacement technology." This is the exact opposite of what I've heard in the press (c.f. the reference to brain tumors in mice).

Also this seems to suggest that adults cells can form tumors, i.e. adult stem cells are not necessarily safe.

There's some interesting stuff at http://www.lawcf.org (e.g. this). Might have a look at it.

Mr. Jones 18:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed text asserting this
I removed the following text which was recently added by 4.153.194.43:


 * "Sadly, not one person has yet been treated with embryonic stem cells, yet the pitfalls are great. For example, embryonic stem cells have surface proteins that often cause rejection, and implanted embryonic stem cells also have an unfortunate tendency to multiply uncontrollably, a process called "cancer.""

As far as I know, Embryonic stem cell research is mainly controversial because of strong ethical concerns, not scientific concerns. I think the above points could be misleading because (1) clearly no one could be treated by a medical treatment before it was invented, and (2) stem cell research, especially embryonic stem cell research, is still in its infancy; scientists are not concerned that present problems won't be worked out.--Nectarflowed 04:23, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * This comment from Nectarflowed is pure opinion, not fact. There are serious questions about the efficacy of embryonic stem cell research.  This deletion is pure political bias.  There have been hundreds of actual medical treatments developed from adult stem cells and there has not been one single medical treatment developed from embryonic stem cell research.  Nectarflowed does not provide any support for Nectarflowed point of view other than opinion.  Embryonic stem cell research has been conducted for the same amount of time as adult stem cell research.  It is a fact that adult stem cell research has been more successful.  It is a fact that there is no shortage of adult stem cells because every six seconds a child is born in the US and each umbilical cord has thousands of umbilical cord stem cells available for research and medical treatment.  And, yes, multiplying uncontrollably is called cancer and that is the concern with embryonic stem cell research.  I assume that Nectarflowed agreed with John Edwards that if John Kerry was elected then Christopher Reeve would have gotten out of his wheelchair and walked.  What propaganda!  It does not belong is an encyclopedia.  --Keetoowah 15:38, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * One problem on this article has been a tendency from some users to advocate adult stem cell research as a miracle cure and to represent embryonic stem cell research as an already failed endeavor that is bad in every possible way. This is also a (presumably politically motivated) conclusion commonly given by socially conservative political groups in the US.


 * Below, you quote the Canadian Government Stem Cell Council: "At this stage it is not clear whether adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells are going to be the best source of cells for therapeutic purposes." Additionally, ESC research is commonly acknowledged to have been hampered in the US by the federal funding restrictions. (I think this sentence is relevant to many of the discussions on this page). In 2003 NIH spent $190 million USD on ASC research and $25 million on ESC research (on the small number of viable lines allowed by the federal restrictions).  The pace of ESC research is commonly expected to pick up once California's annual funding of $300 million is in place.--Nectarflowed 22:13, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that the comment is relevant but it not that relevant. Yes, I acknowledge that the federal funding restrictions have hampered ESC research.  Notice that the Canadian govt Web site did not use the term "ban."  Also, notice the Canadian govt Web site did say that Bush has "banned" ESC research.  What they did say is that the federal "funding restriction"--the same wording that I have been advocating all along--has hampered ESC research.
 * Ok, I think it makes sense to make the official word choice in the article to be “’’'federal funding restrictions’'’.” If the article describes the restrictions, though, I think the most obvious choice of wording is to say that federal funding of ESC lines developed after Aug. 2001 is prohibited.  This wording seems to be in line with the experience of research scientists who must be careful to not use equipment funded by NIH in studies that use non-federally-approved ESC lines, or risk legal action.--Nectarflowed 10:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That I can acknowledge, but other than that what does it add? It doesn't support these various claims that either you or Oarih or both have advocated at one point or other:


 * 1. The US if falling behind the rest of the world in stem cell research.  This comment from the Canadian govt does not support the argument that the US is falling behind in SC research, I have not seen govt documentation to back that up & I think that we have reached a concensus that we are going to leave out that claim and just focus on facts, etc--according to an earlier post.
 * Agree.--Nectarflowed 10:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2. Embryonic Stem Cell research holds more potential than Adult Stem Cell research. The Canadian govt site makes it clear that we just don't know which one, ESC or ASC, has the most potential and which one will ultimately be more successful.
 * Agree. The Canadian Government Stem Cell Council quote indicates ESC research is not a concluded matter, and is not a failed area of research, which is what some groups suggest it is.  The article can note all relevant points, such as that ESC is currently 'basic research,' or 'basic science,' as opposed to research that is matured to the point that it's producing treatments, but should not advocate ASC research over ESC research.  That's for the larger scientific process to decide, not the media.--Nectarflowed 10:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3. The Bush Adminstration has "banned" funding for the Embryonic Stem Cell research. This comment from the Canadian govt Web site and the other information that I read from the site makes it clear the Canadian govt source does not point a finger at the Bush Administration and the Canadian govt site does NOT state that the Bush has "banned" funding.  As I have pointed in several places.  Only Congress has that power, not the President.  And Congress exerted that power in 1995, not Bush in 2001.  Once again, Bush was the first President in the U.S. to actually fund ESC research because the Clinton Administration did not feel comfortable doing it for whatever reason.  This is how I want like to see the information presented to provide a NPV:
 * 1. I do not believe that we can use the term "ban" in relation the Bush Administration. The term "federal funding restriction" is closer to the truth.  "Ban" has a clearly negative connotation and it implies that the Bush Admin. imposed on the NIH when the facts clearly state that the restriction was created and imposed by Congress in 1995 by the Dickey Amendment.  2.And, yes, this "federal funding restriction" has hampered the development of ESC research. 3. Bush was the first President to fund ESC research., and finally 4. Even though Bush was the first to fund ESC research he did not go as far as the ESC research advocates such as Michael J. Fox and Christopher Reeve wanted Bush to go, which would have been full and complete ESC research funding.

Keetoowah 03:27, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Presidential and Congressional Background to Stem Cell Research

 * Funding of ESC research that was allowed (but not yet put into practice) under the Clinton Administration’s (Aug. 23, 2000) guidelines was restricted by Bush’s funding decision. Bush’s decision was a step down in the funding situation from what the situation was under Clinton (though not put into practice before he left office).
 * Clinton, in the publishing of his guidelines, was the first to approve of and initiate the process of federal funding of ESC research, not Bush; the process of NIH obtaining funding for ESC research under Clinton's guidelines was kept from completion only by the postponement on April 25, 2001 of the scheduled review of pending grant applications in order to provide the Bush Administration with the opportunity to review the issue. Bush changed the guidelines and the funding process began during Clinton's administration completed (under Bush's altered guidelines), with funding beginning in 2002:  "NIH initiated the applications process but ultimately funding was not granted to the applications. The prior administration's process was then overtaken by events and the new policy was set."


 * To read a passage from the Congressional Research Service detailing this topic, go here: Talk:Stem_cell/Presidential and Congressional Background to Stem Cell Research

See also my response at: #Talk_of_a_ban_is_misleading --Nectarflowed 11:17, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New Members of the Bioethics Committee
Someone named Oarih took out the explanation of what the current members of the Bioethics Council believe on stem cell research. He merely gave his opinion that the opinion of the Bioethics Council is irrelevant. This is not true. It is propaganda and it does not exhibit a NPV. Oarih did not cite a source for his conclusion. Therefore it is merely his opinion. The opinions of the new Council members are relevant. There are going to be setting policy for the next four years. Also, the viewpoint of the former Counsel members were left in by Oarih. He does not cite any evidence why the views of the Counsel members that were removed are relavant, but he did leave them in. This is obvious political bias. If the opinions of the Counsel members is not important then why did one of the Counsel members, Elizabeth Blackburn who was kicked off the Council cry like a stuck pig when she was removed?

Finally, Oarih provides no background about himself. He might as well be a number.

Oarih's edit is overturned.---Keetoowah 17:13, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User Oarih once again removed the comments--sometime on the 26th of December 2004--of the new Bioethics Council members. He merely stated that the comments were long-winded and redudant. However, Oarih has not removed the mere speculation of the proponents of embryonic stem cell research that embryonic stem cell research may someday, sometime, somewhere in the future that embryonic stem cell research will lead to a useful, practical medical treatment for at least one medical condition. Clearly, he is attempting to quash the fact that embryonic stem cell research has not lead to any medical treatments after years and years of research and adult stem cell research has produced hundreds of medical treatments.

The comments of the new Council members are going back in.---Keetoowah 02:27, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry I missed your additions to talk. I should have also come here before removing your text in the first place - it was rude and wrong of me to edit the article the way I did.


 * That said, I think your (admirable) efforts to make the stem cell article NPOV have instead just made it awkwardly contain both points of view with full bias on display Your former additions, "a view held by many Americans" is an ambiguous clause that adds nothing (is many 1%?  5%?  15?  30%?).  Perhaps similar problems exist with the "pro-embryonic stem cell" aspects of the article -- if so, why don't you focus on making those NPOV instead of just adding more (opposing) bias to the article?


 * That the members of the committee pointed out that embryonic S.C. research can be conducted with private funds IS completely redundant (appearing in the very next paragraph) and is fact, not opinion. - No. Oarih 02:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Everyone has a point of view. There is no way that bias can ever be eliminated entirely--that is the fallicy of the arguments of newspaper reporters that argue that they did not exhibit bias. We all exhibit bias. The question becomes to what extent are the various viewpoints exhibited and are they basically equal--which is not a completely obtainable goal. If I am adding the opposing view then I'm working to balance the article. You ask me to name the percentage of Americans that believe in just focusing on adult stem cell research. You are putting the burden on me to come up with a number; however, I came to the article when the article all ready had comments in like, "Many scientists believe that embryonic stem cell research holds the most potential to solve medical conditions." This sentiment that is STILL in the article does not have a percentage listed. This sentiment is not based upon hard scientific fact, as a matter of fact there have never, ever been any medical treatments developed from embryonic stem cell research and their have been hundreds of medical treatments developed from adult stem cell research. If anything the burden is on you and other proponents of embyronic stem cell research to provide evidence that:

1. embryonic stem cell research will actual lead to actual, practical treatments and fairly quickly, otherwise we are wasting research money. 2. that the difficult scientific problems with embryonic stem cell research can be overcome in an common sense, economic way--in particular the tendency of embryonic stem cells to multiple uncontrollably and lead to cancer or are simply ineffective.

The burden is on your side of the debate. You have more to prove. The adult stem cell side of the debate has proven viability. The embryonic stem cell side of the debate is mere speculation.---Keetoowah 02:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't have an interest in the article as a whole and I agree with you that many of the sections are vague. Of course an entirely NPOV will not be achieved, but my main complaint is with the way competing biases have made an awkward, bloated article that reads like a talk page.  If competing points of view cannot be integrated into the same section, I think they should be made separate.  They should also be be made less childish (i.e., writing a process known as "cancer" brings the pettiness of talk-page bickering into the article for everyone to see). -- # Oarih 03:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * As you can see, I did take an interest in the article as a whole, re-arranging the sections a bit and removing some redundancies. On the subject of "many", "a few" etc.., I think it's a bad idea on the whole, but at least when we write "Some scientists", we're appealing directly to the opinions of experts -- when you used "a view shared by many Americans", it seemed to me that the ambiguity was even more indirect, since it was being used to buttress the "expert" opinions of the members of the committee; it doesn't bother me as much when it appears independently.  Anyway, I hope that the article eventually gets sorted out and that we can come to some sort of agreement. -- no. Oarih 05:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Oarih brings up above that "the members of the committee pointed out that embryonic S.C. research can be conducted with private funds." Basic research that is not going to be profitable for the private sector to pursue is normally conducted through public funding, mostly from the NIH.  If the private sector has no reason to conduct this kind of basic research, it is misleading to suggest they will or that there is any reason for them to.  IMO, the article should not include such statements [that is some cases may be political rather than scientific].--Nectarflowed 22:13, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed: Scientific Differences Between Adult & Embryonic Stem Cells

 * For many years, researchers have hoped to develop red blood cells from stem cells. In December 2004, researchers at the University of Paris developed a way to produce large numbers of red blood cells.  The three-stage process involves combining stem cells with another group of cells called stromal cells and then adding a growth factor to stimulate them.  The study is outlined in 'Nature Biotechnology'.  The Paris University team, lead by Professor Luc Douay devised a technique which involves three steps:  1.  Take haematopoietic stem cells, which are known to evolve into blood cells and treat them with a liquid to make them proliferate, 2.  Create an environment to mimic the conditions found in bone marrow by using stromal cells, which provide the structure inside bone marrow, and 3. Add a growth factor called erythropoietin, which provides a signal to the stem cells to begin the transformation into red blood cells.  The stem cells can be autologous, which is the safest form of blood transfusion.


 * When you constrast the results of this study to the results of a November 2004, study by a team at the University of Minnesota, you can see the difference in the hard science between using adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. In the Journal of Experimental Hematology, the results of the study were outlined.  The embryonic stem cells taken from discarded IVF embryos were transformed into immature blood cells.  The study was not as successful as the University of Paris study and this comparison clearly demonstrates the difficulties of working with embryonic stem cells.  Professor Chris Higgins, director of the Medical Research Council Clinical Sciences Centre at Hammersmith Hospital, London, has commented on the study, "This seems only to be an incremental step forward, and whether it is going to be clinically useful or not is very speculative."

My problems with this addition are:
 * It's original research in which the author has contrasted just two studies (i.e., it's not just original :research but the research is also poorly conducted)
 * It doesn't explain scientific differences between embryonic and adult stem cells
 * It disingenuously presents a the December, 2004 study before the November 2004 study, making the November 2004 study seem all the more pathetic because the reader gets the impression that the November 2004 didn't live up to the promise already demonstrated by the December study
 * this comparison clearly demonstrates the difficulties of working with embryonic stem cells - Not it doesn't; you've only looked at two (very new) studies; maybe the Paris scientists are just better or maybe their lab works better together or maybe the U of M lab had to rush to make a journal deadline or something.


 * -- no. Oarih 04:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The same pattern can be demonstrated over and over again, with study after study, for a ten year period. The so-called "greater potential" the article talks about but does not provide evidence to support exhibits bias toward embryonic stem cell research. What evidence have you or anyone else provided to back up this so-called "greater potential"? I taking out those comments. I provided scientific studies to back up my assertion and you took it out. You have not provided any hard science to back up this mere speculative assertion that embryonic stem cell research has more potential than adult stem cell research--even when actual medical treatments exist which are based upon adult stem cells and there are no treatments based upon embryonic stem cells.

Also, I have been trying to stay on topic concerning hard science, but you have continually written comments that are just lame and off topic. However, it is getting old, so I will comment. You're crticism of my studies is laughable. You make a lame, elementary school level argument, "or maybe the U of M lab had to rush to make a journal deadline or something." Man, I can just hear the snot coming out of your nose! You stated earlier about someone else comment that "They should also be be made less childish." What is more childish than your argument defending the U of M researchers by arguing that they were "rush(ing) to make a journal deadline" and this is my favorite, "or something." What a definitive argument! Or something!!! HA! You basically arguing that if two scientists argued that the earth is flat then it would acceptable to put in the article that, "Some scientists believe that the earth is flat." That is the exact same logic behind the comment in the article that ESC research has more "potential" than ASC. The "potential" argument is coming out.

Finally, you took out the two studies, scientific studies, lock, stock and barrel, and you have left in results for other studies. What possessed you take out these studies and not those studies. If you believed that I didn't use a NPV then you should have merely edited to take out the NPV, not removed the studies entirely. I believe that you took the studies out entirely because the results of the hard science studies did put to shame ESC research and you didn't want them in the article with or without my commnetary attached to it becuase you lean toward ESC and you want to edit out the information that make ESC look bad--just like someone earlier referred to the tendency of ESC to multiply uncontrollably and lead to cancer as some kind of "creationist" thinking. What a load propanganda!! I am not a creationist. You and the others that I have read on this site have an agenda and the fact that you eliminated each study entirely without even leaving in the studies without commentary indicates that you have an agenda and you plan to pursue it. Under the ESC section, it is written, "seen by many" that ESC has more "potential." How many 2 people, 100 people, millions, 10 millions? What percentage of the population? That's what you asked me. What is the percentage???? 10%, 20%, 40%? etc. Is this scientists? or just regular joes in the population? That comment is coming out. You took out the December 2004 results even though that is another breakthrough in stem cell research, more specifically adult stem cell research, not ESC. Get over your agenda.---Keetoowah 12:20, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just re-read your comments. One that is just total is: "it's not just original :research but the research is also poorly conducted". How do you know if the research is poorly conducted? Have read the whole study and all of the protocols and procedures outlined in the research? Have you read reviews of the research from other researchers? What is your background? What qualifies you to make that statement? Are you a scientist practicing in this area? What is your education? Is cell biology your specialty? What method would you have done differently?

You don't provide one single bit of evidence to back up your sweeping conclusory statement. The results of most "poorly conducted"--as you put it--experiments do not end up in journals. That is a fact. Researchers do not publish bad--or unintended--results because they want to spend time writing up the results of more fruitful experiments and they don't want help out competing researchers who may attempt the same experiment. Why help them out? And it slow down the competition.

Provide hard science to back up your conclusion that is was poorly conducted research. Until you do, I am going to work on the assumption that is was properly conducted research, but it indicates that ESC are not as effective as ASC in creating red blood cells. I have two studies to back up my conclusion and you have absolutely no research or studies to back up your conclusion other than your obvious bias toward ESC, which you are trying to shove down the throats of the public for pure political reasons, i.e., you believe that if ESC fails then somehow you are going to lose your right to abort fetuses. Talk about letting political bias lead scientific process, this is the greatest example in the country right now. My focus is on science and your focus is on politics. Are you still going to be beating this dead horse five years down the road or ten years down the road after ESC has been unsuccessful for that long? How many years of lousy results are you going to need to realize that the science is not leading to what you want, but you keep pounding on for political reasons only, not scientific ones??-Keetoowah 15:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * My complaint about original research was not with the Paris or U of M studies but with whoever it was who decided to compare these two studies on Wikipedia for the first time and draw conclusions (that embryonic stem cell was a dead end); the articles that I saw on the studies and the quotes I read from the researchers implied no such conclusion had been drawn by the original authors. I.e., you wrote "I have two studies to back up my conclusion" but the problem is that it is your conclusion.  If you can find an expert to attribute it to or you can get it published independently, perhaps things will be different.


 * As for my comment that the U of M team may just have been incompotent -- I should have added that they were just many in a long line of people to have relatively poor success with blood (and not all of those groups used ESC). Making a conclusion about the potential of ESC from that study is ridiculous, particularly as reports on the research do not imply that the difficulties they faced had anything to do with the fact that they were using ESC.

-- no. 00:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does the article contain "anti-embryonic stem cell disinformation?"
I've gone to and am sorting through the stem cell article removing bits where Keetoowah has written disinformation (like saying that embryonic stem cell research STILL hasn't resulted in treatments after many years of research, when hESC research only became possible in 1998) or weakened widely held opinions (the NIH faq leaves no doubt that there is scientific consensus about the potential of hESC).


 * It is not "disinformation" if it is true. The article is supposed to be about stem cells, not embryonic stem cells.  If embryonic stem cells do not have treatments then they don't have treatments.  Why can't you accept that?--Keetoowah 04:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "there are no treatments" is factual. "After years of research on embryonic stem cells..." is not factual, unless you consider any number of years greater than one to be "years of research" -- but that is clearly not the implication.  "Years of research" implies more than a decade, given the amount of time we all know medical research takes.  -- Oarih 05:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You arbitrarily picked ten years? Also, why not merely edit the sentence?  Why take out the whole point?  Why?  Could you don't agree with the fact that, as  I factually stated, "there are no treatments."  The article is NOT entitled, ESC it is entitled SC.  Also earlier in the article I did quote directly the two researcher in South Korea that have been making all of the wonderful breakthroughs.  Those researchers clearly know more about this topic than you and me and Nectarflowed.-Keetoowah 15:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed the following:
 * However, there are many researchers and experts that believe that embryonic stem cells have no potential because after years of research on embryonic stem cells researchers have been unsuccessful in developing a medical treatments using embryonic stem cells while treatments using adult stem cells have been sucessful.


 * This is factual statement. I have talked directly to many researchers in this area and they believe that embryonic stem cell treatments are not going to come to fruitation for several reasons, lack of financing, the science is not there, etc.--Keetoowah 04:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It is not fact. As I argued previously, with research into embryonic stem cells not even being possible until 1998 and not receiving any federal funding in the US until 2001, there haven't been years of research -- and there have been promising results in animal studies.  Furthermore, the NIH FAQ implies a much greater level of optimism about embryonic stem cells, as do reports on the science in other countries ( for example).  Between your experiences with the people you have chosen to work with (would you fundraise for an embryonic stem cell company?  if the answer is no, then is it any surprise that the researchers you meet are keener on adult stem cells?) and the reports by broad-based government institutions, I'll side with the government reports.  -- Oarih 05:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Oarih, thank you for the link to the Canadian government Web site concerning the prospects for stem cell research--by the way, you did NOT point me to the National Institutes of Health, NIH FAQ, which you claim has a greater level of optimism toward ESC. Be that as it may, I did read the page that you pointed me to, which once again is a Canadian government Web site and they do not support your personal position at all.  What they stated and I AM QUOTING DIRECTLY FROM THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT STEM CELL COUNCIL, "At this stage it is not clear whether adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells are going to be the best source of cells for therapeutic purposes." Now, neither you, Oarih, or Nectarflowed can argue with that comment.  You, just recently, argued that I am bias because I work in the industry and I'm supposedly trying to promote one type of research over the other.  I'm not.  You stated specifically that you want to go with government sources.  You gave a government sources, not the one that you have been quoting, but you did give me a government sources, like a government source is a better source and that source specifically knocks down the point that you have been trying to make for three days.  The government source agrees with my criticism of the article from the time that I came to it:  it exhibits a bias toward ESC research and it does not provide a balanced coverage of the actual named topic of STEM CELLS, NOT EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS, BUT STEM CELLS.  Now, neither you or Nectarflowed have provided evidence that can support the value-laden, non-NPV, comments that your version of the article contains.  Comments like this:
 * 1. The US if falling behind the rest of the world in stem cell research.
 * 2. Embryonic Stem Cell research holds more potential than Adult Stem Cell research.
 * 3. The Bush Adminstration has "banned" funding for the Embryonic Stem Cell research.
 * These are value-laden, non-NPV, comments and you and Nectarflowed have been attempted to defend them with merely your personal point of view and I keep asking for hard sources to support these value-laden, non-NPV, comments. And keep getting nothing.-Keetoowah 18:24, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Re: 2. Yes, let's go with the Canadian government stem cell council quote.
 * Re: 3. No one here want's to be using language misleadingly. Can we agree that (1) the Bush Administration has placed restrictions on the federal funding of ESC research, (2) specifically, banning federal funding on ESC lines outside of the 72, and (3) that the scientific community was upset with the restrictions?--Nectarflowed 22:13, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * RE: 3. (1)  I cannot agree with your statment and here why: You stated yourself in an earlier post that Clinton did not "place" restrictions on ESC research, but that Congress placed the restriction on funding of human embryo research in 1995 with the Dickey Amendment.  A President just can't ban something.  There has to be a law passed to make some illegal.  Bush just did not just waive his hand and ban stem cell research.  Clinton did not either. Congress passed a law in 1995.  On that we should agree.  There is no "ban."  Next, I know that you believe that I have some political agenda, but I don't.  Clinton was just following the law when his HHS Secretary Donna Shalala and NIH published in the Federal Register, August 25, 2000, the final guidelines concerning funding of ESC research.  In those guidelines, and I am borrowing extensively from the Report to Congress by the Congressional Research Service, that I have been quoting over and over again--and also in the article that you and Oarih keep wanted to eliminate--HHS stated: that studies utilizing "stem cells derived from human embryos may be conducted using NIH funds only if the cells were derived (without federal funds) from human embryos that were created for the purposes of fertility treatment and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment."  Under the guidelines, NIH would not fund research directly involving the derivation of human stem cells from embryos; this was prohibited by the Dickey Amendment.  Now, the article goes on and lists the six (6) other areas where the Clinton Administration believed that the Dickey Amendment restricted federal funding of ESC research and I have listed all six of these in my edited version of the article that we are arguing about.  So Bush did not ban anything.  Clinton did not ban anything.  Congress did.  Period.  This is not about Bush and it is not about Clinton.  The election is over.  Bush won and let's put that behind us.  There were many outlandish and incorrect statements made on the campaign trail and that is the nature of a democracy, but now that the election is on let's try to get the facts straight in this article.  The word "ban" is value-laden.  If you want to use the word, then you need to apply it to the group that actual has the power to "ban" and did "ban" and that is Congress, not Bush, not Clinton.  They are Presidents.  They only had/have the power to enforce laws or veto potential laws, not make them.


 * Also, it is not correct to state that Bush restricted funding outside the 72 because up to the time that he gave his Executive Order in 2001, there had never been financing for ESC. That is a fact.  Clinton never financed ESC research.  If he had I would like to see the documentation supporting that claim because there isn't any.  Clinton followed the Dickey Amendement strictly from the time that it took effect.  And yes there has been research going on in ESC since the day Clinton went to Washington in 1993.  It just wasn't successful, in any particular way, until 1998.  But the preliminary work was going on and NIH was not funding it.  So Clinton had an opportunity to fund ESC for eight years, but he chose for various political reasons not to do it.  That is NOT a criticism of Clinton, it is just fact.  Now why is this important because if Clinton never funded ESC then Bush could not have restricted something that did not exist.  Also, Bush agreed to fund the first 72 ESC stem cell lines.  So that means, whether you want to believe it or not, that Bush was the first President to fund ESC research.  Granted it was not what Michael J. Fox and Christopher Reeve wanted, which was complete and total funding but it was funding nonetheless and he was the first President to fund ESC.  Now, don't let the rhetoric of the recent Presidential campaign cloud your thinking.  The folks at CRS stated the facts correctly and this is what they stated on page "CRS-6":  On August 9, 2001, President Bush announced that for the first time federal funds would be used to support research on human embryonic stem cells, but funding would be limited to "existing stem cell lines where the life and death decision has already been made." Now, in the CRS report then continue outline the policy in more detail, but from what is there it is not fair to state that Bush restricted funding.  As a matter of fact he funded ESC for the first time ever, using U.S. government (NIH) funding.  And to be fair that is what the article that we are working on should state.  That is what I attempted to do in my edited version, you really should read it, and try to edit it instead of going back to the mischaracterization that Bush "banned" funding, etc.  because he did NOT he started funding--IT WAS JUST NOT WHAT RONALD REAGAN, JR. WANTED.   So let's put it in proper prespective and stop the knee-jerk comments about how I am engaging disinformation because I am not.  Maybe sometimes I am not expressing myself as clearly as I should but that does NOT give you license to throw out all of my work because it doesn't agree with your understanding the poltical situation--since I can tell that neither one of you have read the CRS report and you have been relying entirely on the mainstream media for your understanding of the politics surrounding ESC.  If you only rely on the NY Times or ABC News then you will get the impression that Bush is "banning" stem cell research.  As a matter of fact one of the articles that you folks have listed in the External Links section is a Christian Science Monitor (CSM) article that refers to Bush's "ban" on stem cell research, the implication being that Bush has "banned" all stem cell research of all kinds and that includes ESC and ASC. It is simply not correct and that CSM article need to be removed from the External Links list and there should be more sources like the Canadian govt article and the U.S. Federal Govt article froml the CRS, Library of Congress.-Keetoowah 23:50, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * See my response to this topic at #Presidential_and_Congressional_Background_to_Stem_Cell_Research--Nectarflowed 03:48, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * My response to Keetoowah's three complaints:
 * 1. The US if falling behind the rest of the world in stem cell research.
 * I didn't mean to imply that. I only meant to question the statement "...however the US still leads the world in stem cell research."
 * 2. Embryonic Stem Cell research holds more potential than Adult Stem Cell research.
 * I'd be happy to go with the statement made by the Canadian report. I think the introduction to embryonic and adult stem cells at the top of the article does a pretty good job of explaining what we think the advantages and disadvantages are of adult and embryonic stem cells. -- Oarih 04:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Once again, I did quote the South Korean researchers directly. They know more about this area than you and me and Nectarflowed.


 * I'm sorry, the South Korean researchers may be doing great work but they do not qualify as "many researchers and experts". They also didn't  say that ESC treatments wouldn't come to fruition, just that teratoma is an obstacle to using them in treatments  If "many researchers and experts" believed what you say, then it would register on the NIH and other government documents. -- Oarih 16:23, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Some researchers have also argued that the embryonic stem cells may not be able to treat actual medical conditions because they many not be able to grow beyond the first stages of cell development.


 * Once again, this is a factual statement. The Korean researchers stated as much in the Korea Times article that I quoted.--Keetoowah 04:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Then quote those researchers. It is certainly not a consensus opinion that has turned up in government reports that I've found.  -- Oarih 05:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I did quote the South Korean researchers. Did you even read the article??-Keetoowah 15:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, I can't find that in the Korea Times article - just the bit about teratoma. Would you mind pointingme to it?  Anyway, back to my complaint, what I mean is, don't just write "Some researchers" -- write "so and so has said that" or "such and such group has said that".  At least to me, "some" implies a respectable minority - enough that I would expect to have seen such concerns in government literature. -- Oarih 16:23, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * , while embryonic stem cell research has not yet generated any medical treatments


 * Once again, a factual statement. Why are taking out factual statements?


 * A factual statement being used disingenuously to deceive the reader = not as factual as all that.


 * It is fact. Period.  You may not like that it is fact, but it is not about you.-Keetoowah 15:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Look, I don't care one way or another about embryonic stem cell research -- I only want to see diseases cured and I think that money should go to the most promising research, whatever that research is. I don't believe in the sanctity of the embryo, it's true, but in any case it's not like I'm upset that adult stem cells are meeting with such success!  My problem is with the way you sneak a partisan bias into the article.  It is perfectly valid to mention in the section on embryonic stem cells that they have not been used in medical treatments, but to sneak in a ", while embryonic stem cell research has not yet generated any medical treatments" elsewhere, especially when the implication is that one can compare ESC to ASC because a similar amount of time and money has been spent on them, is disingenuous.  I'm sorry you can't see that. -- Oarih 16:23, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support.--Nectarflowed 22:13, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Adding (from NIH)
 * although hESC are thought to offer potential cures and therapies for many devastating diseases, research using them is still in its early stages.

-- Oarih 01:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Revert by Nectarflowed
I have reverted the article to the last version that appeared to me to maintain the consensus and to be relatively free of partisan agendas (it of course wasn't yet perfect). I have done this in hope that improvements can continue to be made to the page while maintaining a consensus and avoiding allegiance to a political party or ideological stance.

The Wikipedia project is a large, collective project, and reverts are part of the collaborative editing process. I think this is a page we need to be especially careful with because of its controversial nature. --Nectarflowed 03:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I reverted your revert back. I clearly got the impression from the comments on this page that you simply don't want to fix the horrible mistakes in what you call the consensus version of the article. I believe that you simply found it easier to just revert the article to an earlier time. The problem with that so-caled solution is manifold, but the biggest issue is that reversion takes out the absolutely amazing breakthrough of the researchers in South Korea this month, December 2004, when a 37 year old lady, who was paralyzed for 19 years, got out of a wheelchair and walked when adult stem cell were injected into her spinal cord. It also leaves in the propaganda about the "ban" on stem cell research which is just not factual. It also takes out the factual information about how the Clinton Administration did not ever fund at type of stem cell research, much less embryonic stem cell research.

But the largest issue in my mind is that you, Nectarflowed, and Oarih have not outlined your expertise in this area. I realize that expertise is not a requirement for this business of Wiki, but I do know that I have been working in this exact field for five years and I can verify that. I have been working directly with some the leading researchers and administrators in this area for five years and I can verify that. I have not heard the same from you and Oarih. What I have read is incorrect and full of bias. I'm waiting to hear about your expertise in this area, your work experience, etc. if want to provide that information in a private off-line forum or in an e-mail then I'm happy to hear it there, but as of right now I don't have any confidence that you have any expertise in this area. I would be happy to share my e-mail address with you and I will give you my CV and the names, etc of the leading researchers and administrators that I have been working with in the field and I am sure that you can do the same. Then we can see where we stand from a peer review perspective. I would be happy to do that with Oarih also.---Keetoowah 04:34, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll take your word for it that you do indeed know and work with leading researchers and administrators in the field. I can't help but question your critical faculties, though, after your previous insertion of a section on "The differences between adult & embryonic stem cells" in which, instead of discussing the differences, you claimed that the success of the Paris researchers with adult stem cells (and the relative failure of a U of M team using embryonic cells) demonstrated the difficulties involved in working with embryonic stem cells.  I also can't help but question your ability to recognise bias after you write patronising partisan edits like,


 * But, of course, even though that position has been put forward by politicians and supporters hard science has not confirmed that position as of yet.


 * Sadly, not one person has yet been treated with embryonic stem cells, yet the pitfalls are great. For example, embryonic stem cells have surface proteins that often cause rejection, and implanted embryonic stem cells also have an unfortunate tendency to multiply uncontrollably, a process called "cancer."


 * To be honest, given the bias in your edits, the fact that you are involved in funding adult stem cell research almost calls your ability to be impartial further into question. Would it even be in your interests to see a competing technology receive more attention? -- Oarih 05:24, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Give me a break. I did not even write the second paragraph that you wrote.  It was here when I got here and someone other than you took it out.  But the thoughts expressed in the passage are factual.  You have not dealt with that issue, facts.  ESC use can lead to cancer.  I linked to an article in the Korea Times where the scientists that keep making all of these breakthrough with both ASC and ESC and they stated clearly that the problem with ESC is the potential for cancer.  The link is on my edited version of the article, at the bottom of the page, please click on it and go there and actually read the Korea Times article.  The leading researchers in ESC and ASC are stating the same absolute point about cancer.


 * As to the company that I am working with, we are working both ends of the debate, both ESC and ASC. I can provide you with more information privately if you would like.-Keetoowah 12:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Keetoowah, you point out above that "the Clinton Administration did not ever fund at type of stem cell research." I'll add to that that George Washington also did not fund stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research was not developed enough during the Clinton administration to receive national attention. As far as I know, the Clinton administration never banned embryonic stem cell lines, thus it is innaccurate to write in the article, as you did, "the federal funding restrictions of the 'Clinton and Bush Administrations on embryonic stem cell research."


 * The comment is factual. This is about facts, not politics.  You are disagreeing with me based upon on gut reaction.  You do not quote a source for your opinion, you just state, "as far as I know."  That doesn't cut it.  I got my information about the Clinton Administration directly from a Congressional Research Service ("CRS") report, a subsidiary of the Library of Congress, entitled, Stem Cell Research, written by Judith A. Johnson, a speciality in life sciences, domestic policy division of the CRS and Erin Williams, a specialist in Bioethical Policy, also domestic policy division of the CRS and published on August 13, 2004.  The report can be accessed on the Internet.  I have a link on my edited version of the article--listed in the sources section--if you would bother to read it instead of simply deleting it all the time.  ESC research was a topic long before 1998.  It takes years and years to get a breakthrough.  So the day that it happened in 1998 was not the begining of ESC research.  As I pointed out in my article, if would have read it, the Dickey Amendment, the so-called "ban" on ESC research in 1995--as Johnson & Williams article points out the Dickey Amendment was passed in 1995, Section 128 of P.L. 104-99 to apply to the FY1996.  I remember it well.  I was in living in Washington, DC and working as a counsel for the Department of Energy at the time.  I am guessing--based upon the information on your talk page--that you were in high school or middle school.  Researchers in 1993, when I went to Washington, were attempting to get the federal government to finance ESC research--at that time, I believe you were either in middle school or elementary school.


 * Yes, I have claimed to work with leaders in the field and I have asked both you and Oarih to provide your backgrounds, that is CVs and work experience and we can come to some understanding of each other's ability to judge one another--a peer review basis of discussion. As I told you on my talk page and on your talk page and I am repeating here, I am an attorney by training and I now work as an investment banker.  I have been working for the last five years to raise money for a company that is working in the stem cell arena--attempting to bring some of these hard science discoveries to commercialization.  In this company are three of the leaders in the world of stem cell research.  I have asked you to provide some comparable facts about yourself on two other occasions and you have not.  I have offered to provide my verifiable confidential information off of this forum and you can provide your equally impressive background in a confidential e-mail environment.  But you have refused to cooperate other than to keep taking down all of my work.  You seem to have decided that only your version is acceptable.  I was trying to work with Oarih.  I at least understood his changes--reorganize, etc.  But your changes are simply your ego at work.-Keetoowah 12:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

IMO, this partisan-motivated error presented as fact represents your larger partisan campaign on this article. Someone who "work[s] directly with some of the absolute leaders in the field," (my bold) as you claim to on my talk page, would have a better understanding of the field and the issues that surround it. Additionally, IMO, such partisan-motivated errors presented as fact suggest your contributions may qualify as acting in bad faith.


 * Once again, I'm willing to provide my background if you are willing to present your expertise in the stem cell arena. As long as you are unwilling to deal with the changes on a change by change basis then I am going to assume that you are acting in bad faith.  As long as you are willing to question my background, even though I'm willing to show you my work experience in the stem cell area and you are not willing to provide even a shred of evidence that you have experience in the stem cell area then I am going to assume that you are operating under bad faith.--Keetoowah 12:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am reverting again to the last undisuputed version of the page. Please do not revert to the disputed version again until this dispute is resolved. The disputed version contains partisan-motivated errors and other edits that are unacceptable on a Wikipedia article. IMO the best steps now would be to merge important parts of the disputed version into the undisputed version. --Nectarflowed 06:03, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You eliminated inportant information. You left in factual errors, etc.  I'm reverting to my changes. --Keetoowah 12:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Keetoowah:
 * 1 This article needs to be in line with commonly accepted scientific opinion. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for original research or personal opinion, no matter what a user’s professional experience is.


 * 2 Whatever credentials you claim to have don’t matter if you can’t make contributions that comply with Wikipedia policies. Demonstrate your level of professionalism instead of just talking about it.


 * 3 Ad hominem attacks do not qualify as supports of your argument.


 * 4 Wikipedia is a collaborative project and articles are developed through consensus, not through single users attempting to bulldoze through varied opinion.


 * 5 The Clinton administration did not create bans on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The ban was from the Dickey Amendment, passed by congress, and the Clinton administration attempted to work around it.
 * Best, --Nectarflowed 12:56, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reorganization started by MrJones
In all due respect, I believe that MrJones's reorganizations have made this discussion page a complete and total unmitigated mess. I don't know where argument start and where they end. Some of the thing that have attributed to me supposedly writing are not my work at all. It seemed like we were quickly coming to an agreement and and a concensus on most of this issues before MrJones's work. I'm sure that he meant well, but it just doesn't work.
 * I think Mrjones' reorganization was a good idea and may encourage other users to participate in the present discussion, but I also felt the end result was hard to follow, due to that in order to extract the points under discussion, some discussions and even some entries were split up. Following Mrjones' reorganization I reverted to the last version before his edits and tried to implement a more conservative reorganization that was mostly making section names more accurate and less controversial, and making the section #Is_the_US_still_the_leader_in_stem_cell_research into a subsection of #Coverage_of_the_US.2C_US_states.2C_and_countries_beyond_the_US.--Nectarflowed 05:52, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I suggest that we start a new discussion. Take out all politics. Make a list of the issues and just get a concensus. I realize, on reflection, some of my changes need work, but I also believe, and may be I'm just being naive, that we are getting these things worked out. But I can't work with what's up there. There are argeements up there, but going forward is just a waste of time.-Keetoowah 04:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've now archived the present discussion text and tried to keep a summary of the issues that I think we are still concerned about. I've also kept much of the section on the California's institute, corrected where it needed to be, because it does contain a lot of information about international funding and about why I think the California institute is important.--Nectarflowed 05:52, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I did not think my first attempt was perfect. The point was to remove needless invective and separate the (far from needless :-) ) political assertions from other types as these were not actually about stem cells. I hope it has provided a useful basis for reorganization. Keetoowah, I feel that you are too ready to use invective. It's really not necessary. Mr. Jones 09:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)