The stream was titled embryonic stem cell ADVANCES.
Not one poster has yet named one advance of embryonic stem cell research, and that is because there have not been any advances to date.
With Adult stem cells on the other hand we hear weekly of a person's own stem cells being used to create a new bladder, a new oesophagus, and the miracle of your own stem cells is that there are no rejection issues. You do not need donors, because we all have an ample supply in our own noses, for one example.
see http://www.cogforlife.org/adultStemCellSuccess.htm for references.
With adult stem cells, physicians have successfully treated autoimmune diseases such as lupus, multiple sclerosis, Crohn's disease, and rheumatoid arthritis. Furthermore, adult stem cells have helped to avert corneal degeneration and to restore vision in cases of blindness. They have also restored proper cardiac function to heart attack sufferers and improved movement in spinal cord injury patients.

All of these successes have come exclusively from adult stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of early human life to acquire the cells, has not produced any successes in human patients

Bridgejenny, Yes, we have had some wonderful limited success with adult stemcells, but I don't see any reason why we can't continue to have extensive research into the capabilities of both adult stemcells and embryonic stemcells. Why does it have to be only adult stemcells ?

It is well known in medical research facilities that embryonic stemcells may provide the best opportunities in the future for clinical treatment.

Embryonic stem cells multiply indefinitely and can be transformed into all other cells of the body.

They are also more adaptable than stem cells derived from body cells.
It is believed that, in the long run, adult stemcells do not have the same potential as the embryonic stemcells.

At the end of the day, the people who are helped by this research aren't going to care which cells made it happen.

If anyone did really object to scientists using embryonic stemcells for their research, then they can certainly choose not to avail themselves of any of the resulting treatments.
Leave the rest of us alone to make our own choice.

TRUTHNOW78,

Thanks for posting that "unbiased" article promoting IPSC (induced pluripotent stem cells) over ESC (embryonic stem cells) research.

I notice the way they glibly pass over the single defining problem with IPSC treatments "The risk of tumor formation may, at this time, be higher in iPSCs than in embryo-derived stem cells because the genes used for reprogramming remain inserted in the cell"

Translated: It will probably kill you.

"And we also put facts first", but only the ones that promote your cause and ignore the facts that make your cause a sham.

The reprogamming genes are the single most important why the HSCs are being researched. IPSCs don't have them and never will.

In layman's terms

IPSCs are like maleable pipes that can be bent into many shapes:
ESCs are like liquid metal that can go into any shape.

IPSCs are useful but will never replace ESCs.

P.S. Thanks for a prime example of the religious right wing. I suppose you also believe that evolution didn't happen?