Guess Korea government have no problem funding such researchs. We will see in ten years if US is still the leading country on medical researchs. link S. Korea Opens Bank for Stem Cell Research By BO-MI LIM, Associated Press Writer Wed Oct 19, 6:18 AM ET SEOUL, South Korea - A bank that will create and supply new lines of embryonic stem cells for research opened Wednesday in Seoul as part of a global partnership that will help scientists in countries such as the United States get around government restrictions on cloning. ADVERTISEMENT Led by South Korean cloning pioneer Hwang Woo-suk, the Korean-led consortium will serve as the main center for providing embryonic stem cells, a potential source of replacement tissue for people with a variety of ailments. The World Stem Cell Hub hopes to create about 100 cell lines per year with genetic defects that cause such diseases as diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, AIDS, Lou Gehrig's, and sickle cell anemia, according to experts familiar with the project. Researchers around the world would then study how these cells develop into diseased tissues. The Seoul-based stem cell bank — which will have its first branches in Britain and the United States — is expected to provide other scientists room to circumvent government restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. Many scientists are hoping to accelerate research on the master cells that can be grown into all the other tissues in the body. However, culling stem cells often involves destroying days-old embryos and President Bush's administration bans federal funding for research on all but a handful of old embryonic stem-cell lines, developed before Bush outlined his qualms in August 2001. Instead of using embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization, the Koreans create them from cloned skin cells. That process is favored by some scientists because cloning can create a perfect tissue match for sick patients. But critics say it condones creating human life for laboratory research. Hwang said the partnership will accelerate efforts to find treatments for incurable diseases. "When the use of these stem cells is limited to a particular country, it takes much too long to create technologies usable for the whole of humanity," he told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. "By creating a global network, we plan to share stem cells created in each country and share information on those stem cells." Hwang has received world recognition for cloning the world's first human embryos and extracting stem cells. In May, he announced he had created the world's first embryonic stem cells that genetically match injured or sick patients — a major step in the quest to grow patients' own replacement tissue to treat diseases. More than 125 stem cell lines have been reported around the world, taken mostly from donated embryos. "We congratulate Korea ... for constructing the World Stem Cell Hub as a global lighthouse, safely and responsibly guiding us away from treacherous rocks," Gerald Schatten, a cell biologist at the University of Pittsburgh, said at the opening ceremony. "We now have hope that human beings' sufferings might someday be alleviated," said Schatten, who works closely with South Korea's Hwang. South Korea bans cloning for reproductive reasons but provides full support for scientists doing it for medical research. The South Korean government gave $24.4 million in assistance to Hwang's team at Seoul National University this year. Hwang will also receive as much as $3 million in annual government funding until 2009. South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun hailed the opening of the World Stem Cell Hub as a "proud" achievement. "A tremendous thing is happening here," Roh said at the opening ceremony. "It's the politicians' role to deal properly with the controversy over life ethics so that it cannot block scientific research and progress." Roh pledged to continue providing full government backing so that researchers "can just focus on their work." Funding is also expected to come from private American donations, and possibly other sources. The South Koreans would not patent the new cell lines but would charge fees on special orders. South Korea's leading role in the contentious field risks "getting all the criticism on the legal and ethical aspects" of the embryonic stem cell research, warned Rev. Lee Dong-ik. "I question why there cannot be profound discussions on the issue in our country like there have been in other countries," said Lee, who teaches at the Catholic University of Korea. "We don't have an environment where the ethical problems (of the research) can be freely discussed." ___
Way to go South Korea!!! Finally something good will come out of this rediculous ban on new stem cell research in the US. Stick it to the man. Stick him real good.
Americans didn't invent the automobile. I'm mixed with this news as Asian countries have less ethical and moral oversight in this area....
I can't say for Korea, but it may concern some people that populations in Japan and China readily accept abortion as a contraception measure, and that both countries hold firm to the belief of upholding the image and wellbeing of the state is paramount than the rights of the few. If humanity is to benefit from these discoveries in light of the means to achieve them, I think all cultures views on morality is important.
As wizkid said, different cultures have different views on morality. Just because you disagree doesn't mean other countries are less moral. So your last statement is contradictory.
I wasn't trying to imply that it's a pissing contest on who's more moral, but I do think an adequate amount of concern should be given before the benefits of this research become too appealing to resist. Stem cell research is still in its infancy and do not neccesarily need the types of cells with questions attached to them. Just as how cars don't neccesarily need fossil fuels to drive better or faster...
At first it doesn't that important when religious whack jobs like John Ashford in the Bush Administration put clothes on famous statues in Washington DC due to their religiious fundamentalism. However, In some ways the current US reminds me of the Muslim world a couple of centuries ago Religious fantics, who believe they have the one true word, increasingly take over the country, impose their dogma; immersing themselves in their religion, they stop leading the world in science but rather fcous on conquering the world.
Uh, I don't think it's in our interest to fail and collapse, although Bush and company are doing their best to accomplish just that. Personally, I'd just as soon have us as the baddest dog on the block for as long as we can manage it. The longer we stay on top, the longer we have to repair the damage caused by both the terrorists who are attempting to make us change our culture, and that caused by our own government which, besides being incompetent, is trying to make us change our culture. In my opinion. Keep D&D Civil.
I meant people like the Bush administration that make short-sighted choices and live by religious zealotry rather than prudent decision-making will fail and collapse in their bid for power. I don't want USA to fail and collapse. I hope the next president is more worldly in his views and less religious.
You really think the President is devoutly religious? You're ignoring a sizable portion of our country here. It's how this pretender got elected twice...
When I mention religious zealotry, I mean that is how he was elected. He is definitely not my idea of an ideal Christian or even one who strives to be.
Doesn't matter if we are behind the rest of the world in this research. If there is a breakthrough, we will undoubtedly get the benefit of it. Either our hospitals will buy the product/drug/therapy from Korean suppliers or we will license/replicate it here.
Bush had a consistent message with simple while lofty sounding goals. Plus, no matter how devout his Christian core was, his delivery was very efficient to cover many values they shared. Even within the context of this debate, his agenda has been masterfully executed to polarize the sides to either "religious zealots" or "science zealots". I made the opinion that ethical concerns regarding human lives possibly created from/destroyed by these stem cells are being experimented on, and now I'm considered a fundamentalist? Well, what's lost here is any reasonable terms of discretion moderates could be willing to share. I don't oppose all stem cell research, but some of the Koreans' recent discoveries are very bold and throw away any concerns to the value of life. It reminds me of the rush to build the hydrogen bomb. They made it because they could.
I would love to hear some examples, though I think my views will be largely determined on how you would define life (I would usually go with sentient).
I'm describing the value of human life that can be degraded such as performing research without the consent of the subject or using fraudulent methods to extract data from subjects. In the matter of the Koreans, I'm concerned about cloning human embryos for the sake of research. The only reason that there isn't proof that these somatically transfered cloned embryos can develop into a human is because no one has tried it out. However, Hwang's technique falls one step short of the cell mass turning into a fetus. Hwang disregarded this Pandora's Box for the sake of progress and warns that they didn't develop this for adult DNA cloning. Yet Hwang's team produced the first cloned dog, one of the most difficult mammals to copy. Other scientists will push into the frontiers of cloning with this embryological blueprint because subjecting a cloned line to a battery of tests would produce a wealth of information comparable to thousands of the same experiment performed on other subjects. I fear it will become a matter of convenience to where the value of life is drawn. Likewise, it'd be far easier to dismiss the embryo as non-sentient than to label it as an organ factory. I don't know when life starts, but I'm willing to ask. Using the word convenient is cold for those suffering from chronic illnesses, but embryonic stem cell research is a young field that isn't be the only answer. For the claims that it'll take 20 years for results, there's a rush to make it 15, 10 or 5. This creates the tendency to open the next Pandora's Box. Will the rest of us shrug and call it progress?
