It did not involve the creation of a human life. "We are not creating an embryo for reproductive purposes," Dr Stojanov said.
-- The Age (online), 17 September 2008
So... creating an embryo does not involve the creation of human life? And these guys are IVF professionals? What's their batting average then??
Medical researchers have urged Sydney University to reconsider making a deal with Australia's oldest Catholic college that will prevent foetal stem cell research at a new medical facility.
I don't know if they're referring to embryonic stem cells, which require harvesting of the cell linings of embryos by the 14th day, or if they truly mean fetal (as in fetus) stem cell research. Either way, it's still wrong, and the fact that embryonic stem cell research has so far netted zero successful treatments while adult stem cells have been used for 72 successful human treatments just makes the matter that much more unbelievable. God bless St. John's residential college on this deal, and God bless Sydney U.
This is good news (from Associated Press, 2007-01-07):
Scientists reported Sunday they had found a plentiful source of stem cells in the fluid that cushions babies in the womb and produced a variety of tissue types from these cells -- sidestepping the controversy over destroying embryos for research.
[Link found via Catholic World News.]
Update: So this research has been heavily opposed in some quarters:
Jan. 9, 2007 (CWNews.com) - One of the scientists responsible for a breakthrough in stem-cell research has reported that he encountered heavy resistance to the publication of his work because it used stem cells obtained from amniotic fluids rather than from embryonic tissues.
Paolo De Coppi told the Italian ANSA news agency that a groundbreaking paper published this week in Nature Biotechnology had previously been rejected by four different journals. “It took seven years to get our paper published,” he said.
Whatever happened to objective science?
