I Never Thought I Would Say This...

[Subby]

I want to be Michael J. Fox when I grow up. The guy has an incredible amount of courage.

If you have seven minutes - definitely take some time to watch this interview...practically a primer on how to talk about a hotbutton issue like a mature adult..<object height="350" width="425">
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/o8lsjfjgAA8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="350" width="425"></object>

[wade moore]

I respected Fox quite a bit before all of this, but agreed, his handling of this has increased my opinion of him.

[Deattribution]

I agree as well, alot of courage shown while still trying to get his point across but not insulting anyone in the process to do so, anyone should be able to respect that.

[rowech]

He pretty much summed up what democracy should be in the last 30 seconds.

He was my favorite actor growing up. Family Ties still ranks as my #1 show and I've seen Back to the Future probably 100 times. Hard to watch this clip.

[Draft Dodger]

he's a hockey fan. we're a special breed

[Fouts]

He's a good man.

[SunDevil]

The best line I heard was from Sunday on ABC with George Stepanoplous (SP) where he said "that if the people who were opposed to stem cell research would think about the benefits and what they are trying to accomplish and pray on the matter and if even then they still opposed it, then it was fine, but they must understand that the people who support it have also thought about it and prayed on it, and are just trying to do something they believe in and are good people."

[ctmason]

Its incredibly easy to call people names, sling mud and get a rise out of people. It's much, much more difficult to sit down with people you don't agree with and come to solutions.

Right now, as with most times, we got us too much of one and not enough of the other.

[Bonegavel]

Didn't the candidate for which he did the ad vote against stem cell research?

Oops, forget it. That was a democrat in a nother race.

[Raiders Army]

He's always shown a lot of class.

Not to be funny or theadjack, but I think his performance in The Frighteners was severely underrated.

[rowech]

RA, I agree. I think that movie was actually pretty decent overall and nobody I know has even seen it. He was in another movie called "Greedy" that I also think was actually pretty funny despite nobdy I know having ever really seen it.

[Crapshoot]

Good guy. Plus, if Rush Limbaugh's the idiot on one side, its generally safe to take the other.

[sabotai]

He's always shown a lot of class.

Not to be funny or theadjack, but I think his performance in The Frighteners was severely underrated.

I really liked that movie. The ending was "eh", but for the most part it's a pretty underrated movie.

[kiwiLB57]

Peter Jackson directed.

[Warhammer]

This whole thing about stem cell research is ridiculous if you ask me. It's not like the government DOESN'T fund it. It's just that the government is only funding EXISTING lines of stem cell research. That is what the debate has always been about.

[SunDevil]

But of the available 60 lines of research, they are only doing 9 of them. Plus with the president using HIS ONLY VETO of his presidency on stem cell research, you begin to see what the issue is.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

This whole thing about stem cell research is ridiculous if you ask me. It's not like the government DOESN'T fund it. It's just that the government is only funding EXISTING lines of stem cell research. That is what the debate has always been about.

Actually, the point is that the administration and many in congress are against maximizing stem cell research through the best means possible.

[panerd]

This whole thing about stem cell research is ridiculous if you ask me. It's not like the government DOESN'T fund it. It's just that the government is only funding EXISTING lines of stem cell research. That is what the debate has always been about.

It's a bit more complex than that. The debate basically centers around using embryonic stem cells to do research.

What both sides want you to hear:
Against: Basically killing babies. Rich people will be cloning duplicates of themselves to harvest organs. (This of course is not correct and clearly spelled out in the amendment)

For: The people against this measure are religious nuts who will cling to their Bible's while millions of Michael J. Fox's die of deadly diseases.

The reality (In Panerd's mind):
In vitro fertilization is a business in which healthy young women are paid thousands of dollars to donate eggs to infertile couples. (Completely legal, if you disagree with it that is a whole other issue) The unused cells are then discarded (thrown out if you prefer) Scientists would like to use these cells to try and find cures for diseases.

A legit point for the against side: There is no proof that scientists will figure out anything from this research. The fact that there are women being paid money to harvest eggs is a little bit hard to swallow.

A legit point for the pro-side: The eggs will be discarded anyways. The research is going to happen, the question is whether Missouri Universities and businesses should be kept out the loop with a vicious misinformation campaign from the against side.

I agree with Fox, let's put the real issues out there and decide. But instead I am subject to nightly phone calls and endless commercials with doomsday irrational implications and fear that maybe 25% of the electorate actually understands what we are voting on.

[ISiddiqui]

I wonder how anyone who has seen, say, Muhammed Ali can say Michael J. Fox was faking it when doing the commerical. The intense shaking happens to everyone who takes the Parkinson's medicine. Because the disease locks you up and the medicine may not be perfect (it sometimes makes them rock violently), but its all they have.

[Fidatelo]

That was a moving piece of television.

[Brillig]

A legit point for the against side: There is no proof that scientists will figure out anything from this research. The fact that there are women being paid money to harvest eggs is a little bit hard to swallow.


Two things to think about. The "no proof" argument falls pretty flat. There's no proof that any scientific research will lead to results. That's why they call it research. If this is your objection, you might consider the fact that the vast majority of scientists believe that stem cell research is a valid avenue of investigation.

Second, "women being paid money to harvest eggs" is an argument against IVF, not against stem cell research.

Not to, you know, start a debate or nothing.

[MalcPow]

Really moving, both Fox's courage and Couric's professionalism made me want to be better. I agree with Subby, if I grow up, Fox wouldn't be a bad place to end up.

[Lorena]

He was my favorite actor growing up. Family Ties still ranks as my #1 show and I've seen Back to the Future probably 100 times. Hard to watch this clip.

Oh yeah, everything you said. I loved "Family Ties" when I was younger and every time "Back to the Future" is on, I have to watch it. The man is amazing.

I also had a hard time watching this clip... I got pretty choked up.

[BradS]

Having been recently diagnosed with type 2 Diabetes. I don't think you can even compare my one shot a day, taking a few pills of medication and watching my diet, with someone who is going through what Michael is now. Even for those diabetics who a take multiple shots a day. I can control my circumstances easily. He is not that lucky. All the power to him.

[Mustang]

and fear that maybe 25% of the electorate actually understands what we are voting on.

Wow.. feeling generous today? ;)

[ahbrady]

I read all of the replies to the original post before watching the video. I thought the replies lauding Fox with praise had to be hyperbole. I was wrong. I am stunned by the maturity he displayed. I was amazed at the understanding he displayed for those that don't agree with him on stem cell research, and how he didn't stoop to Limbaugh's level and attack him which would have been very easy to do. How much better off would our country be if our leaders and media figures would follow Fox's example and respect the other side and engage in logical debate instead of the vitriole that both sides constantly put out?

[famatu]

He pretty much summed up what democracy should be in the last 30 seconds.

He was my favorite actor growing up. Family Ties still ranks as my #1 show and I've seen Back to the Future probably 100 times. Hard to watch this clip.

http://www.bestdvdentertainment.com/productsdescription.php?id=5

[DanGarion]

Being that my uncle has Parkinsons this hits me close to home. Fox is a stand up guy and hopefully those that oppose maximizing Stem Cell Research will open their minds. Because those are the same people that will be expecting to get treatment for their problems if anything was discovered to help.

If they are against Stem Cell research they might as well be against medicine as a whole, since they test medicine on live human beings as well.

[BIGdaddy]

Isn't it true that In contrast to research on embryonic stem cells, non-embryonic (or "adult") stem cell research has already resulted in numerous instances of actual clinical benefit to patients?

The long-held belief that non-embryonic stem cells are less able to differentiate into multiple cell types or be sustained in the laboratory over an extended period of time—rendering them less medically-promising than embryonic stem cells—has been repeatedly challenged by experimental results that have suggested otherwise.

Just an observation-- it seems that the media lumps "stem cell research" into one category; rather than differentiate between embryonic and adult stem cell research.

[Kodos]

Wow. That was tough to watch. Fox does a good job of articulating his position, as opposed to Limbaugh. You'd think with his own problems well publicized, Limbaugh would have a little more respect for people who didn't even bring on their own problems.

[Pumpy Tudors]

While I think that Michael J. Fox showed a lot of class and courage in this interview, it makes me wonder how little we expect of public figures or people in general.

What Michael J. Fox is saying is simply common sense. I'm not talking about the stem cell research, as there are compelling arguments on both sides of that issue. I'm talking about the end of the interview. He's saying that he understands that many people have thought about the issue and have come to a different viewpoint than his own, and he applauds that. He isn't going to slam anybody who sees differently than he does.

Here's what I'm getting at: Isn't it just common sense to accept that people can see the same issue, put the same amount of thought and reason into it, and come up with a differing opinion? Have we completely come to expect that if someone disagrees with another's opinions, it's got to turn into insults and accusations of idiocy?

Don't get me wrong, I'm impressed by the way Michael J. Fox handled himself in this interview, but I think people's reactions speak very loudly about our standards.

[albionmoonlight]

Here's what I'm getting at: Isn't it just common sense to accept that people can see the same issue, put the same amount of thought and reason into it, and come up with a differing opinion? Have we completely come to expect that if someone disagrees with another's opinions, it's got to turn into insults and accusations of idiocy?

Don't get me wrong, I'm impressed by the way Michael J. Fox handled himself in this interview, but I think people's reactions speak very loudly about our standards.

My naive little cereal killing coal miner: There are two and only two types of people in the world: Red State People and Blue State People. You should first decide which one you are. After you decide that, then anyone who belongs to the other group is a stupid fucking asshole with stupid fucking asshole ideas and they deserve only :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: from you in response to their ignorant bullshit ramblings.

I swear, it’s like you haven’t even been paying attention.

[Coder]

Here's what I'm getting at: Isn't it just common sense to accept that people can see the same issue, put the same amount of thought and reason into it, and come up with a differing opinion?

The problem with today's media in general is that instead of trying to give you facts, they hammer their opinion on you as if the only correct one.. I think that's why it's so refreshing when someone comes out and says "Hey, this is my opinion, if you've got your own, kudos to you."

[Pumpy Tudors]

My naive little cereal killing coal miner: There are two and only two types of people in the world: Red State People and Blue State People. You should first decide which one you are. After you decide that, then anyone who belongs to the other group is a stupid fucking asshole with stupid fucking asshole ideas and they deserve only :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: from you in response to their ignorant bullshit ramblings.

I swear, it’s like you haven’t even been paying attention.
Yeah, I suppose I hadn't figured that one out yet. I'll try harder to stay in line! I promise!

The problem with today's media in general is that instead of trying to give you facts, they hammer their opinion on you as if the only correct one.. I think that's why it's so refreshing when someone comes out and says "Hey, this is my opinion, if you've got your own, kudos to you."
That's exactly my point. It certainly is refreshing, but it shouldn't be. It should be obvious. Unfortunately, in general, things just don't work my way.

[Coder]

That's exactly my point. It certainly is refreshing, but it shouldn't be. It should be obvious. Unfortunately, in general, things just don't work my way.

With regards to your (and my point).. what's worrying is that people are "buying" the opinions of the media rather than forming their own opinions :(

[miked]

Isn't it true that In contrast to research on embryonic stem cells, non-embryonic (or "adult") stem cell research has already resulted in numerous instances of actual clinical benefit to patients?

The long-held belief that non-embryonic stem cells are less able to differentiate into multiple cell types or be sustained in the laboratory over an extended period of time—rendering them less medically-promising than embryonic stem cells—has been repeatedly challenged by experimental results that have suggested otherwise.

Just an observation-- it seems that the media lumps "stem cell research" into one category; rather than differentiate between embryonic and adult stem cell research.

They do need to differentiate between the two, and adult cells do hold some clinical benefit; but then again, they can't really clincally evaluate embryonic cells. ES cells are not just a therapeutic option, they give great insight in to the developmental process, which in turn creates more options for disease treatment. Studying what makes an ES cell into an adult cardiac cell (what I studied) gives us more information in to how to replace the cells that are lost. What can we try and trigger in adult cells? What kind of drugs may help stimulate that pathway better? It goes on and on. The current human cell lines are pretty stinky. They are old, half contaminated, and the red tape to use them discourages most research (more importantly, it discourages academic research, as only drug companies can afford the time and $$).

Just my little interjection as a scientist, but the cells are being generated by IVF and other issues already, what's the harm in letting people try and use them to find cures? I can guarantee if Bush gets Parkinson's or some other crippling disease, he'll change his mind.

[oliegirl]

My grandfather suffered from Parkinsons for years and years before passing away in 1989...it was beyond horrible to watch the disease take over his body and rob him of his dignity. Because of this, it's a very personal subject for me.

I am for stem cell research, however, I am also staunchly pro life, and these 2 don't go together very well. I have a major problem with the idea of a life being created simply to abort it and study it for science, yet I realize that without this type of research, the cures for diseases like Parkinsons might never be found, or it will take years longer than it would with the research.

My question is this...with the thousands of abortions performed every year in this country (I don't even want to know the numbers on that statistic), why can the scientists not use those aborted embryos? Granted, there would need to be some sort of system put in place to preserve and transport the embryos (again, not something I want to think about), but in theory, wouldn't this make both sides happy...or at least happier than they are now? Pro lifers would have the victory that lives are not being created/destroyed for science, and pro choicers would have the victory that the research is continuing. It just seems like a very logical compromise, which makes me wonder why it hasn't been implemented.

And please, don't make my post into an abortion debate...I know there are many who disagree that life begins at conception, etc...etc...etc... I am simply trying to ask a well thought out, relatively educated question.

[Subby]

why can the scientists not use those aborted embryos?
I think that is an interesting question. I poked around a little and found this from the International Society for Stem Cell Research FAQ (http://www.isscr.org/science/faq.htm):

Do stem cells come from aborted fetuses?
One potential source of stem cells comes from early fetal tissue recovered during a narrow window of development. In development, an embryo is called a fetus at about 7-8 weeks following fertilization. At about 4-5 weeks of development, embryonic germ cells (http://www.isscr.org/glossary/index.htm#germ), the precursors to the egg and sperm cells, are found in the developing ovary or testis, structures only about 2 mm long.

In 1998, the isolation, culture and partial characterization of embryonic germ cells were reported. The cells were derived from human aborted tissue. When isolated and cultured, these germ cells were shown to have properties similar to stem cells isolated from the inner cell mass of blastocysts (http://www.isscr.org/glossary/index.htm#blastocyst).

However, some evidence has suggested that embryonic germ cells may be more limited in their ability to become many different cell types because they are isolated from tissue that is further along in development (several weeks as opposed to only 4-5 days). More research will be required to understand the properties and behavior of these cells to determine their usefulness for future cell therapies. Because of various discrepancies in federal regulations, stem cells taken from fetuses are subject to different rules that stem cells derived from embryos.

[lordscarlet]

My grandfather suffered from Parkinsons for years and years before passing away in 1989...it was beyond horrible to watch the disease take over his body and rob him of his dignity. Because of this, it's a very personal subject for me.

I am for stem cell research, however, I am also staunchly pro life, and these 2 don't go together very well. I have a major problem with the idea of a life being created simply to abort it and study it for science, yet I realize that without this type of research, the cures for diseases like Parkinsons might never be found, or it will take years longer than it would with the research.

My question is this...with the thousands of abortions performed every year in this country (I don't even want to know the numbers on that statistic), why can the scientists not use those aborted embryos? Granted, there would need to be some sort of system put in place to preserve and transport the embryos (again, not something I want to think about), but in theory, wouldn't this make both sides happy...or at least happier than they are now? Pro lifers would have the victory that lives are not being created/destroyed for science, and pro choicers would have the victory that the research is continuing. It just seems like a very logical compromise, which makes me wonder why it hasn't been implemented.

And please, don't make my post into an abortion debate...I know there are many who disagree that life begins at conception, etc...etc...etc... I am simply trying to ask a well thought out, relatively educated question.

You seem to think that the cells that people like Fox are trying to get used are going to be created for destruction. This is what the pro-life right has tried to push. However, that is not the case. If you watched the video, or have read anything about the issue, proponents of embryonic stem cell research want to use cells from discarded IVF fetuses. They don't want to setup labs to create embryos for destruction. There are hundreds of thousands of embryos discarded each year that could be used for stem cell research.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Yep. OG, as Fox pointed out, no one is creating embryos for destruction -- they are already being created (and have been created) as we speak for the purposes of in vitro fertilization. What is proposed is to use those already-created cells for research (they are going to be discarded/destroyed anyways). Also, as Fox points out, if you're against embryonic stem cell research, why haven't you been against in vitro fertilization that has been going on for years.

This is where the anti-embyronic stem cell research argument loses it for me.

[sterlingice]

Here's what I'm getting at: Isn't it just common sense to accept that people can see the same issue, put the same amount of thought and reason into it, and come up with a differing opinion? Have we completely come to expect that if someone disagrees with another's opinions, it's got to turn into insults and accusations of idiocy?

Don't get me wrong, I'm impressed by the way Michael J. Fox handled himself in this interview, but I think people's reactions speak very loudly about our standards.

I'm with the mustachioed one

SI