LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Greater Catarapania wrote:
Here, I'll reproduce the first paragraph for you too:
I've never really understood why it's so hard for so many of my fellow millennials to buckle down and read a few consecutive paragraphs.
Actually, what's harder is to believe that someone who considers the whole article relevant would cite only a specific excerpt and not ask anyone to read the whole article the first time.
The first time I referenced the article was the first post in which I mentioned induced pluripotency. I only began citing specific excerpts when it became apparent that you were unwilling to actually read it.
I've since listened to the article twice. It very specifically says "for therapeutic purposes." It doesn't say anything about other kinds of research, such as into what causes cells to differentiate in what ways under what circumstances in the first place.
That would be redundant, seeing as they already know that, and are actively using that knowledge to turn the induced stem cells into things like beta cells and neurons.
You would think all the people in 2004 making a big show of how much they were against the research would be making just as big a show how (or more) about how vindicated they were if it did. Instead this whole issue has fallen by the wayside in mainstream politics recent years.
The reason it's fallen by the wayside is because, once induced pluripotent stem cell technology became viable, nobody had any reason to advocate for embryonic stem cell research any more. Either my side is too nice to rub in our victory, or we're largely unaware that we won. Mix of both, I think. Depends on which sub-demographic of evangelicals you're looking at. I'll be the first to admit that many of us have something of a populist/anti-elitist streak that can get in the way of deep understanding of science and other issues.