Monday’s CBS Early Show promoted embryonic stem cell research as co-host Julie Chen declared: "And blood shortages at hospitals could become a thing of the past. We're going to tell you how stem cells could hold the key to creating artificial blood." She later teased the story: "Up next, a doctor's dream, an unlimited supply of blood. We're going to tell you how one researcher thinks it can happen soon."
In a later report on the research, correspondent Elizabeth Palmer explained: "Every two seconds someone in the U.S. needs blood. In surgery, on cancer wards, and on America's battlefields, blood transfusions save lives...And elsewhere, especially in the developing world, there's a real chance the blood could be contaminated with diseases like AIDS or Hepatitis C. Enter Dr. Marc Turner, a cell biologist from Scotland who's received a multimillion-dollar research grant to make blood in his lab from human stem cells."
Dr. Turner described the process while avoiding to say that human embryos would be destroyed: "These cells are being generated from human embryonic stem cells, which themselves are generated from three to five-day-old human embryos." Palmer similarly avoided the word ‘destruction’: "Stem cells can be coaxed, theoretically, to grow into any human body part. Dr. Turner's team will try to make them grow into O-negative blood. If they're successful, the payoff is huge.
Palmer highlighted a cancer patient who may benefit: "Martin King's post-cancer treatment means he needs blood every three weeks." Palmer later concluded here report: "Stem cell blood will probably not be available widely for transfusions for a decade. For millions around the world, though, it can't come soon enough."
Here is the full transcript of the segment:
7:11AM TEASE:
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Plus, artificial blood. Could we be one step closer to ending the blood shortage forever? We'll tackle that provocative question ahead this morning on the Early Show.
7:30AM TEASE:
JULIE CHEN: And blood shortages at hospitals could become a thing of the past. We're going to tell you how stem cells could hold the key to creating artificial blood.
7:44AM TEASE:
CHEN: Up next, a doctor's dream, an unlimited supply of blood. We're going to tell you how one researcher thinks it can happen soon.
7:47AM SEGMENT:
JULIE CHEN: On this morning's 'Health Watch,' giving blood. No donors required. A British scientist has created blood in his lab and will soon be testing it on volunteers. CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer reports.
ELIZABETH PALMER: Every two seconds someone in the U.S. needs blood. In surgery, on cancer wards, and on America's battlefields, blood transfusions save lives. But in the U.S., demand often exceeds supply. And elsewhere, especially in the developing world, there's a real chance the blood could be contaminated with diseases like AIDS or Hepatitis C. Enter Dr. Marc Turner, a cell biologist from Scotland who's received a multimillion-dollar research grant to make blood in his lab from human stem cells.
MARC TURNER: These cells are being generated from human embryonic stem cells, which themselves are generated from three to five-day-old human embryos.
PALMER: Stem cells can be coaxed, theoretically, to grow into any human body part. Dr. Turner's team will try to make them grow into O-negative blood. If they're successful, the payoff is huge.
GAIL ROBOZ: What would be phenomenal would be if we could create infection-free blood that is laboratory generated.
PALMER: Martin King's post-cancer treatment means he needs blood every three weeks.
MARTIN KING: If there's a way to make sure that that blood supply never goes down, that would be extremely helpful.
PALMER: Stem cell blood will probably not be available widely for transfusions for a decade. For millions around the world, though, it can't come soon enough. Elizabeth Palmer, CBS News, London.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"No donors required."
March 30, 2009 - 14:19 ET by clinging to my guns and my religiontell that to the fetuses being destroyed, chen!! appalling!!!!!!!!!
"i believe he will not stop until we are all jobless, homeless, hungry, and cold!"
~How sickening
March 30, 2009 - 14:22 ET by choselife3xWhy don't we just kill them and drink their blood? Oh, that's right....we are.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
it's positively...
March 30, 2009 - 14:53 ET by clinging to my guns and my religion...vampiric! y'all, i cannot remember the last time i was so upset by anything! we have sunk to the very depths of hell.
"i believe he will not stop until we are all jobless, homeless, hungry, and cold!"
Huh!!!
March 30, 2009 - 14:20 ET by flyingmonkeyThere is so much missing in this story it's almost a non-story.
I'm working on a way to make cars run on lawn refuse. See ya in ten years!
'generated' from embryos?
March 30, 2009 - 14:39 ET by SickofLibsOh Good God, this is effing insane. This story is a total fantasy (actually nightmare).
Next we'll be hearing how a 'new study' says humans will be able to regrow legs like a salamander.
I'd like to 'generate' Chen and her comrade Harriet Smith.
It is a lot cheaper to ask
March 30, 2009 - 14:44 ET by kgIt is a lot cheaper to ask for volunteers. And no billions of tax payer dollars needed to research this not to mention the cost to run "blood farms". But in these hard economic times price is no object. Think of the jobs it might create in a decade or two.
"DumbAssity of Dope"
"...theoretically..." The
March 30, 2009 - 14:42 ET by robert108"...theoretically..." The destruction of the human beings used for these experiments won't be "theoretical", though.
Think of all the benefits
March 30, 2009 - 14:46 ET by KC MulvilleStatistics show that the elderly consume much more of the healthcare dollar than any other demographic group. Their treatment is more expensive, even though the elderly actually no longer contribute to paying the cost. Think of all the benefits we could have if we just killed them at age 70.
reruns??
March 30, 2009 - 15:14 ET by wizardjrSounds like you've been watching reruns of "Logan's Run".
there's a lot less...
March 30, 2009 - 15:30 ET by clinging to my guns and my religion..."fi" in the "sci-fi" than there used to be, isn't there? there are not strong enough word in the english language to fully portray my disgust!
"i believe he will not stop until we are all jobless, homeless, hungry, and cold!"
Just defining the argument
March 30, 2009 - 16:13 ET by KC MulvilleThe obvious problem with CBS's report is that it mentions the possible benefits, but they don't report the costs, especially the moral arguments against it.
Here's the classic dilemma with biased reporting: it isn't in what they do say, it's in what they don't say. After this report, you have not been fully informed. You have been half-informed. CBS cannot pretend that their report is balanced, because they haven't reported the downsides along with the upsides.
"could.." , "might.."
March 30, 2009 - 15:17 ET by wizardjrKilling all humans could save the Earth... (or make absolutely no difference at all).
Destroying America could raise world living standards ( or destroy the world economy).
Could, should, might... what a crock.
global warming
March 31, 2009 - 01:05 ET by justmecould destroy the earth as we know it, therefore we must enact policies that will cost lives in the here and now...
Unless one set of cells
March 30, 2009 - 15:38 ET by MidAmericaUnless one set of cells is can be regenerated to create this endless supply of blood then there will need to be an endless supply of embryos to make an endless supply of blood. Which will be higher cost, freewill blood donations or surgical removal of embryos (or harvesting of eggs)? Of course the best scenario is that for guys there will be a second income for something we are willing to do for free.
Given the track record of
March 30, 2009 - 16:41 ET by freecitizenGiven the track record of embryonic stem cell research, I'm sure the only lives that will be enriched by this research is the lives of the researchers soaking up that multi-million dollar grant while producing negligible results.
Also, given the track record of embryonic stem cell research, I'm guessing this grant came from the government, since actual private investors aren't exactly flocking to this area of research.
good plan but,
March 30, 2009 - 17:33 ET by Tjexcitetake adult stem cells made in adult bone marrow and make bone marrow in a jar. Not just O-negative one can make to type. Who every could do that, would be rich and not off the government. It would solve many problems not just low blood supply. I would not want to use embryotic derived blood as it is still not proven that cancer will not follow, heck any blood from any stem cells would still be years away.
Stem cells, fine, but they
March 30, 2009 - 17:39 ET by RR GOPStem cells, fine, but they need to start weaning themselves off of embryonic stem cells.
To keep on the attack in such a way against the unborn, probably just to goad us, is vile and evil.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
I Gave
March 30, 2009 - 17:46 ET by slickwillie2001I envision a fetus with a cartoon bubble and the words "I gave".
Liberals don't know history...
March 30, 2009 - 19:51 ET by JetmoreNazi Germany managed to produce a synthetic blood (the happy result of having no moral compass and nearly 20 million "volunteers" for research.), it just remains much cheaper and easier to get it naturally. The Nazi's also produced 49% of their petroleum from coal ( they had no domestic supplies for conventional petroleum during the war ). However, modern liberals will not acknowledge that coal has any use at all (it's dirty). Moreover, not making use of the millions of murdered babies- er lawfully aborted fetuses and spending another $250 million for redundant and ultimately futile research would be a crying shame. Apparently, the Olde Time Socialists were a hell of a lot more pragmatic.
There is a very simple
March 30, 2009 - 23:16 ET by CooltomThere is a very simple two-step solution that will end all the liberal efforts to fund stem cell research (and alternative energy, tetc.).
1) In return for research funds, the gov gets 50-100% of the royalties.
2) If the research gets little uable results the fundee is barred from future funding.
In a related story
March 31, 2009 - 06:58 ET by buzzkill3rIn a related story: Experts have found that the nation's daycare facilities can provide a near unlimited amount of healthy human organs for transplant. Utilizing these untapped resources may save millions of lives. Details at 10.
Only need one Bush embryo
March 31, 2009 - 07:25 ET by pearlOnly need one Bush approved embryo. One type O cell can be copied infinitely. Goodbye Red Cross blood drives.
Yes use
March 31, 2009 - 13:01 ET by ForeverOnTheRightembryonic stem cell for making blood, when they have been known to cause tumors in people when they where used. That makes sense a potential tumor causing source running through the veins. (sarc off) The horror of the thought, I’d hate to find out that this type of blood was in my veins!
conscientious abstention
April 1, 2009 - 07:49 ET by PharmerNow, in addition to the vaccines which are not usable by those of us who object to cannibalizing tissue from killed humans, there will be a blood supply which is also off limits to us.
Isn't that special??
(For the scoop on which vaccines are cultured on tissue from killed humans, see http://www.cogforlife.org/fetalvaccines.htm Yes, this group researched the actual cell lines, and information from the manufacturer. It is not bogus.