There is "research" and then there's Research.

Well, I am not going to argue any of your technical points, but I hear oatmeal is even better then they first realized. But the difference between little r and big r is often the methodology - who they picked as participants, the number of participants, how long the study lasted, what they did for controls, who sponsored it. I could conduct a study using myself and what I did may work for me, I guess if I had the right connections someone could say a study was done and...... This may not work for anyone else.

"For an example (and these are only an example, please, let's not mistake it as the point)" Well, if you're going to make false statements, then I will correct you, whether this was a central point or not: Uh, embryonic stem cell research hasn't produced any results because no one is FUNDING it. Those 'political arguments' are killing the ability for us to do any actual work with embryonic stem cells, so don't turn around, blame embryonic stem cell researchers for the controversy, and then make it their fault that nothing's been done with it! Just about all scientists working with stem cells agree that there is greater potential in embryonic than adult stem cells, because for the latter, you have to basically use a retrovirus on the cells, and that makes it nearly impossible for those stem cells ever to be able to be directly transferred to a patient safely (so there goes being able to directly replace damaged tissue right out the window...). Also, adult stem cells are a lot rarer, and for a lot of the applications we hope to one day use stem cells for, you need a LOT of them. "Adult Stem Cells can already be used to do everything Embryonic Stem Cell researchers hope they'll be able to do "someday"." That's simply not true. This was a bad example for you from the beginning: "Human embryonic and adult stem cells each have advantages and disadvantages regarding potential use for cell-based regenerative therapies. Of course, adult and embryonic stem cells differ in the number and type of differentiated cells types they can become. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin. However, some evidence suggests that adult stem cell plasticity may exist, increasing the number of cell types a given adult stem cell can become. Large numbers of embryonic stem cells can be relatively easily grown in culture, while adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues and methods for expanding their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out. This is an important distinction, as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies." --http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp The two are simply not the same. We need to fund BOTH because one technology can help more than two. It shows ignorance of the science to claim that adult stem cells are 'just as good' or even better. It's also absurd that scientists, just for wanting to do research on embryos THAT WERE GOING TO BE THROWN AWAY ANYWAY (the extras from in-vitro fertilization efforts), are getting so much flak. Is a wastebasket really a better fate for those embryos? Anyway, please seek to inform yourself better before you make false statements like these again. =========== Now then, most of the other stuff you talk about, is actually the fault of exaggeration on the media's part. Even though they're always careful to cover their tracks by (truthfully) saying "may" instead of "will", the media has no problem overstating and exaggerating the results of a study to make it sound more interesting. If there was a study that showed a POSSIBLE (none of the credible research makes an absolute statement--good scientists don't jump to conclusions) link between, let's say, tap water and prostate cancer, you can bet your wife and kids it will make tons of headlines. But weeks or months later, when further study refutes it, the media won't say a word about it. You always hear the gloom and doom stuff from the media, but never the "actually, it's no big deal" findings. That is not the researchers' fault. There is no such thing as a science "headline". That isn't how science is done. Too many people take what the local news says and follow it like gospel. But if you were to look at the actual research (warning: actual science education required), the claims are NEVER as sensational or drastic as the media portrays them to be. If you want to talk about "research" as in not real research, what WOULD be good examples are stuff like chiropractic, acupuncture, homeopathy, all kinds of 'herbal remedies', etc. HERE is where the BS is coming DIRECTLY from the "researchers", as opposed to merely sensationalized in 'translation'.

I don't understand what your question is, and therefore what response you are looking for. First you say there is research and then there is "research". What exactly are you saying? That you've seen "research" written like that in quotations marks? Or are you mocking some types of research? ah yes research differs completely. If I read something that just says, "research shows"...I pay it no mind. If I read something published by say, HArvard University, saying "research shows"...then I believe it more. Were you jsut trying to start a discussion about Adult Stem Cell Research versus Embryonic Stem Cell Research, FDA research? Or just research on anything in general?