Stem Cells - The Hope and the Hype 365
zer0skill writes to mention a CNN summary of a Time cover story. The Truth about Stem Cells deals with an increasingly politicized area of scientific inquiry, and likens the fight to those over global warming and evolution. From the article: "Five years after Bush announced that federal money could go to researchers only working on embryonic stem cell lines that scientists had already developed, Democrats hope to leverage the issue as evidence that they represent the reality-based community, running against the theocrats. States from Connecticut to California have tried to step in with enough funding to keep the labs going and slow the exodus of U.S. talent to countries like Singapore, Britain and Taiwan."
Misspelled kleptocrats (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Misspelled kleptocrats (Score:2)
It isn't really about religeon at all [...]
Yes, it is.
[...] these people are the merchants in the temple trying to make a buck out of belief.
Yes, that is precisely what religion is.
If we can just show... (Score:4, Funny)
or
2) We are just going to use the "gay" embryos
I'll bet we could get Bush to sign on.
Re:If we can just show... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:If we can just show... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, on the other side of things, I have not heard conclusive evidence that embryonic stem cells are the miracle cure that some people laud them as, nor have I see evidence that future cures involving embryonic stem cells will not be feasible with other types of stem cells. However, I don't think that you can have a fair debate on the necessity of embryonic stem cells until the other side of the discussion is more honest. There are moral questions about the research, to be sure, and perhaps we should not engage in immoral science, but we cannot answer those moral questions until we can agree upon what they are.
Re:If we can just show... (Score:3, Informative)
Evolution, Global Warming, and Stem Cell Research? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Evolution, Global Warming, and Stem Cell Resear (Score:3, Insightful)
Evolution is a theory. I think it's a theory that accuratly describes what occured, but it still remains just a theory. It will never be a fact. As a theory, it will be refined over time, and will more closely approach the truth. This is all that science does. Ever. There are no facts.
Climate Change is another theory. There is much evidence that it is occuring, and the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the majority cause is anthropogenic. My fiance just attended a geologic
Re:Evolution, Global Warming, and Stem Cell Resear (Score:2)
the observed phenomenon is a fact.
the Darwinian hypothesis of survival of the fittest is the basis of a successful theory which explains those facts.
the molecular evidence for evolution has confirmed the theory to amazing levels of accuracy.
there is no reason at all why anyone with an open mind prepared to examine the evidence would disagree with evolution. the only people who ever do so only do because it contradicts an ancient religious text (which
Re:Evolution, Global Warming, and Stem Cell Resear (Score:2)
"there is no reason at all why anyone with an open mind prepared to examine the evidence would disagree with evolution." Yeah.. I agree. the open mind bit is the killer, a
Re:Evolution, Global Warming, and Stem Cell Resear (Score:3, Informative)
By saying that, you confuse "sound scientific theory" with "just a theory" or "cockamamie theory", which is what the public thinks when you say "It's just a theory". It's strong enough of a theory that it might as well be fact for all intents and purposes. Quit giving ammo to the luddites.
Re:Evolution, Global Warming, and Stem Cell Resear (Score:2)
PCB
Evolution: God's tool (Score:2)
Re:Evolution, Global Warming, and Stem Cell Resear (Score:2)
why? the conservative media seems to have no trouble demonizing advocates of stem cell research, and it's been very constructive for them, and for their political ambitions.
Michael J Fox has Parkinson's.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently so many people thought the video was kind of moving, since Fox couldn't sit still in his chair and was thrashing about through the entire interview because his Parkinson's was so bad, that it made the front page of Digg.com. You can check out the video on YouTube here [youtube.com].
For the record, my grandfather died after a long struggle with Parkinson's earlier this year and I'm in favor of federal funding of embryonic stem cell research-- like more than 70 percent of Americans. The cells in question (some 400,000 of them) are being discarded en masse from in vitro fertilization labs anyways, so it's a choice between either letting them get thrown away-- or using them for research that could save lives.
The President says he thinks that ECS research constitutes the taking of a human life ("murder"). If that's true then why doesn't he work to outlaw all ECS research ("murder"), instead of letting it happen with private funding? He's caught between his own rhetoric and a hard place.
Jurisdiction (Score:2)
He doesn't have the authority to declare ECS research to be murder. Murder's not a federal crime anyway, in almost all circumstances.
What he can do is direct federal funding. IMHO, there shouldn't be any federal funding for science, in which case he would be powerless in this situation.
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:2)
The President could just declare it to be genocide. If he did that, in fact, he'd have to step in and stop it. (400,000 is certianly enough.)
Or, the President could give a few national addresses about it. Maybe start every state of the union with "we're still killing the unborn."
And let's not forget that the Pres can't do a bit of what he has done without Congress--and with
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:2)
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:2)
It's really about the money (Score:2)
As the BBC reported this week, once Britain started allowing embryos that were going to be discarded to be used for embryonic stem cell research, fertility clinics started to allow people to pay for their fertility treatments with the "donation" of extra embryos. How long do you th
Re:Michael J Fox has Parkinson's...So what?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people can identify with a celebrity more than a total stranger. To see a stranger twitching during an interview due to Parkinsons is tragic, but to see the same thing happen to someone with a recognizable face makes the issue slightly more personal. Obviously that it is happening to a celebrity does not make the issue more important, but it doe
Religion vs Science (Score:5, Insightful)
This is clearly another battle between religion and science. For anyone who doesn't have all the facts on Bush's recent veto, they are quite simple:
intelligent, reasonable, people outlined a bill that would see leftover embryos from fertility clinics, that were going to be destroyed anyways because of a limited shelf-life, given to researchers. Furthermore, the bill outlined measures to ensure that the number of embryos being created would not be increased for scientific purposes.
Bush decided that it was a bad idea for "moral reasons," whatever the fuck that means. The embryos that this douche "saved" are all going to be destroyed anyways, we just won't see any scientific research come out of it, and so he has set back the clock on medical advancements that will one day save countless numbers of lives (though in the mean time, countless will die because of bush).
Bush either did what he did because he really felt the bill was wrong for his own personal religious reasons (which would have been hard had he actually read the bill, seeing as though the embryos are destroyed either way,) or he was pandering to his base. In either case, the prime motivator for his decision was religion -religion beat science this time, unfortunately.
I would also like to use this post to point out a number of ways in which the conservative media attempts to unethically further their agenda -including using biased language, misleading stories, and outright lies.
If this sort of crap is what passes for intelligent discourse, on a channel where people get their "news" and "information", is it any wonder that stupid decisions are being made, and shithead leaders get elected into power?
What I'm showing you above are not rare snippets from unpopular shows -admittedly, they are some of the more severe abuses of media power, but they are selected from among a great many such occurences, from some of the most popular American "news" people. The American population is constantly pelted with a barrage of bullshit and rhetoric. It's kind of hard to have faith in democracy under such conditions. Sure, the votes may be cast freely -but what about the months and years beforehand, when the voters should have been getting informed about current events? If that process is sufficiently disrupted, its no longer a democracy. How can you expect people to understand the issue properly, when they are constantly being fed the kind of bullshit demonstrated in the links above?
Re:Religion vs Science (Score:2)
You, another person and a child are locked in a room. The other person holds a gun to both your and the child's head. He slides you a gun and orders you to shoot the child. If you refuse, he will shoot the child himself. In practical terms the child dies either way. Is there an ethi
Re:Religion vs Science (Score:2)
Good point, I agree. There seems to be an ethical difference between pulling the trigger yourself, and letting someone else do it. Now, If the gunman told me that a million lives (or a single life) would be saved if I was the one to pull the trigger, I wouldn't have a problem doing it. In fact, I'd have to be pretty heartless (or a Christian fearful of "sin") not to do it.
Wrong. In fact, double wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Do your homework and quit assuming. This is a battle between people who belief personhood begins at conception vs people who believe it begins at first brain wave, birth, the cutting of the umbilical cord, etc. None of these positions is necessarily any more "religious" than the other, and more importantly, none is any more "scientific" as well. "Personhood" is a moral concept and outside of the scope of science. Science can tell us that a blastocyst is alive and a human (according to the accepted definitions), but it cannot tell us if this is sufficient for the granting of rights.
This debate has nothing to do with science OR religion, let alone a conflict between them.
Re:Wrong. In fact, double wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree. It is overwhelmingly christians who support the "life begins at conception" idea, specifically because they believe that at conception a soul, a special divine spark of life, enters at precisely this moment. This claim is totally and utterly baseless, and should be thrown out immediately without consideration. While I am not a big fan of Christopher Hi
Re:Wrong. In fact, double wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
>point you want to put it). Indeed, the Bible says essentially nothing on the matter.
Just because the bible says nothing in particular on the matter (whether it says something in general via implication is up for debate), the Catechism of the Catholic Church *does* make statements on the matter, so it clearly is a "religious issue" for some people. Bush has made statements to indicate that it is part of his religious beliefs as well, not just his abstract morality independent of his religion. Religion != The Bible and Religion != Christianity.
Re:Wrong. In fact, double wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Religion vs Science (Score:2)
Re:Religion vs Science (Score:5, Insightful)
You didn't read the bill either, I see. If memory serves me, the bill had provisions to explicitly stop donors from receiving any profit whatsoever. Thus what happened in the UK would not happen here, because the bill over here was more carefully written, in an attempt to alleviate concerns such as this (though that hardly helps if those voting against it haven't read the bill, which seems evident by the comments many of them made).
Personally, I think Bush probably screwed up, but not for the reasons you mention. There was overwhelming support for this bill in congress and the public. There were protections to ensure ethical research, etc. He could have emphasized that along with the notion the embryos were going to be destroyed. Instead, he has caused problems for his party and strengthened the opposition.
Bush's move was a smart one politically, because it is more likely to polarize and strengthen his religious base -they will see it as a great victory- whereas others, such as yourself, will see this as merely a minor loss for science. Furthermore, much of the public is still probably split on the issue. On the other hand, you may be right. I say this only because, those 33% that still support him, are clearly going to continue to support him no matter what he does. Knocking down this bill could hardly help him with those folks (though there are other christians out there who might be pleased.)
Will his veto have any negative impact? Not immediately, nothing was removed, nothing was taken away. Private research still continues (as the Time article points out, several private biotech firms are getting ready to pettition the FDA for human trials). The only thing that has happened is that researchers, like myself, who work at universities wanting to do this research have the same restrictions we did before the veto. Research still continues.
Of course it continues -he didn't ban science (yet.) And research will not go any slower than it already is. What exactly is your point, if I may ask? The research could have been going faster. Bush prevented it from going faster, which is perfectly equivalent to slowing it down. However you choose to look at it, there were gains in scientific research to be made, and because of bush's veto, they wont be made in the time they could have been.
Re:Religion vs Science (Score:2)
Okay shithead, if you had a brain you would realize that the phrase "moral reasons" when used by Bush or other republicans means "christian values," which have no basis in reason. What I don't understand is how they are allowed to get away with using the term "moral reasons" as a blanket term for christian ide
Drawing an ethical line (Score:2)
Many people are satisfied with reasoning that if George Bush and the Pope are against it, then they themselves are for it. Obviously, George Bush is wrong because
Re:Religion vs Science (Score:2, Flamebait)
Holy shit what the fuck are you talking about? The idiocy has reached new and incredible heights!
Our view of our place in the universe is changing (Score:5, Interesting)
But it's disconcerting to have your place in the universe moved.
A similar thing happened when the techniques of historical research began to be applied to the Bible. The only thing that changed was the idea of the historical process that created the Bible. It is no longer possible to view the Bible as a single unchanging thing that had a few corrupt offshoots. There is no way to trace the Bible back in its current form without concluding that it was pieced together and actively modified over the centuries after it's "authorship". Is there any reason to think this makes the Bible less true if you thought it true before?
But you have to give up part of your intellectual furniture to make room for this new idea.
Now we've reached points on several fronts of scientifc and technological advance that have larger practical day to day impacts on how we view ourselves than the Copernican revolution, and probably more so than Biblical "Higher Criticism".
For example: Are we just the product of a cascade of chemical reactions that can be reproduced in vitro? Do we have to look at the world as finite source of resources and sink for waste?
There are even ones that aren't on the public radar screen, like: Can machines be people? Certainly if somebody made a C-3PO or R2-D2, or even a program that passed the generalize Turing test, you'd have to consider this.
It's not surprising that liberals are more comfortable with this sort of thing than conservatives. It's not that liberals are more scientific, it's that conservatism believes that what is proven is best. But if you find out the world is not what you thought it was, or worse yet you aren't what you thought you were, then it throws old proofs into doubt.
If history is a guide, then the battle lines will be drawn again in the future, in a different place according to rules neither side envisions today. The thing is liberalism and conservatism are less ideologies than they are character traits.
From a scientist's point of view... (Score:5, Insightful)
THE MAIN REASON we are not seeing enormous amounts of private money being thrown towards stell cell researchers is simple: we are still working on the BASIC SCIENCE. Science doesn't progress from initial discovery to therapeutics overnight. It takes decades of basic research to build a foundation upon which medical applications can be developed. You must understand how things "tick" before you can improve upon them. This is the reason why WE NEED FEDERAL FUNDING; Big Pharma doesn't want to invest in something that isn't going to pay off until decades down the road. These organizations wait for the government to front for the basic science, then they jump on a few years down the road saving millions of dollars in R&D. And do you blame them? Why spend more when you can spend less and have the same results? And, yes, I do realize that Big Pharma isn't the only source of private money.
Just my take on the situation. I am probably a bit biased, but I hate narrow-minded individuals that fail to see things from both sides of the fence.
Re:From a scientist's point of view... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the reason we aren't seeing enormous amounts of private money being thrown towards stem cell research is because companies don't want to be assed-out when private stem-cell research is banned in America. It is a little risky spending billions on a technology, when the technology could be declared illegal with the stroke of a pen. When G. W. Bush vetos public stem cell funding he is sending a message about where our country is going... today we get rid of government stem cell research, tommorow we get rid of all stem cell research.
Big Pharma doesn't want to invest in something that isn't going to pay off until decades down the road.
Are you kidding? You got to be joking, right? Big Pharma doesn't want to invest in something that won't make any money... but it will absolutly, without a doubt invest in something that won't pay off till decades down the road if the payoff is big! Buisness is more far sighted than governments, who think only as far ahead as the next election. Don't believe this central-planning propoganda that buisnesses are somehow more shortsighted than government. Government has a terrible, horrible, disasterous track record when it comes to being "forward thinking".
These organizations wait for the government to front for the basic science, then they jump on a few years down the road saving millions of dollars in R&D.
Here is where you are actually 100% correct. Big Pharma actually supports government funding of research and lobbies for government funding of research - I mean, why shouldn't they: the government spends the money, and they get the profit. Who wouldn't like to get free capital from the government? I mean, if McDonalds could figure out a way to get the government to subsidize beef patties, they would do that! If Ford could figure out a way to get the government to subsidize hub caps, they would do that. That is basic self-interest at work.
But why not make Big Pharma fund the research themselves? They reap the profits, they should accept the costs. That sounds much more fair to me than having me subsidize basic research so some CEO can see his stock prices go up.
To give them a subsidy distorts their economic relationships... because the true cost of drugs are hidden through taxation, consumers cannot make a reasonable cost/benfit analysis about the drugs they consume. You end up with weird distortions in the market, with drugs that give you a hard-on costing more than drugs that save your life... even though drugs that save people's lives are much more valuable and companies should be rewarded with larger profits for making those kinds of drugs over non life saving drugs.
Why has nobody explained... (Score:2, Insightful)
What I've seen so far, every cool new stem cell discovery has been done with adult stem cells.
Re:Why has nobody explained... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why has nobody explained... (Score:2)
There are fascinating issues with stem cells and the immune system, and the way embryonic stem cells differentiate to form complete organs: it's certainly worth studying as basic resea
Re:Why has nobody explained... (Score:2)
What has happened in my lifetime feels like the switch from the stone age to the industrial revolution as far as medicine is concerned. I w
Re:Why has nobody explained... (Score:3, Interesting)
USA shouldn't settle for third place... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoever wins the race for patents and intellectual property, gets all the gold.
The only thing USA politicians can do is hurt American business. By banning science research, the jobs, the money, the workers, and all those profits go overseas.
The science will be developed, but what country will be on top?
Second place in Bioscience, Robotics, and Renewable Energy is not an option,
and yet every day the USA delays it's advancements, is another day closer to becoming a Left Behind third world country...
Countries like... (Score:2)
Re:Countries like... (Score:3, Interesting)
the real problem with stem cells (Score:2)
into stem cells instead of exploring other avenues.
Govt + non profit (howard hughes, amer canc soc, etc) biomedical research is ~ 40 billion a year, give or take. Considering that the war on iraq is >100, this does not seem like alot of moeny for heart disease, and alsheimers and canceer and diabetes (not to mention poor
No offense zer0skill... (Score:2, Insightful)
NIH funding (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fine (Score:3, Interesting)
Whether or not you think it is moral to fund stem cell research is your business and your state's. If 95% of the California population want to fund stem cell research for embryos, then let California. If 95% of Alabama's population thinks it is wrong and immoral, then they won't have to.
Don't force one group of people to pay for another'
Re:Fine (Score:3, Insightful)
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Re:Fine (Score:5, Insightful)
The Preamble isn't law; it's an introduction. It gives some reasons for what's set out later in the document.
By your logic, the rest of the Constitution after that is redundant, because anything can be part of "general welfare". Obviously this isn't the case.
Re:Fine (Score:2)
[The Congress shall have Power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Not to mention the good ol' "commerce clause", nor the duties of the Congress to support the military.
Re:Fine (Score:2)
...okay, but which Powers would those be? It says Congress can make laws to execute "the foregoing powers". I guarantee one of them isn't stem cell research.
I don't see how stem cell research supports the military.
Funding stem cell research is not a regulation on interstate commerce!
Re:Fine (Score:2)
You don't think the military has an interest in healing its wounded? Modern medicine can't yet cure a lost limb.
Re:Fine (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fine (Score:2)
Thank you thank you thank you. Why is it we collectively burst into flames when someone whispers wiretapping, but then spend countless hours and billions of dollars to send the government EXPLICIT information on EVERY dollar we earned, how we earned it, and often as not... how we SPENT it?!!
Well, at least I don't
Re:Fine (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Fine (Score:3, Interesting)
It shouldn't amaze you. There's a fundamental difference between wiretapping/imprisonment/loss of privace and socialist programs. We understand wiretapping (et al) are bad. We have yet to understand how bad socialist programs can be. It's the usual lack of ability to learn from others' mistakes. About 95% of the populati
Re:Fine (Score:3, Interesting)
Then they should not have gotten involved with bell telephone, standard oil, US steel, or any of the mariad other monopolies. Maybe they should all be around today, our cars should cost $100,000 for entry level, our phone bills should be astronomical, that whole broadband thing.. forget about it, maw-bell wouldnt have no competition, she wouldn't need to offer higher speed.
-no need for the government to "get involved" and promote competition by breaking these
Re:Fine (Score:2)
Monopolies which, for the most part, were made possible by legislation specifically designed by Congress to protect vested interests against competition. In case you somehow missed it, the government actively aided and abetted the formation of all of the major monopolies until the voters started tossing congress critters out on their asses over the issue, or threatened to do so. Mu
Re:Fine (Score:2)
As far as Madison's writings, the Federalist contains a lively debate between Hamilton and Madison as to the scope of the meaning of the words - the two primary authors didn't even agree. Citations that present only Madison's views are disingenious at best.
In fact even from the earliest days of the federal Government the Hamilton sense has been used
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/get_exte rnal.cgi?type=statRef [cornell.edu]
Re:Fine (Score:2)
And we never allowed women the vote... until we did.
Politically something is ridiculous only until it stops being so.
Read the Federalist Papers (Score:2)
How can you seriously suggest an interpretation that is both renders the document contradictory and is refuted by the very people who wrote it?
Re:Fine (Score:2)
Bull shit right there. I read that and stopped reading your post. Founding fathers (you know, the guys who wrote the document) couldn't even agree on the meaning, so how the hell is it pretty clear?
Re:Fine (Score:3, Insightful)
What good thinking. In the same process, let all coast people not pay taxes for building roads and railways to inland. The point is, long term research is best supported by tax money because companies mostly seek short-term profits. But anyway, this article is not about science budgets.
Re:Fine (Score:2)
Federal funding is important for basic science research for a variety of reasons that we covered here on Slashdot only a few days ago. There is a difference between basic and applied research. Recently with this administration there has been a move towards applied research and away from basic research th
Re:Fine (Score:2)
I think you've disproven your own premise. Do you really think all those companies just "got lazy" one day and decided to sacrifice their companies' long-term performance?
The government moved in, and like in other areas, anything similar that people were doing privately withered away. Everybody pays for the government to do it, so why should they continue?
From then on things have the appearance of requiring (ever greater) federal funding, but the fact is things were better before.
Your point about pr
Re:Fine (Score:2)
Yes, I *do*, as do many business analysts who saw a move towards short term profits and away from long term strategy.
From then on things have the appearance of requiring (ever greater) federal funding, but the fact is things were better before.
Before what? Penicillin? Small Pox vaccines? Heart disease medications? MRIs? The Internet?
But with companies like Bell and Xerox doing
Re:Fine (Score:2)
I'm not saying there haven't been accomplishments after the federal takeover. But there would have been more, and they would have been better otherwise.
You would trust corporations to do this work over governments?
I think this sums up our differences completely. Yes, unhesitatingly. Governments have nobody to answer to but themselves, and they have a monopoly on the use of force to achieve their ends. They should be involved in as little as possible.
OK if the federal government gets the patents (Score:2)
Don't like that? Fuck off. I don't want to pay for research that I can't use.
(as for licensing: either the top 5 bidders or free to all US citizens)
Re:Fine (Score:4, Insightful)
The Manhattan Project? The Moon Landing? Satellite technology? NORAD?
I don't know. I'm not sure which state would have stepped up to fund many of those.
Re:Fine (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps if people were not taxed to ridiculous extremes by the federal government, the states would be able to take on larger projects.
And perhaps, just maybe, people acting in their own interests, unhindered by these ridiculous taxes, will improve society on their own.
Re:Fine (Score:3)
We're not. Almost every other developed nation pays more in taxes than we do. Those that don't either have a far greater collusion between business and government that we would permit, or natural resources so abundant they don't need to tax at all.
We are. (Score:2)
Re:Fine (Score:2)
Or is it b/c if they investigate embryonic stem cells the labs will lose all federal funding for ANY research?
Re:Fine (Score:2)
It's the embryolic stem cells which has the various parties frothing at the mouth because specific types could be generated for the purpose of research and not as for the purpose of life. Otherwise, they could wear out their current strains. Preventing the gov'ts funding don't stop the research, it will only slow it down.
This is why a couple of families (and many, many TV plotlines) have had an additional child which they're hoping will be a better donor for whatever the issue is.
The other popular se
Re:i dont care for bush however... (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, so you have *just* bought into the propaganda. As a bioscientist I am here to tell you that stem cell research has been funded for at least two decades by several "Presidents" through the National Institutes of Health. It has not, until Bush been explicitly mentioned as a cost center giving Bush the appearance of "funding" stem cell research and the political cachet (read em
Re:i dont care for bush however... (Score:2)
And I'm here to tell you, that statement is pure FUD, because you're talking about adult stem cells, NOT embroyonic stem cells.
Re:i dont care for bush however... (Score:2)
BZZZZZZZZT! You lose.
Re:i dont care for bush however... (Score:2)
In general, I don't think stating the number of results is really a good judge of exactly how much federal money is spent on a specific type of research.
Not directly, but it is indicative of when federal funds began to be assigned to part
Re:i dont care for bush however... (Score:2)
Re:i dont care for bush however... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:i dont care for bush however... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is simply just such an ignorant and factually incorrect statement that I don't even know where to begin..... As I responded to the other individual in this thread, stem cell research *and* embryonic stem cell research has been performed and funded directly by the federal government going back to 1963, possibly before. But the first published report in PubMed is in 1963. The Bush administration also made it impossible for any federally funded institution (read any university that receives *any* funding from the federal government) to keep any of those federal funds if they accept or perform any embryonic stem cell research with lines not explicitly approved by the administration. In other words, the types of institutions that would do the research are typically those that have the most to lose by performing the research under the Bush administration.
Given the recent discoveries regarding Woo Suk Hwang's research and what is known of adult stem cells, there is plenty of reason not to throw federal money at more research.
No doubt he was corrupt and a liar...... but we have those types in politics and all sorts of fields too. To judge an entire scientific community on the basis of one person's behavior is inappropriate. It would be like saying that because one person drove drunk or did illegal drugs, all US presidents are bad.
If embryonic stem cells were truly so promising, I would imagine that more companies would be pursuing them.
And they *are*. The problem is that they are doing it in other countries and there has been a significant brain drain from the US to those countries of scientists and their staff. These are high paying US jobs (and the resulting tax base) that have left the country.
Re:i dont care for bush however... (Score:2)
Moreover, there is enough reason independent of moral arguments against the prudence of expending large sums of money on something that, were it not a political football, seems at best marginally consequential. Just because non-US fir
Re:i dont care for bush however... (Score:2)
Care to back that up with a reference?
I honestly have no idea where evidence to the contrary exists.
Ummmmmm, over three decades of scientifically published and peer reviewed literature?
Moreover, there is enough reason independent of moral arguments against the prudence of expending large sums of money on something that, were it not a political football, seems at best margina
Re:i dont care for bush however... (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite my disdain for it, wp seems roughly on target (albeit in typically biased fashion): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment [wikipedia.org] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controvers
My only interest in this debate is that I don't like to see government funding for things like the NIH, NSF, or NEA for that matter. But since the money is going to by spent anyway, I would like it spent on something more promising than a pipe dream like embryonic stem cell-based cures. Frankly, there seem to be many more promising avenues of medical research, such as adult stem cell research (which is what I believe you are referring to with respect to Parkinson's and spinal cord repair).
There is an enormous amount of privately funded medical research in this country. I have to give your peers and their employers the benefit of the doubt and assume they are researching the most viable cures for diseases with the money they have. Just because countries like S. Korea want to dump government funding into embryonic stem cell research does not make that inclined to think we should by mimicking them. This is about lack of empirical evidence, not evil Christians or Republicans.
[By the way, government propping up industry is socialist, not capitalist. You can hardly apply capitalist economic principals to such things.]
Re:i dont care for bush however... (Score:2)
So the problem with Bush not funding embryonic stem cells is about economics? I'm assuming it's not really about the number of US researchers leaving the US but the potential loss of the biotech industry to other countries that is the concern.
Wh
Re:i dont care for bush however... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:i dont care for bush however... (Score:2)
Well, to be fair neither of them banned federal funding for embryonic stem cell research either, for the simple reason the field did not exist, certainly in Bush the First's tenure, and throughout most of Clinton's.
Re:i dont care for bush however... (Score:2, Insightful)
In lots of government-funded research, the real payoff isn't always in the direct benefit but in everything learned along the way.
This is one of the few but very substantial good things to come out of our bloated military spending (besides Halliburton profits, I mean). And it's not just the military -- obligatory Tang jokes aside, there's a huge ripple effect from NASA. Ditto for Los Alamos, NOAA, the Forest Service and so on.
Privately funded research can yield a lot more than sharks with frickin' laser
Re:Obtaining stem cells, genetic engineering, farm (Score:2)
2) The main religious objection to Embryonic Stem Cell Research is that the leaders of the Religious Right consider embryos to be human beings. Thus, harvesting embryos for stem cells would constitute murder of an unborn human being. (Murder of post-birth human beings might be OK, depending on the context.)
Re:Let me kick this off (Score:5, Insightful)
I was watching C-SPAN 2, an American basic cable station that shows U.S. Senate debates live whenever the Senate is in session, and sure enough, Senator Tom Harkin likened Bush's actions to when the Pope banned scientific research on cadavers in the 1200s, calling it "unnatural," perhaps delaying human anatomical standing for hundreds of years until someone saw fit to violate the Pope's ruling, dig up a human body, slice it open, look through the muscle tissue, and write about it in a book...
Get your facts (Score:2)
Senator Harkin might want to do some basic r
Re:Let me kick this off (Score:3, Funny)
A little test (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's find out what you really believe.
You find yourself in a room containing a 3-month-old infant, and a cryogenically stabilized container holding 20,000 blastocysts. The room is on fire. You have time to save either the infant or the 20,000 blastocysts. Which do you save?
Re:Let me kick this off (Score:2)
Clinton caused the dark ages?
Or maybe you're talking about the last Pope.
Maybe George H. W. Bush (aka Bush Sr.?)
Regan?
Carter?
Kennedy? (not just a Christian, but a CATHOLIC -- first US Pres to be so)
Ike? FDR? (The Cold War was the dark ages?)
I hate to burst your bubble,
Re:Let me kick this off (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Let me kick this off (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Politicians act the way they do because they mu (Score:2)
Many would argue that the 8 cell embryo is still fully a human being. The difference between that embryo and a human adult is just a developmental one, just as a newborn infant is developmently immature compared to a toddler compared to a preschooler compared to a prepubescent teenager etc., etc. A human embryo is just an earlier stage yet, but still a human being.
As such, the use of human embry