NationStates Jolt Archive

This is on stem cell research, it was written by Patti Davis, Ronald Reagan's daughter.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4982034/

People’s desire to live healthy, whole lives will prevail in the end. There is a cure out there. We all know it. We will reach past any mere political obstacles to grab onto it and make it a reality. A messy, horrible war that has spun out of control could very well determine the next election. So should the miracle of stem-cell research—a miracle the Bush White House thinks it can block. It's too late for my father. At the fund-raiser last week, my mother told the audience that "Ronnie's long journey has finally taken him to a distant place where I can no longer reach him." But those of us who have stood helplessly at bedsides or shuddered at our own diagnosis—those who have woken up to learn they would never walk again—have something to say about the very real promise of a miraculous cure: nothing can stop us from reaching for it.

This is on stem cell research, it was written by Patti Davis, Ronald Reagan's daughter.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4982034/

People’s desire to live healthy, whole lives will prevail in the end. There is a cure out there. We all know it. We will reach past any mere political obstacles to grab onto it and make it a reality. A messy, horrible war that has spun out of control could very well determine the next election. So should the miracle of stem-cell research—a miracle the Bush White House thinks it can block. It's too late for my father. At the fund-raiser last week, my mother told the audience that "Ronnie's long journey has finally taken him to a distant place where I can no longer reach him." But those of us who have stood helplessly at bedsides or shuddered at our own diagnosis—those who have woken up to learn they would never walk again—have something to say about the very real promise of a miraculous cure: nothing can stop us from reaching for it.
Wow that is very interesting. My Mom also suffers from Alzheimer’s, but at 90, is probably past help. However, it is a shame that funding for such a worthwhile cause could be stalled by a US President.

I wonder who the Reagan's will be voting for????

I believe that Bush did the best he could to support stem cell research. There are many, many people who do find it immoral, the evangelicals. They've been pushed around in this country for too long, and it was time for them to have a break. Bush was trying to appease them, and also the scientific community.
However, I see government funding as an unimportant fixture in biotech. If other countries are steaming ahead with stem cell research, US firms, with their billions, will be dying to catch up, too.

I believe that Bush did the best he could to support stem cell research. There are many, many people who do find it immoral, the evangelicals. They've been pushed around in this country for too long, and it was time for them to have a break. Bush was trying to appease them, and also the scientific community.
However, I see government funding as an unimportant fixture in biotech. If other countries are steaming ahead with stem cell research, US firms, with their billions, will be dying to catch up, too.
Lame excuse to grab votes.

Hmmm heard that word appeasement before, I can't imagine where but.......

I suppose if we can't outlaw abortion, we might as well put the inevitably discarded fetuses to SOME good.

I guess I could support this, but as John kerry would say, it'd depend on the language used :)

I believe that Bush did the best he could to support stem cell research. There are many, many people who do find it immoral, the evangelicals. They've been pushed around in this country for too long, and it was time for them to have a break. Bush was trying to appease them, and also the scientific community.
However, I see government funding as an unimportant fixture in biotech. If other countries are steaming ahead with stem cell research, US firms, with their billions, will be dying to catch up, too.
Lame excuse to grab votes.

Hmmm heard that word appeasement before, I can't imagine where but.......

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Exactly my thoughts. Morals are important. Without them we wouldn't have the freedoms and health care we have now (to name only two) but sometimes there is an overwhelming case where humanity can benefit hugely at the expence of only a few peoples morals. And governments find it very convenient to ignore a mass of peoples morals if it wants to. We have done that many, many times.............heard of the Iraq war? This is one of those break-throughs that a handful of people should not be allowed to stop. It will come anyway, by their delaying actions, we are simply losing lives needlessly.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans”.
John Lennon

I believe that Bush did the best he could to support stem cell research. There are many, many people who do find it immoral, the evangelicals. They've been pushed around in this country for too long, and it was time for them to have a break. Bush was trying to appease them, and also the scientific community.
However, I see government funding as an unimportant fixture in biotech. If other countries are steaming ahead with stem cell research, US firms, with their billions, will be dying to catch up, too.
Lame excuse to grab votes.

Hmmm heard that word appeasement before, I can't imagine where but.......
It was not a chance to grab votes. Bush is closer to an evangelical than a scientist. Evangelicals have been, for decades, the butt of American jokes, and have been shooed to an embarrasing corner of American society. Now, they have a chance to fight back. Bush just wanted to make sure that it didn't hinder scientific progress.
BTW, put appeasement into context, will ya? Bush wasn't about to take sides with either the scientific community or the evangelical, as it would further deepen the rift cause by the bioethical debate. He just wanted to issue of stem cells to be left open for debate, and that is why he took the middle ground. It seems strange, however, that this seems to be a long forgotten issue by now.

[ It seems strange, however, that this seems to be a long forgotten issue by now.



http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

If by that you're refering to Bush and American politics, okay, I can't comment on that. If however, you mean stem cell research, I can assure you it's very much a living, breathing issue here in GB and Europe.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans”.
John Lennon

Please... Bush never made a single decision for himself.

And I doubt his ability to reason about rifts in the scientific and evangelical community or any implications thereof.

[ It seems strange, however, that this seems to be a long forgotten issue by now.



http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

If by that you're refering to Bush and American politics, okay, I can't comment on that. If however, you mean stem cell research, I can assure you it's very much a living, breathing issue here in GB and Europe.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans”.
John Lennon
Of course it's alive there, as great strides are being made in its research. However, here in the US, it's pretty much a non-issue.
The best way to keep the science alive, however, is to allow for cloning strictly (and very strictly) for the purpose of harvesting stem cells. Right now, anti-cloning legislation is stalled in the Senate because they can't agree on whether to ban all cloning, or just reproductive cloning. Anyhow, if we clone the sixty stem cell lines currently recieving federal money, it may be able to increase federal support of research. Too bad it's stalled, like many other important bills.

Evangelical christians have a huge amount of power in American politics. There are a few influencial people like Pat Robertson that have vast sums of money and put it to use to influence policy. They try to sway our government towards moralistic, religious decisions. Evangelical christans are certainly not a fringe group. No matter what your opinion though, allowing a small group of radicals to have a disproportionate influence in our government no matter whether they are left or right wing is intolerable.

I believe that Bush did the best he could to support stem cell research. There are many, many people who do find it immoral, the evangelicals. They've been pushed around in this country for too long, and it was time for them to have a break. Bush was trying to appease them, and also the scientific community.
However, I see government funding as an unimportant fixture in biotech. If other countries are steaming ahead with stem cell research, US firms, with their billions, will be dying to catch up, too.
Lame excuse to grab votes.

Hmmm heard that word appeasement before, I can't imagine where but.......
It was not a chance to grab votes. Bush is closer to an evangelical than a scientist. Evangelicals have been, for decades, the butt of American jokes, and have been shooed to an embarrasing corner of American society. Now, they have a chance to fight back. Bush just wanted to make sure that it didn't hinder scientific progress.
BTW, put appeasement into context, will ya? Bush wasn't about to take sides with either the scientific community or the evangelical, as it would further deepen the rift cause by the bioethical debate. He just wanted to issue of stem cells to be left open for debate, and that is why he took the middle ground. It seems strange, however, that this seems to be a long forgotten issue by now.
I just about spewed my coffee all over my computer. Say what about Bush? Evangelical? War monger would be more like it.

Bush doesn't know about middle ground. He has a hard time even apologizing (prisoner abuse), was forced to testify (no oath) on 911, insisted on WMD (others said to wait), and declared victory before the war was over.

The best way to keep the science alive, however, is to allow for cloning strictly (and very strictly) for the purpose of harvesting stem cells. Right now, anti-cloning legislation is stalled in the Senate because they can't agree on whether to ban all cloning, or just reproductive cloning. Anyhow, if we clone the sixty stem cell lines currently recieving federal money, it may be able to increase federal support of research. Too bad it's stalled, like many other important bills.
Important bills stalled in a majority Republican Congress, Senate, and Presidency. WHY?? They can't agree with each other?

Its ironical that when Bushs father tried to kill Reagan with that hitman he failed then Reagan cut funds for alzheimers reserch and gets alzheimers as a karmic payback and now the son of a Bush successfully gets to kill Reagan years later by not funding stem cell reserch

Evangicals have been pushed around in this country? Where are you and what country do you live in, better yet check you reality. It is the evangicals who have pushed people around....better yet it is the right wing Christian fascists who have done all the pushing, have demonized any who don't beleive in their twisted view of religion.

Evangicals have been pushed around in this country? Where are you and what country do you live in, better yet check you reality. It is the evangicals who have pushed people around....better yet it is the right wing Christian fascists who have done all the pushing, have demonized any who don't beleive in their twisted view of religion.

Would anybody care to present evidence that stem cell research has been successful in anything than multiplying grants for reseach. For stem cell to work, there are alot of steps that need to be perfected first.

Spending money and effort on stem cells right now is equivalent to buying your kid an airplane to fly before you found someone to have the kid with. Or is it going to be artificial insemination.

Canada has a public health system, and a ready supply of research subjects that do not have to meet the IRB requirements as in the US, why haven't they come up with it? What about the other countries? Is stem cell research important only for the US?

I believe that Bush did the best he could to support stem cell research. There are many, many people who do find it immoral, the evangelicals. They've been pushed around in this country for too long, and it was time for them to have a break. Bush was trying to appease them, and also the scientific community.
However, I see government funding as an unimportant fixture in biotech. If other countries are steaming ahead with stem cell research, US firms, with their billions, will be dying to catch up, too.

Of course, you apparently know little about the biotech community. Pure science research is generally done in the university system, not in the huge biotech communities. Biotech communities are often very reluctant to work with universities due to intellectual property pursuits - not to mention that they don't really invest in basic science research - they generally only get involved when the research has progressed enough that they think can make a profit off of it. Very few biotech companies wish to get involved in stem cell research just yet, and those that do don't often share their intellectual property with the scientific community.

Universities do most of their biotech research by using government-issued grants. Most of the "approved" lines belong to private companies that don't want to share. In addition, new evidence suggests that the method of culture may have irreparably damaged most or all of these lines so that their phenotype has changed and they may no longer represent true stem cell biology. Because cell culture is not exactly the same as the situation in the body, they certainly will not represent such biology forever. Therefore cutting off such grants for new cell lines *does* stunt stem cell research in this country. This is something Bush would know if he didn't appoint scientific advisors who know little of their fields and will tell him whatever it is he has already decided he wants to hear.

DP

Would anybody care to present evidence that stem cell research has been successful in anything than multiplying grants for reseach. For stem cell to work, there are alot of steps that need to be perfected first.

Spending money and effort on stem cells right now is equivalent to buying your kid an airplane to fly before you found someone to have the kid with. Or is it going to be artificial insemination.

Canada has a public health system, and a ready supply of research subjects that do not have to meet the IRB requirements as in the US, why haven't they come up with it? What about the other countries? Is stem cell research important only for the US?

Completely inapropriate metaphor. The money spent on stem cell research is for just that --- research. It is not being spent to utilize stem cell treatments. We need to spend the money (and effort) on stem cell research in order figure out how to effectively use the cells theraputically.

The best way to keep the science alive, however, is to allow for cloning strictly (and very strictly) for the purpose of harvesting stem cells. Right now, anti-cloning legislation is stalled in the Senate because they can't agree on whether to ban all cloning, or just reproductive cloning. Anyhow, if we clone the sixty stem cell lines currently recieving federal money, it may be able to increase federal support of research. Too bad it's stalled, like many other important bills.

Stem cell lines are already cloned. One original fetus creates a line, the cells are then repeatedly cloned. In order to create more lines, we must destroy more fetuses. As the fetuses used are exclusively already waste material (no moral judgement either way here - the fetuses are already being thrown away), it makes little sense to stop the production of new lines.

Stem cell lines are already cloned. One original fetus creates a line, the cells are then repeatedly cloned. In order to create more lines, we must destroy more fetuses. As the fetuses used are exclusively already waste material (no moral judgement either way here - the fetuses are already being thrown away), it makes little sense to stop the production of new lines.

Hear hear. And this is not to mention the possibility (as the Korean team recently demonstrated) of creating new lines without actually ever fertilizing an egg.

Any Scientific American fans here?
Lysenokism (sp?)
Worth the research, published a few places w/in the last few months.

F*ck the fink.

It's not that Bush, per se, wants to stop stem cells; it's his God telling him to do it.

I suppose if we can't outlaw abortion, we might as well put the inevitably discarded fetuses to SOME good.

I guess I could support this, but as John kerry would say, it'd depend on the language used :)hello, I oppose Bush, and no one notices? :P

It's not that Bush, per se, wants to stop stem cells; it's his God telling him to do it.

This is another huge problem with Bush's administration. God has no place in government.

The president has no right to stop science. He is suppose to be doing what is best for the American public, not blocking the very research that could give so many people suffering from horrible diseases a chance.

I too wonder who the Reagan's will be voting for. Some thing tells me it might not be Bush.

I suppose if we can't outlaw abortion, we might as well put the inevitably discarded fetuses to SOME good.

I guess I could support this, but as John kerry would say, it'd depend on the language used :)hello, I oppose Bush, and no one notices? :P

I noticed.... it just took me a while to pick myself up off the floor and comment on it!


:lol:

Raysia...you aint been hittin the sauce again have ya?

Hey, put Nancy Reagan... or any Reagan really, on the ballot, and I'll vote for them over Bush. Bush is great and all, but he's no Reagan :P

The best way to keep the science alive, however, is to allow for cloning strictly (and very strictly) for the purpose of harvesting stem cells. Right now, anti-cloning legislation is stalled in the Senate because they can't agree on whether to ban all cloning, or just reproductive cloning. Anyhow, if we clone the sixty stem cell lines currently recieving federal money, it may be able to increase federal support of research. Too bad it's stalled, like many other important bills.
Important bills stalled in a majority Republican Congress, Senate, and Presidency. WHY?? They can't agree with each other?

"Filibuster"

I wonder who the Reagan's will be voting for????

George W. Bush.

He is almost completely what Reagan was. Reagan opposed Abortions too, which is what is required for stem cell research. Reagan most likely wouldnt have even Let there be Stem Cell research to help himself out.

Reagan was for Tax Cuts, so is Bush. Reagan Fought a big force in the world that people thought would be impossible to take down, so is Bush. Reagan made strong stands and stuck by them, so is Bush. They are very, very alike. Bush Jr. is more Reagan then he is Bush Sr.

There is no doubt that the Reagans would vote for the person keeping up reagans legacy, not the person who only a few months ago boasted about opposing Reagans ideas in the 80's (Kerry)

The best way to keep the science alive, however, is to allow for cloning strictly (and very strictly) for the purpose of harvesting stem cells. Right now, anti-cloning legislation is stalled in the Senate because they can't agree on whether to ban all cloning, or just reproductive cloning. Anyhow, if we clone the sixty stem cell lines currently recieving federal money, it may be able to increase federal support of research. Too bad it's stalled, like many other important bills.
Important bills stalled in a majority Republican Congress, Senate, and Presidency. WHY?? They can't agree with each other?
No, just in the Senate. The president will sign anything about banning cloning that comes to his table. It's stalled in the Senate right now, and contrary to what the left often claims, it isn't a true majority. Sure, the Republicans have a simple majority, but not a super majority, leaving both parties, and even small groups from both parties, able to block legislation.

Evangicals have been pushed around in this country? Where are you and what country do you live in, better yet check you reality. It is the evangicals who have pushed people around....better yet it is the right wing Christian fascists who have done all the pushing, have demonized any who don't beleive in their twisted view of religion.
Religion in general has been relegated to the dirtiest corners of American society. It's even worse for Protestants, most of whom are evangelical to some extent. Since Engel vs. Vitale, they've been seen as the lowest of the low, and have been met with slaps in the face from society in general. Had it not been for Rev. Jerry Falwell, the evangelicals, and I fear Protestantism in general, may have become a national laughingstock. At least they are considered by the left as a power to deal with.

I believe that Bush did the best he could to support stem cell research. There are many, many people who do find it immoral, the evangelicals. They've been pushed around in this country for too long, and it was time for them to have a break. Bush was trying to appease them, and also the scientific community.
However, I see government funding as an unimportant fixture in biotech. If other countries are steaming ahead with stem cell research, US firms, with their billions, will be dying to catch up, too.

Of course, you apparently know little about the biotech community. Pure science research is generally done in the university system, not in the huge biotech communities. Biotech communities are often very reluctant to work with universities due to intellectual property pursuits - not to mention that they don't really invest in basic science research - they generally only get involved when the research has progressed enough that they think can make a profit off of it. Very few biotech companies wish to get involved in stem cell research just yet, and those that do don't often share their intellectual property with the scientific community.

Universities do most of their biotech research by using government-issued grants. Most of the "approved" lines belong to private companies that don't want to share. In addition, new evidence suggests that the method of culture may have irreparably damaged most or all of these lines so that their phenotype has changed and they may no longer represent true stem cell biology. Because cell culture is not exactly the same as the situation in the body, they certainly will not represent such biology forever. Therefore cutting off such grants for new cell lines *does* stunt stem cell research in this country. This is something Bush would know if he didn't appoint scientific advisors who know little of their fields and will tell him whatever it is he has already decided he wants to hear.
I profess ignorance, and it is interesting to hear. However, I have long wondered why major research universities want government funding. I may not know much about biotech, but I'm learning fast about universities. Many research schools are also involved in arts and humanities. It can mean a lot of government influence if they fund any field.
If they are really that cash strapped, research universities can move to income based tuition plans, and maybe raise prices on books, etc. It shouldn't decrease enrollment, nor should it allow for much need of government funding. But that's just what I feel.

However, I see government funding as an unimportant fixture in biotech. If other countries are steaming ahead with stem cell research, US firms, with their billions, will be dying to catch up, too.Its not government funding, its government permission thats needed.

I wonder who the Reagan's will be voting for????

George W. Bush.

He is almost completely what Reagan was.

I wouldn't bet my last dollar on that.. and he's not like Reagan, Reagan took responsibility when some thing went wrong. Reagan could admit when he was wrong, like after he gave all those tax cuts he turned around 6 months later and raised taxes. Reagan coined the phrase "The buck stops here" But according to Bush, he's made no mistakes.. Bush is not Reagan.. not even close. :roll:

the evangelicals. They've been pushed around in this country for too long.

:roll:

Oh yea those pooor people never hurt a fly......

When did this oppressed defense start?

Evangelicals are the ones pushing everybody around.

Evangelism is one of the leading causes of culture destruction.....

However, I see government funding as an unimportant fixture in biotech. If other countries are steaming ahead with stem cell research, US firms, with their billions, will be dying to catch up, too.Its not government funding, its government permission thats needed.
Permission isn't needed. This decision a few years ago only concerned federal funding. After all, Advanced Cell Research successfully cloned the first human embryo last year, long after Bush's decision.

However, I see government funding as an unimportant fixture in biotech. If other countries are steaming ahead with stem cell research, US firms, with their billions, will be dying to catch up, too.Its not government funding, its government permission thats needed.
Permission isn't needed. This decision a few years ago only concerned federal funding. After all, Advanced Cell Research successfully cloned the first human embryo last year, long after Bush's decision.

the evangelicals. They've been pushed around in this country for too long.

:roll:

Oh yea those pooor people never hurt a fly......

When did this oppressed defense start?

Evangelicals are the ones pushing everybody around.

Evangelism is one of the leading causes of culture destruction.....
Now they may be. Years ago, however, they never even had a chance. They still don't. Activists judges have invaded the judicial system, and especially at the state and local levels, Congress or the president have no controll. These judges even went as far as to ban Boy Scouts from using public property in San Diego, or ordering the renaming of Christmas to "Winter Day". And that, my friend, is what is fueling the cultural wars bigtime.

I wonder who the Reagan's will be voting for????

George W. Bush.

He is almost completely what Reagan was.

I wouldn't bet my last dollar on that.. and he's not like Reagan, Reagan took responsibility when some thing went wrong. Reagan could admit when he was wrong, like after he gave all those tax cuts he turned around 6 months later and raised taxes. Reagan coined the phrase "The buck stops here" But according to Bush, he's made no mistakes.. Bush is not Reagan.. not even close. :roll:

Harry Truman coined that phrase.

edit : as far as Presidents go

Now they may be. Years ago, however, they never even had a chance. They still don't. Activists judges have invaded the judicial system, and especially at the state and local levels, Congress or the president have no controll. These judges even went as far as to ban Boy Scouts from using public property in San Diego, or ordering the renaming of Christmas to "Winter Day". And that, my friend, is what is fueling the cultural wars bigtime.

Why is it that when a judge basis a decision on legal precedent at not religious doctrine that they are immediately labeled "an activist judge"? The majority of these judges have never made a ruling that was widely disagreed with until they get to this one issue that doesn't go in someone's favor. Suddenly, they're "activists" and aspersions are cast on their ability to interpret the law when none existed before. It is amazing to me the word games played. Both "Liberal" and "Activist" are now something to be ashamed of instead of simply people of different political opinions who try to voice them.

Now they may be. Years ago, however, they never even had a chance. They still don't. Activists judges have invaded the judicial system, and especially at the state and local levels, Congress or the president have no controll. These judges even went as far as to ban Boy Scouts from using public property in San Diego, or ordering the renaming of Christmas to "Winter Day". And that, my friend, is what is fueling the cultural wars bigtime.

Why is it that when a judge basis a decision on legal precedent at not religious doctrine that they are immediately labeled "an activist judge"? The majority of these judges have never made a ruling that was widely disagreed with until they get to this one issue that doesn't go in someone's favor. Suddenly, they're "activists" and aspersions are cast on their ability to interpret the law when none existed before. It is amazing to me the word games played. Both "Liberal" and "Activist" are now something to be ashamed of instead of simply people of different political opinions who try to voice them.

If Bush was more like Reagan, he would:

- have fired the irresponsible leaders of the CIA and FBI immediately after the intel failure of 9/11.
- have stepped up and apologized for Abu Grahib, even if he wasn't really responsible. (Along with the investigation and punishment of those really responsible)
- have explained his reasons for going to Iraq a lot more clearly, and with a more motivating tone, rather than tripping over himself and sounding blindly confidant :P

If Bush was more like Reagan, he would:

No, if Bush was more like Reagan he'd say one thing and do another.. Oh wait.. :oops:

That is what he did. He lowered taxes and then raised them 6 times after.. :lol:

If Bush was more like Reagan, he would:

No, if Bush was more like Reagan he'd say one thing and do another.. Oh wait.. :oops:

That is what he did. He lowered taxes and then raised them 6 times after.. :lol:bush raised taxes?

Now they may be. Years ago, however, they never even had a chance. They still don't. Activists judges have invaded the judicial system, and especially at the state and local levels, Congress or the president have no controll. These judges even went as far as to ban Boy Scouts from using public property in San Diego, or ordering the renaming of Christmas to "Winter Day". And that, my friend, is what is fueling the cultural wars bigtime.

Why is it that when a judge basis a decision on legal precedent at not religious doctrine that they are immediately labeled "an activist judge"? The majority of these judges have never made a ruling that was widely disagreed with until they get to this one issue that doesn't go in someone's favor. Suddenly, they're "activists" and aspersions are cast on their ability to interpret the law when none existed before. It is amazing to me the word games played. Both "Liberal" and "Activist" are now something to be ashamed of instead of simply people of different political opinions who try to voice them.
I call them activists as that's how these judges have been described. Truth be told, few people know if they are liberal or conservative. However, more of these anti-religion rulings come from California than, say Virginia.
Besides, they aren't truely trying to defend the separation of church and state. Rather, they are assaulting the church, synagogue, mosque, and probably everything else that's monotheistic. For example, what's the harm in Boy Scouts using parks in San Diego? They are often a help to have around, anyhow, since they cleaned them. However, one judge believed that they shouldn't be on parks, because they were a religious affiliated group. However, my personal experience at the Boy Scouts tells me that it's more of a geek orgy than a religious group.
There are such examples across the country, where judges go out of their way to assault religion, and in quite a few cases, they seem to even step outside the bounds of the constitution.

Activist Judge/Commissioner/Other Official: One who abuses their power to fulfil the agenda of a minority view opposed by the majority... ie, legalizing gay marriages despite 2/3 of population being against, or attacking a democratically voted-in law such as doctor-assisted suicide to fulfil their agenda.

Activist Judge/Commissioner/Other Official: One who abuses their power to fulfil the agenda of a minority view opposed by the majority... ie, legalizing gay marriages despite 2/3 of population being against, or attacking a democratically voted-in law such as doctor-assisted suicide to fulfil their agenda.
They may be good in some cases, but that is mostly to protect minorities, not assault them. In this country, these judges seem to go out of their way to segregate religion from, well, any aspect of public life they can control, really. And it goes against the first amendment, as well as the rules of federalism.

Activist Judge/Commissioner/Other Official: One who abuses their power to fulfil the agenda of a minority view opposed by the majority... ie, legalizing gay marriages despite 2/3 of population being against, or attacking a democratically voted-in law such as doctor-assisted suicide to fulfil their agenda.
They may be good in some cases, but that is mostly to protect minorities, not assault them. In this country, these judges seem to go out of their way to segregate religion from, well, any aspect of public life they can control, really. And it goes against the first amendment, as well as the rules of federalism.when federal activists like Ashcroft step out of their bounds to attack laws that were voted on and supported by the majority, they're out of line.

When a states votes for something, and the majority supports it, and the activist judges or whoever else is in power says "screw that, we think this goes against the constitution, let's ignore what people think," then they are just as bad, if not worse.

I profess ignorance, and it is interesting to hear. However, I have long wondered why major research universities want government funding. I may not know much about biotech, but I'm learning fast about universities. Many research schools are also involved in arts and humanities. It can mean a lot of government influence if they fund any field.

A good number of universities doing research in biotech are not very involved in arts and humanities, and even if they are I am not sure how this is related to the conversation at hand. Truth is, government-run facilities like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are often the only sources of funding a researcher can go to when the cost of a project is considered. When it comes right down to it, science is freaking expensive - especially in biotech where nothing works the first time.

If they are really that cash strapped, research universities can move to income based tuition plans, and maybe raise prices on books, etc. It shouldn't decrease enrollment, nor should it allow for much need of government funding. But that's just what I feel.

It's an interesting viewpoint, until you realize that the main research powerhouses are graduate students. Most schools don't allow their biotech graduate students to have an outside job and thus provide them with income in the form of a graduate research assistantship. Thus, in order to get more money for research, they would have to pay more money - and nothing would actually happen. Raising book cost would just mean more people go to Amazon.

Also, you must realize the amount of money the typical lab needs. Each lab generally must fund at least part of the salary of the principal investigator, the salaries of each graduate student (at my school this is on the order of $20,000 per year), the salaries of any post-docs or research technicians, general lab supplies (just a tissue culture plate runs something like a dollar per plate), chemicals, measuring equipment (generally on the order of $100,000 to buy a new instrument), computers, animals (these are *really* freaking expensive), office supplies, seminars, etc, etc, etc, etc. All of this has to be funded by grants - there isn't a research university in the country that could bring in enough money on tuition alone. Grants pretty much come from professional societies or government-run institutions like NIH and NIH generally gives more money and is more trusted.

When a states votes for something, and the majority supports it, and the activist judges or whoever else is in power says "screw that, we think this goes against the constitution, let's ignore what people think," then they are just as bad, if not worse.

You seem to confuse "majority rule" with "constitutional." The courts have judicial review and interpret the constitution. It's not so much "we think this goes against the constitution" as "this is against the constitution."

And I've got a newsflash for you - The courts are not supposed to worry about what the majority supports or doesn't support. They worry about constitutionality of a given law. It is the legislature that worries about what the majority wants - and the courts provide a check in case they step out of line.

When a states votes for something, and the majority supports it, and the activist judges or whoever else is in power says "screw that, we think this goes against the constitution, let's ignore what people think," then they are just as bad, if not worse.

You seem to confuse "majority rule" with "constitutional." The courts have judicial review and interpret the constitution. It's not so much "we think this goes against the constitution" as "this is against the constitution."

And I've got a newsflash for you - The courts are not supposed to worry about what the majority supports or doesn't support. They worry about constitutionality of a given law. It is the legislature that worries about what the majority wants - and the courts provide a check in case they step out of line.Yes, but more often than not, their interpretations of the constitution are biased towards an agenda. The constitution is up for interpretation, and those interpretations must never be laced with bias. That's why we get so mad when we see liberal judges

I profess ignorance, and it is interesting to hear. However, I have long wondered why major research universities want government funding. I may not know much about biotech, but I'm learning fast about universities. Many research schools are also involved in arts and humanities. It can mean a lot of government influence if they fund any field.
If they are really that cash strapped, research universities can move to income based tuition plans, and maybe raise prices on books, etc. It shouldn't decrease enrollment, nor should it allow for much need of government funding. But that's just what I feel.
As a student at a research university who happens to be in a biotech related field, I feel as though I should comment on this. First off, at least in my experience, it's not the school that asks for the grant, but the students and faculty that will actually be doing the research. And trust me, these people don't have the money to pay for appropriate equipment. As for increasing prices, the estimated cost of my attending next year is $40,000 (including books and everything but before my scholarship) Almost all of my books are well over a hundred dollars- and since Barnes and Noble runs the bookstore...I don't even think the school gets any money from that (instead B&N just pays them for exclusive bookstore rights) I don't know exactly what you mean by income based tuition plans. Perhaps if you explain, I'll understand how that will put more money into the school. But the bottom line is, the school has to spend money on professors, buildings, etc... My school is damn near broke because they're building a new student union instead of new dorms which we actually need.....but I'm getting off subject. The researchers own the research, so it's their job to find the money.
And yeah, I do support stem cell research, but I like innovating, and I think if you come upon a road block, you should find away around it instead of standing there and whining about it. I'm very interested in seeing what we can do with adult stem cell research and gene therapy (and they've done a lot with it- that way they can get the treatment directly from the patient!). I don't find embryonic stem cell research immoral in any way, but I think it's much more constructive to find another solution that just to sit around and complain about it.

Yes, but more often than not, their interpretations of the constitution are biased towards an agenda. The constitution is up for interpretation, and those interpretations must never be laced with bias. That's why we get so mad when we see liberal judges

Yes, and conservative judges never have an agenda. I have seen more examples of conservative judges actually legislating from the bench than liberal ones. Of course, this is part of the reason why judges shouldn't even be allowed to associate with a political party, but that probably won't change any time soon.

Of course, I can translate what you wrote as, "the judges should have my bias instead of the one they have, so they are activist judges."

And yeah, I do support stem cell research, but I like innovating, and I think if you come upon a road block, you should find away around it instead of standing there and whining about it. I'm very interested in seeing what we can do with adult stem cell research and gene therapy (and they've done a lot with it- that way they can get the treatment directly from the patient!). I don't find embryonic stem cell research immoral in any way, but I think it's much more constructive to find another solution that just to sit around and complain about it.

Believe me, we are. I am currently working on bone marrow progenitors. The point is that while we are working on the problem from many different angles, they all need to be tried. No one is sitting around not doing any research because of the ban, but complaining about it is important too - that's how you get things changed in this country.

If Bush was more like Reagan, he would:

No, if Bush was more like Reagan he'd say one thing and do another.. Oh wait.. :oops:

That is what he did. He lowered taxes and then raised them 6 times after.. :lol:bush raised taxes?

No, after the tax cuts that Reagan apparently gave every one (the rich) he raised taxes 6 times. Bush is more about concentrating the wealth to his rich friends. Reagan was less obvious.. Reagan said one thing and did another, that's about the only thing Bush & Reagan have in common.

I profess ignorance, and it is interesting to hear. However, I have long wondered why major research universities want government funding. I may not know much about biotech, but I'm learning fast about universities. Many research schools are also involved in arts and humanities. It can mean a lot of government influence if they fund any field.
If they are really that cash strapped, research universities can move to income based tuition plans, and maybe raise prices on books, etc. It shouldn't decrease enrollment, nor should it allow for much need of government funding. But that's just what I feel.
As a student at a research university who happens to be in a biotech related field, I feel as though I should comment on this. First off, at least in my experience, it's not the school that asks for the grant, but the students and faculty that will actually be doing the research. And trust me, these people don't have the money to pay for appropriate equipment. As for increasing prices, the estimated cost of my attending next year is $40,000 (including books and everything but before my scholarship) Almost all of my books are well over a hundred dollars- and since Barnes and Noble runs the bookstore...I don't even think the school gets any money from that (instead B&N just pays them for exclusive bookstore rights) I don't know exactly what you mean by income based tuition plans. Perhaps if you explain, I'll understand how that will put more money into the school. But the bottom line is, the school has to spend money on professors, buildings, etc... My school is damn near broke because they're building a new student union instead of new dorms which we actually need.....but I'm getting off subject. The researchers own the research, so it's their job to find the money.
And yeah, I do support stem cell research, but I like innovating, and I think if you come upon a road block, you should find away around it instead of standing there and whining about it. I'm very interested in seeing what we can do with adult stem cell research and gene therapy (and they've done a lot with it- that way they can get the treatment directly from the patient!). I don't find embryonic stem cell research immoral in any way, but I think it's much more constructive to find another solution that just to sit around and complain about it.
A couple of private schools have this "income based tuition" I talk of, and it's just what it sounds like: the more you earn, the more you pay. Think of it as economic affirmative action.
As for grant money, I personally find it silly that research labs are so dependent on government institutions for funding. These labs are part of a university for a reason, and if the university doesn't want to cover most of the costs of research, why do they bother to have them? I think more along libertarian lines when it comes to scientific research. It is a field that I feel the government has no business to be in, except patents and regulation of drugs and such. Anyhow, the government can easily swing to the left or the right, and they both oppose some form of science. The left, btw, seems to be opposed, if only mildly, to robotic technology, as it will promise to one day do much of the labor of humans, and deprive the left of their unions. I know I'm off topic, but it goes to show that the government will try to restrict science for the sake of its agenda.
But, I do like your style of innovation. Adult stem cells may not be as good to work with as embryonic stem cells, but at leasts ethicists aren't breathing down your neck. So, good luck in your studies. And btw, could I ask what university you go to?

I profess ignorance, and it is interesting to hear. However, I have long wondered why major research universities want government funding. I may not know much about biotech, but I'm learning fast about universities. Many research schools are also involved in arts and humanities. It can mean a lot of government influence if they fund any field.

A good number of universities doing research in biotech are not very involved in arts and humanities, and even if they are I am not sure how this is related to the conversation at hand. Truth is, government-run facilities like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are often the only sources of funding a researcher can go to when the cost of a project is considered. When it comes right down to it, science is freaking expensive - especially in biotech where nothing works the first time.

If they are really that cash strapped, research universities can move to income based tuition plans, and maybe raise prices on books, etc. It shouldn't decrease enrollment, nor should it allow for much need of government funding. But that's just what I feel.

It's an interesting viewpoint, until you realize that the main research powerhouses are graduate students. Most schools don't allow their biotech graduate students to have an outside job and thus provide them with income in the form of a graduate research assistantship. Thus, in order to get more money for research, they would have to pay more money - and nothing would actually happen. Raising book cost would just mean more people go to Amazon.

Also, you must realize the amount of money the typical lab needs. Each lab generally must fund at least part of the salary of the principal investigator, the salaries of each graduate student (at my school this is on the order of $20,000 per year), the salaries of any post-docs or research technicians, general lab supplies (just a tissue culture plate runs something like a dollar per plate), chemicals, measuring equipment (generally on the order of $100,000 to buy a new instrument), computers, animals (these are *really* freaking expensive), office supplies, seminars, etc, etc, etc, etc. All of this has to be funded by grants - there isn't a research university in the country that could bring in enough money on tuition alone. Grants pretty much come from professional societies or government-run institutions like NIH and NIH generally gives more money and is more trusted.
Tuition alone may not be able to raise enough money to fund labs. However, you did mention that private professional societies also fund these labs. I also believe that corporations should. Sure, they're worried about sticky patent issues, but other corporations have many scientific ventures. Universities and certain corporations could do the same. After all, these companies should no, better than anyone, that these universities will supply their future workforce.
The problem is, however, that universities, despite high tuitions, aren't anything like businesses. The reason is because, believe it or not, most research universities do teach arts and humanities. This opens the floodgates for many anti-business ideaologies to invade schools. It's happened at many research universities, such as Harvard, Cornell, University of Rochester, University of Berkely, and so on. They obviously have nothing to do with your research, but they give a tough time on the universities to raise capital. After all, if the universities do something these students don't like, they protest. And their protest carries value, as they pay tuitions.
As far as scientific funding goes, it's a viscious cycle. Liberal colleges refuse to give labs money. Conservative governments refuse to fund what they find unethical. It's time that labs find more ways to be more independent, and also start cooperating with businesses.

I profess ignorance, and it is interesting to hear. However, I have long wondered why major research universities want government funding. I may not know much about biotech, but I'm learning fast about universities. Many research schools are also involved in arts and humanities. It can mean a lot of government influence if they fund any field.

A good number of universities doing research in biotech are not very involved in arts and humanities, and even if they are I am not sure how this is related to the conversation at hand. Truth is, government-run facilities like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are often the only sources of funding a researcher can go to when the cost of a project is considered. When it comes right down to it, science is freaking expensive - especially in biotech where nothing works the first time.

If they are really that cash strapped, research universities can move to income based tuition plans, and maybe raise prices on books, etc. It shouldn't decrease enrollment, nor should it allow for much need of government funding. But that's just what I feel.

It's an interesting viewpoint, until you realize that the main research powerhouses are graduate students. Most schools don't allow their biotech graduate students to have an outside job and thus provide them with income in the form of a graduate research assistantship. Thus, in order to get more money for research, they would have to pay more money - and nothing would actually happen. Raising book cost would just mean more people go to Amazon.

Also, you must realize the amount of money the typical lab needs. Each lab generally must fund at least part of the salary of the principal investigator, the salaries of each graduate student (at my school this is on the order of $20,000 per year), the salaries of any post-docs or research technicians, general lab supplies (just a tissue culture plate runs something like a dollar per plate), chemicals, measuring equipment (generally on the order of $100,000 to buy a new instrument), computers, animals (these are *really* freaking expensive), office supplies, seminars, etc, etc, etc, etc. All of this has to be funded by grants - there isn't a research university in the country that could bring in enough money on tuition alone. Grants pretty much come from professional societies or government-run institutions like NIH and NIH generally gives more money and is more trusted.
Tuition alone may not be able to raise enough money to fund labs. However, you did mention that private professional societies also fund these labs. I also believe that corporations should. Sure, they're worried about sticky patent issues, but other corporations have many scientific ventures. Universities and certain corporations could do the same. After all, these companies should no, better than anyone, that these universities will supply their future workforce.
The problem is, however, that universities, despite high tuitions, aren't anything like businesses. The reason is because, believe it or not, most research universities do teach arts and humanities. This opens the floodgates for many anti-business ideaologies to invade schools. It's happened at many research universities, such as Harvard, Cornell, University of Rochester, University of Berkely, and so on. They obviously have nothing to do with your research, but they give a tough time on the universities to raise capital. After all, if the universities do something these students don't like, they protest. And their protest carries value, as they pay tuitions.
As far as scientific funding goes, it's a viscious cycle. Liberal colleges refuse to give labs money. Conservative governments refuse to fund what they find unethical. It's time that labs find more ways to be more independent, and also start cooperating with businesses.

I profess ignorance, and it is interesting to hear. However, I have long wondered why major research universities want government funding. I may not know much about biotech, but I'm learning fast about universities. Many research schools are also involved in arts and humanities. It can mean a lot of government influence if they fund any field.

A good number of universities doing research in biotech are not very involved in arts and humanities, and even if they are I am not sure how this is related to the conversation at hand. Truth is, government-run facilities like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are often the only sources of funding a researcher can go to when the cost of a project is considered. When it comes right down to it, science is freaking expensive - especially in biotech where nothing works the first time.

If they are really that cash strapped, research universities can move to income based tuition plans, and maybe raise prices on books, etc. It shouldn't decrease enrollment, nor should it allow for much need of government funding. But that's just what I feel.

It's an interesting viewpoint, until you realize that the main research powerhouses are graduate students. Most schools don't allow their biotech graduate students to have an outside job and thus provide them with income in the form of a graduate research assistantship. Thus, in order to get more money for research, they would have to pay more money - and nothing would actually happen. Raising book cost would just mean more people go to Amazon.

Also, you must realize the amount of money the typical lab needs. Each lab generally must fund at least part of the salary of the principal investigator, the salaries of each graduate student (at my school this is on the order of $20,000 per year), the salaries of any post-docs or research technicians, general lab supplies (just a tissue culture plate runs something like a dollar per plate), chemicals, measuring equipment (generally on the order of $100,000 to buy a new instrument), computers, animals (these are *really* freaking expensive), office supplies, seminars, etc, etc, etc, etc. All of this has to be funded by grants - there isn't a research university in the country that could bring in enough money on tuition alone. Grants pretty much come from professional societies or government-run institutions like NIH and NIH generally gives more money and is more trusted.
Tuition alone may not be able to raise enough money to fund labs. However, you did mention that private professional societies also fund these labs. I also believe that corporations should. Sure, they're worried about sticky patent issues, but other corporations have many scientific ventures. Universities and certain corporations could do the same. After all, these companies should no, better than anyone, that these universities will supply their future workforce.
The problem is, however, that universities, despite high tuitions, aren't anything like businesses. The reason is because, believe it or not, most research universities do teach arts and humanities. This opens the floodgates for many anti-business ideaologies to invade schools. It's happened at many research universities, such as Harvard, Cornell, University of Rochester, University of Berkely, and so on. They obviously have nothing to do with your research, but they give a tough time on the universities to raise capital. After all, if the universities do something these students don't like, they protest. And their protest carries value, as they pay tuitions.
As far as scientific funding goes, it's a viscious cycle. Liberal colleges refuse to give labs money. Conservative governments refuse to fund what they find unethical. It's time that labs find more ways to be more independent, and also start cooperating with businesses.

I profess ignorance, and it is interesting to hear. However, I have long wondered why major research universities want government funding. I may not know much about biotech, but I'm learning fast about universities. Many research schools are also involved in arts and humanities. It can mean a lot of government influence if they fund any field.

A good number of universities doing research in biotech are not very involved in arts and humanities, and even if they are I am not sure how this is related to the conversation at hand. Truth is, government-run facilities like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are often the only sources of funding a researcher can go to when the cost of a project is considered. When it comes right down to it, science is freaking expensive - especially in biotech where nothing works the first time.

If they are really that cash strapped, research universities can move to income based tuition plans, and maybe raise prices on books, etc. It shouldn't decrease enrollment, nor should it allow for much need of government funding. But that's just what I feel.

It's an interesting viewpoint, until you realize that the main research powerhouses are graduate students. Most schools don't allow their biotech graduate students to have an outside job and thus provide them with income in the form of a graduate research assistantship. Thus, in order to get more money for research, they would have to pay more money - and nothing would actually happen. Raising book cost would just mean more people go to Amazon.

Also, you must realize the amount of money the typical lab needs. Each lab generally must fund at least part of the salary of the principal investigator, the salaries of each graduate student (at my school this is on the order of $20,000 per year), the salaries of any post-docs or research technicians, general lab supplies (just a tissue culture plate runs something like a dollar per plate), chemicals, measuring equipment (generally on the order of $100,000 to buy a new instrument), computers, animals (these are *really* freaking expensive), office supplies, seminars, etc, etc, etc, etc. All of this has to be funded by grants - there isn't a research university in the country that could bring in enough money on tuition alone. Grants pretty much come from professional societies or government-run institutions like NIH and NIH generally gives more money and is more trusted.
Tuition alone may not be able to raise enough money to fund labs. However, you did mention that private professional societies also fund these labs. I also believe that corporations should. Sure, they're worried about sticky patent issues, but other corporations have many scientific ventures. Universities and certain corporations could do the same. After all, these companies should no, better than anyone, that these universities will supply their future workforce.
The problem is, however, that universities, despite high tuitions, aren't anything like businesses. The reason is because, believe it or not, most research universities do teach arts and humanities. This opens the floodgates for many anti-business ideaologies to invade schools. It's happened at many research universities, such as Harvard, Cornell, University of Rochester, University of Berkely, and so on. They obviously have nothing to do with your research, but they give a tough time on the universities to raise capital. After all, if the universities do something these students don't like, they protest. And their protest carries value, as they pay tuitions.
As far as scientific funding goes, it's a viscious cycle. Liberal colleges refuse to give labs money. Conservative governments refuse to fund what they find unethical. It's time that labs find more ways to be more independent, and also start cooperating with businesses.

[quote="Purly Euclid"]
As far as scientific funding goes, it's a viscious cycle. Liberal colleges refuse to give labs money. Conservative governments refuse to fund what they find unethical. [quote]
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

What a star. Liberals are anti-science and conservatives are only concerned with morals. You know, if you were only 1% right, we'd probably not be here right now.

A couple of private schools have this "income based tuition" I talk of, and it's just what it sounds like: the more you earn, the more you pay. Think of it as economic affirmative action.

Ah, private schools (who still often pay the income of their graduate students by the way). Are you suggesting that public schools shouldn't be research institutions then? Because some of the leading biotech schools are public and none of them can start raising tuition on their undergrads like that and they often decide the income of their grad students.

As for grant money, I personally find it silly that research labs are so dependent on government institutions for funding. These labs are part of a university for a reason, and if the university doesn't want to cover most of the costs of research, why do they bother to have them?

Do you have *any* idea how much it costs to run a lab? I'll tell you what, you show me a way that a public school can raise all the million dollar research grants it needs (and this is often more than one per lab, mind you) and still have time for actual research, and I'll see about implementing it. Even an application for a grant takes so long that you have to take a break from research for several weeks to get it in.

I think more along libertarian lines when it comes to scientific research. It is a field that I feel the government has no business to be in, except patents and regulation of drugs and such. Anyhow, the government can easily swing to the left or the right, and they both oppose some form of science. The left, btw, seems to be opposed, if only mildly, to robotic technology, as it will promise to one day do much of the labor of humans, and deprive the left of their unions. I know I'm off topic, but it goes to show that the government will try to restrict science for the sake of its agenda.

Although it is interesting to note that those in government-related science say that it has never been restricted to the point it is now. Says something about the current administration, doesn't it?

But, I do like your style of innovation. Adult stem cells may not be as good to work with as embryonic stem cells, but at leasts ethicists aren't breathing down your neck. So, good luck in your studies. And btw, could I ask what university you go to?

This wasn't directed at me, but I figure you might ask me the same question eventually since I am working with bone marrow progenitors. I am enrolled at Georgia Tech, but the lab I work in is at Emory University. ((It sounds weird - I know, but they have a lot of collaboration)).

Tuition alone may not be able to raise enough money to fund labs. However, you did mention that private professional societies also fund these labs.

To a point, and researchers go to them whenever possible. However, some very important projects don't fall easily into the areas in which there are professional societies. Not to mention that the grants you can get from societies are likely to pay a single student's salary, and not much more. They don't have enough money to be the main source of funding and the only way they can increase it would be to increase membership dues, which would decrease membership and so on.

I also believe that corporations should. Sure, they're worried about sticky patent issues, but other corporations have many scientific ventures. Universities and certain corporations could do the same. After all, these companies should no, better than anyone, that these universities will supply their future workforce.

The thing is that corporations care about one thing - profits. Basic science research, if it leads to a profitable end at all, does so 10-20 (or more) years down the line. Only the largest corporations have the kind of money to invest in something that won't go into the black until then, and even they generally just aren't interested because you can't always tell how basic science can be used. This is especially true in biotech, where even if you manage to come up with a good product, you have to go millions of dollars in debt to get it approved by the FDA and continue to go in debt for another five years or so until the medical community finally picks it up and insurance companies will pay for it. This is *after* 10-20 years of just basic research to come up with the product in the first place. Corporations don't want to hear "Well, theoretically if we try this..." What they want to hear is "We figured out that this cell can do this and you could use it to make this product...."

If corporations started being the main funding for research, things would move a lot slower. Why? There would be no sharing of information. Corporation X may figure out a principle that would send Corporation Y down a whole new avenue, but neither is going to share. As it is now, research is all published and you can find out if a tactic has been tried, whether or not it worked, what the roadblocks were, etc. With private corporations, only the successes would be broadcast, and with very little detail.

The problem is, however, that universities, despite high tuitions, aren't anything like businesses. The reason is because, believe it or not, most research universities do teach arts and humanities. This opens the floodgates for many anti-business ideaologies to invade schools. It's happened at many research universities, such as Harvard, Cornell, University of Rochester, University of Berkely, and so on. They obviously have nothing to do with your research, but they give a tough time on the universities to raise capital. After all, if the universities do something these students don't like, they protest. And their protest carries value, as they pay tuitions.

I don't know about your background, but at the school I attend, it is the corporations that don't want to work with us, not the other way around. The truth is that the business and university philosophies on research are very, very different. Businesses do things for profits and university researchers do things to increase knowledge. Both areas are necessary and can build off of each other, but integration of the two just wouldn't work.

As far as scientific funding goes, it's a viscious cycle. Liberal colleges refuse to give labs money. Conservative governments refuse to fund what they find unethical. It's time that labs find more ways to be more independent, and also start cooperating with businesses.

Liberal colleges refuse to give labs money? Where did that come from?

Again, it is the businesses that don't want to cooperate with university labs most of the time. I would *love* to be funded by a private company that I could then maybe get a job at when I finish my degree. J & J, are you listening? hehe

As for being more independent, you show me where I can get that kind of money without stealing or stopping my research, and I'll go for itl.

A couple of private schools have this "income based tuition" I talk of, and it's just what it sounds like: the more you earn, the more you pay. Think of it as economic affirmative action.

Ah, private schools (who still often pay the income of their graduate students by the way). Are you suggesting that public schools shouldn't be research institutions then? Because some of the leading biotech schools are public and none of them can start raising tuition on their undergrads like that and they often decide the income of their grad students.

As for grant money, I personally find it silly that research labs are so dependent on government institutions for funding. These labs are part of a university for a reason, and if the university doesn't want to cover most of the costs of research, why do they bother to have them?

Do you have *any* idea how much it costs to run a lab? I'll tell you what, you show me a way that a public school can raise all the million dollar research grants it needs (and this is often more than one per lab, mind you) and still have time for actual research, and I'll see about implementing it. Even an application for a grant takes so long that you have to take a break from research for several weeks to get it in.

I think more along libertarian lines when it comes to scientific research. It is a field that I feel the government has no business to be in, except patents and regulation of drugs and such. Anyhow, the government can easily swing to the left or the right, and they both oppose some form of science. The left, btw, seems to be opposed, if only mildly, to robotic technology, as it will promise to one day do much of the labor of humans, and deprive the left of their unions. I know I'm off topic, but it goes to show that the government will try to restrict science for the sake of its agenda.

Although it is interesting to note that those in government-related science say that it has never been restricted to the point it is now. Says something about the current administration, doesn't it?

But, I do like your style of innovation. Adult stem cells may not be as good to work with as embryonic stem cells, but at leasts ethicists aren't breathing down your neck. So, good luck in your studies. And btw, could I ask what university you go to?

This wasn't directed at me, but I figure you might ask me the same question eventually since I am working with bone marrow progenitors. I am enrolled at Georgia Tech, but the lab I work in is at Emory University. ((It sounds weird - I know, but they have a lot of collaboration)).
Here's the issue you bring up: public research universities. Truth be told, I wasn't sure they really existed. However, I do know that of all the public schools, all but an extreme few are state schools. Get more money from the states! They've needed to learn to fund more for years! Instead, they waste money on useless programs that can't even work. Up here in New York, the state has been running public housing all over, and many claim that it's just a little more than living off the streets. There are many state programs with government waste, but if they put their act together, they can fund universities all they want. And if they cooperate with the private sector on this issue, they'll end up benefitting from the states' future economies down the road.

Here's the issue you bring up: public research universities. Truth be told, I wasn't sure they really existed.

Actually, they're pretty common. Two in Georgia - Georgia Tech and UGA, most of the California Schools, Cal Tech, MIT, Boston University, etc, etc, etc. If you can name a major school that has graduate programs, chances are they qualifiy as a research university.

However, I do know that of all the public schools, all but an extreme few are state schools. Get more money from the states! They've needed to learn to fund more for years! Instead, they waste money on useless programs that can't even work. Up here in New York, the state has been running public housing all over, and many claim that it's just a little more than living off the streets. There are many state programs with government waste, but if they put their act together, they can fund universities all they want. And if they cooperate with the private sector on this issue, they'll end up benefitting from the states' future economies down the road.

Again, I have to point out the shear amount of money you need to run even one lab, much less a whole school. However, another problem would be a disproportionate burden on certain states. Georgia has two public research universities, while I can't name even one in Wyoming (there might be one - I just don't know it). Meanwhile, state taxes are much lower (at least in my state) than federal and while some money is spent on useless stuff, the majority is not. (I know - my boyfriend worked for the state senate this past year). So I don't think this is really the solution. The scientific community really does need large organizations like NSF, NIH, etc. because they actually have enough money to give. On top of that, they only give money to projects deemed worthwhile by *other scientists.* So there won't be any NIH funding going to someone that wants to find out if twinkies really do last 20 years or whatever =)

Here's the issue you bring up: public research universities. Truth be told, I wasn't sure they really existed.

Actually, they're pretty common. Two in Georgia - Georgia Tech and UGA, most of the California Schools, Cal Tech, MIT, Boston University, etc, etc, etc. If you can name a major school that has graduate programs, chances are they qualifiy as a research university.

However, I do know that of all the public schools, all but an extreme few are state schools. Get more money from the states! They've needed to learn to fund more for years! Instead, they waste money on useless programs that can't even work. Up here in New York, the state has been running public housing all over, and many claim that it's just a little more than living off the streets. There are many state programs with government waste, but if they put their act together, they can fund universities all they want. And if they cooperate with the private sector on this issue, they'll end up benefitting from the states' future economies down the road.

Again, I have to point out the shear amount of money you need to run even one lab, much less a whole school. However, another problem would be a disproportionate burden on certain states. Georgia has two public research universities, while I can't name even one in Wyoming (there might be one - I just don't know it). Meanwhile, state taxes are much lower (at least in my state) than federal and while some money is spent on useless stuff, the majority is not. (I know - my boyfriend worked for the state senate this past year). So I don't think this is really the solution. The scientific community really does need large organizations like NSF, NIH, etc. because they actually have enough money to give. On top of that, they only give money to projects deemed worthwhile by *other scientists.* So there won't be any NIH funding going to someone that wants to find out if twinkies really do last 20 years or whatever =)
I actually didn't know MIT was state-owned, and here I am about to go to college myself. Oh well.
Anyhow, that is why babysteps need to be taken. Go slowly with trying to bring corporations into the fold, rather than mutually shunning eachother. After all, I think researchers at both places have a lot in common, as both are highly motivated to innovate. If all research universities take approaches like this, then with about ten years of fine tuning this, the NSF and the NIH won't be needed. However, recognize that these would be merely what I'd try if I were president of MIT, the University of Rochester, or the University of California at Berkely. Until then, these presidents can do whatever they want.

It's not that Bush, per se, wants to stop stem cells; it's his God telling him to do it.

This is another huge problem with Bush's administration. God has no place in government.

The president has no right to stop science. He is suppose to be doing what is best for the American public, not blocking the very research that could give so many people suffering from horrible diseases a chance.

I too wonder who the Reagan's will be voting for. Some thing tells me it might not be Bush.

No major guesswork involved there. Patti Reagan said as much in her statement.
"People’s desire to live healthy, whole lives will prevail in the end. There is a cure out there. We all know it. We will reach past any mere political obstacles to grab onto it and make it a reality. A messy, horrible war that has spun out of control could very well determine the next election. So should the miracle of stem-cell research—a miracle the Bush White House thinks it can block. It's too late for my father. . .
~~~~~~~~~~~~
The President and Congress have all the right to spend, or not spend, taxpayer money as they corporately agree. It is one of their responsibilities and prerogatives. If Gore were president and he pushed through Congress an appropriation to fund stem cell research it would be equally appropriate. If sufficient grass roots pressure is there it will happen. Politicians follow votes.

If Congress and the President don't have the right to stop science, why are we still dependent on oil? In 1976 we had a gas shortage from hell. We knew it and felt it then. No action has been taken save the gas passed by politicians of all stripes.

Same Stuff, Different Topic

SHL

Anyhow, that is why babysteps need to be taken. Go slowly with trying to bring corporations into the fold, rather than mutually shunning eachother. After all, I think researchers at both places have a lot in common, as both are highly motivated to innovate. If all research universities take approaches like this, then with about ten years of fine tuning this, the NSF and the NIH won't be needed. However, recognize that these would be merely what I'd try if I were president of MIT, the University of Rochester, or the University of California at Berkely. Until then, these presidents can do whatever they want.

I think it is an interesting proposal, I just wonder how certain issues would be dealt with.

Researchers at both places do have some in common, but are extremely different in what they study. University researchers are interested in knowledge. They generally want it to have a practical use (although some don't) but that use may be 20 years down the road. Corporations are profit-based and therefore invest only in something they are almost sure to get a profitable product out of - and soon.

Clinincal studies and other end-of-the-line studies that result in immediate products can and probably should have corporate funding. I just worry that too much reliance on corporations would result in a lack of basic science research. Corporations really won't (and generally can't afford to) get involved in research until it is very near the profitable stage.

When a states votes for something, and the majority supports it, and the activist judges or whoever else is in power says "screw that, we think this goes against the constitution, let's ignore what people think," then they are just as bad, if not worse.

You seem to confuse "majority rule" with "constitutional." The courts have judicial review and interpret the constitution. It's not so much "we think this goes against the constitution" as "this is against the constitution."

And I've got a newsflash for you - The courts are not supposed to worry about what the majority supports or doesn't support. They worry about constitutionality of a given law. It is the legislature that worries about what the majority wants - and the courts provide a check in case they step out of line.Yes, but more often than not, their interpretations of the constitution are biased towards an agenda. The constitution is up for interpretation, and those interpretations must never be laced with bias. That's why we get so mad when we see liberal judges

You both present valid points. The Constitution is the guiding light, not the majority. Equally true is that the Constitution requires interpretation. Were that not so Brown v. Board of Education Topeka, KA could never have happened. Often the reinterpretation is based on current social trends and realities. Were it not so there would still be slavery in America and only white, male, property owners could vote. Eh?

SHL

Anyhow, that is why babysteps need to be taken. Go slowly with trying to bring corporations into the fold, rather than mutually shunning eachother. After all, I think researchers at both places have a lot in common, as both are highly motivated to innovate. If all research universities take approaches like this, then with about ten years of fine tuning this, the NSF and the NIH won't be needed. However, recognize that these would be merely what I'd try if I were president of MIT, the University of Rochester, or the University of California at Berkely. Until then, these presidents can do whatever they want.

I think it is an interesting proposal, I just wonder how certain issues would be dealt with.

Researchers at both places do have some in common, but are extremely different in what they study. University researchers are interested in knowledge. They generally want it to have a practical use (although some don't) but that use may be 20 years down the road. Corporations are profit-based and therefore invest only in something they are almost sure to get a profitable product out of - and soon.

Clinincal studies and other end-of-the-line studies that result in immediate products can and probably should have corporate funding. I just worry that too much reliance on corporations would result in a lack of basic science research. Corporations really won't (and generally can't afford to) get involved in research until it is very near the profitable stage.
As I seem to have a little anecdote for everything, I have one for this. I have a friend whose dad works to get vaccines approved by the FDA for Wyeth. Some of his vaccines, most centering around menigitis, have been in developement for years.
Obviously, this isn't biotech, but the pharmacutical industry is very related. These companies aren't afraid to commit, but perhaps not all of the research will be done by them. If anything, they'll support university labs as little pet projects. Think of yourselves as a long-term investment for the biotech sector. Not only are future employees being raised, but any research you conduct there will one day be useful in making a profit. They aren't totally afraid to commit, but naturally, they'll get grumpy if a few million a year are dumped into a project with no results.
Also, I guess I should be delighted that some research schools are also state schools. The chances are high that one or two of those states are friendly toward science, and will generously fund any lab, be it biotech, optical, or whatever. People haven't been relying on their states as much as the federal government, and that, I feel, is sad. The federal government often has a lot on its plate, while states can be far more accomidating and efficient for all. It's time that universities found ways to liberate themselves from the federal government, and let science churn at full speed.

As I seem to have a little anecdote for everything, I have one for this. I have a friend whose dad works to get vaccines approved by the FDA for Wyeth. Some of his vaccines, most centering around menigitis, have been in developement for years.


Most biotech devices take a long time in development too, but I can use this example to describe what I mean about basic science vs. profitable science. The corporation obviously knew that there was a disease called menigitis and that it would be profitable to be able to vaccinate for it, so they got into that arena.
However, before they even started, someone had to characterize the virus. Someone said, this person is sick and I wonder what is causing it. They then studied the disease, eventually discovering that it was a virus and probably cloning the virus. This is basic science. It was only at this point that a profitable end was in sight and a pharmaceutical company would get interested and begin trying to develop a vaccine.

[/quote="Purly Euclid"]If anything, they'll support university labs as little pet projects. Think of yourselves as a long-term investment for the biotech sector. Not only are future employees being raised, but any research you conduct there will one day be useful in making a profit. They aren't totally afraid to commit, but naturally, they'll get grumpy if a few million a year are dumped into a project with no results.[/quote]

The only problem I have with this goes back to the for-profit part of corporations. Anyone that works for a corporation generally has to sign a non-disclosure agreement and other such things. The problem with this is that basic science research needs to be shared with the entire community, not just a single corporation. Thus, corporations would have to change their entire structure to get in on the basic science research.

As I seem to have a little anecdote for everything, I have one for this. I have a friend whose dad works to get vaccines approved by the FDA for Wyeth. Some of his vaccines, most centering around menigitis, have been in developement for years.


Most biotech devices take a long time in development too, but I can use this example to describe what I mean about basic science vs. profitable science. The corporation obviously knew that there was a disease called menigitis and that it would be profitable to be able to vaccinate for it, so they got into that arena.
However, before they even started, someone had to characterize the virus. Someone said, this person is sick and I wonder what is causing it. They then studied the disease, eventually discovering that it was a virus and probably cloning the virus. This is basic science. It was only at this point that a profitable end was in sight and a pharmaceutical company would get interested and begin trying to develop a vaccine.

[/quote="Purly Euclid"]If anything, they'll support university labs as little pet projects. Think of yourselves as a long-term investment for the biotech sector. Not only are future employees being raised, but any research you conduct there will one day be useful in making a profit. They aren't totally afraid to commit, but naturally, they'll get grumpy if a few million a year are dumped into a project with no results.

The only problem I have with this goes back to the for-profit part of corporations. Anyone that works for a corporation generally has to sign a non-disclosure agreement and other such things. The problem with this is that basic science research needs to be shared with the entire community, not just a single corporation. Thus, corporations would have to change their entire structure to get in on the basic science research.[/quote]
I wasn't totally suggesting that universities and corporations should be joined at the hip, but the two should cooperate more. Universities can also find funds from the state, just not the federal government.
Anyhow, you seem to make this basic science you describe seem relatively easy for graduate students, and not neccessarily something that needs years of work or teaching. In that case, it should be at no major loss to corporations, or even states, to fund labs.
Also, without basic science, corporations run the risk of running out of innovation. Universities are often at the front line of the innovations that corporations build from, and it'd be a perfect long term investment for them. They don't have to do basic scientific research themselves.

A couple of private schools have this "income based tuition" I talk of, and it's just what it sounds like: the more you earn, the more you pay. Think of it as economic affirmative action.
As for grant money, I personally find it silly that research labs are so dependent on government institutions for funding. These labs are part of a university for a reason, and if the university doesn't want to cover most of the costs of research, why do they bother to have them? I think more along libertarian lines when it comes to scientific research. It is a field that I feel the government has no business to be in, except patents and regulation of drugs and such. Anyhow, the government can easily swing to the left or the right, and they both oppose some form of science. The left, btw, seems to be opposed, if only mildly, to robotic technology, as it will promise to one day do much of the labor of humans, and deprive the left of their unions. I know I'm off topic, but it goes to show that the government will try to restrict science for the sake of its agenda.
But, I do like your style of innovation. Adult stem cells may not be as good to work with as embryonic stem cells, but at leasts ethicists aren't breathing down your neck. So, good luck in your studies. And btw, could I ask what university you go to?
I go to Tulane University. And I also support the libertarian view...But I think if the government is taking so much money from us, they should at least put it back in something worthwhile. (personally I think they shouldn't take the money to begin with: national defense and building roads...)
I'm strongly opposed to an income-based system, because it would keep me from being able to go to a school that I'd enjoy. Also, I don't see how it would bring more money into the school, since people with lower incomes would be paying less...I guess, unless it was like a fixed percentage of your income... say 25% such that some people have to pay a million dollars a year. Anyway, still don't support that. We have enough economic affirmative action in the college system. Most major colleges meet at least 90% of what they consider financial "need" Many states offer free schooling at Public Universities in the state, etc... eh...
go stem cell research!
Starting next semester I'm gonna spend all my time in the lab. That's gonna ROCK!!

Hmmm...stem cell research definetly has extraordinary applications, so i don't see what is wrong with researching it in a humane manner.


Plus it divides the Republicans up :D huzzah! Now to destroy the green party... :twisted: