NationStates Jolt Archive

Stem Cells Allow Paralyzed Women to Walk Again
http://shortnews.com/
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

This is for all the right-wing stem cell haters. Now start talking. Not only did the stem cells work, but the stem cells were extracted from a babies umbilical blood. Nobody died, no one was hurt, but someone can now walk.

There already was a thread about this floating about somewhere.
Stemcells rock!!!

I don't think anyone has a problem with stem cells if no embryos or whatnot are killed...

Well I didn't see that, these threads move to fast, if it was reported already sorry for this, but I still would like to see someone complain about stem cells being "unethical" now.

Well I didn't see that, these threads move to fast, if it was reported already sorry for this.
I just thought I'd mention it. Doesn't matter.
Stemcells, you little stemcells...lalalalalala....

The stem cell debate is about funding. There is no ban on private research. I don't support federal funds going for any medical research. Anything worth doing is worth risking private capital. John Stossel pointed out that some of the backers of a $3 billion California ballot initiative were billionaires who could've paid for the whole thing themselves (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=207216&page=1).

The stem cell debate is about funding. There is no ban on private research. I don't support federal funds going for any medical research. Anything worth doing is worth risking private capital. John Stossel pointed out that some of the backers of a $3 billion California ballot initiative were billionaires who could've paid for the whole thing themselves (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=207216&page=1).

And here is a person that

(a) has no idea how research works

(b) wishes for it to take 100 years to do something that could be done in 20 otherwise.

Basic science research is absolutely necessary in order to push progress. However, basic science research is not profitable. Therefore, private organizations (other than ones that are foundations formed with the express purpose of funding research) do not invest in it, plain and simple.

Meanwhile, Bush is pushing for a ban on *all* research into therapeutic cloning, which would essentially be embryonic stem cell reserach.

Look at it this way - some woman doesn't want that embrayo...but now, it sudden has a purpose in life! See, here's the thing, pro-lifers, by having this embrayo not become a child, you have saved another life, maybe dozens.

And here is a person that

(a) has no idea how research works

Enlighten me. How does research work.


(b) wishes for it to take 100 years to do something that could be done in 20 otherwise.

Basic science research is absolutely necessary in order to push progress.
What is "basic science research", what is "progress"? Does it really need to be "pushed", and who does/should do the pushing?


However, basic science research is not profitable.

Whatever "basic science research" is, it's either worth doing or it's not. If the force that motivates people to want to spend other people's money on research is insufficient to motivate them to spend their own money, then it is their value judgement that it's basically not worth doing. And lacking the wealth necessary to fund research ought not grant a person power over the wealth of others.


Therefore, private organizations (other than ones that are foundations formed with the express purpose of funding research) do not invest in it, plain and simple.

I'm glad that you acknowledge that some private organiztions do exist for the sole purpose of funding research. This is strong evidence that science research doesn't necessarily require involuntary funding, and you cannot simply cast that aside. But, even if you do ignore that, for-profit companies also have much to gain from science research.


Meanwhile, Bush is pushing for a ban on *all* research into therapeutic cloning, which would essentially be embryonic stem cell reserach.
That's nice. Don't expect me to defend Bush, but it would seem that embryonic stem cell research or therapy cannot reasonably be considered therapeutic cloning.

I don't condone human cloning at all, although I don't necessarily support a ban on it. Hell, I'm against abortion, in-vitro fertilization, test-tube babies, and post-mortem organ donation, but I don't think they should be illegal.

Meanwhile, Bush is pushing for a ban on *all* research into therapeutic cloning, which would essentially be embryonic stem cell reserach.
Luckily Britain made therapeutic cloning legal.

Well I didn't see that, these threads move to fast, if it was reported already sorry for this, but I still would like to see someone complain about stem cells being "unethical" now.

Umbilical stem cells /= fetal stem cells.

Nobody has a problem with umbilical stem cells.. except maybe the Jehovah's Witnesses or Christian Scientist cult or somesuch. Nobody else.

(BTW, nobody has a problem with ANY of the various sources of stem cells aside from embryonic, and nobody has a problem - or at least, can do anything about - private funding of research.)

This article therefore does not serve to support your case.

You stand accused of attempting to confuse the issue. I find you guilty and I fine you five dollars.

As for the "only government can do this" argument?
That got blown completely out of the water when the X-prize was won. Survey says... BZZT!

I'm all for embryonic stem cell research, but...

I just want to point out a potential problem with the way this thread is being used.

The type of stem cells used in this incident were umbilical stem cells. These stem cells are the darling favorite of conservatives. Chiefly because no fetus is destroyed.

As for the "only government can do this" argument?
That got blown completely out of the water when the X-prize was won. Survey says... BZZT!
Hm...it would seem to me, actually, that you have just worked against your own argument. The fact that such a thing as the X-Prize was required before private ventures would achieve such goals is an indication that, unless it becomes in their financial interests in the forseeable future, private enterprises will not, for the most part, actively pursue further technological and scientific progress. This is the issue with stem-cell research; there has been no indication that there is an incentive for any private enterprises save those founded solely to support research to provide funding, as there is not any particular forseeable profit to be had from doing so. Should an X-Prize-based competition to arrive at a cure for some disease using stem cells be put in place, perhaps that will change. And, admittedly, there are exceptions to the rule. However, it is nothing short of naive to think that private enterprise can support scientific progress in the same capacity that public funding can, without a fundamental restructuring of the way society and/or the economy in this country works.

Well Really Andal? Isn't that stated at the beginning of this thread?

Hm...it would seem to me, actually, that you have just worked against your own argument. The fact that such a thing as the X-Prize was required before private ventures would achieve such goals is an indication that, unless it becomes in their financial interests in the forseeable future, private enterprises will not, for the most part, actively pursue further technological and scientific progress.

It would seem that way to you. But you would be wrong. In fact, the man who won the X-prize began his project long before the X-prize came along. Partly for the challenge, and partly because he envisioned a time when his project WOULD be profitable. (In fact, winning the X-Prize did not cover the actual cost of the project.)

Yes, it is true that the government is the only entity which will intentionally do things that are not profitable.

This is not necessarily a good thing. It tends to lead to waste and inefficiency. It should be discouraged whenever possible.

If you want something to happen, it's better to MAKE it profitable than to whine about how unfair it is that it isn't.

Do you want to end greenhouse gases and the threat of global warming forever?

The answer to that isn't Kyoto.

It's a one-billion dollar X-prize and a guaranteed government contract to the first utility to safely transmit a megawatt of power from an orbital solar collector to a receiving station on the ground.

To paraphrase "Field of Dreams," If you make it profitable, they will come.

The stem cell debate is about funding. There is no ban on private research. I don't support federal funds going for any medical research. Anything worth doing is worth risking private capital. John Stossel pointed out that some of the backers of a $3 billion California ballot initiative were billionaires who could've paid for the whole thing themselves (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=207216&page=1).

Dude your giving Kramerica a bad name!!!

What is "basic science research", what is "progress"? Does it really need to be "pushed", and who does/should do the pushing?

Basic science research is research into how things work, rather than how to fix them. It is research into what a newly found enzyme does, or a new function for an old one. It is research into exactly how one function is combined with another to form a higher function.

Basic science research is what leads to ideas for new therapies and drugs. The for-profit companies don't step in until the ideas are there - they then research the idea and develop it. The initial research is too expensive and risky for any for-profit company to get involved in. Meanwhile, progress would stop short after 5 years or so if we didn't have any basic science research.

Whatever "basic science research" is, it's either worth doing or it's not. If the force that motivates people to want to spend other people's money on research is insufficient to motivate them to spend their own money, then it is their value judgement that it's basically not worth doing. And lacking the wealth necessary to fund research ought not grant a person power over the wealth of others.

Since when does worth necessarily equate to profit? If there was no basic science research, most of the drugs currently on the market wouldn't exist. We would still be dealing with leaches and herbal remedies with no proof whatsoever of what they do.

I'm glad that you acknowledge that some private organiztions do exist for the sole purpose of funding research. This is strong evidence that science research doesn't necessarily require involuntary funding, and you cannot simply cast that aside.

They are (a) few and far between (b) always temporary and (c) don't have nearly enough money to fund all the necessary research. One of the main ones in the biomedical area, the Whitaker Foundation, is shutting down next year.

But, even if you do ignore that, for-profit companies also have much to gain from science research.

Yes, I'm sure that a for-profit company is going to invest billions of dollars into research that won't make them a profit for (at the very least) 20 years, if even then. Yes, I'm quite sure that is going to happen. Oh, wait... it doesn't.

That's nice. Don't expect me to defend Bush, but it would seem that embryonic stem cell research or therapy cannot reasonably be considered therapeutic cloning.

You demonstrate your ignorance here. Those who wish to eventually utilize embryonic stem cells in therapies are very aware that the best source of such cells would be those with the patient's own DNA. Therapeutic cloning is, by its very definition, embryonic stem cell research - as it would involve creating an "embryo" (in quotes because it does not meet the definition that most fundies would use) with that person's DNA, extracting stem cells, and then using those cells to create the organ/cells/etc. that the patient required.

I don't condone human cloning at all, although I don't necessarily support a ban on it.

Wonderful! You have an opinion. The question becomes, is it an informed opinion? The answer is most likely "not in the least." How much do you know about cloning? Do you even know the difference between therapeutic and reproductive cloning?

Hell, I'm against ...and post-mortem organ donation, but I don't think they should be illegal.

I wish I thought that you were kidding.

Yes, I'm sure that a for-profit company is going to invest billions of dollars into research that won't make them a profit for (at the very least) 20 years, if even then. Yes, I'm quite sure that is going to happen. Oh, wait... it doesn't.

See: The Far East.

In the US and Europe, corporations plan for the quarter, or maybe, if they're "forward thinking" for the year.

There are companies in Asia which have 10, 20, even 50-year plans. When I took my "History of East Asia" course, the professor even spoke of a Japanese corporation with a hundred-year business plan.

See: The Far East.

In the US and Europe, corporations plan for the quarter, or maybe, if they're "forward thinking" for the year.

There are companies in Asia which have 10, 20, even 50-year plans. When I took my "History of East Asia" course, the professor even spoke of a Japanese corporation with a hundred-year business plan.

Plans are not the same thing as research and money.

Show me a company that has billions/year of dollars it will invest in research that may or may not result in a product in 20-40 years, and that product may or may not fall within the purview of what that company does

Virgin Enterprises.
SpaceDev.

Virgin Enterprises.
SpaceDev.

What research are they doing that doesn't necessarily mesh with their long term goals?

Whoa, whoa. Something smells here.

It's at best disingenuous to suggest that the folks doing government-sponsored research DON'T have goals that they're trying to meet, which is what you're implying with these posts.

Not even the government does research "just for the hell of it." 99% of the time, somebody's trying to develop something. That's why the most active (and most profitable) government "science" programs are in Military R&D.

Whoa, whoa. Something smells here.

It's at best disingenuous to suggest that the folks doing government-sponsored research DON'T have goals that they're trying to meet, which is what you're implying with these posts.

Not even the government does research "just for the hell of it." 99% of the time, somebody's trying to develop something. That's why the most active (and most profitable) government "science" programs are in Military R&D.

Most government-sponsored biology research is basic science research.

The goal is simply to learn more about how biology works, often with an eye towards *possible* applications that *might* come out of it *years* down the road.

However, the goal is not "we will have x product and be making x profit in x years," which is how private industry works.

Plans are not the same thing as research and money.

Show me a company that has billions/year of dollars it will invest in research that may or may not result in a product in 20-40 years, and that product may or may not fall within the purview of what that company does How about Sony? If you could only see the actual tech they've got laying around that isn't released due to Market Saturation and their plans for milking it for maximum profit, I think you'd be astounded.

In a casual manner, I could say they have enough completed "new" stuff to release for the next ten years without worry. That is a conservative estimate, based on past market trends in the audio/video markets. It may well be much, much more.

How about Sony? If you could only see the actual tech they've got laying around that isn't released due to Market Saturation and their plans for milking it for maximum profit, I think you'd be astounded.

But what research are they doing that does not have a near-absolute chance of creating a profitable product?

The other thing that people completely ignore in the "public v. private" funding debate is the simple fact that science would move much, much slower in a purely private atmosphere. Science *depends* on the sharing of information. I have to be able to read a paper that someone in a completely different university wrote. Otherwise, we are reinventing the wheel every time we do anything.

Private companies would not allow this. Everything in private research is "intellectual property" and patented and secretive. Even the few private researchers who do present at conferences aren't allowed to give any real information about what they are doing - which means that no one else can repeat and confirm it, or even really use it.

and if by proof you mean baseless conjecture, then yes

I don't think anyone has a problem with stem cells if no embryos or whatnot are killed...
true, but people only like soundbites, research involves too much thinking, thus you cant obtain a level of blissful voting ignorance. they rather listen to politicians throw around hyped up words and phrases that are keywords and dont discuss the whole issue so you will do what they want then they can laught at you later

I don't think anyone has a problem with stem cells if no embryos or whatnot are killed...


I agree

But what research are they doing that does not have a near-absolute chance of creating a profitable product? There have been a number of discarded projects. They have high hopes for most things, and the established science suggests what they plan to do will work, but it doesn't always end up that way. Not unlike medicine, really. Drug companies dont do research to cure people, they do it to turn a profit. Sometimes a project fails, sometimes with much-later discovered disastrous sideeffects.

Luckily, my CD player isn't going to conquer the world while I sleep.

There have been a number of discarded projects. They have high hopes for most things, and the established science suggests what they plan to do will work, but it doesn't always end up that way. Not unlike medicine, really. Drug companies dont do research to cure people, they do it to turn a profit. Sometimes a project fails, sometimes with much-later discovered disastrous sideeffects.

Luckily, my CD player isn't going to conquer the world while I sleep.

However, drug companies *do not* do the basic science research. Someone has to discover a particular receptor and what it does. *Then* the drug company takes over.

This is very different from something like electronics design. All of the basic science research is pretty much done. All they need are innovative ways to use it.