NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28474929/

Democratic Senate leaders, and Barack Obama are obviously going to be overturning the current federal position on stem cell research before long, but like the articles asks: Should we write a permanent statute that can only be overturned by an act of congress?

I say, yes.

Im glad theyre ending the ban, as long as its done safe and ethically, It shows great promise at curing many an illness...

This research needs to be done, all it needs is a little time and money...

*damn that sounds like a 'issue' lol*

yes congress should pass such a bill when they have time to get around to it.

The ban on stem research protects babies from abortions.

Stem cell research stops a beating heart!

He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

Look to the Bible, and you will see that advancing cellular biology leads to no good (Proverbs 21:19).

*snip*

This theoretical beating heart wouldnt have developed in the stem cell stage...

Next, lol...

The ban on stem research protects babies from abortions.

Stem cell research stops a beating heart!

He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

Look to the Bible, and you will see that advancing cellular biology leads to no good (Proverbs 21:19).

Proverbs 21:19 - It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.

Only thing that tells me is that King Solomon was a sexist... not like the fact that he had like 1,000 wives has any bearing on my opinion to start with...

This theoretical beating heart wouldnt have developed in the stem cell stage...

Next, lol...

Sure it will. All cells start out as stem cells. And life begins at the moment the man takes his wife in the manner ordained by God. That's why when people pop their champagne corks, per se, they shout "Oh God!"

Learn some science, its not hard.

Proverbs 21:19 - It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.

Only thing that tells me is that King Solomon was a sexist... not like the fact that he had like 1,000 wives has any bearing on my opinion to start with...

King Solomon wasn't sexist, he was just abiding by the command from God that women deserve second class status, and are subordinate to men, because of what happened in the garden of Eden.

Thats not sexism, its just relegating one gender to a lesser treatment.

Proverbs 21:19 - It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.


What if you dwell in the Wilderness with a contentious and angry woman :eek:

King Solomon wasn't sexist, he was just abiding by the command from God that women deserve second class status, and are subordinate to men, because of what happened in the garden of Eden.

Thats not sexism, its just relegating one gender to a lesser treatment.


Yeah...but, what the hell does that have to do with Stem Cells?


Btw....Isnt that the definition of Sexism...is this a joke?

What if you dwell in the Wilderness with a contentious and angry woman :eek:

1 Corinthians 6:9 solves that one.

The ban needs to end now, and it needs to stay gone for good.

Yeah...but, what the hell does that have to do with Stem Cells?


Btw....Isnt that the definition of Sexism...is this a joke?

Stem Cells contain the souls of babies, and if you use them to treat disease, you are guilty of Satanic Child Sacrifice, no less than that practiced by Marilyn Manson, Judas Priest, Anthrax, AC/DC, KISS, or Enya.

[QUOTE=Skallvia;14360501
Btw....Isnt that the definition of Sexism...is this a joke?[/QUOTE]

Yes.

Yes.

I wish he'd signify it with a Smiley or 'lol'....I give this courtesy, lol...

The ban needs to end now, and it needs to stay gone for good.

What would that accomplish?

Sure, there would be advances in treatment of an enormous spectrum of degenerative and often fatal diseases, as well as progress in recovery for people living with hundreds, maybe thousands of crippling conditions, and it would probably allow for an entire field of medicine that would improve the quality and length of life for humanity as a whole, but IT ISN'T BIBLE BASED, and is therefore wrong.

The ban on stem research protects babies from abortions.

Stem cell research stops a beating heart!

He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

Look to the Bible, and you will see that advancing cellular biology leads to no good (Proverbs 21:19).

See, there's this thing called separation of church and state, its purpose is to prevent any one religion from controlling the laws of the nation.
Since all you have shown are religious reasons for banning stem cell research, I would say that you need to find some new reasons.

As others have mentioned, as long as it is safe and ethically sound, there should be no reason for banning stem cell research.

Since all you have shown are religious reasons for banning stem cell research, I would say that you need to find some new reasons.


Well see... George Bush did it for those same reasons...

Was there ever actually a ban on the research?

As I always understood it, the ban was on federal funding of the research, which I wholeheartedly agree with it. Scientific research for anything other than bona fide military purposes is simply not the proper role of government.

Well see... George Bush did it for those same reasons...

That doesn't mean it was right, or constitutional, or even in line with his own bizarre reasoning.
And now he's out of a job :P

Well see... George Bush did it for those same reasons...

Just further proof he couldn't do a damn thing right. What a worthless person he is.

See, there's this thing called separation of church and state, its purpose is to prevent any one religion from controlling the laws of the nation.
Since all you have shown are religious reasons for banning stem cell research, I would say that you need to find some new reasons.

As others have mentioned, as long as it is safe and ethically sound, there should be no reason for banning stem cell research.

You are wrong, and the Supreme Court has proved it:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-565108.html

That doesn't mean it was right, or constitutional, or even in line with his own bizarre reasoning.
And now he's out of a job :P

He's only out of a job because of Presidential Term Limits. Otherwise, we would totally re-elect him.

He's been like a philosopher King to us, contemplative and sagacious, yet strong and tenacious in the face of danger.

History will judge him as the greatest President in the history of the United States, and if they don't, Jesus will make them when he gets here.

Was there ever actually a ban on the research?

As I always understood it, the ban was on federal funding of the research, which I wholeheartedly agree with it. Scientific research for anything other than bona fide military purposes is simply not the proper role of government.

So its the government's job to make sure that science is only applied to finding new ways to kill people? What a novel idea full of lose and fail.
Most governments also devote a large amount of time to ensuring the health and safety of their citizens if for no other reason than they need them to keep going; if stem cell research truly has the same potential that people say it does than it is something that the Government should support without a doubt.

Was there ever actually a ban on the research?

As I always understood it, the ban was on federal funding of the research, which I wholeheartedly agree with it. Scientific research for anything other than bona fide military purposes is simply not the proper role of government.

Speaking as one who has done research under Federal NSF grant and is published in solid state physics with training at national laboratories from one end of the country to another, let me say this:

Any research can have a military application.

Speaking as one who has done research under Federal NSF grant and is published in solid state physics with training at national laboratories from one end of the country to another, let me say this:

Any research can have a military application.

And one of the things that has made this nation so great is that we take any military research and try to find civilian applications to.

I call shenanigans. Baldwin, are you Jhahannam/Hammurab in a new incarnation?

He's only out of a job because of Presidential Term Limits. Otherwise, we would totally re-elect him.

He's been like a philosopher King to us, contemplative and sagacious, yet strong and tenacious in the face of danger.

History will judge him as the greatest President in the history of the United States, and if they don't, Jesus will make them when he gets here.
just one more thing to blame on that fuck FDR

I call shenanigans. Baldwin, are you Jhahannam/Hammurab in a new incarnation?

A quick google shows that the first is a terrorist word for "Demon" and the second is just bad spelling, so, no.

And one of the things that has made this nation so great is that we take any military research and try to find civilian applications to.

That's right. Few people know this, but Positron Emission Tomography was originally developed as a means of determing where the best place was to shoot somebody at point blank range.

So its the government's job to make sure that science is only applied to finding new ways to kill people?
Is that what I said?

Scientific research for anything other than bona fide military purposes is simply not the proper role of government.
Doesn't say anything about scientific research done by non-governmental entities.

Most governments also devote a large amount of time to ensuring the health and safety of their citizens if for no other reason than they need them to keep going
Doesn't make it right; predicating that reasoning is the assumption that the government views the populace as a means to its ends, which if that is the case is very problematic in itself, and sufficient cause for revolt.

Is that what I said?

Scientific research for anything other than bona fide military purposes is simply not the proper role of government.

More or less you did.


Doesn't make it right; predicating that reasoning is the assumption that the government views the populace as a means to its ends, which if that is the case is very problematic in itself, and sufficient cause for revolt.

I didn't say it was right, I just stated that its in the Government's best interests. Which more often than not... in its best interest is the only interest it takes.

More or less you did.
I already explained how that wasn't what I said.

Doesn't say anything about scientific research done by non-governmental entities.


Oh my bad. But whats wrong with providing those researchers with money to do their research? You haven't answered that.

Here's the non-religious argument against research:

It's Scientific Medicine.

I'll summarize the high points of what I mean instead of writing a long explanation while slightly inebriated:

While stem cells have an obvious medical purpose, re-purposing them for scientific reasons is dubious but will be done as scientists do not have to take the Hippocratic oath like doctors and physicians. Thus, a scientist can make take his research where ever he want as long as he is ok with it. Thus, the logical steps here are:

scientist works with stem cells or gets stem cells from medical environment by some means --> makes clone ||

pause here, think about that, makes a clone, it is the easiest thing in the world to do with a stem cell, because that's what they do, make clones of the damaged organs and tissues, so, now we are bringing in a life from, presumably like most clones, imperfect, weaker, more fragile, than the original, but this time, we're not talking mice or sheep, or cats, we're talking a human being, cloning a sentient organism by artificial means. What are the reparations for this? What consequence have we not considered? What of this self-aware being that knows he is just a copy of an original, but weaker and meeker, what of him? Even an atheist (usually) considers it wrong to take a life, what about making a life that will revolve around self-doubt and weakness? Its not a question of can we, in my mind not a question of even should we, but a question of will we.

and finally, this is pushing it, but it needs to be addressed, because if it is not safe guarded against, it will happen,

> creates clone army.

Here's the non-religious argument against research:

It's Scientific Medicine.

I'll summarize the high points of what I mean instead of writing a long explanation while slightly inebriated:

While stem cells have an obvious medical purpose, re-purposing them for scientific reasons is dubious but will be done as scientists do not have to take the Hippocratic oath like doctors and physicians. Thus, a scientist can make take his research where ever he want as long as he is ok with it. Thus, the logical steps here are:

scientist works with stem cells or gets stem cells from medical environment by some means --> makes clone ||

pause here, think about that, makes a clone, it is the easiest thing in the world to do with a stem cell, because that's what they do, make clones of the damaged organs and tissues, so, now we are bringing in a life from, presumably like most clones, imperfect, weaker, more fragile, than the original, but this time, we're not talking mice or sheep, or cats, we're talking a human being, cloning a sentient organism by artificial means. What are the reparations for this? What consequence have we not considered? What of this self-aware being that knows he is just a copy of an original, but weaker and meeker, what of him? Even an atheist (usually) considers it wrong to take a life, what about making a life that will revolve around self-doubt and weakness? Its not a question of can we, in my mind not a question of even should we, but a question of will we.

and finally, this is pushing it, but it needs to be addressed, because if it is not safe guarded against, it will happen,

> creates clone army.

That's supposed to be a downside?

That's supposed to be a downside?

Yeah, I mean... look what it did to Star Wars.

Yeah, I mean... look what it did to Star Wars.

Point

Point

well, in Star Wars it also overthrew the Republic and began the Galactic Civil War.

Meh, since we're aborting fetuses, might as well take the stem cell from those fetuses and put them to good use.

well, in Star Wars it also overthrew the Republic and began the Galactic Civil War.

So, long term=a good thing (We got 3 decent movies out of it...)

aborting fetishes

Goddamn, people will get turned on by anything. :tongue:

Goddamn, people will get turned on by anything. :tongue:

Well there are people who get turned on by blood and guts.

Oh my bad. But whats wrong with providing those researchers with money to do their research? You haven't answered that.

A few of reasons.

One, the state is an organ of coercive force, and in fact it operates solely through the use or threat of coercive force. Coercive force is a very dangerous thing, and so its use should be limited to activities that cannot be conducted without the use of coercive force. Scientific research for peaceful purposes is not one of those (an argument could be made that RESEARCH for military purposes isn't, either; I don't necessarily buy it, but it's reasonable, but either way it's beyond the scope of this discussion).

Two, anything receiving government funds is by its very nature vulnerable to being politicized; no one wants to bite the hand that feeds him, after all. Do we really need a repeat of Lysenkoism?

Three, there are many people who are opposed to stem-cell research as a matter of general principle. We can argue all day about how valid those concerns are, but in the end they have the right to think as they do, however wrong they may be--and they should not be forced to fund activity they find reprehensible.

<...> but IT ISN'T BIBLE BASED, and is therefore wrong.

Guess you would have to ban Cosmology too, because it doesn't seem that God creating the universe in 7 days abides with 14.7 billion years of universe evolution.

What kind of Stem Cells are we talking about here?

I'm not seeing any objections to using placenta stem cells for example.

Aborted Baby stem cells may be more contentious.

What kind of Stem Cells are we talking about here?

I'm not seeing any objections to using placenta stem cells for example.

Aborted Baby stem cells may be more contentious.
aborted embryos are too old to use for stem cells.

from wiki:

Embryonic stem cells (ES cells) are stem cells derived from the inner cell mass of an early stage embryo known as a blastocyst. Human embryos reach the blastocyst stage 4–5 days post fertilization, at which time they consist of 50–150 cells.

aborted embryos are too old to use for stem cells.

from wiki:

Embryonic stem cells (ES cells) are stem cells derived from the inner cell mass of an early stage embryo known as a blastocyst. Human embryos reach the blastocyst stage 4–5 days post fertilization, at which time they consist of 50–150 cells.

My bad. I mean fertilised embryos left unused from fertility treatment.

The ban on stem research protects babies from abortions.

Stem cell research stops a beating heart!

He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

Look to the Bible, and you will see that advancing cellular biology leads to no good (Proverbs 21:19).
Better to live in a desert than with an angry woman? What the hell does that have to do with this? Not that the bible isn't crap to begin with, though...

And if you actually think that embryonic stem cells come from aborted fetuses, then I don't even know where to start on how full of shit you are.

My bad. I mean fertilised embryos left unused from fertility treatment.
i dont know how much trouble there is to make blastocysts in the lab from scratch as compared with collecting up donated frozen embryos.

Coercive force is a very dangerous thing, and so its use should be limited to activities that cannot be conducted without the use of coercive force.
Why? How does that make it better? And why is using people's tax dollars to create cures for diseases worse than the diseases themselves?

Two, anything receiving government funds is by its very nature vulnerable to being politicized; no one wants to bite the hand that feeds him, after all. Do we really need a repeat of Lysenkoism?
*Looks up Lysenkoism*

Hmm... it appears to be something from the Soviet Union. I'm not inclined to look further; something from a full-blown totalitarian state is a weak analogy.

Anyway, maybe it will be politicized, but so are so many things in our society. How is that worse than it being the moneymaker for some company that just wants to cash in on people's diseases?

Three, there are many people who are opposed to stem-cell research as a matter of general principle. We can argue all day about how valid those concerns are, but in the end they have the right to think as they do, however wrong they may be--and they should not be forced to fund activity they find reprehensible.
That can be said about any form of government spending. If someone doesn't like the police, are you saying they shouldn't be forced to fund them?

aborted embryos are too old to use for stem cells.

from wiki:

Embryonic stem cells (ES cells) are stem cells derived from the inner cell mass of an early stage embryo known as a blastocyst. Human embryos reach the blastocyst stage 4–5 days post fertilization, at which time they consist of 50–150 cells.

we must protect the rights of blastocyst-americans. only mexican blastocysts may be used for stem cell research!

we must protect the rights of blastocyst-americans. only mexican blastocysts may be used for stem cell research!
oh now you just aint thought that through, son.

what happens when we all end up with mexican stem cells invading our bodies legally?

Three, there are many people who are opposed to stem-cell research as a matter of general principle. We can argue all day about how valid those concerns are, but in the end they have the right to think as they do, however wrong they may be--and they should not be forced to fund activity they find reprehensible.

In that case, how can people be forced to fund any part of the government if they find its existence reprehensible?

I call shenanigans. Baldwin, are you Jhahannam/Hammurab in a new incarnation?

What was your first clue?

Yeah, I mean... look what it did to Star Wars.

I think it worked out okay...I trust Palpatine!

Yes, Congress should pass such a bill.

The Federal Government has no business spending money to fund stem cell research. IIRC, the "ban" on stem cell research is only on federal funding for such projects - it isn't illegal. Let businesses, colleges, and laboratories that want to do such research fund it by other means. Besides, the issue is embryonic stem cell study. There are other sources of stem cells such as a person's own fat or bone marrow cells or umbilical cord fluids that are readily made into stem cells that offer no potential issues ethically or morally.

Here's the non-religious argument against research:

It's Scientific Medicine.

I'll summarize the high points of what I mean instead of writing a long explanation while slightly inebriated:

While stem cells have an obvious medical purpose, re-purposing them for scientific reasons is dubious but will be done as scientists do not have to take the Hippocratic oath like doctors and physicians. Thus, a scientist can make take his research where ever he want as long as he is ok with it. Thus, the logical steps here are:

scientist works with stem cells or gets stem cells from medical environment by some means --> makes clone ||

pause here, think about that, makes a clone, it is the easiest thing in the world to do with a stem cell, because that's what they do, make clones of the damaged organs and tissues, so, now we are bringing in a life from, presumably like most clones, imperfect, weaker, more fragile, than the original, but this time, we're not talking mice or sheep, or cats, we're talking a human being, cloning a sentient organism by artificial means. What are the reparations for this? What consequence have we not considered? What of this self-aware being that knows he is just a copy of an original, but weaker and meeker, what of him? Even an atheist (usually) considers it wrong to take a life, what about making a life that will revolve around self-doubt and weakness? Its not a question of can we, in my mind not a question of even should we, but a question of will we.

and finally, this is pushing it, but it needs to be addressed, because if it is not safe guarded against, it will happen,

> creates clone army.
:rolleyes: What a ridiculous slippery-slope argument. Cloning a blastocyst, which does not have a consciousness, to havest its stem cells, which destroy the embryo, is a bit different from reproductive cloning that would lead to a human being with self-awareness. (Let alone an army of them.)

The Federal Government has no business spending money to fund stem cell research. IIRC, the "ban" on stem cell research is only on federal funding for such projects - it isn't illegal. Let businesses, colleges, and laboratories that want to do such research fund it by other means. Besides, the issue is embryonic stem cell study. There are other sources of stem cells such as a person's own fat or bone marrow cells or umbilical cord fluids that are readily made into stem cells that offer no potential issues ethically or morally.
This guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUT5IgMc0TQ) takes that ball and runs the other way with it.

Also, which biology courses have you taken? Embryonic stem cells have more potential to form different types of cells than non-embryonic stem cells, and therefore have potential in research that non-embryonic stem cells would not; were you aware of this? Besides, why not fund both forms of research?

Look to the Bible, and you will see that advancing cellular biology leads to no good (Proverbs 21:19).

Too bad the bible's false.

A quick google shows that the first is a terrorist word for "Demon" and the second is just bad spelling, so, no.

Which is ironic considering that jehovah (aka allah, aka yahweh, aka...) is -- well, was -- a demon...

If stem cell research can prevent another child being born with my disability, I'm all for it.

This guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUT5IgMc0TQ) takes that ball and runs the other way with it.

Also, which biology courses have you taken? Embryonic stem cells have more potential to form different types of cells than non-embryonic stem cells, and therefore have potential in research that non-embryonic stem cells would not; were you aware of this? Besides, why not fund both forms of research?

1. Why should my tax dollars fund either one?
2. Adult stem cells are already used for numerous successful therapies, and there have already been some successful embryonic-like stem cells created from human skin and hair. Embryonic stem cell research is no longer necessary, so why force the issue?

1. Why should my tax dollars fund either one?


Well, with all the other numerous useless shit they do with mine...I think id be okay with this one...Id say its much preferable than, say, Random Scientist A working on the Meat Engine...

At least this research shows alot of promise...and promise at actually doing something useful...like getting me a new Liver, lol...

What would that accomplish?

Sure, there would be advances in treatment of an enormous spectrum of degenerative and often fatal diseases, as well as progress in recovery for people living with hundreds, maybe thousands of crippling conditions, and it would probably allow for an entire field of medicine that would improve the quality and length of life for humanity as a whole, but IT ISN'T BIBLE BASED, and is therefore wrong.
A new one.

Listen, kid. I was like you, once. I, too, was a dyed-in-the-wool bible thumper who read the Book a hell of a lot. My favorite Gospel is Matthew, followed by John, after all. The Bible is awesome as a guidline to good living, but it's not a science textbook and should not ever be treated as such. Render unto Caesar and all that.

Let me ask you. Does the Big Bang demean God's glory? Does the fact that life has been created out of inorganic molecules almost 4 billion years ago mean that your faith in Him is lessened? Does the idea of millions of years of change denigrade the fact that God has seen fit to reveal himself to Man in the person of Jesus Christ?

I tell you, when it comes to stem cell research, I believe God will use it for good even if men will not.

Yeah, I know I'm arguing from an Intelligent Design position, but if I can get this kid to calm down in regards to spiritual matters and understand that science and religion need not be fighting each other...

It's my understanding that God does not wish us to stick to one area for all our answers on temporal matters, but to learn as much as we can about our universe. He didn't give us brains for nothing, after all. ;)

1. Why should my tax dollars fund either one?
2. Adult stem cells are already used for numerous successful therapies, and there have already been some successful embryonic-like stem cells created from human skin and hair. Embryonic stem cell research is no longer necessary, so why force the issue?
1. They have the potential to find cures and save many lives. That's more than I can say for most main uses of government money.

2. Adult stem cell research has had DECADES longer than embryonic stem cell research to deliver its therapies, so it's no surprise that it gets there first. And on what do you base the claim that stem cells from skin and hair were successfully made similar to embryonic stem cells in the relevant aspects?

Guess you would have to ban Cosmology too, because it doesn't seem that God creating the universe in 7 days abides with 14.7 billion years of universe evolution.

Of course as a Christian I'm in favor of banning Cosmology. Its full of sex articles like "The Secret Sex Move That Will Blow Your Man's Top", and the cover shots make me have impure thoughts.

A new one.

Listen, kid. I was like you, once. I, too, was a dyed-in-the-wool bible thumper who read the Book a hell of a lot. My favorite Gospel is Matthew, followed by John, after all. The Bible is awesome as a guidline to good living, but it's not a science textbook and should not ever be treated as such. Render unto Caesar and all that.

That you would put Matthew before John proves you aren't reading the Bible Right. Genesis comes first.

And you can use it as a science text book. I did an entire piece on polaraized light alignment techniques in Raman scattering, using nothing but Deuteronomy. The conference loved it, and I get cited all the time. Look it up, its in the Kentucky Journal of Creationism and Lawncare.


Let me ask you. Does the Big Bang demean God's glory? Does the fact that life has been created out of inorganic molecules almost 4 billion years ago mean that your faith in Him is lessened? Does the idea of millions of years of change denigrade the fact that God has seen fit to reveal himself to Man in the person of Jesus Christ?

Of course the Big Bang demeans God's glory. God is appalled by anything that even hints at assymetric distribution of matter to anti-matter. It says so right in Leviticus.


I tell you, when it comes to stem cell research, I believe God will use it for good even if men will not.

Yeah, I know I'm arguing from an Intelligent Design position, but if I can get this kid to calm down in regards to spiritual matters and understand that science and religion need not be fighting each other...

It's my understanding that God does not wish us to stick to one area for all our answers on temporal matters, but to learn as much as we can about our universe. He didn't give us brains for nothing, after all. ;)

He didn't give us brains for nothing, he gave us brains to read the bible and do what it says.

I don't want to be calm, I'm full of fervor for JESUS. YAY JESUS!!

If you were really Christian, you'd know that.

What's wrong with playing God? I used to put on a cape, slip a pair of underwear over my pants and pretend to be Superman. Then my wife told me to come inside before the neighbors called the cops again. Still, if we can play Superman, why can't we play God?

Besides, nowhere in the Bible does it say, "Thou shalt not usurp me."

1. They have the potential to find cures and save many lives. That's more than I can say for most main uses of government money.

Public money should only be used when there is no reason for private financing to be offered. If stem cell therapy is the panacea that some think it to be, the big pharm houses would be anxious to patent any treatment that might develop from it. Let them spend the money. They will undoubtedly be more efficient in the R&D, anyway.

Public money should only be used when there is no reason for private financing to be offered. If stem cell therapy is the panacea that some think it to be, the big pharm houses would be anxious to patent any treatment that might develop from it. Let them spend the money. They will undoubtedly be more efficient in the R&D, anyway.
And charge whatever they could get away with charging for it, so as to cash in on people's diseases. I'm not sure I'd like that scenario very much.

Did you see the youtube video about the stem cell debate I just linked to?

Of course as a Christian I'm in favor of banning Cosmology. Its full of sex articles like "The Secret Sex Move That Will Blow Your Man's Top", and the cover shots make me have impure thoughts.
XD Oh wow, this has to be an act. If not, I think you're confusing Cosmology with Cosmopolitan magazine...

Public money should only be used when there is no reason for private financing to be offered. If stem cell therapy is the panacea that some think it to be, the big pharm houses would be anxious to patent any treatment that might develop from it. Let them spend the money. They will undoubtedly be more efficient in the R&D, anyway.

Itd be great....Only i wouldnt trust those big Pharm Houses as far as I could throw em...Lipitor anyone?

And charge whatever they could get away with charging for it, so as to cash in on people's diseases. I'm not sure I'd like that scenario very much.

Did you see the youtube video about the stem cell debate I just linked to?
You're mixing two separate problems together... The cost for development should be borne by private industry, if there is any potential for commercial use. The cost for treatment can be dealt with in any number of ways. There's no reason that it would be free, should the government develop and patent the treatment, is there?

No I haven't looked at the youtube, but I'll give it a minute or two. The research isn't what I care most about, only that the proper entity does it. And from all I can tell, that entity is not the federal government.

Watched enough to know that Malloy is just another Bush-hater. Even if the government does conduct the basic research, who is going to manufacture and distribute the end product? Are there going to be price controls on this?

You're mixing two separate problems together... The cost for development should be borne by private industry, if there is any potential for commercial use. The cost for treatment can be dealt with in any number of ways. There's no reason that it would be free, should the government develop and patent the treatment, is there?
I was about to ask "what if it was done as part of public healthcare?" but I forgot you don't have public healthcare in the US. Ok then, what if it was done as part of public education, in which the research was conducted in public universities, and the benefits didn't fall into the category of society's label of "property" but belonged to the public?

It might sound idealistic, but I'd rather they tried to do things that way than just letting the private sector nail it all first.

I was about to ask "what if it was done as part of public healthcare?" but I forgot you don't have public healthcare in the US. Ok then, what if it was done as part of public education, in which the research was conducted in public universities, and the benefits didn't fall into the category of society's label of "property" but belonged to the public?

It might sound idealistic, but I'd rather they tried to do things that way than just letting the private sector nail it all first.

You really dont understand how things work in America do you?

If there aren't any commercial interests it simply doesnt get done, On both sides, government and business...

but, as a general rule, based solely on my own observations, The Government generally makes sure its safe and effective (generally i say) whereas Private Industry gets it out fast as possible for a quick pay out...

I was about to ask "what if it was done as part of public healthcare?" but I forgot you don't have public healthcare in the US. Ok then, what if it was done as part of public education, in which the research was conducted in public universities, and the benefits didn't fall into the category of society's label of "property" but belonged to the public?

It might sound idealistic, but I'd rather they tried to do things that way than just letting the private sector nail it all first.
We do so have public healthcare in the U.S. It's just not as organized as in other places... Medicare/Medicaid whichever is for poor people. Many states operate their own version of NHS...

But the one thing that won't change is that no matter who develops the product, there will still need to be a manufacturing and distribution system. Someone is going to have to be paid well enough to produce a treatment... Or a bunch of niche treatments -- should the whole thing ever become viable.

Governments and colleges don't do that sort of thing.

A quick google shows that the first is a terrorist word for "Demon" and the second is just bad spelling, so, no.

There is a language called Terrorist?

Absolutely not. The constitution does not grant the federal gov't the power to fund medical research. Leave that to private industry and personal/corporate donations.

Absolutely not. The constitution does not grant the federal gov't the power to fund medical research. Leave that to private industry and personal/corporate donations.
Why should we have to cling to the words of a bunch of long-dead slave-owners?

So two things:

1. The stem cell research ban is merely a ban of government funding for research involving stem cells that came from an embryo, i.e. the gov't doesn't fund research that is dependent on the destruction of what may or may not be life. Not anything else, stem cells can still come from umbilical cords, bone marrow, fibroblasts, etc. Obtaining these does not even carry the potential of destroying life.

2. The embryonic stem cells are generally derived from leftover embryos used in fertility treatments. Why are we allowing people to pay thousands of dollars to bring another child into an already overcrowded world? At the very least, the US gov't should ban all funding for institutions that perform fertility procedures.

There is a language called Terrorist?

Nope, there isn't any language called Terrorism.

Terrorist or terror is a Latin term that means ''to frighten''.

Why should we have to cling to the words of a bunch of long-dead slave-owners?
Well, yes we should follow the law. Or are you saying I don't have to follow a law if I dislike the lawmaker?

There is a language called Terrorist?

Well, its technically a language group.

Speaking as a born against Christian, I think we should look to the Bible:


"And yea, verily, for many grad students in various disciplines, from microbiology to organic chemistry to biophysics"

"Came they together, wanting to make a name, establish careers and sheweth much sci-cock in the peer reviewed literature"

"And yea, so unto them, the ban was lifted, and they worked with great vigor, stopping only for hentai porn and Battlestar Galactica"

"And the fruits of their labor fillith the cup called Basic Research, which flowed therefore into the grapes and vines of Applied research, which fermented into industry"

"And the Lord granteth them grants, and yea, verily, for they had no lives saveth X-Box 360 and so worked in the lab all the time, until they were like a pale horse, primarily in the sense that they were very pale"

"And so, when you think about it, brilliant young men and women, from all over the world, on campuses throughout America, would truly discover some wicked cool shit with stem cells, and in time, save many lives."

-Genesis, 9:22

So two things:

1. The stem cell research ban is merely a ban of government funding for research involving stem cells that came from an embryo, i.e. the gov't doesn't fund research that is dependent on the destruction of what may or may not be life. Not anything else, stem cells can still come from umbilical cords, bone marrow, fibroblasts, etc. Obtaining these does not even carry the potential of destroying life.

2. The embryonic stem cells are generally derived from leftover embryos used in fertility treatments. Why are we allowing people to pay thousands of dollars to bring another child into an already overcrowded world? At the very least, the US gov't should ban all funding for institutions that perform fertility procedures.

Yes, because if those barren women don't like it, they can do what Ruth did and pray.

Why should we have to cling to the words of a bunch of long-dead slave-owners?

Absolutely. The Constitution prevents the US from becoming Jesusland, and should be amended to reverse every article and amendment.

Let's close down the CDC and make it a megachurch. Atlanta needs more of those.

Well, yes we should follow the law. Or are you saying I don't have to follow a law if I dislike the lawmaker?
The lawmaker, though that's what I was commenting on, wasn't really the relevant point. The point was that following the law dogmatically, even when the law is wrong, isn't necessarily a good thing.

Let's say you were an officer in the Nazi concentration camps during the Second World War. You were ordered to carry out part of the execution of many of the Jews for the "crime" (with respect to Nazi society) of being a Jew. You refused to do this, and so you were breaking the law. Are you saying you DO have to follow a law even if you have reason not to trust the legitimacy of the lawmaker?

The lawmaker, though that's what I was commenting on, wasn't really the relevant point. The point was that following the law dogmatically, even when the law is wrong, isn't necessarily a good thing.

Let's say you were an officer in the Nazi concentration camps during the Second World War. You were ordered to carry out part of the execution of many of the Jews for the "crime" (with respect to Nazi society) of being a Jew. You refused to do this, and so you were breaking the law. Are you saying you DO have to follow a law even if you have reason not to trust the legitimacy of the lawmaker?

Exactly. That's why my Montana militia group ignores the totally illegitimate Federal Government.

*skims over some of BfC's posts*

Ok BfC, I want a simple answer, are you a joke account or not?

*skims over some of BfC's posts*

Ok BfC, I want a simple answer, are you a joke account or not?

Even "simple" answers often need more than skimming.

I learned that from the Bible, and from the safety instructions on the Advanced Photon Source beam at Argonne National Laboratory .

There's no point in reading them both, they pretty much say all the same stuff.

While stem cells have an obvious medical purpose, re-purposing them for scientific reasons is dubious but will be done as scientists do not have to take the Hippocratic oath like doctors and physicians. Thus, a scientist can make take his research where ever he want as long as he is ok with it.

You're not familiar with things like grants, Institutional Review Boards, and Stem Cell Research Committees, are you?

pause here, think about that, makes a clone, it is the easiest thing in the world to do with a stem cell,

If it's so easy, why hasn't someone already done it?

and finally, this is pushing it, but it needs to be addressed, because if it is not safe guarded against, it will happen,

It is perfectly possible to allow stem cell research and disallow reproductive cloning. Might someone try it anyways? Certainly, but those people are going to try it under the current conditions as well.


Meh, since we're aborting fetuses, might as well take the stem cell from those fetuses and put them to good use.

I believe this discussion is about embryonic stem cells, Wilgrove. Abortion doesn't come into it and neither do fetuses.

i dont know how much trouble there is to make blastocysts in the lab from scratch as compared with collecting up donated frozen embryos.

Actually, creating blastocysts specifically for the purpose of research, while it could be very useful (especially in studying genetic diseases) is generally seen as being more ethically problematic than using those leftover from fertility treatment. Inf act, the legislation that Bush vetoed restricted federal funding to embryos leftover from in vitro fertilization.


The Federal Government has no business spending money to fund stem cell research. IIRC, the "ban" on stem cell research is only on federal funding for such projects - it isn't illegal. Let businesses, colleges, and laboratories that want to do such research fund it by other means.

In other words, ensure that very little such research gets done in this country while other countries are pumping money into it.

It's interesting to note that the US tends to be ahead in most fields of study - more papers per capita come out of the US than most other countries. But we're demonstrably behind in the field of embryonic stem cell research.

Besides, the issue is embryonic stem cell study. There are other sources of stem cells such as a person's own fat or bone marrow cells or umbilical cord fluids that are readily made into stem cells that offer no potential issues ethically or morally.

All tissue collection offers up some ethical issues. There is a reason that there are strict informed consent policies involved in such things.

That said, it's important to note that the various types of adult stem cells do not have the same proliferative potential, nor are they pluripotent (able to differentiate into all cell types). The reprogrammed cells are promising, but the researchers who derived them have already identified difference in behavior between those cells and actual embryonic stem cells.

I believe this discussion is about embryonic stem cells, Wilgrove. Abortion doesn't come into it and neither do fetuses.

It does so too come into it.

Stem cells come from murdered little babies. We learned all about it at Steven Baldwin's "Windsurf Instead of Killing Your Baby" Extreme Teen Anti-Abortion Rally and Youth Ministry Clambake.

It's interesting to note that the US tends to be ahead in most fields of study - more papers per capita come out of the US than most other countries. But we're demonstrably behind in the field of embryonic stem cell research.

Yeah, but have you seen the names on those papers? Its not Jones or Smith, usually.

And every body knows, those are the only really American names.

2. Adult stem cells are already used for numerous successful therapies, and there have already been some successful embryonic-like stem cells created from human skin and hair. Embryonic stem cell research is no longer necessary, so why force the issue?

Actually, there is one medically accepted adult stem cell therapy - bone marrow transplant. We now have multiple methods by which we obtain hematopoietic stem cells, including bone marrow, cord blood, etc., but the actual therapy is one that we have been using for decades. Comparing that to a cell type we've only had any access whatsoever to for 10 years is disingenuous at best.

And only someone who doesn't understand the science would suggest that the reprogramming of adult stem cells means that we no longer need to study actual embryonic stem cells. They provide another useful direction of study, but differences in behavior have already been noted and the genetic modification of such cells makes it highly unlikely that they will ever be useful in a clinical setting.


Public money should only be used when there is no reason for private financing to be offered. If stem cell therapy is the panacea that some think it to be, the big pharm houses would be anxious to patent any treatment that might develop from it. Let them spend the money. They will undoubtedly be more efficient in the R&D, anyway.

(a) Embryonic stem cell research is largely still in the basic science stages. Big pharma really doesn't get involved in such research because it takes so long to even have a chance at being profitable.

(b) Pig pharma would not be more efficient in basic science research. Why? Because they hide everything. I've seen plenty of corporate reps give talks at scientific conferences and what I've found - without exception - is that their talks are just advertisements. They are useless in advancing the science because everything is considered proprietary. No one else can repeat what they've been doing or build on it. All they'll tell you is their results, and you really can't even trust those because they refuse to tell you what they did to obtain those results.

Science advances through peer review and multiple labs building off of one another. This is why big pharma generally doesn't pick anything up until its pretty much ready to go into production.

Actually, creating blastocysts specifically for the purpose of research, while it could be very useful (especially in studying genetic diseases) is generally seen as being more ethically problematic than using those leftover from fertility treatment.

but i'm not sure there is any real good argument for that position. you can only get there by attributing a value to blastocysts that we cannot coherently hold them to have.

Actually, creating blastocysts specifically for the purpose of research, while it could be very useful (especially in studying genetic diseases) is generally seen as being more ethically problematic than using those leftover from fertility treatment. Inf act, the legislation that Bush vetoed restricted federal funding to embryos leftover from in vitro fertilization.


ahhh well i suppose there are plenty more of those than there is need for them.

We do so have public healthcare in the U.S. It's just not as organized as in other places... Medicare/Medicaid whichever is for poor people. Many states operate their own version of NHS...

But the one thing that won't change is that no matter who develops the product, there will still need to be a manufacturing and distribution system. Someone is going to have to be paid well enough to produce a treatment... Or a bunch of niche treatments -- should the whole thing ever become viable.

Governments and colleges don't do that sort of thing.

You're right, they don't.

But they do complete the research that leads up to it. It's only when they're getting close to something commercially viable that they start taking it corporate.

but i'm not sure there is any real good argument for that position. you can only get there by attributing a value to blastocysts that we cannot coherently hold them to have.

That's completely untrue. Blastocysts are people, since it is well known in the scientific community that Blastocysts are the result of the final stage of Zygote development, for which the technical name is "Spontaneous Generation of a Human Soul".

Its true, I read it in a Chick Pamphlet.

You're right, they don't.

But they do complete the research that leads up to it. It's only when they're getting close to something commercially viable that they start taking it corporate.

But first, they drink Mountain Dew and play Benjuka and watch pirated copies of Battle Star Galactica and make jokes about how their thesis advisor sounds like a badly dubbed copy of Full Metal Alchemist.

Absolutely. The Constitution prevents the US from becoming Jesusland, and should be amended to reverse every article and amendment.

Let's close down the CDC and make it a megachurch. Atlanta needs more of those.

Here's a better idea: Why don't we shut down every church and try the religious leaders for spreading their lies?

(a) Embryonic stem cell research is largely still in the basic science stages. Big pharma really doesn't get involved in such research because it takes so long to even have a chance at being profitable.

(b) Pig pharma would not be more efficient in basic science research. Why? Because they hide everything. I've seen plenty of corporate reps give talks at scientific conferences and what I've found - without exception - is that their talks are just advertisements. They are useless in advancing the science because everything is considered proprietary. No one else can repeat what they've been doing or build on it. All they'll tell you is their results, and you really can't even trust those because they refuse to tell you what they did to obtain those results.

Science advances through peer review and multiple labs building off of one another. This is why big pharma generally doesn't pick anything up until its pretty much ready to go into production.
I disagree that the only way to advance science is through peer review, etc. A private corporation will jump on a technology if it is patentable. Then, they will tell you everything about it. Or tell the USPO, that is. They will even license you to produce it...

That's completely untrue. Blastocysts are people, since it is well known in the scientific community that Blastocysts are the result of the final stage of Zygote development, for which the technical name is "Spontaneous Generation of a Human Soul".

Its true, I read it in a Chick Pamphlet.

i hope chick does have a stem cell pamphlet out. or at least in the works. i'd imagine that all the blastocysts, having never accepted jesus into their lives and taking part in immoral research, wind up burning in hell at the end.

Even "simple" answers often need more than skimming.

I learned that from the Bible, and from the safety instructions on the Advanced Photon Source beam at Argonne National Laboratory .

There's no point in reading them both, they pretty much say all the same stuff.
You still didn't answer my question. -.-

Here's a better idea: Why don't we shut down every church and try the religious leaders for spreading their lies?

I second the motion and move that it be put to an immediate vote.

I disagree that the only way to advance science is through peer review, etc.

Not the only way. Just the efficient way to do it.

Otherwise, you've got multiple labs all doing the same things and making the same mistakes. You don't have the give and take that happens at conferences, where someone coming at it from a different background can help you look at your research in a different way or who can take it in a different direction.

Science would be slowed to a crawl if it was all handled by private corporations.

A private corporation will jump on a technology if it is patentable.

But they don't jump on research until that point. You have years - often decades - of basic science research before you get to something that might be patentable.

Then, they will tell you everything about it. Or tell the USPO, that is. They will even license you to produce it...

No, they probably won't. They don't these days. It actually makes scientific examination of products that are already out there incredibly difficult. We can't really perform truly controlled tests because we aren't allowed to know what is in the product.

we aren't allowed to know what is in the product.

Eh? Whats this? Reverse engineering suddenly stopped existing or something?

It doesn't take mountains of initiative to just buy some and stick it through all the fancy science machines.

Eh? Whats this? Reverse engineering suddenly stopped existing or something?

Not at all. But it is still illegal.

It doesn't take mountains of initiative to just buy some and stick it through all the fancy science machines.

(a) Labs are limited in exactly what equipment we have.

(b) You couldn't publish anything you did get that way, so it really wouldn't advance scientific knowledge in general.

It seems the big problem is the USPO giving out patents for extremely vague definitions, more akin to patents merged with trade secrets then.

Otherwise, you've got multiple labs all doing the same things and making the same mistakes. You don't have the give and take that happens at conferences, where someone coming at it from a different background can help you look at your research in a different way or who can take it in a different direction.


This is completely false.

If what you were saying is true, major discoveries would be predicated on the efforts of scientists all over the world, sharing information through conferences, publications, cross-training, and sabbatical.

I challenge you to name one effect, phenomena, technique, principal, or scientific discovery of any kind where another scientists work was cited.

Here's a better idea: Why don't we shut down every church and try the religious leaders for spreading their lies?

Well, since "every church" is part of a massive, monolithic uniform belief system, I guess you could do that, but there are too many of us, placed too highly in governments around the world.

*skims over some of BfC's posts*

Ok BfC, I want a simple answer, are you a joke account or not?

I'd say it's fairly obvious. He's striking similar to Hammurab.

I'd say it's fairly obvious. He's striking similar to Hammurab.

See, this is what happens when people attack the poster instead of looking at the post.

Scientists continue kidnapping toddlers from day care centers and cutting stems cells out of them with scalpels.

Why should we have to cling to the words of a bunch of long-dead slave-owners?

Don't.
Move.

Not the only way. Just the efficient way to do it.

Otherwise, you've got multiple labs all doing the same things and making the same mistakes. You don't have the give and take that happens at conferences, where someone coming at it from a different background can help you look at your research in a different way or who can take it in a different direction.

Science would be slowed to a crawl if it was all handled by private corporations.



But they don't jump on research until that point. You have years - often decades - of basic science research before you get to something that might be patentable.


No, they probably won't. They don't these days. It actually makes scientific examination of products that are already out there incredibly difficult. We can't really perform truly controlled tests because we aren't allowed to know what is in the product.
Those multiple labs are engaged in competition. That's the most productive force we have...
That lag is the handoff between the basic enabling discovery and the productization of the treatment. That's where it would be more efficient if the whole thing were handled by the for-profit sector.

I'll give in that basic enabling discoveries are most often accomplished by public labs. I don't think that's a limitation on the capability of private research; only a quirk of our granting system.

But you need to recognize that further development into a product requires the private sector. Look at this (http://www.pnas.org/content/93/23/12725/T2.expansion.html). It does point out that for selected treatments, the public sector provided the basic discovery, but that the private sector was required to produce a useful product.

Those multiple labs are engaged in competition. That's the most productive force we have...

Competition and collaboration. Yes, there is a drive to be the first to get to a specific discovery or be the first to get a set of experiments published.

However, there is still something that doesn't happen in the corporate world - collaboration and peer review. We want to be the first to get our ongoing experiments published, but we do publish them - in detail. Those discoveries aren't hidden from the rest of the world so that we can be the only ones using them to advance.

In the corporate world, on the other hand, everything is secret. Corporate publications are advertisements, not scientific articles. The detail necessary for anyone else to build on what they're doing isn't there - because they want to be the only ones to build on anything.

That lag is the handoff between the basic enabling discovery and the productization of the treatment. That's where it would be more efficient if the whole thing were handled by the for-profit sector.

Science takes time - often more time than those not engaged in it realize. And any "lag" supposedly caused by taking the science in a particular direction to create a new technology is often mitigated by the fact that the same scientists doing the basic science often start their own companies to take it private.

The lag I'm talking about is that which would be created by removing the collaborative and peer review processes from the basic science research.

I'll give in that basic enabling discoveries are most often accomplished by public labs. I don't think that's a limitation on the capability of private research; only a quirk of our granting system.

It really isn't about where the money comes from. If private companies wanted to fund research that would be just as open as current science is, then the efficiency of scientific progress wouldn't really change. But that's not what private companies do. They're far more secretive.

But you need to recognize that further development into a product requires the private sector. Look at this (http://www.pnas.org/content/93/23/12725/T2.expansion.html). It does point out that for selected treatments, the public sector provided the basic discovery, but that the private sector was required to produce a useful product.

I've never disputed the fact that the private sector generally takes new technology into production. Even if an established company doesn't do it, scientists who have been working in the public sector often take it private themselves once they are nearing a marketable product (and once they've done all the background stuff, established companies often buy them out).

What I am disputing is that the corporate structure would be better suited to carry out the basic science research that leads there in the first place.

Competition and collaboration. Yes, there is a drive to be the first to get to a specific discovery or be the first to get a set of experiments published.
And competition doesn't necessarily have to be business competition either; other factors can be involved, like even the egotism of the individual scientists involved. I remember towards the end of thermal physics last semester they were showing us this documentary about rivalries worsening among scientists rushing to be the first ones to liquify certain gases. o.o

And competition doesn't necessarily have to be business competition either; other factors can be involved, like even the egotism of the individual scientists involved. I remember towards the end of thermal physics last semester they were showing us this documentary about rivalries worsening among scientists rushing to be the first ones to liquify certain gases. o.o

One of my friends is applying to UC Berkeley and I went with her to tour the campus. The tour guide made sure to point out that three elements have been discovered at Berkeley and named by Berkeley scientists. She also made sure to point out that, as yet, there is no "Stanfordium". hehe

Competition and collaboration. Yes, there is a drive to be the first to get to a specific discovery or be the first to get a set of experiments published.

However, there is still something that doesn't happen in the corporate world - collaboration and peer review. We want to be the first to get our ongoing experiments published, but we do publish them - in detail. Those discoveries aren't hidden from the rest of the world so that we can be the only ones using them to advance.

In the corporate world, on the other hand, everything is secret. Corporate publications are advertisements, not scientific articles. The detail necessary for anyone else to build on what they're doing isn't there - because they want to be the only ones to build on anything.



None of that secrecy is necessarily a bad thing. When the drug is patented, and most are, the process is public. Then generic drugs can be produced.

Collaboration doesn't need to solely consist of peer-reviewed papers and conference proceedings, either. It's not unknown to hire a consultant to help with some rough spots.

If non-profits and universities want to conduct research, fine. Let them do it with money from private charity. This is not generally where I expect public money to be spent.

Now, the government could do much more to make donations more appealing...

Interestingly, science seems to have been able to make advances without the stem cells that come from embryos - they've used stem cells from other parts of the adult body.

While I believe the restriction on embryonic stem cells is silly, I don't see them as the end-all-be-all-cure-all for everything - and just because they become available doesn't mean that many miracles will suddenly be available.

A lot of the pro-embryonic stem cell crowd sells us the idea that miracles are only a short step away if they become available - something that just isn't true.

None of that secrecy is necessarily a bad thing.
Even if they keep things that could save lives secret in order to make money? Let's say one company discovered a cure that could free people from diseases, but this company was also making money on a treatment for that same disease, and that treatment provided a more continuous flow of revenue, so they figured it would be more profitable to leave it uncured and kept the discovery secret. Let's say similar things happened with various companies at different times, unaware of the others' discoveries. In this case, even without collusion, different businesspeople make similar decisions; in which case, cures would be held back by capitalism.

When the drug is patented, and most are, the process is public. Then generic drugs can be produced.
So does that mean that other companies will be allowed to make drugs that have the same effect, and compete? On the surface that would sound appealing, except that even then, depending on the nature of the disease, people would still depend enough on the drug that companies could get away with charging prices that would be pretty much legalized extortion.

Collaboration doesn't need to solely consist of peer-reviewed papers and conference proceedings, either.
Just like competition doesn't need to solely consist of market competition.

If non-profits and universities want to conduct research, fine. Let them do it with money from private charity. This is not generally where I expect public money to be spent.
So where exactly do you expect public money to be spent that you would consider more legitimate than medical research?

Now, the government could do much more to make donations more appealing...
Like what?

Of course. Make it permanent.

Of course. Make it permanent.
Make what permanent? o.o

Interestingly, science seems to have been able to make advances without the stem cells that come from embryos - they've used stem cells from other parts of the adult body.

While I believe the restriction on embryonic stem cells is silly, I don't see them as the end-all-be-all-cure-all for everything - and just because they become available doesn't mean that many miracles will suddenly be available.

A lot of the pro-embryonic stem cell crowd sells us the idea that miracles are only a short step away if they become available - something that just isn't true.
I stayed away from claiming that this is research without potential because there have been advances in the technology. In fact, one might even be able to claim that the fundamental breakthrough has been made. I read one story about a woman being saved by a trachea that was grown from stem cells. Bone marrow stem cells. Still no breakthroughs with embryonic stem cells, though. Maybe the thing to do is concentrate on where the high potential lies and quit whining about how there is no federal funding for the low potential research.

I stayed away from claiming that this is research without potential because there have been advances in the technology. In fact, one might even be able to claim that the fundamental breakthrough has been made. I read one story about a woman being saved by a trachea that was grown from stem cells. Bone marrow stem cells. Still no breakthroughs with embryonic stem cells, though. Maybe the thing to do is concentrate on where the high potential lies and quit whining about how there is no federal funding for the low potential research.
Oh please, not this cliche again. Just because embryonic stem cells have yet to make a breakthrough, doesn't mean it's "low potential research"; seeing as how they have more potential to form different kinds of cells, they'd have more reason to be higher potential for at least some kinds of research. The lack of present success probably has more to do with ESCR being a newer kind of research than other kinds, some of which have had decades longer to deliver their results. In any case, saying it's not sucessful and then not supporting it is a catch-22, if not reversed cause and effect.

It seems like you've bought into anti-ESCR propaganda.

None of that secrecy is necessarily a bad thing.

It is at the basic science stage, particularly if you want science to move forward at the same rate (or faster) than it is now. Secrecy slows things down, because it means that only those few who are in on the secret are providing any input.


Interestingly, science seems to have been able to make advances without the stem cells that come from embryos - they've used stem cells from other parts of the adult body.

Interestingly, science has had decades more time to get there with those other stem cells. The only accepted medical treatment using stem cells has been around for quite a while - bone marrow transplant. IIRC, the first one was carried out in the 60's - 30+ years before the first lab isolated human ESCs.

We've only had human embryonic stem cells available at all for a single decade - and under heavy restrictions at that. Even so, there are clinical trials moving forward with therapies involving ESCs.

A lot of the pro-embryonic stem cell crowd sells us the idea that miracles are only a short step away if they become available - something that just isn't true.

Miracles are never "only a short step away". Those of us who work with these cells aren't making any pretenses about how long we expect these things to take. Even if we made a huge discovery tomorrow, it would at least 5-10 years before it yielded anything commercially viable.

Unfortunately, those who don't really understand science often think the process is much quicker than that.


I stayed away from claiming that this is research without potential because there have been advances in the technology. In fact, one might even be able to claim that the fundamental breakthrough has been made. I read one story about a woman being saved by a trachea that was grown from stem cells. Bone marrow stem cells. Still no breakthroughs with embryonic stem cells, though.

(a) This is incorrect. There are clinical trials moving forward with therapies involving ESCs.

(b) We've been working with and studying cells from bone marrow for much, much longer than we've had with ESCs. It's a bit disingenuous to expect the two areas of research to be at the same point.

(c) Research with ESCs is not limited solely to therapeutic uses. They are also the best window we have into early embryonic development.

Maybe the thing to do is concentrate on where the high potential lies and quit whining about how there is no federal funding for the low potential research.

Maybe the best thing to do is avoid making pronouncements about potential when you don't really know what you're talking about.

Oh please, not this cliche again. Just because embryonic stem cells have yet to make a breakthrough, doesn't mean it's "low potential research"; seeing as how they have more potential to form different kinds of cells, they'd have more reason to be higher potential for at least some kinds of research. The lack of present success probably has more to do with ESCR being a newer kind of research than other kinds, some of which have had decades longer to deliver their results. In any case, saying it's not sucessful and then not supporting it is a catch-22, if not reversed cause and effect.

It seems like you've bought into anti-ESCR propaganda.

Yep, all we need is a little more money... and a little more... and a little more.

Say, how come the vaunted health care systems of other countries haven't made a contribution to this research? I thought Europe was draining the US of all it's researchers in this area?

Say, how come the vaunted health care systems of other countries haven't made a contribution to this research? I thought Europe was draining the US of all it's researchers in this area?

Actually, it's more that California is pulling them from other parts of the country these days. Why? Because that's where the money is.

Quite a few people were pulled to places like Singapore back when they started investing heavily in the research, though.

There are still a few of us elsewhere in the country, but we're mostly stuck using the federally approved lines, with a lot of legal rigmarole just to get them (since the companies that own them essentially have a monopoly).

Actually, it's more that California is pulling them from other parts of the country these days. Why? Because that's where the money is.

Quite a few people were pulled to places like Singapore back when they started investing heavily in the research, though.

There are still a few of us elsewhere in the country, but we're mostly stuck using the federally approved lines, with a lot of legal rigmarole just to get them (since the companies that own them essentially have a monopoly).
What are you saying? That the US is the only country that funds basic research? I'm asking why hasn't another of the 'better' health care systems, in a country that truly 'cares' about its citizens, made more progress than here in the awful US, where we ban federal funds.

You tell me that more money is here. More money than anywhere else in the world... That must mean that the federal funding isn't all that crucial.

It is at the basic science stage, particularly if you want science to move forward at the same rate (or faster) than it is now. Secrecy slows things down, because it means that only those few who are in on the secret are providing any input.

I've had a drink now, so I'm far more cynical that I was earlier in the day... You must be in your first year, or so, of grad school. You really seem to believe in the idea that there is collaboration between pre-eminent rivals in the academic world. Believe me, and you will when you try to get your first grant, it is even more cutthroat in academia than anywhere else.

People print outright lies in their papers, so they can mislead any followers. My advisor -- well someone on my committee -- lied to me, just so I wouldn't beat him to publish.

My best work was done completely alone -- after a good literature search.

I've had a drink now, so I'm far more cynical that I was earlier in the day... You must be in your first year, or so, of grad school. You really seem to believe in the idea that there is collaboration between pre-eminent rivals in the academic world. Believe me, and you will when you try to get your first grant, it is even more cutthroat in academia than anywhere else.

People print outright lies in their papers, so they can mislead any followers. My advisor -- well someone on my committee -- lied to me, just so I wouldn't beat him to publish.

My best work was done completely alone -- after a good literature search.

Yes. Yes, that's absolutely true. Dempubliscents is a first year grad student. I read it in a Chick Pamphlet.

That literature search...would that have been...peer-reviewed literature?

Miracles are never "only a short step away". Those of us who work with these cells aren't making any pretenses about how long we expect these things to take. Even if we made a huge discovery tomorrow, it would at least 5-10 years before it yielded anything commercially viable.

Unfortunately, those who don't really understand science often think the process is much quicker than that.


The problem is, most of the celebrities who are talking up the idea of embryonic stem cell research are playing the miracle card at every step.

Every time I heard someone speak on Christopher Reeve's account, or hearing him speak, it was always about making him walk as soon as they could get some embryonic stem cells.

I realize the scientists know better, but the PR department is full of mouthbreathing ignorant Hollywood types.

I could make a whole thread on how ignorant Hollywood types are - from their fear of vaccines to their fad diets.

What are you saying? That the US is the only country that funds basic research?

No, I'm saying that the scientists interested in doing a particular type of work often follow the money available for that work. This is the reason that many scientists were drawn to Singapore several years ago. It's the reason that many moved to California after Prop 71 passed.

I've had a drink now, so I'm far more cynical that I was earlier in the day... You must be in your first year, or so, of grad school.

Ha! Hardly. Thanks to my bad luck, I'm now with my 3rd PI and on my 3rd thesis project.

You really seem to believe in the idea that there is collaboration between pre-eminent rivals in the academic world. Believe me, and you will when you try to get your first grant, it is even more cutthroat in academia than anywhere else.

I didn't say it wasn't cutthroat. I've felt the pressure to be the first to publish something. And scientists are human beings - with human failings. Some will lie, cheat, or steal to be the first to get something out there (although I haven't seen any evidence that they are the majority).

But, no matter how secretive the lab is, the drive is to publish. If someone in academia is to have any standing at all, he's got to be putting out papers and presenting at conferences. And the publications/presentations aren't like those that come out of the corporate world - basicaly devoid of any useful detail other than "We rock so hard!"

And there is true collaboration. I've been part of a multi-institution, mulit-lab collaborative project for a while now. It has sometimes been a pain in the ass but, interestingly enough, the problems haven't come from the researchers. They've come from the institutions trying to act too much like corporations and thus getting in the way of the science.

People print outright lies in their papers, so they can mislead any followers.

And, when discovered, they are discredited completely and their scientific career is over.

My best work was done completely alone -- after a good literature search.

What good was the literature search if you're so convinced that everyone is printing lies in their papers?