Stem cell research

ND4SPD · 08-01-2005, 8:11 AM

http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,...tml?tw=rss.TEK

luvtolean · 08-01-2005, 12:58 PM

He's just politicking. He wants to be pres, and he knows most people support it. The good news is, most people want it, so it's a win-win situation, the beauty of democracy.

That said, I definately support undoing Dubyas stupid, short-sighted, theopolicy on the subject.

I wonder how much the fact Arnold passed legislation to set up massive stem cell research in Cali figured in?

jaim · 08-08-2005, 4:40 AM

Bill Frist is a ****ing idiot and a danger to all U.S. citizens. He is the ****tard who said aids could be spread by sweat and tears. He is also the ****tard who made a snap diagnosis of Terry Shivo by watching a video tape of her. He is credited with having a medical degree but I am not sure if he is currently a practicing physician. If he is he should have his license revolked.

Him saying that he is for stem cell research is purely a political move. He may not even know what stem cells are or when they come from.

aussie_929 · 08-08-2005, 8:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaim

Bill Frist is a ****ing idiot and a danger to all U.S. citizens. He is the ****tard who said aids could be spread by sweat and tears. He is also the ****tard who made a snap diagnosis of Terry Shivo by watching a video tape of her. He is credited with having a medical degree but I am not sure if he is currently a practicing physician. If he is he should have his license revolked.

Him saying that he is for stem cell research is purely a political move. He may not even know what stem cells are or when they come from.

lol you have problems telling people what you really think eh?

Baketech · 08-08-2005, 9:24 AM

I am pro stem cell research...but also support W's stance on the issue. I think he has taken the appropriate middle ground with it...

If it's a good idea, then by all means allow the private sector to explore it, but there is no need for government money funding it...

*Mo Noyz* · 08-09-2005, 12:22 PM

I don't have a problem with the government funding it just as it does now. I just don't see the need to up the ante.

luvtolean · 08-09-2005, 12:58 PM

??

Why shouldn't the government be funding something so promising in greater numbers?

Pretty much all other first world countries are getting more funding in the field...meaning we'll be at a disadvantage.

Baketech · 08-09-2005, 1:36 PM

Because lack of government funding in this area is not an impediment to progress...

There is enough commercial impetus to drive the research imho... but the vested parties are first going to play the political angle in an attempt to subsidize their research costs...

I don't see a direct government role or responsibilty for funding here...their involvement should be regulatory imho...

luvtolean · 08-09-2005, 1:44 PM

Well, in the strictest Constitutional sense, I agree, the government has no responsibility.

But the boom in tech in the US was pretty much all funded by initial research monies from the government. The Internet. All of the amazing info generated by NASA....the background research for all of this was funded by the government.

The beauty of government vs private funding is that the information is not worried about a business plan and making money. It is important, IMO, in the initial stages of science that it's not done for profit. As it is very costly, and very light on results.

Would we have had the Internet, titanium in our bikes, carbon fiber in everything, and advanced microelectronics without the government funding it all? Probably. But who knows when.

BDA116 · 08-09-2005, 2:06 PM

I am not an expert in genetics, but I am intrigued by this potentially life saving and life giving area and have done quite a bit of research and reading for my own personal knowledge and insight.
The area that they are talking about not continuing funding for is only the embryonic stem cells. The gov is still funding "adult" stem cells - stem cells from cord blood, bone marrow, cadavers, etc. Stem cells from cord blood have proven quite useful and are used now in treating some diseases.
Removing embryonic stem cells kills the embryo. Yeah, that opens another can of worms about start of life, but the fact is that it kills a living organism. That aside, embryonic stem cells have yet to prove their usefulness as 'adult' cells from cord blood have.
The U.S. government, along with private industry has poured quite a bit of money into embryonic cells in the past, and is now deciding that the focus should stay on 'adult' stem cells where they have proven usefulness.
Stem cells have been studied for nearly 40 years now. If the private sector thinks there is still reason to continue research on embryonic stem cells over proven 'adult' stem cells, they are free to do so.
There is nothing wrong with the government deciding to concentrate it's monetary focus on stem cells that have a proven track record of usefulness.

*Mo Noyz* · 08-09-2005, 4:19 PM

Agreed.

sheepofblue · 08-09-2005, 11:13 PM

Funny thing is that Bush increased government spending as before there was zero. Now people are whining because they cannot run amok with government (read my) money. If the idea is so great there is funding.

*Mo Noyz* · 08-10-2005, 12:06 AM

Exactly, Sheeply.

And that is something that has amused me for quite some time. Some people(read:liberlas)act as though the government is donating absolutely nothing towards stem cell research.

That is pure bunk.

As our good friend BDA has already pointed out.

Bacchus · 08-10-2005, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mo Noyz

As our good friend BDA has already pointed out.

Uh-oh, I smell a leg humper!

Guilty as charged...

*Mo Noyz* · 08-10-2005, 2:00 AM

Hey!!

Get your own leg!!

Baketech · 08-11-2005, 8:41 AM

All reasons why I support GWB's middle ground approach rather than a widening net.

I like the NASA analogy, because I think it has been wildly successful, however when you examine the problem a bit closer the parallels aren't there imho....

The goal of spaceflight, and especially to the moon, is an engineering problem that lent itself well to a large centralized organization that could be overseen by a more pyramidal type of organization.

The stem cell issue is not the same...instead of one focused goal driving development of materials and processes...you have a myriad of smaller goals that can be more easily tackled by small dispersed laboratories. The needs for collaboration are not the same....they can be parallel functions, until which time they are needed serially.

Just my humble opinion...but I think the government has it's hand down the stem cell shirt far enough already....and all the hype you are hearing is clever "begging" by the already wealthy corporations that want subsidy for research they are already planning to conduct...

Bushy is doing enough already with my tax dollars in this area...and I guarantee that if and/or when one of these areas shines a light, he will respond with a change in policy...

luvtolean · 08-11-2005, 9:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baketech

The stem cell issue is not the same...instead of one focused goal driving development of materials and processes...you have a myriad of smaller goals that can be more easily tackled by small dispersed laboratories. The needs for collaboration are not the same....they can be parallel functions, until which time they are needed serially.

True. But, they still have to be funded.

Quote:

Just my humble opinion...but I think the government has it's hand down the stem cell shirt far enough already....and all the hype you are hearing is clever "begging" by the already wealthy corporations that want subsidy for research they are already planning to conduct...

No doubt. A friend and I call DARPA money "engineer welfare". But you have to start somewhere.

Research, especially bitpiece research like you mention, is not profitable. For that matter commercialization is so far away, it's hard to put together a business plan that's reasonable.

Quote:

...and I guarantee that if and/or when one of these areas shines a light, he will respond with a change in policy...

I wish I agreed, but I don't. Dubya, IMO, listens too much to the religious "folks" many of whom are opposed to it.

rocket · 08-11-2005, 9:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

I wish I agreed, but I don't. Dubya, IMO, listens too much to the religious "folks" many of whom are opposed to it.

GWB is a Christian; the Evangelical Christian vote had a huge part in getting him re-elected, so why wouldn’t he listen to them? The stigma of using very likely aborted fetuses for research is very difficult to swallow for some that’s all. I'm not trying to stir it up but that's how I see it.

rocket · 08-11-2005, 10:03 AM

I'd like to add....If they didn't use one aborted fetus I'd be all for it. But if they do they would create a supply and demand situation that would justify abortion. And in my view that is wrong therefore I'd be against it. I'm not a holier than thou type that is just my belief system.