Mephisto2

I'm a strong believer in this activity, up to and including manufacturing foetal cells and cloning embryos.

I'm curious as to the position of those on this board.

I suspect the majority will favour it one way or another, as I believe sites like this have a slight to strong left/liberal bias; ie, are "self-selecting" to use a pseudo-sociological term.

I'm also interested if anyone is opposed to gene therapy. This is something very close to my heart at present.


Mr Mephitso

Gilda

Absolutely. There is too much benefit to stem cell research to let it get bogged down the abortion debate.

I also have no objection in general to gene therapy.

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Paq

100% in support of it
i've lost several people to alzheimers, two are going slowly to parkinson's and i'm in line for either of the two along with several other defects that could possibly be helped with stem cell research. Call me self serving, but well, yea.

as for gene therapy...i feel it has its place. I'd prefer to see it used to correct defects vs enhance the human race. I could easily see 'designer babies' as being a tv ad soon after this is approved

__________________
Live.

Chris

ObieX

Same here. I also have no problem with designer babies, and anyone who wants to modify their body in any way including implants of chips, boobs, cybernetics or anything else they want. If someone wants their tummy to be able to open like a UPS truck to display their organs behind a piece of glass i say let them go for it.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Mephisto2

I'm all in favour of gene therapy to correct genetic disorders. However, paradoxically as it may sound, I'm a bit uneasy about genetic manipulation for elective procedures.

Mr Mephisto

Paq

i'm not that uneasy about genetic manip for elective procedures. My main concern is something like a suburbanite motherly competition on who can design the best baby. ie. "i spent $20,000 to give my baby blue eyes, a taller frame, higher metabolism, and 36D cups when she's 18" stuff like that. now, if the girl is 18 and wants all that done, then hey, it's about hte same as implants, not much of my concern. it's completely voluntary, etc. It's just when a parent forces their child literally into a certain mold. I think the child should have the choice when he/she grows up.

That's my main concern on genetic manipulation. Now, if it's found that the unborn child would be blind and they can fix that, i'm all for it. it's just that if they find the child will have brown eyes but the mother wants blue...can't say i'm as much for that.

__________________
Live.

Chris

jorgelito

First impressions: Against it. The line has to be drawn somewhere. I have also lost three relatives to Alzheimner's - not pretty. I am against cloning, harvesting, genetic manipulation - all of it. There's no need. Let nature run its course.

Although for stem-cell research, I could be for it but I am not too sure exactly what it is. If it's harvesting fetuses and embryos and the like then I'm against it. Sets a bad precedent. If it's just "discarded" tissue then I'm ok with it for "regeneration" in injury recovery or what have you. Again, I'm not too clear with how it works.

But the rest: cloning, gene whatever, I'm pretty sure I'm against it (insofar as I know what it is). Because I don't like messing with "what God gave ya". It's...unnatural and quite frankly, when you start to mess with nature, bad things happen. What do you consider defects? Not being white, blue-eyed, blond hair (which is recessive by the way)? Are we going to design a master race? Let's straighten out those wacky Asian eyes, deflate those black lips (and hips), and modify Jews' noses. I thought liberals wanted diversity.

If we're not okay with genetically-modified foods, then why the hell would we be ok with genetically-modified babies? There's too many cans of worms with this one and no guaranteed benefit.

P.S. - I thought this board was hardcore right-wing (at least in general discussion and politics). Any discussion on race or tolerance is met with snickers, insults and extreme intolerance. PC is a dirty word here. The only lefties I know of are Manx, Roachboy, Host, Superbelt maybe a few others.

connyosis

100 % for it. Lots to benefit from it. As for gene therapy I don't know enough about it to really have an opinion.

__________________
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

highthief

I'm not as up on this subject as perhaps I should be. Some stem cells can be harvested from parts of the body other than embryos, right? That's OK. If a baby dies in utero, I have no issues with the baby being a "donor". As I am generally against abortion, however, I can't say I'd be in favour of making babies only to kill them for their cells.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

ObieX

there's a few ways to go about it.

One type of stem cell can be found beneath your teeth, possibly only in childhood though, i forget. And those types of stem cells are not reliable.

The other types can come from the clump of cells in a zygote. this is the ball of cells that forms after an egg has been fertilized and has started to divide a bunch of times. The important thing to note here is these cells DO NOT HAVE A FUNCTION YET. The reason stem cells are so important is because they can change into any type of cell that exists in the human body. ANY CELL, from a skin cell to a brain cell.. a liver cell a lung cell.. a cell in an artery.. a vein.. a bone cell.. etc etc. Bu they have not done this yet. They are still a generic cell. So its not like you're killing a fetus, you're growing a small ball of generic, unspecified cells. You're not growing a fetus to like 5 months then killing it and shreading it for cells.

Now to get these cells you dont have to fertilize an egg. There's a process now that is used that extracts a person's DNA. They then take an egg from a woman, and remove the genetic material from the egg. This egg on its own can NOT form into a child, an egg from a woman or a sperm from a man only has half the genetic material needed to create a child. So they take the DNA from one of your cells and they put it into this now empty egg shell, and stimulate it to start to divide. When it starts to divide it becomes stems cells.. a ball of stem cells in the form of a zygote.

You CAN harvest stem cells from a fertilized egg (introduce sperm to egg and watch it grow) But that would not be of as much use as a stem cell created from your own DNA because it would not be anywhere near as compatible, especially if the sperm or egg used is not yours.

So basically what they do is, take your own genetic material. Moveit from the inside of your own cell, into an empty egg shell, then this egg will start to divide and multiply. The eggs are usually grown for a couple days to get only as many cells are needed for research.




The MAIN problem i have with the people who oppose stem cell research is that they really don't know much or anything about it. They will openly admit that they have no clue on the subject yet they still object to it. Its like a deaf person telling someone they can't sing. It annoys me to no end.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

samcol

I think this question is kinda different from what happened in congress, which is why I'm guessing you're asking it. The bill in congress wasn't about stem cells research, it was about the government funding the research for it. I personally do not want another dime of my money going to the government for this. I'm also against embryonic stem cell research.

Once again Ron Paul, the only Libertarian in the Congress, opposses federal funds for things that the government has no business being involved in. The question in the Congress isn't about stem cell research yes or no, again it's about tax dollars being used for it.

JustJess

Thanks, ObieX, great explanation.
I do not have any issue with this whatsoever. Letting nature run its course means, to me, letting humans do what we do, which is invent, discover, study, and modify our environment for the betterment of the world. And less people suffering is better.

You're not harming anyone or anything by this research, it can only do good.

I do fear that we will take things too far, which is the designer baby route. Free choice to be who you are/wish to be is lovely. Choosing for your unborn child... just grosses me out in a completely big brother way. THAT I advocate against.

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

StanT

Since we really don't know where this research will lead, I'm inclined to let it take it's course and sort out the morality later, after we know what we can and can't do. I don't see any problem with the research, so far. The list of possibilities is endless, the probable is much less.

Fourtyrulz

Any particular reason why you are against it? I heard someone on the radio the other day arguing that stem cell research involves "taking a life to save a life", which is for the most part completely false. Scientists can use adult stem cells, stem cells from umbilical cords, and stem cells from embyros in their research. However, the different types of stem cells do not all have the same potential to produce astounding results as embryonic stem cells. The reason being that stem cells from embryos have not yet differentiated or specialized and can be harvested and manipulated into whatever type of cell needed for therapy; whether it is bone, blood, neurons, etc. How some people can think that an embryo is a human life I'll never figure out. Sure it posesses the potential to become a person but not without my sperm, millions of them victims of mass genocide every day .

I have seen the benefits of stem cell therapy as it prolonged my girlfriend's aunt's life for many months before her death from cancer, and that was when the treatment itself was in experimental stages. Who knows how far the benefits will go with further research?

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

paulskinback

I'm all for it, if in the future I develop a disease and doctors/scientists can create stem cells and do whatever scientists do with them to help treat me, I for one am not going to turn around and tell them not to because I don't believe in it....

Progress cannot be denied

__________________
'Everything that can be invented has been invented.- - 1899, Charles Duell, U.S. Office of Patents.

'There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.' - Ken Olson, 1977, Digital Equipment Corporation

Fourtyrulz

Fresh from the press:

House defies Bush, approves stem cell bill

What frustrates me here to no end is that Bush says he will veto, regardless of popular support or the support of this issue by his own party members. Republican Jo Anne Emerson has it totally right, "Who can say that prolonging a life is not pro-life?".

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

highthief

1. It depends on your viewpoint about when life begins. If you feel, as many do, that life begins at conception, then there is no line to draw past that point.

2. That would be fine, IMO, from your description.

3. You may have a very low tolerance for other opinions?

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

ObieX

I have a very low tolerance for people who have opinions on things that they have a total lack of knowledge about.

Or a blind person being a judge of a photography competition.

I figure if you're going to push in opposition of something that very much has the potential to save billions of lives, you had better have atleast a basic understanding of how that thing works or what it is.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

boatin

May or may not be off topic, but you don't eat much that hasn't been genetically modified. Most anything grown and on our tables is the product of decades, if not centuries, of selective breeding programs.

My understanding is that if you looked at the genetic makeup of a modern carrot (for example), the genetic coding is huge and ungainly. As it's been tweaked by centuries of breeding.

There isn't much that's "natural" anymore. Breeding manipulates genes as much as a lab could do. One is deemed "ok", and one isn't. But I question the logic.

I refer everyone to the thread on peeing in the bathtub in the General Discussion forum. Same result as using the toilet, no demonstrable harm, yet many many are against it. Why?


I'm not saying there is no potential downside to possible research. But we have a lovely habit of drawing lines where they are easy to draw. Not where they should be drawn due to logic and belief.

I'm just saying...

Lead543

I don't mean to threadjack but I have a question.

Does anyone know if they throw out these frozen embryos after a certain length of time? I mean, wouldn't they change and break down?

smooth

boatin,

the main difference here is that in selective breeding programs, nature has a multitude of safety levers to ensure potentially destructive genes are not passed from generation to generation.

You can mate carrots to varieties of carrots, but you can't mate tomatoes to carrots. And if you were successful, as some breeding programs have done with some animals, they aren't able to produce viable offspring.

With genetic manipulation, one can force genetic sequences into organisms that would never otherwise obtain them. To my knowledge, it isn't possible to graft the genetic sequence of a pesticide or selective resistance to a predator into a plant, but it can be done in a lab.

I see no inconsistency between support of genetic manipulation in humans and non-support for foods given that I don't, on a regular basis, eat human beings.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

MoonDog

I say "full speed ahead".

raveneye

Well this is a bit misleading. . . . If we're anthropomorphizing a plant (implying here that it doesn't want to pass on potentially destructive genes) I think we should at least limit that sentiment to the plant's interests. The plant doesn't "care" if it contains a gene that might harm somebody that's going to eat it. Or, to put it more officially, there is no selective advantage for a plant to evolve mating avoidance with another individual containing genes that are detrimental to potential herbivores. There certainly is selection to avoid mating with individuals containing genes that might reduce the fitness of that particular plant, yes. How effective that selection is in practice (ie "reinforcement") is one of the big disputes right now in plant evolutionary biology. But there is nothing in nature that "tries" to prevent dangerous genes from being passed on, until those genes actually exert an effect in an individual that reduces its personal fitness. If harming a herbivore doesn't reduce a plant's fitness, then there's nothing to prevent that plant's descendents from obtaining such a gene from a mate.

Actually plants hybridize all over the place. About half of all plant species evolved through hybridization followed by polyploidy. In fact if you draw an evolutionary "tree" of most plant groups, it looks more like a net than a tree. Many plant genera are cross compatible.

But nevertheless, the fact that there are genetic barriers to hybridization is really not pertinent to the question of whether new anti-herbivore or human toxicity can evolve in a plant species "naturally"; such barriers never evolved to prevent evolution of anti-mammal toxicity. And further, there is tremendous variation within widespread species in secondary chemical defenses; any particular plant could gain many new toxicities by mating widely enough even staying within its taxonomic species.

The popular view seems to be: the more genetically distant two parents are, the more "dangerous" it is (to humans) to mix their genes. I really know of no biological evidence that could be used to support this view. I don't see any reason to believe that a natural cross of two individuals within a species is any less likely to produce a new kind of toxicity to humans than inserting a single gene from another species, no matter how distant. In fact, the natural cross is far more likely to produce an individual radically different from its parents (since 10s of thousands of genes are being mixed in random combinations) than the transfer of a single gene.

I think there is a lot of fear of the unknown packaged into this popular view.

I also say, full speed ahead on all these technologies.

FoolThemAll

Against embryonic stem cell research.

That's cool, I can't understand your position either.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

jorgelito

In reference to those that question why anyone would object, I think the problem comes down to understanding the question inthe first place. There seems to be a lot of confusion and different intrepretations on the subject.

I would agree with ObieX choice #2 but not #1 or #3. Taking stem-cells from an umbilical cord doesn't "seem" to be controversial no more than taking a skin graft from my butt to patch a burn on my arm. I think the "unkown" is a big factor in people's opinions and that there should be more explanation in plain English to educate all of us on how things work or are proposed.

There are extremists on both sides: Those that urge caution before plowing ahead blindly in the name of scientific discovery or those that would automatically deny any research without giving it consideration and those that would throw caution to the wind and plow full speed ahead blindly in the name of scientific discovery while deriding those that have a differing opinion.

I think we can all benefit from more information before we let ourselves be manipulated by politicians from both sides of the aisle trying to pander to extreme views. It sounds like no one is actually sure what stem-cell research entails, to what degree, and what is actually proposed. Thanks to ObieX by the way for providing more info, it does significantly alter opinions.

For example, some people think stem-cell research is the harvesting of aborted fetuses which will lead to some kind of black market trade. Or the deliberate cloning of humans to harvest their cells and tissues etc (kind of Matrix-ish - it creeps me out). Or that the possible benefits just simply aren't there. GW said this himself.

QOUTE: 2. Now to get these cells you dont have to fertilize an egg. There's a process now that is used that extracts a person's DNA. They then take an egg from a woman, and remove the genetic material from the egg. This egg on its own can NOT form into a child, an egg from a woman or a sperm from a man only has half the genetic material needed to create a child. So they take the DNA from one of your cells and they put it into this now empty egg shell, and stimulate it to start to divide. When it starts to divide it becomes stems cells.. a ball of stem cells in the form of a zygote.

This sounds reasonable and nothing like what the press or politicians say it is. Information and education is key.

arch13

They are destroyed when the couple requests it.
Very few couples are willing to let their fertilized eggs be implanted into someone else who cannot have a child, and I personaly do not blame them for that, as it is their genetic material to with as they see fit.
As most couples wait several years, and then request that all excess embryo's be destroyed, I find it hard to buy into the idea that using them for stem cells is destroying a human life.
In order to be consistent, those that are against the use of embryo's for stem cell research would have to percieve a problem with them being destroyed at the request of the couple as well, which raises a new ethical debate. "Should all fertilized embryo's that are not implanted be used?"
Which of course creates the larger debate, "Can Invetro Fertilization be done without excess embryo's"
Which begets the larger debate "Should IVF be allowed?"

See how fast this goes?

__________________
Seen on an employer evaluation:

"The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead"
____________________________
Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11.
-Nanofever

Fourtyrulz

I justified my view, the same can hardly be said for your one-liner post.

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

Superbelt

There are iirc, millions of embryos that were created for invitro.
Each couple has many embryos created, because they don't always take when you try to implant them. That leaves many, after conception, that will never be a child. It is essentially impossible to ever get even a fraction of these adopted. I don't see the RTL lining up to adopt them either.
They are eventually going to be discarded, why not actually make their creation have a purpose and go towards human, medical, and compassionate ends?

BTW, I can see anyone being against both Invitro AND Embryonic Stem Cell Research, but you can't be one without the other.

Elphaba

South Korean scientists, funded by their government, made a major breakthrough that was announced in the last week. They have been able to produce stem cells from an individual patient, rather than from DNA from a mouse. This is a profound leap forward but we are still a long way from therapeutic treatment.

I read that a compromise in using frozen embryos is being considered, whereby the donors would give informed consent for their use rather than having them destroyed. It is further stipulated that no money can change hands, to prevent some sort of embryo factory for profit. That strikes me as being a very pro-life position that could find some common ground.

jorgelito

Thanks for the information. It makes a difference. I still don't really understand what the Korean scientists are doing exactly, it is a complex science.

For me, I am actually against fertility clinics etc and in-vitro stuff so my position is still consistent.

It would make more sense to use the frozen embryos (unfertilized?) rather than to toss then in the garbage.

Money will still find a way to change hands (as in "donation"). People sell their eggs all the time (which I am also against) for $30-50,000) especially if you're white, blond, blue-eyed, SAT score 1400 or greater, over 6 ft tall etc. Guys also "donate" their sperm although for nowhere near the price of girls.

smooth

You are arguing against a strawman, perhaps because you laced your assumption about what I was talking about into your response. I never made any statement regarding herbivores' safety in my initial statement.

I simply stated that when plants hybridize there are a number of natural barriers to prevent incompatible partners from mating. Those barriers can be circumvented in the lab. While two plants mating (and they certainly do mate, I'm not and never did attribute human traits and motivations to their crossbreeding tendencies) may produce a highly toxic result, that is neither here nor there in relation to my argument. I wasn't saying that artificial breeding programs will necessarily produce harm to humans and my opposition to eating genetically manipulated foods does not rest on that sentiment.

What I wrote was that comparing lab manipulation with natural crossbreeding is specious. Any kinds of natural checks that might otherwise prevent something from occurring can be circumvented in the lab. We don't necessarily know the results of our actions until we have decoded the DNA. Genetically manipulated food is not "safe" to humans or the environemtn, it's status is "unknown." For all the people who profess to operate in some scientific capacity on this board, you ought to reconsider your strong stance against those of us who argue more research ought to be conducted on the implications of manipulating genetic structures without knowing the results of one's actions before proclaiming "full steam ahead."


EDIT: I want to clarify something in regards to your claim that I was anthropomorphizing plants. You read me as writing that plants won't produce something toxic to herbivores in the wild. I actually meant that plants won't hybridize into something that can not reproduce. That is, they will not produce offspring that are harmful to the species itself. In the lab, those checks can be circumvented and we can produce wheat, for example, that can breed with other plants and render entire crops sterile. Evolution is for the most part a lenghty process wherein the organism develops and reproduces within the context around it. The lab, unless it mimics the context, renders those kinds of natural limitations on what might come out of a given set of parents inconsequential--in effect leapfrogging one or more steps that might have otherwise prevented the intended organism from coming about.

Oh yeah, and I voted for "absolutely, show me where to fund it."
as I stated already, I am all for research and deciphering what is going on in these black boxes. Implementing policy without knowing what the ramifications are is where I draw the line.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Mondak

My view to vote for is not there. It can best be described as:

<i>I don't like the government paying for almost anything. My opposition to this begins and ends with goverment intervention. If individuals / organizations / companies want to work on this, I dont' want to stand in their way at all. </i>

I pay too much taxes. Way too much.

__________________
All truth passes through three stages:
First it is ridiculed
Second, it is violently opposed and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)

Elphaba

I have no disagreement with you there. I would love to see this research funded privately, if the government refuses to support it. But, don't we lose some oversight and regulation in private funding?

Mephisto2

Dr John Boockvar, a leading stem cell expert at Weill Cornell Medical College, said: "The biggest source of funding for academic research is the government, and we need the government to support research."
[REF: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4580299.stm]

Using your argument against state funding, are you also against research into cancer? NASA? Particle physics and defense spending?

Mr Mephisto

raveneye

Well no matter how much research we conduct on the consequences of genetic manipulation, we still will not know the results of our actions with 100% certainty. In fact this is true for all scientific manipulation, it's not restricted to genetic manipulation.

There seems to be an assumption here that genetic engineering is a more dangerous (to humans) kind of biological manipulation that requires more care than other kinds of biological manipulation. I don't know where this assumption comes from. There is no evidence within biology that would prompt one to come to that conclusion that I'm aware of.

The truth that genetic engineering overcomes natural barriers to exchanging genes does not in any way imply that genetic engineering is more risky or dangerous to humans than simply making a cross that has never been done before. In fact it is easy to argue the reverse: namely the cross is more dangerous because it creates a new mixture of 10s of thousands of genes, whereas the engineering just creates one new gene in a background of 10s of thousands.

I seriously don't understand where this fear comes from. If the assumption is basically "new combinations of genes can be very dangerous" then this implies that natural crosses between inbred lines or between outbred individuals are far more dangerous (by a factor of millions) than a simple gene transfer.

samcol

Exactly the point I was trying to make. I'm not asking to outlaw stem cell research, I just don't want pay for it.

Hain

Personally, having lost friends and family that would have been saved if stem cells were used as a medicinal science, I support it. However, I feel that the government should not run it, and private companies should experiment in the field. Above me I see how taxes are too high, and I agree. I'll specifically donate to organizations that work in the field, but not to the goverment.
Why am I for it: the field yields nearly limitless applications to saving and bettering life. I also agree with gene therapy, and manipulation, as long as the patient is willing it have such radical procedures preformed.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

boatin

thx for your response, Smooth. I clearly don't know many specifics about this, but my gut still tells me that it's not night and day. On the one hand, we tweak the jeebus out of plants "naturally", and are ok with it. On the other, many say a flat NO to labratory tweaking.

I just want to believe that things aren't that simple, and that there is some middle ground. But I'm mainly talking out my butt on this sub-issue.

As for human genetics and tweaking, let's fund it like crazy and learn something.

As for the tax paying question: I have no doubt that diseases that could be affected by Stem cell research affect our tax dollars. Medicare, anyone? I'm betting almost any amount of research dollars would be recouped with some advances in medicine.

Research seems (look out- talking out my butt again!) like it always pays for itself. The space program was expensive at the time, but we got a few more things out of it than Tang and space blankets...

Mondak

Well to get to the core of the matter - I don't want to pay for anything that there is a way that a free market can't pay for it instead. Defense is a good example of something that a nation pretty much has to spend tax money on as there is not a really good way to assign the cost to those who get the benefits. On the other hand, Pharmaceutical / Biotech firms are getting humongous profits from sucessful drugs and treatment methods that they invested in - as I think they should for their risk.

If it is a viable treatment method (c'mon - lets face it - there is almost no way that anyone on the tfp has firsthand knowlege of this) then the dollars for research will follow it. I confess that the idea of it makes sense to me. That being said, why don't I (or those who feel most strongly about it) take their money and invest in a series of firms that are working hard on Stem Cell research. You can feel good about forwarding something you believe in plus you get the added benefit of massive returns if the research does end up panning out. In addition, if one stem cell research firm decides to spend all their money on say fancy cars and rolexes for the management, and another pours it all into actual research - you get to CHOOSE the firm that is using their money the best.

Most of the time, government money goes to people / organizations who know how to work the government for money. Now maybe those are also the very same firms that are the best at doing actual research, but my suspicion is that staticticly they would not tend to be. Working the government for money whether it is hiring lobbiests or underhanded bribes / favors / political contributions costs money. When those firms get the money - the government (AKA you and me) have paid for that stuff instead of the research that we hoped we would get.

As to the good Doctor Bookvar, I would think that a person in his position WOULD say that sort of thing. Private firms are happy to fund research when they think there is a return. Government funds tend to go to what is popular rather than what is good at best (see above). Maybe it is the pharmaceutical firms who are whooping up all this about stem cells in the media and congress so that they don't have to pay for it themselves. If the public can get into enough of a froth (or more importantly a Percieved Froth) about an issue, the pharmas and biotechs get free windfalls.

Personally- I am for the most efficient use of capital on all fronts. Self interested money will persue its best use. I am not a biophysicst and don't profess to be. Keep me, the undereducated public and the government out of things that our noses don't belong and the best inovative treatments will come of it.

Oh yeah - I pay an effective tax rate of 70%. How about we at least cut out some real spending from something else before we go throwing money around on another crucial issue.

__________________
All truth passes through three stages:
First it is ridiculed
Second, it is violently opposed and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)

smooth

I'm not hinging my opposition on a perceived danger to human beings
Evolution is a self-checking mechanism. If we circumvent it, then we run the risk of creating damage to the organism itself. Researchers have created organisms that will have severe consequences if they are released from the lab and/or are not maintained under careful control.

I don't have any "fear" about consuming genetically altered foods, but that doesn't mean that I declare something "safe" without evidence that such products have been produced and disseminated in an environmentally conscious manner or that they don't have adverse effects on the organisms that consume them.

Personally, I don't eat mass produced foods anyway. I support local producers and I prefer to consume (and this extends beyond eating) things that have had the least amount of processing to them.

I think the key that I have understood, and the arguments I read in some scientific journals, one can only tweak the jeebus out of organisms that share enough compatibility with one anther to be able to share each others genetic code. In the lab, we can artificially bypass that restriction that has been in place for millions of years.

What I'm kinda confused about is the notion that inbred species of organisms are good examples of the appropriateness of genetic manipulation. All of the pedigree lines I know of tend to exhibit particular defects and degradation over time. My understanding is that the gene pools of inbred plants and animals needs to be revitalized periodically.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman