Where do you stand on stem cell research?
 

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

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.

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 :)

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 :D.

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?

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

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?".

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?

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.

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...

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?

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.

I say "full speed ahead".

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.

Against embryonic stem cell research.

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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. :D

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...

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.

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.

"I support the idea of police protecting me from crime. I just don't want to pay for it."

"I support the concept of a military. I just don't want to pay for it."

"I support the FDA testing and approving safe drugs. I just don't want to pay for it."

"I support... well, just about ANYTHING... I just don't want to pay for it."


/sarcasm


SIGH


Mr Mephisto

Mr. Mephisto, I heard places like Ireland have been doing a lot of advanced scientific research. Is one of their well developed areas of knowledge stem cell research? I think the swedish government has been sponsoring stem cell research, too. I have no idea about australia.

I'm very satisfied with California's stance in regard to this issue--we've already voted in a measure to fund it.

I'd also be interested in hearing about what other countries are doing with stem cells. We seem to have a pretty international bunch around here, lets get some info. (please) :)

With regards to public funding - I would prefer to have the money go to more urgent needs such as border control, education, law enforcement - NOT stem cell research. Let the privates fund it. I also live in California and I voted against it. Especially since ahnold cut my school funding, my health insurance nearly tripled so now I can't afford it, I have less classes to choose from, the police don't come when I dial 9-11, the streets and roads go un-maintained.....on and on and on...

Yeah, there are plenty of things we should be spending on. Definitely not something that's not proven or even guaranteed to work. We can always "borrow" from the Koreans. At least their citizens have adequate education and health care.

Well damage is the self-checking mechanism. If an organism is damaged, then there's nothing to worry about because it won't pass its genes on as efficiently as undamaged organisms. And if it's not damaged, then there's also nothing to worry about because no harm has been done. Neither selective breeding nor genetic engineering can bypass natural selection, which is the self-checking mechanism referred to here.

So again: I don't see the problem. I'm not aware of any evidence that genetic engineering "damages" organisms any more than traditional genetic modification that people have been using for millenia. In fact the same argument could be made: if the fear is that "new gene combinations must be monitored because they can damage the organism" then that would imply that a simple cross between two individuals can cause far more damage than a single gene transfer, by a factor of millions. That's because a cross mixes 10s of thousands of genes, while a single gene transfer is just one out of 10s of thousands.

The fear may be slightly different here (damage to the organism rather than damage to people) but it to my knowledge it's equally without any basis in biological fact.

Examples? Why would genetic engineering be any riskier than traditional selective breeding? People were worried 30 years ago by new strains of E. coli that were produced by traditional means: just plate them out over and over again on antibiotics and eventually an antibiotic resistant strain will appear naturally and take over the colony. Nowadays these technologies seem quaint, but at the time people were just as afraid of them as they are now of the new technologies.

Selective breeding is obviously reproduction in the normal manner (on a molecular scale, at least), between to organisms selected on the basis of physical traits and/or behaviour. There's finer scale messing about with "life's little instruction set" (ie the genes within genome).

This is in contrast with genetic engineering, where the genome is directly modified by humans. There are not the biological checks and balances present in the creation of a genome modified in a lab, as there are in nature. Genes often operate not singly, but in a network of other genes. What is more, these networks aren't really understood - there is a great deal of work being done on gene networks in simple organisms, but large scale gene networks in complex organisms like people are not properly understood. The consequences of manipulating these gene networks is difficult to predict without much greater research.

The possibilities are pretty grim - try googling 'thalidomide', and then imagine something much worse. This is a completely different ballgame to selecting Peter and Peta to shag, just because they happen to be bloody good-lookin'.

That said, of course, I'm all for research into genetic engineering, and stem cells (which make the process much simpler). Properly done, it has the ability to create tremendous rewards. At least, it has the ability to reap tremendous rewards for rich people... I think the majority of the worlds people are still dealing with quite basic healthcare issues (which I actually think would be a better way to spend our resources).


I take it you're also more generally refering to antibiotic resistant bacteria, and 'People' are still very worried. :)

Well then, the question becomes "Is there a point at which we are spending too much and need to make choices on what to fund?"

The numbers are thrown around in such a manner that we become numb to it. California (a state that continues to teter on bankruptcy) decided to spend $3 Billion on stem cell research. I live here and feel that there is almost no accountability for that money. As with other such political money, it will probobally go to the virtual brother in law of the chairman of the fund. And what if it was $1 Billion or $10 Billion? What is the prudent amount? People don't want to make choices. Instead, they would like mother government to pay for it.

Police and Military are true public goods that are tough to have a free market solution for although I always tend to favor a local community funding their own police so they can have a say in accountability of their local force. It tends to be a model for spending for me. Now the FDA, I don't see a lot of reason that we can't find a free market solution to its funding. Pharmaceutical companies are making plenty of money and get the benefit of the FDAs work. Maybe a sliding scale where 1st year drugs are "taxed" a little more heavily than in subsequent years but their sales continue to carry a portion of money that goes to an independant FDA. This is one model that I am suggesting as an example - not an ideal. The reason I suggest it though is to show a situation where the heavy user of the service is is proportionally funding its use. Then the money doesn't first wash through the buracracy machine, get pissed away and then funded.

My favorite quote on the subject has a small amount of debate on who said it. Either way it fits the situation really well.

To dismiss those words are to see them come true. Think about them for a moment even if you don't agree that we are too that stage. I think we have crossed the line with spending. I think the only thing I hope for in this conversation is to have folks see that there IS a line, regardless of whether they think we can still spend more or not. I would be interested in your thoughts Mr. Mephisto as I have and continue to see you as open minded and fair.

I support it 100%.

I don't get why people fight for rights of embryos, hahaha. It should be obvious (so no, "oh, please provie it" retorts) as to the difference between a newborn baby and an EMBRYO.

If you were aborted, or your embryo was destroyed, you wouldn't know either way. Your mind hasn't developed, your body hasn't developed. You have no consciousness, you have no feelings. Your existence will still be in the black void of nothing, just as it will be once you die.

It's easy for us who are alive to develop feelings for these clumps of cells, but many of us fail to take them for what they really are: nothing that important.

Direct modification overcomes some barriers, yes, but I'm not aware of any evidence that suggests that overcoming these barriers presents any kind of a danger to the organism or to other organisms, beyond traditional selective breeding. Traditional selective breeding also overcomes many natural barriers and it alters genomes far more than simple insertion of a gene by genetic engineering.

And traditional breeding modifies these networks far more than insertion of a single gene by engineering techniques. Traditional selective breeding can completely break these networks apart, and take a selected line all the way to the limits of functionality. This has been known since the 1920s.

So if someone is worried about interfering with these networks, it seems to me they should be far more concerned about traditional selective breeding than by insertion of single genes.

Sure they are, because of natural selection in human populations in which antibiotics are overly prescribed. It's the selection that people are worried about (or should be worried about) not the mere existence of such resistant variants. It's not genetic engineering per se that's the problem, since these variants both exist naturally and can be created by either traditional means or by genetic engineering.

Thalidomide is a human mutagen. I'm talking about consuming genetically modified food. Consumption of genetically modified food does not expose anybody to mutagens any more than consumption of non-genetically modified food (the latter is a misnomer; pretty much all foods are genetically modified).

I am completely for stem-cell research, to the point of, when having to decide what to do with 'leftover' pre-embryos I had stored, I insisted they only be used for research. Of course, part of that decision was selfish-had I chosen donation, the idea of a future sibling of my own children was unsettling. By chosing(actually, telling, since research was not one of the printed options), I did what I thought would benefit others and not waste what had taken me so long to achieve.
The government gives some of the most worthless grants imaginable-take that money and put it to where it may benefit many. Do we really NEED to know and pay for researching the life span of a mealy worm?

There are many things I support, but won't pay for, and many things I support, and WILL pay for. A person's opinion on one subject is hardly a call to use that one example as a sweeping generalization of their opinions on all subjects. I think what we're talking about it supporting someone's rights to do something. I support the legalization of marijuana, but i'm not paying for people to toke up. I support gay marriage, but i'm not paying for any marriage ceremony- whether it's homosexual OR heterosexual. I support premarital sex, but i'm not going to pay for condoms or birth control for everyone.

People's opinions on whether or not they support something with their pocket and/or their heart don't necessarily have anything to do with one another, you can't always compare them side by side.

As to the topic directly- stem cell research is good. Some of you people with your unborn-baby bleeding hearts drive me nuts. There are so many incurable diseases afflicting hundreds of thousands of people, people who have lived full lives, could have more years ahead of them with treatment, or really just could live without pain. I wonder how many pro-lifers against stem cell research have ever volunteered in a cancer ward in a hospital, or at a nursing home and seen the how parkinson's, huntington's, diabetes, dementia, etc., ravage the people they affect and ruin their livelihood. How selfish it is to look at a few "unborn babies" (if they insist on saying they're already people) and say they're more important than the hundreds of thousands of americans- and, indeed, people worldwide- SUFFERING life, rather than living it.

Justified? Nah. You just stated it.

Level of development. Yeah, fairly obvious. What isn't so obvious is how that manages to translate into "it's not a human being".

There's nothing selfish in it.

The RIGHTS of "a few unborn babies" ARE more important than this research. Obviously. The disagreement is whether there is such a thing as an "unborn baby". Whether we're dealing with a rightless clump of cells or a human being with inalienable rights.

No research on stem cells that I'm aware of. Ireland has come a long way in 20 years, but in many ways it's still a conservative country.

We recently voted in favour of EU regulations supporting stem cell research, and it created quite a bit of debate in the country. Having said that, I don't believe much research would actually take place in Ireland. I suspect you will see that primarily happening in the UK and France (which has a long and noteworthy history in medical research).

Of course, we're all behind the Asian countries like Korea and Japan.


Mr Mephisto

So it seems to me, Mondak, that your opposition lies not directly with the research itself, but with the notion of government funding of anything other than the utmost minimum required to keep society functioning.

This appears to me to be an anarchist position (in the political sense) and akin to what I believe the Libertarian Party supports in the US. If that's the case, and I'm inferring correctly, then no amount of reasonable (or unreasonable!) arguing on my part will convince you that state funding of scientific research is a good idea.

Perhaps that's the fundamental question here. I absolutely support the idea of useful scientific research, funded by the government. You do not. History has shown that if it is motivated by profit alone then profit will negatively affect the outcome. Much benefit has accrued mankind by research that is NOT corporatized or capitalistic in nature.

With regards to the topic at hand, I think stem cell research is vital. Many of these embryos will be discarded anyway, so it's like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I would go one step further and say I even support the use of cloned embryos.

Gene therapy is also a vital area of research. My sister-in-law gave birth to my niece last week and she has cystic fibrosis. The gene that causes this disease was only discovered in 1989, by Government funded research. Her only hope for a life, free from pain and suffering and not tragically cut short, is through gene therapy. Your selfish point of view (and I mean that along pecuniary lines, with no insult intended) would mean that her chance for a long and fulfilling life is doomed because you don't want "your taxes" to be spent on helping save her life. Or, at best, would be dependent upon some mega-corporation discovering a cure and charging the tens of thousands of suffers a hefty fee so they can line their pockets and drive big expensive cars.

Which brings up another point. They are not "your taxes" at all. They are the states taxes and the funds belong to the state. You are obliged to pay taxes and, beyond the democratic right to vote for different political parties, are not entitled to dictate how those funds are spent.

"Letting the market decide" is not a viable option. It is a smoke-screen created by the ultra-rich to convince you and the rest of society that they have your best interests at heart. They do not. They want to make money off pain and suffering and I shall oppose them and their twisted notions of Reaganistic and Thatcherite socio-economics until the day I (and my niece) die.

Mr Mephisto

There are many things I support, and must pay for, and there are many things I support, and MUST pay for.

I don't subscribe to practically ANY of the policies of the current (so-called) Liberal Party in Australia. Their foreign policy, their industrial relations policy, their environmental policy, their mandatory detention of refugees etc. However, as a member of the Australian public and a reasonable resident (not yet citizen), I still pay my taxes and pay them glady. Why? Because is it my obligation. Indeed, personally I'd be happy to pay higher taxes if the current government had a more reasonable and humanistic social policy. Having said that, I know I may be in the minority there and this is probably a result of my left-wing political leaning and "liberal" upbringing.

Very good points. However, scientific research into saving lives is a bit different from social policy with regards to drug use and sexuality.

Without same-sex marriages, people are not going to die. Without joints, drug users are not going to die. Without a cure for Alzheimers, Parkinsons and cystic fibrosis, people ARE going to die.

Well said.

Mr Mephisto

That brings up a good point. The main advantage to government funding of this that i can see is that if the government funding and/or research does lead to a new an innovative method of harnessing stem cells in a useful way then the cost of treatment would be much much lower. If a private company were to find this method it would be patented instantly and no one else would be able to take advantage of it to any real extent. Then they could charge anything they wanted and far less people will benefit. This also worried me a bit when the government was discussing the total ban on stem cell research. Other countries would continue and if they found it you know the rich that voted against the research/treatment here would be the first on line in htese other countries to take care of their problems. But because the less wealthy wouldnt have the money to uproot themselves and visit these other countries for treatment they would get the shaft.

I don't think your last point was supported or proved at all and I won't address things like that.

As for my taxes, It is my money, that my work earned and was seized from me with close to zero accountability. Also, I am not sure that history has shown profit as a motive to have negative outcomes. It seems that this is quite obvious to you and absolutely foreign to me. If it is the case, I would like to learn more about this history and see if there are things I can learn from it.

I don't mind the idea of Stem Cell research and think that in our layman's understanding of it, it could be promising. You are right that my objection is that I don't want to pay for almost anything and that I am not singling out this specificly.

One thing I wanted to know most of all in my previous post was if for you, there is an amount of money that is too much for a government to spend. I feel we have passed it and you seem to be advocating spending more. My question is: do you have a line and if so at what point is too much for a government to spend? If not, can a government spend infinitely?

The last point was a rail against the "profit over people" approach and, by its very nature, cannot be proven. Any more than your opinion that "market dynamics" is a better framework for the majority of scientific/industrial progress. You have your opinion. I have mine.

If you honestly believe that the government should not spend any money on anything, then I respectfully think you are deluded. I could list things that have benefited from state sponsored research like car safety (do you honestly believe manufacturers would have spent money on crumple zones, seat belts, air bags, speed limiters etc?), research into proving industrial waste (such as dioxins) were harmful, research into diet & nutrition, into cancer etc. The list is almost endless.

Yet, your position is "if someone can make a buck from it, they will; so we should all sit back and die until the market dynamics make it such that we have no option but to pay a private enterprise for a solution/treatment/cure"

I simply don't subscribe to that attitude.

Here we differ again. I believe it is your obligation, or your duty (which is a term Americans seem to better appreciate) to pay taxes. There is accountability. That accountability is your right to vote for a party that promises to reduce taxes.

Well, how about a few examples?

Pacific Gas & Electric Company's release of the carcenogen hexavalent chromium into the Hinkley area? This was made famous by the Hollywood movie. Many people died or were made very ill, as the company valued their profit over people.

The refusal of tobacco companys to accept that their product kills people, when we all know that this is the case

The examples of Enron, MCI etc where greed was so great as to cause the company to act illegally.

The attempts by many multi-national pharmaceutical companies to prevent "generic" anti-AIDS drugs from being manufactured in Africa, because it would negatively affect their bottom line.

And these are just off the top of my head. I am sure I can come up with an almost endless list of examples.

Using human greed as a motivating factor towards progress is not a solution. I'm not saying the market economy should be abolished. Far from it. But we should not rely upon it alone, for to do so is to doom ourselves to exploitation and financial rape at the hands of those who care only for "the Mighty Dollar" and care not a whit for our health, safety and well-being.


You can start be reading the book The Big Fix: How the Pharmaceutical Industry Rips Off American Consumers (http://www.aflcio.org/aboutaflcio/ma...503_bigfix.cfm); researching the Anderson vs Pacific Gas & Electric (http://www.lawbuzz.com/famous_trials...kovich_ch1.htm), reading about Enron (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...sbn=1586482017). I can provide more examples and links if you wish.

I'm not against an open economy. But I am against using it as the only method of investing in the future. You're mistaken if you believe it is the right thing to do.

Well, that's where you and I differ. :-)

I don't mind paying taxes. From a selfish point of view, and in an ideal world, I'd like them to be lower. But I would never deign to call for government funding of medical research to be abandoned because I'm willing to let a private company undertake it all.

Does it not occur to you that, if you were so unfortunate to have to use a cure "patented" by a private company, you may actually end up paying MORE than the miniscule amount of your taxes that go towards government grants?

No, not necessarily. I'm simply not advocating spending less; or worse, spending none at all.

A government cannot spend infinitely and no one suggested as much.


Mr Mephisto

Mephisto,

The thing that pisses me off most is that if we are going to fund research with tax dollars taxpayers should:

a. receive commercial goods resulting from our funded research at a discounted rate

b. receive royalties into the tax coffers until the principle is repaid

c. recieve an excess of what we paid in some sort of reasonable amount, say 10-15%, just like a private lender would do.


Why should tax payers eat crap every time we fund these things. We take the risk by funding things that may never come to fruition, we bear the brunt when we pay for the products that are successful, and then we subsidize other places when they pay less than we do for the things we've developed.

Perhaps the excess I was proposing would go into an R&D coffer for future development. What a small and reasonable shift in funding policy and how much good and knowledge it would produce, in my opinion.

There is only one response possible. Support the research. get rid of religious zealots.

Why?

Do you believe research into, say, the carcogenic features of nicotine should mean you get cheap cigarettes? Or research into global warming should result into you getting a free day-pass to Yellowstone Park? How about statistical analysis of road deaths and work on better vehicle safety offering you cheaper petrol?

Why the American obsession with profit, fiscal return on investment (as opposed to knowledge return) and "capitalist market dynamics"?

What's wrong with, once in a while, just investing in research, just because we need to know?!


I would consider gene therapy research that resulted in a treatment for my niece, so she doesn't die in her 30's, as a shit sandwich I'd gladly eat.


So what? That sometimes happens. How about just disbanding schools, because not everyone makes it to college?!

I'm not sure I understand that point, but what I do understand is your position (and that of Mondak) has nothing to do with "we" and everything to do with "I". So what if some of "your taxes" (though I refuse to believe such a concept exists) are spent to help others? Are you really that selfish?

Again, I've lost you here. Could you rephrase?



Mr Mephisto

Mr. Mephisto,

I thought I clearly limited my statements to research that produces commercial products. If taxpayers fund research for commercial products, such as cures/medications, then we certainly are entitled to a concession on the price of the merchandise or a return of our initial investment.

This is not "I," it is about "we" since we funded the research in the first place. Your position is insulting to me since you are otherwise advocating that taxdollars be utilized to fund research and then corporations reap the profits from the commercial goods we funded the R&D on.


How you warped that into support for cheaper tickets into state parks or cheaper cigarattes after we funded research into determining their harmful effects is beyond me.


I think you need to clarify how you consider opposition to corporations profitting from taxpayer funded research, at the expense to the taxpayer, a greedy "I" statement before you ask me to clarify any more of my statements.

<i>Well, how about a few examples?</i>

I could counter with examples of governement waste, or with examples of countless corrupt governements that come to power...I won't. This is not a game where the person with the most examples wins.

Fundamentally, trying to create a government or system that is contrary to human nature to act in their own self interest just doesn't work - they just work within that system instead to the same end. When you allow people to work in their own self interest and incent them to do so to, they can address things like research, and they do.

Not sure if you were able to read some of my previous posts or not, but ultimatly when it is "government" research, the people who decide who the money goes to still act in their own self interest and not in the interest of the best research or best science. Gosh, I WISH that we had some trustworthy politicians to run things. Ideas like yours would be very nice and we could really get some things done. Unfortunitly, the fellows who hold the purse strings are a band of thieves.

The only thing I can trust is if I tell someone with money that a potential new branch of science out there can help millions of people, that person will take their money and invest it in those that use their resources most efficently so that they maximize return. They worked in their own self interest, but also made something that millions can benefit from.

As to sitting back and dying waiting for market forces to act? The market is the most responsive system on earth when unencumbered. Some things are popular because they give hope, but not because they have actual science. Popular does not equal good science. Now I certainly hope that stem cells heal all that ail us, but I am not close enough to know if they will ultimatly pay off. Money will want to be first to market and chase good (not popular) science. A popularity contest will take years to brew in the media and longer to move a government. In short, money will chase good science faster than government can with better results.

I will happily pay for a cure and hope that the company makes money from me. This way they can have the resources for new research. Their investors get a return on their investment, making it attractive for others and so they get exponentally MORE money for research because they were successful and therefore have proven that they have the ability to do inovative things to find new cures. They had to chase down thousands of substances that failed before finding a cure and next time they can be even broader. Since they have a lot of resources, they can attract the best minds rather than have them go into other fields. Neato! The best folks are now able to be compensated for being innovative, creative and saving lives. I sure like that as well. To protect all that investment and be sure that the company gets a return on all that, we grant them a patent so that they will be incented to act this way again.

If I didn't have to pay 70%+ of my income before doing so, it would be all the better. The taxes I pay are in no way miniscule. It would be gratifying if the money I spent on taxes actually got to some of these sources. In reality, about one dollar in ten actually gets spent on any of these things. Most gets spent on servicing the debt that that these fools have run up, "running" the goverment, and invading other countries to spread the world bank aka democracy.

Great post Mondak. I've been trying to make a post similar to yours but just couldn't find the words.

This issue is best left to the free market and not another government spending burden.

Perhaps you did, but if so I didn't notice.

I suspect you'll find that most government funded research is not aimed at commercial gain by private corporations. That's why private commercial operations undertake their own research.

What I have heard here so far seems to be complaints about taxes being spent on research and that the "market economy" better addresses the need for scientific progress. I disagree.

Let me state again that I am NOT opposed to privately funded research. But I AM opposed to abandoning all state-sponsored, state-funded research and relying only on private corporations.

If that was the case, they would focus only on what would return the most benefit. Terrible disases that may not have hundreds of thousands of suffers would be ignored, because the "potential market" would be so small. It beggars belief that some believe this is the best way forward in scientific medical research.

I wonder how much money was made by Rutherford when he led the Cavendish Laboratory in the 20's and 30's investigating the workings of the atom? Very little, but this work has had almost immeasurable benefit. How much money was made by Alexander Fleming due to his discovery of penicilin? I would hazzard a guess that he did not make much money, and that he undertook this research (with state funding) for the benefit of mankind.

There are many many examples. Sure, let the big companies concentrate on erectile dysfunction, but when it comes to discovering a cure for cystic fibrosis, Parkinsons or cancer, I'm still very happy that there are many non-private, state-sponsored research labs working away diligently at this problem too.

Not so. The government funded the research. How are you to know that the actual dollars from the taxes you paid were not spent on traffic lights outside a school and the scientific research was paid for by import duties on Russian steel (for example)?

Governments have many sources of income, if you will, and they apportion this the best way they see fit. It is not really accurate to point at one area of expenditure and say "my taxes [sic] paid for that".

I am not advocating that at all. I'm arguing against Mondak's assertion that the government should not fund any scientific research at all, and that it is left to the private sector entirely.

Also, I never intended to insult you. I disagree with your assertions, but I'm not insulted by them.

It was an analogy.

I asked you to clarify your statement because I simply did not understand it. I fail to see how you could take umbrage at my trying to ensure I better understand your position!

With regards to the statement above, where have I stated that government funding should result in profit for private companies at the expense of taxpayers? Indeed, the position I have is almost the opposite; to whit that I believe relying only on private sector research will result in MORE expense to the people.


Mr Mephisto

I offered some examples as you said you were unsure that that profit, as a motivating factor, has had negative outcomes. It patently has. To argue otherwise is to hide from the facts. That's not to say that profit taking and private investment, with an aim of financial return, has not had positive outcomes. It has had this result also. But to assume that profit is only a positive motivating factor is naive.

If you are referring to this thread, then yes I have had a chance to read your previous posts.

With regards to distrusting government fundamentallly, and assuming they never have the "common good" in mind, then you and I disagree. As I said earlier, this political theory is akin to anarchist thinking and itself has proven to be unworkable. Governments exist, and there's nothing much you can do about it. Though they may have slightly different ideologies around the world, they all share some basic characteristics. One of those is their right to spend money as they see fit and not to rely entirely upon the private sector, or capitalist economics, to achieve scientific progress.

It seems to me that your opposition is to the concept of a centralized, tax-payer funded government itself, and not directly related to the topic at hand; it being only one example of how "the government spends money".

And how would that result in the scientific advances that man has achieved to date? It is only in the past 50 years or so that massive corporations have entered the area of funding scientific research with a view to achieving private financial gain. Private citizens and state funded research labs have discovered much prior to that, and since that shift.

I doubt you pay 70% of your income in taxes. You may pay 70% of a proportion of it, but if the US has a scaled tax system (as I assume it does) I can only assume you pay no tax on some it and less than 70% of some it etc.

I never said they were. I said that the amount of you taxes that goes to fund scientific research is miniscule. There's a very big difference.

Mr Mephisto

Mephisto,
You are incorrect in your assumptions.

There is no two-tiered system of R&D in the united states, as you seem to assume. Research by private corporations and large universities is funded by government grants, but no public institute carries out the research and owns the intellectual patents. Private interests own the intellectual patents, even when universities conduct the research.

You've totally warped what I said about taxation. You claim that it isn't my tax money, whereas I specifically said that it is "our" money, society as a collective. I know for a fact that taxpayer money was used on tax funded research, I never said anything about my own money--you shoved that into my post. That is why I state that, as a whole, taxpayers are entitled to benefit from any advances they fund.

But I'm over this discussion. You aren't making very much sense to me. Mondak and I are arguing from two opposite perspectives, and you are disagreeing with both of us. Your argument doesn't sound consistent as a result of that fact.

Maybe rereading what we've all posted after a few days or a week will illuminate something in either of our arguments.

I didn't think the issue was with private vs. government funding. I was under the assumption that the main issue was with the United States government limiting through the legislation the ability to even work with stem cells by choking off access to stem cell lines. No matter where the funding comes from, we need to have a country that does not make it illegal to pursue ground breaking research such as this.

My understanding is that the debate does to a certain extent involve funding: Bush is opposed to using federal funds to support any stem cell research that involves destroying an embryo. That seems to be his position. He seems OK with the idea of doing the research in principle, as long as federal funds are not used for the destruction of embryos. He stated in his recent speech that stem cell research on previously destroyed embryos is ethical.

The difficulty is that the 78 U.S. stem cell lines that Bush approved for research (because they were made from previously destroyed embryos) were found to be tainted, so they can't be used. So at present we're at a dead end; embryos need to be destroyed in order to create new stem cell lines, but Bush won't allow federal funds to be used for this purpose. Presumably private funds could be used, but at present there isn't any private support (as far as I know -- anybody know of private sources funding stem cell research?).

Then the House voted to ease restrictions of federal funding, which would allow new stem cell lines to be created. Bush is adamant though and has promised to veto the bill.

And into this mix a Korean lab just demonstrated that stem cells can be created by cloning: you take the DNA out of any somatic cell, take an egg cell and remove its DNA and replace it with the somatic cell DNA, induce it to divide, and it can be made to form a blastocyst. So you've created stem cells in vitro, without creating a zygote by fusion of egg and sperm.

Is this cloned blastocyst a real embryo? Well, if you implant it in a womb, it will develop into a baby. But there was no "conception" involved, its DNA was from a skin cell or bone marrow cell or some other somatic cell, not from a sperm or egg. It has no potential to develop into a human because it's sitting in a test tube. So what is it? Bush hasn't weighed in yet on whether he thinks this is a disposable "embryo" or not.

That's where we stand. Other countries are full speed ahead on this research; we're basically sitting waiting.

We aren't sitting and waiting. California is currently funding stem cell research.

Are you sure that Bush said research on previously destroyed cells was ethical? From his position, or more readily accessable, the position of his vocal base, that wouldn't be ethical although it would be permissable. That is, they aren't responsible even though they don't agree that embroyos should be destroyed for research.

There are private research centers and there are government projects other than the feds, well at least one now being California's. Even still, private interests are tied to the bids even though the regents will decide who gets what funding.

Meaning, even though California taxpayers are paying a few million for the research, we won't receive any direct benefit for our investment.

I agree with funding research. But I think that rationally speaking, publicly funded research should not enrich private interests. The only thing that is different on the federal level is that publicly funded ventures are filed with the Library of Congress. Any person can go and look up the research that has been publicly funded.

I think some people who are interested in intellectual property rights might find some really interesting dissertation material in this realm since the looming legal battles are over IP rights and this will become even more interesting, in my opinion, as we continue to see publicly funded research being melded with private enterprise. (public funds research, private holds patents)

Just as a matter of course, that never happened. All the furor was over the government not spending the money - not over limitiations on it being done at all.

Here's a transcript of Bush's speech on stem cell research, in the East Room on Tuesday. His view that already-destroyed embryos are fair game ethically for stem-cell research is highlighted in yellow.

And here are his original remarks from Crawford on August 9, 2001. Again his position is highlighted in yellow:

I agree, it's an exaggeration to say we're sitting and waiting. But the U.S. is hampered by lack of federal funding on account of Bush's policy, which is opposed by the majority of the American public, and other nations are ahead of the U.S. in this research.

Here's a response that Ron Paul wrote regarding this issue. The title says it all. Btw, he's the only one who voted aginast the bill.

Missing the Point: Federal Funding of Stem Cell Research

Yay stem cells... no really!

there are certainly ethical issues involved, but it is a deriliction of our duty to help one another to close off this avenue of research. a passage i think is germaine to this debate:

When he decides to give up his seat, with its very healthy salary, and retires to live in a shack in the wood, with no electricity, no health care for he and his family, no police to protect him, no roads (bar toll-roads) to transport him on his cart (no automotive industry or petro-chemicals) and carries his own shit out and buries it (no sewars), I might just listen to him.

Or I might just think "There goes another, hypocritical, crazy."

Hmmm... I wonder which one?



Mr Mephisto

Let's look at that statement because that response was pretty off target I believe. He's saying the worst thing about centralized government is personal liberty. This means that this is NOT a federal issue. Constitutionally the Federal Government has no business making this decision, and anyone who is against this had their personal liberty sacrificed because of it.

If this issue was left to the states, you can have for instance a CA, NY, or other STATE fund this, while maybe a red state like IN or TX might not be in favor of it. This allows a greater number of people be represented which is the way it was intended by the Constitution.

Again you're Missing the Point just like the good doctor said. His policy is to only vote for things that are authorized by the Constitution, what's so crazy or hypocritical about that?

I'm most proud to inform you that my city houses one of the worlds leading genetic research centres.

http://www.centreforlife.co.uk/index.php

That really doesn't seem rational at all. Why exactly does not wanting to fund Stem Cell research have to be tied to living in a shack, having electricity, health care (consumers pay for the last two), police, roads, sewage, oil or an auto industry?

Would you REALLY listen to him after he did these unrelated things?

There are a few things in this world that are true public goods - things that the cost cannot easily be distributed to those who consume the good. Saying that our government has pushed the definition of public goods too far and this was something that he did not want to pay for (particularly when our government is in massive debt) simply reflects choices and not hypocrisy.

It was meant as a rhetorical, and extreme, analogy.

Suffice it to say that I don't subscribe to the "less Government is better" political concept.

No. I thought I had made that clear. And, just in case I hadn't, I was being slightly sarcastic. The written word, especially on the internet, is not always accurate or reliable in communicating the subtleties of one's point. :)


I would say that there are quite a great deal.

That's true. But the sentence I quoted did not say that. It stated that "personal liberty" was the first "casualty" [sic] of centralized Government. I disagree.

I believe members of society have an obligation to contribute to that society, whether they agree or support all its actions or not. There's a whole different topic for discussion here... :)


Mr Mephisto

This obligation is outlined in a contract called the Constitution. This research is simply not part of anyone's obligation at a federal level. I don't know how much more simple I can make this.

Funding for those with mental retardation is not part of anyone's obligation at a federal level.

Funding for protecting areas of the North American continent (like Yosemite Park) is not part of anyone's obligation at a federal level.

Funding for the war in Iraq is not part of anyone's obligation at a federal level.

The previous three statements are true if, and only if, you believe that an individual taxpayer has the right to dictate, on a case by case basis, how Government funds are spent. But they can't. If they don't like the policies, then they can vote someone else in. But I can guarantee you that whomever is elected won't allow you to "pick and choose" where 'your money' [sic] is spent.

The whole point of a tax system is that it provides the Government with funds, which they distribute as they see fit. You don't get to decide on an individual or case by case basis.

I don't know how much more simple I can make this.


Mr Mephisto

Stem cell research is the future of not only human's but our breed as well. This means we can make babies all one color eliminating racism. I propose that all our future breed should be supreme, should be white, preferably blonde, blue eyes, so none will be disappointed.

Let it continue despite opposition. The one's who think it's ethically wrong will probably not benefit from it due to their beliefs so they shouldn't stand in the way of other's who may get the end results of the research. cantona