Stem cell researc to go forward in the US, Bush promises to veto..

There are several significant problems with embryonic stem cells. The first is that when used the subject often rejects the cells due to difference of DNA. These cells often turn into cancerous objects within the patient. The only solution that has been proposed so far is to subject the patient to consuming so many different drugs to cope that it would cause all kinds of other problems for the patient anyway which would make it pointless.

The second problem is that suppose you do develop a treatment via the use of these stem cells, it can cure millions. Where are you going to get the stem cells to treat all of these people? Women will inevitably end up selling eggs for money and in the developed nations, they won't take less than tens of thousands for it. No, we will end up going to the third world and buying eggs from dirt poor women in Africa, India, etc. and then we get into an ethical dilema.

More than that, the fact is that it will almost certainly lead to women getting pregnant and selling the embryo for money and turning abortion into a business.

I think that what President Bush did today was a great thing. I know that the majority of Congress and possibly the majority of Americans support this kind of stem cell research, but it is not the job of the President to please the majority, it is his job to protect Americans, even from the majority of Americans.
 
MobBoss said:
Two points. First, I will clarify my earlier statement in order to state that the government does indeed have a responsiblity to provide for our defense - in fact, its one of its primary reasons for existance....and thus, such spending on scientific defense applications - which was where the Internet came from under DARPA, is a government responsiblity.

Am I the only reader who thinks this is a rather "clutching at straws" type of argument? :lol:
 
North King said:
Am I the only reader who thinks this is a rather "clutching at straws" type of argument? :lol:

Nope. The #1 responsibility of our government is to protect us and ensure our nation is secure. At least thats my take on it. Feel free to think what you will.
 
MobBoss said:
Nope. The #1 responsibility of our government is to protect us and ensure our nation is secure. At least thats my take on it. Feel free to think what you will.

I meant more your rather weak justification of public funding of the Internet based on that it was part of DARPA at the very beginning.
 
North King said:
I meant more your rather weak justification of public funding of the Internet based on that it was part of DARPA at the very beginning.

But it was. In the beginning the internet was designed as a defense application for use by DARPA. The ability to send messages worldwide to military bases/installations instantly was seen as a very effective way to communicate a possible nuclear launch by an enemy. DARPA = Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. http://www.darpa.mil/

For your pleasure:
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
is the central research and development organization for the Department of Defense (DoD). It manages and directs selected basic and applied research and development projects for DoD, and pursues research and technology where risk and payoff are both very high and where success may provide dramatic advances for traditional military roles and missions.

Please note the Department of Defense part.:lol:
 
MobBoss said:
But it was. In the beginning the internet was designed as a defense application for use by DARPA. The ability to send messages worldwide to military bases/installations instantly was seen as a very effective way to communicate a possible nuclear launch by an enemy. DARPA = Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. http://www.darpa.mil/

For your pleasure:

Please note the Department of Defense part.:lol:

For someone who claims to be more mature than us silly teenagers, you are dodging the point to an absurd extent.

Yes, the initial part was military. Yet if we went your way, and the government never spent anything on giving luxuries and leisures to the people, then we still wouldn't have an internet.

The technology would be there, certainly, but there would be no application of it for the common people.

Thus, your comment was highly amusing.
 
North King said:
For someone who claims to be more mature than us silly teenagers, you are dodging the point to an absurd extent.

Yes, the initial part was military. Yet if we went your way, and the government never spent anything on giving luxuries and leisures to the people, then we still wouldn't have an internet.

Sigh. The government didnt spend money on the internet to make it a luxury. That didnt happen until private companies got involved. My tax dollars are not given to the government to develop luxurys for people.

For a silly teenager you seem to have a hard time getting that...oh wait.

The technology would be there, certainly, but there would be no application of it for the common people.

The application for the common man didnt come from the government. It came from private enterprise.

Thus, your comment was highly amusing.

Yours has been even more so.:lol:
 
MobBoss said:
Sigh. The government didnt spend money on the internet to make it a luxury. That didnt happen until private companies got involved. My tax dollars are not given to the government to develop luxurys for people.

...The technology that formed the basis of the Internet was designed by the government, so really the skeleton of the modern Internet was built by the government.

For a silly teenager you seem to have a hard time getting that...oh wait.

Perhaps by pointing out your statements I was hoping you'd realize what a jerk these prejudiced comments make you out to be. I suppose that when at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Or maybe I was hoping for too much. And they wonder why optimism dissapoints a body.

The application for the common man didnt come from the government. It came from private enterprise.

The Internet in a usable form went above and beyond what was needed for defensive purposes, and these were furthered by government grants.

Yours has been even more so.:lol:

I'm sure you'd think so.

What I'm pointing out, and what you're deliberately missing, is that government funded research is not a bad thing, and that you use most of it on a day to day basis.

And, so this doesn't die in off-topicness, I'm going to point out that stem cell research, if not funded by the government, will likely lead to very little, given the immensity of the cost compared to gains in the short term, which discourages private investment.
 
John HSOG said:
There are several significant problems with embryonic stem cells. The first is that when used the subject often rejects the cells due to difference of DNA. These cells often turn into cancerous objects within the patient. The only solution that has been proposed so far is to subject the patient to consuming so many different drugs to cope that it would cause all kinds of other problems for the patient anyway which would make it pointless.

The second problem is that suppose you do develop a treatment via the use of these stem cells, it can cure millions. Where are you going to get the stem cells to treat all of these people? Women will inevitably end up selling eggs for money and in the developed nations, they won't take less than tens of thousands for it. No, we will end up going to the third world and buying eggs from dirt poor women in Africa, India, etc. and then we get into an ethical dilema.

More than that, the fact is that it will almost certainly lead to women getting pregnant and selling the embryo for money and turning abortion into a business.

I think that what President Bush did today was a great thing. I know that the majority of Congress and possibly the majority of Americans support this kind of stem cell research, but it is not the job of the President to please the majority, it is his job to protect Americans, even from the majority of Americans.
Wow... Do you also feel that Sperm Banks are terrible too?

Do you honestly believe what you typed?
 
North King said:
What I'm pointing out, and what you're deliberately missing, is that government funded research is not a bad thing, and that you use most of it on a day to day basis.

My point is, and you seem to be missing it, is that the government has a responsibility for funded research into defense applications, like the internet, but not in other types of research.....like the search for the perfect beer, or the tastiest cheese, or viagra for that matter. The same private research that came up with viagra should be the same type of research done on stemcells.

And, so this doesn't die in off-topicness, I'm going to point out that stem cell research, if not funded by the government, will likely lead to very little, given the immensity of the cost compared to gains in the short term, which discourages private investment.

Immensity of the cost? Then why O why should the public fund it? It being too expensive is NOT a valid reason for the government to simply pick up the tab.
 
eyrei said:
I suppose he had to give the 'wingers' a gift or they weren't going to get out and vote next election. Of course, I was under the impression that Hillary Clinton was enough reason...;)

Bad decision though. Catering to religious fanatics on the issue of science is a terrible idea. Hopefully the next congress will be able to override his veto.
So he didn't cater to science fanatics for a change. Not all that's done in the name of science is a success so only time will tell if embryonic stem cell is a waste. Also some of the ones who against Embryonic stem cell research is for Adult stem cell research because of now it a lot more promising and will help others quicker.

Bush probably went on his own judgment in this case which is the whole point of a veto.
 
The same private research that came up with viagra should be the same type of research done on stemcells.

You mean by renting laboratories in universities? Where the company pays for the materials and salaries, but rents time on the expensive machines?

With the law that Bush made, they're not allowed to. No use of anything that was partially funded. Even the viagra labs had access to these equipments.

The first is that when used the subject often rejects the cells due to difference of DNA. These cells often turn into cancerous objects within the patient.

These are two different issues. The "differences in DNA" are due to minor markers, similar to organ donation problems and blood donation. But, like with organs and blood, there aren't actually that many variants of the required DNA. In other words, the genes involved with rejection aren't that numerous, and you only need a few stem cell lines to cover nearly everyone (now, you might need a couple hundred cell lines, but not millions.)

The first issue is due to cell programming, and is merely something that needs to be worked on. Of course, this could be worked on faster if people were allowed to. It is a legitimate issue, but it's merely a technical one.

Women will inevitably end up selling eggs for money and in the developed nations, they won't take less than tens of thousands for it.

The status around selling eggs is currently being debated. However, there is currently NO shortage of eggs or embryos, because all of the eggs and embryos are from people who are trying to get pregnant (though eggs are in more demand than embryos, since working on them is easier). The UK is currently debating whether to allow women to donate eggs to research, because (by law) they only allowed to use the eggs that were rejected for trying to get pregnant (thus reducing the quality of the eggs).

It currently takes roughly 100 hours of effort (total) over weeks for a woman to donate eggs. It's damn hard to get donors for that reason; though I do think that medicine will kick in to make it less onerous over time.

No, we will end up going to the third world and buying eggs from dirt poor women in Africa, India, etc.

We currently have this issue with organs. However, stem cell research is expected to reduce the need for organ donation, and there are a plethora of potential stem cells just sitting, available, in the first world. In truth, stem cells will reduce the market for illicitly gotten organs; in a BIG way.

Immensity of the cost? Then why O why should the public fund it? It being too expensive is NOT a valid reason for the government to simply pick up the tab.

Free Rider issues, and purchasing an appreciating asset. But you've already been exposed to this concept.
 
Also some of the ones who against Embryonic stem cell research is for Adult stem cell research because of now it a lot more promising and will help others quicker.

The people who were going to work on ASC are still going to. The only difference is that research on ESC will remain subpar (they have to use low-quality lines) or unnecessarily expensive (they have to purchase whole new facilities). The people who wanted to work on ESC are still going to; they just won't do as well.
 
Azadre said:
Wow... Do you also feel that Sperm Banks are terrible too?

Do you honestly believe what you typed?


There is one hell of a difference between this and sperm banks, and you it. Yes, I do firmly believe what I type.
 
I can't believe I read through most of this thread.... Per usual, w/ a couple of exceptions, it devolves into nitpicking, semantics, and disingenuity (did I just make up a word?) w/ an almost complete avoidance of the "big picture".

The basic issue which 95% of the posters are dodging is that the core of oppostion to ESCR is from the Right to Life movement. I credit JohnHSOG for coming the closest to acknowledging that.

All this mularkey about govt. funding is just that. The govt. fund 1000s of different things that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution and has done so since Alexander Hamilton first made use of the elastic clause back in the 1790s.

So, the argument that its not under govt. purview is hokum. Now, you may not like the idea of the govt. funding ESCR, but, I don't like it that we fund the war in Iraq, but so be it. Govt. does not spend, nor should it, based on the whims of individuals citizens or groups therein.

So, let's get to the real issue and reason for Bush's veto.

Its 2-fold:
1. Placates the religious right. This is an important issue to them and in passing this veto, Bush is simply satisfying that constituency.
2. Continues Bush's long-established cold war on science in which he has sought since day 1 to control science and research as an extension of partisan policy. This fits that mold.

As to the issue of how horrible ESCR is, well, we have fertility clinics that dispose of 1000s, of not millions, of fertilized eggs every year. So, properly regulated and w/ ethics in place, there is no need to "outsource" embroyo harvesting to India. Although just think, while you answer that customer service call for Dell, your uterus could be working overtime as an egg factory. BOOYAH!

So, you could very easily have ESCR with no contribution to the #s of abortions or this imagined 3rd World Black Market of fertilized eggs, though it would make an awesome subject of a Jerry Bruckheimer shoot-em-up, starring Nick Cage as Dr. Peter Hardeson, the rough and tumble doctor who operates in the shadow world of 3rd World ESCR research!

Essentially, we just continue our march against scientific and human progress that will be one of the hallmarks of the Bush legacy. Kudos.
 
Besides, abortion and harvesting ESCs are different things. I oppose the first on the grounds that it is destructive of human life, but not the second because ultimately it isn't. It may sound callous, but if an embryo is going to be destroyed anyways it may as well happen in a way that will benefit others.
 
Yeah, isnt that basically like Cadaver research? If we werent allowed to cut things open that were dead, where would the medical community be? These embyros, even if we call them people, which I think personally is a stretch, are basically dead.

The good FAR outweighs the bad. Calling pro-life on this is dumb. If you hurt Stem Cell research, you're not saving any life, because these cells get thrown out either way. If you promote it, then thousands of lives can be saved.
 
MobBoss: You say that the government only has the responsibility to allocate funds for defense, and seem to imply that nothing else is at all important in this regard. Untold billions have been spent on certain recent engagements of ours for defensive purposes (whether they are actually "defensive" is another issue that I don't care to get into here). Why should I or anyone believe that pumping even more money into them would have any signficant effect? The point here is, not all of that money needs to go to defense -- and scientific research is certainly not undeserving.

Even if you don't buy any of that -- it wouldn't surprise me if the military could find a use for some new technology based on stem cell research.
 
Pontiuth Pilate said:
Ironic: wait to veto your first bill until you have the lowest approval rating in your entire presidency.

4 more votes needed. We'll find them, and Bush can pound sand.

The GOP has been opposing science for ages now. Science either wins, or other nations get the science. Too bad for America if it's the second outcome, is all I have to say.

GOP doesn't oppose science on a regular basis, just here (they are occasionally morons). Name one other field that the more than a small minority of GOP opposes advancing.

Unfortunately, many people do equate Stem Cell Research with Abortion. I am for one, and against the other completely. One is legitimate research, and an embryo is not a person, while the lives saved would be. The other is murder in my book.



My only question is: should the GOVERNMENT be funding this at all? I think private groups are doing a fine job. Government research should basically be limited to defense, otherwise science will become another victim of governmental bureaucracy.
 
Mastreditr111 said:
My only question is: should the GOVERNMENT be funding this at all? I think private groups are doing a fine job. Government research should basically be limited to defense, otherwise science will become another victim of governmental bureaucracy.
That's something I was about to ask: If this research is so profitable, and so promising, why don't private businesses fund the research, and reap the benefits? People will do anything in this country to make a buck, so why won't they use their money on this if it's such a sure thing?

I have a feeling it's not so nearly as much a sure thing as it's being portrayed, which is why it needs government funding to keep going. But why should the government support such a thing, when it's not profitable enough, or likely to be profitable enough in the near future, to warrant it from the private sector? Since when did the government become simply a big company for investing in the ventures too risky for the rest of us? (And I imagine, if government funding found the cure for, say, cancer and every other major disease using stem cells, and patented it so only they could use it - having payed for it's developement, after all - there would be a huge stink about the "evil" US government.)

If embryonic stem cell research is such a brilliant and promising technology, why don't we have investors lining up around the block to try and get a foothold, instead of having to go begging to the government for support?
 
Top Bottom