(Thread split) - Stem cell research debate moved here.

[AZhitman]

Federal funds will only be used for research on existing stem cell lines that were derived:

(1) with the informed consent of the donors; (2) from excess embryos created solely for reproductive purposes; and (3) without any financial inducements to the donors.

In order to ensure that federal funds are used to support only stem cell research that is scientifically sound, legal, and ethical, the NIH will examine the derivation of all existing stem cell lines and create a registry of those lines that satisfy this criteria. More than 60 existing stem cell lines from genetically diverse populations around the world are expected to be available for federally-funded research.

So, what's the problem here?

p.s. Hey Bobby, can you split out our discussion on stem cells here into a seperate thread?

[skylndrftr]

Merck et al usually rely on the NIH and other government institutions to do the basic theoretical proving out and then just step in to take the cash.

The part of the restrictions that your missing is the part where they can't harvest new lines...significnatly limiting the physical media for the research.

[AZhitman]

Merck et al usually rely on the NIH and other government institutions to do the basic theoretical proving out and then just step in to take the cash.

The part of the restrictions that your missing is the part where they can't harvest new lines...significnatly limiting the physical media for the research.

Ummm, no. Think about what you just wrote. If you think drug companies don't invest heavily to bring a new treatment to market, you'd be wrong-o-matic.

And harvesting new lines seems unnecessary to me... after 20 years of testing SIXTY lines of human embryonic cells, and 20 years of UNLIMITED embryonic animal stem cells, no progress.

This is starting to look like someone pushing an agenda just to prove they're "right", rather than in pursuit of a solution.

Kinda like GWB's policies in Iraq, huh? Hmmmm....

[rn79870]

This thread has been split from McCain's campaign new low thread. I've found out that splitting threads is an art, not a science, so it may appear somewhat choppy. I've tried to keep the subject continuous as much as I could.

Thanks. Bob

[heliochrome85]

my understanding of the subject, and i have taken a couple regenerative medicine courses from one of the worlds pre-eminent scholars in that field, is that in general, adult stem cells, or ASCs have shown promise. as have epidermal (skin) cells. the only issue is that they have very limited ranges in terms of transformability. to put it another way, if you have cell differentiation targets 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9--- ASCs can only differentiate into 2,3,4,8---vs. embryionic stem cells, which can differentiate into all of them. Cord blood cells are great IF and only if, they are used in the same body for the people who'se blood it is. meaning, you, i and everyone, in order to benefit from cord blood cells, have to have saved and stored properly the blood from our umbilical cords at birth. thats not exactly viable either. as a result, the field is chafing due to the restrictions on funding this work.

Bush did not BAN all research. He did ban the use of federal funds to find new embryonic stem cell lines. and while that has not stopped the flow of research, the reality is that the most important labs in the world are based in the US. They heavily rely on NIH and CDC for funds and as a result, the cutting off of those funds leaves a great burden for the private sector to cover. It has slowed from a steady stream to a trickle in terms of progress and anyone who claims that the ban is justified because of a lack of research is just clueless.

[heliochrome85]

its science. i know it.

[OriginalWheelman]

I'm a conservative and I have stem cells in my back.

The big problem that the Repubs had with funding stems cells was human farming. There is a reasonable fear that test tube babies could / would be grown specifically for harvesting.

[telcoman]

I'm a conservative and I have stem cells in my back.

The big problem that the Repubs had with funding stems cells was human farming. There is a reasonable fear that test tube babies could / would be grown specifically for harvesting.

Well who knows where research will lead? Is the right so afraid of science because it may disprove some of what they believe in the bible is absolute fact?

Perhaps one day organs can be created in the lab? Hearts, eyes, kidneys, arms, legs, etc.Perhaps even Bush's brain can be replicated to try and figure out what is wrong with it?

Telcoman

[OriginalWheelman]

Perhaps one day organs can be created in the lab?

Perhaps they already can.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7179604.stm

Perhaps even Bush's brain can be replicated to try and figure out what is wrong with it?

No matter how much you make fun of him, he still won the election, and he was still chosen over your golden boy Al. They say that people make fun of others when to feel beeter about themselves. Does tearing down a Repub make you feel good about being a Dem? There are plenty of dumb democrats too. But let's say I agree with you for a minute and say that GW is an idiot. It just proves that the American people would rather have an idiot Republican than a smart Democrat

[AZhitman]

Is the right so afraid of science because it may disprove some of what they believe in the bible is absolute fact?

Perhaps one day organs can be created in the lab? Hearts, eyes, kidneys, arms, legs, etc.

Actually, you'd be surprised... I'd venture to say that more scientists lean right than left.

Science is the domain of fact, not fantasy... Logic, not dreams... cold hard statistics, not emotional drivel.

Organs are already being grown in labs. Read more.

There's a new technique that uses detergents to strip the growing tissues off the "structure" of a heart (can't recall what the underlying fibers and such are called) and they "seed" the organ with cells friendly to the recipient. It grows.

They're growing ears, noses and even fingers on the backs of rats. Read more!

[AZhitman]

EDIT: Wheelman posted a link to the exact article I was thinking of... LOL

[telcoman]

Perhaps they already can.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7179604.stm

No matter how much you make fun of him, he still won the election, and he was still chosen over your golden boy Al. They say that people make fun of others when to feel beeter about themselves. Does tearing down a Repub make you feel good about being a Dem? There are plenty of dumb democrats too. But let's say I agree with you for a minute and say that GW is an idiot. It just proves that the American people would rather have an idiot Republican than a smart Democrat

Excellent post. Interesting article.

I predict the American people won't get fooled again.

Research and government funding on all health issues is very important to society as a whole and having a president catering to the religious right that oppose such research is a big mistake in my opinion.

Telcoman

[OriginalWheelman]

in my opinion.

And that's just it. In your opinion. There are lots of other people out there with different opinions. To assume everyone of yours is the right way is self centered and arrogant. There is a reason we have the political system we do. So that everyone has a voice. Your voice will be heard, but not always listened to.

[heliochrome85]

And that's just it. In your opinion. There are lots of other people out there with different opinions. To assume everyone of yours is the right way is self centered and arrogant. There is a reason we have the political system we do. So that everyone has a voice. Your voice will be heard, but not always listened to*.

*= unless you are the christian right, in which case, please say whatever you feel like and we will cater to your whims and sand in the vag induced complaints.

FTFY

[OriginalWheelman]

And we don't bow to the left wing "be nice and PC to everyone" philosophy too?

What kind of country is this when I can only hate a man if he's white?

There's a bit of everything in our country. The right wing Christians have just as much right to seek their desires as you do. There are just a lot more Christians / people with christian morals. We have never elected a non christian president. That should say something right there.

[heliochrome85]

i dont see what harm there is in being nice to everyone. i thought it was one of the tenets of christianity? am i wrong? did jesus christ teach hate? i thought not. when did compassion, careing and civilty become filthy words? its shameful. my beef is that millions of people are dying in this country every year because of diseases that may be treated with this line of research. yet these lives mean nothing to those in the "moral majority" (as opposed to the amoral minority?). i find it ridiculous that on one hand, the evangelicals and such who so vocally supported and continue to support this ban, simultaneously blindly support and flock to israel in hopes of bringing about the second coming of christ and the supposed end of the world. its ridiculous

[heliochrome85]

and in order for a president to be elected these days, they have to talk about how they want to ban gay marriage, ban abortion, ban stem cell research, all while simultaneously being healed by Benny Hinn, and waving the american flag. i highly doubt the fathers of this nation would approve of such a disgraceful spectacle.

[szh]

The problem with being "nice to everyone" is that this is simply not realistic. Not possible and not practical and not likely to last long.

Yet, to be honest, I also object to extremisms that lead to silly stances on the part of people and politicians, although I am sure that I have some of those myself. So, political correctness (the "PC") is something I find assinine - it is a cop out. Have and state the honesty of your beliefs (as long as it is not irrationally hateful), no matter what they are, and the country must continue to have the understanding of freedom of speech to allow the expression of those beliefs.

But, once the "vote is counted" (on any topic), then it is the "right thing" to support the outcome - even if a given person did not actually vote that way. Majority rules.

If you do not like a law or policy or tenet, then try to change it. Or change yourself. For example, I find myself in disagreement with many California laws and practices, and I will leave the state someday. But, in the meantime, I try to do the best I can to elect officials to change those laws that I disagree with.

FWIW, I consider myself mostly "in the middle" - I lean conservative in some of my beliefs and and lean liberal in others. For that reason, on some topics, I find myself agreeing with the Republican party positions and on others, with the Democrat party positions.

Which is why, btw, I prefer McCain even though the GOP may not be happy with him. He is not perfect but seems more centered (says and follows his personal beliefs ... hence, more honest, IMHO) than Obama (says what Democrats want to hear, hence more dishonest, IMHO).

Z

[szh]

and in order for a president to be elected these days, they have to talk about how ...

For better or worse, the issues are what they are. The citizens/people set the criterion for deciding on the office of the President. These issues did not exist in the times of the Founding Fathers, so it is hardly useful to worry about what they thought about them!

The good news is that the folks allowed for the democratic process to exist, to allow us "The People" to decide what issues we would use, etc., to determine how to cast our votes for the office. They were remarkably future thinking about that!

Z

[Qwerty1942]

he was still chosen over your golden boy Al.

actually the majority of the american people chose al if you remember correctly.

[OriginalWheelman]

Barely, and we all know that' not what matters in the end.

[AZhitman]

FTFY

I know you were trying to be funny, but that whole thing goes both ways, Tariq.

You've schooled me in the past on my misperceptions of ME culture.

Now, have a seat, it's my turn....

As an "AWM", I find that any gripes I have (no matter how legitimate) are percieved as racist, sexist, not PC, hateful, mean, nasty, divisive, and risky.

Keep in mind that Christians are the most persecuted group in the world, and aside from a brief period in history where they did some retarded stuff in the name of God (Crusades - bad idea), they're generally very accepting of others who don't believe as they do. THIS DOES NOT MEAN always condoning the behavior of others (nor are they required to), but I don't recall the last time a Christian group lopped off the head of someone for being a non-believer. All over the world, people are maimed, abused, raped and killed simply for their beliefs... even when their eliefs are not that far removed from those of their abusers.

Honestly, I tire of the whining from so-called "protected classes" (whether it be based on gender, color, religion, disability or sexual preference) who spend more time pursuing entitlements than they do trying to improve their lot in life... Come to America because it's the land of opportunity, then cry when things aren't "FAIR"?

Give me a freakin' break. If you're a parent, do me a favor: Tell your kids LIFE IS NOT FAIR. Some people have to work harder than others. Some will seemingly glide through effortlessly. Some will have shlt thrown at them every step of their journey, others will breeze through unscathed.

On to the important part:

I take a bit of offense at being painted as a "sandy-vag" whose whims get "catered to". Quite a bit.

Especially since it's a broad brush being used. Is that how the "Christian right" is perceived?

I can only shake my head and feel pity for those who think that way. I pray that this misperception and lack of appreciation doesn't impact the billions (yes, billions) of dollars in generous aid the "Christian right" pours into underdeveloped countries and relief groups that ease suffering worldwide, without conditions, without expectations.

That's just sad. And wrong. "Biting the hand" in its truest sense.

Honestly, acceptance and tolerance are not hard for me to express, but after years and years of being pushed and pushed, at some point even a kind and gentle person starts to feel the backlash welling up inside.

I know you to be a good guy. But reading that one comment makes me wonder if all my acceptance and open-mindedness was a waste of effort.

[heliochrome85]

dont you worry AZ, its not wasted.

couple points:1.) I believe the Jewish people are the most persecuted people in history. Since the fall of the western roman empire, christians have largely held positions of power and influence. Jews have never been a world power.

2.) Spanish inquisition, protestant catholic wars, crusades all point to an past lack of tolerance...

3.)I agree on the whining, but i think the religious right is in some cases, one of them.

4.) My parents always told me life isnt fair. They came here with the clothes on their backs and a few hundred dollars in order to place us in an environment where opportunities far exceed hurdles. I havent lost that. Im not one of those kids off of MTV's Sweet 16.

5.) While you may not fall into the picture i painted with such an apparently broad brush, i have personally experienced disdain and judgement from members of the religious right for not praying to the right god, and for being a terrorlst by association. im sorry, if people want to make a big deal about rev wright, they need to honestly look at their own beliefs. It seems that to protest him was a way for some people to make up for their own racist or bigoted beliefs. Like LOOK AT HIM, HE IS SO RACIST, HE SHOULD DIE!!! I HATE HIM, THEREFORE, IM NOT RACIST AT ALL.

having been on the recieving end of persecution and quiet judgement for 7 years now, i can say, it GETS OLD. I agree with you, there are many cases where its just a matter of people wanting entitlement, but you have to think, if we are such a christian nation, why does the right NEED to push their agenda. I would think it would be implemented defacto by sheer power of numbers. To me and i think to many people, it sounds like "we only control most of the country, we need more power." I hope no hard feelings. Its just tough sometimes to live in my shoes. I hope one day, ill get the chance to meet you in person, cause i have like a million qs for you...

[ishkabibble]

Defer, deflect and ignore. If I'm wrong then you prove me wrong, else you can get right back onto your "you lie and are not credible" wagon and go back to the out house.

I have no inclination to waste time disproving comments with no apparent foundation. Instead, I'll just point out that it's little other than partisan hackery. If the dems are against something, then show me that they are.

Defer, deflect and ignore. If you're right, then prove you're right. You saying something without any giving any rationale for saying so gives you about as much credibility as the stuff in the out house.

[ishkabibble]

Hey Ish - Did we need federal funding to create a craft that allows civilian space travel? NOPE.

ROFL. Was that craft built using decades of existing federally-funded NASA research? YEP.

put up barriers to research in the name of morality.

Dude, the whitehouse link I posted proves exactly that. But go ahead and ignore the link I posted.

Ummm, no. Think about what you just wrote. If you think drug companies don't invest heavily to bring a new treatment to market, you'd be wrong-o-matic.

That isn't what he said. You're showing how uninformed you are here. The govt forks over a ton of cash for drug company R&D.

This is starting to look like someone pushing an agenda just to prove they're "right", rather than in pursuit of a solution.

The only agenda being pushed is the agenda of the fundies. It's spelled out clearly in the whitehouse link I posted; I don't see how you can possibly deny it.

Actually, you'd be surprised... I'd venture to say that more scientists lean right than left.

Science is the domain of fact, not fantasy... Logic, not dreams... cold hard statistics, not emotional drivel.

Which is exactly why scientists tend to have a bit of a problem with the Young Earth Creationist view of the world... so I think they tend to lean a bit more independent or left than right.
Modified by ishkabibble at 7:10 PM 8/21/2008

[AZhitman]

ROFL. Was that craft built using decades of existing federally-funded NASA research? YEP.

Are you gonna credit the cavemen who discovered fire as well?

Re: your link... I read your article. And you can interpret it as such. But you have to recognize BOTH sides have rights. Both sides have an agenda.

HOWEVER, to place a higher value on the opinions of those who want to farm new lines of cells OVER the beliefs of those who see it as a dangerous path is inappropriate.

Especially when the scientists who have been working on this stuff for 20 years say there's really no need to go down that road, it doesn't hold much promise, and we can do the same thing with another resource.

[heliochrome85]

im sorry, the notion of a scientist self-restricting the nature of research is questionable. under what circumstances have scientists historically said, ok, weve done enough. we dont need to explore more since we're happy with what we know now? never. it is possible that these scientists have placed this restriction on themselves because of religious/moral disagreements. to use their position as a general position indicative of the direction of the field is dangerous.

[ishkabibble]

Are you gonna credit the cavemen who discovered fire as well?

Nope. nice stretch though

Re: your link... I read your article. And you can interpret it as such. But you have to recognize BOTH sides have rights. Both sides have an agenda.

HOWEVER, to place a higher value on the opinions of those who want to farm new lines of cells OVER the beliefs of those who see it as a dangerous path is inappropriate.

Everyone has a right to an opinion. But if you want to fight the destruction of embryos, fight the destruction of embryos. Not the research of their waste cells.

Especially when the scientists who have been working on this stuff for 20 years say there's really no need to go down that road, it doesn't hold much promise, and we can do the same thing with another resource.

I doubt all of the scientists say that. Without embryonic stem cell research, we would not have gotten very far in adult stem cell research. The ultimate goal is something in the middle of embryonic and adult stem cells- cells which have the host's genome but are mostly undifferentiated. Differentiation is still mostly a mystery, and we're not going to overcome it by avoiding researching embryonic stem cells.