Posted by: Sister Toldjah on November 20, 2007 at 11:01 am
And once again the news has nothing to do with embryonic stem cell research:
NEW YORK — Scientists have made ordinary human skin cells take on the chameleon-like powers of embryonic stem cells, a startling breakthrough that might someday deliver the medical payoffs of embryo cloning without the controversy.
Laboratory teams on two continents report success in a pair of landmark papers released Tuesday. It’s a neck-and-neck finish to a race that made headlines five months ago, when scientists announced that the feat had been accomplished in mice.
The “direct reprogramming” technique avoids the swarm of ethical, political and practical obstacles that have stymied attempts to produce human stem cells by cloning embryos.
Scientists familiar with the work said scientific questions remain and that it’s still important to pursue the cloning strategy, but that the new work is a major coup.
“This work represents a tremendous scientific milestone – the biological equivalent of the Wright Brothers’ first airplane,” said Dr. Robert Lanza, chief science officer of Advanced Cell Technology, which has been trying to extract stem cells from cloned human embryos.
“It’s a bit like learning how to turn lead into gold,” said Lanza, while cautioning that the work is far from providing medical payoffs.
“It’s a huge deal,” agreed Rudolf Jaenisch, a prominent stem cell scientist at the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass. “You have the proof of principle that you can do it.”
There is a catch. At this point, the technique requires disrupting the DNA of the skin cells, which creates the potential for developing cancer. So it would be unacceptable for the most touted use of embryonic cells: creating transplant tissue that in theory could be used to treat diseases like diabetes, Parkinson’s, and spinal cord injury.
But the DNA disruption is just a byproduct of the technique, and experts said they believe it can be avoided.
If embryonic stem cell research becomes a hot button issue for the elections next year like it did in 2006, where proponents of ESCR once again used outright lies into hoodwinking voters into supporting it, I hope the Republican candidates pound the hell out of all the breakthroughs that have been reported on the non-embyronic stem cell front (see here, here, here and here for examples), and also repetitively mention the fact that, to date, there have been no “cures” developed on the embryonic stem cell research front. Not a single one.
Yuval Levin at NRO writes about credit that should be given to the President on this issue:
This kind of outcome has been the hope behind President Bush’s stem cell policy. In fact, the President spoke about this very same technique—reprogramming skin cells—in a speech back in July of 2006, and earlier this year signed an executive order to encourage this kind of work (Thomson’s team, in fact, was supported by the NIH). He should get credit for sticking to a crucial moral principle against immense and often quite irresponsible political pressure.
The President has stuck to his principles on this issue, and those principles are winning. Wesley Smith expands on the praise:
Returning to President Bush’s stem-cell funding policy; even though it was politically unpopular, the President believed wholeheartedly that the raw talent, intelligence, and creativity of the science sector would find a way to obtain pluripotent stem cells (the ability to become any cell type) through ethical means. In speeches and news conference answers about the stem-cell issue, Bush repeatedly supported existing ethical areas of research, and called upon researchers to find “alternative” methods of developing stem-cell medicine without treating nascent human life “as an experiment.” Toward this end, earlier this year Bush signed an executive order requiring the NIH to identify all sources of human pluripotent stem cells, and invited “scientists to work with the NIH, so we can add new ethically derived stem-cell lines to the list of those eligible for federal funding.”
[...]
I believe that many of these exciting “alternative” methods would not have been achieved but for President Bush’s stalwart stand promoting ethical stem-cell research. Indeed, had the president followed the crowd instead of leading it, most research efforts would have been devoted to trying to perfect ESCR and human-cloning research — which, despite copious funding, have not worked out yet as scientists originally hoped.
So thank you for your courageous leadership, Mr. President. Because of your willingness to absorb the brickbats of the Science Establishment, the Media Elite, and weak-kneed Republican and Democratic politicians alike — we now have the very real potential of developing thriving and robust stem-cell medicine and scientific research sectors that will bridge, rather than exacerbate, our moral differences over the importance and meaning of human life.
He also inserts a few well-deserved digs at what he calls the “Scientific Establishment” and their pomposity. Make sure to read the whole thing.
I’m sure the Usual Suspects who have slammed the President (and other Republicans) repeatedly for being “mean-spirited” regarding ESCR – all by using disingenuous, phoney arguments designed to appeal to emotion rather than reason, will be lining up to sing his praises for not bowing to the political winds on the issue. I’m also “sure” that I’m next in line to be Queen of England.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News, where I helped guestblog today for a vacationing John Hawkins.
I was surprised to actually hear this on the top of the hour news (AM Radio).
I’m afraid to libs though, agenda will mean more than this fact.
Now we have one less reason to kill babies. Expect the leftards to get angry.
this is ridiculous. why would anyone be angry about scientific advancment? the problem is that you don’t know if further advancments may have been possible if not for restrictions based upon silly superstitions. but this announcment should be applauded.
jak k. asks ever so innocently, “why would anyone be angry about scientific advancment?”
Because it would be contrary to their agenda.
Follow the money trail.
The 3 billion dollar stem cell research bond here in CA was passed despite facts.
Facts that showed that the private sector had spent enough on embryonic stem cell research to know it was FRUITLESS. That there was 0 (zero for those of you in rio linda) applications found for embryonic stem cells where with adult stem cells like umbilical cord stem cells and such there have been over 70 applications found to be useful.
Didn’t stop the brow beating negligent press and hollywood types last election did it… Facts are meaningless to the agenda.
jay k. said without representing the truth, “may have been possible if not for restrictions based upon silly superstitions.”
’twasn’t superstitions and you are playing dumb by writing that or are truly ignorant. And another non-fact you wrote is about “restrictions”. President Bush was the FIRST president to authorize federal spending (not restrict – get your fact straight) in 2001 on embryonic stem cell research on some existing lines of embryonic stem cells.
Hurts to be intellectually lazy don’t it!
I’m back! (Througg the weekend break anyway). As a chemist, not a biological expert, but my opinion is that both adult + embryonic need to be studied well.
We really need to understand how functions in adult stem cells compare to functions embryonic stem cells… do they have the same reprocibility? Do they make repairs in similar fashions? Do they have similar transcription error rates? Do they both have similar tissue rejection problems seen in other organ transplants? These will be answered with more than just yes/no, but with new theories of cell development that will revoulutionize biology.
Both types of stem cells (and other animal stem cells) are necessary to get a complete understanding of what we’re seeing.
However, if the research isn’t done we’ll never get the whole picture about how this works. Yes, they’re are already some embryonic stem cell lines available, but there’s simply not enough and my understanding is that they’ve been fairly well ‘over-used’. We can either do the research here, where it’s meticulously monitored, or we can let the Eastern nations do it, under much less scrutiny.
I realize that this is a morally complicated issue, but they’re are enough embryo’s thrown out EVERY DAY to provide what scientists are asking for (at least at this current level of research).
Great that there hae been breakthroughs. I belive that research should vcontinue on adult and embrionic stem cells, because they both hold promise for curing diseases and ailments in the future.
I do not believe that this branch of research should be held hostage to the religious views of the Religious Right. Of couse the immediate attacks will be that I would support vivisection such as was practiced by the Japenese and Germans during World War II, which is not what I said at all. But facts such as that have never deterred Conservatives in thepast.
“Because it would be contrary to their agenda… Follow the money trail.”
Can you say projection? Jay K is right, no one on the left is distraught by scientific advancements that can lead to a higher quality of life (remember how you love to tell us that science is our god). This is even a wonderful thing for those who don’t believe in the science but who use it daily without ever noticing (best not look at those prescriptions too closely, it might interfere with your reality)…
The alchemist is also correct; you don’t drop one avenue just because you have another promising path. In science any path can dead-end without notice.
And baklava: “Hurts to be intellectually lazy don’t it!” – see projection
what baklava isn’t saying is that the president lied about the number of existing lines…which did in fact restrict research. talk about intellectually lazy.
Actually no, the STATE is your god. All things, to the left, are to be subservient to the government bureaucracy.
Which is where all this discussion comes in. There’s nothing preventing private funding of the research you’re after, but what you want is government control of the funding. As we’ve seen with the AGW crowd, that means pre-determined conclusions and very little science at all.
So why hasn’t the private sector rushed to finance this research? If it’s such a gold mine of cures, they should be eager to cash in, right? Maybe it’s because there’s no there there. The research so far has turned up NADA. If you’re a research chemist, failing early is just as important as success – it keeps you from wasting time and money following false leads. That appears to be what’s happening here.
But to the left, this isn’t about scientific advances. It’s about political advances. So don’t expect them to change their tune.
Baklava, Edited.–ST.
How much have we spent on reasearch to find a cure for cancer, heart disease billions? maybe a trillion?
Yet we have no cure for either we do have some pretty damn good treatments and we keep pouring our tax dollars into research. And how long did it take for the reasearch to find these treatments?
Two, three, five, ten years and counting?
And they are done with our tax dollars initiating many of the treatments not private dollars.
Furthermore if anyone is an ideologue in this debate it’s the pro-birthers who want orphan embryos adopted.
So much ignorance, so little time… This breakthrough has everything to do with embryonic stem cell research. What makes embryonic stem cells unique is not this genetic makeup–that is the same as every other cell in your body, including “adult” stem cells. What makes them unique is their ability to differentiate, or develop, into any other cell type. Adult stem cells can’t do that, they are already partially differentiated and can only develop into a limited number of cell types. So far, only eggs have had the power to take a differentiated cell, a skin cell for example, and turn back its developmental clock, allowing it to develop into all cells types just like a cell from an embryo. That has severly limited the ability of scientists to study embryonic stem cells since the only place to get them was from an embryo or to use eggs to turn the clock back on adult cells through somatic cell nuclear transfer, called “cloning” by some. If scientists can generate cells with all the ability to develop into all cell types like cells derived frome embryos, they no longer need embryos or eggs to do their research and the entire embryonic stem cell controversy ceases to exist. Likewise, if they can work out the bugs, stem cells with all the potential of cells derived from embryos can be used for clinical applications, allowing stem cell treatments to achieve their full potential. It appears that the scientists in Oregon and Japan have found out how to turn back the clock on adult cells without using the power of the egg. It is exciting and amazing.
alchemist wrote, “As a chemist, not a biological expert, but my opinion is that both adult + embryonic need to be studied well.”
And where is the compelling reason to use government funds? Why not private funds as 75% of the economy is the private sector and has done plenty of research in this area BEFORE Democrats raised their ugly head thinking they could score political points on the issue.
Alchemist wrote without knowing, “However, if the research isn’t done ….”
The research has been done for decades. It continues to be done. ACTING like it hasn’t doesn’t make it true.
And the reseach has turned up ZERO (0 for those of you in Rio Linda) treatments for anything where as adult stem cells of different types have over 70 uses !!
Facts can be continued to be ignored to our peril. Stupid Californians just voted last year to spend 3 billion of public funds on stem cell research and we have the WORST budget situation of all states…. Thank you very much liberals!!
Let me quote the last line of the actual paper:
“Human iPS cells, however, are not identical to hES cells: DNA microarray analyses detected differences between the two pluripotent stem cell lines. Further studies are essential to determine whether human iPS cells can replace hES in medical applications.”
So, in other words, iPS cells aren’t ES cells, and all the ES restrictions have done is make many smart people waste a tremendous amount of resources to generate something of questionable utility.
Here’s a similar example of the left screaming hysterically for the need to throw money at a problem by exaggeration: the botched estimates of the size and scope of AIDS. Even the UN is now ratcheting the numbers down and admitting the problem wasn’t as bad as we were led to believe. Here’s the report in the WaPo.
Money quote, and why this is so relevant to the stem cell discussion:
In like manner, even though, as Bak points out, there is NO science to support their claims , the left wants to line up at the public trough for grant money.
Show us some real scientific evidence, and we’ll talk. And by “real science”, I don’t mean a political treatise like the AGW cultists offer, or an emotional Michael J. Fox act. Until you can do that, our research money is best spent where there is some promise of success.
1) There is a general misunderstanding of how science research works. Since world war II, chemical, physics and biological innovation has been pionerred from general studies research and not direct applictation research. This is where I’ve basically spent the last decade of my life.
Most of this research will not come to fruitation towards a specfic drug, treatment or product (although it is designed around key industrial/medical problems). Instead, general research funds are used to explore the areas in science that where our current understanding is poor. General research sets the groundwork for the big ideas that come later. You have to understand an idea before you can reverse-engineer it.
The biggest breakthroughs will typically come from those who have the greatest foundation in basic research. Through modern history, we have spent the most on biological studies but Eastern countries are aggressively pursuing researchers. If we won’t support the research of the best and brightest, they’ll go elsewhere. With them, goes the profits, tehcnology and the jobs.
Yes, but for the first time, reserachers have a solid foundation of how stem cells and infertilation may work. Alot of this has come from cloning research, which has fundamentally changed ideas about the chemical process of infertilization. Still, my understanding is that stem cell has been limited to 75 lines over the last 20 years. Access (even to non-goverment-funded research) is severly limited. I think most americans want scientists to have greater (but not unlimited) access to new lines. But again, I can see how it is a difficult moral decision for many.
3) When you say 70 applications, what you mean is 70 plausible (but untested) applications. Scientists wrote 70 grant-papers, saying the areas of adult-stem cells they would like to study and the possible fruit that could come from their studies. The research has barely started (only 8 months old). There is no proof that any of these applications will even work (yet). If this reserach does work, it’s still from a laboratory petri dish, and may never be functional on the scale needed. This week a huge breakthrough was published, but we’re still 20+ years away from using stem cells for medicine.
Now, these “70 applications” all come from research papers sent to the california goverment. Since grants to embryonic stem cells are forbidden by law, there are no papers trying to access funds. Grants are extremely hard to write, and take months of prepartion. Nobody is going to write a grant application paper if there is no money.
This does not mean that embroyinic stem cells do not have similar/better or worse functionality (albeit, more morally complicated). If there was government money, I guarantee that you would also have 70 application papers for embryonic stem cells. Many of them would attempt to answer different questions or address different issues than adult-stem cells. There are more possible avenues of research for both cells than we could possible dream of.
4) Like all things in science, adult stem-cells and embryonic stem-cells are overhyped. We’re not going to cure anything next week. It may not work at all. However, the only way to learn more, the only way to improve human medicine, is to study the forefronts of human biology. If you learn something from your research (even if it doesn’t work) you have improved upon the fountain of knowlege. Obviously, some moral issues need to be addressed, especially with embryonic cells. But it’s ok to have disagreement on exactly where that line should be.
YOu misused the term applications. It wasn’t a reference to application of funds. You were just talking out of your —-.
alchemist wrote (after talking out of his —-, “This does not mean that embroyinic stem cells do not have similar/better or worse functionality
Ahem. Yes. This is entirely the point. ZERO success with embryonic stem cells. There has beena and continues to be funds with or without federal dollars and the Democratic party is USING you like a tool hook line and sinker. There are over 70 uses found for adult and zero for embryonic and it has nothing to do with federal funds. It has everything to do with the unstability of embryonic stem cells and the inability to control them as humans.
Acting like Republicans bad and Democrats good because of a LARGE government having it’s hands in this issue is assinine. This is essentially what conservatives are about (as well as libertarians). SMaller government. Libertarians want a government 20% the size of today. How do you accomplish that and still spend with 5% or more increases per year on EVERY project that sounds good. Utopia for everyone. Free this and that for everyone. What you don’t realize is that it is only another layer of cost for everyone. Higher administrative costs and less incentives. Punishment of success and rewarding of failure.
Rewarding the failure of embryonic stem cell research is entirely the point I’m making. We should stop being idiots and stop rewarding bad decisions and failure.
And if you want research. Let private industry continue to research and STOP using the issue as a political issue. Period.
The private sector does not conduct research, they attempt to secure goals. I worked for the largest genetic research and development company in America and their greatest breakthrough was a breast cancer drug… found accidentally when their hair restoration research was a failure (redirecting blood flow). The private sector has no interest in advancing the human condition, just their bottom line, and more power to them, but we need research done on the seemingly impossible (which, as it turns out, is more possible than one might imagine).
So in the process of securing goals, what is the preferred term used in the researching of various avenues when they stumble on to positive results for a given problem/issue?
ibfamous ridiculously wrote, “The private sector does not conduct research, they attempt to secure goals.”
People perform research. People kill people. There are 75% private sector jobs and 25% public sector jobs. Public sector jobs tend to be service oriented.
Most engineers, research and development folks, physicians, neurosurgeons, biologists, chemists, and construction folks, etc are private sector folks.
Most of the work gets done via the private sector.
ibfamous solidifies his status for making famously stupid comments by saying, “The private sector has no interest in advancing the human condition,”
People have interest in advancing the human condition. People in the private and public sector have interest in advancing the human condition. The private sector does so more efficiently because of incentives. If there is no incentive for producing you have what is called communism or socialism where people who do not produce are just as rewarded as people who do produce. The private sector produces at a far larger rate than the public sector but even I wouldn’t make the comparison because the public sector’s goal is not to produce but to serve the people.
Try to be famous for making sense !
Bak: Is it just me or do the no talent clowns tend to gravitate toward gummint paychecks? That said, there are some who would be offended by that and they should not be, for it’s not them of which I speak. They also know as well as the rest of us, the fallacy of being w/o incentives and the deception that follows that spiraling recipe for failure.
Baklava; you’re right and you’re also wrong. There’s a huge amount of work done by industrial scientists, but it’s more engineering and quality control and less about investigative research. Both processes are needed to make revolutionary products, but the real discoveries generally don’t occur in industrial labs (For example, find a nobel prize winner in medicine, biology or chemistry that earned the award while working for a major company….)
The difference between industrial research and academic research is the same difference between a caveman’s axe and the axe you buy at home depot (in very loose terms). Academics create a new tool that no one has ever used before (ie stone on a stick). It’s a crude tool, but useful to determine how the tool should work, and why it works. Industry take the tool, refines it, engineers and perfects it, and then packages and sells it as a finished product. (your stainless steel axe).
For the most part, companies do not create the theories needed to design the next generations of drugs. Those are made by acadmics during novel research on cells, chemical interactions and poorly understood mechanisms. Once a scintist makes a novel discovery (say, the funcioning mechanism for a poorly understood bacteria), that expertise and research is then sold to a major industrial company, which figures out to use drugs on/incorporate said bacteria into a finished project. This is a huge amount of work and a large financial commitment, but not research. As such, I would guess that most industrial labs won’t touch stem cells with a 10 ft pole for another 10-15 years.
Let me rephrase one of those last lines…
“Corporations do a huge amount of work that also requires a large financial equipment, but does not do pure investigate research necessary for the future of the medical field”
alchemist, that’s not the case at all. I spent 8 years as a pure research chemist in the Ag Chem area. In my present position as a software consultant, I work with multinational pharmas and with biotechs operating on a shoestring. Every one of those companies has fully functioning research groups. Of course, academia is heavily invested in pure research, but the idea that corporations merely pick off the best of the academics’ ideas and polish them is far from accurate.
That’s true, it also depends alot on the specific area and on the goal of the research. My academic experience is all pure research, but my industrial experience is closer to engineering research… redesiging chemicals to fit a specific program/production. And yes, I oversimplified quite a bit (my original post was twice as long).
Still, the “big/revolutionary” research, the world-changing nobel-prize stuff, occurs in academia, NASA or other academia-like private institutes(these institutes are often financially tied to corporations, but not on the same production deadlines). That’s where all the stem-cell research is happening.
alchemist wrote, “For example, find a nobel prize winner in…. ”
Find a conservative nobel prize winner or a nobel prize winner without a leftist agenda first….
That is NOT an indicator.
The indicator is…. .quite simply…. that there is more r&d done in the private sector by a factor of 10 to 100. Wup. Wait a minute… I was just convinced by you…. and guess what PBS just did a special that helped you convince me. It was a special on the glory of government r&d. Finding advances in medicine and computer chips and software and oh my g-d the glory of these gubmint r&d folks. They kick some serious booty !!!!
Suffice to say you made a lot of generalizations without facts to back up your statements. Going on about industry and Home Depot and academics and such. Pointy headed academic intellectual types btw do go on to work in the private sector and colleges are mostly in the private sector.
Expanding off of GWR’s point is that academia is not “public” sector.
Baklava:
Look, I’m not trying to say one is better or worse. Industrial & Acadmic research are just different animals, and inherently necessary to make different types of discoveries. Industrial research primarily exists to create products. Academic research exists to understand science. Both fields overlap quite a bit, and there is alot of cooperation between the two.
My point is that academic research is uniquely important for studying science that doesn’t yet have clear incentives. Academica is a good place to develop and evaluate new theories that may be important for industry & medicine in the future. And yes, academic research is not always cost-effective, but it often leads in directions that you don’t expect.
Let’s take the nuclear resonance for example. It’s orginally based on physics work started in the 1930’s. (At least 3 nobel prizes in physics have already been awarded). Afterwards, it became a fundamental tool for chemical analysis (NMR). It wasn’t until the 70’s that this device was thought to be used on tissue samples. Almost all of this is was academic research, although this has led to industrially produced NMR & MRI machines. Everyday, Industrial scientists are making NMR more & more powerful, and creating new programs that analyze complex systems.
Now let’s look at stem cells. There are a number of small stem-cell companies are coming together right now to capitalize on recent discoveries. That’s a good thing. However, (in my opinion at least), these companies are made possible because of pivotal discoveries in academic labs (& new technolgies devloped in industry) over the last 15 years. Without both sides, these companies don’t form.
2) I completely agree the nobel prizes in literature & peace are worthless, but I don’t beleive the same standard applies in medicine, physics and chemistry.
This years awards went to:
Medicine: For developing gene-therapy techniques on mice
Physics: For devloping the physics of hard-drive data storage
Chemistry: For demonstrating the presence/neccessity of surface catalysis on natural chemical processes.
I fail to see how these research programs have a “leftist agenda”. Please explain.
Furthermore, if there is a different scientific award that you find more important (or of better worth) let me know. I’m not attempting to criticize you, I’m just trying to figure out how you see the issue.
Your experience is anecdotal alchemist. It isn’t representative of the fact that a lot of private industry is doing r&d and not the kind you suggested from your experience… and in large numbers.
alchemist wrote, “My point is that academic research is uniquely important”
And why you keep lumping in academic research with public sector vs. private is beyond me.
But then… that’s the way liberals think… (just ribbing you)
and for your last point. Well taken but Prizes are anecdotal also.
There is 10 to 100 times more r&d done by the private sector vs. the public sector.
And it’s a really stupid point I’m harping on here.
There were other lefties in this thread doing their typical private sector = industry = bad dance. It’s the Democrat/leftist way !!
Why do I refer to academia as public sector…. becuase it thrives primarily on NSF grants from the american goverment. Some states (such as California) also give out money for scientific grants. Many university programs also get money from private programs (a great example is Michigan, which gets huge grants from Merck).
I guess by ‘public’ sector you mean goverment positions in the FDA, EPA etc? IF that’s the case, I don’t see how they fit into a conversation on stem cell reesearch. My understanding is that most stem cell research was occuring in medical research institutes (usually attached to universities), but I have not heard of govermental group working on stem cells.
Ok, I will accept that prizes are antecdotal. Let’s try this a different way… can you think of any major scientific discoveries that have occurred in industry over the last 10 years?
Again, not trying to insult industry research, just trying to point out the strengths and weaknesses of each.
My company is 100% funded by the State of CA. I provide IT services for the state of CA.
hmmm. I consider myself the public sector now!
Alchemist wrote, “but I have not heard of govermental group working on stem cells.”
Precisely what I’m saying.
I’m not sure why you keep using the word “industry”. Most discoveries are done in the “private” sector. I’ll keep using that word.
Questions with wrong words don’t need to be answered. When you start using the right words you’ll see my point by yourself !
Baklava, it’s just the way I’ve always heard it referred to. State owns everything used: the buildings, the equipment, the grant money, the research (technically). You may own a business with public funding, but if you stop being publicy funded, you still own your business.
If you leave an academic lab, nothing belongs to you. Technically, some universities can prevent you from publishing research accrued on their campus if they choose (although it never happens).
Alot of my argument public vs. private come from your line (which I mistakenly read):
“And where is the compelling reason to use government funds? Why not private funds as 75% of the economy is the private sector and has done plenty of research in this area BEFORE Democrats raised their ugly head thinking they could score political points on the issue.”
So fine, my intentions were the same argument, but terminology was different… if you want, you can input goverment funding = “public”. Most academic research is publicly funded, not privately funded. I think that’s where everything gets garbled. Hopefully, we’re somewhat back on track now…
Of note, even privately funded research groups don’t have access to embryonic stem cell lines (due to demand). Still, (as I’ve been trying to demonstrate, somewhat indirectly) goverment research used on project ‘failures’, sometimes leads to unseen developments. Even if stem cells don’t work (ever) there’s still a lot to be learned from giving scientists the opportunity to try.
Again, I understand it’s complicated for many because of the moral implications.
Shoot! Should’ve hit preview button first.
Next to last line:
Even if stem cells don’t work (ever) there’s still a lot to be learned from letting scientists explore the limitations of stem cell growth to understand why current techniques fail.
“The private sector does so more efficiently because of incentives. If there is no incentive for producing you have what is called communism or socialism where people who do not produce are just as rewarded as people who do produce.”
nice rant baklava, any chance you heard of the privatization of the iraq war or the katrina response? both fine examples of how “incentives” work.
as for “People have interest in advancing the human condition. People in the private and public sector have interest in advancing the human condition.”
unfortunately they are ususally trumped by shareholders and profit mongering. people are fine, its when they join together for a common cause (read profits) that they lose a bit of their humanity.
now i could take the time to explain this all in detail but your world has been too severly simplified to fit in any useful information.
Boy the negativity. YOU thrive on it.
Let me NOT vote for you and your ideas….
I will run from them
…and by goverment research I actually meant academic research.
Anyway, I still think we’re caught of some rather meningless point and missing the whole center of the argument. I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to prove… I beleive it was pro-private sector/private funding, anti-goverment research (but really, there isn’t goverment research, it’s just publicly fundeded academic research). Which is how I started arguing for academic research (as is my pastime). But you don’t seem to have a problem with that so… I’m still not sure what you’re arguing against (or if you’re arguing at all).
Nontheless, work is back in full swing, and my time here is done until mid-december. be back then.
ibfamous steps on a rake and gets plastered in the face with this one:
Yes, that darned freedom again!! So much better when the government prohibits free enterprise and other rights. You saw how that worked in places like the Soviet Union when those shareholders were all shot and there was no “profit mongering”.
State control of the economy has never, EVER, led to anything except shortages, rationing, and poor quality goods. Small wonder our leftist Luddites love it.
A coworker had relayed this post to me today at scienceblogs. Although it’s very technical, it lays out clearly the good news, and why it’s too early to get excited about stem cell breakthroughs.
Here’s the site
What does it take to turn stem cells into a cure?
And there’s another good one here
Stem Cell Breakthrough
What does it take to turn stem cells into a cure?
Irresponsible spending by the government of the PEOPLE’s money….
Even though CA has one of the worst credit ratings and large deficits during a good economy the idiot people here passed a 3 billion dollar bond (more than some states spend in their entire budget) on stem cell research.
Democrats have glommed onto this issue alchemist and have turned this into a we good and you bad issue just like every other issue. You and every other liberal do not know what is good for this country. You are tearing this country’s fiscal future apart.
Utopia is for kindergardeners… Grow up!
You want stem cell research ? Return the issue BACK to the people and let Hollywierd or business pay for it. You don’t need MY money.
Notice I’m not talking about embryonic vs. adult stem cells in this post. Irresponsible liberals just want more of my money thrown at embryonic yet there is not even hope in that area. Adult stem cells have the most promise yet Democrats demagogue the embryonic issue into a we good you bad thing… Again. Grow up.
1) If you note, the research wasn’t done by us, it was done by the Japanese.(primarily)
2) Did you read the articles? All I’m saying is that you should understand the science for yourself. This guy can explain it better than I can.
On your point #1 – Democrats/liberals are pounding people on the head making Republicans feel mean or non-caring because they aren’t “for” doing the research. And then you bring up Japan. Sorry but you’ve LOST me. This issue should NOT be an issue for Liberals and Democrats. It should be research taking care of by the private sector, Japan, France, academic institutions whatever…
But CA had to pass a bond spending 3 billion of our money and Democrats and liberals like to bash people as “not caring”.
Take your issue out of politics alchemist. It doesn’t belong in politics. Get out of my pockets !!
On your point 2) I understand. I understand it better enough than you to realize that every utopian project cannot and should not be paid for by the federal or state governments. There is promising research ALL over the place and for liberals and Democrats to glom on this issue like they are SMARTER than thou is irresponsible.