New Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Approved

Science • Views: 2,847

While I supported the Bush administration’s foreign policies for the most part, one of the biggest disagreements I had with them was their blatant bias against scientific research; and one of the best examples of that bias was their opposition to stem cell research, an opposition based entirely on irrational religious objections from the far right. So I’m very pleased to see the news that for the first time in years, a new line of embryonic stem cells has been approved for US researchers.

Dec. 2 (Bloomberg) — Thirteen embryonic stem-cell lines were approved for use by U.S.-funded researchers today, the first of hundreds of new cell colonies that may become available under new polices promised by President Barack Obama.

Stem cells taken from days-old human embryos can be kept alive indefinitely in solution, and have the ability to turn into about 200 cell types in the body. Use of these so-called stem lines is opposed by some people because extracting them destroys the embryos. The stem-cell expansion was announced today by Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, in a telephone briefing with reporters.

Another 20 lines may be approved as soon as Dec. 4, the first of “a wave” of approvals that could make hundreds available, Collins said. Obama pledged to end U.S. stem-cell restrictions during his presidential campaign. Congress twice voted to overturn the limits, put in place by President George W. Bush, and Bush vetoed both measures.

“With these restrictions now being lifted, we can now compete, hopefully, with the U.K. and some of the other foreign governments that are running with us,” said Robert Lanza, chief scientific officer of Worcester, Massachusetts-based Advanced Cell Technology Inc., in a telephone interview today. “It would be good for us to be back in the game.”

Jump to bottom

361 comments
1 Only The Lurker Knows  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:21:27pm

This is going to cause some heads to pop.

2 KernelPanic  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:22:53pm

Just one example of the real changes both large and small that occur with a change in administrations. I use these examples all the time when talking with politically apathetic friends who try to pull the "I'm not gonna vote, it doesn't mean a thing and all politicians are the same ..." argument.

3 Soap_Man  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:26:11pm

Fantastic news! This made my day.

4 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:28:09pm

Hooray for science.

5 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:28:25pm

Good stuff. There's so much promise there.

I'll take the religious objection to this seriously when they start protesting fertility clinics.

6 researchok  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:28:56pm

Question: Should the government be funding the research or should the research costs be borne by private industry?

7 bosforus  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:29:35pm

Honestly, I have no idea what stem cells can be used for. Has the UK done anything with them of significance yet?

Stem cells taken from days-old human embryos can be kept alive indefinitely in solution, and have the ability to turn into about 200 cell types in the body.

I don't know what this means. They can make white or red blood cells out of stem cells?

8 Wozza Matter?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:29:43pm

won't someone think of THE CHILDREN???

/

9 Kragar  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:30:41pm

re: #6 researchok

Question: Should the government be funding the research or should the research costs be borne by private industry?

I'd rather see the money going to this that some of the other projects government research money has gone to in the past.

10 Idle Drifter  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:31:13pm

Anything that advances scientific knowledge is a plus.

11 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:31:38pm

re: #7 bosforus

Stem cells are used, for example, in bone-marrow transplants to cure leukemia. Those are adult stem cells, which have a more limited pathway of what they can turn into.

Embryonic stem cells are much more versatile.

NIH Stem Cell basics. Very good basics information presented in a cogent manner.

12 bosforus  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:32:24pm

re: #11 obdicut

Much thanks. I'll dive into it later.

13 bluecheese  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:32:43pm

this thread needs a soundtrack.

14 RogueOne  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:32:49pm

While I'm actually all for this, I hope people aren't going to get their hopes up that this change will actually accomplish anything of significance anytime soon. If there were actual credible projects going then getting private funding would be relatively simple, the only thing this changes is the feds will now dump tax dollars into the solution.

I think we owe it to ourselves to use some federal funds but, OTOH, it seems whenever fed money is involved things tend to bog down and they generally run in a direction without actually thinking it through. Look at how the fed money has retarded the green energy projects by focusing on a losing proposition, ethanol.

15 vxbush  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:33:07pm

re: #11 obdicut

Stem cells are used, for example, in bone-marrow transplants to cure leukemia. Those are adult stem cells, which have a more limited pathway of what they can turn into.

Embryonic stem cells are much more versatile.

NIH Stem Cell basics. Very good basics information presented in a cogent manner.

I thought they had recently managed to get around the limitations with adult stem cells. No link to back me up, though.

16 researchok  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:33:42pm

re: #9 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I'd rather see the money going to this that some of the other projects government research money has gone to in the past.

I asked because of the ambiguity.

Stem cell research was never outlawed- private research companies were able to pursue their work (FYI, I support stem cell research). A big parto9f the brouhaha was the result of the government not funding stem cell research.

So, when should government fund research and when should it not?

17 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:33:47pm

Oh boy... That sound you hear is the money televangelists and so-called moral leaders are going to be sucking out of their flock on the backs of this one.

I believe this must be the first strike by the evil secular forces in the annual War On Christmas*

*Trademark & All Rights Reserved, Newscorp Ltd.

18 captdiggs  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:34:18pm

Completely agree. Bush's religious reasoning for his ban was a travesty.

19 lawhawk  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:34:22pm

Charles,

The disagreement was over ethical and moral quandaries about how to obtain those embryonic lines. The fact is that Bush also happened to be the first to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. He expanded that policy in 2007. Obama repealed Bush's policies, but in effect expanded on Bush's precedent.

These are the first lines to get approval from the NIH.

But, and here's the big but, researchers have already moved on given that scientists have figured out that they make turn adult stem cells behave like embryonic stem cells, avoiding the ethical and moral quandaries in the first place.

Researchers’ interest in human embryonic stem cells has abated since the discovery in 2007 by the Japanese biologist Dr. Shinya Yamanaka that the mature cells of the body can be reprogrammed to the embryonic state.

These induced embryonic cells are highly similar to the real thing but may not be exactly the same. One reason is that the mature cell may perceive the forced walk-back to embryonic state as unauthorized and switch on its anticancer defenses.

The limited stem cell lines may have inhibited research in ESCR initially, but scientists not only managed to work around the problem, but found a way to avoid the moral and ethical issues at the same time.

20 Idle Drifter  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:34:23pm

re: #7 bosforus

It means they can be use to grow any human cell: nerve cells, skin cells, muscle tissue, etc. The hope is to be able to recreate entire organs and body parts placing relief on organ donation.

21 political lunatic  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:35:02pm

It's nice to finally have an administration that doesn't think science is evil dark magic or something like that. The "religious" whackos have held back progress in stem cell research, among other things, for far too long.

22 Gus  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:35:07pm

Agreed Charles regarding President Bush and science overall especially on the stem cell front. His first veto in his presidency was stem cell legislation and that was in July of 2006. One of Obama's first moves was to reverse the ban.

23 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:35:29pm

re: #16 researchok

I asked because of the ambiguity.

Stem cell research was never outlawed- private research companies were able to pursue their work (FYI, I support stem cell research). A big parto9f the brouhaha was the result of the government not funding stem cell research.

So, when should government fund research and when should it not?

The problem was that almost every lab in the country has some connection to government funds. What university doesn't have some government support?

24 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:35:47pm

re: #14 RogueOne

Basic science research is something that the industry does not tend to fund at all-- Bell Labs was an exception back in the day.

The vast majority of basic science research is government or non-profit funded, because very often there is no way of capitalization on the advance in particular.

Applied uses of stem cells will be-- and are-- privately funded. But research into the very basic stuff of stem cells is not going to be supported in the same way. There is still a ton of basic science work to be done.

Please note: Basic doesn't mean simple, in this perspective, but more 'fundamental'.

25 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:36:19pm

re: #19 lawhawk

Charles,

The disagreement was over ethical and moral quandaries about how to obtain those embryonic lines. The fact is that Bush also happened to be the first to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. He expanded that policy in 2007. Obama repealed Bush's policies, but in effect expanded on Bush's precedent.

These are the first lines to get approval from the NIH.

But, and here's the big but, researchers have already moved on given that scientists have figured out that they make turn adult stem cells behave like embryonic stem cells, avoiding the ethical and moral quandaries in the first place.

The limited stem cell lines may have inhibited research in ESCR initially, but scientists not only managed to work around the problem, but found a way to avoid the moral and ethical issues at the same time.

However:

These induced embryonic cells are highly similar to the real thing but may not be exactly the same. One reason is that the mature cell may perceive the forced walk-back to embryonic state as unauthorized and switch on its anticancer defenses.

Because the reprogrammed cells and those derived from leftover human embryos may not be identical, researchers need to work with both kinds, Dr. Collins said.

26 vxbush  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:36:24pm

re: #19 lawhawk


But, and here's the big but, researchers have already moved on given that scientists have figured out that they make turn adult stem cells behave like embryonic stem cells, avoiding the ethical and moral quandaries in the first place.

A ha! So I wasn't mistaken. Thanks for the link, lawhawk.

27 abbyadams  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:36:42pm

re: #5 obdicut

THANK YOU. I've been trying to explain this to some friends of mine for years. Literally. And no, "snowflake adoptions" don't cover it.

28 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:37:07pm

re: #15 vxbush

There's been some creative work done in that, yes, definitely, and it's improved our understanding of stem cells in general; but it'll improve our understanding even more to have multiple embryonic stem cell lines to experiment with.

Full disclosure: My fiancee, a cancer researcher, works with stem cells for leukemia treatment, so I'm obviously a 'biased' source.

29 researchok  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:37:27pm

re: #23 Cineaste

The problem was that almost every lab in the country has some connection to government funds. What university doesn't have some government support?

Understood.

I was asking about government research grants to private industry.

30 CommonCents  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:38:11pm

re: #21 political lunatic

It's nice to finally have an administration that doesn't think science is evil dark magic or something like that. The "religious" whackos have held back progress in stem cell research, among other things, for far too long.

Could you point out where the Bush admin said "science is evil dark magic"?

31 bluecheese  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:38:16pm

re: #8 wozzablog

won't someone think of THE CHILDREN???

/

heh

32 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:39:08pm

re: #15 vxbush

I thought they had recently managed to get around the limitations with adult stem cells. No link to back me up, though.

I'm not going to bother digging for linkage, either, but one thing that did result from the ban was the development of a method for reverting human cells back into their original state as stem cells, skirting the whole embryo issue entirely. There are limitations to the technique, but it's one of the more advanced bits of biological research and problem solving that's occurred in the field.

33 vxbush  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:39:15pm

re: #25 Charles

Because the reprogrammed cells and those derived from leftover human embryos may not be identical, researchers need to work with both kinds, Dr. Collins said.

I had not heard that.

34 abbyadams  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:39:25pm

This, by the way, is also going to stimulate jobs. Many of my colleagues that were working in labs lost their funding and were laid off.

35 cliffster  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:39:34pm

re: #18 captdiggs

Completely agree. Bush's religious reasoning for his ban was a travesty.

Bush's reasoning was he didn't want a situation where people in need of money use themselves as embryo farms. Get pregnant, sell the embryo, repeat.

36 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:39:40pm

re: #14 RogueOne

While I'm actually all for this, I hope people aren't going to get their hopes up that this change will actually accomplish anything of significance anytime soon. If there were actual credible projects going then getting private funding would be relatively simple, the only thing this changes is the feds will now dump tax dollars into the solution.

I think we owe it to ourselves to use some federal funds but, OTOH, it seems whenever fed money is involved things tend to bog down and they generally run in a direction without actually thinking it through. Look at how the fed money has retarded the green energy projects by focusing on a losing proposition, ethanol.

Money isn't the problem. Restrictions on what scientists could actually do was the problem.

37 KernelPanic  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:39:44pm

re: #6 researchok

Question: Should the government be funding the research or should the research costs be borne by private industry?

I'm biased because I work in the genomics / computational biology / biotech space but my answer would be "both" AKA similar to the current situation.

One of the greatest things about government funded research is the requirement that results, data and products be shared. Amazing examples include sites like [Link: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...] which hosts online the primary reference repositories for genomes, sequence data and derived data.

Government involvement also helps protect against companies trying to gain a monopoly position on critical areas of human life or medicine. During the final stages of the human genome project it was looking possible that a private company was going to "win" the race and have a huge IP advantage over all others. Largely due to open source software from genius types like Jim Kent and his "BLAT" assembly algorithm (along with heroic efforts by labs across the US, Europe and Japan) the public-funded labs were able to stay in the race, close enough that the government ended up brokering a "tie" and the joint announcement at the whitehouse where they announced it all.

38 brookly red  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:40:14pm

love it or hate it, we got it. sure hope it works cause the promise is great indeed.

39 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:40:38pm

re: #29 researchok

Understood.

I was asking about government research grants to private industry.

Every great civilization throughout history had government support of science and the arts in some fashion. I think the government should support advanced research as the benefits for our society can be enormous - including financially.

Without the government financing the space race we might not have become the world leader in computing and and high-tech that we did.

40 abbyadams  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:41:08pm

re: #37 KernelPanic

True. Gene patenting/submarining was a horrible thing.

41 lawhawk  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:41:22pm

re: #25 Charles

And the cancer issue is one of the limiting factors on ESCs, which got researchers looking in different directions - adult stem cells, cord blood stem cells, etc. It's a major hurdle since the ESC research keeps coming up against the issue of undifferentiated growth; tumors.

Researchers have to look at the mechanism that turns the anti-cancer properties on and off as well as when that mechanism develops. That can require ESCs.

42 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:41:57pm

re: #35 cliffster

Bush's reasoning was he didn't want a situation where people in need of money use themselves as embryo farms. Get pregnant, sell the embryo, repeat.

Embryonic stem cells are derived from the excess fertilized eggs in fertility clinics, not from random people selling their eggs to scientists. That's kind of loony. Did Bush really say that?

43 cliffster  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:41:59pm

Interesting read. Next

44 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:42:04pm

re: #35 cliffster

Bush's reasoning was he didn't want a situation where people in need of money use themselves as embryo farms. Get pregnant, sell the embryo, repeat.

That is easy to avoid without banning the funding of research.

We allow kidney donations but we don't allow selling of kidneys.

We allow med students to practice on cadavers but you can't sell a dead human being.

45 ghazidor  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:42:09pm

re: #14 RogueOne

Much of the research is being done by the private sector, what gives you the idea that this is solely government funded? The company "Advanced Cell Technology Inc" quoted in this article is a publicly traded company listed on the stock exchange.

46 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:42:30pm

re: #6 researchok

Question: Should the government be funding the research or should the research costs be borne by private industry?

I rather see them funding this than research in "Multiple Personality Disorder and Autoerotic Sex in the American SouthWest."

47 political lunatic  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:42:35pm

re: #30 CommonCents

Never said that anyone in the Bush WH said that. I just think that their pandering to the religious right who does think that science is evil on this topic slowed down progress significantly for the past 8 years.

48 Bagua  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:43:09pm

Cell lines approved? This is disturbing.

I thought they were circles!

49 avanti  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:43:23pm

re: #35 cliffster

Bush's reasoning was he didn't want a situation where people in need of money use themselves as embryo farms. Get pregnant, sell the embryo, repeat.

How could that happen ? 1000's of excess embryos are discarded every year by fertility clinics.

50 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:43:32pm

re: #45 ausador

Much of the research is being done by the private sector, what gives you the idea that this is solely government funded? The company "Advanced Cell Technology Inc" quoted in this article is a publicly traded company listed on the stock exchange.

Advanced Cell Technology has received NIH grants.

[Link: www.advancedcell.com...]

51 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:43:47pm

re: #46 Walter L. Newton

I rather see them funding this than research in "Multiple Personality Disorder and Autoerotic Sex in the American SouthWest."

Oh, Cormac McCarthy has a new novel out?

52 researchok  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:43:52pm

re: #37 KernelPanic

I'm biased because I work in the genomics / computational biology / biotech space but my answer would be "both" AKA similar to the current situation.

One of the greatest things about government funded research is the requirement that results, data and products be shared. Amazing examples include sites like [Link: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...] which hosts online the primary reference repositories for genomes, sequence data and derived data.

Government involvement also helps protect against companies trying to gain a monopoly position on critical areas of human life or medicine. During the final stages of the human genome project it was looking possible that a private company was going to "win" the race and have a huge IP advantage over all others. Largely due to open source software from genius types like Jim Kent and his "BLAT" assembly algorithm (along with heroic efforts by labs across the US, Europe and Japan) the public-funded labs were able to stay in the race, close enough that the government ended up brokering a "tie" and the joint announcement at the whitehouse where they announced it all.

Thanks for the insight. I'm no expert on this kind of thing but like a lot of people I do worry about the technology outstripping the bioethics. It seems to me that science can forge ahead a bit too quickly and the result of that can be quite unsettling.

It really is a brave new world.

53 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:43:55pm

re: #35 cliffster

Bush's reasoning was he didn't want a situation where people in need of money use themselves as embryo farms. Get pregnant, sell the embryo, repeat.

And I think this argument was absurd and completely imaginary. That would simply never happen.

54 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:44:27pm

re: #46 Walter L. Newton

I rather see them funding this than research in "Multiple Personality Disorder and Autoerotic Sex in the American SouthWest."

Just because some of us have that condition doesn't men you need to be biased against us Walter... ///

55 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:44:43pm

re: #44 Cineaste

We allow med students to practice on cadavers but you can't sell a dead human being.

...but you can sell his vote in Chicago. /

56 lawhawk  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:45:25pm

re: #42 obdicut

The actual policies put in place by the Bush administration are here (August 9, 2001 and the 2007 policy). The Obama policy is here.

57 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:45:32pm

re: #46 Walter L. Newton

I rather see them funding this than research in "Multiple Personality Disorder and Autoerotic Sex in the American SouthWest."


That is just crazy and whacked. /

58 kobra_55  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:45:34pm

There is so much promise here. This is what should have been going on all along. I feel for the families of those lost to diseases that will be someday cured by this new research who had to watch their loved ones die and their only hope was prayer because nothing was being done to further research in this area.

59 cliffster  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:45:56pm

re: #44 Cineaste

That is easy to avoid without banning the funding of research.

We allow kidney donations but we don't allow selling of kidneys.

We allow med students to practice on cadavers but you can't sell a dead human being.

I bet if you really needed the money, and really wanted to do it, you could find a way to turn one of your kidneys into cold-hard cash. I'm just speculating though.

60 researchok  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:46:01pm

re: #53 Charles

And I think this argument was absurd and completely imaginary. That would simply never happen.

Question: Should individuals be allowed to sell their own organs?

61 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:46:38pm

re: #54 Cineaste

Just because some of us have that condition doesn't men you need to be biased against us Walter... ///

H Cineaste... my name is Walter... I have MPDAS... glad to meet your.

62 KingKenrod  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:46:51pm

Perhaps Bush wanted to prevent the first steps toward a taxpayer funded embryo industry. You don't have to be religious right or a Christian to see moral problems with this.

63 cliffster  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:46:55pm

re: #53 Charles

And I think this argument was absurd and completely imaginary. That would simply never happen.

Agreed.

64 Bagua  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:47:05pm

re: #60 researchok

Question: Should individuals be allowed to sell their own organs?

Do we define a fetus as an organ?

65 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:47:05pm

re: #59 cliffster

I bet if you really needed the money, and really wanted to do it, you could find a way to turn one of your kidneys into cold-hard cash. I'm just speculating though.

Yes. And it would be illegal.

If I really wanted to sell crack I could, but it would be illegal as well.

66 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:47:30pm

re: #25 Charles

Actually, the ability to revert fully specialized cells to their stem cell state will prove to be extremely important if many of the hoped-for treatments are going to work. For example, while it might be possible to produce, say islet cells in order to treat Type I diabetes, or even to eventually produce a whole new heart or liver or eye lens, that in itself doesn't get you very far. Although it may help to alleviate the critical shortages of organs currently available for transplant, the biggest problem for transplant patients remains: genetic incompatibility, leading to rejection by the body's immune system.

Reverted stem cells obtained from the prospective patient neatly walks around this problem, assuming all the other hurdles involved can be cleared.

67 Locker  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:47:39pm

re: #49 avanti

How could that happen ? 1000's of excess embryos are discarded every year by fertility clinics.

You hit on my main problem with the Bush arguments. All I could hear was the screeching about destroying life, etc when the stem cells were to come from embryos that were being discarded. Any mention of that however was just ignored and rolled past by the fanatic faithful.

68 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:47:49pm

re: #59 cliffster

I bet if you really needed the money, and really wanted to do it, you could find a way to turn one of your kidneys into cold-hard cash. I'm just speculating though.

True. Heck, there was a case in the U.S. last year where a woman traded two children for a parrot and $600 in cash.

But it's illegal.

69 researchok  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:48:06pm

re: #64 Bagua

Do we define a fetus as an organ?

I do not.

I was referring to an individuals organs only.

70 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:49:07pm

re: #62 KingKenrod

Perhaps Bush wanted to prevent the first steps toward a taxpayer funded embryo industry. You don't have to be religious right or a Christian to see moral problems with this.

Really? A slippery slope argument? Why allow surgery at all then? I mean, that could lead to abortions?

71 Locker  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:49:44pm

re: #60 researchok

Question: Should individuals be allowed to sell their own organs?

Absolutely. I own my body, not the government. If I want to rock climb, bungie jump, ride my motorcycle without a helmet on, not wear a seat belt, smoke weed or participate in my own assisted suicide no one should be able to tell me otherwise. Personal opinion.

72 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:50:02pm

re: #36 SanFranciscoZionist

Money isn't the problem. Restrictions on what scientists could actually do was the problem.

To be clear, Federal money for stem cell research was not available. There was never any restriction on the research itself; anyone with a source of funding from elsewhere was free to conduct research as they saw fit.

73 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:50:10pm

The real danger is the possibility we could be creating functioning brains for liberals and hearts for conservatives. The two party system would be destroyed. /

74 cliffster  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:50:35pm

re: #65 Cineaste

Yes. And it would be illegal.

If I really wanted to sell crack I could, but it would be illegal as well.

How would you get something like that done, anyways? I mean, I've never done crack, but I've got some friends, y'know, I could call them it get that going. I don't know one single person I could call that would lead me to a friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend that could get me into an organ black market.

75 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:50:57pm

re: #66 SixDegrees

I agree that both lines of research should be pursued. But from what I've read, embryonic stem cells are still much more promising than reverted stem cells.

76 RogueOne  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:51:14pm

re: #24 obdicut

Basic science research is something that the industry does not tend to fund at all-- Bell Labs was an exception back in the day.

The vast majority of basic science research is government or non-profit funded, because very often there is no way of capitalization on the advance in particular.

Applied uses of stem cells will be-- and are-- privately funded. But research into the very basic stuff of stem cells is not going to be supported in the same way. There is still a ton of basic science work to be done.

Please note: Basic doesn't mean simple, in this perspective, but more 'fundamental'.

We disagree, shocking huh? ;)

If there were actual products to develop and eventually sell, private entities would be all over it. That isn't to discount what you've said, you're right the feds dump a ton of money into research every year, but my point was if we want actual end results then we're better off using nothing but private funds. IMHO, private money is ALWAYS better because the people ponying up the cash expect expect a return on their investment.

77 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:51:39pm

re: #74 cliffster

How would you get something like that done, anyways? I mean, I've never done crack, but I've got some friends, y'know, I could call them it get that going. I don't know one single person I could call that would lead me to a friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend that could get me into an organ black market.


The next thing you know you wake up in a bathtub full of ice somewhere in Tijuana...

78 KernelPanic  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:51:48pm

re: #52 researchok

Thanks for the insight. I'm no expert on this kind of thing but like a lot of people I do worry about the technology outstripping the bioethics. It seems to me that science can forge ahead a bit too quickly and the result of that can be quite unsettling.

Hah! The reason I chose to study molecular biology and genetics in college was because it was an emerging "hard science" that had really deep ethical and moral implications. Was more interesting to me than the other sciences.

Of course this was also around the time that William Gibson's "Neuromancer" book was first published so it's also possible I was influenced by the idea of becoming a super-cool mirrorshades wearing biohacker. heh.

I often wonder how many of my similarly-aged peers also got into life science research because of Gibson and others.

79 cliffster  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:51:54pm

re: #70 Cineaste

Really? A slippery slope argument? Why allow surgery at all then? I mean, that could lead to abortions?

If God had meant for us to have our insides worked on, he would have given us zippers.

80 researchok  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:52:00pm

re: #71 Locker

Absolutely. I own my body, not the government. If I want to rock climb, bungie jump, ride my motorcycle without a helmet on, not wear a seat belt, smoke weed or participate in my own assisted suicide no one should be able to tell me otherwise. Personal opinion.

And that's where we hit the bioethics wall.

Assuming your position, should the poor be allowed to sell organs despite the fact that at times they may cause themselves harm?

81 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:52:02pm

re: #67 Locker

You hit on my main problem with the Bush arguments. All I could hear was the screeching about destroying life, etc when the stem cells were to come from embryos that were being discarded. Any mention of that however was just ignored and rolled past by the fanatic faithful.

Fertility treatment and the religious right has always been a weird combo.

82 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:52:11pm

re: #71 Locker

Absolutely. I own my body, not the government. If I want to rock climb, bungie jump, ride my motorcycle without a helmet on, not wear a seat belt, smoke weed or participate in my own assisted suicide no one should be able to tell me otherwise. Personal opinion.

I agree, but then why do progressive want to pass laws (and do pass laws) telling me what I should eat, what amounts of fat should be in my food, tax to high heavens things like cigarettes, because they do want to tell you this... all the time?

83 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:52:13pm

re: #56 lawhawk

The first Bush policy has this part:

# The derivation process (which begins with the destruction of the embryo) was initiated prior to 9:00 P.M. EDT on August 9, 2001.

Which is an effective ban on new lines.

The second one doesn't reverse that, but amplifies it with some rather strange language about protecting embryos as 'living members of the human species'.

Taken together, they form a very obstructionist policy. I'm glad we're past that.

84 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:52:18pm

re: #74 cliffster

How would you get something like that done, anyways? I mean, I've never done crack, but I've got some friends, y'know, I could call them it get that going. I don't know one single person I could call that would lead me to a friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend that could get me into an organ black market.

I haven't a clue. I only sold my liver, never a kidney...

85 brookly red  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:52:41pm

re: #71 Locker

Absolutely. I own my body, not the government. If I want to rock climb, bungie jump, ride my motorcycle without a helmet on, not wear a seat belt, smoke weed or participate in my own assisted suicide no one should be able to tell me otherwise. Personal opinion.

if you can sell blood why not a kidney?

86 Locker  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:53:09pm

re: #78 KernelPanic

Props and up ding for the Gibson reference. Nueromancer is one of my favorite titles of all time along with Snowcrash by Neal Stephenson.

87 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:53:15pm

re: #79 cliffster

If God had meant for us to have our insides worked on, he would have given us zippers.

I'll remember that the next time my doctor recommends a colonoscopy...

88 RogueOne  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:53:17pm

re: #36 SanFranciscoZionist

Money isn't the problem. Restrictions on what scientists could actually do was the problem.

My understanding has always been the only restrictions were federal funds. If you wanted federal money then you only had a few lines to work with. Am I wrong on that?

89 ghazidor  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:53:25pm

re: #35 cliffster

Bush's reasoning was he didn't want a situation where people in need of money use themselves as embryo farms. Get pregnant, sell the embryo, repeat.

They don't use aborted fetuses they use embryos that were created in vitro by adding an egg and sperm together in a lab. This has NEVER had anything to do with abortions whatsoever, you cannot "Get pregnant, sell the embryo, repeat", that is a completely bogus argument.

90 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:53:44pm

re: #85 brookly red

if you can sell blood why not a kidney?

Blood is renewable?

91 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:54:09pm

re: #76 RogueOne

If there were actual products to develop and eventually sell, private entities would be all over it. That isn't to discount what you've said, you're right the feds dump a ton of money into research every year, but my point was if we want actual end results then we're better off using nothing but private funds. IMHO, private money is ALWAYS better because the people ponying up the cash expect expect a return on their investment.

I refer you again to the space race.

[Link: www.thespaceplace.com...]

92 RogueOne  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:54:09pm

re: #45 ausador

Much of the research is being done by the private sector, what gives you the idea that this is solely government funded? The company "Advanced Cell Technology Inc" quoted in this article is a publicly traded company listed on the stock exchange.

I never said that. As a matter-of-fact I said the exact opposite. We aren't in disagreement here.

93 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:54:24pm

re: #83 obdicut

The first Bush policy has this part:

Which is an effective ban on new lines.

The second one doesn't reverse that, but amplifies it with some rather strange language about protecting embryos as 'living members of the human species'.

Taken together, they form a very obstructionist policy. I'm glad we're past that.

Yes, I totally agree. The Bush administration did everything they could to obstruct this research, and they did it in a way that gave them deniability. But the line about "living members" is a dead giveaway about their true motivations.

94 researchok  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:54:29pm

re: #78 KernelPanic

Hah! The reason I chose to study molecular biology and genetics in college was because it was an emerging "hard science" that had really deep ethical and moral implications. Was more interesting to me than the other sciences.

Of course this was also around the time that William Gibson's "Neuromancer" book was first published so it's also possible I was influenced by the idea of becoming a super-cool mirrorshades wearing biohacker. heh.

I often wonder how many of my similarly-aged peers also got into life science research because of Gibson and others.

I'm curious- In the course of your work have you ever found yourself uncomfortable with any of the projects you were working on?

95 darthstar  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:54:30pm

This is good...we used to lead the world in science and medical research. Sitting on the back bench for eight years has set us back some (but thankfully a number of our medical researchers took work overseas and are now returning to continue in the US), but I'm confident we'll be able to catch up quickly.

96 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:54:43pm

re: #76 RogueOne

You're not disagreeing with me.

If there were actual products to develop and eventually sell, private entities would be all over it.

Basic science, with very few exceptions, does not produce any specific product. It can open up entire industries-- think of the discovery of elements, for example-- but it does not lead to particular projects.

It is not to the benefit of any particular company to fund basic science-- its benefits are far too open for all to partake in. Companies only fund what will give them a competitive advantage.

97 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:54:55pm

re: #85 brookly red

if you can sell blood why not a kidney?


How long does it take the body to generate a new kidney?

98 CommonCents  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:55:02pm

re: #47 political lunatic

Never said that anyone in the Bush WH said that. I just think that their pandering to the religious right who does think that science is evil on this topic slowed down progress significantly for the past 8 years.

Pandering to a voting block is somewhat different than "nice to finally have an administration that doesn't think science is evil dark magic". I get your point that you disagreed with the previous administration.

99 brookly red  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:55:50pm

re: #90 Walter L. Newton

Blood is renewable?

well yeah there is that... but if this stem cell thing works everything is renewable (in theroy anyway).

100 Kragar  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:55:52pm

re: #85 brookly red

if you can sell blood why not a kidney?

Kidneys usually dont grow back in a few weeks.

101 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:56:04pm

re: #72 SixDegrees

To be clear, Federal money for stem cell research was not available. There was never any restriction on the research itself; anyone with a source of funding from elsewhere was free to conduct research as they saw fit.

Not exactly--they not only had to have a source of funding, they had to receive no federal funds, IIRC. Research is not normally conducted in this country or any another as though it were a start-up Internet company. What major university has no federal funding?

Did this make stem-cell research impossible? No. Did it put ridiculous and cramping restrictions on the ability of the United States to pioneer medical research? Yeah.

102 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:56:20pm

Ergh. Apologizes for the bold, RogueOne-- misclicked.

103 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:56:27pm

re: #77 DaddyG

The next thing you know you wake up in a bathtub full of ice somewhere in Tijuana...

"Oh, crap! They took my kidney!"

104 Gus  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:56:52pm

re: #103 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

"Oh, crap! They took my kidney!"

"We've come for your kidney!"

/

105 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:57:07pm

re: #93 Charles

Yes, I totally agree. The Bush administration did everything they could to obstruct this research, and they did it in a way that gave them deniability. But the line about "living members" is a dead giveaway about their true motivations.

Talk about dithering.

"I will ban future lines, but feel free to keep using the already dead babies"

If it was morality that he geniunely believe he should have had a backbone and outlawed all research. That would have been moronic of course and he didn't do that. Instead he cow-towed just enough to the religious right to keep them happy.

Coward.

106 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:57:25pm

re: #76 RogueOne

We disagree, shocking huh? ;)

If there were actual products to develop and eventually sell, private entities would be all over it. That isn't to discount what you've said, you're right the feds dump a ton of money into research every year, but my point was if we want actual end results then we're better off using nothing but private funds. IMHO, private money is ALWAYS better because the people ponying up the cash expect expect a return on their investment.

No one does research like that in the real world. For one thing, researchers CANNOT guarantee a cash return on an investment. This isn't a product, this is science.

107 Locker  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:57:49pm

re: #82 Walter L. Newton

I agree, but then why do progressive want to pass laws (and do pass laws) telling me what I should eat, what amounts of fat should be in my food, tax to high heavens things like cigarettes, because they do want to tell you this... all the time?

It seems unlikely that it's solely progressives which pass laws of this type but even if that is the case I can't really answer as I don't know. Everything you mentioned are issues for which I would love and appreciate an federal information/educational campaign but completely reject their right to force me to comply.

Then again I feel the same way about gay marriage. If a church wants to preach that it's wrong and refuse to do weddings in their church, that's fine but trying to force everyone else to adhere to that morality offends me deeply.

108 CommonCents  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:58:02pm

re: #53 Charles

And I think this argument was absurd and completely imaginary. That would simply never happen.

I disagree. Would have guessed that people would steal organs from another living person and leave them to die for profit? It's illegal but has happened. I agree that it's absurd but I think it would definitely happen. Personally, I don't give a hoot if a woman chose to do that. I'm just saying it's not impossible.

109 RogueOne  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:58:21pm

re: #96 obdicut

I think we're talking around each other. I think there is a difference between what you are calling "basic" science and what I'm thinking of as "practical application". I'm just cautioning people not to jump to conclusions that this order will open up the flood gates for new products to cure everything from Male pattern baldness to cancer.

110 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:58:24pm

re: #82 Walter L. Newton

I agree, but then why do progressive want to pass laws (and do pass laws) telling me what I should eat, what amounts of fat should be in my food, tax to high heavens things like cigarettes, because they do want to tell you this... all the time?

Walter you have hit on one of my pet issues. I don't want a choice between two political parties who think they know the best programs to dictate to me. I want a choice of which party will enact reasonable legislation to preserve my freedom while providing for national defense and the general welfare.

111 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:58:56pm

re: #85 brookly red

if you can sell blood why not a kidney?

Possibly because you regenerate all the blood you need within hours of donation, whereas regrowing a kidney is somewhat harder?

112 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:58:56pm

re: #71 Locker

Absolutely. I own my body, not the government. If I want to rock climb, bungie jump, ride my motorcycle without a helmet on, not wear a seat belt, smoke weed or participate in my own assisted suicide no one should be able to tell me otherwise. Personal opinion.

While I largely agree, there are problems with such an attitude. If your bungee cord is a wee bit long, and they cut your brain-damaged, paralyzed body and slide it into a wheelchair, it's probably not just going to be you who pays the price. Your spouse and family are going to share a part of that burden, and quite possibly the state and all it's taxpayers, as well - which will certainly be the case, by the way, should nationalized health care pass. Either way, though, the argument that you're the only one affected by such decisions doesn't always hold up so well in the real world.

113 brookly red  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:58:58pm

re: #100 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Kidneys usually dont grow back in a few weeks.

yeah, but the question is about ownership... besides if for once I actually agree w/Locker, lemmie have that.

114 KingKenrod  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:59:06pm

re: #70 Cineaste

Really? A slippery slope argument? Why allow surgery at all then? I mean, that could lead to abortions?

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

115 Locker  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:59:48pm

re: #80 researchok

And that's where we hit the bioethics wall.

Assuming your position, should the poor be allowed to sell organs despite the fact that at times they may cause themselves harm?

I would say yes. It's not anyone place to protect a person from themselves. On the other side I'm completely for protecting others from a person.. i.e. drunk driving checkpoints, seat belts for children, etc.

116 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:59:54pm

re: #78 KernelPanic

Hah! The reason I chose to study molecular biology and genetics in college was because it was an emerging "hard science" that had really deep ethical and moral implications. Was more interesting to me than the other sciences.

Of course this was also around the time that William Gibson's "Neuromancer" book was first published so it's also possible I was influenced by the idea of becoming a super-cool mirrorshades wearing biohacker. heh.

I often wonder how many of my similarly-aged peers also got into life science research because of Gibson and others.

Drawing on popular fiction as inspiration is not that uncommon. I believe that my first encounter with a Godzilla movie when I was 6 put me on the path to Engineering. Gibson's works were a stepping stone along the way.

117 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:00:04pm

I suspect that most people who are against stem cell research would talk out of the other side of their mouth if it was their own child who was terminally ill and stood to benefit from the research.

118 cliffster  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:00:27pm

I want some of Drew Brees's stem cells

119 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:01:01pm

re: #104 Gus 802

"We've come for your kidney!"

/

I was quoting this...

120 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:01:04pm

re: #105 Cineaste

Instead he cow-towed just enough to the religious right to keep them happy.

Coward.

Careful with the coward label. He also kowtowed to the scientific community by not restricting research altogether. I doubt you would call Obama a coward because he's considering the whole political spectrum when making decisions about Afganistan.

I didn't agree with the stem cell decision but representing all constituencies is a fact of political life.

121 doubter4444  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:01:18pm

re: #6 researchok

Question: Should the government be funding the research or should the research costs be borne by private industry?

Both.
Let fund basic research that lays down some of the groundwork, then cede the territory to start ups and patent oriented bio tech firms.
I personally would love to see the government get a piece of the action, but it's too messy, so I'll make do with helping set the ball rolling.
Lots of metaphors in those sentences I just typed, but you get the idea.

122 researchok  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:01:29pm

re: #115 Locker

I would say yes. It's not anyone place to protect a person from themselves. On the other side I'm completely for protecting others from a person.. i.e. drunk driving checkpoints, seat belts for children, etc.

Assuming your position, if an individual sold both his kidneys, should we be paying for lifelong dialysis?

123 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:01:36pm

re: #114 KingKenrod

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

Reread your previous statement. You said that it opens the door...

124 cliffster  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:01:53pm

re: #117 Spare O'Lake

I suspect that most people who are against stem cell research would talk out of the other side of their mouth if it was their own child who was terminally ill and stood to benefit from the research.

Or a parent who was on the other end of Life's journey.

125 Gus  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:02:40pm

re: #62 KingKenrod

Perhaps Bush wanted to prevent the first steps toward a taxpayer funded embryo industry. You don't have to be religious right or a Christian to see moral problems with this.

There's a great deal of "taxpayer funded ___ (fill in the blank)" industries that some citizens continually protest about. People have used this to voice their opposition to a number of human activities including war, land mines, cluster bombs, and capital punishment.

126 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:02:42pm

re: #109 RogueOne

I think we're talking around each other. I think there is a difference between what you are calling "basic" science and what I'm thinking of as "practical application". I'm just cautioning people not to jump to conclusions that this order will open up the flood gates for new products to cure everything from Male pattern baldness to cancer.

What I'm saying is that there is a huge difference. That's my point about government funding being necessary for basic science.

However, this will open up the floodgates for applied research to be done on new products, after the basic science shows where applied can usefully proceed. Or rather, this removes the rock above the river that leads to the floodgates.

re: #117 Spare O'Lake

I suspect that most people who are against stem cell research would talk out of the other side of their mouth if it was their own child who was terminally ill and stood to benefit from the research.

Potential Baldness Cure Leads Man To Reverse Position On Stem-Cell Research

127 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:03:09pm

re: #122 researchok

Assuming your position, if an individual sold both his kidneys, should we be paying for lifelong dialysis?

Only if they were dead.

128 Gus  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:03:49pm

re: #119 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I was quoting this...

Wow, that's weird! :)

129 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:03:53pm

re: #75 Charles

I agree that both lines of research should be pursued. But from what I've read, embryonic stem cells are still much more promising than reverted stem cells.

I think they're important for research purposes. For actual disease treatment, my feeling is less optimistic. There have been no restrictions in place in other countries, and I'm not aware of any practical outcomes that have resulted yet.

As a tool for learning about how cells develop and differentiate, though, I agree that they're valuable.

I suspect that the first practical treatments to emerge won't involve organs or even cells grown for transplant, but the discovery of ways to prod the patient's body into manipulating it's own supply of stem cells to differentiate and migrate to the desired area. Those salamanders who regrow their own tails and limbs, for example, don't need an external beaker to work with; they use their own cells, and somehow trigger growth and differentiation all by themselves.

130 RogueOne  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:04:18pm

re: #106 SanFranciscoZionist

I think you're under the impression that universities pour money into "basic science" out of altruism and the sheer joy of learning. That isn't something I agree with, universities pour money into research in order to actually make money by finding uses for their research. Purdue Univ. is just up the road from here, they pour a ton of their own money, plus the feds money, into research and develop those studies into patents. Those patents have earned the university almost a billion dollars over the last decade.

131 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:04:23pm

Economically, this is good. When Obama lifted the funding back in March, companies who do this sort of work got a huge stock bounce. I expect this will tempt some investors.

132 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:04:50pm

re: #110 DaddyG

Walter you have hit on one of my pet issues. I don't want a choice between two political parties who think they know the best programs to dictate to me. I want a choice of which party will enact reasonable legislation to preserve my freedom while providing for national defense and the general welfare.

Both side manage to slip in a lot of poop in the "general welfare" category. That's where the problem is. The progressive use that same term to "prove" that we should have single payer health care.

133 Locker  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:04:57pm

re: #112 SixDegrees

While I largely agree, there are problems with such an attitude. If your bungee cord is a wee bit long, and they cut your brain-damaged, paralyzed body and slide it into a wheelchair, it's probably not just going to be you who pays the price. Your spouse and family are going to share a part of that burden, and quite possibly the state and all it's taxpayers, as well - which will certainly be the case, by the way, should nationalized health care pass. Either way, though, the argument that you're the only one affected by such decisions doesn't always hold up so well in the real world.

I understand what you mean but that logic could be used to restrict you from doing just about anything. Taking it out a bit people with families could be barred from traveling highways with higher crash percentages because someone else might be affected if they crash.

Each person is responsible for their own self in my opinion. Guilting someone into behavior because it might affect me seems selfish and controlling.

134 RogueOne  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:05:28pm

re: #118 cliffster

I want some of Drew Brees's stem cells

speaking of Purdue. Go Saints!

135 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:05:55pm

re: #119 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I was quoting this...

I felt like I was wasting time to scan through that video. Imagine taking the time to create it. Wow!

136 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:06:03pm

re: #129 SixDegrees

I think they're important for research purposes. For actual disease treatment, my feeling is less optimistic. There have been no restrictions in place in other countries, and I'm not aware of any practical outcomes that have resulted yet.

.

We already use stem cells, as I said, for practical treatment of leukemia.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Therapy/bone-marrow-transplant

We've done so for about thirty years.

137 brookly red  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:06:16pm

re: #133 Locker

Each person is responsible for their own self in my opinion. Guilting someone into behavior because it might affect me seems selfish and controlling.

well how about drunk driving?

138 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:06:21pm

re: #120 DaddyG

Careful with the coward label. He also kowtowed to the scientific community by not restricting research altogether. I doubt you would call Obama a coward because he's considering the whole political spectrum when making decisions about Afganistan.

I didn't agree with the stem cell decision but representing all constituencies is a fact of political life.

I don't agree on several fronts.

1) Letting religious advisers guide science research funding is bad.

2) And I actually think Obama was brave to hear a range of views from experts with differing opinions. He didn't, as far as we know, ask his pastor what he should do about Afghanistan. Did he? Furthermore, he knows that he'll be angering much of his base by putting more troops into Afghanistan, the opposite of appeasing a constituancy.

139 lawhawk  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:06:59pm

re: #136 obdicut

[Link: www.cancer.gov...] (link fixed)

140 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:07:12pm

re: #132 Walter L. Newton

Both side manage to slip in a lot of poop in the "general welfare" category. That's where the problem is. The progressive use that same term to "prove" that we should have single payer health care.

Yup. We've been abusing the general welfare clause for generations now and the result is more money poured into programs that cannot possible succeed on the Federal level with accompanying loss of freedom.

141 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:07:16pm

re: #85 brookly red

if you can sell blood why not a kidney?

I don't think you can sell blood anymore. Too many people contributing a little too often and making themselves sick, and too many people lying about little details like hepatitis during the screening process in order to make a few bucks put an end to that.

There may be exceptions for extremely rare blood types, but even then I don't think so.

142 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:07:26pm

re: #136 obdicut

We already use stem cells, as I said, for practical treatment of leukemia.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Thera py/bone-marrow-transplant

We've done so for about thirty years.

Grr. Screwed up my link. Sorry:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Therapy/bone-marrow-transplant

143 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:07:56pm

Just read a few of "Dennis the Peasant's" posts about me, and wow, is that guy ever obsessed and bitter. He's actually just making things up out of thin air to smear me with, and claiming to "know" me, when I spent all of about 2 hours in his actual presence. What a freak.

144 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:08:33pm

re: #130 RogueOne

I think you're under the impression that universities pour money into "basic science" out of altruism and the sheer joy of learning. That isn't something I agree with, universities pour money into research in order to actually make money by finding uses for their research. Purdue Univ. is just up the road from here, they pour a ton of their own money, plus the feds money, into research and develop those studies into patents. Those patents have earned the university almost a billion dollars over the last decade.

I think you're under a false impression.

145 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:09:29pm

re: #143 Charles

Just read a few of "Dennis the Peasant's" posts about me, and wow, is that guy ever obsessed and bitter. He's actually just making things up out of thin air to smear me with, and claiming to "know" me, when I spent all of about 2 hours in his actual presence. What a freak.

Dennis the Peasant?

I haven't been around lately, is this guy new or another bitter banned blogger?

146 RogueOne  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:09:31pm

To toss in my $.02 RE: selling organs. I don't see it being anyones business but the person willing to give up their parts. If someone wants to sell a kidney, or bone marrow, or even a testicle it's none of my business unless I'm the one paying for it.

147 Locker  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:09:32pm

re: #122 researchok

Assuming your position, if an individual sold both his kidneys, should we be paying for lifelong dialysis?

I'm not sure what you mean but it did remind me of an insurance question someone asked me when we were discussing the personal ownership thing so maybe my answer there will provide some insight.

I don't believe an insurance company should have to pay a claim for my head injury if I decided to ride without a helmet and they stated up front they won't cover that kind of reckless behavior. Definitely not an advocate of shifting responsibility.

I'm also against those fuckers who try to sue because they jumped out of the stands at a Raiders game and the stadium didn't see fit to make their floors out of foam rubber. Jerks.

148 KingKenrod  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:09:55pm

re: #123 Cineaste

Reread your previous statement. You said that it opens the door...

Yes, it opens the door to a taxpayer funded market for embryos, and that even non-religious people might have a legitimate moral objection to this. It does not require an "irrational religious objection".

149 arielle  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:10:16pm

re: #53 Charles

I don't think that COULD happen, I hope I don't sound ignorant but by the time a woman finds out she is pregnant she's usually past the embryo phase of the pregnancy, so that sounds like a pretty lame argument.

150 Only The Lurker Knows  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:10:48pm

re: #143 Charles

Who?

151 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:10:54pm

re: #138 Cineaste

I don't agree on several fronts.

1) Letting religious advisers guide science research funding is bad.

2) And I actually think Obama was brave to hear a range of views from experts with differing opinions. He didn't, as far as we know, ask his pastor what he should do about Afghanistan. Did he? Furthermore, he knows that he'll be angering much of his base by putting more troops into Afghanistan, the opposite of appeasing a constituancy.


You can disagree with the Bush decision. What I am asking you to be careful about is calling him a coward for taking into account multiple viewpoints. Stem cell research is broader than just the science, there are ethical considerations. Just as Obama's decision about the war in Afganistan has ethical implications as well as military strategy implications. I would hope that Obama does ocassionally seek wisdom from a multiplicity of sources.

152 Gus  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:10:57pm

re: #143 Charles

Just read a few of "Dennis the Peasant's" posts about me, and wow, is that guy ever obsessed and bitter. He's actually just making things up out of thin air to smear me with, and claiming to "know" me, when I spent all of about 2 hours in his actual presence. What a freak.

Never heard of him. All I can think of after browsing through his blog is that he's emotionally unstable.

153 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:11:15pm

re: #144 SanFranciscoZionist

I think you're under a false impression.

Let me clarify that: no, I do not think scientists run around pouring money into pure research without making money from patents. I didn't say that, you inferred it, apparently from the fact that I don't think medical research is QUITE like shoe manufacturing.

154 brookly red  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:11:16pm

re: #141 SixDegrees

I don't think you can sell blood anymore. Too many people contributing a little too often and making themselves sick, and too many people lying about little details like hepatitis during the screening process in order to make a few bucks put an end to that.

There may be exceptions for extremely rare blood types, but even then I don't think so.


I think you may be right but I was just talking the semantics of ownership.

155 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:11:26pm

re: #133 Locker

I understand what you mean but that logic could be used to restrict you from doing just about anything. Taking it out a bit people with families could be barred from traveling highways with higher crash percentages because someone else might be affected if they crash.

Each person is responsible for their own self in my opinion. Guilting someone into behavior because it might affect me seems selfish and controlling.

I dunno. My father-in-law drank himself into a completely debilitated state, lost his job, racked up huge medical bills due to secondary complications of his alcoholism, and dragged his wife and children through years of economic and emotional turmoil right along with him.

I'm not sure what other course might have worked in that case, but the impact on others was large and brutal, as well as self-induced.

156 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:11:37pm

re: #130 RogueOne

That's a false dichotomy, though: Universities can still take advantage of applied science AND do basic science out of love of research.

Most cientists really, really are motivated by the actual science, by discovery. Sure, by prestige, fame, adulation, grad students swooning over them-- but mainly it's the discovery.

Which makes them awesome, in my book.

157 researchok  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:11:37pm

re: #147 Locker

On this then, we agree.

You've got a real Libertarian streak!

158 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:11:48pm

re: #143 Charles

Just read a few of "Dennis the Peasant's" posts about me, and wow, is that guy ever obsessed and bitter. He's actually just making things up out of thin air to smear me with, and claiming to "know" me, when I spent all of about 2 hours in his actual presence. What a freak.

...yeah but what did you do during that 2 ours? /

159 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:12:01pm

hours = ours PIMF

160 tank816  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:12:15pm

The opposition to embryonic stem-cell research was never about science. It was about ethics.

161 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:12:27pm

re: #147 Locker

I'm not sure what you mean but it did remind me of an insurance question someone asked me when we were discussing the personal ownership thing so maybe my answer there will provide some insight.

I don't believe an insurance company should have to pay a claim for my head injury if I decided to ride without a helmet and they stated up front they won't cover that kind of reckless behavior. Definitely not an advocate of shifting responsibility.

I'm also against those fuckers who try to sue because they jumped out of the stands at a Raiders game and the stadium didn't see fit to make their floors out of foam rubber. Jerks.

What if they really needed the money to save their own child's life?

162 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:12:38pm

re: #148 KingKenrod

Yes, it opens the door to a taxpayer funded market for embryos, and that even non-religious people might have a legitimate moral objection to this. It does not require an "irrational religious objection".

Why? The embryos are currently being destroyed at fertility clinics. Why is making use of them something any non-religious person would object to?

163 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:12:39pm

re: #160 tank816

The opposition to embryonic stem-cell research was never about science. It was about ethics.

No, it was about religion.

164 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:12:40pm

re: #146 RogueOne

To toss in my $.02 RE: selling organs. I don't see it being anyones business but the person willing to give up their parts. If someone wants to sell a kidney, or bone marrow, or even a testicle it's none of my business unless I'm the one paying for it.

It leads to a situation where the highest bidder gets the organs. Preventing the sale of them makes them available to all people, not just the the ones rich enough to afford them. So yes, it can affect you directly.

165 Locker  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:13:05pm

re: #137 brookly red

Each person is responsible for their own self in my opinion. Guilting someone into behavior because it might affect me seems selfish and controlling.

well how about drunk driving?

Oh yea I hit that one already above but I'm against protecting a person from their own actions. Drunk driving checkpoints/laws protect other people from harm. Not implied harm, emotional harm or dashing hopes of a lovely vacation to Hawaii, direct harm.

Basically if I want to sit in the middle of a desert in a vat of oil trying to dissolve myself, no one should be able to say boo about it. (100 points if anyone pull the movie I took that scene from... it's obscure.)

166 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:13:30pm

re: #136 obdicut

We already use stem cells, as I said, for practical treatment of leukemia.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Thera py/bone-marrow-transplant

We've done so for about thirty years.

Your link is broken.

Also, this has nothing to do with embryonic stem cells, the only type at issue. If you know of some practical treatment that has emerged from such research, however, it's something I missed and would like to hear about.

167 Gus  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:13:57pm

Nope. Can't sell your kidney but a hospital can either take a donated kidney from an organ donor or one from a friend or other live donor and sell it back to you for $50,000.

And they get it for pennies on the dollar.

Yep, ethics.

168 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:13:58pm

re: #154 brookly red

I think you may be right but I was just talking the semantics of ownership.


Please don't tell me you are anti-semantic. /

169 RogueOne  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:14:15pm

re: #153 SanFranciscoZionist

Let me clarify that: no, I do not think scientists run around pouring money into pure research without making money from patents. I didn't say that, you inferred it, apparently from the fact that I don't think medical research is QUITE like shoe manufacturing.

We live in a profit driven society. I'm not saying that like it's a bad thing. Profit drives innovation. Do you believe Lilly (another good company just up the road) has been pouring billions into drug research just to help people? All the new AIDS drugs over the last 2 decades didn't come about to stop a plague, but to make money. It is what it is.

170 arielle  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:14:23pm

re: #146 RogueOne

there are a LOT of things that the government has decided it is completely their business what you decide to do or not do, with your body and a whole host of things. Which I think is very sad.

171 brookly red  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:15:13pm

re: #165 Locker

Oh yea I hit that one already above but I'm against protecting a person from their own actions. Drunk driving checkpoints/laws protect other people from harm. Not implied harm, emotional harm or dashing hopes of a lovely vacation to Hawaii, direct harm.

Basically if I want to sit in the middle of a desert in a vat of oil trying to dissolve myself, no one should be able to say boo about it. (100 points if anyone pull the movie I took that scene from... it's obscure.)

I support your right to dissolve your self! (but not in my backyard)

172 Locker  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:15:31pm

re: #155 SixDegrees

I dunno. My father-in-law drank himself into a completely debilitated state, lost his job, racked up huge medical bills due to secondary complications of his alcoholism, and dragged his wife and children through years of economic and emotional turmoil right along with him.

I'm not sure what other course might have worked in that case, but the impact on others was large and brutal, as well as self-induced.

I would have to say that your mom didn't have to stay with him. She's responsible for herself as well right? No offense meant or implied, just a straight query. Sorry for your bad times.

173 Pythagoras  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:15:33pm

re: #75 Charles

I agree that both lines of research should be pursued. But from what I've read, embryonic stem cells are still much more promising than reverted stem cells.

I agree that both lines of research should be pursued, but I think the reverted method has the better chance at being useful -- especially in the near term. The reverted stem cells have one big advantage -- they can be YOUR stem cells. Using stem cells from somebody else has, so far, been disappointing. If scientists can revert, say, skin cells from your own skin, the problems from using foreign cells are avoided.

The advantages of true embryonic stem cells are significant too. It's a question of which problems can be solved first.

174 RogueOne  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:16:22pm

re: #164 CyanSnowHawk

It leads to a situation where the highest bidder gets the organs. Preventing the sale of them makes them available to all people, not just the the ones rich enough to afford them. So yes, it can affect you directly.

by taking the "rich" off the waiting lists wouldn't it help the rest of us? Instead of having to wait for someone to die in order to harvest their usable parts we could get tens of thousands of new donors by tossing in an incentive.

175 KernelPanic  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:16:24pm

re: #94 researchok

I'm curious- In the course of your work have you ever found yourself uncomfortable with any of the projects you were working on?

Twice in my career so far. Once was on a project that I directly worked on and the second was something that I observed happening within a company.

My first minor regret was writing software to help automate and facilitate the process of filing patents on DNA and protein sequences. Without getting into boring details lets just say that there is an "OK" way to patent a gene or a protein and a "not-OK" way to do it. The "OK" method involves discovering what something does and how it interacts and behaves -- I'm ok with that because it represents real research and real (hard) work backed by lab-based proof and experiments . The "not-OK" patent method was called a "composition of matter" patent and it was basically a pure business grab where you file a kitchen sink patent for all possible and potential uses of a string of novel DNA or protein that you've discovered in the lab (without having any sort of proof that you know what it is or what it does). I'm pretty sure the courts have thrown out all of the kitchen-sink type patents which is a good thing.

The second time I felt uncomfortable was when I witnessed an internal discussion about how to price a new biotechnology drug product. This new product was artificially created in a recombinant process and thus could be "guaranteed" as being free from human pathogens and other bad things. Its competition was "natural" product derived from human blood products and thus patients taking the drug occasionally had issues with hepatitis, HIV and other bad things sneaking in. For a brief moment I was uncomfortable with how people were talking about setting the market price for the new superior and "safer" product. A few minutes later sanity prevailed.

176 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:16:28pm

re: #149 arielle

I don't think that COULD happen, I hope I don't sound ignorant but by the time a woman finds out she is pregnant she's usually past the embryo phase of the pregnancy, so that sounds like a pretty lame argument.

You're not, in fact, ignorant, even the most generous definition of 'embryo' ends at two months, and I believe the ones they use are much, much earlier than that. And the process of extracting an implanted embryo would be more expensive and time-consuming than the embryo would be worth. Seriously, fertility labs are stocked with this material. It's not like kidneys, or hearts.

177 wrenchwench  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:16:29pm

Watch a brain dissection, live now!

Note:

Connection speed will be a very precious resource in the next couple of days. We would be grateful if you would kindly terminate the connection if you are not actually watching the video feed.

We are going to cut through the entire brain over the next 50 hours. The very thin slices are going to be preserved in serial order and each will be ultimately stained and preserved in glass slides. The collection will represent a complete microscopic map of the brain of patient HM. This process will be extremely costly. Each glass slide alone costs $4! Any contribution, however small, will be crucial to the completion of this historic collection. To become a sponsor of patient H.M.’s giant histological glass slides, send your check to: The Brain Observatory, 3510 Dunhill Street, San Diego, CA 92121 Or make your generous donation by following this link: Donate

More info:

In what must certainly be the world's first live, webcast brain dissection, scientists today will cut exceedingly thin sections of a human brain that fundamentally changed our understanding of memory.

Henry Gustav Molaison - known as H. M. - lost much of a brain structure called the hippocampus during an operation in the 1950s.

The procedure was meant to stop his epileptic seizures. However, the hippocampus is critical to memory formation, so the surgery left Molaison unable to form new long-term memories.

The researchers who studied H. M. while he was still alive revolutionised neuroscience, by showing that the hippocampus was important for making some types of memories, but not others. H. M. could not remember day-to-day events, but he could learn new skills.

Now, following H. M.'s death due to respiratory failure in 2008, scientists aim to get a much closer look at Molaison's brain. That's where the live dissection comes in.

[...]

178 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:16:59pm

re: #146 RogueOne

To toss in my $.02 RE: selling organs. I don't see it being anyones business but the person willing to give up their parts. If someone wants to sell a kidney, or bone marrow, or even a testicle it's none of my business unless I'm the one paying for it.

Another problem, of course, is that the rich would dominate the market if organs were freely for sale. A certain ex-President, for example, would have no financial problem buying three or four new testicles and having them sewn on, just as a fashion statement; so could his wife, for that matter. Meanwhile, their garbage collector who had his nuts clawed off by their cat would go wanting, priced out of the cojones market.

179 Only The Lurker Knows  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:17:20pm

re: #163 Charles

Yep. In their opinion, the destruction of the embryo was the destruction of a human life.

180 Locker  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:17:20pm

re: #157 researchok

On this then, we agree.

You've got a real Libertarian streak!

Yes sir I was a registered Libertarian for a while until I found out they send more junk mail than I get from all the catalog merchants at Christmas. My buddy explained that Libertarians, by nature, hate committees so they end up duplicating their efforts to a ridiculous extreme.

181 RogueOne  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:17:26pm

re: #170 arielle

there are a LOT of things that the government has decided it is completely their business what you decide to do or not do, with your body and a whole host of things. Which I think is very sad.

No disagreement here.

182 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:19:09pm

re: #178 SixDegrees

Another problem, of course, is that the rich would dominate the market if organs were freely for sale. A certain ex-President, for example, would have no financial problem buying three or four new testicles and having them sewn on, just as a fashion statement; so could his wife, for that matter. Meanwhile, their garbage collector who had his nuts clawed off by their cat would go wanting, priced out of the cojones market.

I'd hate to lose my nuts to a bad pussy. /

183 RogueOne  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:19:18pm

re: #178 SixDegrees

Another problem, of course, is that the rich would dominate the market if organs were freely for sale. A certain ex-President, for example, would have no financial problem buying three or four new testicles and having them sewn on, just as a fashion statement; so could his wife, for that matter. Meanwhile, their garbage collector who had his nuts clawed off by their cat would go wanting, priced out of the cojones market.

[Link: www.neuticles.com...]

I seriously considered this when I had my dog neutered. He lost his tail and his testicles all on the same day, I don't think he even noticed the tail was gone.

184 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:19:54pm

re: #163 Charles

No, it was about religion.

Correct. The embryos involved were already dead, so ethics played no role in their disposition. The problem was, quite simply, that certain groups didn't want anything good or even neutral associated with abortion.

They also made a slippery slope argument, that if the research proved fruitful it would lead to demand for embryos, but this argument was, to use the technical term, a steaming pile.

185 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:19:55pm

re: #10 Idle Drifter

Anything that advances scientific knowledge is a plus.

Hate to be at risk of invoking Godwin, but...

186 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:20:06pm

re: #166 SixDegrees

Adult stem cell thereapies have been one of the main focuses, paritally because of the 8 year Bush ban-- the US really, really does lead the world in scientific research, and when we're not moving on something, it slows the field as a whole by an enormous amount. As I keep saying, there's a ton of basic science on embryonic stem cells that needs to be done.

There's a lot of therapies in various stages of clinical trials-- most of them are about adult stem cells, only a few at this point about embryonic. That will change.

I was only objecting to the idea that there are currently no actual therapies involving stem cells, and the idea that the lack of therapies indicates a lack of utility.

187 Locker  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:20:21pm

re: #161 Spare O'Lake

What if they really needed the money to save their own child's life?

We can't save anyone's life.. unless you count that "Ted Williams on Ice" cryogenic freezing thing. 100% mortality rate in humans, last time I checked. I'd put that right up there with shooting someone to get their kidney because your child needs a transplant.

I am, though, assuming you were being sarcastic :-)

188 brookly red  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:21:13pm

re: #178 SixDegrees

Another problem, of course, is that the rich would dominate the market if organs were freely for sale. A certain ex-President, for example, would have no financial problem buying three or four new testicles and having them sewn on, just as a fashion statement; so could his wife, for that matter. Meanwhile, their garbage collector who had his nuts clawed off by their cat would go wanting, priced out of the cojones market.

LOL! but don't the rich dominate every market anyway?

189 MrSilverDragon  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:21:26pm

re: #182 DaddyG

I'd hate to lose my nuts to a bad pussy. /

Great, now I'm going to have the scent of coffee in my nostrils for the rest of the day. *snickerspew*

190 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:21:31pm

re: #169 RogueOne

We live in a profit driven society. I'm not saying that like it's a bad thing. Profit drives innovation. Do you believe Lilly (another good company just up the road) has been pouring billions into drug research just to help people? All the new AIDS drugs over the last 2 decades didn't come about to stop a plague, but to make money. It is what it is.

Hi, I'm over here. Please talk to me, rather than the person in your head. I'm not saying that research doesn't have a profit motive. I haven't said anything remotely like that. If you have a point, make it.

191 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:21:45pm

re: #174 RogueOne

by taking the "rich" off the waiting lists wouldn't it help the rest of us? Instead of having to wait for someone to die in order to harvest their usable parts we could get tens of thousands of new donors by tossing in an incentive.

If you create a market where organs that are now donated are sold, you will take all the donors out of the system as they (or their next-of-kin) hold out for the best bid. Very few will give away for free what someone is willing to pay for.

192 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:22:17pm

re: #184 SixDegrees

[...]They also made a slippery slope argument, that if the research proved fruitful it would lead to demand for embryos, but this argument was, to use the technical term, a steaming pile.

How so?

193 Tardis  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:22:20pm

re: #97 DaddyG

How long does it take the body to generate a new kidney?

You never grow a new kidney. You start with one or two and have to take care of them. When you give them away they never come back.

194 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:23:06pm

re: #179 Bubblehead II

Yep. In their opinion, the destruction of the embryo was the destruction of a human life.

However, a lab which simply throws them out is...?

195 RogueOne  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:23:29pm

re: #190 SanFranciscoZionist

Hi, I'm over here. Please talk to me, rather than the person in your head. I'm not saying that research doesn't have a profit motive. I haven't said anything remotely like that. If you have a point, make it.

My original point was to caution against the expectation that federal funding equates to actual products. No need for the snark.

196 sagehen  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:23:46pm

re: #16 researchok

I asked because of the ambiguity.

Stem cell research was never outlawed- private research companies were able to pursue their work (FYI, I support stem cell research). A big parto9f the brouhaha was the result of the government not funding stem cell research.

So, when should government fund research and when should it not?

Private research is proprietary, and we never hear about what they're doing until and unless they find something worthy of filing for patents.

With publicly funded research, they have to publish interim results, anybody and everybody else can build on their work, and open-source patents make the discoveries and inventions available to whoever can make use of them.

The space program gave us velcro, duct tape, semi-conductors and microchips, air purification and water recycling technologies, GPS, hurricane warnings, and a thousand other things that would have taken decades longer if done privately (one at a time).

Government-backed stem-cell research will yield ideas and principles that can be taken a hundred different directions, by a hundred different labs, for a hundred different treatments of a hundred different conditions, all at the same time.

197 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:25:03pm

re: #195 RogueOne

My original point was to caution against the expectation that federal funding equates to actual products. No need for the snark.

It doesn't hurt.

/You can take that any way you like.

198 researchok  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:25:03pm

re: #175 KernelPanic

Twice in my career so far. Once was on a project that I directly worked on and the second was something that I observed happening within a company.

Have you ever engaged in conversation with a bio-ethicist?

I don't mean to pry, but I am curious as to how 'front line' researchers deal with the reality of that great unknown.

I once spoke with a researcher at a big pharma company who worked on medication for disturbed kids. I asked him the same question. He replied that he tried not to think of the implications of his work. He just wanted to focus on the science.

It didn't appear as if he made peace with that idea.

199 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:25:14pm

re: #185 The Sanity Inspector

Hate to be at risk of invoking Godwin, but...

No kidding. My great Uncle liberated some very advanced medical equipment from a Nazi prison camp and donated it to hospitals in the USA after the war. They probably saved many lives with that equipment and I have always felt it was at least some consolation for the terrible use it was made for.

That begs the question - if people are going to abort fetuses anyway what objection can we have to making good use of something created by a bad choice? To avoid the ethical issue of profiting from the abortions all use could require the use of donated cells only.

I do feel elective abortion is a sin and I would never participate in one.

This is not such a cut and dry issue.

200 Tardis  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:25:27pm

re: #163 Charles

No, it was about religion.

I do not think that the distinction between ethics and religion is always clear cut.

201 sagehen  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:26:03pm

re: #35 cliffster

Bush's reasoning was he didn't want a situation where people in need of money use themselves as embryo farms. Get pregnant, sell the embryo, repeat.

Not a rational concern.

To recover a 3-day embryo from a uterus is whole degrees of magnitude more difficult than just creating an embryo in a petri dish.

202 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:26:17pm

re: #189 MrSilverDragon

Great, now I'm going to have the scent of coffee in my nostrils for the rest of the day. *snickerspew*


Sorry - I've been watching too much British comedy on PBS.

203 Only The Lurker Knows  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:26:21pm

re: #194 SanFranciscoZionist

As pointed out upthread, one of the more blatant hypocrisies of the pro-life crowd.

204 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:26:45pm

re: #186 obdicut

Adult stem cell thereapies have been one of the main focuses, paritally because of the 8 year Bush ban-- the US really, really does lead the world in scientific research, and when we're not moving on something, it slows the field as a whole by an enormous amount. As I keep saying, there's a ton of basic science on embryonic stem cells that needs to be done.

There's a lot of therapies in various stages of clinical trials-- most of them are about adult stem cells, only a few at this point about embryonic. That will change.

I was only objecting to the idea that there are currently no actual therapies involving stem cells, and the idea that the lack of therapies indicates a lack of utility.

See my other comments, above. I think it's a useful research tool, but I'm not so optimistic about direct treatments of the sort so often mentioned - growing new organs in test tubes and so forth. I think the research may reveal ways to manipulate the patient's own supply of stem cells in useful ways, but other treatment pathways seem much less likely to succeed.

205 transient  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:27:02pm

re: #167 Gus 802

Nope. Can't sell your kidney but a hospital can either take a donated kidney from an organ donor or one from a friend or other live donor and sell it back to you for $50,000.


They don't sell you the kidney. What you are paying for is a highly specialized procedure involving transfer of the kidney (sometimes from a live donor), surgical implantation including physicians' fees, OR fees, hospital supplies, monitoring and follow up.

You could probably get a "back alley" transplant but wouldn't last a day.

206 KingKenrod  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:27:17pm

re: #162 obdicut

Why? The embryos are currently being destroyed at fertility clinics. Why is making use of them something any non-religious person would object to?

Here's one objection: it assigns legal ownership to a human life.

207 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:27:50pm

re: #199 DaddyG

No kidding. My great Uncle liberated some very advanced medical equipment from a Nazi prison camp and donated it to hospitals in the USA after the war. They probably saved many lives with that equipment and I have always felt it was at least some consolation for the terrible use it was made for.

That begs the question - if people are going to abort fetuses anyway what objection can we have to making good use of something created by a bad choice? To avoid the ethical issue of profiting from the abortions all use could require the use of donated cells only.

I do feel elective abortion is a sin and I would never participate in one.

This is not such a cut and dry issue.

I missed a turn somwhere. How are aborted fetuses involved in this discussion?

208 Tardis  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:28:24pm

re: #201 sagehen

Not a rational concern.

To recover a 3-day embryo from a uterus is whole degrees of magnitude more difficult than just creating an embryo in a petri dish.

People sell semen all the time. And if you look at the classified ads of college papers there is a great market for selling eggs. Can easily pay for a year of tuition.

209 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:28:34pm

re: #201 sagehen

Not a rational concern.

To recover a 3-day embryo from a uterus is whole degrees of magnitude more difficult than just creating an embryo in a petri dish.

Not to mention the fact that either you knock up the lady in the lab, or the chances of her coming in at just the right time are slim.

210 RogueOne  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:28:58pm

re: #197 SanFranciscoZionist

It doesn't hurt.

/You can take that any way you like.

and I think sometimes it does. i.e., the ethanol/flex fuel/green energy debacle. Instead of putting funds in the most promising research we just toss billions at windmills and hybrid fuels in what is essentially a wasted effort with the great side effect of rising costs of basic necessities. Like I originally said, I'm for this. I'm just saying lets be a little cautious.

211 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:28:59pm

re: #203 Bubblehead II

As pointed out upthread, one of the more blatant hypocrisies of the pro-life crowd.


...unless they see the use of those fetuses as another incentive or rationalization for elective abortion. At least that POV is consistent.

212 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:29:46pm

re: #206 KingKenrod

Here's one objection: it assigns legal ownership to a human life.

No, it assigns legal ownership to an embryo. A dead embryo. There's no "life" involved.

213 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:29:47pm

re: #207 SanFranciscoZionist

I missed a turn somwhere. How are aborted fetuses involved in this discussion?


If they are used as the source of stem cells. (How come I feel I'm about to be corrected on a huge misconception born of misinformation...)

214 RogueOne  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:30:02pm

cya folks. my brood expected me home awhile ago.

215 sattv4u2  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:30:09pm

late to the party (damn work)

BUT ,, I thought Bush only objected to Federal funding of certain typed of stem cell research, NOT against stem cell research per se

216 arielle  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:30:18pm

re: #176 SanFranciscoZionist

Thanks! So many commentators seem so smart I'm almost afraid to comment because I just know someone is going to swoop down and explain to me why I'm nuts. But I did have a baby, so I know something about that.

217 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:30:49pm

re: #206 KingKenrod

Here's one objection: it assigns legal ownership to a human life.

I can sell an egg. My husband could sell sperm. I have never heard an objection from these same groups about this.

218 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:31:11pm

re: #192 The Sanity Inspector

How so?

There is a vast supply of embryos simply dumped in the trash - far in excess of any imaginable demand. And even if there were, the idea that such an imbalance would lead to "embryo farming" is patently ridiculous; there's a shortage of transplantable organs available now, but there haven't been any laws proposed, for example, to expand the death penalty to include crimes like jaywalking and littering in order to meet the demand. No such laws would ever be passed to begin with.

219 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:32:21pm

re: #216 arielle

Thanks! So many commentators seem so smart I'm almost afraid to comment because I just know someone is going to swoop down and explain to me why I'm nuts. But I did have a baby, so I know something about that.


Don't worry I'm not afraid to demonstrate my ignorance. I've learned some things (and I suspect I'm about to learn more).

Just don't hang on to your ignorance like a treasured momento. ;-)

220 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:32:44pm

re: #217 SanFranciscoZionist

I can sell an egg. My husband could sell sperm. I have never heard an objection from these same groups about this.

I'd link to the Monty Python song about sacred sperm, but I can't get to YouTube from work.

221 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:33:19pm

re: #193 Tardis

You never grow a new kidney. You start with one or two and have to take care of them. When you give them away they never come back.

I'm pretty sure Chuck Norris could grow a new kidney if he wanted to.

222 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:33:35pm

We're still getting nasty meltdown comments posted in the dead threads, by the way.

223 cliffster  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:33:43pm

re: #217 SanFranciscoZionist

I can sell an egg. My husband could sell sperm. I have never heard an objection from these same groups about this.

I don't think you can sell your eggs, can you? I thought that was a no-no. Again, not replenishable. I could be wrong though.

224 Stanghazi  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:33:43pm

Hmmm...how many here have registered to be an organ donor at the DMV?

225 brookly red  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:33:48pm

re: #219 DaddyG

Don't worry I'm not afraid to demonstrate my ignorance. I've learned some things (and I suspect I'm about to learn more).

Just don't hang on to your ignorance like a treasured momento. ;-)

Personally I am trying to sell mine... I always wanted a talk show.

226 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:34:00pm

re: #220 CyanSnowHawk

I'd link to the Monty Python song about sacred sperm, but I can't get to YouTube from work.


Every sperm is sacred
every sperm is great
if a sperm is wasted
God get's quite irate...

Greatest Monty Python scetch ever... (and I have 7 children)

227 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:34:14pm

re: #213 DaddyG

If they are used as the source of stem cells. (How come I feel I'm about to be corrected on a huge misconception born of misinformation...)

Either you are, or I am. My understanding was that the source material for stem cell lines were embryos produced in laboratory conditions, at a pre-fetal stage. In the handful-of-cells stage. Usually as a side product of fertility treatment. Folks, help. Which one of us is off here? (Both?)

228 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:34:34pm

re: #204 SixDegrees

An understanding of embryonic stem cells will inform many, many treatments that it does not directly lead to, though. See Sagehen's post.

229 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:34:49pm

re: #220 CyanSnowHawk

I'd link to the Monty Python song about sacred sperm, but I can't get to YouTube from work.

My pleasure:

230 arielle  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:34:51pm

re: #219 DaddyG

I know, I just need to jump in and not worry about the temperature of the water :)

231 Only The Lurker Knows  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:34:53pm

re: #211 DaddyG

NIH guide lines already prevented that from happening. All embryos used for Federally funded stem cell research (even before the ban) had to come from fertility clinics, not abortions.

232 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:35:20pm

re: #218 SixDegrees

There is a vast supply of embryos simply dumped in the trash - far in excess of any imaginable demand. And even if there were, the idea that such an imbalance would lead to "embryo farming" is patently ridiculous; there's a shortage of transplantable organs available now, but there haven't been any laws proposed, for example, to expand the death penalty to include crimes like jaywalking and littering in order to meet the demand. No such laws would ever be passed to begin with.

Fair enough.

233 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:35:27pm

re: #222 Charles

We're still getting nasty meltdown comments posted in the dead threads, by the way.

Any way we could get a government research grant to study those dead lines?

234 transient  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:35:47pm

re: #222 Charles

We're still getting nasty meltdown comments posted in the dead threads, by the way.


I think we need some green research into these meltdown comments. Is it possible that enough heat is emitted that it could be used as an alternate energy source?

235 cliffster  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:35:48pm

re: #223 cliffster

re: #217 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, learn something new every day. selling eggs

236 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:36:13pm

re: #227 SanFranciscoZionist

Either you are, or I am. My understanding was that the source material for stem cell lines were embryos produced in laboratory conditions, at a pre-fetal stage. In the handful-of-cells stage. Usually as a side product of fertility treatment. Folks, help. Which one of us is off here? (Both?)


Yeah- ditto. I hadn't made the distinction in the debate but I'm worried that I've been suckered into believing that aborted fetuses were a viable source of embryonic stem cells.

Anyone here know the distinction in the current science and law?

237 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:36:31pm

re: #217 SanFranciscoZionist

I can sell an egg. My husband could sell sperm. I have never heard an objection from these same groups about this.

Separately, the egg and sperm are not what most pro-lifers would consider a human life.

238 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:36:53pm

re: #228 obdicut

An understanding of embryonic stem cells will inform many, many treatments that it does not directly lead to, though. See Sagehen's post.

Yes, that was one of the points I made, above.

239 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:38:37pm

re: #224 Stanley Sea

Hmmm...how many here have registered to be an organ donor at the DMV?


Me- I figure if I'm dumb enough to drive a snowmobile under barbed wire someone can benefit from the use of the parts my brain wasn't smart enough to keep attached.

240 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:38:48pm

re: #238 SixDegrees

Yes, that was one of the points I made, above.

Then apologies for reading you wrong.

241 Gus  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:39:51pm

re: #205 transient

They don't sell you the kidney. What you are paying for is a highly specialized procedure involving transfer of the kidney (sometimes from a live donor), surgical implantation including physicians' fees, OR fees, hospital supplies, monitoring and follow up.

You could probably get a "back alley" transplant but wouldn't last a day.

I am aware of the procedures involved in a kidney transplant and it also includes after care. My point was about the larger ethical hypocrisy including those in which the surgeon clears a profit of 10s of thousands of dollars in the procedure and the hidden and hyper-inflated pricing for the procedure.

242 Soap_Man  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:41:15pm

re: #224 Stanley Sea

I am, but I don't think all my organs will be useful after I die. My lungs and liver come to mind. Too much wear and tear.

243 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:41:24pm

re: #231 Bubblehead II

Thank you for the clarification. I love learning!

244 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:42:35pm

re: #242 Soap_Man

I am, but I don't think all my organs will be useful after I die. My lungs and liver come to mind. Too much wear and tear.


If nothing else they can serve as the "unhealthy" illustration in a high school health texbook. /

245 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:43:33pm

re: #221 SixDegrees

Chuck would not bother with growing a new one, he would just reach into your body and rip yours out.

246 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:43:51pm

re: #241 Gus 802

I am aware of the procedures involved in a kidney transplant and it also includes after care. My point was about the larger ethical hypocrisy including those in which the surgeonmalpractice insurance salesman and legal department clears a profit of 10s of thousands of dollars in the procedure and the hidden and hyper-inflated pricing for the procedure.

FIFY

247 Tardis  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:43:52pm

re: #217 SanFranciscoZionist

I can sell an egg. My husband could sell sperm. I have never heard an objection from these same groups about this.

The Catholic Church among others would object to both.

248 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:44:03pm

re: #237 The Sanity Inspector

Have you met the Pope?

249 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:44:46pm

re: #245 Jeff In Ohio

Chuck would not bother with growing a new one, he would just reach into your body and rip yours out.


Chuck Norris doesn't need a kidney. Impurities can not survive in his blood.

250 Digital Display  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:45:00pm

re: #242 Soap_Man

I am, but I don't think all my organs will be useful after I die. My lungs and liver come to mind. Too much wear and tear.

Hannable Lector would bid on the liver

251 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:45:07pm

re: #223 cliffster

I don't think you can sell your eggs, can you? I thought that was a no-no. Again, not replenishable. I could be wrong though.

Not replenishable, but on the other hand, every woman is born with more than she will ever need, and they get wasted at the rate of one a month for as long as you're not pregnant.

You can make financial arrangements about them. I don't know if you're technically selling the egg or not, but there are clinics and individuals advertising for them all the time. Seems like maybe $6,000 is the going rate.

252 Gus  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:46:05pm

re: #246 DaddyG

FIFY

Oops, thanks. My fault. I forgot about those. After all of those costs are deducted the hospitals probably don't make a profit.

Like oil companies.

253 Locker  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:46:20pm

re: #239 DaddyG

Me- I figure if I'm dumb enough to drive a snowmobile under barbed wire someone can benefit from the use of the parts my brain wasn't smart enough to keep attached.

Same here man. My liver is in pretty good shape but you don't want these lungs, that's for damn sure.

254 transient  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:46:55pm

re: #241 Gus 802

I am aware of the procedures involved in a kidney transplant and it also includes after care. My point was about the larger ethical hypocrisy including those in which the surgeon clears a profit of 10s of thousands of dollars in the procedure and the hidden and hyper-inflated pricing for the procedure.


So the surgeon should work for free?
Interesting how all the free market types (and honestly I don't know what your position is so this is not directed to you specifically) are often okay with dictating how much doctors should earn.

Please specify what hidden charges you are talking about.

Physician and hospital fees are already regulated. Private insurance reimbursement is higher than Medicare, but Medicare sets the standard for the negotiations with private insurance. Transplant is a highly skilled procedure. I figure if it were a completely free market, it would cost a heck of a lot more. If you don't like the idea of paying for it, don't get one.

Hey, I'd love a Mercedes for half the price, but no one's insisting Mercedes sell them at cut rates.

255 Gus  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:47:22pm

re: #254 transient

Thanks for the reply. I'm done with this discussion.

256 Killgore Trout  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:47:36pm

Wash Times Announces Layoffs

The meeting was apparently to announce big changes, including "significant staff reduction of its 370 personnel," according to an announcement from the paper.

No word yet on specific numbers, but the changes announced include some free distribution in the DC market.

Late Update: Now we know. The layoffs announced equal 40% of the staff of the paper. Brutal.

257 KingKenrod  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:48:23pm

re: #212 Charles

No, it assigns legal ownership to an embryo. A dead embryo. There's no "life" involved.

And, as a moral society, we have decided the creation and destruction of some embryos is acceptable if the goal is pregnancy for someone who may have difficulty getting pregnant. And in fact the courts have said this is a constitutionally protected right.

Suppose someone invents a fertility treatment that doesn't involve the destruction of embryos.

It's possible the treatment would not be used because the fertility clinic - or even the parents - has an interest in creating those dead embryos.

Religion doesn't have to enter the discussion - morality and moral questions about this issue exists outside religion. This is my only point.

258 HappyBenghazi  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:48:36pm

I'm glad to see this. Agree too that this was a mistake that the Bush administration made. Hopefully some promise can be made from this.

259 Tardis  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:48:59pm

CAIRO – A 26-year-old doctor who exposed the torture of jailed protesters in Iran died of poisoning from a delivery salad laced with an overdose of blood pressure medication, prosecutors say. The findings fueled opposition fears that he was killed because of what he knew.

Investigators are still trying to determine whether his death last month was a suicide or murder, Tehran's public prosecutor Abbas Dowlatabadi said, according to the state news agency IRNA.

260 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:50:17pm

The bible has an instance of discouraging "spilling one's seed on the ground" in a specific case where someone was asked to father a child by God. The passage can be understood as a man being cursed for refusing to bring a child into the world or for the act of wasting the "seed" itself. I think it was the former more than the latter.

I cannot ascribe any more holiness to the bological material (sperm) than I do to the creation and preservation of life itself (multiplying and replentishing). That is akin to calling the book holy while ignoring the meaning of its contents.

However my interpretation is not authoritative for others and I do understand where Catholics and others would consider it a sin to tamper with the building blocks of life.

261 Only The Lurker Knows  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:50:20pm

re: #243 DaddyG

Just learned that myself today. That being the case, since I learned (and passed on) something new, the day has now officially not been wasted.

262 Ben Hur  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:50:31pm

"Our number one enemy concern is the existential threat, al Qaeda. Number two is the stability of a nuclear state called Afghanistan, under siege by radicals."

-Joe Biden.

An actual politician.

May be the Veep.

(al-Qaeda is an existential threat?)

263 brookly red  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:51:14pm

re: #259 Tardis

CAIRO – A 26-year-old doctor who exposed the torture of jailed protesters in Iran died of poisoning from a delivery salad laced with an overdose of blood pressure medication, prosecutors say. The findings fueled opposition fears that he was killed because of what he knew.

Investigators are still trying to determine whether his death last month was a suicide or murder, Tehran's public prosecutor Abbas Dowlatabadi said, according to the state news agency IRNA.

my guess is he didn't leave a note...

264 transient  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:52:28pm

re: #259 Tardis

CAIRO – A 26-year-old doctor who exposed the torture of jailed protesters in Iran died of poisoning from a delivery salad laced with an overdose of blood pressure medication, prosecutors say. The findings fueled opposition fears that he was killed because of what he knew.

Investigators are still trying to determine whether his death last month was a suicide or murder, Tehran's public prosecutor Abbas Dowlatabadi said, according to the state news agency IRNA.


Off the cuff (so to speak)...if a doctor wants to off himself, he's got access to a variety of options much better than blood pressure medication.

265 Tardis  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:53:01pm

re: #263 brookly red

Those veggies are going to get you one way or another.

266 Killgore Trout  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:53:18pm

If I Still Worked at Fox News...
By Eric Burns (formerly of Fox News)

I am the Eric Burns who used to host Fox News Watch on the right-wing partial-news-but-mostly-opinion network. In the past year and a half, since departing from Ailes and friends, I have been much more silent about media matters than my namesake.

I speak out now because it is the time of year when one is supposed to count blessings. I have several. Among them is that I do not have to face the ethical problem of sharing an employer with Glenn Beck.

Actually, Beck is a problem of taste as well as ethics. He laughs and cries; he pouts and giggles; he makes funny faces and grins like a cartoon character; he makes earnest faces yet insists he is a clown; he cavorts like a victim of St. Vitus's Dance. His means of communicating are, in other words, so wide-ranging as to suggest derangement as much as versatility.

He is Huey Long without the political office.

He is Father Coughlin without the dour expression.

He is John Birch without the Society.

He is an embarrassment to all true conservatives, men and women who believe sincerely, thoughtfully and sensibly that the role of government in American life should be limited.

267 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:53:21pm
268 Soap_Man  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:53:32pm

re: #250 HoosierHoops

He would save money on the chianti as well. There is probably enough alcohol stored in my liver to get him pretty tipsy.

269 cliffster  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:53:58pm

re: #262 Ben Hur

"Our number one enemy concern is the existential threat, al Qaeda. Number two is the stability of a nuclear state called Afghanistan, under siege by radicals."

-Joe Biden.

An actual politician.

May be the Veep.

(al-Qaeda is an existential threat?)

Existential threat

270 brookly red  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:54:59pm

re: #265 Tardis

Those veggies are going to get you one way or another.

I think it was the metoprolol dressing...

271 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:55:00pm

re: #260 DaddyG

The bible has an instance of discouraging "spilling one's seed on the ground" in a specific case where someone was asked to father a child by God. The passage can be understood as a man being cursed for refusing to bring a child into the world or for the act of wasting the "seed" itself. I think it was the former more than the latter.

I cannot ascribe any more holiness to the bological material (sperm) than I do to the creation and preservation of life itself (multiplying and replentishing). That is akin to calling the book holy while ignoring the meaning of its contents.

However my interpretation is not authoritative for others and I do understand where Catholics and others would consider it a sin to tamper with the building blocks of life.

That is the proper context of that incident in the hebrew scriptures. Of course, like so many biblical passages, it has been totally misused.

272 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:55:01pm

re: #267 Jeff In Ohio

Marriage equality fails in NY Senate

One hopeful thing from that: Only one person actually spoke against it. The others who voted no did so and skulked away.

273 brookly red  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:56:24pm

re: #262 Ben Hur

"Our number one enemy concern is the existential threat, al Qaeda. Number two is the stability of a nuclear state called Afghanistan, under siege by radicals."

-Joe Biden.

An actual politician.

May be the Veep.

(al-Qaeda is an existential threat?)

& I think the nuclear state in question might be Pakistan, just a guess.

274 Tardis  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:56:56pm

re: #270 brookly red

I think it was the metoprolol dressing...

Pourandarjani died on Nov. 10 in mysterious circumstances, with authorities initially saying he was in a car accident, had a heart attack or committed suicide.

275 sagehen  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:57:42pm

re: #227 SanFranciscoZionist

Either you are, or I am. My understanding was that the source material for stem cell lines were embryos produced in laboratory conditions, at a pre-fetal stage. In the handful-of-cells stage. Usually as a side product of fertility treatment. Folks, help. Which one of us is off here? (Both?)


By the time an embryo develops differentiated cells, it's lost its usefulness as stem cells. They need cells that haven't decided (or announced) what parts they're going to become.

276 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:58:05pm

re: #271 Walter L. Newton

That is the proper context of that incident in the hebrew scriptures. Of course, like so many biblical passages, it has been totally misused.

Whenever someone claims to know the literal translation of the Bible I get worried. How many people in 2009 have actually walked along side God as He explained to them the meaning of life in a middle eastern tribal agrarian society? Not to say that the lessons aren't universal (I am a strong believer in the reality of the lessons and principles) but too many people are guilty of some strong presentism when it comes to understanding the scriptures.

277 Tardis  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:58:15pm

re: #273 brookly red

& I think the nuclear state in question might be Pakistan, just a guess.


Once Afganistan has nucleasr weapons, he is correct that we will have some serious problems.

278 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:59:01pm

re: #237 The Sanity Inspector

Separately, the egg and sperm are not what most pro-lifers would consider a human life.

But a few divided, non-implanted cells are, and they will fight for them.

279 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:59:51pm

re: #247 Tardis

The Catholic Church among others would object to both.

And yet, the bishops do not make public statements about this, that I'm aware of.

280 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:00:15pm

re: #278 SanFranciscoZionist

But a few divided, non-implanted cells are, and they will fight for them.

A life has a spirit- when we can meausre when that enters the body we can determine the bioethics more easily. /

281 reine.de.tout  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:02:13pm

re: #260 DaddyG

. . .

However my interpretation is not authoritative for others and I do understand where Catholics and others would consider it a sin to tamper with the building blocks of life.

I've tried desperately to stay out of this discussion; you are correct, Catholics do believe it is a sin to tamper with the building blocks of life.

We also believe that human life is given a soul from the moment of conception, regardless of how small that cluster of cells is, and to allow it to die (or kill it) is the taking of a life.

I realize there are many here who will think it's plum silly to believe this as I do believe with every fiber of my being, and well, so be it. I'm sure they believe some things I would also find silly, but it doesn't make either of us a bad or evil person.

I do know that I am perfectly happy that I do not have to be the final judge on this . . .

282 fert  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:03:58pm

Medium time lurker, first time commenter.
In speaking to one of the lead scientists in charge of the California stem cell initiatives, what I found interesting was that embryonic stem cells can be developed into a pharmaceutical assay. Instead of testing possible new pharmaceuticals on animals (not similar enough to humans) and humans (a little too human), scientists could work out LD50 and dosages on a petri dish. Saves time and money.

Also, if all sins against genetic material were illegal, wouldn't all the hairy-palmed teenagers of the world be in jail? In fact, wouldn't practically every male between 13-25?

re: #257 KingKenrod
Um, the point is that embryos used for stem cell research are not considered alive and were never alive. They might have eventually become a living thing but at no time up to the harvesting was the embryo as science describes it (again, AS SCIENCE DESCRIBES LIFE) alive. In fact, scientists have strict criterion as to which embryos are even harvested based upon this. It's religion that says that life begins at the meeting of sperm and egg, and that a soul enters at this time. Keeping in mind that in Catholic doctrine, this soul entering at conception was not official until 1971. Prior to that, it was believed that the soul entered at the time of quickening (when mother first feels the child). Though the Church has always had the stance that all abortion is sin.

283 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:04:09pm

re: #281 reine.de.tout

I do know that I am perfectly happy that I do not have to be the final judge on this . . .


Amen sister!

284 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:06:06pm

re: #135 DaddyG

You had never seen that before?

285 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:06:49pm

re: #272 obdicut

One hopeful thing from that: Only one person actually spoke against it. The others who voted no did so and skulked away.

Again: the article makes if clear that this is a semantic problem. The Catholic Bishops who opposed it state quite clearly it's their belief that marriage involved one man and one woman, etcetera and so forth.

The problem is the use of the term "marriage" for what the state does, which is an entirely different and separate thing from what the church does. The state issues an acknowledgment of a contract between two adults that confers certain rights and responsibilities on the two parties. It's called a "marriage license" for historical reasons, and it is further intertwined with churches because it's common for the priest or pastor or minister who performs the church ceremony to take care of all the paperwork and filing required to obtain the license from the state.

Stop calling the state contract a "marriage" license. Call it a civil contract, or something - anything - else, and call it the same thing no matter who it's granted to. If you want a "marriage," go to the church of your choice and get one. If you want the various legal benefits the contract confers, make sure you pick up one of those, too.

But stop conflating the two things. They are not the same thing, and aren't even related to one another in terms of their function.

It already partially works that way. The state will happily grant a license to a couple, both of whom are divorced, while many churches will refuse to perform a marriage ceremony under such circumstances. Churches will also refuse to recognize a state-granted divorce, and often refuse to marry a couple if one is of a different faith. Not my problem, not anyone's problem but the couple's, and that's as it should be. The state, meanwhile, ought to grant the license to any adults, regardless of their sex.

Renaming it cuts the legs out from underneath the Bishop's entire objection. It also answers gay concerns about proposals to grant them "special" civil unions, while granting marriage licenses to others, that this sets them up as second-class citizens in a different category.

286 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:07:07pm

re: #281 reine.de.tout


We also believe that human life is given a soul from the moment of conception, regardless of how small that cluster of cells is, and to allow it to die (or kill it) is the taking of a life.
.

That is one of the positions of Catholicism that is most incompatible with scientific knowledge-- to say nothing of the idea of a just or loving god.

When something as simple as identical twins can form a strong theological problem, it is probably wise to revisit the theology.

The Catholic church has reversed its position on scientific matters before-- creakingly slowly-- but if it has a hope of survival in the modern age, it will have to become better at doing so.

I don't think your belief makes you evil, nor do I think your belief is 'silly'. I do think that your belief is incompatible with reality even if one accepts the existence of the soul.

287 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:07:10pm

re: #281 reine.de.tout

BTW- I do not find your beliefs silly- in fact they are very close to my own. I believe that spirits exist before their bodies are conceived and that we (as co-creators with God) should provide opportunities for them to come into this world. That makes the ethics of using the building blocks of life in natural or artificial ways somewhat complex for me.

Life is good. Preserving and creating it within our means to sustain it is a positive. That I am very clear on.

288 myfriendwatson  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:07:40pm

re: #279 SanFranciscoZionist

Manhattan Declaration:

Although public sentiment has moved in a pro-life direction, we note with sadness that pro-abortion ideology prevails today in our government. The present administration is led and staffed by those who want to make abortions legal at any stage of fetal development, and who want to provide abortions at taxpayer expense. Majorities in both houses of Congress hold pro-abortion views. The Supreme Court, whose infamous 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade stripped the unborn of legal protection, continues to treat elective abortion as a fundamental constitutional right, though it has upheld as constitutionally permissible some limited restrictions on abortion. The President says that he wants to reduce the “need” for abortion—a commendable goal. But he has also pledged to make abortion more easily and widely available by eliminating laws prohibiting government funding, requiring waiting periods for women seeking abortions, and parental notification for abortions performed on minors. The elimination of these important and effective pro-life laws cannot reasonably be expected to do other than significantly increase the number of elective abortions by which the lives of countless children are snuffed out prior to birth. Our commitment to the sanctity of life is not a matter of partisan loyalty, for we recognize that in the thirty-six years since Roe v. Wade, elected officials and appointees of both major political parties have been complicit in giving legal sanction to what Pope John Paul II described as “the culture of death.” We call on all officials in our country, elected and appointed, to protect and serve every member of our society, including the most marginalized, voiceless, and vulnerable among us.

A culture of death inevitably cheapens life in all its stages and conditions by promoting the belief that lives that are imperfect, immature or inconvenient are discardable. As predicted by many prescient persons, the cheapening of life that began with abortion has now metastasized. For example, human embryo-destructive research and its public funding are promoted in the name of science and in the cause of developing treatments and cures for diseases and injuries. The President and many in Congress favor the expansion of embryo-research to include the taxpayer funding of so-called “therapeutic cloning.” This would result in the industrial mass production of human embryos to be killed for the purpose of producing genetically customized stem cell lines and tissues. At the other end of life, an increasingly powerful movement to promote assisted suicide and “voluntary” euthanasia threatens the lives of vulnerable elderly and disabled persons. Eugenic notions such as the doctrine of lebensunwertes Leben (“life unworthy of life”) were first advanced in the 1920s by intellectuals in the elite salons of America and Europe. Long buried in ignominy after the horrors of the mid-20th century, they have returned from the grave. The only difference is that now the doctrines of the eugenicists are dressed up in the language of “liberty,” “autonomy,” and “choice.”

Whole text is at [Link: www.manhattandeclaration.org...]

289 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:07:42pm

re: #284 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

You had never seen that before?


No... very funny in a twisted way however.

290 Locker  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:09:05pm

re: #281 reine.de.tout

I've tried desperately to stay out of this discussion; you are correct, Catholics do believe it is a sin to tamper with the building blocks of life.

We also believe that human life is given a soul from the moment of conception, regardless of how small that cluster of cells is, and to allow it to die (or kill it) is the taking of a life.

I realize there are many here who will think it's plum silly to believe this as I do believe with every fiber of my being, and well, so be it. I'm sure they believe some things I would also find silly, but it doesn't make either of us a bad or evil person.

I do know that I am perfectly happy that I do not have to be the final judge on this . . .

I respect your beliefs and the beliefs of others on this subject as long as you and or they aren't trying to make the decision for me. I see a lot of heat about the left pushing PC stuff on the masses and this would be the equivalent on the right, for me.

If someone is a pro lifer and doesn't want to get an abortion, great, don't get one but quit trying to take away the rights of other folks who may or don't share your particular views on the subject.

Not at all suggesting that's what you are doing, just commenting and I agree it doesn't make either side a "bad person" for having different beliefs and opinions.

291 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:09:42pm

re: #285 SixDegrees

I used to object to the change in names as an unnecessary remnant of bigotry, but after talking with my gay friends on the subject, one of them made an excellent point:

Instead of seeing the change of a name as caving into bigotry and appeasing those who do not respect the rights of their fellow man and women as they should, you can see it as a just change in a name away from an old, parochial, outmoded system into a new one. Just as we ceased to be 'subjects' and became 'citizens', we can help redeem the tarnished institution in part by renaming it.

I thought that was an excellent way to look at it.

292 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:11:43pm

re: #290 Locker
I'll come to your front door and push those beliefs as long as I am welcome to come in and discuss them. ;-)

I won't try to force you to act in accordance to my beliefs through the legislature. (within a reasonable limit- don't ask me to legalize pot and hope high people use "good sense" about toking and driving).

293 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:13:15pm

re: #282 fert

Medium time lurker, first time commenter.
In speaking to one of the lead scientists in charge of the California stem cell initiatives, what I found interesting was that embryonic stem cells can be developed into a pharmaceutical assay. Instead of testing possible new pharmaceuticals on animals (not similar enough to humans) and humans (a little too human), scientists could work out LD50 and dosages on a petri dish. Saves time and money.

Also, if all sins against genetic material were illegal, wouldn't all the hairy-palmed teenagers of the world be in jail? In fact, wouldn't practically every male between 13-25?


Um, the point is that embryos used for stem cell research are not considered alive and were never alive. They might have eventually become a living thing but at no time up to the harvesting was the embryo as science describes it (again, AS SCIENCE DESCRIBES LIFE) alive. In fact, scientists have strict criterion as to which embryos are even harvested based upon this. It's religion that says that life begins at the meeting of sperm and egg, and that a soul enters at this time. Keeping in mind that in Catholic doctrine, this soul entering at conception was not official until 1971. Prior to that, it was believed that the soul entered at the time of quickening (when mother first feels the child). Though the Church has always had the stance that all abortion is sin.

There's no question that cells are alive, both scientifically and otherwise. Nor is it a matter simply of being alive - the carrots I had for lunch were alive, and I ate them that way without any difficulty; I do the same, occasionally, with oysters, and I've swallowed a few bugs, too, but none of that rises to the level of murder or other sin. Religious objections are concerned with human life in this matter, not with life in general.

Just clarifying.

294 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:15:32pm

re: #291 obdicut I'm not ready to dispose of Marriage as parochial and outmoded, however I'm also open to the fact that many people don't subscribe to my particular publication. So- we should take the financial insentive out of state sanctioned marriage, leave marriage to the Church to be defined as they want and if necessary put in place civil arrangements that protect the right of people to provide insurance and legal protections to those they love and provide for (be it children, significant others, parents...)

The roots of this problem go back to not diferentiating between a religious institution and the rights of citizens in a state.

295 DaddyG  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:16:15pm

re: #293 SixDegrees
HOW MANY VEGETABLES HAD TO DIE FOR YOUR LUNCH! /

296 reine.de.tout  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:17:03pm

re: #290 Locker

I respect your beliefs and the beliefs of others on this subject as long as you and or they aren't trying to make the decision for me. I see a lot of heat about the left pushing PC stuff on the masses and this would be the equivalent on the right, for me.

If someone is a pro lifer and doesn't want to get an abortion, great, don't get one but quit trying to take away the rights of other folks who may or don't share your particular views on the subject.

Not at all suggesting that's what you are doing, just commenting and I agree it doesn't make either side a "bad person" for having different beliefs and opinions.

I believe my best chance to reach someone is to live my life according to my beliefs, in hopes that it serves as an example that making difficult choices can be done.

Sort of like DaddyG here:
re: #292 DaddyG

I'll come to your front door and push those beliefs as long as I am welcome to come in and discuss them. ;-)

I won't try to force you to act in accordance to my beliefs through the legislature. (within a reasonable limit- don't ask me to legalize pot and hope high people use "good sense" about toking and driving).

297 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:17:05pm

re: #295 DaddyG

HOW MANY VEGETABLES HAD TO DIE FOR YOUR LUNCH! /

One of my evil pleasures is telling 'ethical' vegetarians how many animals had to die to bring them their avocado-and-sprout sandwich.

298 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:17:36pm

re: #291 obdicut

I used to object to the change in names as an unnecessary remnant of bigotry, but after talking with my gay friends on the subject, one of them made an excellent point:

Instead of seeing the change of a name as caving into bigotry and appeasing those who do not respect the rights of their fellow man and women as they should, you can see it as a just change in a name away from an old, parochial, outmoded system into a new one. Just as we ceased to be 'subjects' and became 'citizens', we can help redeem the tarnished institution in part by renaming it.

I thought that was an excellent way to look at it.

Indeed.

The key here is that everyone gets treated the same - gays don't get civil unions while straights get married, they all get civil unions. If you want a marriage, go talk to the church of your choice. Some will agree, some won't, but that's their business. The tax, inheritance and other legal restrictions and benefits that come from the state license are likewise no business of the church.

They're already two different things, but the same name is used for obvious historical reasons. Time to make the distinction explicitly clear.

299 Locker  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:19:42pm

re: #292 DaddyG

I'll come to your front door and push those beliefs as long as I am welcome to come in and discuss them. ;-)

I won't try to force you to act in accordance to my beliefs through the legislature. (within a reasonable limit- don't ask me to legalize pot and hope high people use "good sense" about toking and driving).

I want to legalize pot but I would expect that driving while intoxicated (on anything) that affects driving/motor skills would remain illegal and be enforced.

300 Basho  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:19:56pm

re: #6 researchok

Question: Should the government be funding the research or should the research costs be borne by private industry?

Government.

301 fert  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:22:37pm

re: #293 SixDegrees

You make my point. Embryos are alive in general scientific terms but not in the way science defines human life. To make a point callously, embryos are no more human (at the stage of harvesting) than carrots. Religion imparts humanity to the bunch of cells that would, if not kept somewhere they can prosper, would never turn into a human.

302 Basho  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:24:12pm

This thread has no downdings from individuals who think a clump of cells is a living, breathing, human being? I'm loving the new LGF.

303 Gus  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:26:15pm

re: #302 Basho

This thread has no downdings from individuals who think a clump of cells is a living, breathing, human being? I'm loving the new LGF.

Birther flounce downstairs.

304 Locker  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:27:50pm

My Dad cracked me up arguing this issue with my sister. He said (paraphrased):

Honey.. if you want to protect everything that "might" lead to a living human then you had better enforce mandatory consumption of bourbon because without it, you wouldn't be here right now.

That one always cracked me up.

305 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:35:03pm

re: #301 fert

You make my point. Embryos are alive in general scientific terms but not in the way science defines human life. To make a point callously, embryos are no more human (at the stage of harvesting) than carrots. Religion imparts humanity to the bunch of cells that would, if not kept somewhere they can prosper, would never turn into a human.

Scientifically, that bunch of cells is both alive and human; it's membership in the human species can be determined from it's genes.

The issue of viability can be a slippery one, and really doesn't belong in either realm. In my opinion - which isn't shared by all - it's mostly a practical matter; if a fetus couldn't survive on it's own without any sort of technological aid, I have few problems with it's destruction (with many caveats, but I'll keep it simple for now). This essentially means that prior to the third trimester - pretty much what the law now states - there's no problem.

But ultimately, this isn't an easy question to decide using either science or religion as a guide.

306 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:47:17pm

re: #285 SixDegrees

Nicely put!

307 Odahi  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 3:00:27pm

One interesting thing I read just the other day- scientists at Stanford University have been able to produce pluripotent stem cells from fat cells harvested during liposuction. Not only this, but there were many more stem cells produced in a much shorter time than the procedure to produce pluripotent stem cells from skin cells.
Source- December 2009 "Popular Science," page 23.
/I'm too lazy to link it.

308 cloud48  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 3:11:19pm

The issue of public financing of embryonic stem cell research has never been about science. Such research is not illegal, there are plenty of multi-billion dollar endowments (Harvard, Stanford, etc.) that can harvest embryonic stem cells to their hearts' content, and there is plenty of financial incentive (patents) to come up with anything worthwhile. I have seen no case made that embryonic stem cell research requires public funding to be viable. There is simply an unsupported assumption that if government doesn't do it no one will.

The issue is an abortion surrogate: should people with deeply held beliefs against killing human embryos, regardless of the possible advantage (think Dr. Mengele), be forced to pay for it against their will. With all the other forms of private funding available, public funding of embryonic stem cell research does not rise to the level of funding defense forces, for example, which also has conscientious objectors, but has no reasonable alternatives available, so compulsion is justified.

309 fert  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 3:14:14pm

re: #305 SixDegrees

Scientifically, that bunch of cells is both alive and human; it's membership in the human species can be determined from it's genes.

I have to say I have no concrete (personal) position as to when 'life' begins. Just to play devil's advocate for you, I've met two babies that were born before the beginning of the third trimester. Medicine/science has advanced so far as to save a 21-week old fetus. And with more research and effort, who knows how premature a baby can be before viability. [I assume that medical care after birth is ok since babies still rely on adults after birth]

But I do have enough of an understanding of science to want to reply very snarkily to your assertation that humanity is determined by genes. Humans have the DNA of lizards (and a lot of other organisms) in their introns (DNA that is not expressed, per se). If by chance, one of my armpit cells were to get cancer or something and mutate, it's not outside the realm of reason for that cell to grow into a lizard's tongue. I'd have a lizard's tongue hanging from my armpit. So our DNA ain't exactly 'intelligently designed' and isn't really that special. I don't think it can be used to qualify someone as human or not. Also, if I cut off a finger, it's as helpless as a baby and has my genes. I wouldn't eat it like a carrot but I wouldn't hold it a funeral either.

310 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 3:17:00pm

re: #288 myfriendwatson

Manhattan Declaration:

Although public sentiment has moved in a pro-life direction, we note with sadness that pro-abortion ideology prevails today in our government. The present administration is led and staffed by those who want to make abortions legal at any stage of fetal development, and who want to provide abortions at taxpayer expense. Majorities in both houses of Congress hold pro-abortion views. The Supreme Court, whose infamous 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade stripped the unborn of legal protection, continues to treat elective abortion as a fundamental constitutional right, though it has upheld as constitutionally permissible some limited restrictions on abortion. The President says that he wants to reduce the “need” for abortion—a commendable goal. But he has also pledged to make abortion more easily and widely available by eliminating laws prohibiting government funding, requiring waiting periods for women seeking abortions, and parental notification for abortions performed on minors. The elimination of these important and effective pro-life laws cannot reasonably be expected to do other than significantly increase the number of elective abortions by which the lives of countless children are snuffed out prior to birth. Our commitment to the sanctity of life is not a matter of partisan loyalty, for we recognize that in the thirty-six years since Roe v. Wade, elected officials and appointees of both major political parties have been complicit in giving legal sanction to what Pope John Paul II described as “the culture of death.” We call on all officials in our country, elected and appointed, to protect and serve every member of our society, including the most marginalized, voiceless, and vulnerable among us.

A culture of death inevitably cheapens life in all its stages and conditions by promoting the belief that lives that are imperfect, immature or inconvenient are discardable. As predicted by many prescient persons, the cheapening of life that began with abortion has now metastasized. For example, human embryo-destructive research and its public funding are promoted in the name of science and in the cause of developing treatments and cures for diseases and injuries. The President and many in Congress favor the expansion of embryo-research to include the taxpayer funding of so-called “therapeutic cloning.” This would result in the industrial mass production of human embryos to be killed for the purpose of producing genetically customized stem cell lines and tissues. At the other end of life, an increasingly powerful movement to promote assisted suicide and “voluntary” euthanasia threatens the lives of vulnerable elderly and disabled persons. Eugenic notions such as the doctrine of lebensunwertes Leben (“life unworthy of life”) were first advanced in the 1920s by intellectuals in the elite salons of America and Europe. Long buried in ignominy after the horrors of the mid-20th century, they have returned from the grave. The only difference is that now the doctrines of the eugenicists are dressed up in the language of “liberty,” “autonomy,” and “choice.”

Whole text is at [Link: www.manhattandeclaration.org...]

Like I said, doesn't say a thing about selling sperm that I see. Do I miss it?

311 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 3:19:45pm

re: #302 Basho

This thread has no downdings from individuals who think a clump of cells is a living, breathing, human being? I'm loving the new LGF.

Instead those people are discussing! Considering! Debating! And so is everyone else! It's lovely, innit?

312 Basho  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 3:21:46pm

re: #305 SixDegrees

Scientifically, that bunch of cells is both alive and human; it's membership in the human species can be determined from it's genes.

So can my toenails.

313 lrsshadow  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 3:50:40pm

Like it or not federal money used to harvest humans is not going to sit well with those who think that sort of thing is wrong. Not to mention how this will play out in the years to come. If they actually do produce viable treatments from embryonic stem cells (which seems unlikely at this point), does that mean it will now be profitable to sell your off spring in embryonic state at your local planned parenthood.

I for one believe this is a bad step and to play it off as a "great thing for science" is a tragedy. Those who are working with this science are finding success with a persons own genes as they are accepted by the body. This is why there are so many successful treatments in humans based on adult stem cell research and virtually no success on anything with embryonic stem cells.

An embryo is its own human being with its own set of genes unlike any others. Adult stem cells come from the person. Therefor it is there own genes and the cells are not rejected by the body as it is there own genes and cells. This is where we should be spending our federal dollars, on proven results, not on this Orwellian type of moral turpitude.

314 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 4:00:05pm

re: #313 lrsshadow

So, reading the thread didn't occur to you?

315 Tricho  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 4:02:52pm

Interesting biotech/bioethics stuff:

The looming crisis in human genetics

This paragraph,

In private, though, the more thoughtful GWAS researchers are troubled. They hold small, discreet conferences on the “missing heritability” problem: if all these human traits are heritable, why are GWAS studies failing so often? The DNA chips should already have identified some important genes behind physical and mental health. They simply have not been delivering the goods

made me think about epigenetics. Epigenetic control of oxytocin receptor genes, and of the the locus coeruleus (a brain structure) may be at least partially responsible for autism. Stem cells are under epigenetic control, I think this is the key to getting them to do what we want.

316 macirish  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 4:39:07pm

"... an opposition based entirely on irrational religious objections from the far right."


I'm surprised - you usually are more careful with your facts.


The Bush Administration decision about stem cell lines was based on careful consideration of many factors - not just 'irrational religious objections'.


Without beating a dead horse - the idea that scientists (or for that matter anyone) should be allowed free rein without any consideration of ethics is a dangerous road to travel.


Insisting that scientists obtain stem cells without destroying an embryo is not unreasonable. Now that they've crossed that line - what will be their next demand?

317 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 4:40:49pm

re: #316 macirish


Insisting that scientists obtain stem cells without destroying an embryo is not unreasonable. Now that they've crossed that line - what will be their next demand?

iPhones, probably.

318 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 5:16:47pm

re: #307 Odahi

One interesting thing I read just the other day- scientists at Stanford University have been able to produce pluripotent stem cells from fat cells harvested during liposuction. Not only this, but there were many more stem cells produced in a much shorter time than the procedure to produce pluripotent stem cells from skin cells.
Source- December 2009 "Popular Science," page 23.
/I'm too lazy to link it.

Exactly. Too bad the debate was ever framed in religious terms in the first place. i happen to lean gently right, but Bush's stance on this thing killed me. We're way, way ahead of the curve on ADULT stem cells. Why? Because private dollars go to where the results are and the results are in the adult stem cell sector, not the embryonic.

it should always have been a scientific argument about efficacy. now many of us forget to ask the question of where the dollars are best spent...embryonic or adult stem cells?

319 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 5:21:48pm

re: #309 fert

not only would the lizard tongue in the armpit be a tough thing to explain to a date, but i'd be forever cursing my luck to have missed out on a much more useful mutation..."i coulda had night vision...curses"

320 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 5:27:05pm

re: #316 macirish

Insisting that scientists obtain stem cells without destroying an embryo is not unreasonable. Now that they've crossed that line - what will be their next demand?

Yeah, those evil tricksy scientists. Gotta watch 'em. They're up to no good.

321 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 5:29:57pm

This is obviously another issue in which the right wing has completely accepted all kinds of ridiculous bogus talking points, without bothering to find out the facts.

Embryos used for stem cell research are primarily taken from excess fertilized eggs in fertility clinics. No "babies" are killed, and no embryos are destroyed for this purpose.

(I know I'm wasting my time pointing this out.)

322 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 5:36:05pm

re: #321 Charles

This is obviously another issue in which the right wing has completely accepted all kinds of ridiculous bogus talking points, without bothering to find out the facts.

Embryos used for stem cell research are primarily taken from excess fertilized eggs in fertility clinics. No "babies" are killed, and no embryos are destroyed for this purpose.

(I know I'm wasting my time pointing this out.)

You're probably right, but it can't be restated enough. To be opposed to embryonic stem cell research on purely moral grounds is to be either opposed to fertility clinics in near-unilateral fashion or to be hypocrite. I fear most fall into the latter camp, many without realizing it. Still, ignorance is a poor excuse for hypocrasy.

I oppose massive allocation of federal funds to embryonic stem cell research because i believe that it's a less effective path to stem cells. Note the term 'massive'...you never want to cut off funding entirely because then you lose the chance for a breakthrough that we didn't see coming down the pike.

323 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 5:37:50pm

re: #322 Aceofwhat?

you're probably right about wasting your time, i mean. you're definitely right about the other part. my lack of clarity brings me shame.

324 tank816  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 5:46:57pm

re: #163 Charles

You speak as if they're not often the same thing.

Opposition to or support of embryonic stem cell usage doesn't hinge on the science. It hinges on the ethical question of whether or not you think you're killing human beings. Science can offer definitions of viability and so on, but it can't touch the ethical question, any more than Science can offer us an answer as to whether animal testing is right or wrong. It comes down to a moral choice.

Bush may have used religion to justify his philosophical decision, but that doesn't mean there aren't non-religious reasons to oppose embryonic stem cell research.

325 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 5:51:25pm

re: #324 tank816

Bush may have used religion to justify his philosophical decision, but that doesn't mean there aren't non-religious reasons to oppose embryonic stem cell research.

Name one.

326 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 5:58:43pm

re: #324 tank816

but if you think it's killing human beings, you have to think that fertility clinics kill human beings daily. yet i see no public uproar over embryo disposal at fertility clinics. so...help me out here...

327 fert  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 6:01:56pm

re: #322 Aceofwhat?

I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment that adult stem cells are more useful. Might I point out that Dolly (cloned sheep) seemed okay for a while but then developed a bunch of diseases of old age while she was still young. Though advances in adult stem cell research has alleviated this problem some, I doubt you'd find many unbiased researchers who say that this phenomenon is not a problem for adult stem cells. Fisking your argument about the private sector a bit: of course companies aren't going to invest in a model system that is limited the way stem cell research has been. Science requires results to be repeatable. If no one else is working on your model system, no one is there to repeat and thus validate your results. Not to mention that companies receive federal funds and it's simply easier to work on adult stem cells (since you can use the same building, equipment, etc).

328 tank816  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 6:14:48pm

re: #325 Obdicut

A lot of the objections come into play before we even get to the research phase. They involve questions like, why are we creating embryos in excess of what's needed? How do we even get to this situation?

If you want to break things down into percentages, you could probably work up some formula regarding the chance the embryo could grow into a human being, and weigh that against the chance of that embryo becoming the key to some benefit to humankind, weight the amount of the benefit and weight how many people it would actually help, and if it would only help the rich or everyone. From there you could come up with some sort realistic projection and ask yourself what percentage you're comfortable with.

These are considerations anyone can make without saying something silly like, "THE BIBLE SAYS NO!!"

To put it another way: if Bush had come out and said his faith told him to expand embryonic stem cell research, using examples from the Bible, would that suddenly make anti-Bible thumpers rush out to condemn the practice?

I just feel there are people on both sides who are coming to knee-jerk, unreasoned opinions on the matter. One side because the Bible says so, the other side because they hear the word "Bible" and go nuts.

I just kinda wish the discussion would go beyond the biblical and really look at the ethics of it all. I should have said this from the beginning, but I'm kinda in a rush.

329 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 6:30:54pm

re: #328 tank816

A lot of the objections come into play before we even get to the research phase. They involve questions like, why are we creating embryos in excess of what's needed? How do we even get to this situation?

Because that's how in vitro works.


If you want to break things down into percentages, you could probably work up some formula regarding the chance the embryo could grow into a human being, and weigh that against the chance of that embryo becoming the key to some benefit to humankind, weight the amount of the benefit and weight how many people it would actually help, and if it would only help the rich or everyone. From there you could come up with some sort realistic projection and ask yourself what percentage you're comfortable with.

That's incredibly crazy. The chance it would grow into a human being is something determined by human beings. We could make that chance 0%. That's the whole point. It also says nothing whatsoever about making the woman who's embryo it is bear the child-- it might make some sort of claim at saving the embryo, but it is irrelevant to the concept of the woman not bearing it.


These are considerations anyone can make without saying something silly like, "THE BIBLE SAYS NO!!"

It was something else that was insanely silly, though. Should I clarify and say, "One good reason that actually makes sense and isn't crazy"?


To put it another way: if Bush had come out and said his faith told him to expand embryonic stem cell research, using examples from the Bible, would that suddenly make anti-Bible thumpers rush out to condemn the practice?

No, they'd behave exactly the same way; they'd evaluate it on the science.


I just feel there are people on both sides who are coming to knee-jerk, unreasoned opinions on the matter. One side because the Bible says so, the other side because they hear the word "Bible" and go nuts.

You're wrong. They're just as opposed to your crazy example of some Soviet planner demanding the woman give birth for the good of humanity.


I just kinda wish the discussion would go beyond the biblical and really look at the ethics of it all. I should have said this from the beginning, but I'm kinda in a rush.

I think it's very telling that you talked only about the ethics of the embryo, and not the ethics of the mother.

330 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 6:36:02pm

re: #327 fert

Actually, i don't know of any researchers who are concerned that cells we might produce from ourselves would be shorter-lived than the rest of the cells still dividing in our bodies. I'd love to read up on some, if you could put a link or two together.

And i only agree with your other paragraph in part. If embryonic stem cells were truly more promising, we would have seen more private money go that way. And where are the astounding foreign results? right. there aren't as many as you would expect.

331 st. louisville cards  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 6:56:20pm

Charles,
I've always noticed that you've tried to steer clear of big generalities and unqualified statements. Its a good trait, the extremes on the left and right make lots of statements that are full of half truths, generalities, etc. So that is why I find it a bit disappointing that you would perpetuate the Bush is Anti-Science Myth.
"one of the biggest disagreements I had with them was their blatant bias against scientific research"

You can disagree with Bush's stances on Embryonic Stem Cells and Global Warming, but that is the extent to which he is anti-science or anti-science research.
Just saying.

332 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 7:00:57pm

re: #331 st. louisville cards

That's not true. He inserted unqualified personnel at NASA and the EPA, as well. Funding went to unqualified institutions. He was anti-science, and where he wasn't anti, he didn't care or provide any leadership.

333 Ian MacGregor  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 7:01:22pm

re: #5 obdicut

The Catholic church stands in opposition to many of the practices at fertility clinics from in vitro fertilization to the destruction of embryos before or after implantation.

334 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 7:02:26pm

re: #333 Ian MacGregor

The Catholic church stands in opposition to many of the practices at fertility clinics from in vitro fertilization to the destruction of embryos before or after implantation.

Yes, you certainly hear about that all the time.

Did they refuse communion to Kennedy because he's supported-- as he has-- fertility clinics legal operations and ability to discard embryos?

335 St. Louisville Cards  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 7:16:01pm

re: #332 Obdicut

That's not true. He inserted unqualified personnel at NASA and the EPA, as well. Funding went to unqualified institutions. He was anti-science, and where he wasn't anti, he didn't care or provide any leadership.

Every Science Advisor to Bush (many of whom are Democrats) have said the opposite. It seems every couple weeks a former Bush policy, economic, etc advisor comes out and criticizes Bush. But not one science advisor has said a word.

John Marsburger is a democrat who advised Bush on Science. Here is his take on the issue:
[Link: seedmagazine.com...]
Neil deGrasse Tyson has said similar things.

336 fert  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 7:18:26pm

Here's an editorial regarding how far (which is not that far) adult stem cells are from being as pluripotent as embryonic stem cells are. Adult stem cells just don't differentiate the way embryonic stem cells do (though, again, there have and will be advances). It seems to me that a lot of scientific work is trying to make adult stem cells into embryonic ones to begin with. Not that this isn't worthwhile, understanding the 'stemness' of cells but it's adding another step to finding uses and cures.

I don't think you understand how crushing the federal ban was regarding embryonic stem cell research. I know it's kinda been covered elsewhere in the thread but repetition's not bad, right? If you were doing embryonic stem cell research, it was almost so bad that you couldn't even be in the same building as someone (not doing stem cell research) with federal funding. Most biotech, pharmas, and definitely universities have federal funding for research. The ban included paying for janitors and other overhead costs, you couldn't use the same pad of paper. Why oh why would it ever be cost-effective to jeopardize federal funding? And I bring up again that science requires validation through repetition, so why would the rest of the world work on a system that 1) they might have similar attitudes towards (not like Americans have very different mentality on this than the rest of the world), 2) no one else can repeat?

To read a bunch of abstracts (unless you're affiliated with a university or something) about any medical/biological research, go to pubmed. Any journal article that was even partially funded by federal money is required to be listed in this database. Two pay magazines that do a good job of blending science with readability: New Scientist, The Scientist.

337 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 7:20:58pm

re: #335 St. Louisville Cards

Every Science Advisor to Bush (many of whom are Democrats) have said the opposite.

Well, that's certainly an enormous surprise.

338 Ian MacGregor  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 7:56:21pm

re: #30 CommonCents

Well call me a religious whacko, but there must be moral questions on what science is performed? This is not a case where the science performed is amoral, and its results can be used for good or evil. The problem here is that the science results in the destruction of something human.
Yes it is just a blastosphere, but its what human beings look like at that stage of development.

I agree there is a counter-moral argument that the research may lead to cures of devastating diseases, but have not non-embryonic stem cells have been shown to be pluripotent, the necessity of taking human life seems to be gone.

There is something disturbing to me about creating and destroying human life with little or no thought of the moral implications.

This is not really a religious-right issue, though it is a more than fair bet that they would be against the practice. There are many who are against the practice who worked for the Obama campaign, and have in general a left-of-center philosophy.

I have mentioned that my daughter of 12 is a severely autistic and cannot communicate. There is a project starting where those with autism are being asked to donate skin scrapings, from which stem cells will harvested and those stem cells coached into neurons so we can tell what goes wrong in their development.

I will readily admit if embryonic stem cell research brought her a miracle cure, I would have no problems with employing it. So I'll await the onslaught of those rightly pointing out I'm a hypocrite. However, right now, it seems to me that embryonic stem cell research is looking for a reason to exist. Can we not tell if the differences exist without further destruction of life?

In don't think anyone really wants science unfettered by moral considerations. If yo do, then you would have no objections to the tortures performed at Nazi death camps where data was meticulously recorded on how long it took some prisoners to die excruciating deaths.

I am not comparing the destruction of a blastula to someone being boiled alive or frozen to death. Except to point out that again science needs to consider the morality of its experiments.

339 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 8:02:58pm

re: #336 fert

I have Medline, thanks. I'm good.

You're seeing the wrong side of the foreign coin. There is less competition from us; ergo, the research should be even more precious for the sake of achieving competitive advantage. So every franc not spent is an even bigger indictment of the limitations in that area.

Again, i'm not saying we shouldnt'be funding it. I'm just saying that we need to be spending more time on exactly what you and i are doing here...debating the approaches on their merits, not their morality. I think the embryonic side is a little overfantasized, but not worthless.

340 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 8:03:54pm

re: #338 Ian MacGregor

how do you feel about fertility clinics?

341 Quilly Mammoth  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 8:12:05pm

re: #336 fert

The problem seems to be that you can force an adult stem cell to take on a different role but you have to restrict an embryonic stem cell to do what you want. The first seems to be a case of forcing a donkey to move and the other a case of herding cats. Embryonic stem cells can be anything...hence their attraction. The problem is that they seem to have their own mind, so to speak, and often want to become cancerous, a trait not found as much in the the less willing adult stem cells.

The down side being that adult stem cells will never have the promise that embryonic ones do. Embryonic stem cell researchers need to make advances fast and a limited line will have divergences over the years (and shortly) that will make them unsuitable for research. On the other hand even non-fundamentalists have a bit of a bias against the idea that a conception resulting in an experiment is a good thing.

Hell, smart people oppose genetically engineered crops for far less of a reason.

On the gripping hand there are an amazing amount of conceived cell groups that will never come to fruition because the job they were created for, impregnating the difficult to conceive, has already been done. What is the difference between using them and flushing them down the toilet?

And that is where a wee bit of tact on the part of the scientific community would have been well served in this debate. Making the case that the cells would be destroyed anyway and this is the equivalent of organ donation is one thing. Instead, by and large, the people wanting to use embryonic stem cells for research have countered their opposition by calling the opposition Luddites or religious fanatics.

Trust me, the organ donation analogy works and the shrill calling of names hardens the heart of the opposition.

342 Ian MacGregor  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 8:14:56pm

re: #334 Obdicut

I think he is being refused because he stands in opposition to the teachings of the church; that is his not in communion with it, and therefore cannot partake of communion.

343 Ian MacGregor  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 8:27:38pm

re: #340 Aceofwhat?

I don't see anything wrong with in vitro fertilization. I do think the fertilization of ova where many zygotes or more developed embryos are implanted with the foreknowledge that may will be aborted wrong. I find the eventual destruction of those not implanted also wrong. I also think however if the destruction is to take place, if some good can come out of that, I'd rather see that than them just being discarded.

However we should be making the surplus in the first place.

344 Quilly Mammoth  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 8:34:59pm

re: #343 Ian MacGregor

I think you meant "we shouldn't be making the surplus in the first place."

I agree. That's the root of the debate as well as the making of the controversy. There's an awful lot of children needing adoption and octo-mom is the wrong way to go.

345 fert  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 9:28:54pm

re: #339 Aceofwhat?

I think we agree that both adult and embryonic stem cell research has merit. I would also agree with quilly mammoth that there're downsides to using embryonic stem cells. Ups and downs all around. But I'm gonna try one more time to convince you that the lack of private funding/foreign funding is not because there's less merit in embryonic stem cell research.
Biological scientists familiar with stem cell research believe that the US is behind because of the ban. So apparently does AP. So yeah, we're now behind. Here's another seemingly (I haven't gone through it all) informative website.

346 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 10:04:09pm

re: #342 Ian MacGregor

I think he is being refused because he stands in opposition to the teachings of the church; that is his not in communion with it, and therefore cannot partake of communion.

Right. So why didn't they do it over the issue of support for fertility clinics?

347 shmuli  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 5:30:18am

So there is another line. Big whoop. As if researchers working privately have not got enough lines or could not do whatever they wanted with the cells.

The Bush administration only halted Government FUNDING of embryonic related cell lines and research. Private research was unaffected, just as the State of CA stepped in with $Billions for embryonic research. Nothing anti-science there. The Bush administration decision was a moral and ethical one, informed by centuries of Judeo-Christian perspective. Hardly anti-science, unless you HAVE to believe that science and religion are in conflict.

Besides, embryonic research has produced little. Stem cell research and learning how to coax adult stem cells into responding has produced much more. Seems that to some, reasonable people cannot disagree without being labeled anti-science. Very tolerant, that.

348 aceofwhat?  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 6:15:36am

re: #345 fert

Sorry. Click through your website to a few blogs and you'll get around to what i'm talking about. Like this work in Wisconsin...[Link: www.medicalnewstoday.com...]

key excerpt...

"The resulting cells, says Thomson, are remarkably similar to embryonic stem cells and show the same capacity to proliferate indefinitely in culture and diversify into all the cell types of the human body.

"The recent discovery that adult cells could be reprogrammed to iPS cells that resemble embryonic stem cells opened up tremendous potential for regenerative medicine," says Marion Zatz of the National Institute of Health's National Institute of General Medical Sciences, which partially funded the new work. "However, the early methods posed significant risks in using iPS cells in a clinical setting. This latest discovery by Thomson's group of a new method for generating iPS cells without inserting viral vectors into the cells' genetic material is a major advance toward safely reprogramming cells for clinical use."

So, like i said. Money should go to where the results are. The majority of the results are not in the embryonic field. Reprogramming cells is by far the most promising science out there. Too many people are religiously opposed to embryonic stem cell research...and too many people appear to be nearly as fervent in their support.

349 robdouth  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 7:26:17am

With all due respect Charles, saying it's only kowtowing to religious right is misleading at best. There are those of us who aren't social conservatives per se, who aren't sure about the ethical side of stem cell research. I don't have all the answers, but I'm not a blind devotee of the religious right, and although they are the main drive of the push against stem cell research, it's erroneous to boil it down to one group of nutcases, just to make it easier to dismiss that side of the argument. I can't just defer to researchers, because they have a history of just going as far as they can, and not necessarily stopping as soon as there is a medical ethics dilemma. You're probably right, but you far to blase on your dismissal of the other side. Thanks for the forum to sound off on this.

350 StillAMarine  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 8:43:12am

The Bush bias against scientific research was my major disagreement with his policies. Geez, Charles, we really seem to think alike not only on this, but many other important issues.

351 fert  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 8:44:27am

re: #348 aceofwhat?

So what you're saying is that because there have been roadblocks to using embryonic stem cells to the point where most of the major discoveries in the US are using adult stem cells, this somehow proves that adult stem cells are more viable?

352 st. louisville cards  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:03:09am

re: #350 StillAMarine

The Bush bias against scientific research was my major disagreement with his policies. Geez, Charles, we really seem to think alike not only on this, but many other important issues.

Please reference my posts 331 and 335, the Bush anti-science line is simply a myth.
He was anti-stem embryonic stem cell research and from what I can tell he believed in global warming, but it was not a priority. Science and Science research funding doubled under Bush.

353 Charles Johnson  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:17:36am

re: #352 st. louisville cards

Please reference my posts 331 and 335, the Bush anti-science line is simply a myth.
He was anti-stem embryonic stem cell research and from what I can tell he believed in global warming, but it was not a priority. Science and Science research funding doubled under Bush.

If anyone is tempted to believe that the Bush administration was really "pro-science," I highly recommend reading this book:

The Republican War on Science

It's a real eye-opener, and all of Chris Mooney's claims and accusations are thoroughly documented. After you finish this book, you won't be able to honestly continue arguing that "the Bush anti-science line is simply a myth."

It's not a myth, it's absolutely true.

354 st. louisville cards  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:54:40pm

I'll take the word of a Neil deGrasse Tyson or a John Marsburger over a Chris Mooney any day.
I see 3 names in the sentence above, two are scientists at the top of their profession and one is a journalist who writes for predominately left wing magazines.

355 KyMouse  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 3:10:36pm

It's ironic that evangelical Christians are said to be ignorant of science, yet when it comes to the development of human beings in the womb, it is advocates of embryonic stem cell research (and abortion) who seem to believe that all of us sprang from our parents fully formed, like Athena. Science has long stated that the moment egg and sperm join forces, a new human being has started developing. I have a copy of the 4th edition of "The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology," from waaay back in 1988, and that's what it told medical students. Not seminary students, medical students.

After that moment of fertilization, each of us had our own DNA; only time and nourishment were needed to make us infants, toddlers, adolescents and adults. We could not be alive today if someone had taken our stem cells. But since human embryos don't have mouths with which to yell for help, or legs for running away, or hands to push away today's Dr. Mengeles, millions (probably billions) of them will now be killed in ever-greater numbers so that other human beings can benefit. Well, some of us still say that is unethical to kill these tiniest human beings without their consent for the benefit of others.

And in case you're wondering (or hoping), I have a chronic disease, the complications of which will probably kill me some day. Non-embryonic stem cell sources, such as adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood stem cells, have shown progress, while embryonic ones have not; in fact, some embryonic cell therapies have created dangerous tumors. Seventy-three therapies or treatments for diseases ranging from brain cancer to sickle cell anemia have been helped by adult stem cells (www.stemcellresearch.org).

A few comments here have mentioned fertility clinics. Any baby born through IVF is precious and of infinite value -- but so are their sibilings who are discarded as medical waste or sent off for research (during which many will die during the freeze/thaw process). If the "chosen" embryo is cherished as human, as a baby-on-the-way, why aren't the others? As one person has put it, "Those without the desired qualities are [considered to be] of no more value than any other raw material consumed in use. If these unfortunate embryos die in the freezer, they can be discarded with as much reverence as throwing out old ice cream."

IVF births, as precious as they are, involve many such deaths. IVF, like embryonic stem cell research and abortion, contribute to the idea that life has value and dignity only when it measures up to specific arbitrary conditions. Some of us still believe that we should not covet what belongs to our neighbor (that's one of those pesky Ten Commandments), and that everyone deserves a chance to live the lives they have begun.

356 [deleted]  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 3:20:05pm
357 wrenchwench  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 3:28:11pm

re: #355 KyMouse

Science has long stated that the moment egg and sperm join forces, a new human being has started developing.

Yes, but science does not confer "personhood." Laws do that. As the law stands, a blastosphere is not a person.

I am sorry that you have a disease. I am also sorry that you have a chip on your shoulder that makes you say, "And in case you're wondering (or hoping), I have a chronic disease, the complications of which will probably kill me some day." [Emphasis added.] People who hold opinions different from yours do not necessarily wish you harm. Do you wish harm on those who disagree with you?

358 Charles Johnson  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 3:33:19pm

Oh brother.

359 Basho  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 3:37:15pm

I heard a guy once used science to kill everyone. True story.

360 Obdicut  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:47:32pm

re: #354 st. louisville cards

I'll take the word of a Neil deGrasse Tyson or a John Marsburger over a Chris Mooney any day.
I see 3 names in the sentence above, two are scientists at the top of their profession and one is a journalist who writes for predominately left wing magazines.

Actually, Tyson doesn't produce scientific research. He's a popular scientist. A very good one.

But he's not at the top of his field in any sense.

361 St. Louisville Cards  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 7:29:46am

re: #360 Obdicut

Actually, Tyson doesn't produce scientific research. He's a popular scientist. A very good one.

But he's not at the top of his field in any sense.

Really? His position alone is the definition of being at the top of his field.
Is a General not at the top of his field because he isn't on the front lines of a war?


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Detroit Local Powers First EV Charging Road in North America The road, about a mile from Local 58's hall, uses rubber-coated copper inductive-charging coils buried under the asphalt that transfer power to a receiver pad attached to a car's underbelly, much like how a phone can be charged wirelessly. ...
Backwoods Sleuth
3 days ago
Views: 191 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 4