105 replies to this topic

[Forever21]

http://www.cnn.com/2...cell/index.html

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
-Bush-era policy on embryonic stem cell research to be reversed, officials say
-Many conservatives object to the destruction of human embryos
-Officials say the administration is planning a Monday event at the White House

[sUper GeNius]

"Why Embryonic Stem Cells Are Obsolete"

http://www.usnews.co...e-obsolete.html

Might be a better route to go rather than offend a quarter of the US population.

[niner]

Might be a better route to go rather than offend a quarter of the US population.

It doesn't seem like they had any qualms about offending us for the past 8 years. Maybe it's time, for the good of humanity, that we do offend them a bit. Of course, if Obama decided not to offend them, which would be a not surprising course for him to take, then you would be posting about how he "broke another campaign promise" and how the "fauns" were going to be so bummed out. Hard for a Dem to do anything right, isn't it?

[DJS]

"Why Embryonic Stem Cells Are Obsolete"

Lift the ban and let the researchers make these determinations.

Might be a better route to go rather than offend a quarter of the US population.

Oh, I'm all about offending that quarter of the US population. It's not exactly like their votes are up for grabs.

If Obama doesn't spike the ball in the end zone on this one, he's dead to me.

[forever freedom]

Finally. I'm glad i can find a few areas where i agree with Obama's decisions.

[Futurist1000]

Finally. I'm glad i can find a few areas where i agree with Obama's decisions.

I'm glad too about this specific decision.

However the push towards universal healthcare will likely severely bludgeon to death the innovative capacity of the US market. So what does it matter really?

The republicans may have had an anti-science agenda in many respects, but they at least allowed free market enterprises to continue to make the US a world leader in medical device/phramaceutical output. Europe and Canada are lagging way behind the US in many areas.

The democrats anti-business strategies will probably cancel out any good effect from unbanning the use of stem cells.

[AaronCW]

"Why Embryonic Stem Cells Are Obsolete"

http://www.usnews.co...e-obsolete.html

Might be a better route to go rather than offend a quarter of the US population.

The quarter, or whatever percentage, of the US population that would deny access to ESC on religious grounds deserves to be offended for their blatant disregard of reason and liberty, and whether ESC are less medically important or not is irrelevant. Bush did not ban ESCs, though he did place restrictions on Federal funding, and although I am opposed to Federal or state funding of any medical research (not related to the military) I still think that discrimination on the basis of religion (Bush's only motive in this case) is inappropriate.

However the push towards universal healthcare will likely severely bludgeon to death the innovative capacity of the US market. So what does it matter really?

The republicans may have had an anti-science agenda in many respects, but they at least allowed free market enterprises to continue to make the US a world leader in medical device/phramaceutical output. Europe and Canada are lagging way behind the US in many areas.

The democrats anti-business strategies will probably cancel out any good effect from unbanning the use of stem cells.

I agree; any socialization of medicine will have a punishing effect on the development and distribution of advanced medical R&D. I say this with a strong emphasis on the kind of scientific advancements that will be necessary to achieve the goals that we are all here to support.

[DJS]

Bush did not ban ESCs

Bush didn't have the political muscle to do that, however he did enact a ban on federal funding of ESCs. I can't imagine anyone who see themselves as a life extensionist viewing the previous adminstration's science policy as being a good thing.

[AaronCW]

Bush did not ban ESCs

Bush didn't have the political muscle to do that, however he did enact a ban on federal funding of ESCs. I can't imagine anyone who see themselves as a life extensionist viewing the previous adminstration's science policy as being a good thing.

Just to reiterate or clarify I said that it was a bad thing. Even though I do not support federal funding of medical R&D I do not think it is right to discriminate against federal funding of ESCR on the basis of religious motivations.

Edited by AaronCW, 07 March 2009 - 09:11 PM.

[Cyberbrain]

The ban has finally been lifted!

Obama ends stem cell funding ban

[Blutarsky]

Fantastic.

Now he can spend more of my money on projects that the private sector was unwilling to finance...

There are already viable treatments in production that were developed with adult stem cells, several of which are now in clinical trials. Seems as if lifting restrictions at this point, with all of the clear advancements in adult stem cell research, is purely political in nature. Either that or he just enjoys finding new ways to spend our money...

[Forever21]

Obama on stem cells

http://www.cnn.com/v...arch.entire.cnn

[eternaltraveler]

Now he can spend more of my money on projects that the private sector was unwilling to finance...

There are already viable treatments in production that were developed with adult stem cells

you know adult stem cell research has been heavily funded by the federal government, right?

[niner]

However the push towards universal healthcare will likely severely bludgeon to death the innovative capacity of the US market. So what does it matter really?

The republicans may have had an anti-science agenda in many respects, but they at least allowed free market enterprises to continue to make the US a world leader in medical device/phramaceutical output. Europe and Canada are lagging way behind the US in many areas.

The democrats anti-business strategies will probably cancel out any good effect from unbanning the use of stem cells.

In essence, your argument is: "If we don't let drug and medical device makers charge whatever enormous amount of money they want, they will all just fold their hands and stop working." I don't believe that's true. How do you know that it won't cause them to switch their efforts from making "incontinence clothing" (mentioned in the article you linked) to something that people would really be willing to pay for, like curing aging?

[sUper GeNius]

Finally. I'm glad i can find a few areas where i agree with Obama's decisions.

I'm glad too about this specific decision.

However the push towards universal healthcare will likely severely bludgeon to death the innovative capacity of the US market. So what does it matter really?

The republicans may have had an anti-science agenda in many respects, but they at least allowed free market enterprises to continue to make the US a world leader in medical device/phramaceutical output. Europe and Canada are lagging way behind the US in many areas.

The democrats anti-business strategies will probably cancel out any good effect from unbanning the use of stem cells.

You are correct. Those with limited understanding of capital markets don't understand the flow of capital. Take away profit, capital flows to a more profitable venture. One can attempt to direct capital. We call that a planned economy. Ask Russia about planned economies.

[jdgauchat]

"Why Embryonic Stem Cells Are Obsolete"

http://www.usnews.co...e-obsolete.html

Might be a better route to go rather than offend a quarter of the US population.

Stop blood transfusion, you can offend over 2 millions Jehovah's Witnesses!!!!

Come on man, religion has no common sense, we need to separate state from religion. No matter if government decision offend millions of people, the government need to take decisions based on knowledge, experience and common sense, not on religion beliefs.

[Futurist1000]

In essence, your argument is: "If we don't let drug and medical device makers charge whatever enormous amount of money they want, they will all just fold their hands and stop working." I don't believe that's true. How do you know that it won't cause them to switch their efforts from making "incontinence clothing" (mentioned in the article you linked) to something that people would really be willing to pay for, like curing aging?

???? Not sure what your talking about??? At least leave a link to back up any assertion you make. Are european governments with universal healthcare funding anti-aging research?

Medgadget mostly gets it right.

Of course the nominee plans call for more spending on top of a system that is already generating debt everyday. Given that the healthcare industry is already close to capacity, an infusion of approximately another 100 million people should, if the free market exists, drive through the roof the already high cost of medicine. This last sentence assumes that additional patients are actually additional consumers creating extra demand within the old supply/demand charts. In reality, instead of creating additional individual consumers that participate in the mechanics of the free market, the tendency, at least from the Democrats, is to lump these people and insure them through the government, creating the dreaded "single payer" entity that exists the world over. Just like a monopoly supplier that can set prices, the monopoly consumer has almost universal mandate powers to make manufacturers submit to its whim.

Moreover, a monopoly consumer in the form of an indebted state, where the legislation-writing individuals fear no personal loss (being neither patients receiving care, nor the ones that directly pay for it), have a much easier time of demanding cheap supplies, while having no scruples of limiting provided care. The result, given enough time, is a system where neither the patients nor medical suppliers are making any decisions anymore, but are mandated by the state to produce so many syringes at given prices for a stated population, and for the patient to receive this or that treatment and no more.

We believe there is a reason why the pages of Medgadget are dominated by American medical technology. We believe that is thanks to a multitude of independent manufacturers and suppliers, as well as the millions of unique individuals with different conditions, calculations of cost/benefit, and individually suited health insurance plans from hundreds of competing companies.

Edited by Futurist1000, 10 March 2009 - 03:54 AM.

[sUper GeNius]

Stop blood transfusion, you can offend over 2 millions Jehovah's Witnesses!!!!

That's about one half of one percent of the US population. Poor analogy for more than one reason.

Come on man, religion has no common sense, we need to separate state from religion. No matter if government decision offend millions of people, the government need to take decisions based on knowledge, experience and common sense, not on religion beliefs

All important decisions are based on ideology.

Incidentally, in reading some of Obama's statements today, he finished by stating that he made the decision based on the fact that a majority of Americans are in favor of the research. Suppose a majority were against?

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 10 March 2009 - 03:44 AM.

[jdgauchat]

Stop blood transfusion, you can offend over 2 millions Jehovah's Witnesses!!!!

That's about one half of one percent of the US population. Poor analogy for more than one reason.

Come on man, religion has no common sense, we need to separate state from religion. No matter if government decision offend millions of people, the government need to take decisions based on knowledge, experience and common sense, not on religion beliefs

All important decisions are based on ideology.

Incidentally, in reading some of Obama's statements today, he finished by stating that he made the decision based on the fact that a majority of Americans are in favor of the research. Suppose a majority were against?

OK, suppose that some day the majority will be against the blood transfusion. And now Obama according with your suggestion will ban transfusion right? Well, no. Because a government must be separate of religious belief. Government must follow, once again, a common sense, a human knowledge and experience. Thats teh ONLY way we can do the things right. But of course, our knowledge and common sense and experience is growing with us all the time, thats why ideology is present, as you said.

You are just playing with words trying to make your point. But finally your point is just that you want to stop the advance of human knowledge that is the only way we can preserve our lives.

I don't understand what are you doing on imminst.

Edited by macrojd, 10 March 2009 - 04:29 AM.

[sUper GeNius]

...the government need to take decisions based on knowledge, experience and common sense, not on religion beliefs

Sorry, these decisions aren't made like that at all. In fact, the elements you list are not sufficient to render a decision. One requires a belief, ethics, 'religious' or otherwise. If a majority of Americans were in fact against stem cell research, that research would probably not be funded, and rightfully so.

I don't understand what are you doing on imminst.

Is there one 'acceptable' line of thought for membership?

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 10 March 2009 - 04:48 AM.

[jdgauchat]

Is there one 'acceptable' line of thought for membership?

Its not about lines of thought, is about what we need to get our goal of immortality, and that is the improve of human knowledge. You are obviously against that task. That's why I don't understand what are you doing here. Without the improvement of our knowledge we wouldn't be able to achieve our goal, that simple. The research on stem cells not only allow scientist to understand stem cells, they will be working on the entire base of our structure. Everything start with a virgin cell. Understanding how that is possible we will improving our knowledge in ways than we never seen before. Why stop that? there is no reason, so if you want to stop the improvement of human knowledge my question is still there waiting for an answer: what are you doing on imminst?

[sUper GeNius]

Is there one 'acceptable' line of thought for membership?

Its not about lines of thought, is about what we need to get our goal of immortality, and that is the improve of human knowledge. You are obviously against that task. That's why I don't understand what are you doing here. Without the improvement of our knowledge we wouldn't be able to achieve our goal, that simple. The research on stem cells not only allow scientist to understand stem cells, they will be working on the entire base of our structure. Everything start with a virgin cell. Understanding how that is possible we will improving our knowledge in ways than we never seen before. Why stop that? there is no reason, so if you want to stop the improvement of human knowledge my question is still there waiting for an answer: what are you doing on imminst?

Sorry bud. If you want to make this forum one for mutual back-slapping, where everyone agrees with one another on every subject, then be my guest, it's pretty much an open forum. "Improving human knowledge" is not a goal subject to no limits, as Obama himself has said. Your "common sense" argument is ridiculous and useless; Dr. Mengele's "research" on live subjects made sense to much of the German population. Even today there is controversy as to whether that data **should** be used, even though it *is* useful. The **should** is the hint to your enlightenment on these subjects. Continue asking straw-man questions too if you like. The research in question is on fetal stem cells only. The quest for knowledge from stem cell research would continue either way. My point was made very clearly by my posts, and I made rebuttals to your less-than-cogent counter-argument. There is no need to defend my OP's la raison d'etre.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 10 March 2009 - 06:06 PM.

[DJS]

Dr. Mengele's "research" on live subjects made sense to much of the German population. Even today there is controversy as to whether that data **should** be used, even though it *is* useful. The **should** is the hint to your enlightenment on these subjects. Continue asking straw-man questions too if you like. The research in question is on fetal stem cells only. The quest for knowledge from stem cell research would continue either way. My point was made very clearly by my posts, and I made rebuttals to your less-than-cogent counter-argument. There is no need to defend my OP's la raison d'etre.

You must find the cognitive dissonance which comes from being an apologist for the religious right overwhelming. The question isn't whether our knowledge base would continue to grow at all if ESC research is kept off the table. The question is whether it would grow at the same rate, and also whether it would impose fundamental limits on the sorts of knowledge we can attain. Indeed, there are times when ethical consideration should impose constraints on scientific activities - but only when there are damn good reasons. And so far you haven't provided any reasons whatsoever, only a lame caution that we "might offend" a segement of the population that is clearly delusional and a road block to progress.

Furthermore, if you think that ESC research won't bear fruit, then provide evidence - solid evidence - to back up this position. And please understand that, even then, the purpose of this assessment wouldn't be to weigh said probability against some nonexistent moral worth of an embryo, but to decide whether pursuing such an agenda makes sense fiscally.

[DJS]

I mean, come on now, comparing Dr. Mengele's research to ESC research. Are you for real?

There are only two options in this case. Either you're clueless and really don't see the difference. Or once again you're practicing sophistry. Looks like a lose-lose, FM.

[sUper GeNius]

Dr. Mengele's "research" on live subjects made sense to much of the German population. Even today there is controversy as to whether that data **should** be used, even though it *is* useful. The **should** is the hint to your enlightenment on these subjects. Continue asking straw-man questions too if you like. The research in question is on fetal stem cells only. The quest for knowledge from stem cell research would continue either way. My point was made very clearly by my posts, and I made rebuttals to your less-than-cogent counter-argument. There is no need to defend my OP's la raison d'etre.

You must find the cognitive dissonance which comes from being an apologist for the religious right overwhelming. The question isn't whether our knowledge base would continue to grow at all if ESC research is kept off the table. The question is whether it would grow at the same rate, and also whether it would impose fundamental limits on the sorts of knowledge we can attain. Indeed, there are times when ethical consideration should impose constraints on scientific activities - but only when there are damn good reasons.

But there were good reasons. That a large portion of the American public found it abhorrent to spending their tax dollars on what they considered unethical and immoral is an entirely good reason. Bush allowed research to continue on existing lines. And there was the promise that breakthroughs could be made in adult stem cell research, (now becoming more evident,) thus allowing the the benefits to accrue without alienating a large percentage of the American public.

In fact, I am no apologist for the religious right, and am in fact in favor of stem cell research, but also favor compromise. But I am extremely critical of those that belittle the opinions and ideology of others, while at the same time, justifying their positions through ideology.

The Mengele example was perhaps inappropriate. Obama's statement on human cloning is much more useful here. The intelligentsia in this country, (and on this forum,) display hypocracy and imperiousness.

edit: One shouldn't sum it all up as having appealed to the "religious right." Catholics comprise about 25% of the American population, and lean left on many issues, including scientific issues. To dismiss this sentiment by attributing to the right is another tactic of US intelligentsia.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 10 March 2009 - 07:34 PM.

[sUper GeNius]

The number of Americans in favor of the ban is even larger than I thought. Four in ten are in favor of continuing the ban. Gee, that ignorant "religious right" has really grown in numbers, huh?

http://www.gallup.co...l-Decision.aspx

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 10 March 2009 - 07:49 PM.

[niner]

The intelligentsia in this country, (and on this forum,) display hypocracy and imperiousness.
... another tactic of US intelligentsia.

FM, what is it with your disdain for intelligence, education, or the "elite" as you sometimes describe them? Where the hell do you think progress comes from, the stupid? The ignorant? Where did this chip on your shoulder come from? Did you not go to college? Are you a high school drop out? Couple years of community college? Girlfriend run off with a doctor? Why all the negativity toward knowledge?

[sUper GeNius]

The intelligentsia in this country, (and on this forum,) display hypocracy and imperiousness.
... another tactic of US intelligentsia.

FM, what is it with your disdain for intelligence, education, or the "elite" as you sometimes describe them? Where the hell do you think progress comes from, the stupid? The ignorant? Where did this chip on your shoulder come from? Did you not go to college? Are you a high school drop out? Couple years of community college? Girlfriend run off with a doctor? Why all the negativity toward knowledge?

At the risk of providing attention to your idiocy Niner, *I* don't have disdain for 40% of the American public.

p.s. Have you considered my suggestion that you relinquish your position as Navigator? Just think, you could really let your hair down. You don't seem suited to the position. Just a thought...

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 10 March 2009 - 08:10 PM.

[DJS]

there are times when ethical consideration should impose constraints on scientific activities - but only when there are damn good reasons.

But there were good reasons. That a large portion of the American public found it abhorrent to spending their tax dollars on what they considered unethical and immoral is an entirely good reason. Bush allowed research to continue on existing lines. And there was the promise that breakthroughs could be made in adult stem cell research, (now becoming more evident,) thus allowing the the benefits to accrue without alienating a large percentage of the American public.

So now you're trying to claim that when it comes to ethical considerations, the political calculus of the day constitutes a "good reason"? Well, as a consequentialist I'll grant you that this is a valid position. I'm all about being pragmatic and easing up on principle if the effect is bringing us closer to our objectives. However in this case I don't see compromise as being in the best interest of life extensionism. In fact, I'm having a hard time even imagining what such a compromise would entail. The only thing which would make bio-conservatives happy is the US not conducting research on ESCs. That's not a compromise.

Sometimes in public policy there are winners, and there are losers. In bio-politics, techno-progressivism has been the loser for the past eight years. Now the shoe is on the other foot. The bio-cons can bitch and moan all they want, but this ship has sailed. In the scheme of things, ESC is a relatively minor (low visibility) issue for the general public. In a few weeks this story will go off of the front pages and the focus will once again be on the economy and foreign policy. Then (hopefully) the ethicists will come in under the radar and totally reverse eight years of bio-ethical idiocy.

The only people who will pay attention to all of the minutia involved in the reorientation of admin bio-ethical policy are people who really care about these issues. And odds are, those people aren't changing their minds (or votes) anyway. So your proposed strategy fails on both an ethical and practical level.

BTW, there are some other things which need to be corrected in your statement.

First, it is misleading to state that "Bush allowed research to continue on existing lines" because it fails to mention that the existing lines (for a number of technical reasons) were inadequate for research - this is common knowledge in the research community. So it was effectively a ban on federal funding (what a f-ing compromise, eh?)

Second, just because there has been some progress with ASC, this does not imply that ESCs have now been rendered obsolete. You have consistently perpetuated this non sequitor. Please stop doing this. I find formal fallacies irritating.

[eternaltraveler]

I'll repost what I posted on another forum regarding the problem of federal funding and how it really did result in a defacto ban on ESC, even "privately". I've probably posted something like this here on imminst at one time or another as well

This is no simple issue at hand. The problem with scientific research in this country is that just about every institution receives some kind of federal grants. For profit, not for profit, universities, you name it. So when there is a sweeping ban on the use of federal tax dollars for stem cell research it really does throw a wrench in the all of the existing machinery, because all of it is at least partially funded by the feds. That means if 1 federal dollar went to building an NMR machine or a science building from some federal grant for studying the mean airspeed velocity of a fully laden swallow, you couldn't do stem cell research there.

In order to do legal stem cell research one would have to build an entire separate facility essentially only for stem cell research at enormous cost when all the rest of your science can share resources. This really slowed things down a lot in the private and public sectors.

Of course the fundamental problem was that federal government put itself in this position to begin with where the seemingly somewhat innocuous act of withholding public funding can so cripple an industry and innovation.