3 votes
Posted 10 March 2009 - 10:12 PM
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
Posted 10 March 2009 - 10:27 PM
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.
Edited by DJS, 10 March 2009 - 10:29 PM.
Posted 10 March 2009 - 11:02 PM
The fact of the matter is that there is a federal government and (in all likelihood) it is going to continue existing for the foreseeable future. It spends a helluvalot of money. And if it's going to spend spend spend, it might as well do it on a worthy cause like ESC.
Posted 11 March 2009 - 01:27 AM
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 macrojd, 11 March 2009 - 01:45 AM.
Posted 11 March 2009 - 01:39 AM
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
OK. I ask you why are you here. Your answer should be "cause I want to be immortal". But I didn't hear it. So, I suppose that you are here because you want that. Then, the next question (and I really want you to answer this question, please) is "how do you think you gonna get it?"
Answering this question you will see what the problem is. You are against the improvement of the human knowledge that is the ONLY way we can get our goal. That means that we need not only to make a lot of research on stem cells, we must develop techniques to change our DNA, to create new tissue, to change our material structure. And in order to do that we will need to work in areas that millions and millions of religious people will refuse to support. If you are against the research on stem cells you will be really horrified when we'll start to create virus and enzymes that change our DNA or perform changes on the chemistry of the cells of a adult human being, just to name some examples.
I don't know what do you want, but on that way you will only find dead and the end of your existence.
Posted 11 March 2009 - 01:52 AM
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
OK. I ask you why are you here. Your answer should be "cause I want to be immortal". But I didn't hear it. So, I suppose that you are here because you want that. Then, the next question (and I really want you to answer this question, please) is "how do you think you gonna get it?"
Answering this question you will see what the problem is. You are against the improvement of the human knowledge that is the ONLY way we can get our goal. That means that we need not only to make a lot of research on stem cells, we must develop techniques to change our DNA, to create new tissue, to change our material structure. And in order to do that we will need to work in areas that millions and millions of religious people will refuse to support. If you are against the research on stem cells you will be really horrified when we'll start to create virus and enzymes that change our DNA or perform changes on the chemistry of the cells of a adult human being, just to name some examples.
I don't know what do you want, but on that way you will only find dead and the end of your existence.
My existence, (and yours) is overrated. That's not to say I wouldn't like to choose my own time and place for my demise. Seriously though, I don't see how you can confuse my position with one who is against the pursuit of knowledge. I have made some effort in making my position clear.
Posted 15 March 2009 - 10:37 PM
Posted 16 March 2009 - 01:23 AM
I thought many of you actually had a scientific background. I guess I was sorely wrong.
Lifting the ban on embryonic stem-cell research is a waste of money. Many prominent scientists already believe it is a waste of time and will only slow us down. It is also dangerous. Every attempted implemented therapy with these cells has been disastrous. It is all political in nature rather than scientific, yet here we have people who so-called know about science praising it. HAHA
Why wouldn't we just focus all our MONEY and RESOURCES on adult stem-cells which have been proven viable ALREADY...
You guys are crazy to think this is a good thing for science. It is a slow-down step backwards, undoubtedly!
Posted 16 March 2009 - 02:10 AM
We need to go with whatever works, without being encumbered by delusional moral/ethical standards.
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-226179President Obama's support of embryonic stem-cell research is a tragedy of errors that will prove to be one more hugely expensive mistake that will push us all deeper into bankruptcy for generations to come.
Human embryos are designed with one purpose in mind - to build a complete human being. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are designed to rebuild damaged cells, tissues and organs, a job which they perform well.
When human embryonic stem cells are injected into lab rats, they produce tumors. When the tumors are examined, hair, bone, teeth and eye cells, among others, are discovered. In other words, what the embryonic stem cells are designed to do - create these things, they attempt to do, but without the order that would take place if they were part of a developing fetus.
So what the bio-engineering firms are trying to do at the tune of billions of dollars is get embryonic stem cells to stop behaving like they were designed to behave, and start behaving like adult stem cells. What is absurd and draconian about such a comedy of errors is that we the people once again are expected to pick of the tab for supporting such folly. And the method used to further and perpetuate such folly is a public campaign of misinformation and faulty science.
Since the average person assumes that scientists know what they are doing, scientists under the Obama administration appear to be on the edge of victory, being given government approval and most likely government funding for their unnecessary and potentially exploitative misuse of human embryos in the process.
A large number of research studies that indicate adult stem cells, which the body produces from bone marrow, can accomplish everything that embryonic stem-cell researchers claim and promise they can deliver, given enough money and time. Yet these pertinent and valuable studies have largely been ignored, because they threaten the livelihoods and endowments that the embryonic stem cell research organizations depend on to survive.
There is even a capsulated form of adult stem cell stimulator that has been available for several years now that can be ordered online. Due to FDA restrictions on non-approved products, however, the product can only be sold at the present time as a nutritional supplement, even though it received US Patent #6814961 as a "Method for enhancing stem cell trafficking".
The Abstract reads as follows:
Abstract
Consumption of blue-green algae, or extracts thereof, enhances trafficking or homing of stem cells in animals by inducing a transient increase in the population of stem cells present in the animal's circulatory system. The animal may be healthy or suffering some disease or physiological condition.
Posted 16 March 2009 - 04:02 AM
We need to go with whatever works, without being encumbered by delusional moral/ethical standards.
You are taking a philosophical viewpoint indeed. I say this because you didn't post anything scientific at all within your post. If you would do more research "DJS", you would not care for furthered research with embryonic stem cells. This is fact.President Obama's support of embryonic stem-cell research is a tragedy of errors that will prove to be one more hugely expensive mistake that will push us all deeper into bankruptcy for generations to come.
iReport.com is a user-generated site. That means the stories submitted by users are not edited, fact-checked or screened before they post.
Posted 16 March 2009 - 04:42 AM
If you would do more research "DJS", you would not care for furthered research with embryonic stem cells. This is fact.
I suggest you learn a little about this so-called "debate" before posting anymore nonsense.
On behalf of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, we applaud the orders issued by President Obama today.
By easing restrictions on federal support for embryonic stem cell research, the president's decision can hasten progress through stem cell research to treat disease and ease suffering.
Posted 16 March 2009 - 06:00 AM
A large number of research studies that indicate adult stem cells, which the body produces from bone marrow, can accomplish everything that embryonic stem-cell researchers claim and promise they can deliver, given enough money and time. Yet these pertinent and valuable studies have largely been ignored, because they threaten the livelihoods and endowments that the embryonic stem cell research organizations depend on to survive.
luv2increase: What is a "delusional moral/ethical standard" anyways?
Posted 16 March 2009 - 04:01 PM
The line of reasoning you're presenting here is confused on a number of levels.
First, it fails to realize a very basic aspect of scientific research. It's results driven. If a reasonable amount of effort is invested in a line of research and there are no positive results, then that line of research is dropped.
Posted 16 March 2009 - 05:03 PM
How are you going to evade this one DJS?
We need to go with whatever works, without being encumbered by delusional moral/ethical standards.
For anyone who is pro-science, lifting restrictions and allowing scientists maximum flexibility in pursuing their research agendas is a no-brainer.
Posted 16 March 2009 - 05:50 PM
Posted 16 March 2009 - 09:27 PM
Obviously a techno-progressive such as myself would disagree with a number of statements made by luv2 such as, "no positive results have been attained with ESCR"
My basic claim is that eliminating restrictions on scientific research is usually a good thing, and that eliminating restrictions on ESCR is definitely a good thing. Unencumbered researchers are more creative researchers.
Edited by luv2increase, 16 March 2009 - 09:30 PM.
Posted 17 March 2009 - 03:21 AM
Ok, then list the positive things that has arisen out of ESC.
We need to go with whatever works, without being encumbered by delusional moral/ethical standards.
For anyone who is pro-science, lifting restrictions and allowing scientists maximum flexibility in pursuing their research agendas is a no-brainer.
luv2: All you have is the "blind" agreeance with researchers who are going to be rich in working on a dead-end project (ESCR) for years to come.[/u] It is kind of like trying to find a cure for diseases when all that needs to be researched is finding the prevention from the diseases in the first place. That would be better for humanity, yet you agree with the same industry who has robbed people for many years...
Creative researches who are getting paid much money are ones that really want to get things accomplished at an express rate to huh? lol This will be another thing like the research on curing AIDS. How much money have we put into that? All the modern technology, research & know-how with the brightest minds on the job making millions upon millions for over 2 decades now still can't find the cure to AIDS.
Techno, what you along with the "few" other scientists are proposing
Posted 17 March 2009 - 03:58 AM
Posted 17 March 2009 - 06:00 PM
LEADING scientists last night rejected a new 'ethical' stem cell technique insisting it would do nothing to annoy fundamentalist Christians.
This woman is just begging to be annoyedThe new method takes human skin cells and makes them behave like embryonic stem cells in a breakthrough that has disappointed researchers across the globe.
But Professor Henry Brubaker, of the Institute for Studies, said: "I did not spend eight years at university just to adopt research methods that do not annoy the holy living shit out of the Jesus freaks.
"I got into this business to take science and rub it in their stupid, medieval, voodoo faces and I'm not about to give that up now.
"It always puzzled me why they got so annoyed given that the embryo in question had no brain or nervous system and how to the untrained eye it was impossible to tell if was a human or a sea horse.
"Nevertheless they would open up their bibles and point to the bits about the sanctity of this and the holiness of that and I'd point to the bit about how it's forbidden to eat cormorants."
Professor Brubaker said he and his colleagues liked to play with the tiny embryos and would often use them to act out scenes from the New Testament including the Sermon on the Mount and the feeding of the five thousand.
The professor stressed that stem cells will also have a wide range of clinical uses with the exception of bringing someone back to life after they have been nailed to a cross, 'because that's just a dangerously insane fairy story'.
He added: "If only I could find some way of manipulating the embryo to make it gay."
Posted 17 March 2009 - 06:39 PM
I think a little comic relief is in order.
Posted 17 March 2009 - 10:44 PM
Fear mongering (or scaremongering) is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated, and the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this tactic, sometimes in the form of a vicious circle.
Political Uses
Fear mongering is often used in wartime, as a political tactic to frighten citizens and influence their political views. Fear mongering in the United States surfaced most prominently during the era of McCarthyism[citation needed], when the nation first faced the threat of possible nuclear attack. Since then, politicians and pundits alike have realized and utilized the powerful influential impact that fear can have on American voters[citation needed]. Some allege that fear of violent acts of terrorism since the September 11th 2001 attacks were exploited by politicians to maintain their control of the U.S. House of Representatives, Senate, and Executive branches of the government.[citation needed] Similarly, participants in the debate over man-made global warming have been accused of using tactics of fear-mongering in order to promote their own environmentalist agendas.[1] Those skeptical of man-made causes of global warming assert that although there is still no scientific consensus on the cause or causes of global warming, politicians have resorted to fearmongering in order to sway public sentiment toward governmental and regulatory solutions.[2][3]
Campaign Advertisements
Probably the best-known example in American politics is the Daisy television commercial, a famous campaign television advertisement beginning with a little girl standing in a meadow with chirping birds, picking the petals of a daisy while counting each petal slowly. When she reaches "9", an ominous-sounding male voice is then heard counting down a missile launch, and as the girl's eyes turn toward something she sees in the sky, the camera zooms in until her pupil fills the screen, blacking it out. When the countdown reaches zero, the blackness is replaced by the flash and mushroom cloud of a nuclear explosion.
As the firestorm rages, a voice-over from Johnson states, "These are the stakes! To make a world in which all of God's children can live, or to go into the dark. We must either love each other, or we must die". Another voice-over then says, "Vote for President Johnson on November 3. The stakes are too high for you to stay home". [4]
Product Advertisements
Advertisers have also entered the arena with their discovery that "fear sells". Ad campaigns based on fear, sometimes referred to as "shockvertising", have become more and more popular in recent years. Fear is a strong emotion and it can be manipulated to steer people into making emotional rather than reasoned choices. From car commercials that imply that having fewer airbags will cause your family harm, to disinfectant commercials that show bacteria lurking on every surface, fear-based advertising works.[5] While using fear in ads has generated some negative reactions by the public, there is evidence to show that "shockvertising" is a highly effective persuasion technique, and over the last several years, advertisers have continued to increase their usage of fear in ads in what has been called a "never-ending arms race in the advertising business".[6]
Posted 17 March 2009 - 11:01 PM
I am sad that you can't come up with anything positive that has arisen out of embryonic stem cell research as of yet. That is the key here. Let's focus on that point instead of the other rubbish you are attempting to dilute this discussion with.
We need to go with whatever works, without being encumbered by delusional moral/ethical standards.
Lifting the ban on federal funding is a good thing because it grants researchers the freedom to scientifically determine what are and what are not promising lines of research.
For anyone who is pro-science, lifting restrictions and allowing scientists maximum flexibility in pursuing their research agendas is a no-brainer.
Posted 18 March 2009 - 04:29 PM
Luv you can't help it. All of your arguments are religious ones.
Edited by luv2increase, 18 March 2009 - 04:31 PM.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Community Forum Software by IP.Board
Licensed to: ImmInst.org
