Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In addition to signing an executive order overturning the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, President Obama also signed a presidential memorandum, which administration officials claim will be "aimed at insulating scientific decisions across the federal government from political influence"...Geez, what a concept, policy based on science instead of fundie superstition.
Look, I dont care if private research goes on towards stem cell research. I just believe it is wrong to put federal funds towards something that some people are morally opposed to. It does not mean it is right or wrong, just plain wrong.
After all, I dont think democrats and republicans would be jumping up and down to have the federal goverment provide firearm safety and shooting classes for their elementary and junior high children.
I can go on and on about genetic problems? Uh, hello! Isn't that a serious issue? What, you'd want to be treated with cells that might have an undiscovered genetic mutation? In many cases, those embryos are created through sperm or eggs that have been donated for money. Not a chance I'd want to take with my body.
The article I posted from the NIH outlined the great promise adult stem cells show AND since they come from one's own body, the body won't reject the transplant. Sorry, but common sense overrules political posturing, IMO. And if you actually READ the entire article I posted, you would have seen that scientists believe the adult stem cells CAN be turned on to mimic other cells. This is precisely what they're trying to do.
Adult stem cells are also like to contain genetic mutations. If we want to use common sense then look at the chemical means by which an adult stem cell needs to be treated to morph into a specific cell type. The treatment of the cells is meant to alter their genetic switches a process by which uncontrolled cell growth (you may call it cancer) is a likely by product. hESCs on the other hand MAY require less invasive cues to be turned on indicating less likely secondary problems.
I would suggest that you actually study the proposed mechanisms that hESCs will be formed for personalized medicine. You may have a change of heart in terms of the science behind the matter.
And I answer you again: Because it's VERY RISKY! OF COURSE the universities are excited -- this will mean BIG BUCKS for their facilities! The competition for research money is FIERCE.
Look, I live with this sort of decision-making and I RESENT the politicization of it. A couple of years ago, my doctor recommended that I try an experimental drug since my current drug combo wasn't arresting my disease well enough. I took the info home and discussed it with my family. My kid said he'd rather have a crippled mum than a dead mum. The potential side effects were, indeed, gruesome. I decided against it.
Good thing. Within a year after I made this decision, the drug was pulled from consideration as a treatment for my disease because of an unacceptable number of deaths associated with it. Some patients developed a serious brain infection for which there was no cure and they died.
And that was a medication delivered via infusion therapy. Implanting someone else's cells with the expectation that they will grow normally to become the type of cells needed, without complication, is tremendously risky for people who already have serious diseases. How many people are they going to kill in the process of "getting it right" or discontinuing the treatment?
You are free to make your own decisions regarding the treatment that you receive. Other people would like to have the decision to use experimental drugs possibly including hESC treatment. So you should think that your opinion outweighs theirs, especially when the support for hESC research by the public well outweighs the opponents.
Look, I dont care if private research goes on towards stem cell research. I just believe it is wrong to put federal funds towards something that some people are morally opposed to. It does not mean it is right or wrong, just plain wrong.
After all, I dont think democrats and republicans would be jumping up and down to have the federal goverment provide firearm safety and shooting classes for their elementary and junior high children.
I am morally opposed to the war in Iraq. We still spent a lot more money over there then we ever will studying hESCs
the russian war planes sat idol rusting on the ukrainian runway. without money high tech is utterly meaningless. russian longevity fell like a stone when their infrastructure collapsed, doctors wont work for free. stem cell runs on money, we are broke.
I agree, but you're wasting your time arguing with that person, he's a lost cause, probably a troll, or just a total wingnut.
BTW, thanks for starting this thread. I'm delighted that science will now be treated with the respect it deserves, and not subjected to the myths of creationism and voodoo science ("intelligent design") of evango-fascist wingnuts. Science has given us our high standard of living, relegated many deadly diseases to historical footnote, and given us a life expectancy that people only dreamed of a hundred years ago. That goes for not only for the medical sciences but for all the other science and engineer professions.
It should infuriate all Americans that clowns like James Dobson and Pat Robertson were able to hold science hostage to their twisted views and that we had a Presidential administration that was their partner in such a crime.
Day by day, Obama is cleansing the USA of our stain as laughing stock of the world, as it was under Bush-43.
What a WONDERFUL and TRUE post.
Thanks! I love reading your posts.
And you are right, day by day, Obama is impressing more and more. I wish him the best and hope he makes more decisions to help us!
Calling people who don't support massive federal funding of stem cell research, "fundies" and "right wing nuts," etc. doesn't change the whole picture.
With regards to the massive federal funding argument I would like to point you to the research that indicates there are very few alternative to public funding of medical research that are as stimulative. The following article was sent to me by a colleague a while back and I found it a fascinating and well researched assessment.
Since no one will probably open it or make it all the way through I will highlight the following few lines:
Eliminating deaths from heart disease would generate approximately $48 trillion in economic value while a cure for cancer would be worth $47 trillion. Even a modest 1 percent reduction in cancer mortality would be worth about $500 billion. Unless costs of treatment rise dramatically with the application of new medical knowledge, these estimates indicate that
the social returns to investment in new medical knowledge are enormous.
If the potential financial gain isn't enough. There are also several studies that indicate up to $1.50 back for every federal dollar spent on medical research.
With regards to the massive federal funding argument I would like to point you to the research that indicates there are very few alternative to public funding of medical research that are as stimulative. The following article was sent to me by a colleague a while back and I found it a fascinating and well researched assessment.
Since no one will probably open it or make it all the way through I will highlight the following few lines:
Eliminating deaths from heart disease would generate approximately $48 trillion in economic value while a cure for cancer would be worth $47 trillion. Even a modest 1 percent reduction in cancer mortality would be worth about $500 billion. Unless costs of treatment rise dramatically with the application of new medical knowledge, these estimates indicate that
the social returns to investment in new medical knowledge are enormous.
If the potential financial gain isn't enough. There are also several studies that indicate up to $1.50 back for every federal dollar spent on medical research.
A study validating the need for federal funding conducted by recipients of said federal funding.
Liberal self preservation at it's finest.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
