|
|
| Author |
Message |
kathyjm
Noticably Flawed
Joined: 17 Sep 2003
Posts: 702
Location: California
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 5:08 pm Post subject: The stem cell issue |
 |
|
Eh, it's just a political tool.
Evidence for adult stem cell is MUCH more promising than evidence for embryonic stem cells and cord blood stem cells need more research as well.
And yes, scott you are right. ALL stem cell research is legal...just federal funding not going forward for NEW families of embryonic stem cells... there is federal funding for the lines that bush approved.
I think instead of letting it become a political issue, all the supporters of embryonic stem cell research should put their money where there mouths are!
OH, FTR... I'm not necessarily against it, but I also don't see the need for it. I think we could do much more research on adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells... plus the christian side of me just thinks it's crazy that we want a cure for everything... and I have my daughter that I live with daily where I wish there was a cure..but there's not, and that's gods plan and I accept that and I accept the blessings that come along with it as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kathyjm
Noticably Flawed
Joined: 17 Sep 2003
Posts: 702
Location: California
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 5:09 pm Post subject: The stem cell issue |
|
|
OH, duh..that last paragraph is supposed to say I'm much more interested in adult stem cell and CORD BLOOD stem cells!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Elizabeth
Noticably Flawed
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 641
Location: East of Chicago, West of NYC
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 6:50 pm Post subject: The stem cell issue |
|
|
| Quote: |
| plus the christian side of me just thinks it's crazy that we want a cure for everything... |
With respect, as a non-religious person, I just don't get this. Why isn't it "God's plan" that we cure diseases?
I honestly don't know enough about the science to argue the benefits of adult/cord vs. embryonic stem cells. However, I think that the main issue comes down to do you believe in science or not. I believe in science and I believe that the government has a vital interest in funding science. Enough respected scientists say that it's worth exploring and that's good enough for me. I really don't have ethical issues with it at all, frankly. Same with therapeutic cloning. No, I do not believe in reproductive cloning. But I don't see the problem with using skin cells to create, say, a liver or whatever can be done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kathyjm
Noticably Flawed
Joined: 17 Sep 2003
Posts: 702
Location: California
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 7:43 pm Post subject: The stem cell issue |
|
|
Well, please understand that this is MY belief and I hope I didnt send the message that you should have my belief. As as Christian, I do believe we are living God's will. I believe we are all blessed...sometimes those blessings are good blessings, and sometimes they're blessing that are difficult to understand but in the end they are part of God's plan and that's something that I accept. I dont believe that we will ever cure everything that afflicts us. If it's part of the Lords will to find cures, we will (and have for some things). Heck if you're going to take a non religous view, than wouldn't you beleive that illness is population control and part of evolution?
The main point of my post, however, was that we should understand that this whole stem cell research issue in politics is just that, a political tool. Kerry has made some very outrageous claims that prey on people's emotions in regards to stem cell research (that doesn't mean bush hasn't done the same on other issues) to get himself more votes.
He wants people to believe that stem cell research is a cure and that bush is blocking that. The TRUTH is that there are different kinds of stem cell research (adult, embryonic, cord blood). Bush has not put a stop to any of the research, in fact he has funded stem cell research, even embryonic research. But for the embryonic research, he has only funded particular lines of stem cells (22). Kerry would have you believe there are cures with embryonic stem cells...well, that hasn't been proven to date. To date, adult stem cells have had more positive results (and are already being used in some treatments). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prescott
Community Techie
Joined: 21 Apr 2002
Posts: 3347
Location: Outside your window
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 7:44 pm Post subject: The stem cell issue |
|
|
Dammit, Elizabeth, we were *so* close to completely agreeing on a point! 
I'm nodding my head at everything you are saying, except that "the government has a vital interest in funding science". Except for military R&D, I would have to disagree.
I want the government as far away from science as possible. The stipulations and requirements with government grants restricts individual's innovation and ideas. IMO, science is unfettered in the free market. 3M has come up with more innovation than any government agency ever will. I'm trying to think of some major scientific breakthroughs (outside of space exploration) that are responsible solely because of government funding, and I can't think of any.
And when I hear on the news that a study, funded by a government grant, finds that too much coffee makes you jittery, or that regular exercise just may be good for you, I absolutely freak out at the waste of money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Elizabeth
Noticably Flawed
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 641
Location: East of Chicago, West of NYC
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 9:02 pm Post subject: Re: The stem cell issue |
|
|
| prescott wrote: |
Dammit, Elizabeth, we were *so* close to completely agreeing on a point!
I'm nodding my head at everything you are saying, except that "the government has a vital interest in funding science". Except for military R&D, I would have to disagree. |
LOL!
Well, it seems that we are in agreement when it comes to religion vs science, but our political philosophies aren't the same. Who knew? 
All I know is that the scientists doing this reseach say that they need government money, and I have no reason not to believe them. I would argue that if you leave all scientific research up to the market, everything is skewed in favor of what's the most profitable rather than what is most needed. I don't think the profit motive is always for the good. We can debate that one until the cows come home, and I doubt we'd ever agree.
As to who is playing politics with this issue, I'd say that Bush is yet again pandering to his base in the religious far right rather than listening to scientists. The lines of cells that Bush allowing to be funded are of limited usefulness. The lines are dying out. It is also false to claim that adult stem cells are the equivelent of embryonic cells. They can't be cultured the same way and can't be made into different cell types (neural, blood, tissue and so forth) the way embryonic cells can. Bush isn't making your argument, Scott, that government shouldn't fund scientific research at all, which seems to me to be a more traditional Republican point of view. Just not the kinds he doesn't like, or more importantly that the Christian coalitian doesn't like. 
This is the same guy who says that the jury is still out on evolution, for godssakes. That, to me, signals someone who is not "reality based" to use the administration's own term. It also tells me that he does not make science a priority, and that to me is just plain wrong.
Last week I went to the Kerry rally at Carnegie Mellon and his comments on stem cell research got *HUGE* applause. Not because he made claims that cures were right around the corner -- he didn't, and doesn't, that's yet another distortion -- but because, I think, people are just so pissed off at the anti-science people wanting to control science. I for one am just sick to death of Ralph Reed and Rick Santorum and all the rest of those sanctimonious assholes and I just wish they would go away and leave the rest of us alone.  This issue has become emblematic of that feeling to many people, I think.
I found this quite informative:
http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/stemcells/facts.html#5 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kathyjm
Noticably Flawed
Joined: 17 Sep 2003
Posts: 702
Location: California
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 9:40 pm Post subject: The stem cell issue |
|
|
I haven't gotten the impression bush has been pandering to the christian community with stem cell research. From what I've seen, he never really talked about it much...only in response to kerry accusations.
Just curious, do you believe people of faith are not reality based?? (i could be misunderstanding that but I got that impression...)
what proof do you have that he's ignoring scientists?? That's what I dont get... he has funded this...
"can't be made into different cell types (neural, blood, tissue and so forth) the way embryonic cells can"
No YET at least... "However, some evidence suggests that adult stem cell plasticity may exist, increasing the number of cell types a given adult stem cell can become" that's from http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics1.asp |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prescott
Community Techie
Joined: 21 Apr 2002
Posts: 3347
Location: Outside your window
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:45 am Post subject: Re: The stem cell issue |
|
|
| Elizabeth wrote: |
| I would argue that if you leave all scientific research up to the market, everything is skewed in favor of what's the most profitable rather than what is most needed. |
But in my mind, the tried and true law of supply and demand makes those 2 the same thing.
Last I checked, neither one of us was an economist, so you're right -- we have differing opinions, and there's no point in arguing it. I do skew to the Rublican/Libertarian side when it comes to less government..... and I'm the first to say that Bush has not been following those principles...... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Elizabeth
Noticably Flawed
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 641
Location: East of Chicago, West of NYC
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:48 am Post subject: Re: The stem cell issue |
|
|
| kathyjm wrote: |
| Just curious, do you believe people of faith are not reality based?? (i could be misunderstanding that but I got that impression...) |
It's not really about religion, but the blind faith that the Bush administration expects. I am refering to the NY times article of 10/17 by Ron Suskind. Here's the quote:
| Quote: |
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of dicernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world works anymore, he continuted. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."
|
 These people are scary pups.
I would add that there are plenty of religious people out there who believe in science and are "realilty-based." I'm married to one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Petulant Pixie
Queen of Imperfection
Joined: 22 Apr 2002
Posts: 4140
Location: flyover country
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 7:14 am Post subject: The stem cell issue |
|
|
Wow, lots to respond to:
| Quote: |
However, I think that the main issue comes down to do you believe in science or not. I believe in science and I believe that the government has a vital interest in funding science. Enough respected scientists say that it's worth exploring and that's good enough for me.
|
I agree. We're being told that there needs to be more research done. They haven't gotten any reliable results yet because what they have on paper needs to be tried out. It's the scientific method.
| Quote: |
3M has come up with more innovation than any government agency ever will. I'm trying to think of some major scientific breakthroughs (outside of space exploration) that are responsible solely because of government funding, and I can't think of any.
|
Er, not lately. I've heard rumor that 3M has kind of put a grinding halt to anything that would inspire "innovation" since McNerney has become CEO and started the "six sigma" crap. The enviroment that allowed Post Its to be created has been squashed out of existance.
You need to keep in mind, too that most university research is government funded. There is a lot of valuable research done in universities, since they are in it soley for the purpose of expanding their field and not for profit. All of the scientific geniuses stay in acadamia, they don't move into the corporate world.
Elizabeth:
| Quote: |
| I would argue that if you leave all scientific research up to the market, everything is skewed in favor of what's the most profitable rather than what is most needed. |
Scott:
| Quote: |
| But in my mind, the tried and true law of supply and demand makes those 2 the same thing. |
"What's most needed" is very subjective. If you have a child with a rare form of cancer, "what's most needed" for you is a cure. However, if it is a rare form of cancer, it is not likely a cure will ever be produced--even if one is found. That is simply because there isn't the large market for it. Right now the FDA offers incentives to pharma companies for marketing drugs for small populations (and pediatrics, too, since pediatrics is a small population) by allowing them to have a longer patent on these drugs (once a drug loses its patent and goes generic, the company takes a big finanical hit).
Drug companies have meetings to speculate the profit from each new drug, while it is in the research phase and if the projected profit isn't big enough, they kill the research on it. Really good projects with really promising results are being killed left and right because the profit isn't projected to be big enough (or it's immeasurable).
You also have companies with a conflict in interest. The research part of it may come up with a drug to prevent or stop early a disease that another part of the company already is making huge profit with remedies for. Which will last longer, which will bring in more profit over the years, the remedies that need to be taken for years and years to control the symptoms, or the drug that will halt the progression of the disease early on? Which would be better for people? That isn't a question that's asked.
Which is "more needed", a cure for a disease that can be given early on in a few doses, or a lifetime of a cocktail of drugs that will help supress symptoms for years and years, of course still allowing perhaps for that disease to be contagious if it's viral? But which do you think the drug companies have more of an interest in developing?
| Quote: |
As as Christian, I do believe we are living God's will. I believe we are all blessed...sometimes those blessings are good blessings, and sometimes they're blessing that are difficult to understand but in the end they are part of God's plan and that's something that I accept. I dont believe that we will ever cure everything that afflicts us. If it's part of the Lords will to find cures, we will (and have for some things).
|
I'm sorry, Kathy, but that makes no sense. God gave us the intelligence to do research and come up with cures for things. If God wills us to come up with cures, then WE have to do the work to find them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DietCokeHead
Queen of Imperfection
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 3805
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:12 am Post subject: The stem cell issue |
|
|
I'm sorry, Kathy, but that makes no sense. God gave us the intelligence to do research and come up with cures for things. If God wills us to come up with cures, then WE have to do the work to find them.
ITA. I don't think God hands out diseases for us to learn from and cope with as part of daily life. I am one of those people that thinks "shit happens". I am not going to buy into the idea that God gave my mom reoccurring cancer in order for her to learn and grow. People get cancer. People get all sorts of diseases that, IMO, have nothing to do with God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prescott
Community Techie
Joined: 21 Apr 2002
Posts: 3347
Location: Outside your window
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 9:07 am Post subject: The stem cell issue |
|
|
| Petulant Pixie wrote: |
| Er, not lately. I've heard rumor that 3M has kind of put a grinding halt to anything that would inspire "innovation" since McNerney has become CEO and started the "six sigma" crap. The enviroment that allowed Post Its to be created has been squashed out of existance. |
Yes, and when profits start to slide, and the stock goes down, we'll see how long McNerney remains the CEO and how long that attitude carries on.
| Quote: |
| There is a lot of valuable research done in universities, since they are in it soley for the purpose of expanding their field and not for profit. |
So there's not any research thrown together by universities solely for the purpose of chasing grant money?
| Quote: |
| All of the scientific geniuses stay in acadamia, they don't move into the corporate world. |
I'm sure there are scientists working in the corporate world that would take offense to that, but whatever.
| Quote: |
| Drug companies have meetings to speculate the profit from each new drug, while it is in the research phase and if the projected profit isn't big enough, they kill the research on it. Really good projects with really promising results are being killed left and right because the profit isn't projected to be big enough (or it's immeasurable). |
So what are you suggesting? That government force private industry to do only research they deem as "needed", and dictate a private company's business plan? Yikes, that makes my skin crawl. See, I look at the status quo as a trade off for living in a free market society. And I don't see too many miraculous medical cures coming out of Canada, where healthcare is government run. BTW, you speak with some authority and inside knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry -- do you have some? I'm not being glib here, for once.
| Quote: |
| I'm sorry, Kathy, but that makes no sense. God gave us the intelligence to do research and come up with cures for things. If God wills us to come up with cures, then WE have to do the work to find them. |
I'm not going anywhere near this, I'll let you believers duke it out on your own. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jessica
Queen of Imperfection
Joined: 20 Apr 2002
Posts: 4762
Location: Chi-town
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 10:29 am Post subject: The stem cell issue |
|
|
I haven't read all the posts, but what I think it comes down to, at least for *me*, is just this unsettling feeling I have that it crosses all the natural boundaries and it has too much of a "playing God" thing going on. I'm not very religious, but I still don't like the idea my being forced to pay for something that feels like it will bring on armagedeon or that doesn't morally sit right with me.
Let me explain. For me it all comes down to whether or not we have souls, one of the fundamental values of the protestant religion in which I was raised in. I believe each unique group of cells has a soul from the second of conception. Now, that doesn't bother me as much as the pandora's box theory bothers me.
If we allow this, and let's say in 100 years there does become a need for more stem cells, how will we get them?? If embroynic stem cells wind up fulfilling a need, there will not be enough of those wanting to donate, so what's next? Some women are not going to want their embryos used for science and we can't force them.
Farming embryos? What's not to say that we can't allow them to grow and harvest them for body parts? When and who makes the ultimate determination as to what crosses the line morally and ethically. Why should one individuals opinions be more important than the next?? Then it snowballs into cloning and I see so much that can go wrong with that - it all points to disaster for me. For a society that says, who cares, as long as it can help ME or someone I love, who cares if it hurts someone else or messes with our natural order and defies God. With or without God, I can see a lot of corruption to this and many psychological warfare and phsyiological warfare that ends life as we know it. (Okay, very dramatic, but ya'all get the point.)
I don't like it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jessica
Queen of Imperfection
Joined: 20 Apr 2002
Posts: 4762
Location: Chi-town
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 10:31 am Post subject: Re: The stem cell issue |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I'm sorry, Kathy, but that makes no sense. God gave us the intelligence to do research and come up with cures for things. If God wills us to come up with cures, then WE have to do the work to find them. |
God also gave us the ability to do rotten things -- murder, mame, torture, use our greed towards inhumanity etc. Just because we can, doesn't always mean we should. I think it's a test of the human spirit as to whether we will ultimately do the right thing or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Petulant Pixie
Queen of Imperfection
Joined: 22 Apr 2002
Posts: 4140
Location: flyover country
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 11:10 am Post subject: The stem cell issue |
|
|
| Quote: |
Yes, and when profits start to slide, and the stock goes down, we'll see how long McNerney remains the CEO and how long that attitude carries on.
|
LOL, well....from what I hear, McNerney has a few more years on his contract, during (and at the end of which) he receives a huge bundle in stocks. Some people seem to think that once he's made his personal profit and his contract is up, he'll leave. But, that's just heresay.
| Quote: |
So there's not any research thrown together by universities solely for the purpose of chasing grant money?
|
Certainly not by reputable research groups in reputable universities. A university gets its name in the scientific community by producing good graduates and by the quality of the research it conducts. Desirable candidates are courted by the universities, it works in their best interest to have the best people in their graduate research groups. The candidates are going to pick the research groups that are prolific and well received by the scientific community at large--they need to make a name for themselves individually while they're in graduate school so they can get good jobs afterwards. True in some very hard sciences, the research is ONLY academic and has absolutely NO application in the real world (ie: some of the bizarro physics theories out there), but most of the research being done by reputable groups in reputable universities is very applicable to the real world.
| Quote: |
| So what are you suggesting? That government force private industry to do only research they deem as "needed", and dictate a private company's business plan? |
Uh...no. But, the government could offer more incentives to companies that are producing drugs that have enormous benefit to smaller populations. These are hugely brilliant people, I am sure that if they all put their heads together they could find a way to do this while keeping a hefty profit AND not screwing the general public.
| Quote: |
| BTW, you speak with some authority and inside knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry -- do you have some? |
My husband is a senior research and discovery scientist for a well-known pharmaceutical company. He signed confidentiality restrictions so certainly no specific information is shared with me, but yes, I do have a pretty good understanding of the process that new drugs go through from the drawing board to the market and beyond. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
Advertisement
| Sign up for Imperfect Parent News |
|
 |
|
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
