Stem Cell Research in a Judge's Hands 148
deman1985 wrote to mention a San Francisco Chronicle article discussing the future of stem cell research in California. The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine has had a suit filed against it for doling out money to stem cell research groups, and the future of the organization is now in the hands of the Judge on the case. From the article: "The taxpayers groups said that at least five members of the 29-member board have conflicts because they are University of California officials and the school's various campuses have already applied for stem cell grants. Others on the board are biotechnology executives and investors whose investments could benefit from stem cell grants."
This will just be passed again (Score:4, Informative)
Cue up... (Score:1)
Re:Cue up... (Score:1)
Slashdot Has Jumped The Shark (Score:2, Insightful)
This is really an arm of SlashKos now. Politics stories practically every day fill up the front page, and hardly any of them are really about real politics.
I remember once CmdrTaco said that this place wasn't about politics, but that exactly has happened. I guess pagehits and flamewars are easier than real news for geeks.
Re:Slashdot Has Jumped The Shark (Score:2)
Come back when you figure out how to create an account.
Re:Bush Has Jumped The Shark (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Bush Has Jumped The Shark (Score:2)
Hey, if stopping animal-human hybrid research can mean "jail and slaugther each and every furry [wikipedia.org] i'd probably vote for him too, even though i'm not american right now.
Long live to the Fursecution [uncyclopedia.org]
Re:Slashdot Has Jumped The Shark (Score:4, Insightful)
Why shouldn't they run stories about promising stem cell research vs. some wackadoos who think a microscopic clump of cells=living, breathing person? The former is an issue that has wider implications for the quality of life of many people who suffer some rather horrific conditions.
Re:Slashdot Has Jumped The Shark (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot Has Jumped The Shark (Score:1, Redundant)
is different then:
"Your Online Rights"
Re:Slashdot Has Jumped The Shark (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot Has Jumped The Shark (Score:2)
Gee whiz (Score:5, Interesting)
Meanwhile, the people who will benefit the most from stem cell research must continue to suffer disabilities while governments and special interest groups keep beating each other with their dicks!
Re:Gee whiz (Score:1)
Yeah I never understood the whole cock fight thing either but governments will be governments and special interest groups will be special interest groups...
Re:Gee whiz (Score:1)
The article itself states that the institute is being sued by taxpayer's groups who object to things like the closed-doors meetings to determine grant eligibility, which was in the bill the voters *PASSED*.
Because of this lawsuit, the institute cannot issue bonds to raise money to fund stem-cell research projects, since no financial institution will touch them until litigation is resolved.
Now that I summarized th
Re:Gee whiz (Score:3, Insightful)
Please don't tell me you're so naive as to believe this taxpayers' group nonsense.
Re:Gee whiz (Score:1)
Or you prefer that they spend tax dollars with no oversight or disclosure to anyone?
Let me use this example, maybe it'll make things clearer.
Replace the following terms in the article as needed:
California Institute for Regenerative Medicine - change to Giant Oil Corporation Consortium
stem cel - change to oil
University of California - change to Exxon/BP/Texaco, whoever
biotechnology - oil drilling research
Lemme guess, now
Re:Gee whiz (Score:2)
Re:Gee whiz (Score:2, Funny)
BOOBIES, MAN -- BOOOBIESSSSSS!!!!!
Bemopolis
Re:Gee whiz (Score:2, Insightful)
You're claiming your hoped-for results justify the means, whatever those may be. That's intellectually and moraly bankrupt.
Your statement is the same line of thought that would promote "growing" human beings as unwilling test subjects for medical testing.
Re:Gee whiz (Score:2)
Re:Gee whiz (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, like how harvesting organs from people killed in accidents promotes "'growing' human beings as unwilling test subjects for medical testing."
Like how fertility clinics paying women for their eggs and men for their sperm promotes "'growing' human beings as unwilling test subjects for medical testing."
You're claiming your hoped-for results justify the means, whatever those ma
Important lesson learned (Score:1)
if someone happents to be cured along the way, so much the better.
Get a clue... Nobody has ever banned the research (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone that thinks that a government operation funded by someone elses money can make more rational decisions that a private company investing it's hard earned $$ needs to have their head examined.
If the market says that it's a losing bet, I don't want t
Re:Get a clue... Nobody has ever banned the resear (Score:2)
So it is a hatred of governemnt that fuels the choice to delay treatments by reducing funding. Don't you want to see people cured? Don't you think that private organizations are raising money? Wouldn't you think that additional research being done, even with government money, will speed a cure, even if not as
Re:Get a clue... Nobody has ever banned the resear (Score:2)
Re:Get a clue... Nobody has ever banned the resear (Score:5, Informative)
Baloney. Private industry, by and large, does not fund basic research. They wait for governmentally funded research to get to a nearly-marketable place, and then take it up. Stem cell research is still a long way from being marketable, and thusly, big pharma is happy to sit around making obscene amounts of money from cialis, vioxx (doh), etc etc until we're 10 years down the road researchwise.
Anyone that thinks that a government operation funded by someone elses money can make more rational decisions that a private company investing it's hard earned $$ needs to have their head examined.
Anyone who thinks private companies spend more than a pittance on basic research needs to have their head examined. Speaking as a biomedical researcher, I can assure you that the vast majority of basic reasearch occurs in publically funded labs. The non-linear nature of basic scientific research means for-profit companies have little patience with it.
If the market says that it's a losing bet, I don't want to fund that bet w/ my tax dollars instead. Unfortunately, my fellow voters in this state, aren't as smart.
This fallacy of the market as an all-knowing, all-powerful, most-efficient means of everything, though accepted by you, is not accepted by everyone (including, fortunately, the majority of our fellow californians). There are many areas where market forces are applicable and positive...but basic biomedical research, like law enforcement, like road-building, like military protection, like public health, is simply not one of them.
-Ted
Born of controversy (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I'd like to see some good come of this. Unfortunately, when a public agency is born out of controversy, unified support is hard to come by.
Re:Born of controversy (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:Born of controversy (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Born of controversy (Score:2)
Re:Born of controversy (Score:1, Offtopic)
I think Gov. Ahnuld is a better example of what's wrong with democracy in California.
Sure the initiative system isn't perfect and many of the high profile cases directly from the ballot box to court but in a system that allows the Patriot Act to pass with one dissenting vote I personally LIKE the idea of actually being able to end run the legislature and enact 'the will of the people'.
=tkk
PS This i
Re:Born of controversy (Score:1)
Re:Born of controversy (Score:3, Insightful)
Californians voted for this. End of story, don't spin it.
Re:Born of controversy (Score:1)
There is no close scrutiny at a state level on how the grants are going to be dolled out. The grant discussions are going to be done behind closed doors with no public opinion hearings on whether or not certain grants should be blocked.
Th
Re:Born of controversy (Score:2)
Re:Born of controversy (Score:1)
It's just that he supports adult stem cell research at the federal level, not fetal stem cell research--and even then, he still supports some fetal stem cell research, utilizing material gathered before the decision that breeding our own kind for parts was unethical.
Please make sure to differentiate between adult stem cell research and fetal stem cell research in your discussion. The former receives federal
Re:Born of controversy (Score:2)
Re:Born of controversy (Score:2)
And one form of research has great potential for curing disease, and the other has remarkably less so. The material in stock prior to Bush's decision is unusable due to contamination.
You statement . .
Re:Born of controversy (Score:1)
Re:Born of controversy (Score:2)
"breeding your own kind for parts" necessarily implies that the writer feels that embryonic stem cell research as a whole is unethical.
In its current form it is not. The potential for abuse is there, but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Clarification on the headline (Score:5, Informative)
The proposition basically said that a institute would be created to oversee applications and grants of stem cell research, and fund said research by issuing bonds worth up to $350million per year, up to a maximum of $3billion overall.
It's ironic that the representativesof the voters that voted this bill in are the ones that are now suing the institute the bill created, completely ignoring the fact that the bill itself states that funding deliberations are exempt from the state's open-meeting law.
Go read it, it's all here: http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov04/prop_71_e
They voted for something they DID NOT READ AND UNDERSTAND FULLY. This is a sad reality in today's elections; very rarely you find anyone who actually knows what they're voting for, instead following the misleading propaganda out there, with stupid statements like "If you don't pass this bill, millions of kids will die!". Just check out the homepage for the institute itself:
http://www.curesforcalifornia.com/ [curesforcalifornia.com]
Sometimes, it boggles the mind how ignorant and idiotic my fellow Californians can be....
Re:Clarification on the headline (Score:1)
There, I fixed it for you, understand now? This is an example of right wing kooks purporting to speak for the majority.
Re:Clarification on the headline (Score:1)
Now, kindly explain in your opinion, which is the best outcome from this lawsuit:
1) The 'kooks' get shot down, and the Institute moves on with a number of possible conflicts of interest in their board, at which sometime down the road, someone will complain about only certain companies and schools are getting funding, so another lawsuit comes along;
2) The 'kooks' win the case, and the institute is folded. A new proposition is submitted where there will be a
Re:Clarification on the headline (Score:1)
Heck, here, have a look: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,912515
That is not the case in this matter. None of them are forced to disclose anything, because the bill itself stated that the Institute was pretty much a independent entit
Re:Clarification on the headline (Score:2)
No, the people who are suing are those who voted against the bill, trying anything they can to enforce their ideology on others.
As someone who has something to gain from this research, I hope I live long enough to see some results.
Re:Clarification on the headline (Score:2)
Re:Clarification on the headline (Score:1)
How's that for a voter track record?
Re:Clarification on the headline (Score:2)
Re:Clarification on the headline (Score:2)
I voted for this bill, even though I was very troubled by the fact that it seemed to be a big handout for corporate interests, with little to no oversight. I, and many others, were very unhappy with the exact terms of the bill. However, I held my nose and voted for it, after much deliberation, because the prospect of stem cell research being defeated in California was worse. Even if it was voted down because of the no open meetings provisions, or the biotech corporate connections, it would be seen as
Re:Clarification on the headline (Score:1)
bolster confidential scientific opinions? (Score:2)
I'll say!
I'd be happy to give my scientific opinion about almost anything if I could do it in a secret meeting!
Old as time (Score:1, Troll)
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.01/cadavers
Re:Old as time (Score:3, Insightful)
Mistake (Score:2)
Re:Old as time (Score:5, Interesting)
Or people with a sense of fiscal responsibility perhaps? Nice anti-religion troll.
I have no problem with Stem Cell Research. In fact, I think it should be encouraged and funded with public dollars (as long as the public funding it gets the royalties, patents, or benefits - not private corporations). However, this was a ballot measure in California to distribute billions of dollars to a new research institute with virtually no oversight. It isn't part of an existing California State Agency, it is its own ambiguous entity with required funding levels outside of any state-run controls. Already, the fiscal irresponsibility of this program has been proven by their choise for location: one of the highest rent districts in California, San Francisco. (Remember the dot-com stupidity?)
California is already running a budget that is aproximately $15,000,000,000 in deficit. This program would tack on several billion dollars more in state spending a year. It is fiscally irresponsible and was passed entirely as a "feel-good" measure and played exclusively off of general anti-Bush sentiments in the California voting public. How, and who it allocates funds to isn't clearly defined. Ownership of any technologies produced through its programs isn't clearly defined. It doesn't have clear goals other than the broad term "stem cell research". It has an enormous budget, without restrictions, and without oversight controls for abuses. It is, in short, a money pit.
It was a bad ballot measure, pure and simple.
California is problematic, in that it keeps passing mandatory expenditures through ballot proposals, therebye completely bypassing both the legislature and the governator and causing huge unforseen consequences. (For another great example of this, take a look at "Proposition 13" which locked in property taxes and has completely screwed up school and other local funding, and is now nearly impossible to fix or overturn).
Re:Old as time (Score:2)
If the measure is not stopped in courts, top of the line researchers will move to California. As will research companies.
"Already, the fiscal irresponsibility of this program has been proven by their choise for location: one of the highest rent districts in California, San Francisco."
well gosh, could it be becasue they have a good brain base there?
however, the people in court to stop this are doing it on religious grounds, and nothing more.
Re:Old as time (Score:2)
2005 State Budget Deficits [cbpp.org]
And San Francisco proper is not a great "brain base". The Silicon Valley, nearby, is much cheaper. Most of the biotech in CA is already in San Diego, which is also substantially cheaper, and has regions within it that are far far cheaper than anything in San Francisco.
Religion is stopping research (Score:2)
Re:The above is NOT A TROLL! Read its link! (Score:2)
Remember Copernicus? Galieo?
Back then, Islam was more into science and learning. Remember most of the Greek works that would have been lost during the dark ages were saved by Islamic Scholars and later made their way back into Europe after 1400's.
Even though today, being religious shouldn't mean that you are against science and knowledge
Re:The above is NOT A TROLL! Read its link! (Score:1)
Not Science? Yeah right (Score:4, Insightful)
This did pass with a wide margin during the last elections, and they really need to shape this up. I think any college applying for grants should not have people on the board..Its called bias, and there are not enough people in the political system who do not have it.
I believe that the more schools help themselves without the grants, the more they should get because of the grants..Instead of putting all thier money into sports, cheerleading and Aestetic purposes, put it into something useful..
We have already proven that this is the next step in curing disabilities, regrowing missing parts(such as teeth..imagine never having to get dentures or an implant), possibly even giving hearing back to the deaf, sight back to the blindies, and possibly(they theorize) regrowing limbs..
If you dont call this science(which is one of the major categories on slashdot) then tell me what do you consider science? All robots and machines..If so i feel sorry for you!
This is not flamebait post, no is it trolling, for people who look at this and shun it, wait until the day they need this science for themselves...I have heard Christians who shun this, until the break thier back, then the whole argument is completely reversed and they are all for it.
Re:Not Science? Yeah right (Score:2)
no it's not, this is politcs.
Re:Not Science? Yeah right (Score:1)
Re:Not Science? Yeah right (Score:2)
These are not embryonic stem cells.
Embryonic stem cells come from the inner cell mass of a morula, 3.5-4 days after fertilization. They have nothing whatsoever to do with HUVEC (human umbilical vascular endothelial cells) or the hematopoetic stem cells which are used in the treatment of some hematopoetic disorders.
By their very nature, they are pluripotent cells. (These cells are NOT totipotent. This is because they DO NOT make placenta... theref
Gene Hackman (Score:1)
The hands of CA judges (Score:2, Interesting)
The judge will hopefully rule in favor of stalling this. Prop 71 uses taxpayer funds and this will never go away. Even though it's s'posed to expire in 10 years, it will keep getting renewed and we CA taxpayers get to foot the bill. More CA spent on research that may go nowhere. The fact that embrionic stem cell research isn't largely funded elsewhere in the world should be a big hint that the controversy isn't ju
Re:The hands of CA judges (Score:1)
> community's faith (pardon the pun) in embrionic stem cell research.
Just because the private sector doesn't want to invest in it doesn't mean that its not promising. My understanding is that embryonic stem cell research is still pure research (frankly, thats pretty much all I know about it.) The private sector doesn't tend to fund pure research directly; they do it with the rest of us, through the
Re:The hands of CA judges (Score:1)
I think it's pretty revealing. What's more -- this kind of research isn't being done on a mass scale outside the United States. WHere are the embrionic stem cell discoveries from Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, etc?
Seems like a promise that won't be kept.
Re:The hands of CA judges (Score:2)
The judge will hopefully rule in favor of stalling this. Prop 71 uses taxpayer funds and this will never go away. Even though it's s'posed to expire in 10 years, it will keep getting renewed and we CA taxpayers get to foot the bill."
It was voter APPROVED. IT is the will of the people in California to put money into stem cell research.
This in no way takes away rights the way prop 187 tried to do.
"It's sad the $3 billion of tax payer funds won't go to adult stem cell research, where the results have been for
Re:The hands of CA judges (Score:1)
While it is being funded by the taxpayers, it is not available for public scrutiny.
The public has no say in what grants' proposals are to be considered, or given priority to.
The public has no say in who should get funding or not.
The public cannot even be present or represented in the Institute meetings, because well, they can't.
The people that are running the funding are the ones that stand to benefit the most from a financial perspective if research pays off, wi
Re:The hands of CA judges (Score:1)
So was Prop 187. And that's just one.
This in no way takes away rights the way prop 187 tried to do.
That's debatable. But I guess you're for a judge overruling the voters then if you disapprove of the proposition?
haha, sorry but most of the world ahs no problem with this, and does fund it.
Really? Can you name some huge discoveries as a result?
Venter Capitilist don't want to throw good money in v
Re:The hands of CA judges (Score:2)
"The fact that embrionic stem cell research isn't largely funded elsewhere in the world should be a big hint that the controversy isn't just religious."
Then you say:
"It's sad the $3 billion of tax payer funds won't go to adult stem cell research, where the results have been forthcoming. There's been
So you are sayi
Re:The hands of CA judges (Score:2)
Like I said, maybe they are different, but in the case of embryonic stem cells the lion's share of the dilemma is based on religion, and religous obsession with the sanctity of life at conception, not ethics. People who are not obsessed with the sanctity of life at conception, due to religious belief, are VERY unlikely to oppose this research.
"First of all, it's not a con that adult stem cell research has better results. It's true."
Of course, you don't
Re:The hands of CA judges (Score:2)
Well you see I have no issue with cloning either at a fundamental level. The only real ethical issue I can see with it is if its not extremely reliable, which it isn't at present. It would be poor ethics to artificially produce cloned human being with serious defects. If the birth defects are as low or lower than normal reproduction I don't real
Re:The hands of CA judges (Score:2)
I didn't prove anything except in your own mind. I just stated the obvious that there is a block of religious fundamentalists, which are widely understood to be right wing, they are conservative Republicans after all, who are leading the opposition to embryonic stem cell research, just as they are leading the drive to outlaw abortion, censor the media, and to curb the rights of homose
ooPS... (Score:1)
forgotten history (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:forgotten history (Score:1)
Re:forgotten history (Score:2, Informative)
Basically, some medical research companies saw a way to make a quick buck at the expense of a gullible public anxious to stick it to Bush and his religious right cronies. The result: a 3 billion dollar beuraucracy to pad the wallets of people who work the system.
What about Congress? (Score:1)
Almos every memeber of congress is a member of the Bar association. Clearly, they have a vested interest in passing laws which benefit lawyers. Based on the proposed arg
Politics Galore - Enough (Score:1)
Now that you're refreshed ... (Score:2)
Bad policy (Score:4, Interesting)
We would be much better off if the funds raised to pass the initiative had been used for research instead.
Re:Bad policy (Score:2)
remember the Internet? Government tax dollars. I would say that it has paid for itself.
"The demand for Bush bashing is far higher than the actual demand for embryonic stem cell research."
funny, my friends in the industry say the desire is very high. How do you know what the demand is when no one has anyway to ask for maoney?
You relize this research has already cured some genetic deseases in fish and mice? Will those cures prove effecti
Can we please have Slashdot back? (Score:1, Troll)
How many political articles does this make this week?
Re:Can we please have Slashdot back? (Score:2)
A longer answer is that there's this lovely little checkbox you can mark on your user preference page to make sure you never, ever, ever, see articles like this again. If they upset you so, YOU MIGHT AVAIL YOURSELF OF THE THIRTY SECONDS OR SO IT MIGHT TAKE FOR YOU TO CLICK THAT CHECKBOX AND HIT THE SUBMIT BUTTON! Or are you just bitching because you don't like the political viewpoint supposedly espoused by the article and don't want to take the time to defend your political views? Either
Re:Can we please have Slashdot back? (Score:2)
You're honest, at least. Arrogant, but honest.
Which one would that be? The politics button? Oh, I see...except that this story wasn't just in the politics section, but biotech to boot. In other words, politics is bleeding into nearly every aspect of Slashdot. This is not how it was even a few short years ago.
re: the future of stem cell research in California (Score:1)
http://www.islet.org/forum/messages/41345.htm [islet.org]
The article leaves out some important facts. (Score:5, Insightful)
I voted against the measure for one simple, obvious fact. The supporters sold this to the state as a moneymaker. That it was a "can't lose" "investment" and that any research that was commercialized would send money back to the state, more than sufficient to repay the bonds, etc. Of course if that was the case, and that there was tons of medical cash to be made. Then private companies would already be funding this research.
Basically, *ANY* sure fire, guaranteed investment, where there our outsized returns that are 100% guaranteed is going to have people lined up around the block to get in on it. And the State has no need to float a massive bond to fund it. The market will throw money at anything even remotely like that.
So the basic premise that the measure was sold to the voters on, was a blatant lie. There's never been any guarantee at all that the taxpayers of Calif wouldn't be on the hook for the whole 3 Billion.
And since the measure was passed, it's only gotten to be less of a deal for the residents of Calif.
The part that the article referenced neglected to mention. Is that there are now some questions about the legality of the measure as it was passed. Specifically, now that they have all the $$ they wanted, they have discovered a tax issue. In order for the bonds to be issued as tax-free issues, then the state can't use the monies in profit making enterprises. So the State can't compel the grant recipients to pay the state back, no matter how much the generate in revenue from the discoveries that the taxpayers are now funding for them. And apparently the legal/tax ramifications of all of that were made clear to the primary boosters of the measure *before* the election. And they just neglected to mention that to the voters at all. They just kept selling how it was a "sure thing" investment. And the bonds are FAR less appealing in the market, and FAR more expensive to issue, if they aren't tax free bonds.
Anytime anyone tells you they have a sure fire investment, guaranteed to make you rich beyond your wildest dreams, RUN the other way, tightly clutching your wallet. A lesson that the state will be learning the hard way, this time around.
Re:The article leaves out some important facts. (Score:2)
It never crossed his desk. (Score:2)
The good news is that you can get stuff done, that the big bucks special interest types might otherwise oppose.
The bad news is that with a little spit, polish, and a marketing campaign you can blow smoke up peoples asses till they feel all warm inside, and will vote for just about anything.
So now we have 2 paths for creating laws. Corrupt politicians, or stupid vo
there are a lot of stem cells out there (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm fairly consistent (Score:2, Informative)
It'll just happen in China (Score:3, Insightful)
Too broad a definition of "conflict of interest"?? (Score:2)
Disclosure: Resident of California. I recall voting against this proposition, using a paper ballot (we have the choice), though I have no idea if my vote was actually counted.
In this case I wonder if maybe it's not possible for all of the following to be true about each member of such an advisory board:
The board is supposed to be chosen based on "kno
Re:Hate Americans, don't hate America. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hate Americans, don't hate America. (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Hate Americans, don't hate America. (Score:2)
Re:Hate Americans, don't hate America. (Score:1, Redundant)
How about Hate Idiots, not Americans?
Every country would be great without the idiots populating it, and this is one of the few rules that doesn't bear any exception.