Stem Cells - The Hope and the Hype

zer0skill writes to mention a CNN summary of a Time cover story. The Truth about Stem Cells deals with an increasingly politicized area of scientific inquiry, and likens the fight to those over global warming and evolution. From the article: "Five years after Bush announced that federal money could go to researchers only working on embryonic stem cell lines that scientists had already developed, Democrats hope to leverage the issue as evidence that they represent the reality-based community, running against the theocrats. States from Connecticut to California have tried to step in with enough funding to keep the labs going and slow the exodus of U.S. talent to countries like Singapore, Britain and Taiwan."

i dont care for bush however...

[ganjadude]

i really dont see the problem with this. i mean no other pres spent money on embrionic stem cell research, clinton, bush 1, etc. this is NOT a ban on private funding of embrionic research, and from what i understand, we have made more progress with adult stem cells than we ever did with embrionic research. some might say itsd due to lack of funding, however i dont want my government spending money on damn near anything, we dont have the cash to spend anymore, bush spends more than the democrats do, sorry for the rant i just feel i have to be the odd /.er this time

Misspelled kleptocrats

[dbIII]

running against the theocrats

It isn't really about religeon at all - these people are the merchants in the temple trying to make a buck out of belief. The more hype and conflict the more customers they get - despite the religeon they base their marketing on being one that preaches tolerance and charity.

Re:Fine

[genrader]

Amen. There is no constitutional authority. It is not "necessary" or "proper" to carry out any of the foregoing powers mentioned in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution.

Whether or not you think it is moral to fund stem cell research is your business and your state's. If 95% of the California population want to fund stem cell research for embryos, then let California. If 95% of Alabama's population thinks it is wrong and immoral, then they won't have to.

Don't force one group of people to pay for another's unconstitutional programs. It only will lead to more unrest.

Re:i dont care for bush however...

[BWJones]

i really dont see the problem with this. i mean no other pres spent money on embrionic stem cell research, clinton, bush 1, etc.

Ah, so you have *just* bought into the propaganda. As a bioscientist I am here to tell you that stem cell research has been funded for at least two decades by several "Presidents" through the National Institutes of Health. It has not, until Bush been explicitly mentioned as a cost center giving Bush the appearance of "funding" stem cell research and the political cachet (read empty) of being able to say that he was the first.

Re:i dont care for bush however...

[9x320]

Your literacy and coherency match that of your arguement. If you keep up with the headlines, you would have found out that a few scientists took the opportunity to refute the claims of a leading Senate proponent that adult stem cell research is sufficient to cure most diseases. Said the scientists, adult stem cells have only been suggested by research to cure only seven diseases thus far, and most of them are skin diseases. Though grateful for adult stem cell research funding, they don't really expect to find much.

Re:Fine

[genrader]

Once again, ignorance is king in the majority of mines. No offense or anything there. Since it seems so hard for most people to figure out exactly what "general welfare" means (which it is pretty clear) we should look at what the original writers thought: James Madison: With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. --- If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare... they may appoint teachers in every state... The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America. - James Madison ---- http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm [constitution.org] That is an excellent thing to read as well. The "general welfare" phrase is self explanatory. Do not pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you like and do not like, and make it to mean what you think it should mean. To provide for the general welfare is something that is outlined in the rest of Article 1 section 8. The "provide for the common defense" is outlined there and other areas, as well. The fact it appears to be a loose term does not mean it is so. Look at the other terms, such as providing for the common defense, and realize they are layed out in the constitution as well.

Michael J Fox has Parkinson's....

[TrisexualPuppy]

When President Bush veto'd the bill that was supported by both the House and the Senate that would have allowed for federal funding of embryonic stem cells (something that even the conservative Senate Majority Leader and would-be-Presidential hopeful Bill Frist-- who is a doctor supported), I put up a video on YouTube of Michael J. Fox (who has early onset Parkinson's disease, one of the several disorders doctors and medical scientists are now fairly sure that they can treat with embryonic stem cells, based on results from overseas) who was discussing the situation on ABC's Good Morning America the day before.

Apparently so many people thought the video was kind of moving, since Fox couldn't sit still in his chair and was thrashing about through the entire interview because his Parkinson's was so bad, that it made the front page of Digg.com. You can check out the video on YouTube here [youtube.com].

For the record, my grandfather died after a long struggle with Parkinson's earlier this year and I'm in favor of federal funding of embryonic stem cell research-- like more than 70 percent of Americans. The cells in question (some 400,000 of them) are being discarded en masse from in vitro fertilization labs anyways, so it's a choice between either letting them get thrown away-- or using them for research that could save lives.

The President says he thinks that ECS research constitutes the taking of a human life ("murder"). If that's true then why doesn't he work to outlaw all ECS research ("murder"), instead of letting it happen with private funding? He's caught between his own rhetoric and a hard place.

Our view of our place in the universe is changing

[hey!]

Think of the reaction to the Copernican system, which after all was really just about a simplified model for calculating the position of planets. What difference does it really make to you whether the planets revolve around the Earth, or whether the planets and the Earth revolve around the Sun? None, unless your job is compiling almanacs.

But it's disconcerting to have your place in the universe moved.

A similar thing happened when the techniques of historical research began to be applied to the Bible. The only thing that changed was the idea of the historical process that created the Bible. It is no longer possible to view the Bible as a single unchanging thing that had a few corrupt offshoots. There is no way to trace the Bible back in its current form without concluding that it was pieced together and actively modified over the centuries after it's "authorship". Is there any reason to think this makes the Bible less true if you thought it true before?

But you have to give up part of your intellectual furniture to make room for this new idea.

Now we've reached points on several fronts of scientifc and technological advance that have larger practical day to day impacts on how we view ourselves than the Copernican revolution, and probably more so than Biblical "Higher Criticism".

For example: Are we just the product of a cascade of chemical reactions that can be reproduced in vitro? Do we have to look at the world as finite source of resources and sink for waste?

There are even ones that aren't on the public radar screen, like: Can machines be people? Certainly if somebody made a C-3PO or R2-D2, or even a program that passed the generalize Turing test, you'd have to consider this.

It's not surprising that liberals are more comfortable with this sort of thing than conservatives. It's not that liberals are more scientific, it's that conservatism believes that what is proven is best. But if you find out the world is not what you thought it was, or worse yet you aren't what you thought you were, then it throws old proofs into doubt.

If history is a guide, then the battle lines will be drawn again in the future, in a different place according to rules neither side envisions today. The thing is liberalism and conservatism are less ideologies than they are character traits.

Re:Fine

[twiddlingbits]

The growth in power and influence of the gov't in our lives has increased tenfold the last few decades. There's precious little we can do. BULLSH*T. In a Representative Republic (the USA is NOT a Democracy) the People hold the power, the Congress only votes the will of the people. Congress has granted itself powers that it really does not have a Constitutional basis for, that is where BIG Government has come from. And we certainly CAN do something about it that misuse of OUR power. We have three boxes, the soapbox, the ballot box and the ammo box with which to do something. Of course the last box is truly the last resort. I also think that is why the Founding Fathers gave us the right to keep and bear arms, so we COULD use Box #3 against a tyrranical Government (no GWB is NOT a Tyrant as much as the uneducated on /. think he is) if nothing else worked. If you are going to TEACH Government, teach it ALL not just the Libertarian angle. Teachers are held to a much higher standard of knowledge and truthfulness (rightly so). Let the kids decide based on the FACTS not the Politics.

Re:Fine

[Mattintosh]

What amazes me is that around here, all of those that decry the NSA wiretapping, Gitmo, loss of privcy, et al., have no problem with the gov't running health care, and all sorts of programs.

It shouldn't amaze you. There's a fundamental difference between wiretapping/imprisonment/loss of privace and socialist programs. We understand wiretapping (et al) are bad. We have yet to understand how bad socialist programs can be. It's the usual lack of ability to learn from others' mistakes. About 95% of the population doesn't believe things that don't happen to them personally, from what I can tell. It only stands to reason that entire social groupings collectively act in a similar manner.

As for the article summary, I would also like to point out that the current regime is not theocratic in any sense. Theocracy is a governmental system where God is actively ruling over the people. Rebuplicans are not theocrats. They want to be in charge rather than having God in charge, so they're actually completely opposed to theocracy. (Disclaimer: I am a theocrat. I believe that no human government can rule, should rule, or even has the right to rule.)

Re:Countries like...

[scottnews]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5229456.stm

Re:Why has nobody explained...

[BCW2]

"Theoreticly", embryonic stem cells have the "potential" to be more useful. This is just theory that has not been proved yet. On the other hand there are over 100 treatments that have been developed from adult stem cells or stem cells from umbilical cord blood. Almost all of these are still in the testing stage, quite a few have progressed to human tests. The one that caught my attention is one from bone marrow stem cells that repairs damage to the heart muscle from a heart attack! There are also treatments for MS, diabetes, and nerve damage in process. Any of these are somewhere in the 5+ years away from wide use. It does seem to take at least forever and sometimes longer to get approval for human use now days, at least it seems that way to anyone afflicted with the problem in question.

Now if they could come up with a cure for just one virus, doesn't matter which one, just a cure for any of them. A vaccine is not a cure and thats all we have so far for any of them.

Re:Fine

[plasmacutter]

the government should not have gotten involved ?

Then they should not have gotten involved with bell telephone, standard oil, US steel, or any of the mariad other monopolies. Maybe they should all be around today, our cars should cost $100,000 for entry level, our phone bills should be astronomical, that whole broadband thing.. forget about it, maw-bell wouldnt have no competition, she wouldn't need to offer higher speed.

-no need for the government to "get involved" and promote competition by breaking these abusive monopolies up... or, say, "get involved" and see to it that the most basic of basic needs are met for individuals for whom the system has failed.

people like you who lack even the most basic compassion and will sit there and preach the government has no right to "get involved" make me sick.