Export thread
Obama's stem cell resolution stopped????? cause.......
#1
Chibibar
Chibibar
cause it will reduce embryo adoption?!?!?! (I never knew this exist)
What about all the kids right now in the U.S. that needs adopting?
Obama stem cell regulations temporarily blocked - Yahoo! News
What about all the kids right now in the U.S. that needs adopting?
Obama stem cell regulations temporarily blocked - Yahoo! News
#2
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
That article is pretty severely lacking any kind of pertinent detail.
Any of our docs or soon-to-be docs weigh in?
Any of our docs or soon-to-be docs weigh in?
#3
Chibibar
Chibibar
Court Halts Federal Funding Embryonic Stem Cell Research | TPMDC
new article.
this sentence worries me
I don't think I'm taking it out of context, but I am hoping these people are NOT going to try to make embryo to have protection of the Constitution (in this case 14th amendment) which can get scary.
new article.
this sentence worries me
Bloomberg reported last fall that the pro-life groups who brought the lawsuit, including an embryo-adoption agency and the Christian Medical Association, were told by the same judge their case didn't have standing.
"Embryos lack standing because they are not persons under the law" and the unborn have no right to life protected under the Constitution's 14th Amendment, Lamberth ruled, Bloomberg reported.
I don't think I'm taking it out of context, but I am hoping these people are NOT going to try to make embryo to have protection of the Constitution (in this case 14th amendment) which can get scary.
#4
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Honestly, it doesn't matter. We already have methods of getting stem cells from blood, as well as means to cultivate said cells into sufficient quantities for treatments. It's already being done in other parts of the world... there are even companies in the US that will help you set up the process if you want to use stem cells for treatment. It usually goes like...
- You go to the company and get approved for the treatment. They take your blood.
- Your blood is sent to Israel, where labs will separate out the stem cells. They then cultivate the stem cells into the required amount.
- The stem cell culture is sent to a hospital in another part of the world (can't remember where), where you fly out and get the procedure done.
It's actually pretty straight forward. All that needs to be done right now is for it to get through the FDA... and for sufficient studies to be done to see if Stem Cells can actually DO what we think they can.
- You go to the company and get approved for the treatment. They take your blood.
- Your blood is sent to Israel, where labs will separate out the stem cells. They then cultivate the stem cells into the required amount.
- The stem cell culture is sent to a hospital in another part of the world (can't remember where), where you fly out and get the procedure done.
It's actually pretty straight forward. All that needs to be done right now is for it to get through the FDA... and for sufficient studies to be done to see if Stem Cells can actually DO what we think they can.
#5
MindDetective
MindDetective
Pluripotent adult stem cells are not as effective as embryonic stem cells. For instance, they can be affected by the method used to turn an adult cell into a stem cell (which is what you are talking about) and this hasn't been perfected yet to a level that can effectively be used to clone tissue and use in therapy.Honestly, it doesn't matter. We already have methods of getting stem cells from blood, as well as means to cultivate said cells into sufficient quantities for treatments. It's already being done in other parts of the world... there are even companies in the US that will help you set up the process if you want to use stem cells for treatment. It usually goes like...
- You go to the company and get approved for the treatment. They take your blood.
- Your blood is sent to Israel, where labs will separate out the stem cells. They then cultivate the stem cells into the required amount.
- The stem cell culture is sent to a hospital in another part of the world (can't remember where), where you fly out and get the procedure done.
It's actually pretty straight forward. All that needs to be done right now is for it to get through the FDA... and for sufficient studies to be done to see if Stem Cells can actually DO what we think they can.
#6
AshburnerX
It IS being used in therapies in some... less than reputable locations (mainly because nowhere else is willing to touch the issue).
AshburnerX
Pluripotent adult stem cells are not as effective as embryonic stem cells. For instance, they can be affected by the method used to turn an adult cell into a stem cell (which is what you are talking about) and this hasn't been perfected yet to a level that can effectively be used to clone tissue and use in therapy.[/QUOTE]Honestly, it doesn't matter. We already have methods of getting stem cells from blood, as well as means to cultivate said cells into sufficient quantities for treatments. It's already being done in other parts of the world... there are even companies in the US that will help you set up the process if you want to use stem cells for treatment. It usually goes like...
- You go to the company and get approved for the treatment. They take your blood.
- Your blood is sent to Israel, where labs will separate out the stem cells. They then cultivate the stem cells into the required amount.
- The stem cell culture is sent to a hospital in another part of the world (can't remember where), where you fly out and get the procedure done.
It's actually pretty straight forward. All that needs to be done right now is for it to get through the FDA... and for sufficient studies to be done to see if Stem Cells can actually DO what we think they can.
It IS being used in therapies in some... less than reputable locations (mainly because nowhere else is willing to touch the issue).
#7
strawman
strawman
This only affects research organizations and companies that use federal funding to perform embryonic stem cell research.
Anyone can perform any kind of stem cell research with private funding*.
There are some ethical problems many (not most) people in the US have with this type of research, and they've voted in politicians that every year vote to pass the amendment in congress that prevents federal funding from going to research that destroys embryos.
The federal judge has simply affirmed that congress, who has power over the budget, has control in this situation, and that the executive branch can write all the executive orders it wants, but it won't affect how federal funds are spent for this type of program.
This is simply a big paper-rock-scissors war between the three branches (executive, legislative, and judicial) and at the moment the judicial branch is supporting the orders of the legislative branch (congress) in defiance of the executive branch (president), primarily because it concerns federal funding, and this type of funding is clearly under the control of the legislative branch. It is their responsibility.
This is one of the areas the President is free to pander to the masses about. He can claim that he'll take the bull by the horns and get something done, and he'll take the credit when things go well, and blame someone else when things don't go well, and no matter what happens it will only reflect positively on him.
If people want federal funding for programs which destroy fertilized human eggs, they need to bother congress, who holds the purse strings, not the president.
-Adam
* Yes, there is a tangled web of financial issues that make it difficult for research institutions to work outside federal law even if they aren't accepting federal funding, but if they want to do so and they have the private funds they can make it happen.
Anyone can perform any kind of stem cell research with private funding*.
There are some ethical problems many (not most) people in the US have with this type of research, and they've voted in politicians that every year vote to pass the amendment in congress that prevents federal funding from going to research that destroys embryos.
The federal judge has simply affirmed that congress, who has power over the budget, has control in this situation, and that the executive branch can write all the executive orders it wants, but it won't affect how federal funds are spent for this type of program.
This is simply a big paper-rock-scissors war between the three branches (executive, legislative, and judicial) and at the moment the judicial branch is supporting the orders of the legislative branch (congress) in defiance of the executive branch (president), primarily because it concerns federal funding, and this type of funding is clearly under the control of the legislative branch. It is their responsibility.
This is one of the areas the President is free to pander to the masses about. He can claim that he'll take the bull by the horns and get something done, and he'll take the credit when things go well, and blame someone else when things don't go well, and no matter what happens it will only reflect positively on him.
If people want federal funding for programs which destroy fertilized human eggs, they need to bother congress, who holds the purse strings, not the president.
-Adam
* Yes, there is a tangled web of financial issues that make it difficult for research institutions to work outside federal law even if they aren't accepting federal funding, but if they want to do so and they have the private funds they can make it happen.
#8
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
Stopped? Cause my supply was getting low and I was hungry. I'm tired of sharing my embryos with America. Go get yours from China like I had to during this bullshit testing phase I had to endure.
#9
Chibibar
Chibibar
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/health/policy/24stem.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
More details. Depending on how you interpret the ruling, it can essentially stop ALL research.
More details. Depending on how you interpret the ruling, it can essentially stop ALL research.
#10
Chazwozel
Just stop...
Chazwozel
Honestly, it doesn't matter. We already have methods of getting stem cells from blood, as well as means to cultivate said cells into sufficient quantities for treatments. It's already being done in other parts of the world... there are even companies in the US that will help you set up the process if you want to use stem cells for treatment. It usually goes like...
- You go to the company and get approved for the treatment. They take your blood.
- Your blood is sent to Israel, where labs will separate out the stem cells. They then cultivate the stem cells into the required amount.
- The stem cell culture is sent to a hospital in another part of the world (can't remember where), where you fly out and get the procedure done.
It's actually pretty straight forward. All that needs to be done right now is for it to get through the FDA... and for sufficient studies to be done to see if Stem Cells can actually DO what we think they can.
Just stop...
#11
Dave
Dave
Damned Activist Judges.
#12
Bubble181
A-yup yup. I'm all in favour of using pluripotent adult stem cells of and when they're completely able to replace embryonic stem cells. I'm pretty sure we'll be able to get that far, eventually. Given the choice, yeah, I would prefer using stem cells from adults who survive with some minor discomfort over those that have to destroy embryos...But I also think that, until that research is perfected enough to make this happen, it would be ridiculous not to use embryonic stem cells.
Bubble181
Pluripotent adult stem cells are not as effective as embryonic stem cells. For instance, they can be affected by the method used to turn an adult cell into a stem cell (which is what you are talking about) and this hasn't been perfected yet to a level that can effectively be used to clone tissue and use in therapy.[/QUOTE]Honestly, it doesn't matter. We already have methods of getting stem cells from blood, as well as means to cultivate said cells into sufficient quantities for treatments. It's already being done in other parts of the world... there are even companies in the US that will help you set up the process if you want to use stem cells for treatment. It usually goes like...
- You go to the company and get approved for the treatment. They take your blood.
- Your blood is sent to Israel, where labs will separate out the stem cells. They then cultivate the stem cells into the required amount.
- The stem cell culture is sent to a hospital in another part of the world (can't remember where), where you fly out and get the procedure done.
It's actually pretty straight forward. All that needs to be done right now is for it to get through the FDA... and for sufficient studies to be done to see if Stem Cells can actually DO what we think they can.
A-yup yup. I'm all in favour of using pluripotent adult stem cells of and when they're completely able to replace embryonic stem cells. I'm pretty sure we'll be able to get that far, eventually. Given the choice, yeah, I would prefer using stem cells from adults who survive with some minor discomfort over those that have to destroy embryos...But I also think that, until that research is perfected enough to make this happen, it would be ridiculous not to use embryonic stem cells.
#13
strawman
;-P
-Adam
strawman
Wait, are we in the prop 8 thread, or the stem cell thread?Damned Activist Judges.
;-P
-Adam
#14
@Li3n
@Li3n
Why not just use those from embryos that would get destroyed anyway... there's bound to be plenty anyhow.Given the choice, yeah, I would prefer using stem cells from adults who survive with some minor discomfort over those that have to destroy embryos...But I also think that, until that research is perfected enough to make this happen, it would be ridiculous not to use embryonic stem cells.
#15
Eriol
If it wasn't already a law either way, this would be different.
Eriol
I'm very against activist judges, but that NYTimes article above made it really clear what happened:Damned Activist Judges.
- Law in (whatever year) said "no federal funding for research which destroys embryos except the pre-2001 lines."
- Obama comes out last year and signs an executive order saying "money for all for whatever for embryonic research!"
- Judge recently says "Uh, you can't contravene a LAW with an executive order."
If it wasn't already a law either way, this would be different.
#16
Troll
If it wasn't already a law either way, this would be different.[/QUOTE]
It was a joke about how the term "activist judge" has no real meaning except "judge who makes a decision I don't like," and it's usually conservatives who say it. Dave wasn't actually calling the judge activist.
Troll
I'm very against activist judges, but that NYTimes article above made it really clear what happened:Damned Activist Judges.
- Law in (whatever year) said "no federal funding for research which destroys embryos except the pre-2001 lines."
- Obama comes out last year and signs an executive order saying "money for all for whatever for embryonic research!"
- Judge recently says "Uh, you can't contravene a LAW with an executive order."
If it wasn't already a law either way, this would be different.[/QUOTE]
It was a joke about how the term "activist judge" has no real meaning except "judge who makes a decision I don't like," and it's usually conservatives who say it. Dave wasn't actually calling the judge activist.
#17
strawman
You know you're a good mediator when both parties leave the table unhappy...
strawman
Actually the term "Conservative activist judge" beats "Liberal activist judge" by a small margin. I'd call it pretty even, but you certainly can't claim it's a mostly a conservative complaint.It was a joke about how the term "activist judge" has no real meaning except "judge who makes a decision I don't like," and it's usually conservatives who say it.
You know you're a good mediator when both parties leave the table unhappy...
#18
Chibibar
The Pro-life don't care. They don't want any abortions at all or discarded embryos.
But I wonder how far would some of these people would hold on to that belief. I am not saying that stem cells will be "end all be all miracle cure" but what if other countries go ahead with their things and figure out a solid plan to recreate human organs from embryonic stem cell research (other countries are not restricted like the U.S.) would these people just wanted to die or they are willing to get that heart transplant, liver, etc etc.
Chibibar
Why not just use those from embryos that would get destroyed anyway... there's bound to be plenty anyhow.[/QUOTE]Given the choice, yeah, I would prefer using stem cells from adults who survive with some minor discomfort over those that have to destroy embryos...But I also think that, until that research is perfected enough to make this happen, it would be ridiculous not to use embryonic stem cells.
The Pro-life don't care. They don't want any abortions at all or discarded embryos.
But I wonder how far would some of these people would hold on to that belief. I am not saying that stem cells will be "end all be all miracle cure" but what if other countries go ahead with their things and figure out a solid plan to recreate human organs from embryonic stem cell research (other countries are not restricted like the U.S.) would these people just wanted to die or they are willing to get that heart transplant, liver, etc etc.
#19
Espy
This can't be true. Sounds like another right wing conspiracy.
Espy
Actually the term "Conservative activist judge" beats "Liberal activist judge" by a small margin. [/QUOTE]It was a joke about how the term "activist judge" has no real meaning except "judge who makes a decision I don't like," and it's usually conservatives who say it.
This can't be true. Sounds like another right wing conspiracy.
#20
Troll
I apologize. I've personally never heard anyone complain about a Conservative activist judge. I still think it's a stupid term, no matter who is saying it.
Troll
Actually the term "Conservative activist judge" beats "Liberal activist judge" by a small margin. I'd call it pretty even, but you certainly can't claim it's a mostly a conservative complaint.[/QUOTE]It was a joke about how the term "activist judge" has no real meaning except "judge who makes a decision I don't like," and it's usually conservatives who say it.
I apologize. I've personally never heard anyone complain about a Conservative activist judge. I still think it's a stupid term, no matter who is saying it.
#21
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
of course the way that google works, conservative activist judge is not the term on the page, it is just that those 3 words are on the same document.
i.e. The conservative candidate railed about activist judges for 30 minutes on a campaign stop....
i.e. The conservative candidate railed about activist judges for 30 minutes on a campaign stop....
#22
strawman
This can't be true. Sounds like another right wing conspiracy.[/QUOTE]
The right wingers are all up in your shizzle.
Dog.
---------- Post added at 09:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 PM ----------
Not that it really matters - we're arguing about who complains the most. Not exactly a productive topic...
strawman
Actually the term "Conservative activist judge" beats "Liberal activist judge" by a small margin. [/QUOTE]It was a joke about how the term "activist judge" has no real meaning except "judge who makes a decision I don't like," and it's usually conservatives who say it.
This can't be true. Sounds like another right wing conspiracy.[/QUOTE]
The right wingers are all up in your shizzle.
Dog.
---------- Post added at 09:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 PM ----------
Even with quotes it's still pretty even.of course the way that google works, conservative activist judge is not the term on the page, it is just that those 3 words are on the same document.
i.e. The conservative candidate railed about activist judges for 30 minutes on a campaign stop....
Not that it really matters - we're arguing about who complains the most. Not exactly a productive topic...
#23
Krisken
Krisken
Productive and politics rarely go together.
#24
Necronic
Necronic
If you think private funding will do any significant work in funding stem cell research you are sadly mistaken. As it stands, private funding for 'discovery' oriented sciences is very small, particularly in the pharmaceutical realm. This is because the profit potential of true discovery isn't nearly worth the risk of failure or cost, especially when compared to the easy money nature of things like modifying delivery systems or simply rebranding. Basically there is little incentive for companies to do the research.
And that's with pharmaceuticals. Stem cell research is the same problem but worse. If we realistically want to see stem cells being used in a medical setting (and maybe we don't) we have to have serious federal funding for it. Even charitable foundations can't really bring enough to the party to do much of anything. A handful of pieces of lab equipment can run into the millions quite easily.
Personally I don't know where I stand on the issue. I have moral objections to it, and I would like to see the alternate routes to generating stem cells being more heavily researched. However, as a utilitarian I also see that that route will set us back at least a decade, if not more. On the other hand, staying in the route we are now means that we will constantly see a start/stop nature of the funding as the political flux shifts one way or another, and that's not a good way to do research.
so.......
And that's with pharmaceuticals. Stem cell research is the same problem but worse. If we realistically want to see stem cells being used in a medical setting (and maybe we don't) we have to have serious federal funding for it. Even charitable foundations can't really bring enough to the party to do much of anything. A handful of pieces of lab equipment can run into the millions quite easily.
Personally I don't know where I stand on the issue. I have moral objections to it, and I would like to see the alternate routes to generating stem cells being more heavily researched. However, as a utilitarian I also see that that route will set us back at least a decade, if not more. On the other hand, staying in the route we are now means that we will constantly see a start/stop nature of the funding as the political flux shifts one way or another, and that's not a good way to do research.
so.......
#25
GasBandit
GasBandit
I'm going to need to see some sources on that, because it runs contrary to everything I've ever heard from anywhere for the last 10+ years. Big Pharma is booming.As it stands, private funding for 'discovery' oriented sciences is very small, particularly in the pharmaceutical realm.
#26
Krisken
They are doing just fine. CBO report on Pharma R&D spending
They spent roughly 18% of sales revenue in 2004 on Research and Development.
Krisken
I'm going to need to see some sources on that, because it runs contrary to everything I've ever heard from anywhere for the last 10+ years. Big Pharma is booming.[/QUOTE]As it stands, private funding for 'discovery' oriented sciences is very small, particularly in the pharmaceutical realm.
They are doing just fine. CBO report on Pharma R&D spending
They spent roughly 18% of sales revenue in 2004 on Research and Development.
#27
tegid
tegid
Basic research and applied research are very different things... Basic research is what Necronic called 'discovery' research, and although the larger companies do some of that, most cannot afford it, since it's 1- long term 2- very risky
#28
Krisken
Krisken
It's true, most of the cost of drugs doesn't come from the discovery of the drugs, but in the development and trial testing. Which it says right in that CBO on page 30.
I'm having trouble finding solid numbers spend on discovery alone.
In actuality, apparently small firms are responsible for discovery while the testing is done by larger firms. I know we have a drug clinical testing facility within my city.
I'm having trouble finding solid numbers spend on discovery alone.
In actuality, apparently small firms are responsible for discovery while the testing is done by larger firms. I know we have a drug clinical testing facility within my city.
#29
Necronic
Necronic
I'm including development and testing in the discovery cost. I just found a range of numbers that put the cost of developing and implementing a new drug from discovery to shelf as between 500 mil and 2 bil. Think about that. And that could be how much money you spend on a drug that gets shot down by the FDA in the last round of clinical trials. No company, no matter how big, can look at spending 2 billion dollars and getting nothing back as an easy risk to take. If, however, you are focusing on a delivery system, (like the molecular pump in Concerta or the time release mechanism in Vyvanse) you are looking at spending much much less, and you still get a highly profitable product.
---------- Post added at 02:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 PM ----------
They are doing just fine. CBO report on Pharma R&D spending
They spent roughly 18% of sales revenue in 2004 on Research and Development.[/QUOTE]
That is a really good article, and I need to spend some more time reading it. One note I found in there was that the cost of development of a truly new drug has gone up by 6 times since the late 70s (accounts for inflation.)
Part of the reason discovery is so expensive (and it does discuss that there) is that there are far more lengthy clinical trials for a discovery oriented drug than a delivery/incrementally modified drug.
---------- Post added at 02:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 PM ----------
I'm going to need to see some sources on that, because it runs contrary to everything I've ever heard from anywhere for the last 10+ years. Big Pharma is booming.[/QUOTE]As it stands, private funding for 'discovery' oriented sciences is very small, particularly in the pharmaceutical realm.
They are doing just fine. CBO report on Pharma R&D spending
They spent roughly 18% of sales revenue in 2004 on Research and Development.[/QUOTE]
That is a really good article, and I need to spend some more time reading it. One note I found in there was that the cost of development of a truly new drug has gone up by 6 times since the late 70s (accounts for inflation.)
Part of the reason discovery is so expensive (and it does discuss that there) is that there are far more lengthy clinical trials for a discovery oriented drug than a delivery/incrementally modified drug.
#30
Chazwozel
Big Pharma doesn't care about cures for cancer because they would be obligated to sell them below cost. Big Pharma is booming because everyone takes Tylenol on a daily basis, and you have a billion ads for "PLANTRUMEER *** ask your doctor if PLANTRUMEER*** is right for you."
Discovery science has and always will depend on academia, which gets most of its funding from taxpayers i.e. the NIH. Of course you have private investment companies like the Howard Hughs Institute, but for the most part, NIH and NSF is where academics get funded.
Chazwozel
I'm going to need to see some sources on that, because it runs contrary to everything I've ever heard from anywhere for the last 10+ years. Big Pharma is booming.[/QUOTE]As it stands, private funding for 'discovery' oriented sciences is very small, particularly in the pharmaceutical realm.
Big Pharma doesn't care about cures for cancer because they would be obligated to sell them below cost. Big Pharma is booming because everyone takes Tylenol on a daily basis, and you have a billion ads for "PLANTRUMEER *** ask your doctor if PLANTRUMEER*** is right for you."
Discovery science has and always will depend on academia, which gets most of its funding from taxpayers i.e. the NIH. Of course you have private investment companies like the Howard Hughs Institute, but for the most part, NIH and NSF is where academics get funded.
#31
GasBandit
GasBandit
Isn't that just the same sort of cynicism that says the cure for cancer will never be found at all because there's too much money being spent on cancer research?Big Pharma doesn't care about cures for cancer because they would be obligated to sell them below cost.
#32
Chibibar
Conspiracy Theory: If it is found, then no more money to be made after initial cost of curing. I mean can you imagine all the drugs you need to take when you do have cancer and radiation treatment?
Chibibar
Isn't that just the same sort of cynicism that says the cure for cancer will never be found at all because there's too much money being spent on cancer research?[/QUOTE]Big Pharma doesn't care about cures for cancer because they would be obligated to sell them below cost.
Conspiracy Theory: If it is found, then no more money to be made after initial cost of curing. I mean can you imagine all the drugs you need to take when you do have cancer and radiation treatment?
#33
Krisken
Krisken
Companies don't think long term anymore. I think the reason for this is businesses are not family oriented as they were in the past. Founders are not concerned about a company's legacy or being on solid footing for their next generation. Short term influences stocks and the value of the company.
Now, I can hear people saying "Krisken, what does that have to do with our discussion?" Well, if companies are more concerned with short term gain, wouldn't it be in the best interest of the company to successfully create cures? In the U.S. pharma companies who develop drugs approved by the FDA get exclusivity for X amount of years (I don't remember how many, but I seem to remember it was somewhere around 3-5) in distribution of the product. Also, imagine how many competitors would get hurt by loss of sales because they were developing drugs that dealt with the symptoms and not the disease itself.
One final note- thephrase Cure for cancer is a bullshit term. Lung cancer isn't the same as prostate cancer. It would be like collecting all inflammations under one heading. A cure for one cancer will have little to no effect on another type of cancer.
Now, I can hear people saying "Krisken, what does that have to do with our discussion?" Well, if companies are more concerned with short term gain, wouldn't it be in the best interest of the company to successfully create cures? In the U.S. pharma companies who develop drugs approved by the FDA get exclusivity for X amount of years (I don't remember how many, but I seem to remember it was somewhere around 3-5) in distribution of the product. Also, imagine how many competitors would get hurt by loss of sales because they were developing drugs that dealt with the symptoms and not the disease itself.
One final note- thephrase Cure for cancer is a bullshit term. Lung cancer isn't the same as prostate cancer. It would be like collecting all inflammations under one heading. A cure for one cancer will have little to no effect on another type of cancer.
#34
Chazwozel
No. The cure for cancer will never be found because it's an individualized disease, and the way medicine works right now is on mass scale universal development. Big Pharma does not do discovery, translational research. That's what hospitals and universities do, based off of NIH and NSF (taxpayer) money. Big Pharma R&D goes into improving methods and protocols, not finding out new things.
Chazwozel
Isn't that just the same sort of cynicism that says the cure for cancer will never be found at all because there's too much money being spent on cancer research?[/QUOTE]Big Pharma doesn't care about cures for cancer because they would be obligated to sell them below cost.
No. The cure for cancer will never be found because it's an individualized disease, and the way medicine works right now is on mass scale universal development. Big Pharma does not do discovery, translational research. That's what hospitals and universities do, based off of NIH and NSF (taxpayer) money. Big Pharma R&D goes into improving methods and protocols, not finding out new things.
#35
GasBandit
No. The cure for cancer will never be found because it's an individualized disease, and the way medicine works right now is on mass scale universal development. Big Pharma does not do discovery, translational research. That's what hospitals and universities do, based off of NIH and NSF (taxpayer) money. Big Pharma R&D goes into improving methods and protocols, not finding out new things.[/QUOTE]
And is this the same for stem cell research, or is that an entirely different ball of wax?
GasBandit
Isn't that just the same sort of cynicism that says the cure for cancer will never be found at all because there's too much money being spent on cancer research?[/QUOTE]Big Pharma doesn't care about cures for cancer because they would be obligated to sell them below cost.
No. The cure for cancer will never be found because it's an individualized disease, and the way medicine works right now is on mass scale universal development. Big Pharma does not do discovery, translational research. That's what hospitals and universities do, based off of NIH and NSF (taxpayer) money. Big Pharma R&D goes into improving methods and protocols, not finding out new things.[/QUOTE]
And is this the same for stem cell research, or is that an entirely different ball of wax?
#36
Chazwozel
No. The cure for cancer will never be found because it's an individualized disease, and the way medicine works right now is on mass scale universal development. Big Pharma does not do discovery, translational research. That's what hospitals and universities do, based off of NIH and NSF (taxpayer) money. Big Pharma R&D goes into improving methods and protocols, not finding out new things.[/QUOTE]
And is this the same for stem cell research, or is that an entirely different ball of wax?[/QUOTE]
Stem Cell research is only useful for discovery science. Big pharma doesn't do discovery, they don't care about how cells function and develop cancer. They want the results of work with stem cell research so their own R&D can make drugs.
Chazwozel
Isn't that just the same sort of cynicism that says the cure for cancer will never be found at all because there's too much money being spent on cancer research?[/QUOTE]Big Pharma doesn't care about cures for cancer because they would be obligated to sell them below cost.
No. The cure for cancer will never be found because it's an individualized disease, and the way medicine works right now is on mass scale universal development. Big Pharma does not do discovery, translational research. That's what hospitals and universities do, based off of NIH and NSF (taxpayer) money. Big Pharma R&D goes into improving methods and protocols, not finding out new things.[/QUOTE]
And is this the same for stem cell research, or is that an entirely different ball of wax?[/QUOTE]
Stem Cell research is only useful for discovery science. Big pharma doesn't do discovery, they don't care about how cells function and develop cancer. They want the results of work with stem cell research so their own R&D can make drugs.
#37
Chibibar
Chibibar
This mean that it would require Federal funding (or people with DEEP pockets) for discovery science then huh? I know that Stem Cell is a new idea and not "end all be all cure" but it "could" be a cure of something but we are going to need a ton of scientist and money to do all that discovery. right?Stem Cell research is only useful for discovery science. Big pharma doesn't do discovery, they don't care about how cells function and develop cancer. They want the results of work with stem cell research so their own R&D can make drugs.
#38
Necronic
Necronic
Basically yeah, we will need a lot of resources. But then that begs the question, why Stem Cells? There are tons of research paths that, if they were given a heavy focus by the goverhment could realistically see market. My personal horse was Carbon Nanotubes, which have cancer fighting potential as well as being able to build the Space Elevator, but more realistically you have things like genetic/retroviral therapy, which also have tons of uses.
Of course we could just let our research lapse for a while and expand our esionage spend rates, and then, when another nation gets it, we can steal it from them and then sell it to all the other nations. We can then use that gold to rush battleships. Then we conquer everyone.
Of course we could just let our research lapse for a while and expand our esionage spend rates, and then, when another nation gets it, we can steal it from them and then sell it to all the other nations. We can then use that gold to rush battleships. Then we conquer everyone.
#39
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
I'm very uninformed about the pharma industry, but I'm repping you just for this addition.Of course we could just let our research lapse for a while and expand our esionage spend rates, and then, when another nation gets it, we can steal it from them and then sell it to all the other nations. We can then use that gold to rush battleships. Then we conquer everyone.
#40
strawman
So much for small government.
The funny thing is that NIH funded research often results in patents held by companies that stand to make millions from the patent.
So, in essence, people are insisting on gov't funding that results in the morally dubious destruction of embryos so that private companies can profit.
Awesome.
Because, you know, the gov't spent billions on cold fusion research just a decade or two ago, and, well, the results of that are astonishing to say the least. They proved cold fusion was possible, and it's a miracle energy source. But they still haven't been able to put it to any practical use.
Even if there was no ethical problem with embryonic stem cell research, I wouldn't want the gov't spending tons on it anyway. Spend some, yes, but a dollar you put into stem cell research is a dollar taken from one of the thousands of other research programs studying other ways to resolve heart disease, asthma, diabetes, cancer, etc. And it's a dollar taken from taxpayer's pockets to play a gambling game where they will rarely hit the jackpot, and when they do someone else gets the prize. This is a zero sum game. There are good reasons for public works, but there must necessarily be a line.
I'll say it again - people are complaining about a minor federal funding restriction that affects a small portion of the whole of stem cell research.
The reality is that if an embryonic stem cell derived cure was possible, it would be provable using animal models (using their embryonic stem cells, for which there is no restriction) and provable using the existing lines of embryonic stem cells (which have problems, sure, but it would work). Once a researcher can prove their cure to breast cancer using animal models and existing stem cell lines, guess what? Private money will come rolling in.
And they can use all the gov't money they want getting to that phase.
But they aren't even close on any front, and this is after nearly a decade of research.
They are making progress, and things still look promising, and some hot shot researchers have actually performed significant clinical trials with various stem cell therapies.
But the reality is that new lines of embryonic stem cells are not required to prove any basic, fundamental ability of any given stem cell therapy.
strawman
So your entire line of reasoning is, "It is unprofitable to develop stem cell cures, therefore the government should throw billions of dollars at it." ?!?Basically there is little incentive for companies to do the research.
So much for small government.
The funny thing is that NIH funded research often results in patents held by companies that stand to make millions from the patent.
So, in essence, people are insisting on gov't funding that results in the morally dubious destruction of embryos so that private companies can profit.
Awesome.
Because, you know, the gov't spent billions on cold fusion research just a decade or two ago, and, well, the results of that are astonishing to say the least. They proved cold fusion was possible, and it's a miracle energy source. But they still haven't been able to put it to any practical use.
Even if there was no ethical problem with embryonic stem cell research, I wouldn't want the gov't spending tons on it anyway. Spend some, yes, but a dollar you put into stem cell research is a dollar taken from one of the thousands of other research programs studying other ways to resolve heart disease, asthma, diabetes, cancer, etc. And it's a dollar taken from taxpayer's pockets to play a gambling game where they will rarely hit the jackpot, and when they do someone else gets the prize. This is a zero sum game. There are good reasons for public works, but there must necessarily be a line.
I'll say it again - people are complaining about a minor federal funding restriction that affects a small portion of the whole of stem cell research.
The reality is that if an embryonic stem cell derived cure was possible, it would be provable using animal models (using their embryonic stem cells, for which there is no restriction) and provable using the existing lines of embryonic stem cells (which have problems, sure, but it would work). Once a researcher can prove their cure to breast cancer using animal models and existing stem cell lines, guess what? Private money will come rolling in.
And they can use all the gov't money they want getting to that phase.
But they aren't even close on any front, and this is after nearly a decade of research.
They are making progress, and things still look promising, and some hot shot researchers have actually performed significant clinical trials with various stem cell therapies.
But the reality is that new lines of embryonic stem cells are not required to prove any basic, fundamental ability of any given stem cell therapy.
#41
Necronic
Necronic
Uhhhhhmmmmmm. No. No. No. No. No. Cold fusion is about as real as polywater and N-rays.Because, you know, the gov't spent billions on cold fusion research just a decade or two ago, and, well, the results of that are astonishing to say the least. They proved cold fusion was possible, and it's a miracle energy source. But they still haven't been able to put it to any practical use.
#42
Chazwozel
I was about to say... isn't cold fusion one of the chief examples of pseudo-science?
Chazwozel
Uhhhhhmmmmmm. No. No. No. No. No. Cold fusion is about as real as polywater and N-rays.Because, you know, the gov't spent billions on cold fusion research just a decade or two ago, and, well, the results of that are astonishing to say the least. They proved cold fusion was possible, and it's a miracle energy source. But they still haven't been able to put it to any practical use.
I was about to say... isn't cold fusion one of the chief examples of pseudo-science?
#43
Necronic
Necronic
Technically its a "pathological" science because it came around due to bad experimental practice, but as soon as it was debunked it was dropped. Pseudosciences have no real pretenses at being sciences in the first place, and stick around regardless of how many times it is debunked. I guess there's a bit of a fuzzy line there.
#44
Krisken
Krisken
Intelligent Design.
#46
Chibibar
The bane of my existence![/QUOTE]
ID doesn't exist to me.
Chibibar
Intelligent Design.
The bane of my existence![/QUOTE]
ID doesn't exist to me.
#47
Chazwozel
So much for small government.
The funny thing is that NIH funded research often results in patents held by companies that stand to make millions from the patent.
So, in essence, people are insisting on gov't funding that results in the morally dubious destruction of embryos so that private companies can profit.
Awesome.
Because, you know, the gov't spent billions on cold fusion research just a decade or two ago, and, well, the results of that are astonishing to say the least. They proved cold fusion was possible, and it's a miracle energy source. But they still haven't been able to put it to any practical use.
Even if there was no ethical problem with embryonic stem cell research, I wouldn't want the gov't spending tons on it anyway. Spend some, yes, but a dollar you put into stem cell research is a dollar taken from one of the thousands of other research programs studying other ways to resolve heart disease, asthma, diabetes, cancer, etc. And it's a dollar taken from taxpayer's pockets to play a gambling game where they will rarely hit the jackpot, and when they do someone else gets the prize. This is a zero sum game. There are good reasons for public works, but there must necessarily be a line.
I'll say it again - people are complaining about a minor federal funding restriction that affects a small portion of the whole of stem cell research.
The reality is that if an embryonic stem cell derived cure was possible, it would be provable using animal models (using their embryonic stem cells, for which there is no restriction) and provable using the existing lines of embryonic stem cells (which have problems, sure, but it would work). Once a researcher can prove their cure to breast cancer using animal models and existing stem cell lines, guess what? Private money will come rolling in.
And they can use all the gov't money they want getting to that phase.
But they aren't even close on any front, and this is after nearly a decade of research.
They are making progress, and things still look promising, and some hot shot researchers have actually performed significant clinical trials with various stem cell therapies.
But the reality is that new lines of embryonic stem cells are not required to prove any basic, fundamental ability of any given stem cell therapy.[/QUOTE]
Steiny, I love ya, but if you think the only use ES cells have are towards looking for a one-shot, be-all cure for cancer you've got some major reading to do on the topic. And NO animal model is ever, ever, ever going to be as useful as an ES derived model.
Chazwozel
So your entire line of reasoning is, "It is unprofitable to develop stem cell cures, therefore the government should throw billions of dollars at it." ?!?Basically there is little incentive for companies to do the research.
So much for small government.
The funny thing is that NIH funded research often results in patents held by companies that stand to make millions from the patent.
So, in essence, people are insisting on gov't funding that results in the morally dubious destruction of embryos so that private companies can profit.
Awesome.
Because, you know, the gov't spent billions on cold fusion research just a decade or two ago, and, well, the results of that are astonishing to say the least. They proved cold fusion was possible, and it's a miracle energy source. But they still haven't been able to put it to any practical use.
Even if there was no ethical problem with embryonic stem cell research, I wouldn't want the gov't spending tons on it anyway. Spend some, yes, but a dollar you put into stem cell research is a dollar taken from one of the thousands of other research programs studying other ways to resolve heart disease, asthma, diabetes, cancer, etc. And it's a dollar taken from taxpayer's pockets to play a gambling game where they will rarely hit the jackpot, and when they do someone else gets the prize. This is a zero sum game. There are good reasons for public works, but there must necessarily be a line.
I'll say it again - people are complaining about a minor federal funding restriction that affects a small portion of the whole of stem cell research.
The reality is that if an embryonic stem cell derived cure was possible, it would be provable using animal models (using their embryonic stem cells, for which there is no restriction) and provable using the existing lines of embryonic stem cells (which have problems, sure, but it would work). Once a researcher can prove their cure to breast cancer using animal models and existing stem cell lines, guess what? Private money will come rolling in.
And they can use all the gov't money they want getting to that phase.
But they aren't even close on any front, and this is after nearly a decade of research.
They are making progress, and things still look promising, and some hot shot researchers have actually performed significant clinical trials with various stem cell therapies.
But the reality is that new lines of embryonic stem cells are not required to prove any basic, fundamental ability of any given stem cell therapy.[/QUOTE]
Steiny, I love ya, but if you think the only use ES cells have are towards looking for a one-shot, be-all cure for cancer you've got some major reading to do on the topic. And NO animal model is ever, ever, ever going to be as useful as an ES derived model.
#48
Necronic
The bane of my existence![/QUOTE]
ID doesn't exist to me.[/QUOTE]
Getting totally off topic, or sort of off topic (why not) I'm going to throw a bone in this whole conversation (because its a bit unexpected) by saying....
I believe in intelligent design.
....
sort of.
See, I think evolution is one of the most beautful systems in the universe, like molecular bonding. Its so beautiful, in fact, that to me it is something to be revered. It is something that has a level of perfection beyond what a human can truly understand. So, evolution is, in its own way, vague evidence of the possibility (the possibility) of a god thing.
Now the question is, how do we kill it.
Necronic
Intelligent Design.
The bane of my existence![/QUOTE]
ID doesn't exist to me.[/QUOTE]
Getting totally off topic, or sort of off topic (why not) I'm going to throw a bone in this whole conversation (because its a bit unexpected) by saying....
I believe in intelligent design.
....
sort of.
See, I think evolution is one of the most beautful systems in the universe, like molecular bonding. Its so beautiful, in fact, that to me it is something to be revered. It is something that has a level of perfection beyond what a human can truly understand. So, evolution is, in its own way, vague evidence of the possibility (the possibility) of a god thing.
Now the question is, how do we kill it.
#49
crono1224
crono1224
What about changes that don't stick around because they are useless or don't really benefit the species? I think it is more of a trial and error process until the adaption that best suits the situation continues on, hardly perfection 
.
.
#50
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
Does it bleed?Now the question is, how do we kill it.
#51
Necronic
It only bleeds hatred.
Necronic
Does it bleed?[/QUOTE]Now the question is, how do we kill it.
It only bleeds hatred.
#52
SpecialKO
It only bleeds hatred.[/QUOTE]
SpecialKO
Does it bleed?[/QUOTE]Now the question is, how do we kill it.
It only bleeds hatred.[/QUOTE]
#53
Eriol
Eriol
The point was they can't do it with animal embryonic stem cells, despite "free reign" and so why do they want to go to humans so fast? In a way, it's bypassing animal models entirely, which usually isn't good science.And NO animal model is ever, ever, ever going to be as useful as an ES derived model.
#54
Chazwozel
Mouse ES cells turn into mouse cells; not human. Good science involves using models that model what is actually happening, but believe me there is hardly any "bypassing" of animal models. There are tons of animal models for tons of studies. Who's "they" by the way?
There are a number of things you can model using mouse cell lines, but not as well as with human lines for human disorders. Fuck mouse cell lines, we can make transgenic mice! Why bother with mouse ES cells when you can model a disease in the actual mouse?!
Human lines are much more useful because models derived from human lines are very accurate to human conditions. Say I want to study a gene and its subsequent activation pathways and protein signaling, a human model using human derived cells is far more effective than using mouse cells. The reason Human ES cells are so useful is because you can manipulate them into differentiating into cells that are difficult to harvest for cell culture. For example, there are models of cystic fibrosis in mice, but a human cultured ES line modified as a model for cystic fibrosis would be much, much, much, much more beneficial for research. You can't make a knockout human, but you can make gene knockout ES cells.
I'm not even scratching the surface on how useful these cells are for research. Imagine doctors taking a small sample of ES cells before a person is born, without damaging the embryo, and storing those cells. Need a liver transplant when you're 40? Just take those cells out of storage, grow them up with the right genes being activated and presto, here's your new liver. Donor rejection free.
Any bullshit that you hear about ES cells not being useful or that there are "feasible" alternatives is just that: bullshit from the pro-life propaganda machine. ES cells essentially let you do research and manipulation on human cells that would be completely unethical otherwise. If someone's going to abort an embryo, why not make use of it?
Chazwozel
The point was they can't do it with animal embryonic stem cells, despite "free reign" and so why do they want to go to humans so fast? In a way, it's bypassing animal models entirely, which usually isn't good science.[/QUOTE]And NO animal model is ever, ever, ever going to be as useful as an ES derived model.
Mouse ES cells turn into mouse cells; not human. Good science involves using models that model what is actually happening, but believe me there is hardly any "bypassing" of animal models. There are tons of animal models for tons of studies. Who's "they" by the way?
There are a number of things you can model using mouse cell lines, but not as well as with human lines for human disorders. Fuck mouse cell lines, we can make transgenic mice! Why bother with mouse ES cells when you can model a disease in the actual mouse?!
Human lines are much more useful because models derived from human lines are very accurate to human conditions. Say I want to study a gene and its subsequent activation pathways and protein signaling, a human model using human derived cells is far more effective than using mouse cells. The reason Human ES cells are so useful is because you can manipulate them into differentiating into cells that are difficult to harvest for cell culture. For example, there are models of cystic fibrosis in mice, but a human cultured ES line modified as a model for cystic fibrosis would be much, much, much, much more beneficial for research. You can't make a knockout human, but you can make gene knockout ES cells.
I'm not even scratching the surface on how useful these cells are for research. Imagine doctors taking a small sample of ES cells before a person is born, without damaging the embryo, and storing those cells. Need a liver transplant when you're 40? Just take those cells out of storage, grow them up with the right genes being activated and presto, here's your new liver. Donor rejection free.
Any bullshit that you hear about ES cells not being useful or that there are "feasible" alternatives is just that: bullshit from the pro-life propaganda machine. ES cells essentially let you do research and manipulation on human cells that would be completely unethical otherwise. If someone's going to abort an embryo, why not make use of it?
#55
Eriol
And besides, where's the MOUSE they've done that with? The lifecycle is SO short that it's easy to experiment on them. But they can't do that with ANY type of stem cell yet (short of amphibians, I THINK), and definitely not mammalian. When they get it working in the lab for ANY mammal, then maybe people would have a point about "it is probably worth the cost" but right now? No way. Avoid the ethical quagmire until the animal models even look PROMISING. They're not even close yet. They are basically at "we know how to draw blood!" but getting funding on "we will be able to do heart transplants... maybe... someday!"
Eriol
That's the promise of ADULT stem cells since high-90s percentage of CURRENT people do NOT have cells (or cord blood) stored away for that future date. If they can make Adult stem cells fully totipotent, then that idea will work for all of us, not just the insanely-lucky who have them stored away.I'm not even scratching the surface on how useful these cells are for research. Imagine doctors taking a small sample of ES cells before a person is born, without damaging the embryo, and storing those cells. Need a liver transplant when you're 40? Just take those cells out of storage, grow them up with the right genes being activated and presto, here's your new liver. Donor rejection free.
And besides, where's the MOUSE they've done that with? The lifecycle is SO short that it's easy to experiment on them. But they can't do that with ANY type of stem cell yet (short of amphibians, I THINK), and definitely not mammalian. When they get it working in the lab for ANY mammal, then maybe people would have a point about "it is probably worth the cost" but right now? No way. Avoid the ethical quagmire until the animal models even look PROMISING. They're not even close yet. They are basically at "we know how to draw blood!" but getting funding on "we will be able to do heart transplants... maybe... someday!"
#56
Chibibar
Chibibar
I'm gonna take a stab on this (forgive me Chaz) but I feel that some studies on the genetic level it is better to start with the same species genes. Sure we can get results from animal ES, but I don't know how well the result will transfer to human ES (i.e. this happen in mice ES cells, will it happen the SAME way in human ES cells?) The genetic level of anything is so complex we just recently got the full genetic map of human and apple. (yea I read an article about Washington apple genetic code map)
Am I way off Chaz?
Am I way off Chaz?
#57
Chazwozel
And besides, where's the MOUSE they've done that with? The lifecycle is SO short that it's easy to experiment on them. But they can't do that with ANY type of stem cell yet (short of amphibians, I THINK), and definitely not mammalian. When they get it working in the lab for ANY mammal, then maybe people would have a point about "it is probably worth the cost" but right now? No way. Avoid the ethical quagmire until the animal models even look PROMISING. They're not even close yet. They are basically at "we know how to draw blood!" but getting funding on "we will be able to do heart transplants... maybe... someday!"[/QUOTE]
I'll just leave this here...
http://ntp.neuroscience.wisc.edu/neuro670/reqreading/transplanted.pdf
Efficient generation of midbrain and hindbrain neurons from mouse embryonic stem cells : Abstract : Nature Biotechnology
Cell - The Homeoprotein Nanog Is Required for Maintenance of Pluripotency in Mouse Epiblast and ES Cells
Embryoid-body cells derived from a mouse embryonic stem cell line show differentiation into functional hepatocytes - Chinzei - 2003 - Hepatology - Wiley Online Library
Mouse embryonic stem cells and reporter constructs to detect developmentally regulated genes -- Gossler et al. 244 (4903): 463 -- Science
De novo DNA cytosine methyltransferase activities in mouse embryonic stem cells
Pluripotent mouse embryonic stem cells are able to differentiate into cardiomyocytes expressing chronotropic responses to adrenergic and cholinergic agents and Ca2+ channel blockers - Wobus - 2006 - Differentiation - Wiley Online Library
Elsevier: Article Locator
These are just a few papers I scored by searching Mouse ES cell in pubmed, there were over 30,000 search results... Yeah, we have awesome knowledge of how mouse cells work; imagine if we were using human derived ES cells. The models are directly relevant to human biology.
Chazwozel
That's the promise of ADULT stem cells since high-90s percentage of CURRENT people do NOT have cells (or cord blood) stored away for that future date. If they can make Adult stem cells fully totipotent, then that idea will work for all of us, not just the insanely-lucky who have them stored away.I'm not even scratching the surface on how useful these cells are for research. Imagine doctors taking a small sample of ES cells before a person is born, without damaging the embryo, and storing those cells. Need a liver transplant when you're 40? Just take those cells out of storage, grow them up with the right genes being activated and presto, here's your new liver. Donor rejection free.
And besides, where's the MOUSE they've done that with? The lifecycle is SO short that it's easy to experiment on them. But they can't do that with ANY type of stem cell yet (short of amphibians, I THINK), and definitely not mammalian. When they get it working in the lab for ANY mammal, then maybe people would have a point about "it is probably worth the cost" but right now? No way. Avoid the ethical quagmire until the animal models even look PROMISING. They're not even close yet. They are basically at "we know how to draw blood!" but getting funding on "we will be able to do heart transplants... maybe... someday!"[/QUOTE]
I'll just leave this here...
http://ntp.neuroscience.wisc.edu/neuro670/reqreading/transplanted.pdf
Efficient generation of midbrain and hindbrain neurons from mouse embryonic stem cells : Abstract : Nature Biotechnology
Cell - The Homeoprotein Nanog Is Required for Maintenance of Pluripotency in Mouse Epiblast and ES Cells
Embryoid-body cells derived from a mouse embryonic stem cell line show differentiation into functional hepatocytes - Chinzei - 2003 - Hepatology - Wiley Online Library
Mouse embryonic stem cells and reporter constructs to detect developmentally regulated genes -- Gossler et al. 244 (4903): 463 -- Science
De novo DNA cytosine methyltransferase activities in mouse embryonic stem cells
Pluripotent mouse embryonic stem cells are able to differentiate into cardiomyocytes expressing chronotropic responses to adrenergic and cholinergic agents and Ca2+ channel blockers - Wobus - 2006 - Differentiation - Wiley Online Library
Elsevier: Article Locator
These are just a few papers I scored by searching Mouse ES cell in pubmed, there were over 30,000 search results... Yeah, we have awesome knowledge of how mouse cells work; imagine if we were using human derived ES cells. The models are directly relevant to human biology.
#58
Krisken
Krisken
Google WIN, ^^^^
#59
Chazwozel
I could go on....
For the record, there have been tons of studies using transgenic mice and mouse ES cells to graft tissues etc... It's so common to "make" a disease modeled knockout mouse in research that it's barely worth mentioning as a "new technology". Mice are incredibly valuable for research. I've read papers where tumors are grafted onto mice and all sorts of wacky stuff like that.
Just to drive the point home, yes, there are TONS of groups out there using mouse cells and mice and other animal models and bacteria and human derived primary cells and human cancerous lines. Human ES cells are a direct look into ANY tissue you want to study, and a DIRECT model of what happens EXACTLY as it happens in human cells. EXACTLY. The cell signaling pathways, the proteins, the genes, everything is directly homologous to what is going on in a human cell because they ARE human cells! You can model a signaling pathway in monkey cells all you want, they will never be as accurate as using the direct human lines. It's much easier (and faster) to make the tissue you're studying in culture rather than primary harvesting of limited access tissues. For example, a lot of human cell culture tissues are cancerous cell lines. Why? Because cancerous cells grow like crazy and they're immortalized. Primary healthy lines have a limited dividing time before they just stop dividing. This is one reason it's thought that things get old and die. ES cells are immortal AND they can make any cell in your body.
I'm sorry, but every single anti- ES cell argument I've heard that tries to reason that there is no good scientific reason to use human ES cells is complete bullshit, hearsay propaganda by the Pro-Life front. The ONLY ONLY ONLY reason not to use Human ES cells for research is the moral dilemma of destroying fertilized human embryos to harvest them. My argument is that specifically (or even spontaneously) aborted embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, why not make them useful?
Chazwozel
Google WIN, ^^^^
I could go on....
For the record, there have been tons of studies using transgenic mice and mouse ES cells to graft tissues etc... It's so common to "make" a disease modeled knockout mouse in research that it's barely worth mentioning as a "new technology". Mice are incredibly valuable for research. I've read papers where tumors are grafted onto mice and all sorts of wacky stuff like that.
Just to drive the point home, yes, there are TONS of groups out there using mouse cells and mice and other animal models and bacteria and human derived primary cells and human cancerous lines. Human ES cells are a direct look into ANY tissue you want to study, and a DIRECT model of what happens EXACTLY as it happens in human cells. EXACTLY. The cell signaling pathways, the proteins, the genes, everything is directly homologous to what is going on in a human cell because they ARE human cells! You can model a signaling pathway in monkey cells all you want, they will never be as accurate as using the direct human lines. It's much easier (and faster) to make the tissue you're studying in culture rather than primary harvesting of limited access tissues. For example, a lot of human cell culture tissues are cancerous cell lines. Why? Because cancerous cells grow like crazy and they're immortalized. Primary healthy lines have a limited dividing time before they just stop dividing. This is one reason it's thought that things get old and die. ES cells are immortal AND they can make any cell in your body.
I'm sorry, but every single anti- ES cell argument I've heard that tries to reason that there is no good scientific reason to use human ES cells is complete bullshit, hearsay propaganda by the Pro-Life front. The ONLY ONLY ONLY reason not to use Human ES cells for research is the moral dilemma of destroying fertilized human embryos to harvest them. My argument is that specifically (or even spontaneously) aborted embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, why not make them useful?
#60
D
Dubyamn
We are able to pursue embryonic stem cell research now in parallel with attempt to make adult stem cells just as pluripotent and in the future the techniques that are discovered in stem cells can be used with the pluripotent Adult cells. But you don't hold back promising research because there may be a breakthrough years down the line. It's bullshit logic and it's bullshit science.
D
Dubyamn
So in 4+ years when we are able to turn adult stem cells then we're supposed to start getting serious with stem cell research? You actually support holding back a huge scientific breakthrough years to decades because of the ethical concerns?That's the promise of ADULT stem cells since high-90s percentage of CURRENT people do NOT have cells (or cord blood) stored away for that future date. If they can make Adult stem cells fully totipotent, then that idea will work for all of us, not just the insanely-lucky who have them stored away.
We are able to pursue embryonic stem cell research now in parallel with attempt to make adult stem cells just as pluripotent and in the future the techniques that are discovered in stem cells can be used with the pluripotent Adult cells. But you don't hold back promising research because there may be a breakthrough years down the line. It's bullshit logic and it's bullshit science.
#61
strawman
Just because the holocaust happened doesn't necessarily mean that it's morally right to use the research the nazis gained by torturing people.
The moral dilemma does not go away simply because the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway.
Do you agree that simply because death row inmates in china are going to die anyway, it's ok to use them for whatever purposes the regime deems them useful for?
At the end of the day the ethical and moral question still remains, and a lot of people don't want to see their taxes going to fund something they feel is morally wrong.
strawman
It's the same moral dilemma of the research that came out of the concentration camps.The ONLY ONLY ONLY reason not to use Human ES cells for research is the moral dilemma of destroying fertilized human embryos to harvest them. My argument is that specifically (or even spontaneously) aborted embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, why not make them useful?
Just because the holocaust happened doesn't necessarily mean that it's morally right to use the research the nazis gained by torturing people.
The moral dilemma does not go away simply because the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway.
Do you agree that simply because death row inmates in china are going to die anyway, it's ok to use them for whatever purposes the regime deems them useful for?
At the end of the day the ethical and moral question still remains, and a lot of people don't want to see their taxes going to fund something they feel is morally wrong.
#62
Chazwozel
Just because the holocaust happened doesn't necessarily mean that it's morally right to use the research the nazis gained by torturing people.
The moral dilemma does not go away simply because the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway.
Do you agree that simply because death row inmates in china are going to die anyway, it's ok to use them for whatever purposes the regime deems them useful for?
At the end of the day the ethical and moral question still remains, and a lot of people don't want to see their taxes going to fund something they feel is morally wrong.[/QUOTE]
Sorry to break it to you bud, but they're just a lump of cells with no conscious thought. Harvesting embryos is not like murdering Jews. We're not dunking babies into ice cold water here...
A lot of people are misinformed about how useful these cells are because of the Pro-Lifers pushing their agenda. At the end of the day would you rather destroy an unwanted lump of cells, or save a person's life from a genetic disease?
Chazwozel
It's the same moral dilemma of the research that came out of the concentration camps.The ONLY ONLY ONLY reason not to use Human ES cells for research is the moral dilemma of destroying fertilized human embryos to harvest them. My argument is that specifically (or even spontaneously) aborted embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, why not make them useful?
Just because the holocaust happened doesn't necessarily mean that it's morally right to use the research the nazis gained by torturing people.
The moral dilemma does not go away simply because the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway.
Do you agree that simply because death row inmates in china are going to die anyway, it's ok to use them for whatever purposes the regime deems them useful for?
At the end of the day the ethical and moral question still remains, and a lot of people don't want to see their taxes going to fund something they feel is morally wrong.[/QUOTE]
Sorry to break it to you bud, but they're just a lump of cells with no conscious thought. Harvesting embryos is not like murdering Jews. We're not dunking babies into ice cold water here...
A lot of people are misinformed about how useful these cells are because of the Pro-Lifers pushing their agenda. At the end of the day would you rather destroy an unwanted lump of cells, or save a person's life from a genetic disease?
#63
Chazwozel
I don't think anyone would ever agree to that.
Chazwozel
no the difference is that those fetuses were going to die for nothing anyway. Please do not cheapen the torture that those fully grown human beings went through by comparing it to an unborn fetus thats conciousness is debateable..
Now if your saying we shouldnt harvest the unborn babies of pregnant women for the sole sake of research thats shakey ground.
I don't think anyone would ever agree to that.
#64
strawman
It may not be on the same scale as other moral and ethical debates, but you can't say that there are absolutely no moral or ethical problems with it.
strawman
And yet there are many people that disagree with you. You insist you are right, and you believe that people who disagree for religious reasons are wrong.Sorry to break it to you bud, but they're just a lump of cells with no conscious thought
It may not be on the same scale as other moral and ethical debates, but you can't say that there are absolutely no moral or ethical problems with it.
#65
Chazwozel
It may not be on the same scale as other moral and ethical debates, but you can't say that there are absolutely no moral or ethical problems with it.[/QUOTE]
Religion holds up human progress, news at 11.
This is what I'm after:
Not a human yet.
Chazwozel
And yet there are many people that disagree with you. You insist you are right, and you believe that people who disagree for religious reasons are wrong.Sorry to break it to you bud, but they're just a lump of cells with no conscious thought
It may not be on the same scale as other moral and ethical debates, but you can't say that there are absolutely no moral or ethical problems with it.[/QUOTE]
Religion holds up human progress, news at 11.
This is what I'm after:
Not a human yet.
#66
strawman
strawman
So, essentially, your response is, "Screw you and your religious beliefs. Your tax money should be used to destroy embryos for science." ?
#67
strawman
Nice way to polarize the discussion.
I was pointing out that moral and ethical dilemmas exist even though the final outcome has already occurred, or is a foregone conclusion. I was in no way trying to equate the two.
Chaz's point is simple - the embryo is going to be destroyed, therefore there should be no ethical dilemma - one type of destruction is the same as any other type of destruction.
I'm simply pointing out that there is still an ethical dilemma for many people, and to deny them their belief and their vote is closed-minded.
strawman
I would say that your beliefs make the mistake of thinking that unborn embryo = human. I'm still pissed that you would think that the pain and suffering endured by living people is the same as using a rejected, aborted, embryo. It is disgusting that you would make the comparison. Seriously, shame on you.[/QUOTE]So, essentially, your response is, "Screw you and your (overly emotional, superstitouse and illogical,) beliefs. Your tax money should be used to destroy embryos for science." ?
Nice way to polarize the discussion.
I was pointing out that moral and ethical dilemmas exist even though the final outcome has already occurred, or is a foregone conclusion. I was in no way trying to equate the two.
Chaz's point is simple - the embryo is going to be destroyed, therefore there should be no ethical dilemma - one type of destruction is the same as any other type of destruction.
I'm simply pointing out that there is still an ethical dilemma for many people, and to deny them their belief and their vote is closed-minded.
#68
tegid
tegid
I have to agree with Chaz and Hun here. I understand the moral problem of abortion, but if the embryo is going to die anyway, why not use its death for something useful? I doesn't have a conscience, it won't suffer.
That's not debatable, people can believe what they want but this particular point (conscience and suffering) is in the realm of science and has a clear answer.
That's not debatable, people can believe what they want but this particular point (conscience and suffering) is in the realm of science and has a clear answer.
#69
Chazwozel
Nice way to polarize the discussion.
I was pointing out that moral and ethical dilemmas exist even though the final outcome has already occurred, or is a foregone conclusion. I was in no way trying to equate the two.
Chaz's point is simple - the embryo is going to be destroyed, therefore there should be no ethical dilemma - one type of destruction is the same as any other type of destruction.
I'm simply pointing out that there is still an ethical dilemma for many people, and to deny them their belief and their vote is closed-minded.[/QUOTE]
No more closed-minded then those same people believing that a lump of cells is a human being.
Chazwozel
I would say that your beliefs make the mistake of thinking that unborn embryo = human. I'm still pissed that you would think that the pain and suffering endured by living people is the same as using a rejected, aborted, embryo. It is disgusting that you would make the comparison. Seriously, shame on you.[/QUOTE]So, essentially, your response is, "Screw you and your (overly emotional, superstitouse and illogical,) beliefs. Your tax money should be used to destroy embryos for science." ?
Nice way to polarize the discussion.
I was pointing out that moral and ethical dilemmas exist even though the final outcome has already occurred, or is a foregone conclusion. I was in no way trying to equate the two.
Chaz's point is simple - the embryo is going to be destroyed, therefore there should be no ethical dilemma - one type of destruction is the same as any other type of destruction.
I'm simply pointing out that there is still an ethical dilemma for many people, and to deny them their belief and their vote is closed-minded.[/QUOTE]
No more closed-minded then those same people believing that a lump of cells is a human being.
#70
Eriol
Eriol
Show me when it becomes one in a non-contestable BIOLOGICAL fashion. Hint: viability is NOT one, as that varies depending on the technology of the country. Conception IS a biologically distinct point.No more closed-minded then those same people believing that a lump of cells is a human being.
#71
tegid
tegid
I think that something that does not have a brain cannot be reasonably called a human being or a person.
I understand the moral problem of abortion, but I cannot understand calling an embryo a 'person'.
I understand the moral problem of abortion, but I cannot understand calling an embryo a 'person'.
#72
Espy
), others say from the moment of conception it has the "rights" of a person since it's a "person in forming" or even just a plain old person, others when the brain stops working right, etc. Everyone draws their line, some out of safety (I won't take the risk of killing something that might be a human), others for scientific reasons, but in the end no one has the perfect answer and is relying on something outside of themselves, be it personal or religious morality or scientific reasoning to help them draw that line. I think that that in and of itself calls for a little more tolerance of other peoples views on these kinds of issues.
Espy
This is where it starts to get really tricky though isn't it? Everyone has their line they draw. You say, until it develops a brain it's not a person, others say, until it can survive on it's own (which means a lot of nerds who live in mom's basement are solI think that something that does not have a brain cannot be reasonably called a human being or a person.
), others say from the moment of conception it has the "rights" of a person since it's a "person in forming" or even just a plain old person, others when the brain stops working right, etc. Everyone draws their line, some out of safety (I won't take the risk of killing something that might be a human), others for scientific reasons, but in the end no one has the perfect answer and is relying on something outside of themselves, be it personal or religious morality or scientific reasoning to help them draw that line. I think that that in and of itself calls for a little more tolerance of other peoples views on these kinds of issues.
#73
tegid
tegid
What I meant is, I understand that someone may feel it's immoral to destroy that lump of cells because it's a potential person, a 'person in forming' as you say, but I cannot swallow calling that a person. Maybe it's a matter of semantincs, but I feel some people do believe that an embryo is a human being, which as I say is absurd to me.
Of course I respect everyone defining their own morals, but it's also good to discuss them. And if we can use scientific knowledge to arrive to a good definition or understanding all the better.
Of course I respect everyone defining their own morals, but it's also good to discuss them. And if we can use scientific knowledge to arrive to a good definition or understanding all the better.
#74
Chazwozel
Chazwozel
I believe that sperm and eggs individual are people because they have the potential to form a human being just like embryos. Therefore it is immoral to jack off or have your period. The end.
#75
Espy
Espy
Bravo Chaz. I think we get that anyone who has differing moral standards than you deserves your derision.
@Tegid: The semantics issue is fine, I'm not really concerned with what anyone calls it I guess, and this: "Of course I respect everyone defining their own morals, but it's also good to discuss them. And if we can use scientific knowledge to arrive to a good definition or understanding all the better." is pretty much my personal feeling as well.
@Tegid: The semantics issue is fine, I'm not really concerned with what anyone calls it I guess, and this: "Of course I respect everyone defining their own morals, but it's also good to discuss them. And if we can use scientific knowledge to arrive to a good definition or understanding all the better." is pretty much my personal feeling as well.
#76
Chazwozel
Yes, when your stupid voodoo-hoodoo beliefs hinder the progress of mankind, I do believe you deserve the ire of those that are more rational.
Chazwozel
Would you expect any less? After all, according to Steinman, people with my viewpoint are pretty much Josef Mengele.Bravo Chaz. I think we get that anyone who has differing moral standards than you deserves your derision.
@Tegid: The semantics issue is fine, I'm not really concerned with what anyone calls it I guess, and this: "Of course I respect everyone defining their own morals, but it's also good to discuss them. And if we can use scientific knowledge to arrive to a good definition or understanding all the better." is pretty much my personal feeling as well.
Yes, when your stupid voodoo-hoodoo beliefs hinder the progress of mankind, I do believe you deserve the ire of those that are more rational.
#77
Necronic
Necronic
To the argument about where human life begins, give it up. This is an argument that can't be won in either direction, as it comes down to defining life, and in some ways defining the human soul, which then makes it a religious argument which then makes it completely inarguable. You simply will not win that argument.
What people should be focused on is understanding where the other party is coming from, and working from there. For the anti-stem cell group, what they are against is there being any positive that can be associated with abortion, there being a "silver lining" if you will. That's where the comparison to mengela comes from. Its a stretch, but in the general sense you have a concept of something good coming from something bad, does it taint the something good? Of course, the other place the comparison to mengela comes from is total ignorance of the reality of his work. There was almost nothing of any real value done by him. In general the Nazi human experimentations were all of very limited value.
For the side of science, there is us looking at this and seeing the first major advance in medical science since the discovery of penicillin. We could honestly use this as a jumping off point to push medical science forwards an incredible amount. There MAY be other routes, but we could spend 50 years looking into them and find nothing as promising as this. There is also a general resentment of the constant attempts by the religious to prevent research, which to this point has been almost entirely ridiculous. From the countless historical executions of the worlds greatest scientists to the more recent shenigans like refusing the HPV vaccine to prevent promiscuity in youth it is hard for scientists to look at the interference of religious people without rolling their eyes or baring their teeth.
This is a different kind of head butting though, and I don't think its as easily shaken off as the HPV stuff or the arguments against evolution or young earth theory. It comes down to such a fundamental question, one that can't be answered by science or religion alone. What is life? I don't know if we as a society are going to be able to avoid a constant tension with research along that route. Genetic engineering as a whole is never going to get a complete pass from the religious (or the hippies for that matter), as we have finally gotten to a place where we really are taking ourselves apart to see how we work, and trying to make us better.
Personally, I have the luxury of not having an opinion on the matter. I will not stand against stem cell research, but I will not support it either. For me it is an ethical dillemma I haven't been able to get past, as I can not approve of abortion, and I can't push towards finding a positive in abortion. However I also cannot support stopping research into something that could save untold millions if not billions of lives. In a way its that one argument of 'would you kill a child to save a thousand? How about 5?' I know, I know....its not a child to many. But to some of us it is.
Edit: Just to be clear though, I totally support pretty much all other genetic engineering though.
What people should be focused on is understanding where the other party is coming from, and working from there. For the anti-stem cell group, what they are against is there being any positive that can be associated with abortion, there being a "silver lining" if you will. That's where the comparison to mengela comes from. Its a stretch, but in the general sense you have a concept of something good coming from something bad, does it taint the something good? Of course, the other place the comparison to mengela comes from is total ignorance of the reality of his work. There was almost nothing of any real value done by him. In general the Nazi human experimentations were all of very limited value.
For the side of science, there is us looking at this and seeing the first major advance in medical science since the discovery of penicillin. We could honestly use this as a jumping off point to push medical science forwards an incredible amount. There MAY be other routes, but we could spend 50 years looking into them and find nothing as promising as this. There is also a general resentment of the constant attempts by the religious to prevent research, which to this point has been almost entirely ridiculous. From the countless historical executions of the worlds greatest scientists to the more recent shenigans like refusing the HPV vaccine to prevent promiscuity in youth it is hard for scientists to look at the interference of religious people without rolling their eyes or baring their teeth.
This is a different kind of head butting though, and I don't think its as easily shaken off as the HPV stuff or the arguments against evolution or young earth theory. It comes down to such a fundamental question, one that can't be answered by science or religion alone. What is life? I don't know if we as a society are going to be able to avoid a constant tension with research along that route. Genetic engineering as a whole is never going to get a complete pass from the religious (or the hippies for that matter), as we have finally gotten to a place where we really are taking ourselves apart to see how we work, and trying to make us better.
Personally, I have the luxury of not having an opinion on the matter. I will not stand against stem cell research, but I will not support it either. For me it is an ethical dillemma I haven't been able to get past, as I can not approve of abortion, and I can't push towards finding a positive in abortion. However I also cannot support stopping research into something that could save untold millions if not billions of lives. In a way its that one argument of 'would you kill a child to save a thousand? How about 5?' I know, I know....its not a child to many. But to some of us it is.
Edit: Just to be clear though, I totally support pretty much all other genetic engineering though.