Stem Cell Lunacy

[Gem]

My response to Mr. Conley's earlier post to me: (P.S. Thanks for the time and information put into your response...it was great!)

Mr. Conley Wrote:

That's a very big if. In fact, I'd say it's virtually impossible. At the point you're talking about, the embryo's stem cells have already largely differenciated, and are far less useful than 'pure' stem cells.

I guess the point I am trying to make with my concern is that I really get cautious when we start discussing allowing any government to decide where to "stop" science in the name of morality. Many people agree there is a point that is too far...but science doesn't always see it that way. Do we just exhale now and say, "Hey...science will always win so lets just do whatever we want, take it as far as we can, and worry about the consequences later!" or do we take a moment at this very early stage to discuss where we see this sort of research going...and, if we are going to stop said research at some point in time?

Mr Conley Wrote:

What? So we can take these steps, just as long as their taken in some private corporation with no oversight?

To imply that a private corporation is going to be more corrupt than the government is, in my opinion, laughable. Whatever a private lab could do, get away with, keep secret, a goverment sponsored one could do the same, and more so. My desire to bring research out of the government arena is more of a libertarian concern for government involvement rather than one about the morality of stemcell research.


Mr. Conley Wrote:

Stem cell research, for all its potential, is still in the early stages of research. The science is still in the early stages, and requires billions of dollars of funding over the next 5-10 years. No corporation, save maybe the oil companies, has that kind of dough. The government, through institutions such as the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the National Institute of Health, has traditionally funded scientific projects in the early stages that, even if they hold potential, are too expensive or too long term for private entities to fund. Often when research carryed out by private corporations, colleges, universities, or government labs begins to reach fruitation, the private sector moves in a commercializes the research. We've done this since the beginning of the Cold War, stems cells are following a path no different then the one follwed by, say, nuclear power plants or fire alarms.

Thank you, this hits at the questions I was asking because it is an area I know so little about. The ardent libertarian in me still says that I don't like the thought of the government being involved in anything like this, whether it is paying for new scientific research or funding the national endowment for the arts...but I understand what you are saying about the cost of developing new breakthroughs, that makes sense.


Mr. Conley Wrote:

Again, private companies don't have the resources to hire and pay the hundreds and thousands of scientists required to see this research through at an optimum level. Even with government funding, it will take several years before stem cells can become viable for many diseases.

On a side note, I think that the stem cell movement people have lost some of their potential supporters by their ardent claims that stem cells are going to cure everything. While I think the research is very important, it is, as you say, in its very early stages, "several years" away from being viable for anything. I think that the lack of intellectual honesty on BOTH sides of the debate has been harmful.

Mr Conley Wrote:

The reason we started funding the sciences back in the late 40's was to get ahead in the Cold War. The government, through various departments and institutions provides grants that allow scientists to work without improper influence from corporations or groups wanting to fasttrack to the market. The only major requirements for obtaning funds is that the grantee must work on the project specified, must strive to produce science, and must share his results with the rest of the scientific community, not stuff them into the corporate vault. This last measure has proven to be especially important as it allows numerous minds to look at the same data, confirm it, draw more conclusions, and build on it. Because of the manner of open inquiry mandated by the government, American scientists have been able to build on each others work and build an unquestioned scientific lead. Despite consisting of only 1/20th of the world's population, America produces nearly 1/2 of the world's science (a figure that has actually declined sharply since the 80s). Obviously, this open air of inquirement has allowed the American scientific community to blossom. The problem with private sector since, although it too plays a major role in our scientific community, is that it is uncapable of funding the amount of basic science the government does. Private corporations also tend to focus on short and medium term development at the most. The reason we know so much about heart disease and blood pressure is not because of the private sector, but because of a 60 year comprehensive government funded study of tens of thousands of Americans who volunteered to assist. Corporations don't have the resources to pull that sort of stuff, and even if they could, rather than sharing the information for the greater good, most would keep it as a company secret.

This makes good sense, I am definetly starting to see some of the merits of government funded research...

Originally Posted by Gem
As I'm thinking about it now...I don't understand why, if the gov't funds stem cell research it wouldn't then be called on to fund groundbreaking cancer research, AIDS research, Diabetes research, obesity research, heart disease research, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Are we doing this already and I'm just ill-informed?

Mr. Conley Wrote:

We already are.

Who decides what gets researched and what doesn't? Can we afford program after program that costs billions and billions of dollars?

Mr. Conley Wrote:

Technically, the government isn't 'doing' medical research. It is providing funds to colleges and universities, as well as private corporations, to perform studies and basic research. As well, the government runs numerous labs responsible for housing scientifically valuable, but expensive, facilities such as wind tunnels. The government provides funding because it both protects the lives of US citizens, something that I believe involves more than killing terrorists, and advances the position of the United States as the world's leading science power.

I agree with much of this...although, as I am reading what you are writing, it does sort of contradict your statement about private vs. gov't. In what you have written above it sounds like MOST of the research done IS done by private companies...with gov't funding...as sort of marriage of the two worlds for the end results that will benefit both sides.

Of course protecting Americans means more than killing terrorists...however, we should constantly be questioning how much power we have given our government. Although it appears to be well passed the time to be discussing it in regard to scientific research...it never hurts to dust off the conversation now and again and ask...Are we comfortable with this?

From the morality side of the debate (which, as you can see, was not the largest part of my original statement) I do not think we as a nation (or as a global scientific community) have answered completely where we see this type of research going. That doesn't mean I want it ended...I think operating on stem cells has great potential. I just want the conversation started about where and when we are going to stop this type of research.

Right now, we say we are only taking aborted cells...cells that are otherwise going to be thrown away. Ok, most people will be fine with this. What happens when, because of the nature of the research, scientists need vast numbers of stem cells...far more than are available through abortion clinics and the like. Will we then start fertilizing eggs and destroying them to get the cells? Many people will have a problem with that...does their voice matter to science? Does our country operate solely on the principle that science operates outside of any religious and/or moral qualms about what it is doing? Is science in a vaccuum or must it answer to the society in which it practices?

Realistically, it seems to me that science never stops, never backtracks, never refuses to take the last step due to moral concerns...there is always someone (many people) who are willing to overlook the moral questions in order to answer the scientific ones. Maybe that is right. I don't know. Maybe it is wrong. I don't know that either. But I do believe that stem cell research, cloning, etc. will eventually lead to their nth degrees. Which is why I want people to be discussing it now, rather than later.

 

[CharlestonChad]

There is zero reason every taxpayer should be forced to fund this. If you believe its a good cause,....*gasp*....DONATE your own damned money to the cause.

What a concept eh?

I don't support the war in Iraq. I'm sure that you do, so why don't you donate your own damned money to the cause!


I'm sure you would do this, right? Or are you a hypocrite?

 

[Mr.Conley]

I guess the point I am trying to make with my concern is that I really get cautious when we start discussing allowing any government to decide where to "stop" science in the name of morality. Many people agree there is a point that is too far...but science doesn't always see it that way. Do we just exhale now and say, "Hey...science will always win so lets just do whatever we want, take it as far as we can, and worry about the consequences later!" or do we take a moment at this very early stage to discuss where we see this sort of research going...and, if we are going to stop said research at some point in time?

That's an understandable concern, and it is a debate that needs to be held. Contrary to what many believe, the scientific community is very concerned about the ethical issues involved in stem cell research, but the overwhelming majority, faced with the onslaught of diseases that kill millions every year, and given the possiblity that they could find a cure is, unsurprisingly, eager to do what it can.

To imply that a private corporation is going to be more corrupt than the government is, in my opinion, laughable. Whatever a private lab could do, get away with, keep secret, a goverment sponsored one could do the same, and more so. My desire to bring research out of the government arena is more of a libertarian concern for government involvement rather than one about the morality of stemcell research.

Not saying anything of the sort. What I meant is that, if you have a moral objection to stem cell research, then simply letting some private corporation do the research where you can't see it isn't going to resolve the moral issue. I'm not saying that the government is some sort of altrustic entity (quite the opposite), but I'm not going to look to private corporations for moral guidance either, and if you have a moral problem with stem cell research, simply allowing private entities to perform the research isn't going to solve the ethical issues at hand.

Thank you, this hits at the questions I was asking because it is an area I know so little about. The ardent libertarian in me still says that I don't like the thought of the government being involved in anything like this, whether it is paying for new scientific research or funding the national endowment for the arts...but I understand what you are saying about the cost of developing new breakthroughs, that makes sense.

Glad you get it. Science today isn't like the science of a century ago when people could make groundbreaking discoveries on a train ride (true story: Dmitri Mendeleev made the mental 'breakthrough' responsible for the periodic table, the foundation of modern chemistry, on the train to Moscow). Nowadays in many fields the research and experimentation required to fund even marginally important research can cost hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars. For example, electron microscopes are essential for biologist, chemist, and physicist need, among other items, electron microscopes that can magnify images hundreds of thousands, even million of times their size. Problem is, these machines costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, and very few scientist have that kind of dough laying around. The Europeans are spending $10 billion on a particle accelerator (if you really want to see scary science go to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Safety_concerns and scroll down to safety concerns). Government funding gives scientist the means to make new discoveries that they otherwise would be incapable of even contemplating.

On a side note, I think that the stem cell movement people have lost some of their potential supporters by their ardent claims that stem cells are going to cure everything. While I think the research is very important, it is, as you say, in its very early stages, "several years" away from being viable for anything. I think that the lack of intellectual honesty on BOTH sides of the debate has been harmful.

I'll concede that stem cells aren't going to cure everything, but stem cells have the potential to be the most important breakthrough in medical history. Stem cells could make antibiotics look like potatos. The sheer number of diseases and afflictions that could be treated with stem cells could elimenate 8 out of the 10 top mortality causes in the United States. We're literally talking millions of people saved from dying agonizing deaths every year. Sure, stem cells aren't going to cure 'everything', but they are still potentially the single most unprecendented leap in medicine over the span of human history. Scientist just get really, really excited about all the possibilities stem cells create, and that excitement sometimes comes of in somewhat hyperbolic statements (although again, once you consider what we're dealing with, it's almost an understatement anyway).

This makes good sense, I am definetly starting to see some of the merits of government funded research...

Good, I can't really emphasize enough the importance an open scientific community plays in maintaining US global leadership.

Who decides what gets researched and what doesn't? Can we afford program after program that costs billions and billions of dollars?

The people who decide what gets researched and what doesn't sit on the boards of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute of Health (NIH), the Department of Energy (DoE) NASA, and a few other agencies (DARPA also counts, but we don't want to get into that). At the NSF, the board members are chosen yearly on the basis of their standing in the scientific community, and can not have any connection with any of the projects being presented to the board. They then review all the available data and grant funding to the applicant. This way, it isn't some government bureucrat calling the shots, it's the scientific community allocating the resources to where they best serve science. As for you other question, the cost, the NSF spends approximately $14 billion a year, a figure which, among others, Newt Gingrich wants to see tripled. The NIH spends about $6 billion, although most of that is tied up in long term population studies of disease such as cancer and heart disease, not treatment. NASA spends about $15 billion, most of which is wasted on the shuttle program. I don't know the figures for the DoE, although they are involved in a multibillion, two decade long fusion experiment with England, France, Russia, Japan, and China.

I agree with much of this...although, as I am reading what you are writing, it does sort of contradict your statement about private vs. gov't. In what you have written above it sounds like MOST of the research done IS done by private companies...with gov't funding...as sort of marriage of the two worlds for the end results that will benefit both sides.

Let me rephrase. The government itself doesn't spend all the money on government scientists. Most of the money goes to engineers, scientists, and researchers at the nation's colleges and univerisites. Another chunk goes to government scientists at NASA and various DoE projects to perform experiment and maintain especially expensive scientific equipment like observatories so that the rest of the scientific community can use them if neccisary. The remainder goes to private corporations. So yes, it is sort of a marriage that benefits both sides. The scientists get the equipment and money they need to operate experiments without massive government influence, and the government ensures that all scientific data is open to the rest of the scientific community so that they can build upon already known information.

Of course protecting Americans means more than killing terrorists...however, we should constantly be questioning how much power we have given our government. Although it appears to be well passed the time to be discussing it in regard to scientific research...it never hurts to dust off the conversation now and again and ask...Are we comfortable with this?

Yes, as I hope you can see, when it comes to scientific research, the Federal government doesn't dicates what research we pursue, instead, it gives the scientific community the resources it needs to perform 'pure' science that isn't subjected to market deadlines.

From the morality side of the debate (which, as you can see, was not the largest part of my original statement) I do not think we as a nation (or as a global scientific community) have answered completely where we see this type of research going. That doesn't mean I want it ended...I think operating on stem cells has great potential. I just want the conversation started about where and when we are going to stop this type of research.

the general rule in the scientific community is that once the embryo begins to develop a nervous system, essentially a brain, then it is not something we can experiment with beyond that point, science does not go there because scientists have agreed that we must set limits. We believe that science is capable of achieving unparralleled good, but at the same time in the wrong hands can be misused. There are limits, and questions, but the potential benefit to mankind, and the greater understanding of God's universe that the research affords us is unequaled. Stem cell research walks a thin line between too much and too little. Right now I think President Bush has pushed us into the latter, but the debate, as you say, is nessicary to ensure that we do not drift the other way. Many people realize this, and most scientist appreciate the debate, because it keeps them grounded firmly in a moral frame. Most scientist understand the pitfalls of stem cell research, but having weighed the odds, the potential benefit to mankind is too great to turn away from. You say that to you, "it seems that science never stops, never backtracks, never refuses to take the last step due to moral concerns." I disagree. I think that, while moral concerns haven't stopped science on this particular issue, they have made that last step a slow one, taken only after a careful analysis of the costs and the benefits. Scientist are not without their moral compass. They just use it with the knowledge that what's on the other side of the mountain could be the place they've been trying to find.

 

[Gunny]

I don't support the war in Iraq. I'm sure that you do, so why don't you donate your own damned money to the cause!


I'm sure you would do this, right? Or are you a hypocrite?

Personal opinions of where we like to see our tax dollars spent, and where they actually are spent, are two completely separate topics, unless the money just happens to be going where you want.

 

[Gunny]

Abbey, am I an evil lefty who hates all Christians?

Let's see ..... avatar says: "Mindless Killing Machine"

On no, not at all.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Let's see ..... avatar says: "Mindless Killing Machine"

On no, not at all.

I'm an equal opportunity killing machine. :chains:

 

[Gem]

Mr Conley,

You have been very informative and I thank you for that. You have completely swayed my opinion about why our government needs to be involved in the process of funding new and important scientific research for the purpose of keeping the United States in the forefront of the global scientific community.

I think where I'm still a little fuzzy...is whether or not I view embryonic stem-cell research as an area I want my government funding. Or, more to the point - I want the stop point, the point where our government says - this interferes with the national consensus on morality and therefore the government will not pay for it to go farther - known before we get too far involved. In the little I've read, I have very conflicted views and opinions - all seemingly coming from doctors and scientists - stem-cells will help to cure every terrible disease on earth or they are not nearly as helpful as adult stem-cells or umbylical cord cells...etc.

I do not know enough about it. I'm planning on doing some reading on it over the next few days...so perhaps now that we have settled that the government should be providing funding for important scientific research - we can chat more about how the government determines what is "too far" and what side of that line stem-cell research falls on.