Success with stem cells

[Immanuel]

Um, just to clarify, since that is apparently a slam towards me, I never said it should stop. Rather, what I said was the government should not be funding it. If you think that means the research would stop then that is not my problem.

I'm currently working for a trucking company that is losing money. Maybe the government should just give my employer wads of cash to run goods from one side of the country to the other, after all, without trucks and trains things would be at a stand still in this country.

Immie

It's not a slam at you. It's a slam at everyone who thinks that way. When I want to single someone out, I have no problem doing it.

Cessation of government funding would stop the research. It would stop virtually all research. It's not a matter of what I believe, it's a matter of what the facts are. If you are doubtful of that, then ask Si Modo. She worked at the NIH and, I am sure, is well aware how much NIH grant money plays into all scientific research.

The logical fallacy you demonstrated in the last sentence is just the kind of silliness I was talking about. To compare a trucking company with the process of scientific research is a complete non sequitur.

You chose to work for a private company that exists by turning a profit. Science has never been a "profit" driven enterprise. As I stated before, knowledge for the sake of knowledge is more than sufficient when it comes to scientific ventures. Insisting the every experiment become profitable would kill the spirit of inquiry.

As your company is private and for profit, you have many competitors that would gladly take your place. In that instance, they are most likely within this country. Things wouldn't stand still very long. On the other hand, our competitors in biotechnology and other forms of technology are global. Things would stand still in this occasion. They would stand still and move to other countries that recognize that it's a good investment.

I am afraid that it is because there are people who think that money grows on trees that this country is doomed to collapse. Sure, just throw a few hundred billion at every "scientist" who says they can solve all the worlds problems. What's another hundred trillion or so here or there? The government can just print all the money it needs.

This country is on the verge of economic collapse because no one will say "no". Conservatives won't say no to increasing taxes or cutting the defense budget and liberals want to fund every pet project that comes along.

I am not saying that someday ESCR won't maybe lead somewhere positive, but damnit, if this country is third world when it does, what the hell good will it do us? And for the record there are a lot of those evil corporations out there that will fund research. It need not be the U.S. Government all the time. And before you go putting more words in my mouth, I did not say stop funding all research. I said stop funding research that was not providing any current promises such as ESCR.
Immie

 

[geauxtohell]

I believe that the point of this thread was to have someone provide any articles that hinted towards even an ounce of promise from embryonic stem cell research and so far no one has provided even one single study that shows promise from ESCR.

Maybe you can?

Immie

Did you miss my study from 2006 about the usefulness of ESC for recovering myocardium?

I'm sure that you realize that your post came after the one to which I was responding.

Immie

No I didn't. No big deal. What did you think? That's just one study.

 

[geauxtohell]

Um, just to clarify, since that is apparently a slam towards me, I never said it should stop. Rather, what I said was the government should not be funding it. If you think that means the research would stop then that is not my problem.

I'm currently working for a trucking company that is losing money. Maybe the government should just give my employer wads of cash to run goods from one side of the country to the other, after all, without trucks and trains things would be at a stand still in this country.

Immie

It's not a slam at you. It's a slam at everyone who thinks that way. When I want to single someone out, I have no problem doing it.

Cessation of government funding would stop the research. It would stop virtually all research. It's not a matter of what I believe, it's a matter of what the facts are. If you are doubtful of that, then ask Si Modo. She worked at the NIH and, I am sure, is well aware how much NIH grant money plays into all scientific research.

The logical fallacy you demonstrated in the last sentence is just the kind of silliness I was talking about. To compare a trucking company with the process of scientific research is a complete non sequitur.

You chose to work for a private company that exists by turning a profit. Science has never been a "profit" driven enterprise. As I stated before, knowledge for the sake of knowledge is more than sufficient when it comes to scientific ventures. Insisting the every experiment become profitable would kill the spirit of inquiry.

As your company is private and for profit, you have many competitors that would gladly take your place. In that instance, they are most likely within this country. Things wouldn't stand still very long. On the other hand, our competitors in biotechnology and other forms of technology are global. Things would stand still in this occasion. They would stand still and move to other countries that recognize that it's a good investment.

I am afraid that it is because there are people who think that money grows on trees that this country is doomed to collapse. Sure, just throw a few hundred billion at every "scientist" who says they can solve all the worlds problems. What's another hundred trillion or so here or there? The government can just print all the money it needs.

This country is on the verge of economic collapse because no one will say "no". Conservatives won't say no to increasing taxes or cutting the defense budget and liberals want to fund every pet project that comes along.

I am not saying that someday ESCR won't maybe lead somewhere positive, but damnit, if this country is third world when it does, what the hell good will it do us? And for the record there are a lot of those evil corporations out there that will fund research. It need not be the U.S. Government all the time. And before you go putting more words in my mouth, I did not say stop funding all research. I said stop funding research that was not providing any current promises such as ESCR.
Immie

No, if private companies could or would do it, then it wouldn't be an issue. Outside of a few notable private firms that only do biotech, venture capital isn't interested on something they can't ensure a payout on. There is nothing wrong with that, it's just not a pragmatic model for scientific progress in this country.

Why must ESCR always be the "gold standard" for "not providing any current promises"?

For one thing, ESCR is providing advancement. You have been sold a bill of goods by people that oppose it simply because they object to the morality of it.

For instance, did you read the articles I sourced? If you are short on time and don't want to wade through biostats, just skip to the conclusions (though if you start reading scientific papers a lot, that's a bad practice).

 

[Immanuel]

Did you miss my study from 2006 about the usefulness of ESC for recovering myocardium?

I'm sure that you realize that your post came after the one to which I was responding.

Immie

No I didn't. No big deal. What did you think? That's just one study.

What do I think? Does anyone really care? They will just go on throwing more taxpayer dollars at it regardless of what I think.

Hell, with all those medical terms I would have had to have spent time just trying to figure out what the heck they were talking about.

I was going to reply to it last night when I saw it but I had plans and just didn't feel like going into it and acknowledging that you were the first in the thread to come up with some kind of a link that showed some kind of progress was being made.

In all honestly, what do I think? I think adult stem cells show more promise and that research should go on. From what I have read and understood, in layman's terms, embryonic stem cells are not all that reliable and although there is always hope for a breakthrough in the future, right now they are not promising while adult stem cells do most definitely provide hope for progress. I cannot fathom embryonic stem cells ever being more useful than adult stem cells.

I guess that is why I don't agree that we should continue funding embryonic stem cell research until and if there ever seems to be more promise than the adult stem cells.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

It's not a slam at you. It's a slam at everyone who thinks that way. When I want to single someone out, I have no problem doing it.

Cessation of government funding would stop the research. It would stop virtually all research. It's not a matter of what I believe, it's a matter of what the facts are. If you are doubtful of that, then ask Si Modo. She worked at the NIH and, I am sure, is well aware how much NIH grant money plays into all scientific research.

The logical fallacy you demonstrated in the last sentence is just the kind of silliness I was talking about. To compare a trucking company with the process of scientific research is a complete non sequitur.

You chose to work for a private company that exists by turning a profit. Science has never been a "profit" driven enterprise. As I stated before, knowledge for the sake of knowledge is more than sufficient when it comes to scientific ventures. Insisting the every experiment become profitable would kill the spirit of inquiry.

As your company is private and for profit, you have many competitors that would gladly take your place. In that instance, they are most likely within this country. Things wouldn't stand still very long. On the other hand, our competitors in biotechnology and other forms of technology are global. Things would stand still in this occasion. They would stand still and move to other countries that recognize that it's a good investment.

I am afraid that it is because there are people who think that money grows on trees that this country is doomed to collapse. Sure, just throw a few hundred billion at every "scientist" who says they can solve all the worlds problems. What's another hundred trillion or so here or there? The government can just print all the money it needs.

This country is on the verge of economic collapse because no one will say "no". Conservatives won't say no to increasing taxes or cutting the defense budget and liberals want to fund every pet project that comes along.

I am not saying that someday ESCR won't maybe lead somewhere positive, but damnit, if this country is third world when it does, what the hell good will it do us? And for the record there are a lot of those evil corporations out there that will fund research. It need not be the U.S. Government all the time. And before you go putting more words in my mouth, I did not say stop funding all research. I said stop funding research that was not providing any current promises such as ESCR.
Immie

No, if private companies could or would do it, then it wouldn't be an issue. Outside of a few notable private firms that only do biotech, venture capital isn't interested on something they can't ensure a payout on. There is nothing wrong with that, it's just not a pragmatic model for scientific progress in this country.

Why must ESCR always be the "gold standard" for "not providing any current promises"?

For one thing, ESCR is providing advancement. You have been sold a bill of goods by people that oppose it simply because they object to the morality of it.

For instance, did you read the articles I sourced? If you are short on time and don't want to wade through biostats, just skip to the conclusions (though if you start reading scientific papers a lot, that's a bad practice).

Read them?

No, I skimmed through the one that spoke about the research on the myocardial infarction(?) and read the conclusion. I, also, briefly skimmed through the one about all the research that was going on. I think those were two or your links. I think there was at least one more. I must admit, I lost interest and didn't open it.

Why must it be the gold standard? Because politicians want it to divide us between good and evil (conservative and liberal). Now, was that in respective order or not?

Immie

 

[geauxtohell]

I am afraid that it is because there are people who think that money grows on trees that this country is doomed to collapse. Sure, just throw a few hundred billion at every "scientist" who says they can solve all the worlds problems. What's another hundred trillion or so here or there? The government can just print all the money it needs.

This country is on the verge of economic collapse because no one will say "no". Conservatives won't say no to increasing taxes or cutting the defense budget and liberals want to fund every pet project that comes along.

I am not saying that someday ESCR won't maybe lead somewhere positive, but damnit, if this country is third world when it does, what the hell good will it do us? And for the record there are a lot of those evil corporations out there that will fund research. It need not be the U.S. Government all the time. And before you go putting more words in my mouth, I did not say stop funding all research. I said stop funding research that was not providing any current promises such as ESCR.
Immie

No, if private companies could or would do it, then it wouldn't be an issue. Outside of a few notable private firms that only do biotech, venture capital isn't interested on something they can't ensure a payout on. There is nothing wrong with that, it's just not a pragmatic model for scientific progress in this country.

Why must ESCR always be the "gold standard" for "not providing any current promises"?

For one thing, ESCR is providing advancement. You have been sold a bill of goods by people that oppose it simply because they object to the morality of it.

For instance, did you read the articles I sourced? If you are short on time and don't want to wade through biostats, just skip to the conclusions (though if you start reading scientific papers a lot, that's a bad practice).

Read them?

No, I skimmed through the one that spoke about the research on the myocardial infarction(?) and read the conclusion. I, also, briefly skimmed through the one about all the research that was going on. I think those were two or your links. I think there was at least one more. I must admit, I lost interest and didn't open it.

Why must it be the gold standard? Because politicians want it to divide us between good and evil (conservative and liberal). Now, was that in respective order or not?

Immie

No problem. I have to really sit down and nug out peer reviewed studies if I want to get really analytical on them. I can understand the conclusions, but to really look at how they reached that conclusion (and if the stats are legit) would take me a lot of time.

At any rate, it was merely meant to demonstrate that ESCR has yielded results. I fully favor researching adult stem cells. However, one doesn't have to suffer at the hands of another. There is plenty of work and interested parties to go around.

I am not here to try and change your mind, just to something for you to consider. This thread is chalk full of silliness on both sides (and you'll notice that most of those posters have slipped out the back door). You are level headed. I would take you simply seeing that ESCR is not some evil conspiracy to destroy fetuses for no scientific purpose as a victory.

 

[Immanuel]

No, if private companies could or would do it, then it wouldn't be an issue. Outside of a few notable private firms that only do biotech, venture capital isn't interested on something they can't ensure a payout on. There is nothing wrong with that, it's just not a pragmatic model for scientific progress in this country.

Why must ESCR always be the "gold standard" for "not providing any current promises"?

For one thing, ESCR is providing advancement. You have been sold a bill of goods by people that oppose it simply because they object to the morality of it.

For instance, did you read the articles I sourced? If you are short on time and don't want to wade through biostats, just skip to the conclusions (though if you start reading scientific papers a lot, that's a bad practice).

Read them?

No, I skimmed through the one that spoke about the research on the myocardial infarction(?) and read the conclusion. I, also, briefly skimmed through the one about all the research that was going on. I think those were two or your links. I think there was at least one more. I must admit, I lost interest and didn't open it.

Why must it be the gold standard? Because politicians want it to divide us between good and evil (conservative and liberal). Now, was that in respective order or not?

Immie

No problem. I have to really sit down and nug out peer reviewed studies if I want to get really analytical on them. I can understand the conclusions, but to really look at how they reached that conclusion (and if the stats are legit) would take me a lot of time.

At any rate, it was merely meant to demonstrate that ESCR has yielded results. I fully favor researching adult stem cells. However, one doesn't have to suffer at the hands of another. There is plenty of work and interested parties to go around.

I am not here to try and change your mind, just to something for you to consider. This thread is chalk full of silliness on both sides (and you'll notice that most of those posters have slipped out the back door). You are level headed. I would take you simply seeing that ESCR is not some evil conspiracy to destroy fetuses for no scientific purpose as a victory.

The point of this thread was to have someone show some kind of information that showed any progress in the realm of ESCR. Until your post, I do not believe anyone had accomplished that task and if they did, I missed it.

I agree one need not suffer because the other is being researched, but I feel even more strongly that our government needs to just stop funding every Tom, Dick and Harry that promises a magic solution if just given a few million dollars here and there.

Consider your points considered.

I have never once believed that ESCR is some kind of evil conspiracy to destroy fetuses. That has never even crossed my mind. I do believe that it destroys a life, but anyone who looks at this question realistically knows that said embryos have about as much chance of forming into fully grown human beings as I have of playing professional football which was my childhood dream.

Immie

 

[Montrovant]

Was just shown this article about some embryonic stem cell research that has shown promise. The article mentions and links to an article about another positive success. Neither are ready-to-go cures, but they are both certainly indicative of positive progress with embryonic stem cells.

Latest Victory For Regenerative Medicine: Pituitary Grown From Embryonic Stem Cells | Singularity Hub

 

[alan1]

Was just shown this article about some embryonic stem cell research that has shown promise. The article mentions and links to an article about another positive success. Neither are ready-to-go cures, but they are both certainly indicative of positive progress with embryonic stem cells.

Latest Victory For Regenerative Medicine: Pituitary Grown From Embryonic Stem Cells | Singularity Hub

I went back and looked at my OP.
Nope, I didn't specify human embryonic stem cells, so mouse cells qualify.

Thanks for the informative article.