Gem
Rookie
- Aug 11, 2004
- 2,080
- 783
- 0
- Banned
- #41
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
This makes good sense, I am definetly starting to see some of the merits of government funded research...
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:
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.
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...
Mr. Conley Wrote: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?
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.