Success with stem cells

[Immanuel]

I wasn't aware that the Jerry Lewis Telethon (which, by the way, doesn't have Jerry Lewis any more) received federal funding, which is actually the crux of the problem here. I don't believe anyone has suggested that private industry should be made to stop funding ESCR if it desires to do so. It's the taxpayer money and where it should be spent that's in question.

By the way, the MDA does a lot of things besides fund research into muscular dystrophy and other nerve disorders. They have clinics that provide diagnosis and treatment, and they offer community services such as a summer camp for kids with muscular dystrophy. And while there is not a cure yet for MD, I believe varying progress has been made in developing treatments for different nerve and spinal disorders.

Good points and I was not insinuating that MDA should be shut down. Remember, I was playing Devil's Advocate.

It did seem to me until the latest part of the thread, that the point was to stop ALL ESCR.

Immie

Well, yes and no. As far as I'm aware, ESCR mostly goes forward through agenda-driven government funding, because private industry doesn't seem to see a whole lot of promise there. So removing taxpayer dollars from it would have the net effect of largely ending it.

In that case, it should largely be eliminated.

Immie

 

[geauxtohell]

Good points and I was not insinuating that MDA should be shut down. Remember, I was playing Devil's Advocate.

It did seem to me until the latest part of the thread, that the point was to stop ALL ESCR.

Immie

Well, yes and no. As far as I'm aware, ESCR mostly goes forward through agenda-driven government funding, because private industry doesn't seem to see a whole lot of promise there. So removing taxpayer dollars from it would have the net effect of largely ending it.

In that case, it should largely be eliminated.

Immie

Why? Why must science be tied to the premise that it has to be profitable? Again, many of the greatest discoveries that have benefited mankind the most have been completely serendipitous.

Please don't subscribe to the silly "libertarian" notion that science, like everything else in this world, has to be all about dollars and cents. You never know what seemingly inane discovery of today might lead to the break through of tomorrow.

Science is a cumulative effort. Eliminating items simply because you deem them to be non-profitable is like playing Jenga blind.

Again, "knowledge for the sake of knowledge" is sufficient. That's what makes it different then other enterprises.

Is NASA a "profitable" enterprise? No immediately. However, look at the items that have spun out of our quest to go to space: GPS, computers, satellites, etc.

The sum total of the money spent to go to the moon has led to items that have been enormously profitable.

 

[Immanuel]

Well, yes and no. As far as I'm aware, ESCR mostly goes forward through agenda-driven government funding, because private industry doesn't seem to see a whole lot of promise there. So removing taxpayer dollars from it would have the net effect of largely ending it.

In that case, it should largely be eliminated.

Immie

Why? Why must science be tied to the premise that it has to be profitable? Again, many of the greatest discoveries that have benefited mankind the most have been completely serendipitous.

Please don't subscribe to the silly "libertarian" notion that science, like everything else in this world, has to be all about dollars and cents. You never know what seemingly inane discovery of today might lead to the break through of tomorrow.

Science is a cumulative effort. Eliminating items simply because you deem them to be non-profitable is like playing Jenga blind.

Again, "knowledge for the sake of knowledge" is sufficient. That's what makes it different then other enterprises.

Is NASA a "profitable" enterprise? No immediately. However, look at the items that have spun out of our quest to go to space: GPS, computers, satellites, etc.

The sum total of the money spent to go to the moon has led to items that have been enormously profitable.

Neither science nor the arts should be tied to whether or not they will be profitable. However, we have a government that is spending more money than it can ever begin to think about paying back. We shouldn't be funding such research or the arts at a time like this. If there are scientist that believe in this line of research so much, let them expend their own capital or find investors who are willing to expend their capital on the research, but it is time Uncle Sam stop doing so.

If embryonic stem cell research shows any promise let those who will profit from it expend the capital it will cost to profit from it. I as an American taxpayer do not want to spend more tax dollars on this particular line when there is more promise from adult stem cells.

I am not calling for the ban of such research rather the end of my having to help fund it.

Immie

 

[geauxtohell]

In that case, it should largely be eliminated.

Immie

Why? Why must science be tied to the premise that it has to be profitable? Again, many of the greatest discoveries that have benefited mankind the most have been completely serendipitous.

Please don't subscribe to the silly "libertarian" notion that science, like everything else in this world, has to be all about dollars and cents. You never know what seemingly inane discovery of today might lead to the break through of tomorrow.

Science is a cumulative effort. Eliminating items simply because you deem them to be non-profitable is like playing Jenga blind.

Again, "knowledge for the sake of knowledge" is sufficient. That's what makes it different then other enterprises.

Is NASA a "profitable" enterprise? No immediately. However, look at the items that have spun out of our quest to go to space: GPS, computers, satellites, etc.

The sum total of the money spent to go to the moon has led to items that have been enormously profitable.

Neither science nor the arts should be tied to whether or not they will be profitable. However, we have a government that is spending more money than it can ever begin to think about paying back. We shouldn't be funding such research or the arts at a time like this. If there are scientist that believe in this line of research so much, let them expend their own capital or find investors who are willing to expend their capital on the research, but it is time Uncle Sam stop doing so.

If embryonic stem cell research shows any promise let those who will profit from it expend the capital it will cost to profit from it. I as an American taxpayer do not want to spend more tax dollars on this particular line when there is more promise from adult stem cells.

I am not calling for the ban of such research rather the end of my having to help fund it.

Immie

Defunding is a defacto ban. Furthermore, it's presumptive to say there is "no money" in embryonic stem cells.

As I noted, these aren't discrete issues. I am sure research will get cut along with everything else to include the military.

However, to single out one particular thing and axe it based off of profitability is just silly, because that hardly stops with stem cells. As I said, if the issue is really people have a moral objection to stem cells, then just say so and we can leave it at that.

The "cure" for cancer isn't currently available or immediately profitable. That doesn't mean we stop looking.

Thankfully, the people who green-light research "get it".

 

[Immanuel]

Why? Why must science be tied to the premise that it has to be profitable? Again, many of the greatest discoveries that have benefited mankind the most have been completely serendipitous.

Please don't subscribe to the silly "libertarian" notion that science, like everything else in this world, has to be all about dollars and cents. You never know what seemingly inane discovery of today might lead to the break through of tomorrow.

Science is a cumulative effort. Eliminating items simply because you deem them to be non-profitable is like playing Jenga blind.

Again, "knowledge for the sake of knowledge" is sufficient. That's what makes it different then other enterprises.

Is NASA a "profitable" enterprise? No immediately. However, look at the items that have spun out of our quest to go to space: GPS, computers, satellites, etc.

The sum total of the money spent to go to the moon has led to items that have been enormously profitable.

Neither science nor the arts should be tied to whether or not they will be profitable. However, we have a government that is spending more money than it can ever begin to think about paying back. We shouldn't be funding such research or the arts at a time like this. If there are scientist that believe in this line of research so much, let them expend their own capital or find investors who are willing to expend their capital on the research, but it is time Uncle Sam stop doing so.

If embryonic stem cell research shows any promise let those who will profit from it expend the capital it will cost to profit from it. I as an American taxpayer do not want to spend more tax dollars on this particular line when there is more promise from adult stem cells.

I am not calling for the ban of such research rather the end of my having to help fund it.

Immie

Defunding is a defacto ban. Furthermore, it's presumptive to say there is "no money" in embryonic stem cells.

As I noted, these aren't discrete issues. I am sure research will get cut along with everything else to include the military.

However, to single out one particular thing and axe it based off of profitability is just silly, because that hardly stops with stem cells. As I said, if the issue is really people have a moral objection to stem cells, then just say so and we can leave it at that.

The "cure" for cancer isn't currently available or immediately profitable. That doesn't mean we stop looking.

Thankfully, the people who green-light research "get it".

The problem is that those morons green light everything and don't give a shit about what it is doing to our country.

If and when embryonic stem cell research even shows a glimmer of promise maybe then someone should consider green lighting government spending on it. Until then we have more hope elsewhere and plenty of needs.

Immie

 

[geauxtohell]

Neither science nor the arts should be tied to whether or not they will be profitable. However, we have a government that is spending more money than it can ever begin to think about paying back. We shouldn't be funding such research or the arts at a time like this. If there are scientist that believe in this line of research so much, let them expend their own capital or find investors who are willing to expend their capital on the research, but it is time Uncle Sam stop doing so.

If embryonic stem cell research shows any promise let those who will profit from it expend the capital it will cost to profit from it. I as an American taxpayer do not want to spend more tax dollars on this particular line when there is more promise from adult stem cells.

I am not calling for the ban of such research rather the end of my having to help fund it.

Immie

Defunding is a defacto ban. Furthermore, it's presumptive to say there is "no money" in embryonic stem cells.

As I noted, these aren't discrete issues. I am sure research will get cut along with everything else to include the military.

However, to single out one particular thing and axe it based off of profitability is just silly, because that hardly stops with stem cells. As I said, if the issue is really people have a moral objection to stem cells, then just say so and we can leave it at that.

The "cure" for cancer isn't currently available or immediately profitable. That doesn't mean we stop looking.

Thankfully, the people who green-light research "get it".

The problem is that those morons green light everything and don't give a shit about what it is doing to our country.

If and when embryonic stem cell research even shows a glimmer of promise maybe then someone should consider green lighting government spending on it. Until then we have more hope elsewhere and plenty of needs.

Immie

Stem cells have greatly enhanced our understanding of cell biology.

The problem is you've fallen for "medical treatments" as the gold standard for proving worth.

As if our understanding of basic medical sciences starts in the dusky corridors of clinical practice.

 

[Immanuel]

Defunding is a defacto ban. Furthermore, it's presumptive to say there is "no money" in embryonic stem cells.

As I noted, these aren't discrete issues. I am sure research will get cut along with everything else to include the military.

However, to single out one particular thing and axe it based off of profitability is just silly, because that hardly stops with stem cells. As I said, if the issue is really people have a moral objection to stem cells, then just say so and we can leave it at that.

The "cure" for cancer isn't currently available or immediately profitable. That doesn't mean we stop looking.

Thankfully, the people who green-light research "get it".

The problem is that those morons green light everything and don't give a shit about what it is doing to our country.

If and when embryonic stem cell research even shows a glimmer of promise maybe then someone should consider green lighting government spending on it. Until then we have more hope elsewhere and plenty of needs.

Immie

Stem cells have greatly enhanced our understanding of cell biology.

The problem is you've fallen for "medical treatments" as the gold standard for proving worth.

As if our understanding of basic medical sciences starts in the dusky corridors of clinical practice.

Fine continue research funding with adult stem cells. Any scientist who wants to gamble on embryonic stem cells should have to foot the bill themselves until they can show even the slightest bit of promise.

Immie

 

[konradv]

The problem is that those morons green light everything and don't give a shit about what it is doing to our country.

If and when embryonic stem cell research even shows a glimmer of promise maybe then someone should consider green lighting government spending on it. Until then we have more hope elsewhere and plenty of needs.

Immie

Stem cells have greatly enhanced our understanding of cell biology.

The problem is you've fallen for "medical treatments" as the gold standard for proving worth.

As if our understanding of basic medical sciences starts in the dusky corridors of clinical practice.

Fine continue research funding with adult stem cells. Any scientist who wants to gamble on embryonic stem cells should have to foot the bill themselves until they can show even the slightest bit of promise.

Immie

Who says they haven't already shown "promise"? It's not a gamble, but merely a tough problem. As far as I'm concerned, scientists have already met your criterion for continuing research. The fact that they haven't gotten as far doesn't mean we should stop, anymore than we should stop research on fusion power, just because fission power was easier and has been around for over half a century.

 

[geauxtohell]

The problem is that those morons green light everything and don't give a shit about what it is doing to our country.

If and when embryonic stem cell research even shows a glimmer of promise maybe then someone should consider green lighting government spending on it. Until then we have more hope elsewhere and plenty of needs.

Immie

Stem cells have greatly enhanced our understanding of cell biology.

The problem is you've fallen for "medical treatments" as the gold standard for proving worth.

As if our understanding of basic medical sciences starts in the dusky corridors of clinical practice.

Fine continue research funding with adult stem cells. Any scientist who wants to gamble on embryonic stem cells should have to foot the bill themselves until they can show even the slightest bit of promise.

Immie

Again, what is the barometer for "slightest bit of promise"? Its turned into a game of whack a mole. First it was "medical treatment" then it was profitability and now it's something else.

Inherent to this issue is that science simply for the sake of promoting our understanding of the natural world is sufficient (or should be to anyone involved in the field).

This is a frequent canard of the anti-embryonic stem cell movement. They attempt to disguise their real problem (their moral opposition to embryonic stem cell research) with ESCR with pseudo-scientific or financial arguments. I don't see why people simply can't say "I object to ESCR because I find it ethically troubling".

A (very quick) glance at the peer-reviewed literature (not OPED or agenda driven) shows the utility of ESCR and where scientists think ESCR could go:

Current State of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research: An Overview of Cell Lines and Their Use in Experimental Work - Guhr - 2006 - STEM CELLS - Wiley Online Library
MMS: Error
Human embryonic stem cell transplantation to repair the infarcted myocardium -- Leor et al. 93 (10): 1278 -- Heart

After Bush severely curtailed ESCR:

Human Embryonic Stem Cell Policy Under Former President Bush (Aug. 9, 2001–Mar. xx, 2009) [Stem Cell Information]

It shouldn't be terribly surprising that the results haven't been as impressive as you guys would desire. It's like griping about the outcome of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

To be certain, I am not stating that we shouldn't stop researching adult stem cells. I am saying that we shouldn't hinder work on either type.

One thing is for certain, our international competitors who don't see the need to make a ethical fight over this issue will corner the market of ideas in this field:

Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines and Their Use in International Research - L[]ser - 2009 - STEM CELLS - Wiley Online Library

 

[Si modo]

Stem cells have greatly enhanced our understanding of cell biology.

The problem is you've fallen for "medical treatments" as the gold standard for proving worth.

As if our understanding of basic medical sciences starts in the dusky corridors of clinical practice.

Fine continue research funding with adult stem cells. Any scientist who wants to gamble on embryonic stem cells should have to foot the bill themselves until they can show even the slightest bit of promise.

Immie

Again, what is the barometer for "slightest bit of promise"? Its turned into a game of whack a mole. First it was "medical treatment" then it was profitability and now it's something else.

Inherent to this issue is that science simply for the sake of promoting our understanding of the natural world is sufficient (or should be to anyone involved in the field).

This is a frequent canard of the anti-embryonic stem cell movement. They attempt to disguise their real problem (their moral opposition to embryonic stem cell research) with ESCR with pseudo-scientific or financial arguments. I don't see why people simply can't say "I object to ESCR because I find it ethically troubling".

A (very quick) glance at the peer-reviewed literature (not OPED or agenda driven) shows the utility of ESCR and where scientists think ESCR could go:

Current State of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research: An Overview of Cell Lines and Their Use in Experimental Work - Guhr - 2006 - STEM CELLS - Wiley Online Library
MMS: Error
Human embryonic stem cell transplantation to repair the infarcted myocardium -- Leor et al. 93 (10): 1278 -- Heart

After Bush severely curtailed ESCR:

Human Embryonic Stem Cell Policy Under Former President Bush (Aug. 9, 2001–Mar. xx, 2009) [Stem Cell Information]

It shouldn't be terribly surprising that the results haven't been as impressive as you guys would desire. It's like griping about the outcome of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

To be certain, I am not stating that we shouldn't stop researching adult stem cells. I am saying that we shouldn't hinder work on either type.

One thing is for certain, our international competitors who don't see the need to make a ethical fight over this issue will corner the market of ideas in this field:

Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines and Their Use in International Research - L[]ser - 2009 - STEM CELLS - Wiley Online Library

Actually, Bush did not curtail ESC research. He did not allow funding of research involving new lines. There were existing lines and they were never exhausted.

I didn't agree with that EO, specifically because it prohibited cloning. Which was absolutely ridiculous and fed into hysterical fears about ESC.

Anyway, a major breakthrough in prevention of spontaneous differentiation during storage happened during that time. That's a big deal.

 

[geauxtohell]

Actually, Bush did not curtail ESC research. He did not allow funding of research involving new lines. There were existing lines and they were never exhausted.

How is limiting NIH funding to 21 original lines not curtailing research?

I didn't agree with that EO, specifically because it prohibited cloning. Which was absolutely ridiculous and fed into hysterical fears about ESC.

Anyway, a major breakthrough in prevention of spontaneous differentiation during storage happened during that time. That's a big deal.

Which didn't require a curtailment of ESR to discover.

 

[Si modo]

Actually, Bush did not curtail ESC research. He did not allow funding of research involving new lines. There were existing lines and they were never exhausted.

How is limiting NIH funding to 21 original lines not curtailing research?

....

I suppose if you included my entire post, you would know how it didn't curtail research.

Here is the pertinent part, bolded:

Actually, Bush did not curtail ESC research. He did not allow funding of research involving new lines. There were existing lines and they were never exhausted.

I didn't agree with that EO, specifically because it prohibited cloning. Which was absolutely ridiculous and fed into hysterical fears about ESC.

Anyway, a major breakthrough in prevention of spontaneous differentiation during storage happened during that time. That's a big deal.

(I was an employee of the NIH during much of the Bush's second term. We were all well aware of our stem cells and the EO.)

I didn't agree with that EO, specifically because it prohibited cloning. Which was absolutely ridiculous and fed into hysterical fears about ESC.

Anyway, a major breakthrough in prevention of spontaneous differentiation during storage happened during that time. That's a big deal.

Which didn't require a curtailment of ESR to discover.

Which I didn't say, now did I?

I gave one example of a major breakthrough during the time of that EO so that those who might be tempted to say no research was done, won't.




And, onto the huge gripes in this thread about ESC research: I cannot comprehend the obsession of some with wanting ESC research to stop because it "promotes a pro-abortion agenda".

It doesn't. And, now that cloning is no longer banned, it's far beyond being a ridiculous idea.

 

[geauxtohell]

Actually, Bush did not curtail ESC research. He did not allow funding of research involving new lines. There were existing lines and they were never exhausted.

How is limiting NIH funding to 21 original lines not curtailing research?

....

I suppose if you included my entire post, you would know how it didn't curtail research.

Here is the pertinent part, bolded:



(I was an employee of the NIH during much of the Bush's second term. We were all well aware of our stem cells and the EO.)

I didn't agree with that EO, specifically because it prohibited cloning. Which was absolutely ridiculous and fed into hysterical fears about ESC.

Anyway, a major breakthrough in prevention of spontaneous differentiation during storage happened during that time. That's a big deal.

Which didn't require a curtailment of ESR to discover.

Which I didn't say, now did I?

I gave one example of a major breakthrough during the time of that EO so that those who might be tempted to say no research was done, won't.




And, onto the huge gripes in this thread about ESC research: I cannot comprehend the obsession of some with wanting ESC research to stop because it "promotes a pro-abortion agenda".

It doesn't. And, now that cloning is no longer banned, it's far beyond being a ridiculous idea.

I never claimed that zero research was done. I claimed it was curtailed as in there were barriers to it that prevented it from being as accessible as it would have been otherwise.

Other than that, we are on the same page, I think. I really can't fathom the people who would want to stop scientific work simply because (they perceive) no immediate benefit from it.

 

[Immanuel]

Stem cells have greatly enhanced our understanding of cell biology.

The problem is you've fallen for "medical treatments" as the gold standard for proving worth.

As if our understanding of basic medical sciences starts in the dusky corridors of clinical practice.

Fine continue research funding with adult stem cells. Any scientist who wants to gamble on embryonic stem cells should have to foot the bill themselves until they can show even the slightest bit of promise.

Immie

Who says they haven't already shown "promise"? It's not a gamble, but merely a tough problem. As far as I'm concerned, scientists have already met your criterion for continuing research. The fact that they haven't gotten as far doesn't mean we should stop, anymore than we should stop research on fusion power, just because fission power was easier and has been around for over half a century.

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

 

[Immanuel]

How is limiting NIH funding to 21 original lines not curtailing research?

....

I suppose if you included my entire post, you would know how it didn't curtail research.

Here is the pertinent part, bolded:



(I was an employee of the NIH during much of the Bush's second term. We were all well aware of our stem cells and the EO.)

Which didn't require a curtailment of ESR to discover.

Which I didn't say, now did I?

I gave one example of a major breakthrough during the time of that EO so that those who might be tempted to say no research was done, won't.




And, onto the huge gripes in this thread about ESC research: I cannot comprehend the obsession of some with wanting ESC research to stop because it "promotes a pro-abortion agenda".

It doesn't. And, now that cloning is no longer banned, it's far beyond being a ridiculous idea.

I never claimed that zero research was done. I claimed it was curtailed as in there were barriers to it that prevented it from being as accessible as it would have been otherwise.

Other than that, we are on the same page, I think. I really can't fathom the people who would want to stop scientific work simply because (they perceive) no immediate benefit from it.

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

 

[geauxtohell]

Fine continue research funding with adult stem cells. Any scientist who wants to gamble on embryonic stem cells should have to foot the bill themselves until they can show even the slightest bit of promise.

Immie

Who says they haven't already shown "promise"? It's not a gamble, but merely a tough problem. As far as I'm concerned, scientists have already met your criterion for continuing research. The fact that they haven't gotten as far doesn't mean we should stop, anymore than we should stop research on fusion power, just because fission power was easier and has been around for over half a century.

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?

 

[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.

 

[Si modo]

How is limiting NIH funding to 21 original lines not curtailing research?

....

I suppose if you included my entire post, you would know how it didn't curtail research.

Here is the pertinent part, bolded:



(I was an employee of the NIH during much of the Bush's second term. We were all well aware of our stem cells and the EO.)

Which didn't require a curtailment of ESR to discover.

Which I didn't say, now did I?

I gave one example of a major breakthrough during the time of that EO so that those who might be tempted to say no research was done, won't.




And, onto the huge gripes in this thread about ESC research: I cannot comprehend the obsession of some with wanting ESC research to stop because it "promotes a pro-abortion agenda".

It doesn't. And, now that cloning is no longer banned, it's far beyond being a ridiculous idea.

I never claimed that zero research was done. I claimed it was curtailed as in there were barriers to it that prevented it from being as accessible as it would have been otherwise.

Other than that, we are on the same page, I think. I really can't fathom the people who would want to stop scientific work simply because (they perceive) no immediate benefit from it.

I know you didn't say that no research was done. I've seen others try to say it and I made a preemptive statement.

You and I ARE almost completely on the same page. I've seen a few ethics papers written about Bush's infamous EO on the topic and based on those analyses, I somewhat understand part of it. I never did and never will understand why cloning of existing ESC was banned as well, though.

And, now that cloning is no longer banned on ESC, I am having an impossible time understanding the opposition to research on ESC based on anti-abortion views, as we've seen in this thread.

And, I am in total agreement with my incomprehension of folks' desires to cease basic research because no immediate applicable results have been realized.

Science is classified as basic and applied: basic science is usually chemistry, physics, biology, and interdisciplinary mixes of those and applied science is engineering, medical, etc. Basic science research usually leads to applied science research, but without basic science, we won't have applied science.

Yes, we are on the same page - very much so.

 

[Si modo]

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.

Exactly.

Immie, and anyone else who is interested:

Our federal scientific policy started developing during the FDR administration. The father of that scientific policy is a man called Vannevar Bush. He wrote several famous analyses of how government funding of scientific research is imperative for the national security of the USA. Consider the development of the Bomb; we were funding close to zero basic research in that area and but for the German scientists who had been working on that and who decided to help us, the outcome of WWII would have been much different.

Vannevar Bush stressed the importance of never being in that situation again and he stressed the importance of keeping an active and leading role in scientific research, always.

Of course, Vannevar Bush is much more eloquent in his analysis of scientific policy and its importance to national security than I, so I highly recommend reading a summary of his analysis and a history of how scientific policy developed in the USA. (His entire report to FDR is here, "Science the Endless Frontier" - well worth the read for anyone who wonders why the federal government funds scientific research.)

Although Bush's concentration in his promotion of government's funding of scientific research was on national security, as it well should be, GTH also mentions another reason - maintaining global competitiveness in the market for applied sciences.

 

[Immanuel]

Who says they haven't already shown "promise"? It's not a gamble, but merely a tough problem. As far as I'm concerned, scientists have already met your criterion for continuing research. The fact that they haven't gotten as far doesn't mean we should stop, anymore than we should stop research on fusion power, just because fission power was easier and has been around for over half a century.

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