Bush, you are a fucking nitwit. Do not tell me what to research.

[Cargogal]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**
Are you seriously arguing 80 compose a “vast majorty of scientists”? What, there are less than 160 scientists in the entire country? In fact, there’s nothing in that abstract to suggest that any of these people are scientists (or Americans). You do realize that Nobel Prizes are awarded for catgeories other than science, don’t you? **

80 is a pretty hefty percentage of Nobel Laureates, Ryan. And yes, honey child, I know they’re not all in the hard sciences. I just thought that 'Nobel Laureate" would mean a lot more to the people on this board than “Irv Weissman” would. Why don’t you hop on over here. Also check out the report from the National Bioethics Advisory Comission, where they recommend allowing stem cell research (within limits). These groups represent sceitists as a whole far better than Bush or Congress does. Hunt me up citations from some scientists - real ones, not Dr. Conservative of the Institute of the Christian Coalition - who says, “Yes, please, Mr. Bush, make global decisions on what we can and cannot research.”

A big point of the above links - scientists really do consider the ethical consequences of what we do. When genetic manipulation was in its early phases, there was a significant meeting at Asilomar where the standards for what should and should not be done were debated, and ethical questions were raised and discussed. So it is with stem cells. What Bush has said is “I know better than you what is right and wrong, and the scientific community cannot decide for itself.” That is condescending and wrong.

[musicguy]

Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, whose anti-abortion stances are well known, support federal funding of stem cell research. They both stated that once the learned what was actually involved, they didn’t feel that supporting it conflicted with their pro-life stance. I give them both a lot of credit for actually learning something, rather than just reacting out of ignorance. They both feel that the need to find cures is what is important here. If only they could get that message to Bush.

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Cargogal *
80 is a pretty hefty percentage of Nobel Laureates, Ryan.

earlier you said:

Ah, but the vast majority of scientists feel strongly enough about this to sign on to a document disagreeing with Dubya’s action.

Were you engaging in hyperbole?

And yes, honey child, I know they’re not all in the hard sciences. I just thought that 'Nobel Laureate" would mean a lot more to the people on this board than “Irv Weissman” would.

Mean more? Yes. Be more relevant? No. “they’re not all in the hard sciences” is an understatement. The categories are: physics, chemistry, literature, peace, economics, and physiology & medicine. While Toni Morrison’s reception of the award is admirable, I don’t see why she is any better qualified to speak on the matter than anyone else.

“Yes, please, Mr. Bush, make global decisions on what we can and cannot research.”

Huh? This applies to the US, and only to federal funded programs. It seems to me that since these funds have been entrusted to Bush’s care, not yours, you are telling him what to research, not vice versa.

What Bush has said is “I know better than you what is right and wrong, and the scientific community cannot decide for itself.” That is condescending and wrong.

What you have said is that you know better than him how taxpayer money should be used, and the government cannot decide for itself. You do not consider this to be condescensing?

[TwistofFate]

What is it going to take to convince people that religion has no place in science? Ethics, yes, Religion, no.

Stem cell research is not killing babies, regardless of what the Religious Right say.

[musicguy]

*Originally posted by TwistofFate *
**
Stem cell research is not killing babies, regardless of what the Religious Right say. **

I may be wrong and I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I am. My understanding though is that no fertilization of the cells takes place in this process. So, if no fertilization takes place, doesn’t the “baby” argument kinda fall apart at that point?

[musicguy]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**

What you have said is that you know better than him how taxpayer money should be used, and the government cannot decide for itself. You do not consider this to be condescensing? **

That’s the problem. Many people have a far better understanding of this process than Bush apparently does. Many people want this research to happen. He is ignoring this and making decisions based on his own religious beliefs. That is not the government deciding, just one ignorant man.

[UncleBeer]

Bush has the mental capacity of a 4 year old. I’ve never seen someone so stupid rise to such power. Just proves that something’s wrong with the society of The United States. He is set in his way of bringing down technology which won’t pay off before the next election so that he can spend more time on his friends oil businesses.

Stunning observation, clayton_e. Got any more gems to toss our way? Or would it be too much of a “pearls before the swine” kinda thing?

Lemme ask, though, even at the risk of entertaining more of your blindingly stupid conclusions, just how many individuals have you seen “rise to such power?” I’m guessing no more than two. Those being Clinton and the previous Bush. (In which case your observation may just be correct, but no less idiotic.)

And ya know, although I consider myself to be one of the more conservative Republicans on these boards, I’m inclined to support stem cell research, even the human embryonic variety, but the methods many of you Bush detractors use to promote your viewpoint I find repugnant, dishonest, and bankrupt. If you indeed have science (and “the majority of scientists”) on your side, why do you stoop to such low-handed personal attacks? It’s a horribly misguided manner in which to persuade potential supporters; it’s counter-productive; it produces nothing but a bunker mentality. Most perplexing though, is that the reverence for science and reason you claim to hold when making your arguments for funding this research, seems to be completely negated by the vitirolic personal attacks you employ. If you indeed value science and reason so highly, and your case is as strong as you say, why do you feel the need to use such emotional tactics? Perplexing. Puzzling. Paradoxical.

And pathetic.

[John_Bredin]

“What is it going to take to convince people that religion has no place in science? Ethics, yes, Religion, no. Stem cell research is not killing babies, regardless of what the Religious Right say.”

Your ethics-versus-religion dichotomy seems to completely preclude the possibility that a person could consider embryos and fetuses to be human beings on a non-religious ethical basis. There are NO atheist anti-abortionists?!

[RTFirefly]

If you indeed have science (and “the majority of scientists”) on your side, why do you stoop to such low-handed personal attacks? It’s a horribly misguided manner in which to persuade potential supporters; it’s counter-productive; it produces nothing but a bunker mentality. Most perplexing though, is that the reverence for science and reason you claim to hold when making your arguments for funding this research, seems to be completely negated by the vitirolic personal attacks you employ. If you indeed value science and reason so highly, and your case is as strong as you say, why do you feel the need to use such emotional tactics? Perplexing. Puzzling. Paradoxical.

And pathetic.

As one of the more liberal Democrats on this board, I have to agree with you entirely on this point, Unc. Resorting to cheap-shot ad hominem attacks on Bush makes his detractors look bad, not him - and even if that wasn’t true, it’s still not the way to go.

What Bush has said is “I know better than you what is right and wrong, and the scientific community cannot decide for itself.”

Whatever else Bush may have been saying, Cargogal, the scientific community should not decide these things for itself.

No matter how seriously scientists may have considered and debated the ethics of gene splicing, stem cell research, or what have you, the rest of us have some say in this too - and the means of expressing that say is through the political process. That includes the President, whoever is occupying that office at the time that one of these matters is in play.

I have the weird notion that in a democracy, the views of the people should be taken into account in matters that concern them, and no elite - whether scientists, or bureaucrats, or corporations, or real or self-appointed intellectual elites - should pre-empt the voice of the people.

I still think Bush’s decision was wrong, but he’s got every right to represent his constituency on this one.

[UncleBeer]

As one of the more liberal Democrats on this board, I have to agree with you entirely on this point, Unc.

Well, thanks for the support, Rufus. I’m certainly no paragon in regards to ad hominem attacks on political figures, but I have been making a better effort in that direction as of late. At most times, I find I’m able to do this by simply shutting up. Such a simple concept; so difficult in execution.

And the rest of your post is well said, too.

[musicguy]

From the NY Times Op-Ed 05/02/02

In an explanation that deserves close attention, Mr. (Orrin)Hatch described why he believes the tiny cell clusters that scientists work with should not be considered human life. In therapeutic cloning, he noted, scientists first take the genetic material from, say, the skin cell of an adult and inject it into a female egg cell whose own genetic material has been removed. Then they stimulate the cell electrically and it begins to divide in a laboratory dish, enabling scientists to harvest stem cells that can be used for research on potential therapies.

Although some right-to-lifers contend that the new cell created in the laboratory becomes a human life at the moment it is electrically activated, Mr. Hatch disagreed. He noted that the egg is never fertilized with sperm, and that the embryo will not be implanted in a woman’s womb, so there is no chance of a birth.

In reference to my earlier post, this is what Mr Hatch had to say on the subject. I have to agree that its hard to justify it being a human life when no fertilization has ever taken place. Or is an egg alone a human life? That sure seems like a stretch.

And UncleBeer, when I say that I feel that Bush is ignorant about some of these facts, I don’t consider that an emotional attack (granted, you may not have been referencing my post when you stated your position). And I am trying make a better effort to not just bash for bashing sake. Bush does seem to be disregarding the possibility of scientific breakthrough to appease the religious right who voted for him though. I agree with you that making a blanket statement that he is an idiot doesn’t really help but I feel he is wrong and I have no problem stating it. If Clinton had done the same thing, I wouldn’t be very pleased with him either.

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by musicguy *
That’s the problem. Many people have a far better understanding of this process than Bush apparently does. Many people want this research to happen. He is ignoring this and making decisions based on his own religious beliefs. That is not the government deciding, just one ignorant man.

So when an elected official makes a decision, tha’t not government? We should let the unelected scientists rule instead?

[robertliguori]

Foist, people are still sore over election 2000. Secoind, claiming that Bush has the authority to decide what should be researched is like claiming that the manager at the local fast-food chain should dictate health regulations. Bush will be gone in two (or six) years. Hopefully, his successor will be less conservative and more intelligent. Not to imply that conservatives are stupid. Bush just happens to be both. Anyway, why are we bringing ethics into this? I happen to own two very efficient gamete factories. If I should decide to pair up with someone with compatable gamete factories (actually warehouses, but you get the idea), our PROPERTY (actually hers, I think) remains that until its birth. Yes, we cannot do whatever we want to it after the first trimester, but we can sure slice it up good before that magic date. To the anti- stem cell research people, you’re in a double bind. Either the law is a source of morality, so you should stop whining about all eSC gathered before the third month. Or, the law is not a source of morality, and we have every right to protest the stupidity of our Fearless Leader™ at the top of our virtual voices.

[musicguy]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**So when an elected official makes a decision, tha’t not government? We should let the unelected scientists rule instead? **

If an elected official is going to make a decision with the ramifications that this decision has, he has the responsibility to be well-informed. If he thinks stem cell research=killing babies, he is not well informed.

And nowhere did I say that scientists alone should be making these decisions. These decisions should be made, IMHO, in a way that reflects the opinions of all of us, not just those who happen to be religious. Shouldn’t the people that are suffering from the diseases that this research could provide a potential cure for, have some say in this. Because that is who this decision affects directly. I am offended when many scientists think that this research represents a strong possibility of curing diseases that affect millions of people, yet the government chooses to ignore this because they are pushing a religious agenda.

Cancer and Parkinsons both run in my family and I am, admittedly, emotionally attached to this issue. I want to live a long, healthy life. If one person makes a decision that could profoundly affect my ability to do that, I refuse to just assume that my political leaders are making decisions in my best interest because they were elected. I want people who are more knowledgable than a politician on this subject to be involved in that decision.

[edwino]

There are other issues. Bush legalized 60 or so stem cell lines, right? Well not all of these still exist, and many that do are held under lock and key by biotech companies. So researchers have to pay out of their nose to get access to them.

Next, many of the stem cells were generated in odd ways, IIRC some are mouse/human cell fusions, etc. All of the others IIRC are either isolates of partially differentiated stem cell lines (i.e. hematopoetic stem cells and satellite cells from muscles) which are not fully totipotent (they are not able to differentiate into every kind of tissue, so they are called pluripotent).

The subtle idiocy of the matter has been mentioned above: there is an abundant source of these cells – extra zygotes are created during fertility treatments. These can be frozen, but then you have to pay storage space. If not, they get flushed. Better to a research lab than a sewage system IMHO but I’m not the president.

About the public versus private funding. HAH. The lifeblood of the most research labs out there is NIH funding. A number of points can be made. The first is that the standard project grant is the NIH R01 level grant, which provides between $250,000 and $300,000 per year per project per lab. For instance, my lab (of 14 people) carries 2 R01s, which makes up more than 3/4 of our funding each year. Trying to cover that kind money from private sources is not a trivial feat. The next point is that federally funded research is mostly of a higher quality than privately funded research. Since NIH funding itself is peer reviewed, since it is a competitive renewal process, this adds another level of stringency to the research proposed. Federally funded research also has the freedom to be less goals-oriented, since there is no pharmaceutical company looking for a payoff.

So, yes, Bush telling the NIH what to spend money on is a bad thing. The NIH have spent years formulating a process by which they receive, peer review, rank, and fund grants. A big part of the review already is bioethical review, from animal studies to cell culture. If it wasn’t ethical, the NIH wouldn’t fund it, because the community of scientists and bioethicists that the NIH employ would weed it out in peer review.

It is times like this that I am thankful that I work on developmental biology in a simple organism, and my research has very very little political implication.

[CRorex]

In my mind there’s a hell of a problem when it comes to cramming religious morality into bio-ethics.

What difference is there between a fertalized egg and a mature skin cell? Longer telomeres, fewer methylation sites and some extra proteins.

That’s not a whole lot of difference, a big difference if you look at it from the development stand point. One CAN become a human, the other a cancer.

The article quoted above raises a whole new point. We can now use ANY mature cell to generate a pseudo-stem cell (I’m not calling it a full stem cell as there hasn’t been enough research done to make that call). Well now we’ve just turned every living cell in each of our bodies into a potential new human being. Does this mean we can’t do research on cancer cells isolated from humans?

It seems like the problem is that technological advance has outstripped the ability of religion to keep pace. And the segment of the population scared about new achievements and those scared about the ‘immoral’ implications are turning to religious authority to stop what they’re scared of. No attempts at regulation, just a cease and desist.

Is it immoral to generate fertalized eggs for research?

I think before we tackle that question we need to ask our selves is it ‘moral’ for young women to sell their eggs to fertility clinics? Because these two ideas are only a step or two removed in the logical progression of things and appear morally similar.

If we have no problem about a woman selling her eggs to be fertalized and made into children (keep in mind during the forced fertalization process many viable eggs are lost/destroyed) or should they be turned into research material.

The more I think about it, the closer the two ideas are.

Next, and here is the scary one that nobody seems to like to think about.

Public vs private research.

Private research is only affected by state/federal laws.
Public, its affected by what the NIH can allocate funding for and by what the DOD and similar organizations are allowed funding for.

Here’s what scares me.

All of the private research is fully owned by the funding organization. Much as windows owns its own code, private companies can patent chimeric organism (bio-engineered foods and what not).
Now I’m not sure about how much or if you can patent data/therapies from NIH funded grants but I’m sure there are restrictions.

In Bush making it impossible for public research money going into stem cell research he’s making it 100% private company.
And in the little time that stem cell work has been in the public eye many many interesting things have come out of it.

Imagine if all of the new innovative treatments being imagined are privately owned. CNS regeneration, organ/limb/tissue regeneration… All of these things are being seen in lab animals given human stem cells.

Just imagine what HMOs and health insurance will be like when the people who can afford stem cell derived therapies for spinal cord injuries, diabeties, traumatic limb loss get them. We’ll see a whole new division of the haves and the have nots. It’ll be based on a far greater quality of life for those individuals who can pay the high fees which will allow the drug companies to recoup their research losses.

Sometimes we’ve got to stop and look at what things will mean 20, 30 or 100 years later on if we follow a certain course of action.

Maybe public funding for stem cell research won’t mean the development of low cost stem cell derived cure for Diabetes, or an easilly accessable techinque for limb regeneration. But by keeping the funding 100% private we guarentee that those treatments will take longer (simple economics, private companies have a hell of a lot less money for R&D than the government). Also, I don’t want to imagine what the public response would be if a company had a treatment for restoring the spinal cord function. What would you do if you child was a quadrapolegic (spelling!?) and you could cure them, but the treatment was 2 million dollars.

I don’t think Medicare would cover it. I don’t think your health insurance, that doesn’t like to pay 50 dollars for an x-ray would cover it either.

But again, this is based on my understanding of copyright/patent laws and how public/private funding works on them.