As I said earlier, if you take it as a given that the gov’t will fund certain research, then it might as well be stem cell research. I do recognize that my ideal situation of the gov’t being out of the research business just ain’t gonna happen in my lifetime. But, as negligible as it might be, in a time of budget deficits, I would ask that whatever money goes to this research be found by cutting funds for some other research.
I wouldn’t argue with that, and I don’t think many people would.
What’s been show is that if you put slop in the trough, the pigs will surely come to feed. But I’ve hijacked this thread enough in talking about the merits of public vs private funding of research.
Actually, that’s exactly what I’m arguing for. Let me keep my money and control the research by which companies I invest in. You just want to do it coercively.
Perhaps. But this doesn’t necessarily mean a decrease in funding for other types of research. Increased stem cell funding may simply cause biologists working with different techniques or on different systems to change their focus. This may not be a bad thing, if stem cells are more effective. In any event, when it comes to funding science, the argument that if we fund a promising new area we take money away from other areas is irrelevant, because funding is always decided based upon what looks to be most promising and interesting and that changes as new things are discovered. It’s not like we’ll just stop all physics research and retool for stem cells.
Change “coercively” to “effectively” and I’ll agree with you.
By coercively I assume you mean publicly funded, right? Nothing in federal research forbids private industry from doing it also. And to pay for it, what say we cut twice the budget from some stupid congressman’s bill for a Lawrence Welk museum or other such pork. I’d be in favor of that.
1: Rent Mary Poppins DVD and get accent nailed down
2: Stay our of sun
3: Remember “laboratory” pronounced “la-bore-a-tory”
4: Don’t trust perfidious Belgians… ever
Yeah now. I don’t think it’s even arguable whether or not the semiconductor and computer industry was given a huge boost by research and development money from DOD.
Private funding is overrated and it is not this big essential thing in biology, furthermore only one type of stem cell (those harvested from embryos) is unable to receive federal funding.
Embryonic stem cells are seen as the most valuable because they are totipotent. Meaning that one embyronic stem cell can in theory grow into an entire organism (due to environmental conditions and not even mentioning the ethical implications we have not done this nor been able to do this.)
However, there is good evidence that a U.S. based company has developed a system which should soon allow us to grow as many totipoten stem cells as we could ever want without having to harvest any new embryos.
Aside from sidestepping the political debate, this is also exciting new technology that ironically probably wouldn’t have came about had it not been for the ban on funding of embryonic stem cell research.
Aside from embryonic stem cells there are many stem cells to be harvested from the umbilical cords of newborns and other areas. Now, these aren’t totipotent stem cells, but they have been used for years to treat certain ailments and aren’t effected by any U.S. laws.
There are also adult stem cells that can be found all throughout the human body. Even on the dermis. Now while most of these cells are pluripotent (meaning they can only become certain types of cells) this isn’t so restrictive as you might think.
Stem cells from bone marrow can for example produce red blood cells, nerve, liver, kidney and muscle cells.
From the aspect of most diseases we want to fight with stem cells, we can get those cells from the dermis, because dermis skin cells can be transdifferentiated into neurons, and those are the most important cells when it comes to fighting many neurological diseases.
Cite? Or do you just believe this to be true? I believe public funding is essential in any basic research, including biology basic research–which, to be clear, is what stem-cell research currently is, since we don’t yet know nearly enough to begin applied research. I’ll work on finding evidence for or against that. Please let us know if your statement above is purely opinion, or if you can back it up.
Cite? And is “a system which should soon allow us to grow as many totipotent stem cells as we could ever want” the same as “totipotent stem cells that we can use right now to figure out how they work”? Also, do you have evidence that this technology would not have been developed without the ban? I know biologists were researching what makes a stem cell pluripotent before the ban, so I can’t just assume that this research wouldn’t have taken place.After I read about the research, I’m sure I’ll have more questions, so I anxiously await the cite.
Cite? I wasn’t aware there were any currently available stem-cell-based treatments.
Cite? I was under the impression that dermal stem cells differentiated into dermis. I’d be happy to learn otherwise.
Well I have cites for everything besides the first one, which is an opinion, and you guessed as much. Personally I don’t feel that even basic research needs government funding unless we are talking about extremely high investment research like space travel and et cetra.
The biggest caveat with private funding is it USUALLY only comes when a profit can be seen. Since I think a lot of companies are willing to take the risk on stem cells some day turning a profit, I think private funding is more than adequate, I’m not against public funding though, and luckily public funding is available for all but embryonic stem cells, and it is available for those that were harvested prior to 2000 IIRC.
[Obviously philanthropy is also a factor, but it isn’t something you can base hopes on as it is fairly random and at the whim of the philanthropist.]
To further explain and briefly summarzie (the linked article is very fascinating, but is about 5 pages long) Advanced Cell Technology basically has been using the cloning process that we are all so familiar with to clone embryos. The company only plans to grow the cloned embryo to the the the blastocyst stage (64 to 200 cells.)
Now obviously this presents big problems all on its own, not the least of which is the fact that cloning is seen as more heinous than harvesting stem cells. But it is hoped that this process can bypass legislation because we are talking about a donated egg being fertilized (cloned technically) and grown to an early embryonic stage and then harvested. So there isn’t anything being made off of abortions as technically speaking we’re talking about an egg that was never fertilized inside a human being.
I haven’t read any updates on ACT in awhile, but they haven’t quite gotten to the point where they can mass harvest stem cells, but just the fact that they are making very promising progress is a good thing. Because ultimately it will probably prove a lot more efficient to be able to use this process as opposed to the harvesting process currently around.
For one, there is practically zero chance of the body rejecting or attacking the stem cells developed this way because most of the time doctors would be able to harvest the cells from an embryonic clone of the patient.
There’s also apparently another type of research that apparently has been able to take embryonic stem cells and develop them into a human egg, which would be another interesting route, but I’ve yet to find a cite for that and am going off of memory.
I’m surprised, stem cells have been used in treating disease since the late 80s.
Do a search on allogenic stem cell treatment and you will find it is used in many types of cancers.
BZZZT. Thanks for playing, but you said the taboo word - “cloned embryo.” This is exactly what is banned. It is odd that there has been so much conflation of abortions and stem cell research. I wonder if it is the term embryo? Nevertheless, any human cloning is to be banned by congressional measures and is opposed by president Bush.
I wasn’t aware I was playing a game. Are there any consolation prizes?
Anyways, the link you referenced to is two years old, ACT was cloning human embryos last year last I heard, so obviously Bush’s speech doesn’t correlate to a bill that is in effect right now or at least that was put into effect anytime near when he said it.
Actually the article was published early this year, so unless the bill Bush was talking about almost 3 years ago was passed in the last few months, I’m going to have to call bullshit on your assertion that human cloning for research purposes is categorically banned in the United States.
No, it is not categorically banned in the US because it has not passed in the house. However, Bush has banned federal funding for it, and it would be banned under the Bill that the House has passed and that Bush was pushing for the Senate to pass.
However, given your present confusion, I have no idea which legislation you could have been referring to when you said:
See, I inferred from this that you thought that avoidance of the issue of abortion would bypass legislation. If I had this wrong, I’d be interested in understanding what you did mean. Otherwise, the use of embryonic stem cells from blastocysts is entirely what the debate about stem cell research is, and what Bush has restricted federal funding for.
Bush has said he is against the harvesting of embryonic stem cells from ABORTED embryos.
He has come out against cloning embryos for biological research, but the original and main point of the ban on funding which is now in place is to avoid aborted embryos.
Anyways, once it becomes a fait accompli that U.S. companies are able to mass produce stem cells there will be too much lobbying money from medical companies to allow any ban to continue in effect, so once we find a way to mass produce embryonic stem cells completely separate from the abortion issue we’ll have much more success in getting around any federal bans.
Also of course that is just one small reason why we are not in danger of falling behind in stem cell research.
The most promising path for stem cell treatment is always going to involve stem cells from the patient themselves.
And we’ve had some very interesting results and getting common stem cells found easily throughout the body (even on the skin!) to transdifferentiate into extremely vital cells (neurons) in relation to treating neurological ailments like alzheimer’s, parkinson’s et cetra (basically the disease group considered to be most promisingly effected by stem cells).
If you’ve read the process for cloning embryos for stem cells it’s a pretty complex procedure, more than likely transdifferentiation is going to be the common practice when we eventually reach a stage where we are treating people with stem cells.
Yes, I believe in the above post of mine that you selectively quoted I said, “Bush has come out against the use of cloned embryos for research purposes.” But I asserted the crux and power behind Bush’s anti-stem cell argument has always been the abortion aspect, and I think anyone that has observed the political climate can recognize that.
Also even if you insist on cropping my quotes so that you completely cut out the part where I pre-acknowledge what you are asserting I “didn’t know” you should at least br logically correct in doing so.
Even if I hadn’t mentioned Bush’s opposition to cloned embryos, it isn’t “incorrect” that he is against the use of stem cells from aborted embryos, he is against that. Just because he is also against other aspects of stem cell research doesn’t make my statement one that is not factually correct, it makes it incomplete, and that is different.
I’m new here, be gentle (or at least be extremely amusing in your cruelty – really, either one is fine).
I was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes this year and I’m aware that this means that my body is attaching my islet cells in my pancreas who (which?) would otherwise be making plenty of insulin and allowing me to run wild through the candy aisle at Topps once more.
So I have two, somewhat practical, questions.
How? I’m only missing one type of cell in my body. My understanding is that this why stem cells are thought to be so promising for Type 1 diabetics (probably not Type 2 . . .). But . . . uhm, how would they grow the cells that they would plant into my pancreas? Would they grow the cells by . . . urmhm “cloning” new islet cells from some of my few (and fewer by the day) remaining islet cells so they would be genetically identical to me? And, assuming they had these cells (somehow) – why do they assume that the auto-immune response that is killing them off now wouldn’t kill off the new batch?
When? Is this technology (for any disease generally, and certainly for Type 1 Diabetes specifically) close? Every diabetic I know seems to think this is right on the horizon . . . is that true? Even if it is true, how long would it be before it got to patients? Are we really looking at 10 years? Or is it more like 20?
Back to the politics for a moment,
I will say, that I think the ripple effect from this issue will be HUGE in this election. I base that solely upon the fact that people close to me took it very personally when I suddenly got sick (I’m fine now, really). And there are a hell of a lot of diabetics out there. If every diabetic knows 5 people who are really pulling for them to have a cure . . . and every person with Parkinson’s . . .
You just want to do it coercively.