Big ups to Sen Arlen Spector

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Ok, so here's your argument: "It is as written and it sets out what is the responsibility of the Federal gov't and the rest is up to the states."

Yet you ignore completely the responsibility of the Federal government. You can't just say for the General Welfare is a cop out. You need an argument buddy. Prove to me, using evidence, as I have shown you that scientific funding, especially medical, is for the General Welfare of the people.

You refuse to look at the goals of the NIH, and exactly how they match up with Constitutional directives. You still haven't addressed the National Security issue either.

"As noted earlier- my argument isn't necessarily a "Conservative" one, but rather a Libertarian one. BTW, coming from you I'll take your labeling of my views as a compliment - I usually get that sort of label from socialists.🙂"

Yes, there are specific things the Constitution states the Federal gov't is responsible for.
Again, "general welfare" is a copout as my 6 year old could argue it could be used to fund anything.
The goals of NIH are irrelevant because I have not argued against NIH - you are the one that keeps trying to inject that into the equation. It has nothing to do with the Constitution or my argument.
What "National Security issue"? The NIH thing? Exactly - that's why I could care less about NIH - it has nothing to do with my argument. If the funds are for defending this nation - the Constitution puts that responsibility on the Feds. There is no argument from me on that issue. So incase you still don't understand - don't bring up NIH - I could care less because it has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

ehh i'm confused.

No doubt...

CsG

 

[User1001]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Senator Arlen Spector says he might have enough votes to override a veto by that idiot GW Bush. This bill would expand federal funing for embryonic stem cell research on fertilized eggs leftover from invitro fertilization. Remember folks these are frozen fertilized eggs that will eventually expire or be destroyed.

Since they are not being used why not make them available for research? Bush is such a moron.

Anything else you'd like the gov't to fund?

I don't see this as a life vs research issue - it's totally a funding issue and the Federal gov't place in it.

CsG

Ummm, most research is funded by the U.S. government.

Why? And should it be? Is it a Constitutional responsibility?

CsG

I like how you changed his quote to make your arguement stronger.

here's what is was

Ummm, most research is funded by the U.S. government. Unless you want to get rid of NIH....

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
However, I do hold many of the same views as a Libertarian and that is a FACT no matter how much you whine or rant to the contrary.
CsG

Ridiculous. Your posting history is full of statism and interventionism. Even if you claim to have a few liertarian views, it's clear you'd sell these out to serve your pet interests in a heartbeat. Anyway, don't "whine" because everyone sees through your claims at fiscal conservatism and libertarianism. You are a big government Republican.

:laugh: Sure. :roll: You know my beliefs better than I do. :roll:

Get a clue - troll.

CsG

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If it will cause treatments regarding stem cell research to be cheaper then I'm all for it. I think in this case private reasearch for the sole purpose of making huge profits is not a good idea.

Where exactly has Bush done anything to ban State research into Stem Cells? Why do the Feds need to be involved? You response is so typical of the rapid I hate Bush crowd. Bush's position on stem cell research involves ONLY Federal Funding of it. It restricts it in NO other way. Many states, such as California and Wisconsin are providing their own funding.

So, was your response about private research and profits simply out of ignorance, or do you have another agenda that you completely ignore where a TON of funding is coming from now? State and local governments.

I'll vote for the 'I hate Bush' Agenda, because I know you aren't stupid.

Bushs objection was not money it was his so called "concern for life". Since the govt allows invitro, these fertilized eggs already exist so why not use them.

At least as of 2004, European countries including, Germany, Austria, and Ireland, ban altogether the destruction of human embryos to create stem cell lines.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: User1001

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Senator Arlen Spector says he might have enough votes to override a veto by that idiot GW Bush. This bill would expand federal funing for embryonic stem cell research on fertilized eggs leftover from invitro fertilization. Remember folks these are frozen fertilized eggs that will eventually expire or be destroyed.

Since they are not being used why not make them available for research? Bush is such a moron.

Anything else you'd like the gov't to fund?

I don't see this as a life vs research issue - it's totally a funding issue and the Federal gov't place in it.

CsG

Ummm, most research is funded by the U.S. government.

Why? And should it be? Is it a Constitutional responsibility?

CsG

I like how you changed his quote to make your arguement stronger.

here's what is was

Ummm, most research is funded by the U.S. government. Unless you want to get rid of NIH....

It doesn't change a thing. There are valid things for the Feds to fund. The question is should it be? Is it a Constitutional responsibility. IF the answer is yes -then fine. If not, then no.

It's not that hard, but I suspect some here are trying to read a bit more into this than is warranted. In your case you think skipping the NIH bit changed things -but it didn't because NIH isn't the issue.

CsG

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Ok, so here's your argument: "It is as written and it sets out what is the responsibility of the Federal gov't and the rest is up to the states."

Yet you ignore completely the responsibility of the Federal government. You can't just say for the General Welfare is a cop out. You need an argument buddy. Prove to me, using evidence, as I have shown you that scientific funding, especially medical, is for the General Welfare of the people.

You refuse to look at the goals of the NIH, and exactly how they match up with Constitutional directives. You still haven't addressed the National Security issue either.

"As noted earlier- my argument isn't necessarily a "Conservative" one, but rather a Libertarian one. BTW, coming from you I'll take your labeling of my views as a compliment - I usually get that sort of label from socialists.🙂"

Yes, there are specific things the Constitution states the Federal gov't is responsible for.
Again, "general welfare" is a copout as my 6 year old could argue it could be used to fund anything.

There you go again, insulting the Constitution 😉

Clearly, your argument cannot be found in the Constitution then. You are just claiming that science does nothing for the general welfare of the people. Which has been shown to be false....

Let me quote you from earlier:

So you want the Federal gov't to fund something that falls outside the realm of what is directed by the Constitution?

Looks like you've given in on that statement.

The goals of NIH are irrelevant because I have not argued against NIH - you are the one that keeps trying to inject that into the equation. It has nothing to do with the Constitution or my argument.
What "National Security issue"? The NIH thing? Exactly - that's why I could care less about NIH - it has nothing to do with my argument. If the funds are for defending this nation - the Constitution puts that responsibility on the Feds. There is no argument from me on that issue. So incase you still don't understand - don't bring up NIH - I could care less because it has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

Really you don't care huh? A lot of scientific funding comes from the NIH. And you've been arguing against funding for science. Maybe if you actually read something about the NIH you could understand what it's about.

And, yes, science and research is a national security issue in many areas. Medicine, physics, chemistry...these increase our abilities to battle diseases, and maintain our superiority in weapons.

Haven't you ever seen in the news about the CIA reports dealing with medical threats as a threat to national security?

Even outside NIH, we have DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) and other federal agencies funding science.

ehh i'm confused.

No doubt...

CsG[/quote]

i don't know your posting well enough to judge whether you're a libertarian or not...

edit: quote from DARPA's home page:

It manages and directs selected basic and applied research and development projects for DoD, and pursues research and technology where risk and payoff are both very high and where success may provide dramatic advances for traditional military roles and missions.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If it will cause treatments regarding stem cell research to be cheaper then I'm all for it. I think in this case private reasearch for the sole purpose of making huge profits is not a good idea.

Where exactly has Bush done anything to ban State research into Stem Cells? Why do the Feds need to be involved? You response is so typical of the rapid I hate Bush crowd. Bush's position on stem cell research involves ONLY Federal Funding of it. It restricts it in NO other way. Many states, such as California and Wisconsin are providing their own funding.

So, was your response about private research and profits simply out of ignorance, or do you have another agenda that you completely ignore where a TON of funding is coming from now? State and local governments.

I'll vote for the 'I hate Bush' Agenda, because I know you aren't stupid.

Bushs objection was not money it was his so called "concern for life". Since the govt allows invitro, these fertilized eggs already exist so why not use them.

At least as of 2004, European countries including, Germany, Austria, and Ireland, ban altogether the destruction of human embryos to create stem cell lines.

Not completely.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Ok, so here's your argument: "It is as written and it sets out what is the responsibility of the Federal gov't and the rest is up to the states."

Yet you ignore completely the responsibility of the Federal government. You can't just say for the General Welfare is a cop out. You need an argument buddy. Prove to me, using evidence, as I have shown you that scientific funding, especially medical, is for the General Welfare of the people.

You refuse to look at the goals of the NIH, and exactly how they match up with Constitutional directives. You still haven't addressed the National Security issue either.

"As noted earlier- my argument isn't necessarily a "Conservative" one, but rather a Libertarian one. BTW, coming from you I'll take your labeling of my views as a compliment - I usually get that sort of label from socialists.🙂"

Yes, there are specific things the Constitution states the Federal gov't is responsible for.
Again, "general welfare" is a copout as my 6 year old could argue it could be used to fund anything.

There you go again, insulting the Constitution 😉

Clearly, your argument cannot be found in the Constitution then. You are just claiming that science does nothing for the general welfare of the people. Which has been shown to be false....

Let me quote you from earlier:

So you want the Federal gov't to fund something that falls outside the realm of what is directed by the Constitution?

Looks like you've given in on that statement.

The goals of NIH are irrelevant because I have not argued against NIH - you are the one that keeps trying to inject that into the equation. It has nothing to do with the Constitution or my argument.
What "National Security issue"? The NIH thing? Exactly - that's why I could care less about NIH - it has nothing to do with my argument. If the funds are for defending this nation - the Constitution puts that responsibility on the Feds. There is no argument from me on that issue. So incase you still don't understand - don't bring up NIH - I could care less because it has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

Really you don't care huh? A lot of scientific funding comes from the NIH. And you've been arguing against funding for science. Maybe if you actually read something about the NIH you could understand what it's about.

And, yes, science and research is a national security issue in many areas. Medicine, physics, chemistry...these increase our abilities to battle diseases, and maintain our superiority in weapons.

Haven't you ever seen in the news about the CIA reports dealing with medical threats as a threat to national security?

Even outside NIH, we have DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) and other federal agencies funding science.

ehh i'm confused.

No doubt...

CsG

i don't know your posting well enough to judge whether you're a libertarian or not...

edit: quote from DARPA's home page:

It manages and directs selected basic and applied research and development projects for DoD, and pursues research and technology where risk and payoff are both very high and where success may provide dramatic advances for traditional military roles and missions.

[/quote]

Again, NIH is irrelevant. It isn't part of my argument, so I don't see how or where you get off thinking you are proving anything. I have not argued against NIH and I don't know where you get the idea that I have. Clearly you don't have a clue what I have stated if you think I've argued against NIH or against ALL gov't funding. What I have taken issue with and asked questions about is the gov't funding of "science". Clearly some of that falls under the Federal gov't but the questions always need asked: "Why? And should it be? Is it a Constitutional responsibility?"

CsG

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If it will cause treatments regarding stem cell research to be cheaper then I'm all for it. I think in this case private reasearch for the sole purpose of making huge profits is not a good idea.

Bingo! :thumbsup:

Nah, it's better for the Government to not encourage innovation in science and technology; that way we can slowly (or quickly) fall behind other countries, thus losing the benefits of being at the pinacle of innovation, through newer jobs, increased exports/reduced imports, etc..etc...

I agree with your (implied) sentiment in this post, 100%. I find it hilarious (and by hilarious, I mean disgusting) that so many Bush apologists can whine about the dismal state of America's scientific community, then justify perpetuating it further.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Ok, so here's your argument: "It is as written and it sets out what is the responsibility of the Federal gov't and the rest is up to the states."

Yet you ignore completely the responsibility of the Federal government. You can't just say for the General Welfare is a cop out. You need an argument buddy. Prove to me, using evidence, as I have shown you that scientific funding, especially medical, is for the General Welfare of the people.

You refuse to look at the goals of the NIH, and exactly how they match up with Constitutional directives. You still haven't addressed the National Security issue either.

"As noted earlier- my argument isn't necessarily a "Conservative" one, but rather a Libertarian one. BTW, coming from you I'll take your labeling of my views as a compliment - I usually get that sort of label from socialists.🙂"

Yes, there are specific things the Constitution states the Federal gov't is responsible for.
Again, "general welfare" is a copout as my 6 year old could argue it could be used to fund anything.

There you go again, insulting the Constitution 😉

Clearly, your argument cannot be found in the Constitution then. You are just claiming that science does nothing for the general welfare of the people. Which has been shown to be false....

Let me quote you from earlier:

So you want the Federal gov't to fund something that falls outside the realm of what is directed by the Constitution?

Looks like you've given in on that statement.

The goals of NIH are irrelevant because I have not argued against NIH - you are the one that keeps trying to inject that into the equation. It has nothing to do with the Constitution or my argument.
What "National Security issue"? The NIH thing? Exactly - that's why I could care less about NIH - it has nothing to do with my argument. If the funds are for defending this nation - the Constitution puts that responsibility on the Feds. There is no argument from me on that issue. So incase you still don't understand - don't bring up NIH - I could care less because it has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

Really you don't care huh? A lot of scientific funding comes from the NIH. And you've been arguing against funding for science. Maybe if you actually read something about the NIH you could understand what it's about.

And, yes, science and research is a national security issue in many areas. Medicine, physics, chemistry...these increase our abilities to battle diseases, and maintain our superiority in weapons.

Haven't you ever seen in the news about the CIA reports dealing with medical threats as a threat to national security?

Even outside NIH, we have DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) and other federal agencies funding science.

ehh i'm confused.

No doubt...

CsG

i don't know your posting well enough to judge whether you're a libertarian or not...

edit: quote from DARPA's home page:

It manages and directs selected basic and applied research and development projects for DoD, and pursues research and technology where risk and payoff are both very high and where success may provide dramatic advances for traditional military roles and missions.

Again, NIH is irrelevant. It isn't part of my argument, so I don't see how or where you get off thinking you are proving anything. I have not argued against NIH and I don't know where you get the idea that I have. Clearly you don't have a clue what I have stated if you think I've argued against NIH or against ALL gov't funding. What I have taken issue with and asked questions about is the gov't funding of "science". Clearly some of that falls under the Federal gov't but the questions always need asked: "Why? And should it be? Is it a Constitutional responsibility?"

CsG[/quote]

And we've answered that question. 99% of science is a Constitutional responsibility - partly a matter of national security, partly commerce, and partly for the general welfare of the people.

The NIH is government funding for "science". You cannot ignore it, especially when you examine whether scientific funding is Constitutional. The same can be said for DARPA. Just because you don't use it in your argument does not mean I cannot use it in rebuttal.

I'm sorry I thought you were trying to make a point. The statement "Some science needs to funded by the federal government, but other science does not" is pretty useless, especially when you set no criteria on how to decide. Let me add that this statement has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution, since it's not going to help you decide which "science" to fund.

Ok, so well, your question has been asked, now it's been answered by this debate, let's move on.

 

[dannybin1742]

THE NIH IS THE GOVERNMENT'S FUNDING OF SCIENCE, SO IS THE NSF, SO ARE DOD PROJECTS (the chemistry department has a few of them)

Automation Engineer / Industrial Control Systems Integrator - whichever floats your boat. I'm doing a project right now for a major seed company - in the research lab. Much of their research is financed themselves or with private grants. Other places I've done work do their own research too - without having to have the gov't hold their hand.

I find it hilarious that you keep skipping over what I've said and then claiming I didn't respond. Exactly, the Constitution says nothing about scientific research. Claiming it's "general welfare" is a cop-out. My 6 year old could argue that anything could be funded using that excuse.

the work you do has nothing to do with science, you obviously don't understand capitalism, the reason the government MUST FUND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH is simple, and had you paused a second to stop blowing wind out of our piehole you would have picked it up simply out of the what capitalism does.

there are THREE simple questions you should be able to answer that will point you in the direction of why the government has to fund research

WHY DO DRUG COMPANIES MAKE DRUGS?

WHAT CAUSES A DRUG COMPANY TO FOCUS ON CERTAIN DISEASES THAT MORE THAN 2% OF THE POPULATION HAVE?

WHY AREN'T DRUG COMPANIES MAKING ANYMORE ANTI-BACTERIAL DRUGS ANYMORE?

ANSWERS: money, money, not enough money in it

i hope you can see where i'm going with this.

now for an example:
you son is born with a genetic disease that that occurs in .0005% of the population, since statistically your son is in the vast minority, you go looking for treatments that simply don't exist or are in early stages of development (simply because the only treatments have come from academic research and are still in the development stage). why do you think no pharmaceutical companys in their right mind would be producing drugs or treatment for this disease that only affects 125000 people ,

example 2:

you 6 year old catches a rare case of pnemonea (sp) in which none of the known drugs work with (such as tetracycline, bactracin, chloamphenicol.....etc... and especially VANCOMYCIN). so you pretty much have to watch your son die because in you perfect little work you didn't think funding academic research was a good idea. yes thats right, drug companies have all but stopped coming up with new antibacterial drugs, and the research has been largely farmed out to academic institutions.


look at drug company profiles and what they are making the bulk of their money on.

boner drugs
anti-arthritis drugs
herpes treatments
heart drugs
some of the new cox-2 inhibitors
and general anti cancer drugs

now lets look at what they are not making

anti-bacterial (ribosomal targeting)
antibacterial (general)
malarial drugs (this affects 30-40% of the worlds population)
cheap aids drugs
vaccines of any sort (except maybe stds, and infleunza type viruses)


i'm sure totalcomand can add to this list

Automation Engineer / Industrial Control Systems Integrator - whichever floats your boat. I'm doing a project right now for a major seed company - in the research lab. Much of their research is financed themselves or with private grants. Other places I've done work do their own research too - without having to have the gov't hold their hand.

you've never undertaken acamedic research, don't try to tell those of us who live on phd stipends to even allow you to compare your work to work that is done in a real research lab, our goal is to increase knowledge in areas of science that drug companies refuse to fun based on profitability. Don't even compare your engineering project to what real research is, seed companies spend more money on their sequencing labs and genetics labs than anything else (read: biology/biochemistry related), go take a tour of pioneer hybrid's sequencing facility, its quite incredible. the fact that the company you are doing a project for is funding their own engineering project is great, but it bares absolutely no merit on the argument of government funded research.

YOU NEED TO READ UP ON THE USE OF SBIR GRANTS FROM THE NIH, then cross reference it with isothermal titration calorimetry

i can save you the trouble: the guy who invented ITC used thousands of dollars in NIH SBIR grants to invent it, then he turned around (and this was totally legal) sold the idea and patent for millions of dollars, this is what you should be pissed off about, because this is a perfect example of somone profiting off a government grant (your tax money) but you can thank bush for these grants, he inceased the funding to the SBIR grants, not the general fund that goes into selfless research

I did not ignore it. "programs that cater to everyone "ills" aren't supposed to be dealt with on the federal level." What part of that don't you understand?

why not, what part of "general welfare" don't you understand

 

[Tab]

Ownage brought to you by dannybin 1742...

Now does Cad have the balls to respond to this?

I doubt it...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Tab
Ownage brought to you by dannybin 1742...

Now does Cad have the balls to respond to this?

I doubt it...

Are you Kidding? Caddy specializes in responding to the irrefutable with the absurd. He will respond with the point that in paragraph 4 line 3 word six there is a potential interpretation that completely blows the case. The think about being blind is that he cannot see.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If it will cause treatments regarding stem cell research to be cheaper then I'm all for it. I think in this case private reasearch for the sole purpose of making huge profits is not a good idea.

Where exactly has Bush done anything to ban State research into Stem Cells? Why do the Feds need to be involved? You response is so typical of the rapid I hate Bush crowd. Bush's position on stem cell research involves ONLY Federal Funding of it. It restricts it in NO other way. Many states, such as California and Wisconsin are providing their own funding.

So, was your response about private research and profits simply out of ignorance, or do you have another agenda that you completely ignore where a TON of funding is coming from now? State and local governments.

I'll vote for the 'I hate Bush' Agenda, because I know you aren't stupid.

Damn Crimson get a grip. No where in my post did I mention Bush or even criticize those who disagree with me. All I said is that if funding by the Federal Government for this research would cause the future treatments to be cheaper then I am for it. If you can show me where that wouldn't happen then I am open to changing my opinion regarding this issue. Calling me a Bush Hater does nothing but make you come across as someone who can't defend his position and must resort to Ad Homs to try and discredit me for having an opinion that differs from yours.

 

[bigdog1218]

I can't understand how ignorant some people still are in relation to the stem cell policy. It is funny to see the republicans who complained about the whole moral issue change it to a financial issue. It just shows how little they know in regards to federal funding and research, so they try to change the focus of the argument to hide the fact that they actually don't know anything.

Heres a list of all the diseases the NIH funds, NIH Funding, if people like Cad and Crimson have problems with funding Stem Cells, you also have a problem with funding all of these diseases, and you should probably do something about it. I guess funding for military research to take lives is ok, but trying to save the lives of Americans is a no no.

And research in new technologies, like stem cell research, has to be led by Universities. It could take over a decade for any new technology to even produce a product and make a profit, and asking any company to do this is absurd. Stop talking about subjects you have absolutly no knowledge about.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
THE NIH IS THE GOVERNMENT'S FUNDING OF SCIENCE, SO IS THE NSF, SO ARE DOD PROJECTS (the chemistry department has a few of them)

Automation Engineer / Industrial Control Systems Integrator - whichever floats your boat. I'm doing a project right now for a major seed company - in the research lab. Much of their research is financed themselves or with private grants. Other places I've done work do their own research too - without having to have the gov't hold their hand.

I find it hilarious that you keep skipping over what I've said and then claiming I didn't respond. Exactly, the Constitution says nothing about scientific research. Claiming it's "general welfare" is a cop-out. My 6 year old could argue that anything could be funded using that excuse.

the work you do has nothing to do with science, you obviously don't understand capitalism, the reason the government MUST FUND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH is simple, and had you paused a second to stop blowing wind out of our piehole you would have picked it up simply out of the what capitalism does.

there are THREE simple questions you should be able to answer that will point you in the direction of why the government has to fund research

WHY DO DRUG COMPANIES MAKE DRUGS?

WHAT CAUSES A DRUG COMPANY TO FOCUS ON CERTAIN DISEASES THAT MORE THAN 2% OF THE POPULATION HAVE?

WHY AREN'T DRUG COMPANIES MAKING ANYMORE ANTI-BACTERIAL DRUGS ANYMORE?

ANSWERS: money, money, not enough money in it

i hope you can see where i'm going with this.

now for an example:
you son is born with a genetic disease that that occurs in .0005% of the population, since statistically your son is in the vast minority, you go looking for treatments that simply don't exist or are in early stages of development (simply because the only treatments have come from academic research and are still in the development stage). why do you think no pharmaceutical companys in their right mind would be producing drugs or treatment for this disease that only affects 125000 people ,

example 2:

you 6 year old catches a rare case of pnemonea (sp) in which none of the known drugs work with (such as tetracycline, bactracin, chloamphenicol.....etc... and especially VANCOMYCIN). so you pretty much have to watch your son die because in you perfect little work you didn't think funding academic research was a good idea. yes thats right, drug companies have all but stopped coming up with new antibacterial drugs, and the research has been largely farmed out to academic institutions.


look at drug company profiles and what they are making the bulk of their money on.

boner drugs
anti-arthritis drugs
herpes treatments
heart drugs
some of the new cox-2 inhibitors
and general anti cancer drugs

now lets look at what they are not making

anti-bacterial (ribosomal targeting)
antibacterial (general)
malarial drugs (this affects 30-40% of the worlds population)
cheap aids drugs
vaccines of any sort (except maybe stds, and infleunza type viruses)


i'm sure totalcomand can add to this list

Automation Engineer / Industrial Control Systems Integrator - whichever floats your boat. I'm doing a project right now for a major seed company - in the research lab. Much of their research is financed themselves or with private grants. Other places I've done work do their own research too - without having to have the gov't hold their hand.

you've never undertaken acamedic research, don't try to tell those of us who live on phd stipends to even allow you to compare your work to work that is done in a real research lab, our goal is to increase knowledge in areas of science that drug companies refuse to fun based on profitability. Don't even compare your engineering project to what real research is, seed companies spend more money on their sequencing labs and genetics labs than anything else (read: biology/biochemistry related), go take a tour of pioneer hybrid's sequencing facility, its quite incredible. the fact that the company you are doing a project for is funding their own engineering project is great, but it bares absolutely no merit on the argument of government funded research.

YOU NEED TO READ UP ON THE USE OF SBIR GRANTS FROM THE NIH, then cross reference it with isothermal titration calorimetry

i can save you the trouble: the guy who invented ITC used thousands of dollars in NIH SBIR grants to invent it, then he turned around (and this was totally legal) sold the idea and patent for millions of dollars, this is what you should be pissed off about, because this is a perfect example of somone profiting off a government grant (your tax money) but you can thank bush for these grants, he inceased the funding to the SBIR grants, not the general fund that goes into selfless research

I did not ignore it. "programs that cater to everyone "ills" aren't supposed to be dealt with on the federal level." What part of that don't you understand?

why not, what part of "general welfare" don't you understand

Again, I don't give a rats ass about the NIH. What part of that don't you understand? The NIH is not part of my argument, nor is it relevant to my argument. I don't understand what you and totalcommand are reading but it certainly isn't my posts.

Also, what part of "'general welfare' is a copout as my 6 year old could argue it could be used to fund anything." do you not understand?

CsG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Also, what part of "'general welfare' is a copout as my 6 year old could argue it could be used to fund anything." do you not understand?

CsG

What do you think "general welfare" means?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Tab
Ownage brought to you by dannybin 1742...

Now does Cad have the balls to respond to this?

I doubt it...

Haha, sure. Ofcourse you are ignoring the FACT that I have made no argument against NIH. My statements and arguments are based on the the principle of the matter, but it's not surprising that you don't understand that - you seem to have troubles with "principles".

I see moonbat was humping your leg - best make sure you change them before going out in public.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Also, what part of "'general welfare' is a copout as my 6 year old could argue it could be used to fund anything." do you not understand?

CsG

What do you think "general welfare" means?

It is not a catch-all for your every whim. Again, my 6 year old could argue that anything could be funded or controlled under that "clause".

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: bigdog1218
if people like Cad and Crimson have problems with funding Stem Cells

I don't have a problem with funding Stem Cell research. Infact I think it's very promising, however, federal funding is where my support ends. States have every right to fund any type they want, same with private companies. So while some will play the morality card on this issue(both sides do) - that isn't my argument so kindly take your assumptions and emotional rhetoric and shove 'em 🙂

CsG

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Tab
Ownage brought to you by dannybin 1742...

Now does Cad have the balls to respond to this?

I doubt it...

Haha, sure. Ofcourse you are ignoring the FACT that I have made no argument against NIH. My statements and arguments are based on the the principle of the matter, but it's not surprising that you don't understand that - you seem to have troubles with "principles".

I see moonbat was humping your leg - best make sure you change them before going out in public.

CsG

Well, Tab, I hope we have no more of thes "balls" noncense from you! 😉

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
-----

Again, I don't give a rats ass about the NIH. What part of that don't you understand? The NIH is not part of my argument, nor is it relevant to my argument. I don't understand what you and totalcommand are reading but it certainly isn't my posts.

Also, what part of "'general welfare' is a copout as my 6 year old could argue it could be used to fund anything." do you not understand?

CsG

Why do you refuse to address the issue? At least give a reason why it's not relevent. Saying that you don't give a crap is more detrimental to your argument than helpful. I'll repeat: the NIH IS government spending on research. It is exactly what you are arguing against.

Respond to my posts, please. Your question about the Constitutionality of scientific funding has been answered in full, several times over. Scientific funding is a matter of national security, commerce, and general welfare.

You say this about the NIH:

Clearly you don't have a clue what I have stated if you think I've argued against NIH or against ALL gov't funding.

Then you say this about science and stem cells:

What I have taken issue with and asked questions about is the gov't funding of "science".

I don't have a problem with funding Stem Cell research. Infact I think it's very promising, however, federal funding is where my support ends.

Clearly you're confused about what the NIH is. I'll repeat it for the fifth time, in addition to dannybin's repetition of it. THE NIH IS THE APOTHEOSIS OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF SCIENCE. So is DARPA, the NSF, the NLM.

THE NIH IS THE APOTHEOSIS OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF SCIENCE.

THE NIH IS THE APOTHEOSIS OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF SCIENCE.

THE NIH IS THE APOTHEOSIS OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF SCIENCE.

When you argue against federal government funding of science, you are arguing against the NIH. Period.

When you ask questions of whether the funding of science is constitutional, the first place you should run to and look at is the NIH. Look above. The development of the NIH is rooted in the Constitution. It's goals carry out the goals of the Constitution.

 

[zendari]

now for an example:
you son is born with a genetic disease that that occurs in .0005% of the population, since statistically your son is in the vast minority, you go looking for treatments that simply don't exist or are in early stages of development (simply because the only treatments have come from academic research and are still in the development stage). why do you think no pharmaceutical companys in their right mind would be producing drugs or treatment for this disease that only affects 125000 people ,

example 2:

you 6 year old catches a rare case of pnemonea (sp) in which none of the known drugs work with (such as tetracycline, bactracin, chloamphenicol.....etc... and especially VANCOMYCIN). so you pretty much have to watch your son die because in you perfect little work you didn't think funding academic research was a good idea. yes thats right, drug companies have all but stopped coming up with new antibacterial drugs, and the research has been largely farmed out to academic institutions.

Why are 300 million people spending a money finding a cure for 125000 people?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: zendari

Why are 300 million people spending a money finding a cure for 125000 people?

I don't have cancer, but I'd sure like there to be a cure for it out of self-interest. That's why I'd spend money on it. Are you so short-sighted to think that nobody you care about or you will need this kind of research?

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: zendari

now for an example:
you son is born with a genetic disease that that occurs in .0005% of the population, since statistically your son is in the vast minority, you go looking for treatments that simply don't exist or are in early stages of development (simply because the only treatments have come from academic research and are still in the development stage). why do you think no pharmaceutical companys in their right mind would be producing drugs or treatment for this disease that only affects 125000 people ,

example 2:

you 6 year old catches a rare case of pnemonea (sp) in which none of the known drugs work with (such as tetracycline, bactracin, chloamphenicol.....etc... and especially VANCOMYCIN). so you pretty much have to watch your son die because in you perfect little work you didn't think funding academic research was a good idea. yes thats right, drug companies have all but stopped coming up with new antibacterial drugs, and the research has been largely farmed out to academic institutions.

Why are 300 million people spending a money finding a cure for 125000 people?

I really want one of your children to become one of those 125000 people. Then we'll see what you want. So much for compassionate conservatives. You're really selfish.

Not to mention, your argument is a red herring. 300 million people are spending money to find cures for many, MANY diseases. So you're not curing 125000 people, you're curing tens of MILLIONS.