Source: Obama to reverse limits on stem cell work

[jonks]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: winnar111

Slick Clinton put even less money into your voodoo science.

yep, we should all just get down on our knees and pray! only the lord saves.

Given the wealth of informative and analytical posts you've made in recent months it's not really surprising that you are proud to be a champion of anti-intellectualism. (That computer you're using? It's the Devil!)

In other news, they were going to flush these things down the toilet anyway, so where's the outcry about the "immoral destruction of human life" that would have constituted?

Who knows, who cares. We have wars to fight, banks to bailout, and Obama's health care industry complex to fund without tackling private sector research.

Yes, we're hearing this a lot from Reps who feel they need to say something in opposition. "Aren't there more important things to focus on?" Basically, until the economy recovers the rest of the universe should just stand still? Ah, multitasking! It's a miracle.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: winnar111

Slick Clinton put even less money into your voodoo science.

yep, we should all just get down on our knees and pray! only the lord saves.

Given the wealth of informative and analytical posts you've made in recent months it's not really surprising that you are proud to be a champion of anti-intellectualism. (That computer you're using? It's the Devil!)

In other news, they were going to flush these things down the toilet anyway, so where's the outcry about the "immoral destruction of human life" that would have constituted?

Who knows, who cares. We have wars to fight, banks to bailout, and Obama's health care industry complex to fund without tackling private sector research.

Trolling as usual.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: loozar111

Slick Clinton put even less money into your voodoo science.

It probably would have been to our advantage if more money had been available for embryonic stem cell research had been made available during "Slick" Clinton'd Presidency, but neither the science, nor the awareness of it, were as high on the public horizon.

If you think embryonic stem cell research is "voodpoo" science, prove it, instead of parroting your mindless drivel. :roll:

I thought our nation functioned perfectly fine in the 1990s? Isn't that what you lefties say? Or did Slick 'hold us back' for 8 years! :laugh:

If you knew how to read, you would know that's not what he said.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: winnar111

Slick Clinton put even less money into your voodoo science.

yep, we should all just get down on our knees and pray! only the lord saves.

Given the wealth of informative and analytical posts you've made in recent months it's not really surprising that you are proud to be a champion of anti-intellectualism. (That computer you're using? It's the Devil!)

In other news, they were going to flush these things down the toilet anyway, so where's the outcry about the "immoral destruction of human life" that would have constituted?

Who knows, who cares. We have wars to fight, banks to bailout, and Obama's health care industry complex to fund without tackling private sector research.

Yes, we're hearing this a lot from Reps who feel they need to say something in opposition. "Aren't there more important things to focus on?" Basically, until the economy recovers the rest of the universe should just stand still? Ah, multitasking! It's a miracle.

Unfortunately multitasking doesn't split a dollar bill into 2, does it? Oh, right, we can tax the rich!

 

[Red Dawn]

The Republican's God's widow Nancy Reagan even supports Obama overturning the ban.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: winnar111

Slick Clinton put even less money into your voodoo science.

yep, we should all just get down on our knees and pray! only the lord saves.

Given the wealth of informative and analytical posts you've made in recent months it's not really surprising that you are proud to be a champion of anti-intellectualism. (That computer you're using? It's the Devil!)

In other news, they were going to flush these things down the toilet anyway, so where's the outcry about the "immoral destruction of human life" that would have constituted?

Who knows, who cares. We have wars to fight, banks to bailout, and Obama's health care industry complex to fund without tackling private sector research.

LOL, private sector research.

Private sector research only really focuses on what will create new treatments for diseases. It won't focus on the research that leads to the ability to create new treatments.

Plus, signing an executive order lifting the ban doesn't mean we're moving more money to fund research; it simply means that those who want to do embryonic stem cell research can apply for federal grants like every other researcher.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: loozar111

Who knows, who cares. We have wars to fight, banks to bailout, and Obama's health care industry complex to fund without tackling private sector research.

Who knows? If we had funded stem cell research, someone may have been able to clone functioning brain cells to replace that sawdust collected in your skull.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Slick Clinton put even less money into your voodoo science.

Buh buh buh Clinton!

"Voodoo science," says the moron who can't seem to utilize a handful of braincells to make real posts.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: winnar111

Slick Clinton put even less money into your voodoo science.

yep, we should all just get down on our knees and pray! only the lord saves.

Given the wealth of informative and analytical posts you've made in recent months it's not really surprising that you are proud to be a champion of anti-intellectualism. (That computer you're using? It's the Devil!)

In other news, they were going to flush these things down the toilet anyway, so where's the outcry about the "immoral destruction of human life" that would have constituted?

Who knows, who cares. We have wars to fight, banks to bailout, and Obama's health care industry complex to fund without tackling private sector research.

LOL, private sector research.

Private sector research only really focuses on what will create new treatments for diseases. It won't focus on the research that leads to the ability to create new treatments.

Plus, signing an executive order lifting the ban doesn't mean we're moving more money to fund research; it simply means that those who want to do embryonic stem cell research can apply for federal grants like every other researcher.

People that make the argument fail at economics. There's no money in cures, but treatments make a killing. Things with positive externalities (cures) should be supported by the government, since the free market will always underprice them.

Think about it - to a pharma company, the simplified value of an AIDS cure is ($price)*(quantity sold)
To a country, value of an AIDS cure is the extra GDP, GDP growth, increase in mean life expectancy, lower healthcare costs etc. etc.

A company will only spend enough R&D money that they can recoup with later revenue. The socially optimal level of R&D is much more.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: winnar111

Slick Clinton put even less money into your voodoo science.

yep, we should all just get down on our knees and pray! only the lord saves.

Given the wealth of informative and analytical posts you've made in recent months it's not really surprising that you are proud to be a champion of anti-intellectualism. (That computer you're using? It's the Devil!)

In other news, they were going to flush these things down the toilet anyway, so where's the outcry about the "immoral destruction of human life" that would have constituted?

Who knows, who cares. We have wars to fight, banks to bailout, and Obama's health care industry complex to fund without tackling private sector research.

LOL, private sector research.

Private sector research only really focuses on what will create new treatments for diseases. It won't focus on the research that leads to the ability to create new treatments.

Plus, signing an executive order lifting the ban doesn't mean we're moving more money to fund research; it simply means that those who want to do embryonic stem cell research can apply for federal grants like every other researcher.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6542

Despite the impression left by some of its supporters, stem-cell research is not banned. In fact, not only is it legal, it is thriving in the private sector. There are at least 11 private stem-cell research centers at universities and medical centers across the country. In May, Ray Dolby, creator of Dolby Stereo systems, donated $16 million to the University of California at San Francisco to establish a new stem-cell research center. And, just last month, Harvard University announced a privately funded, multimillion-dollar program to create cloned human embryos as sources of medically promising stem cells. Harvard is already home to the nation's largest private research effort, employing more than 100 researchers and housing 17 new stem-cell lines. Harvard now processes as many research requests for its stem-cell lines as does the National Institutes of Health.

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are contributing to the research as well. More than 60 U.S. and international companies are pursuing some form of research or therapeutic product development involving stem cells. These include corporate giants such as Johnson & Johnson, General Electric and Novartis. One company alone, Geron Corp., has spent more than twice as much as the federal government on stem-cell research. New companies are entering the field as well. At a meeting this year in San Francisco, it was estimated that as many as 50 U.S. venture-capital firms are prepared to invest in stem-cell research companies. This comes on the heels of $102 million in venture-capital funding for the stem-cell industry in 2005. All this corporate research should not be surprising, given that some estimates suggest that there will be a $10 billion market for stem-cell technologies by 2010.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: loozar111

Who knows, who cares. We have wars to fight, banks to bailout, and Obama's health care industry complex to fund without tackling private sector research.

Who knows? If we had funded stem cell research, someone may have been able to clone functioning brain cells to replace that sawdust collected in your skull.

And someone may have been able to make pigs fly too. Sounds about as useful.

 

[Red Dawn]

Extremely bitter rant posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: loozar111

Who knows, who cares. We have wars to fight, banks to bailout, and Obama's health care industry complex to fund without tackling private sector research.

Who knows? If we had funded stem cell research, someone may have been able to clone functioning brain cells to replace that sawdust collected in your skull.

And someone may have been able to make pigs fly too. Sounds about as useful.

:roll: So you think finding cures for diseases like Alzheimers is useless.:disgust:

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Extremely bitter rant posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: loozar111

Who knows, who cares. We have wars to fight, banks to bailout, and Obama's health care industry complex to fund without tackling private sector research.

Who knows? If we had funded stem cell research, someone may have been able to clone functioning brain cells to replace that sawdust collected in your skull.

And someone may have been able to make pigs fly too. Sounds about as useful.

:roll: So you think finding cures for diseases like Alzheimers is useless.:disgust:

What cure? The one that lefties claim exist but doesn't?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Extremely bitter rant posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: loozar111

Who knows, who cares. We have wars to fight, banks to bailout, and Obama's health care industry complex to fund without tackling private sector research.

Who knows? If we had funded stem cell research, someone may have been able to clone functioning brain cells to replace that sawdust collected in your skull.

And someone may have been able to make pigs fly too. Sounds about as useful.

:roll: So you think finding cures for diseases like Alzheimers is useless.:disgust:

What cure? The one that lefties claim exist but doesn't?

Yeah Lefties like Nancy Reagan.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Extremely bitter rant posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: loozar111

Who knows, who cares. We have wars to fight, banks to bailout, and Obama's health care industry complex to fund without tackling private sector research.

Who knows? If we had funded stem cell research, someone may have been able to clone functioning brain cells to replace that sawdust collected in your skull.

And someone may have been able to make pigs fly too. Sounds about as useful.

:roll: So you think finding cures for diseases like Alzheimers is useless.:disgust:

What cure? The one that lefties claim exist but doesn't?

So your logic is because we haven't found the cure we should stop the research? Brilliant. :disgust:

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
snip

First of all you linked a clearly biased lobbyist organization, which will not give you an objective picture of the topic on hand.

But more to the core of my argument - Neither one of us have any sort of qualification to evaluate the research on hand. Whether you can dig up or cherry pick some articles from PubMed is really besides the point, since neither one of us can understand the content within.

This is why your argument is void, same way my argument regarding the validity of the research would be void. It's not an ad-hominem (i.e. "attack the messenger"), because the basis of your argument assumes knowledge of the topic in order to be able to evaluate its merits.

The main difference between you and I is that you're trying to justify your dogma with stuff you know nothing about, where as my position is to let the people that do the research decide the merits of the research (there's no dogma on my part). If people with MCDB doctorates decide that embryonic stem cells are useless, then they'll stop researching it. If it's people clutching bibles with no bio background that want to decide the research is fruitless, it's nothing more than a dogma push.

You say the source of the information presented is 'clearly biased' to infer that the information itself is biased. I'm not going to argue something as subjective as whether or not the source is biased or not. But, the information presented is not really a subjective issue is it? It's either factual or it isn't. Is this key point eluding you? I have given you every opportunity to present an objective picture of the topic as well as to prove your point that I presented biased information...yet you offer nothing. The harsh reality here is that the facts don't happen to line up with way you would like them to line up and you simply just cannot seem to deal with that head on. This is the core of my argument...now let's move on to the core of your argument that I'm trying to justify my 'dogma'. I fully admit that I am guilty as charged (in an off-handed way) just as you are.

I see that you think embryonic research shows promise in spite of the fact that the track record has been miserable. Maybe yes, maybe no...time will tell. But...I do take exception to your "people clutching bibles" derogatory comment. I have a world view that's very different than yours. I'm entitled, as a living breathing human being, to have a belief system and morality just as you are entitled to your belief system and a secular-based morality. We human beings are all unique and diverse in every way possible...I have an opinion just as you have an opinion. You think you're right...I think I'm right. Yet, by making your snide comment, you want to minimalize my opinion and the right to express it...what gives? You got it all figured out?

From the git go...all I asked you for was facts...is that so hard?

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
snip

First of all you linked a clearly biased lobbyist organization, which will not give you an objective picture of the topic on hand.

But more to the core of my argument - Neither one of us have any sort of qualification to evaluate the research on hand. Whether you can dig up or cherry pick some articles from PubMed is really besides the point, since neither one of us can understand the content within.

This is why your argument is void, same way my argument regarding the validity of the research would be void. It's not an ad-hominem (i.e. "attack the messenger"), because the basis of your argument assumes knowledge of the topic in order to be able to evaluate its merits.

The main difference between you and I is that you're trying to justify your dogma with stuff you know nothing about, where as my position is to let the people that do the research decide the merits of the research (there's no dogma on my part). If people with MCDB doctorates decide that embryonic stem cells are useless, then they'll stop researching it. If it's people clutching bibles with no bio background that want to decide the research is fruitless, it's nothing more than a dogma push.

You say the source of the information presented is 'clearly biased' to infer that the information itself is biased. I'm not going to argue something as subjective as whether or not the source is biased or not. But, the information presented is not really a subjective issue is it? It's either factual or it isn't. Is this key point eluding you? I have given you every opportunity to present an objective picture of the topic as well as to prove your point that I presented biased information...yet you offer nothing. The harsh reality here is that the facts don't happen to line up with way you would like them to line up and you simply just cannot seem to deal with that head on. This is the core of my argument...now let's move on to the core of your argument that I'm trying to justify my 'dogma'. I fully admit that I am guilty as charged (in an off-handed way) just as you are.

I see that you think embryonic research shows promise in spite of the fact that the track record has been miserable. Maybe yes, maybe no...time will tell. But...I do take exception to your "people clutching bibles" derogatory comment. I have a world view that's very different than yours. I'm entitled, as a living breathing human being, to have a belief system and morality just as you are entitled to your belief system and a secular-based morality. We human beings are all unique and diverse in every way possible...I have an opinion just as you have an opinion. You think you're right...I think I'm right. Yet, by making your snide comment, you want to minimalize my opinion and the right to express it...what gives? You got it all figured out?

From the git go...all I asked you for was facts...is that so hard?

Seriously, reading comprehension. I have a graduate degree in Finance, not Biology. Myself arguing for or against embryonic stem cells would be as idiotic as you doing the same here. There is no sense in either one of us bringing quips, facts or some cherry picked articles from PubMed that would either support or reject the merits of embryonic stem cells.

For whatever reason you keep missing my main point - I AM correct in the fact that neither of us have any bio background to judge embryonic research, which preclude us from going the route you'd like ("From the git go...all I asked you for was facts...is that so hard").

See you think you're right about the merits embryonic stem cells (lack thereof), again because the bits of research you've come across fits your persuasion and preconceived opinion, regardless of the actual science. I, on the other hand, have no idea - I'm not supporting or rejecting anything. My position is let scientists and experts in the matter figure it out, rather than pulling the federal funding and justifying it with "intelligent design"-esque arguments like yours.

The sole fact you'd still reject embryonic stem cells even without any scientific backing makes your standing argument pointless; it's not about the science, it's about finding some science to give an intellectual facade to your dogma a la intellectual design.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: loozar111

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: loozar111

Who knows, who cares. We have wars to fight, banks to bailout, and Obama's health care industry complex to fund without tackling private sector research.

Who knows? If we had funded stem cell research, someone may have been able to clone functioning brain cells to replace that sawdust collected in your skull.

And someone may have been able to make pigs fly too. Sounds about as useful.

Which is more likely to succeed than any research that would attempt to raise your IQ above a single digit. :laugh:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
snip

First of all you linked a clearly biased lobbyist organization, which will not give you an objective picture of the topic on hand.

But more to the core of my argument - Neither one of us have any sort of qualification to evaluate the research on hand. Whether you can dig up or cherry pick some articles from PubMed is really besides the point, since neither one of us can understand the content within.

This is why your argument is void, same way my argument regarding the validity of the research would be void. It's not an ad-hominem (i.e. "attack the messenger"), because the basis of your argument assumes knowledge of the topic in order to be able to evaluate its merits.

The main difference between you and I is that you're trying to justify your dogma with stuff you know nothing about, where as my position is to let the people that do the research decide the merits of the research (there's no dogma on my part). If people with MCDB doctorates decide that embryonic stem cells are useless, then they'll stop researching it. If it's people clutching bibles with no bio background that want to decide the research is fruitless, it's nothing more than a dogma push.

You say the source of the information presented is 'clearly biased' to infer that the information itself is biased. I'm not going to argue something as subjective as whether or not the source is biased or not. But, the information presented is not really a subjective issue is it? It's either factual or it isn't. Is this key point eluding you? I have given you every opportunity to present an objective picture of the topic as well as to prove your point that I presented biased information...yet you offer nothing. The harsh reality here is that the facts don't happen to line up with way you would like them to line up and you simply just cannot seem to deal with that head on. This is the core of my argument...now let's move on to the core of your argument that I'm trying to justify my 'dogma'. I fully admit that I am guilty as charged (in an off-handed way) just as you are.

I see that you think embryonic research shows promise in spite of the fact that the track record has been miserable. Maybe yes, maybe no...time will tell. But...I do take exception to your "people clutching bibles" derogatory comment. I have a world view that's very different than yours. I'm entitled, as a living breathing human being, to have a belief system and morality just as you are entitled to your belief system and a secular-based morality. We human beings are all unique and diverse in every way possible...I have an opinion just as you have an opinion. You think you're right...I think I'm right. Yet, by making your snide comment, you want to minimalize my opinion and the right to express it...what gives? You got it all figured out?

From the git go...all I asked you for was facts...is that so hard?

Seriously, reading comprehension. I have a graduate degree in Finance, not Biology. Myself arguing for or against embryonic stem cells would be as idiotic as you doing the same here. There is no sense in either one of us bringing quips, facts or some cherry picked articles from PubMed that would either support or reject the merits of embryonic stem cells.

For whatever reason you keep missing my main point - I AM correct in the fact that neither of us have any bio background to judge embryonic research, which preclude us from going the route you'd like ("From the git go...all I asked you for was facts...is that so hard").

See you think you're right about the merits embryonic stem cells (lack thereof), again because the bits of research you've come across fits your persuasion and preconceived opinion, regardless of the actual science. I, on the other hand, have no idea - I'm not supporting or rejecting anything. My position is let scientists and experts in the matter figure it out, rather than pulling the federal funding and justifying it with "intelligent design"-esque arguments like yours.

Why come here at all if the requirement is to have a degree in the subject matter at hand? Why visit this thread? Your argument is kind of flimsy to say the least. One doesnt require a degree to discuss public policy. And it doesnt take a degree to go over information presented. You didnt seem to have a problem brushing off the facts he brought to the table. Using your own logic how can you brush it aside if you dont hold a degree in that science?

99% of the people on this msgboard dont have degree's, training, or in depth knowledge of the topics they discuss. But so what?

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Why come here at all if the requirement is to have a degree in the subject matter at hand? Why visit this thread? Your argument is kind of flimsy to say the least. One doesnt require a degree to discuss public policy. And it doesnt take a degree to go over information presented. You didnt seem to have a problem brushing off the facts he brought to the table. Using your own logic how can you brush it aside if you dont hold a degree in that science?

99% of the people on this msgboard dont have degree's, training, or in depth knowledge of the topics they discuss. But so what?

Oh his argument isn't about public policy though, his argument is about judging the merits of embryonic stemcells. I can't speak to that, seeing as that is cutting/bleeding edge science and I can reasonably say that no one here can speak to that either. Regurgitating articles from a conservative lobby group by people that have no grasp of the content within is pointless at best.

It's one thing to argue whether government should be in the business of funding medical research and things of that sort. You can also argue the actual thing you believe - stem cells are wrong, abomination to God etc. But if your argument is they shouldn't be funding research X, because X is useless, you better be an expert in the matter. If not, I will no doubt go after your motives.

 

[kage69]

Awesome news! Good to see important change of this caliber is taking place, finally. All the complainers should focus on the OP's first bolded sentence and try to breathe normally.

Always nice to see the usual hacks who decry any mention of Bush lately still blaming Clinton. When you can bitch and moan about common sense defeating dogma whilst at the same time violate your own bullshit arbitrary standards of debate, well then you're a real winnar.

The sole fact you'd still reject embryonic stem cells even without any scientific backing makes your standing argument pointless; it's not about the science, it's about finding some science to give an intellectual facade to your dogma a la intellectual design.

That's exactly what it boils down to. :thumbsup:

 

[SAWYER]

Ok I am in the dark on stem cell research. Why is it a bad thing?

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
Ok I am in the dark on stem cell research. Why is it a bad thing?

Some people feel that the embryos are living beings from the get-go and stem cell research would be akin to murder.


I am for stem cell research as long as the embryos were destined to be destroyed anyway and were not created for the sole purpose of research. Hopefully Obama and team will try to push for legislation making such restrictions.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
Ok I am in the dark on stem cell research. Why is it a bad thing?

It all boils down to a 'sanctity of life' ethical issue revolving around embryonic stem cells. This is not an issue with adult stem cell research which has many, many success stories that will undoubtedly help mankind. On the other hand embryonic stem cell research involves the creation, use and destruction of human embryos (human life). Great hope has been placed on this particular type of stem cell research...however, there are no success stories so far...in fact, there have been some horrible failures.

My pet peeve is that the media and most people don't make this distinction (adult vs. embryonic) when talking about the subject. Either they're ignorant regarding the crux of this issue or they're willfully dishonest and want to paint those who have ethical concerns as anti-science and against all stem cell research....which is not true, but that's what they want to believe (or perhaps only mentally capable of believing).

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Sawyer
Ok I am in the dark on stem cell research. Why is it a bad thing?

It all boils down to a 'sanctity of life' ethical issue revolving around embryonic stem cells. This is not an issue with adult stem cell research which has many, many success stories that will undoubtedly help mankind. On the other hand embryonic stem cell research involves the creation, use and destruction of human embryos (human life). Great hope has been placed on this particular type of stem cell research...however, there are no success stories so far...in fact, there have been some horrible failures.

My pet peeve is that the media and most people don't make this distinction (adult vs. embryonic) when talking about the subject. Either they're ignorant regarding the crux of this issue or they're willfully dishonest and want to paint those who have ethical concerns as anti-science and against all stem cell research....which is not true, but that's what they want to believe (or perhaps only mentally capable of believing).

You don't get it, do you? We're not creating embryos so we can destroy them. We are taking the embryos that are going into the medical waste bins of fertility clinics, since they make more than one to try and get successful implantation, etc. Is it more ethical to throw them in the trash (like they do now) than use the 15 cells per embryo to advance the field of medical science? Find cures for diseases that adult stem cells would never have a chance at doing?

Adult stem cells, as great as they are, are not necessarily replaceable for embryonic stem cells.

They're can't be success stories in embryonic stem cell research when funding has been severely restricted. Without federal funding, there will be very little research in the area since it is so expensive to do biological research.