Printable View
Lets hope you are wrong.Quote:
well no one expects bushy to let science get in the way of his clumsy rhetoric. one of these days funding will pass for it, trying to stop progress is like plugging fingers in the dam, as someone mentioned above. the fundies just need to accept it and roll with it. progress is good, man.
That's what they said about Eugenics.Quote:
progress is good, man.
You know I read this twice, this is wonderful comeback.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
I tip my hat.
Let's see. You are correct in a sense. After a quick google search I found the government website responsible for such funding. I then looked at the FAQ and scrolled down to the part about funding. Here is what I found:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Quote:
Does NIH fund embryonic stem cell research?
Research on human embryonic stem cell lines may receive NIH funding if the cell line meets the following criteria: removal of cells from the embryo must have been initiated before August 9, 2001, when the President outlined this policy; and the embryo from which the stem cell line was derived must no longer have had the possibility of developing further as a human being. The embryo must have been created for reproductive purposes but no longer be needed for them. Informed consent must have been obtained from the parent(s) for the donation of the embryo, and no financial inducements for donation are allowed.
Let's see. No new cells after August 9, 2001 can be used. That definitely cuts into the amount available for such research.
Second, only babies that died of natural causes can be used. What about all those aborted fetuses? They should just get thrown away? What about the ones that weren't purposly conceived for stem harvesting? We should just ditch them?
Like I said, we should simply waste them?Quote:
The problem is with new lines that involve the destruction of embryos.
Really? Our government says otherwise:Quote:
There's also funding for adult stem cells- which have shown more promise than any others thus far.
Quote:
There are currently several limitations to using adult stem cells. Although many different kinds of multipotent stem cells have been identified, adult stem cells that could give rise to all cell and tissue types have not yet been found. Adult stem cells are often present in only minute quantities and can therefore be difficult to isolate and purify. There is also evidence that they may not have the same capacity to multiply as embryonic stem cells do. Finally, adult stem cells may contain more DNA abnormalities—caused by sunlight, toxins, and errors in making more DNA copies during the course of a lifetime. These potential weaknesses might limit the usefulness of adult stem cells.
Additionally, amniotic and umbilical stem cell funding is also provided. They're also completely free to research all embryonic stem cells via private funding- no one is stopping them.
More can be found here: http://stemcells.nih.gov/StemCells/T...yGuest#whatareQuote:
Why not use adult stem cells instead of using human embryonic stem cells in research?
2. Human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells. This means that embryonic stem cells may be pluripotent—that is, able to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo except for germ cells rather than being merely multipotent—restricted to specific subpopulations of cell types, as adult stem cells are thought to be.
Before this turns into the unneeded abortion trail. Embryonic stem cells doesn't come from aborted foestuses. In fact they can't, as the embryonic stem cells only exist extremly early (iirc it's either at 8 or 16 cells were your final chance to get embryonic stem cell exist. After that, the specialisation procedures starts), they only come from in vitro fertilisation (that uses several fertilised eggs to make sure that you'll get some that's viable).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
Now, I'm happy to apply your argumentation on in vitro fertilisation, but it should be on the correct area.
Edit: New information, the egg has to start developing organs to be called an embryo and that's about 2 weeks into the development. So the term embryonic stem cells is technically incorrect. :book:
I was about to say he should repeat that in Germany in 1935.:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
Oh come on. you can't compare stem cell research to the experimentation on thousands of living breathing human beings. Stem cells aren't people, they're clusters of cellular material in a 4-5 day old embryo, which is little more than a colony of cellular structures. Get real.
I wasn't responding to stem cell reasearch, I was commenting on your comment that all progress is good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
Though like I said before, if you like it, feel free to fund it, but some others may not want their tax money to be spent on this. Can't really say how effective or promising it is and while the goal sounds appealing, I do have my doubts.
Research that isn't research
Here they discuss why stemcellsresearch.org isn't really a research group, but a industrialist, Christian front, yadda yadda yadda.
Does it raise some valid points about the stem cell research, or a conspiracy wrapped up in people's ignorance.
You know, Im always confused, because Christians should be the ones promoting stem cell research. Christianity is all about promoting welfare of people, paticularly the sick and diseased and dying. Its an ethical issue of condemning people to horrible deliberating diseases when we could possibly be healing them.
I mean, the argument that embryonic research is 'promoting murder' is ludicrous. Jesus Christ certainly had no idea what an embryo even was. To consider it a person is beyond the pale. cellular material should be used for the betterment of all mankind.
Isnt the fallacy of this statement oh too obvious?Quote:
Jesus Christ certainly had no idea what an embryo even was.
Sadly history dosent bare this theory out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
By killing others.Quote:
Its an ethical issue of condemning people to horrible deliberating diseases when we could possibly be healing them.
what others? 2 or 3 cells does not a sentient being make, dude. And you disagreed with the other statment about Jesus. the historical Jesus Christ was a 1st century Jewish bumpkin, he would have had no idea what an embryo was, the average 4th grader today has more of an education than he or any of disciples had.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
If you happen to believe he was some sort of incarnation of Yehovah, then that's different. But we're talking historical figures here. And his teachings to his followers were to heal the sick and dying, and give aid to those suffering whenever possible. His followers today are too busy preaching doom and gloom to the world to be focused on that. If Christians would do as their teacher intended, the world would have a much better view of them, and stem cell research is one of these issues why the world does not.
Like the threat of DDT, and Global Warming! :2thumbsup:Quote:
followers today are too busy preaching doom and gloom to the world to be focused on that.
Until he became 'God's son' and had all his powers.Quote:
historical Jesus Christ was a 1st century Jewish bumpkin, he would have had no idea what an embryo was,
I could care less what they do with the embryos, if they want to throw them in the air, dice them, burn them, whatever. Just don't get the govt. involved unless you can get us the cures. I hear about 'miracle cures' like I hear about half what scientists say. Promises that might be fulfilled, might not.
Otherwise every quack scientist who needs federal money promotes his idea as a 'cure for cancer' and gets federal funding to do some crazy things to a rhesus monkey.
So does that make bacteria, protozoa, and every other unicellular organism a 'thing' despite evidence to the contrary?Quote:
2 or 3 cells does not a sentient being make, dude.
Really. I thought the combining of two cells was exactly the way it worked:laugh4:Quote:
2 or 3 cells does not a sentient being make, dude
:wall:Quote:
nd you disagreed with the other statment about Jesus. the historical Jesus Christ was a 1st century Jewish bumpkin, he would have had no idea what an embryo was, the average 4th grader today has more of an education than he or any of disciples had.
You said Christians should support it blah blah blah. If Christians believe that Jesus was god then he they certainly believe he knows what a stem cell or embryo is. I doubt a 4th grader is smarter than god.
Not by killing the unborn.Quote:
And his teachings to his followers were to heal the sick and dying, and give aid to those suffering whenever possible.
Unlike you most people do have a good opinion of them. Look I look at Jesus much as you do in that I look at him as a philosopher not a god. I still dont think he would approve of this.Quote:
If Christians would do as their teacher intended, the world would have a much better view of them,
not to rain on the parades of people who think stem cell research is a con but
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6517645.stm
there are a number of ethical boundaries we will have to work out but the techniques for growing entire organs from stem cells are almost here and i personally think its for the better
I'm opposed to any more ticks climbing on the mangy dog that is the federal government to suck more blood out. If the technology is as promising as some say, and if Irosnside's claims that they can grow new organs are founded, don't you think Glaxxo-Smith-Klein and Pfeizer have enough cash on hand to pay the research bill? Why do I need to pay for Big Pharma's next round of profits? This whole issue is mental masturbation for the American Left... they're actually arguing for federal subsidies to an industry they're normally whining and moaning about, just because they like to torque religious conversatives off.
Anyway, again, with regards to the research itself, assuming the funding for research was paid by those that will profit from the sale of it... like Ironside said... there's no need to actually create embryoes for the process. There's petrie dishes all over America and Europe that get thrown out every day. It would be nice to know that rather than being washed down the drain there's actually some positive use going on.
By the way, Ironside, they never specifically mention embryonic stem cells. Given the BBC's heavy editorial content, if they had come from embryoes, I'm sure they would have made mention of that.
That attitude would destroy 90% of all research done in the history of man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Would it?
Do you have any data to support this claim?
I can tell you scientific breakthroughs -1900 were mostly privately funded projects.
The Cotton Gin? Invented by 1 man with a drive.
The Telegraph? Invented by man without federal funding.
Telephone? Man.
Chariot. Men, well, gods, but another story.
Yes i forgot that federal funding has made all things possible. Without it we would still be living in the stone age.Quote:
That attitude would destroy 90% of all research done in the history of man.
Yes exactly. Bravo, well done, the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Its nice to have Don back posting his eloquence and ability with prose is far superior to mine.
He nails it folks
1.Anyone care to tackle this point, i cant.Quote:
If the technology is as promising as some say, and if Irosnside's claims that they can grow new organs are founded, don't you think Glaxxo-Smith-Klein and Pfeizer have enough cash on hand to pay the research bill? Why do I need to pay for Big Pharma's next round of profits?
2.This one's like looking at a Picaso.Quote:
This whole issue is mental masturbation for the American Left... they're actually arguing for federal subsidies to an industry they're normally whining and moaning about, just because they like to torque religious conversatives off.
and !
Right on, as I said in a previous post, since we have to live with sanctioned killing of children anyway lets make the most of it. Often taking a pragmatic approach to an undesirable practice can reap a higher ideal.Quote:
There's petrie dishes all over America and Europe that get thrown out every day. It would be nice to know that rather than being washed down the drain there's actually some positive use going on.
This might be the case here, but no tax money for it.
They try to tiptoe around it- but once again, this discovery came from adult stemcells.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
You're probably correct. I can accept drop of public funding on the basis of not being something the state shouldn't fund generally or that they're not considering it promising enough, but as it's now it's a contradicting funding that's only based on appeasing the "religious right" that's uninformed on what stem cells are actually used.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
As for the drug companies, development and public funding, capitalism has a problem with great leaps that cost much time and money to make and without results relativly fast.
Do you think we would be in space yet with only market forces?
That said, it's up for the nations themself to decide, but there's some projects that won't be done in the private sector, simply because the rewards seems too far away.
If this apply to this specifically is more uncertain though (afaik there's a lot of research money coming from the medical sector), but there's sometimes a need for publically funded projects.
I'm currently holding about the same position. It would require some more ethical aspects of it if you had to create embryoes, although I don't think I would oppose it (but dislike it more though).Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Fair enough, if he can create organs from adult stem cells within 10 years then embryonic stem cells are probably not needed (I'm not sure of all potential uses), but the main issue with adult stem cells is that you can create tissue with it, but not organs (that consists of several tissues, they might be able to create some simpler organs though, based on current knowledge). Unless I'm missed some new research I'm guessing that he will try to make one organ from starting from several original stem cells, instead of only one cell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Sorry Odin, he may nail it for you, but for a european leftie, it doesn't ~;)
You see, we want to nationalize medical research, ie. take away profit as a goal, and so we want to use tax money to do it, as well as shutting down the pill companies...
A small side question, is it A european, or AN european?
And this is why most great medical discoveries will still be made in the USA.:beam:Quote:
You see, we want to nationalize medical research, ie. take away profit as a goal, and so we want to use tax money to do it, as well as shutting down the pill companies...
Now thats a good one, never thought about it. The rules is you use an if the following word starts with a vowel no? Like Im an American. But Im an European just doesnt sound right does it?Quote:
A small side question, is it A european, or AN european?
For speaking:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
It's the vowel sound, not the actual letter. American starts with a soft "a" sound, so "an' is correct, "an american".
European actually starts with a consanant sound "hard Y", so "a" "Yooropeean" is correct, not "an european".
Similiarly, it's "an historical event" is correct if your dialect has soft (whispered) "h" sounds.
For written:
HoreTore you are correct, you should match the article with the first written letter.
That being said, I'm an American so I know bupkus on proper English. Ask EnglishAssassin or InsaneApache. Then watch them fight it out. :laugh4:
As for your point, HoreTore, the socialization of medical research may very well be an appropriate goal (it's not, but that's another thread). The argument on the table is whether I'm going to cough up an extra $4.00 a pay period to help make Pfeizer even richer.
Answer? Not if I have anything to say about it.
As you have private medical companies earning an extreme profit, I certainly can understand and agree with that...Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone