House Passes Stem Cell Bill

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:09 pm

Still not enough votes to override a veto by the President, so we will see. I hope it stays.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... htm?csp=24

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:19 pm

Me to Marie it is so needed.

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:47 pm

I remember either reading or hearing recently that they have also found a way to harvest stem cells from the amneotic fluid of the mother. At least that would also be an option. They said that if nothing else, it carries the DNA of the baby, and could be saved if needed on the baby, and would not be rejected. Did anyone else hear this story?

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 11:10 pm

Scrat & I have been on this topic before.

And we both agree on the need & demand for the stem cell research, and all who will benefit.

Lets keep our fingers crossed.

Patsy

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 11:49 pm

"an end to restrictions on federal funding is inevitable after an overwhelming House vote Thursday."

++++++++++ Oh, I hope so!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:19 am

It's a travesty, but I'm not gonna convince anyone of that.

What pisses me off is that otherwise intelligent people seem to be convinced that if the government doesn't pay for it, it doesn't happen. Embryonic stem cell research has never been illegal. The research has not stopped.

Why do people cry about government dishonesty and incompetence, yet in the same breath say they're the only avenue to get things done?

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:33 am

I think, as in all these issues, scientists have a huge responsibility to think about the moral implications of what they are doing, and people's concerns (and scientists concerns as well) absolutley have to be taken into account when making decisions on research directions. Of course also, these debates need to be conducted soberly and rationally, with a sense of balance and proportion, with each thing being taken on its own merit. In terms of the stem cell research issue, I think that people's qualms about these techniques are entirely understandable, though in general I personally don't share them. I think that the fact that newer techniques are now being developed that provide for a source of stem cells, that does not involve the use of embryonic tissue should help faciliate what could be a serious breakthrough in medical science.

On a more cynical note, its also pertinent to remember that Japanese and European hi tech comanies are already working in these fields, so these technologies and techniques are going to be be developed one way or another, and they (like US scientists) are very much involved in developing a way of harvesting stem cells in a way that doesn't offend people's deeply held religious or moral sensibilites, which is all for the good in my opinon.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:38 am

Some would even point to others doing the research as justification for our gov't funding our own research, which we all know is a silly argument to do anything.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:04 am

Accountable;513744 wrote: Some would even point to others doing the research as justification for our gov't funding our own research, which we all know is a silly argument to do anything.

I think its obviously true that if the majority of people in one country feel deeply about an issue such as this, then trying to perseude them its ok based on the fact that someone else is doing it, is a little fatuous. But there are fatuous arguments on both sides I suspect also.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:35 am

Accountable;513699 wrote: It's a travesty, but I'm not gonna convince anyone of that.

What pisses me off is that otherwise intelligent people seem to be convinced that if the government doesn't pay for it, it doesn't happen. Embryonic stem cell research has never been illegal. The research has not stopped.

Why do people cry about government dishonesty and incompetence, yet in the same breath say they're the only avenue to get things done?

And of all the stem cell research in progress, embryonic stem cells research has failed to provide any clinical benefit. In fact, the problems associated with embryonic stem cells - rejection, uncontrolled cell growth, creation of tumors - are unique and not associated with other types of stem cells. Adult stem cells, bone marrow stem cells, umbilical stem cells, etc have all shown actual regenerative properties and actual patients have benefitted from them without the negative effects associated with embryonic stem cells. Yet, the public still is under the scientifically unsupported impression that embryonic stem cell research is the panacea for all kinds of illnesses. Medical research simply doesn't back this up. To date, every other type of stem cell has shown far more promise and benefit than embryonic stem cells. And the resources for these other stem cells are limitless. Embryonic stem cells have provided absolutely NO benefits. Other stem cells have and are helping patients even as we discuss this issue. So let private investors put their money into embryonic stem cells until it shows some actual benefit. If we insist on throwing federal tax dollars at research, then at least put it toward proven results.

Specfiction · Post by **Specfiction** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 1:40 pm

The thing I don't understand about people is that en masse, we find it completeley moral and acceptable to kill people by the hundreds of thousands--on occasion--millions. We may have practical issues with slaughter, but not ethical. Then, if we have some way of saving real human lives. Lives that have taken years to blossom. Lives that are loved by those that know them, not in some abstact sense, but because they've spent hours, days, years with them. Your bother, your sister, your friend. Somehow there's an "ethical" problem.

An embryo, or more rightly, a Blastocyst (if the idiot scientists had gotten the name right, this issue probably wouldn't exist) is the size of the head of a pin. Once outside the uterus, the Blastocyst is NOT viable. So for the thousands produced for in-vitro, unless re-implanted, there is zero chance of their becoming anything. Other than the fact that this nondescript clump of cells can spontaneously grow into an embryo given the special condition of the uterus, it is no different than a microscopic clump of skin which also has the genetic code that, given the right technology, could be transformed into an embryo. Only difference, the uterus has the technology.

So, we kill fully grown people by the thousands--no problem, but we'd flush in-vitro Blastocysts rather than cure our brothers and sisters. I've got to say, I just don't get it.

BTW:

And of all the stem cell research in progress, embryonic stem cells research has failed to provide any clinical benefit. In fact, the problems associated with embryonic stem cells - rejection, uncontrolled cell growth, creation of tumors - are unique and not associated with other types of stem cells. Adult stem cells, bone marrow stem cells, umbilical stem cells, etc have all shown actual regenerative properties and actual patients have benefitted from them without the negative effects associated with embryonic stem cells. Yet, the public still is under the scientifically unsupported impression that embryonic stem cell research is the panacea for all kinds of illnesses. Medical research simply doesn't back this up. To date, every other type of stem cell has shown far more promise and benefit than embryonic stem cells. And the resources for these other stem cells are limitless. Embryonic stem cells have provided absolutely NO benefits. Other stem cells have and are helping patients even as we discuss this issue. So let private investors put their money into embryonic stem cells until it shows some actual benefit. If we insist on throwing federal tax dollars at research, then at least put it toward proven results.

This is technically completely misleading if not wrong. The tumor issues have to do with differentiation “before” implantation—this issue is solved (see a flood of papers and animal studies coming out of places like UCI). No other types of stem cell differentiate as generally or for an indefinite time without genetic errors. At this time, Blastocyst stem cells are the only type where we can get the purity, quantity, and differentiation variety to support wide application clinical use. For those that say nothing has been shown “at this time” that Blastocyst SC’s can not cure anything, they don’t understand how science is done. Hopefully, the political climate will enable us to make progress. There are a host of clinical trials (phase 1) queued up for this year. And if other SC’s were so good, then why is there no “significant” progress on the first two types of applications that most scientist believe Blastocyst SC will all but cure—diabetes, and traumatic brain and spinal cord injury.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 1:46 pm

If it would repleace even a tiny amount of animal research I'd be all for it.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:02 pm

Specfiction;514203 wrote:

So, we kill fully grown people by the thousands--no problem, but we'd flush in-vitro Blastocysts rather than cure our brothers and sisters. I've got to say, I just don't get it.

Embryonic stem cells have failed to show any practical benefit. Other stem cells HAVE, without the problems inherent in embryonic stem cells such as uncontrollable cell reproduction and growth of tumors. Why are we so hung up on embryonic stem cells when others have shown so much more promise and actual results, are in unlimited supply, and come with no ethical controversies? Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post said it well:

This has always been a tendentious characterization of the argument for restricting stem cell research that relies on the destruction of embryos. I have long supported legal abortion. And I donâ€™t believe that life â€” meaning the attributes and protections of personhood â€” begins at conception. Yet many secularly inclined people like me have great trepidation about the inherent dangers of wanton and unrestricted manipulation â€” to the point of dismemberment â€” of human embryos.

You donâ€™t need religion to tremble at the thought of unrestricted embryo research. You simply have to have a healthy respect for the human capacity for doing evil in pursuit of the good. Once we have taken the position of many stem-cell advocates that embryos are discardable tissue with no more intrinsic value than a hangnail or an appendix, then all barriers are down. What is to prevent us from producing not just tissues and organs, but human-like organisms for preservation as a source of future body parts on demand?

The slope is very slippery. Which is why, even though I disagreed with where the president drew the line â€” I would have permitted the use of fertility-clinic embryos that are discarded and going to die anyway â€” I applauded his insistence that some line must be drawn, that human embryos are not nothing, and that societal values, not just the scientific imperative, should determine how they are treated."

Full Article

Specfiction · Post by **Specfiction** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:11 pm

Charles Krauthammer is wrong about the science--he is not a scientist--I am. Did you ever see the first transistor? Didn't look very promising to the untrained eye. I'm not impugning anyone’s intensions or sincerity. Blastocyst Stem Cell therapy will happen, the only question is how many people have to suffer for how long. And the funny thing is that if it happens in time, Mr. Krauthammer might be a beneficiary. I wonder if he'll turn the treatment down? It would be interesting to watch.

About a month ago I was at a BSC talk by scientists on the political issues with SC's. Everybody was anxious and worried. At the end of the talk I spoke to the head scientist. All these political problems will go away. Just like that--poof. All you guys need is one clinical success. He started smiling for two reasons. First, he knows I'm right about the politics. Second, he knows they're close.

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:32 pm

It's a mute point with the ability to clone things. The last disease we cured or treated was smallpox. Polio is coming back, TB is coming back, bubonic plague can still kill a few folks, and now we have even more deadly strains of weird things. So where is the science? Nobody is finding the cures or treatments for anything. They have all chucked in the towel for genetic engineering. "Lets alter this gene" or "Lets supress this one" for what? Still doesnt work. People still die by the millions of influenza. SARS, BIRDFLU, EBOLA, plague after plague after plague. How is destroying embryo's supposed to help here? Not to mention the still 100% fatal HIV.

twizzel · Post by **twizzel** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:33 pm

Marie5656;513482 wrote: Still not enough votes to override a veto by the President, so we will see. I hope it stays.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... htm?csp=24
Personnelly I think the scientists are over reaching themselves with only God knows what damage they are going to do to the human race. If God had meant us to have transplants he would have allowed it without the need for constant drugs to over ride rejection.

Specfiction · Post by **Specfiction** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:01 pm

Man Raven--sounds bad. I don't know if I'll make it through the day.

But seriously, let's put this in perspective. When I was born 54 years ago, there were 3 billion people on Earth. That was more people than had ever lived. In 54 years, there is now 6 billion people on Earth. Someone is apparently curing something. I won't even go into longevity and survival after age one rates.

Twizzle, there are too many of you for me to respond to, but scientists know of ways to not require anti-rejection drugs. But I won't go into that because it would open up a whole new can-of-worms. Suffice it to say for those that are living healthy with transplant or HIV drugs, you have your life, and you have to take a pill. It's not perfect, but I'm sure there are very many who are very thankful.

twizzel · Post by **twizzel** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:12 pm

Diuretic;514292 wrote: No, you're not serious. Tell me this is a leg pull.

Deadly serious

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:20 pm

twizzel;514259 wrote: Personnelly I think the scientists are over reaching themselves with only God knows what damage they are going to do to the human race. If God had meant us to have transplants he would have allowed it without the need for constant drugs to over ride rejection.
So if God gives you a headache do you take aspirin?

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:32 pm

Raven

I understand your point - but the diseases have a stronger strain

diseases from ? New diseases -

Testing use to be only on mice/rats/monkeys

Our bodys can and do heal themselves - so to find the cures for these new/strong diseases, we need to look within ourselves.

Have you ever looked into the ingredients to the mandatory baby shots?

Its disgusting, and necessary before entering school.

These new diseases are coming from somewhere (probably us) and the cure has to come from somewhere (probably us).

Stay healthy

Patsy

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:06 pm

Specfiction;514225 wrote: Charles Krauthammer is wrong about the science--he is not a scientist--I am. Did you ever see the first transistor? Didn't look very promising to the untrained eye. I'm not impugning anyoneâ€™s intensions or sincerity. Blastocyst Stem Cell therapy will happen, the only question is how many people have to suffer for how long. And the funny thing is that if it happens in time, Mr. Krauthammer might be a beneficiary. I wonder if he'll turn the treatment down? It would be interesting to watch.

About a month ago I was at a BSC talk by scientists on the political issues with SC's. Everybody was anxious and worried. At the end of the talk I spoke to the head scientist. All these political problems will go away. Just like that--poof. All you guys need is one clinical success. He started smiling for two reasons. First, he knows I'm right about the politics. Second, he knows they're close.

For a scientist, you're not providing any more science than Krauthammer. Real clinical success has already been achieved with other types of stem cells. They already have "one clinical success" and many more yet the politics of the issue continues to ignore these advances in order to promote research that so far has only pie in the sky promises. The politics of the science ignores any progress that may show embryonic stem cell research unnecessary.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:08 pm

I see Twizzel's point. And I agree to a good extent. Although I would much prefer to see test tube organs being used as opposed to organ donation. Everyone has their limits. Some don't even believe in giving blood.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:15 pm

The point is Diuretic, that adult stem cells, bone marrow stem cells, umbilical stem cells are all showing results while embryonic stem cells are nothing more than a theoritic "hope". Yet we only argue for federal embryonic stem cell funding with chicken little sky is falling rhetoric. Many people are already benefiting from stem cells, just not embryonic ones. Why is the focus almost solely on embryonic stem cells.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:13 pm

Specfiction;514203 wrote: The thing I don't understand about people is that en masse, we find it completeley moral and acceptable to kill people by the hundreds of thousands--on occasion--millions. We may have practical issues with slaughter, but not ethical. Then, if we have some way of saving real human lives. Lives that have taken years to blossom. Lives that are loved by those that know them, not in some abstact sense, but because they've spent hours, days, years with them. Your bother, your sister, your friend. Somehow there's an "ethical" problem.

An embryo, or more rightly, a Blastocyst (if the idiot scientists had gotten the name right, this issue probably wouldn't exist) is the size of the head of a pin. Once outside the uterus, the Blastocyst is NOT viable. So for the thousands produced for in-vitro, unless re-implanted, there is zero chance of their becoming anything. Other than the fact that this nondescript clump of cells can spontaneously grow into an embryo given the special condition of the uterus, it is no different than a microscopic clump of skin which also has the genetic code that, given the right technology, could be transformed into an embryo. Only difference, the uterus has the technology.

So, we kill fully grown people by the thousands--no problem, but we'd flush in-vitro Blastocysts rather than cure our brothers and sisters. I've got to say, I just don't get it.

BTW:

This is technically completely misleading if not wrong. The tumor issues have to do with differentiation â€œbeforeâ€ implantationâ€”this issue is solved (see a flood of papers and animal studies coming out of places like UCI). No other types of stem cell differentiate as generally or for an indefinite time without genetic errors. At this time, Blastocyst stem cells are the only type where we can get the purity, quantity, and differentiation variety to support wide application clinical use. For those that say nothing has been shown â€œat this timeâ€ that Blastocyst SCâ€™s can not cure anything, they donâ€™t understand how science is done. Hopefully, the political climate will enable us to make progress. There are a host of clinical trials (phase 1) queued up for this year. And if other SCâ€™s were so good, then why is there no â€œsignificantâ€ progress on the first two types of applications that most scientist believe Blastocyst SC will all but cureâ€”diabetes, and traumatic brain and spinal cord injury.
So ... what?? None of that convinces me that the gov't should go against a large fraction of the populace to fund the research. There's plenty of money to be had elsewhere.

twizzel · Post by **twizzel** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:15 pm

YZGI;514319 wrote: So if God gives you a headache do you take aspirin?
yes but I don't reject aspirin

twizzel · Post by **twizzel** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:33 pm

flopstock;514554 wrote: i do
sorry about that but there is always paracetamol

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:31 pm

Specfiction;514203 wrote: And if other SCâ€™s were so good, then why is there no â€œsignificantâ€ progress on the first two types of applications that most scientist believe Blastocyst SC will all but cureâ€”diabetes, and traumatic brain and spinal cord injury.

"Transfer of Hematopoietic Stem Cells Encoding Autoantigen Prevents Autoimmune Diabetes"

Lead researchers: Raymond J. Steptoe and Leonard C. Harrison, the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia

The prevention of diabetes may lie in stem cell implantations to the bone marrow. Stem cells were extracted from mice bone marrow and genetically re-engineered to express an autoantigen that would signal the immune system not to attack insulin-producing cells. Results from the procedure found that type 1 diabetes was almost entirely avoided in the nonobese diabetic mice used in the study.

8) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) May 13, 2003 | vol. 100 | no. 10 | 5807-5812

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Transplantation of Nasal Olfactory Tissue Promotes Partial Recovery in Paraplegic Adult Rats"

Lead researchers: Jike Lu and Phil M.E. Waite, University of New South Wales, Sydney

Recent studies have confirmed the substantial plasticity capabilities of nasal stem cells. Nasal stem cells are easier and less painful to extract than bone marrow stem cells, and have differentiated into kidney, liver, heart and nerve tissues in mice models. This study done by researchers in Sydney implanted nasal stem cells into mice models with severe spinal cord injuries. Significant recovery of movement followed the differentiative process, demonstrating that the process will be useful in treating human paraplegics as well.

13) Stem Cells 2003; 21:50-60

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Use of In Situ Bone Marrow Stem Cells for the Treatment of Various Degenerative Diseases"

Lead researcher: Christian Drapeau, Desert Lake Technologies

A different, less-invasive method to tissue regeneration is proposed in this study led by Christian Drapeau. Instead of an in vitro method, therapeutic tools were used to stimulate bone marrow stem cells in situ (in place) to migrate to target organs where regeneration was needed. It was shown that these stem cells differentiated successfully, and that the process could be used in treatments including Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, stroke, liver degeneration, cardiac infarct, diabetes, brain injury, diabetes, and multiple sclerosis.

B) Central Nervous System (CNS)

1) A) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)

September 30, 2003 vol. 100 Suppl. 1: 11854

There are many, many more articles that show potential of non-embryonic stem cells in relation to diabetes and spinal cord injuries. For instance,

Have human embryonic stem cells been used successfully to treat any human diseases yet?

Scientists have only been able to do experiments with human embryonic stem cells (hESC) since 1998, when a group led by Dr. James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin developed a technique to isolate and grow the cells. Moreover, federal funds to support hESC research have only been available since August 9, 2001, when President Bush announced his decision on federal funding for hESC research. Because many academic researchers rely on federal funds to support their laboratories, they are just beginning to learn how to grow and use the cells. Thus, although hESC are thought to offer potential cures and therapies for many devastating diseases, research using them is still in its early stages.

Adult stem cells such as blood-forming stem cells in bone marrow (called hematopoietic stem cells, or HSCs) are currently the only type of stem cell commonly used to treat human diseases. Doctors have been transferring HSCs in bone marrow transplants for over 40 years. More advanced techniques of collecting, or "harvesting", HSCs are now used in order to treat leukemia, lymphoma and several inherited blood disorders.

The clinical potential of adult stem cells has also been demonstrated in the treatment of other human diseases that include diabetes and advanced kidney cancer. However, these newer uses have involved studies with a very limited number of patients.

-From the National Institute of Health "Stem Cell Information"

Specfiction · Post by **Specfiction** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:36 pm

Adam Zapple;514418 wrote: For a scientist, you're not providing any more science than Krauthammer. Real clinical success has already been achieved with other types of stem cells. They already have "one clinical success" and many more yet the politics of the issue continues to ignore these advances in order to promote research that so far has only pie in the sky promises. The politics of the science ignores any progress that may show embryonic stem cell research unnecessary.

The Transistor analogy is apt. At the time of the creation of the transistor, there were tubes. The tubes were more perfected and used in various applicances. But tubes were a dead end--everyone knew that. It took decades to perfect transistors, then ICs, which are microscopic transistor farms. Blastocyst SC are like that--credible scientists know this. They know non-Blastocyst SC are of very limited use--credible scientist know this. If someone tells you otherwise, they are mistaken.

In the next few years you will see much greater advances in diabetes and neural injury with Blastocyst SC's. As I said before the purity, differentiation, and limited ability of non-Blastocyst SC to replicate without errors limits there use. The examples you sited are just a teaser for the much greater potential of Blastocsyt SC's.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:06 am

Specfiction;514787 wrote: The Transistor analogy is apt. At the time of the creation of the transistor, there were tubes. The tubes were more perfected and used in various applicances. But tubes were a dead end--everyone knew that. It took decades to perfect transistors, then ICs, which are microscopic transistor farms. Blastocyst SC are like that--credible scientists know this. They know non-Blastocyst SC are of very limited use--credible scientist know this. If someone tells you otherwise, they are mistaken.

In the next few years you will see much greater advances in diabetes and neural injury with Blastocyst SC's. As I said before the purity, differentiation, and limited ability of non-Blastocyst SC to replicate without errors limits there use. The examples you sited are just a teaser for the much greater potential of Blastocsyt SC's.

I'm a scientist. Any credible scientist knows that embryonic stem cells provide promise because of their plasticity but it is being discovered that other stem cells are more pluripotential than originally thought. Everyone knows this. The fact that you continue to discount the advances of non-embryonic stem cells and claim them to be a dead end when they are in fact providing increasing therapeutic results exposes your political agenda.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:29 am

And what does any of this have to do with government funding? All this stem cell research continues and has continued without a dime from my pocket. Why do they need my money?

Specfiction · Post by **Specfiction** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:03 am

I'm a scientist. Any credible scientist knows that embryonic stem cells provide promise because of their plasticity but it is being discovered that other stem cells are more pluripotential than originally thought. Everyone knows this. The fact that you continue to discount the advances of non-embryonic stem cells and claim them to be a dead end when they are in fact providing increasing therapeutic results exposes your political agenda.

In this parlance plasticity and differentiation are the same thing. It is a fact that the differentiation and ability of Blastocyst SC to replicate indefinitely with little or no error is superior to non-Blastocyst SC's. That why so many scientists around the world are interested in them. Here in the US, where it is difficult to work with them because of the absence of funding, many leading scientists have chosen to do reasearch with them, at their own disadvantage (they could have been publishing papers with the therapies approved by a political agenda), because they understand the promise.

Specfiction · Post by **Specfiction** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:14 am

And what does any of this have to do with government funding? All this stem cell research continues and has continued without a dime from my pocket. Why do they need my money?

For the same reason that the pharmaceutical companies need your money. Much of drug development is started in University labs with taxpayer money. The Internet was developed with taxpayer money via ARPA NET. The satellite cell system and GPS were developed with taxpayer money via Milstar. The very rich politicians that are trying to set scientific agendas have been made very rich via their revolving door careers with military contractors...etc., etc. Companies make bad business decisions--they get bailed-out using taxpayer money, i.e. airlines and car companies. Farmers get bailed-out using taxpayer money. Private Industry--Hmmm....

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:24 pm

Specfiction;515390 wrote: For the same reason that the pharmaceutical companies need your money. Much of drug development is started in University labs with taxpayer money. The Internet was developed with taxpayer money via ARPA NET. The satellite cell system and GPS were developed with taxpayer money via Milstar. The very rich politicians that are trying to set scientific agendas have been made very rich via their revolving door careers with military contractors...etc., etc. Companies make bad business decisions--they get bailed-out using taxpayer money, i.e. airlines and car companies. Farmers get bailed-out using taxpayer money. Private Industry--Hmmm....
Seems like you agree with me that the gov't shouldn't be funding any of this, including the stem cell research.

Specfiction · Post by **Specfiction** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:33 pm

Seems like you agree with me that the gov't shouldn't be funding any of this, including the stem cell research.

Well, we agree on the facts. We don't agree on the interpretation. Human Life is complex. Most of our problems come from the fact that we hold in our minds a picture of reality that looks too much like a cartoon. Let me say this--taxes are what support civilization. The fact that there are problems, inequity, fraud, abuse, and an assortment of other words we can use is a manifestation of human nature. No matter how we slice or dice the system, we can’t eliminate these kinds of problems. I could just as well go through a very long list of beneficial aspects of taxes. This is an interesting topic and is at the heart of most of the social and organizational issues we have with all human institutions. I've even written a fictional book about this because I think it's central to our long-term prospects as a species.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:22 pm

Diuretic;515690 wrote: No surprise here - govt should be funding medical research wholesale.
I thought an anarchist would want no gov't at all. :-2

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:11 am

Diuretic;515951 wrote: For now Acc - in the transition to a non-governmental condition - yes, I want the govt structure that's there to fund it. We can't reach social nirvana if we're all getting knocked off by curable diseases

But the government funds nothing. The government politicians force the citizenry to fund pet projects that their PACs and lobbyists pay them to champion.

If the government stopped funding these projects, do you seriously believe the research would stop? I say funding would roughly equalize or even increase, because the truly passionate would have the extra funds to give to what they choose, and more would take responsibility once they realize that the gov't had no longer taken the responsibility from them.