[CDB]

Originally Posted by ryano

No where in the ad does Fox mention anything about embryonic stem cell research. He does mention stem cell research. Is this entire 6 billion dollar budget going towards just "embryonic" stem cell research or stem cell research in general?

I also wonder how much of our tax dollars will be saved as a result of the 200 or plus diseases that can be treated or cured with this research. How many new jobs will this create. How many people sitting around at home collecting our tax dollars will be able to return to work?

Tax dollars are never saved, only spent. Even if by some miracle stem cell research funding turned into the one government program that verifiably achieved its goal efficiently, the money not spent on those diseases in the future would be spent on something else. So it's not going to save us anything.

There's already a massive industry surrounding stem cell research. Why do we need the government to, for lack of a better analogy, to throw **** at the wall and see what sticks when there's already a bunch of private firms researching the most promising techniques in this area?

[ryano]

Some of the things we have to keep in mind is that this an a thirty second ad. The main reason Fox did this spot was the reason we are talking about it right now. People need to be educated on a topic before they vote for or against it. I admit this thread has got me thinking about things I really did not take into consideration before. So thanks fellas.

I see nothing wrong with Fox not taking his meds or taking to many wich are both effects of his disease. He is being himself a man with parkinsons who is trying to inform people, get them thinking, and get some votes to further his cause.

Now if he were hiding his true intentions ...say WMD and 9/11 to push a war then I would say tear him apart if he shakes like a leaf or not.

Otherwise I say we are comparing apples to oranges.

[Frank Costanza]

Originally Posted by tsc

Could you clarify this? What do you mean by holding their moral ground? by 'pouring money into ...bill' do you mean in political donations, payoffs, advertising?? I'd be happy to answer... just not sure exactly what you are asking. Perhaps an example for each, as I can see a couple different ways to read what you were asking??

Holding their moral ground as in Bush not supporting it because its viewed as killing a human being based on his religious beliefs compared to the companies who fund candidates to get an amendment passed because in the end they will benefit greaty form the profit if a cure is found. They also get federal funding to find this cure meaning they won't have to spend any money on R&D.

I mean in this scenario, Bush can be seen as limiting research based on his religous values in wihch he has nothing to gain but heavy criticism compared to a company who wants a bill passed for monetary reason masked around the arguement that they "want to find a cure"

until then, your other quote :

Yes but its ultimately up the parents of the extra embryos what is to be done with them. Then you go into the area of "is an embryo a human person" and what is and where does the essence of life originate? Do the parents have the right to authorize such research on embryos? Some major questions that should be answered by people that can actually debate the topic, not an emotional ad to sway public opinion.

My view on this is it from a legal standpoing, creating an embryo in this fashion is perfectly legal. Since multiple embryos are developed and rarely all are used, extras are made. This is fine. However, if using these for research is considered wrong, than why is destroying them acceptable? If this is destroying a life, then are the "parents" required to go through X amount of pregnancies so that they all develope?? Should it be illegal to destroy them, and then they must be required to be stored until some other couple wants to use them? As the "parent" must you be forced to allow some other couple to use your creation since you don't want any more children? What is the appropriate use for these unused embryos? As to your last line, therein lies the problem: Those questions, and that debate will never be handled without emotions as much of the "when life starts" question is tied into religious and moral view (which of course vary widely among "believers" themselves). That said, I agree I would much rather see the removal of all emotional pleas from politics and everything else for that matter. If critical thinking was given a little more (ok, a hell of a lot more) attention in our education system this might be more of a possibility. In all reality though, where in the world is anything presented to the masses done so in a cut and dry fact based fashion?? Its human nature to only see the presentation and not the intention.

I agree with everything. The questions and answers shouldn't be politicized in the way they have for a candidate.

Here's one for you: Which is worse; A politician votes against his moral views to allow this research because his constituents support it (in the majority at least). or This same man votes against the research for due to his moral issues, but later benefits from the research in any form (financial from stocks, medical treatment for himself of family members etc.).??

TSC

I would say the second because you have to make decisions on what you think is right at the time. The second scenario means he did what he thought was right but in the end, maybe received treatment in a sitatuation in wihch he was wrong.

[ryano]

Originally Posted by CDB

Tax dollars are never saved, only spent. Even if by some miracle stem cell research funding turned into the one government program that verifiably achieved its goal efficiently, the money not spent on those diseases in the future would be spent on something else. So it's not going to save us anything.

Good point. I guess we could then "allocate" that money to other things like education and more war toys.

Originally Posted by CDB

There's already a massive industry surrounding stem cell research. Why do we need the government to, for lack of a better analogy, to throw **** at the wall and see what sticks when there's already a bunch of private firms researching the most promising techniques in this area?

err uhh..umm... here read this I thought this was a good article.

stem cell research

[CDB]

Originally Posted by ryano

Good point. I guess we could then "allocate" that money to other things like education and more war toys.

Another problem: The scope of the government never shrinks, only expands. It's always running a deficit. Allocating funds to this or that program when you're constantly running in the red is an accounting insanity. If you were a few trillion in debt and someone did you a favor and took one of your expenses off your hands, allocating the money you would have spent on that to something else kind of ignores the underlying problem.

err uhh..umm... here read this I thought this was a good article.

stem cell research

Indeed, very informative. The basic bent of the article is that apparently the private sector sucks and even though the private sector is free to pursue ESC, researchers would rather go elsewhere to do so. It said the private sector was not peer reviewed, but last I'd heard private studies can get submitted to any peer reviewed and refereed journal. Last I'd heard private firms still need to submit potential treatment options to the government for approval, and all this allowing for the idea that somehow the government is truly the font of all objective research which is pretty arguable.

Sounds to me like an article written by an out of work scientist who wants his funding back and would rather get it from the government than the private sector for some reason. Nor does the argument about nervous system development or utility wash. The greatest good that delivers the least harm is purely subjective, and whether or not the nervous system has developed in the embryo or not is of no concern to people who for moral reasons (reasons I don't share) don't want their money funding this research.

Don't Politicize Stem Cell Research

by Michael D. Tanner

2004

Ron Reagan addressed the Democratic National Convention Tuesday night, calling on the federal government to support fetal stem cell research. His plea was heartfelt and eloquent, but ultimately missed the point.

First, this is not a debate about whether stem cell research should be legal. It is, and no one in Congress or the Bush administration has proposed banning it. In fact, there are at least nine private stem cell research centers across the country. The largest, at Harvard University, employs more than 100 researchers and recently unveiled 17 new stem cell lines.

No, this is really a fight about money, about whether the federal government should fund the research. And, as such, it is a perfect example of how science becomes politicized when government money is involved.

For example, all the political rhetoric may have led people to believe that stem cell research is on the verge of producing a cure for Alzheimer's disease. In reality, stem cell research has produced far more promising results in areas such as Parkinson's disease, muscular dystrophy and spinal injuries. But researchers and other supporters of government funding have attractive advocates in Ron Reagan and his mother, Nancy. If the Reagans care about Alzheimer's research, that's what the media will pay attention to, never mind the science.

This has long been the case with government health care spending. Find a "mediagenic" spokesperson and get him on television and you can get your disease funded. Thus we see an endless stream of television and movie stars trooping to Capitol Hill to testify about scientific and medical issues that they know nothing about.

Opponents of stem cell research are just as disingenuous. Every study of adult stem cells is hailed as a miraculous breakthrough, though most scientists believe that fetal stem cells hold far more promise. Opponents have downplayed or ignored studies that go against their views. Even as Ron Reagan was addressing the Democratic convention, the Family Research Council was issuing a press release highlighting "the failures of embryonic stem cell research." Theirs is ultimately a moral position but they insist on portraying it as a scientific one.

Both sides in this debate have the best of motives. Supporters of fetal stem cell research see it as saving lives and curing horrible diseases. Opponents object to having their tax dollars used for practices that they believe are morally offensive. In the process, both sides end up distorting science.

By its very nature, government politicizes everything it touches. Science is no exception. Stem cell research needs neither government money nor politics. It is better is to get the government out and let the private sector continue its good work. Those people calling for increased funding could take out their checkbooks and support it. Those who oppose embryonic stem cell research would not be forced to pay for it.

The vast majority of medical and scientific breakthroughs in this country's history have been accomplished by the private sector. There's no reason for stem cell research to be any different. Let's end the political debate, and get back to scientific research.

[tsc]

Originally Posted by Bobo

Holding their moral ground as in Bush not supporting it because its viewed as killing a human being based on his religious beliefs compared to the companies who fund candidates to get an amendment passed because in the end they will benefit greaty form the profit if a cure is found. They also get federal funding to find this cure meaning they won't have to spend any money on R&D.

I mean in this scenario, Bush can be seen as limiting research based on his religous values in wihch he has nothing to gain but heavy criticism compared to a company who wants a bill passed for monetary reason masked around the arguement that they "want to find a cure"

.

It is the nature of industry to push their agenda on the government. Almost every large industry has lobbyists, and countless corporations donate to candidates that they feel will support their goals (or easier to payoff.. however you look at it). The stem cell research is not different, so one can't fault them for doing something every other industry pushes for (that is, without faulting every one else). The elected officials are SUPPOSED to represent their constituents, if they fail in this and push something forward for the industry that goes against the people, it is ultimately their fault. You can't really fault someone or group trying for whats best for them, but you can fault the one that makes the vote if he is doing so for the wrong reason.

I find the president's actions in your example much more offensive as he VETOED a bill that made it through the normal process of government. His veto as you say was based on his own personal religious belief. There is a reason why the US is supposed to have separation of church and state, and the presiident should understand this and respect it. If his veto was for instance based on the knowledge that company X basically bought votes and that the passing of the bill does not reflect the people at all, I would be for it. Realistically however, Bush is one of the last people that would ever consider something like that, and numerous bills that were passed over the last several decades should have been vetoed using that logic.

As for funding in general, no good comes out of politics trying to decide what is worth funding and not. Politicians, in general, are idiots that don't have the background and mental capacity to understand the research that is being questioned. The private sector can not fund everything that needs to be researched. In addition with this particular case is that there has to be a check for the private sector. When a new drug or treatment goes up for approval, often public research institutions are called upon to do the testing. Even afterwards, there is still a need for non-biased groups to research safety and other issues down the road. What private sector group that is not involved in the profits of a product is willing to do this?? very few if any, most likely none.

If stem cell research is to be the new wave and truly has awesome potential, there should be a publicly funded aspect to the research as well. The private sector firms do not develope their methods for all to use. These companies will benefit from the publicly funded universities etc., but that is the nature and purpose of such funding. The rate of progress will always be faster when both the private and public sector are involved. While private groups can publish in journals, this doesn't guarantee the published info is complete. IE, the public sector is the most likely to adequate expose all aspects on these projects, including safety, success/failure rates etc.


TSC

[Frank Costanza]

Originally Posted by tsc

It is the nature of industry to push their agenda on the government. Almost every large industry has lobbyists, and countless corporations donate to candidates that they feel will support their goals (or easier to payoff.. however you look at it). The stem cell research is not different, so one can't fault them for doing something every other industry pushes for (that is, without faulting every one else). The elected officials are SUPPOSED to represent their constituents, if they fail in this and push something forward for the industry that goes against the people, it is ultimately their fault. You can't really fault someone or group trying for whats best for them, but you can fault the one that makes the vote if he is doing so for the wrong reason.

I find the president's actions in your example much more offensive as he VETOED a bill that made it through the normal process of government. His veto as you say was based on his own personal religious belief. There is a reason why the US is supposed to have separation of church and state, and the presiident should understand this and respect it. If his veto was for instance based on the knowledge that company X basically bought votes and that the passing of the bill does not reflect the people at all, I would be for it. Realistically however, Bush is one of the last people that would ever consider something like that, and numerous bills that were passed over the last several decades should have been vetoed using that logic.

As for funding in general, no good comes out of politics trying to decide what is worth funding and not. Politicians, in general, are idiots that don't have the background and mental capacity to understand the research that is being questioned. The private sector can not fund everything that needs to be researched. In addition with this particular case is that there has to be a check for the private sector. When a new drug or treatment goes up for approval, often public research institutions are called upon to do the testing. Even afterwards, there is still a need for non-biased groups to research safety and other issues down the road. What private sector group that is not involved in the profits of a product is willing to do this?? very few if any, most likely none.

If stem cell research is to be the new wave and truly has awesome potential, there should be a publicly funded aspect to the research as well. The private sector firms do not develope their methods for all to use. These companies will benefit from the publicly funded universities etc., but that is the nature and purpose of such funding. The rate of progress will always be faster when both the private and public sector are involved. While private groups can publish in journals, this doesn't guarantee the published info is complete. IE, the public sector is the most likely to adequate expose all aspects on these projects, including safety, success/failure rates etc.


TSC

You can argue all you want about the semantics of why you think my decision is wrong but its not going to change anything or change my mind. I already know the points you have made and I still don't know what is right. We can see you don't like Bush. We can see you want embryonic stem cell research. That's fine. Nobody is saying you are wrong.

Bottom line and answer to your question, give me the devil who's agenda I know rather the one who hides it under righteous thoughts.

EDIT: I don't think all politicians are idiots either. That's a bit presumptuous.

[Frank Costanza]

Originally Posted by anabolicrhino

Manipulating people's emotions for anything is offensive. It happens to be the most effective method for achieving political goals. I don't have to look any further than my ex-wife to prove it.

I thought that there was some research on molecular manipulation of adipose tissue(fat) to retrieve stem cells from a less "morally conflicting" source. Perhaps they could create a temporary" phase I type" rule : whereas they would permit the use of "embryonic" tissue until the "fat cell" method evolves to fruition?

There is also some research suggesting that adult stem cell research is much more promising than what was previous thought and in line with embryonic stem cell research in terms of results. I read an article about it a while back but it was very vague. It would seem logical to exhaust the options that wouldn't cause the moral dilemma than to pass bills and federally fund ones that will obviously divide a large part of the population.

..but logic and politics usually don't go hand in hand.

[tsc]

Originally Posted by Bobo

You can argue all you want about the semantics of why you think my decision is wrong but its not going to change anything or change my mind. I already know the points you have made and I still don't know what is right. We can see you don't like Bush. We can see you want embryonic stem cell research. That's fine. Nobody is saying you are wrong.

Bottom line and answer to your question, give me the devil who's agenda I know rather the one who hides it under righteous thoughts.

EDIT: I don't think all politicians are idiots either. That's a bit presumptuous.

I didn't say your decision is wrong. I'm bringing up points I think are valid, some are directed to the points you've brought up, some to the general discussion.

Yes, I don't like Bush. That is not the point though, I would still have major problems with any president using his veto power to promote his religious views (even if I shared the exact same views). That is one issue.

My other concern with this issue is less involved with stem research than with politics getting involved on the research funding decisions. There is a serious lack of understanding and appreciation for basic research and with poor support its funding has decreased. This has shifted the focus of many researchers to go after projects that are more likely to be funded. I don't think politicians are qualified to decide what is worth research or not. and yes, not all are idiots, but the majority regardless of how skilled in their profession they are, are not scientists, nor do they understand the the research. That is why others have always done the decision making in this area.

The stem cell issue is just another case. I'd feel the same if animal rights activists gained more power and had the president and half of congress etc. wanting to end all animal testing. The same aspects of emotional appeal have gone into play here, and would again.

On a side, I do have some issues with stem cell research as well other new technologies on the horizon. I'm getting off work in three minutes so i'll wait to post on that

TSC

[Frank Costanza]

Originally Posted by tsc

I didn't say your decision is wrong. I'm bringing up points I think are valid, some are directed to the points you've brought up, some to the general discussion.

Yes, I don't like Bush. That is not the point though, I would still have major problems with any president using his veto power to promote his religious views (even if I shared the exact same views). That is one issue.

My other concern with this issue is less involved with stem research than with politics getting involved on the research funding decisions. There is a serious lack of understanding and appreciation for basic research and with poor support its funding has decreased. This has shifted the focus of many researchers to go after projects that are more likely to be funded. I don't think politicians are qualified to decide what is worth research or not. and yes, not all are idiots, but the majority regardless of how skilled in their profession they are, are not scientists, nor do they understand the the research. That is why others have always done the decision making in this area.

The stem cell issue is just another case. I'd feel the same if animal rights activists gained more power and had the president and half of congress etc. wanting to end all animal testing. The same aspects of emotional appeal have gone into play here, and would again.

On a side, I do have some issues with stem cell research as well other new technologies on the horizon. I'm getting off work in three minutes so i'll wait to post on that

TSC

I shouldn't have said wrong. It sounded like you were trying to convince me of something but that's besides the point now.


I understand the points being brought up, and have read both sides of the story and I still don't know! This is one of those areas in which you could have several right or wrong answers whenever you bring into the question of the "where does life begin". And for the points about finding research, who benefits, who should make the decision, you will still have that underlying wall of morality, ethics, religion, etc....

The problem that will always exist with embryonic stem cell research is the "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice" argument. Then you have the problem, as you brought up, if the parents are aloud to discard the extras then why are they allowed to sacrifice them for research, much like organ donors (yes its a stretch but applies). So many questions, very few right/wrong answers because morality is subjective.

I actually believe that embryonic stem cell research shouldn't be illegal and further researched but to exploit the disease and emotions of the general public without bringing up the sole reason WHY it hasn't gone forth was irresponsible, especially to benefit someone being elected.

[Nullifidian]

Wow, folks here don't seem to know Parkinson's or the treatments for it.

The swaying seen in the commercial is a direct effect of the medication he takes. The side effect is called Dyskinesia. There is no predicting when it will happen and to what degree just that if he doesn't take his meds it won't happen. Any dose can trigger it. Sometimes it will happen sometimes it won't and sometimes it happens sooner or later after taking the meds. The commercial was shot in one day and they weren't about to delay it because he was shaking.

As for the decision of whether or not to spend federal tax dollars on it, I answer well why are we spending hundreds of billion on a war in a country that is no threat to us? If that money were spent on research for various diseases the world would be a much better place.

The government can accidentally spend more than the private sector can purposefully spend. If people are complaining about private sector using government money to make money then they should just make it so any government funded research projects give the government a hefty chunk of the profits from that research. Basically have the government own the patents and collect licensing fees. That way not only will the government be doing a noble thing for once, it could actually stand to GAIN money in the long run.

[Rivet]

Originally Posted by Markio

Doesn't the medication make you more shakey, for want of a better word? That's why he didn't take it before filming during the last series of Spin City

That's what I tought as well that It was the medication that causes the shakes.

Edit: Sorry Nullifidian I posted this before I saw your reply