Obama's stem cell resolution stopped????? cause.......

[Chazwozel]

Big Pharma doesn't care about cures for cancer because they would be obligated to sell them below cost.

Isn't that just the same sort of cynicism that says the cure for cancer will never be found at all because there's too much money being spent on cancer research?[/QUOTE]


No. The cure for cancer will never be found because it's an individualized disease, and the way medicine works right now is on mass scale universal development. Big Pharma does not do discovery, translational research. That's what hospitals and universities do, based off of NIH and NSF (taxpayer) money. Big Pharma R&D goes into improving methods and protocols, not finding out new things.[/QUOTE]

And is this the same for stem cell research, or is that an entirely different ball of wax?[/QUOTE]

Stem Cell research is only useful for discovery science. Big pharma doesn't do discovery, they don't care about how cells function and develop cancer. They want the results of work with stem cell research so their own R&D can make drugs.

 

[Chibibar]

Stem Cell research is only useful for discovery science. Big pharma doesn't do discovery, they don't care about how cells function and develop cancer. They want the results of work with stem cell research so their own R&D can make drugs.

This mean that it would require Federal funding (or people with DEEP pockets) for discovery science then huh? I know that Stem Cell is a new idea and not "end all be all cure" but it "could" be a cure of something but we are going to need a ton of scientist and money to do all that discovery. right?

 

[Necronic]

Basically yeah, we will need a lot of resources. But then that begs the question, why Stem Cells? There are tons of research paths that, if they were given a heavy focus by the goverhment could realistically see market. My personal horse was Carbon Nanotubes, which have cancer fighting potential as well as being able to build the Space Elevator, but more realistically you have things like genetic/retroviral therapy, which also have tons of uses.

Of course we could just let our research lapse for a while and expand our esionage spend rates, and then, when another nation gets it, we can steal it from them and then sell it to all the other nations. We can then use that gold to rush battleships. Then we conquer everyone.

 

[SpecialKO]

Of course we could just let our research lapse for a while and expand our esionage spend rates, and then, when another nation gets it, we can steal it from them and then sell it to all the other nations. We can then use that gold to rush battleships. Then we conquer everyone.

I'm very uninformed about the pharma industry, but I'm repping you just for this addition.

 

[strawman]

Basically there is little incentive for companies to do the research.

So your entire line of reasoning is, "It is unprofitable to develop stem cell cures, therefore the government should throw billions of dollars at it." ?!?

So much for small government.

The funny thing is that NIH funded research often results in patents held by companies that stand to make millions from the patent.

So, in essence, people are insisting on gov't funding that results in the morally dubious destruction of embryos so that private companies can profit.

Awesome.

Because, you know, the gov't spent billions on cold fusion research just a decade or two ago, and, well, the results of that are astonishing to say the least. They proved cold fusion was possible, and it's a miracle energy source. But they still haven't been able to put it to any practical use.

Even if there was no ethical problem with embryonic stem cell research, I wouldn't want the gov't spending tons on it anyway. Spend some, yes, but a dollar you put into stem cell research is a dollar taken from one of the thousands of other research programs studying other ways to resolve heart disease, asthma, diabetes, cancer, etc. And it's a dollar taken from taxpayer's pockets to play a gambling game where they will rarely hit the jackpot, and when they do someone else gets the prize. This is a zero sum game. There are good reasons for public works, but there must necessarily be a line.

I'll say it again - people are complaining about a minor federal funding restriction that affects a small portion of the whole of stem cell research.

The reality is that if an embryonic stem cell derived cure was possible, it would be provable using animal models (using their embryonic stem cells, for which there is no restriction) and provable using the existing lines of embryonic stem cells (which have problems, sure, but it would work). Once a researcher can prove their cure to breast cancer using animal models and existing stem cell lines, guess what? Private money will come rolling in.

And they can use all the gov't money they want getting to that phase.

But they aren't even close on any front, and this is after nearly a decade of research.

They are making progress, and things still look promising, and some hot shot researchers have actually performed significant clinical trials with various stem cell therapies.

But the reality is that new lines of embryonic stem cells are not required to prove any basic, fundamental ability of any given stem cell therapy.

 

[Necronic]

Because, you know, the gov't spent billions on cold fusion research just a decade or two ago, and, well, the results of that are astonishing to say the least. They proved cold fusion was possible, and it's a miracle energy source. But they still haven't been able to put it to any practical use.

Uhhhhhmmmmmm. No. No. No. No. No. Cold fusion is about as real as polywater and N-rays.

 

[Chazwozel]

Because, you know, the gov't spent billions on cold fusion research just a decade or two ago, and, well, the results of that are astonishing to say the least. They proved cold fusion was possible, and it's a miracle energy source. But they still haven't been able to put it to any practical use.

Uhhhhhmmmmmm. No. No. No. No. No. Cold fusion is about as real as polywater and N-rays.

I was about to say... isn't cold fusion one of the chief examples of pseudo-science?

 

[Necronic]

Technically its a "pathological" science because it came around due to bad experimental practice, but as soon as it was debunked it was dropped. Pseudosciences have no real pretenses at being sciences in the first place, and stick around regardless of how many times it is debunked. I guess there's a bit of a fuzzy line there.

 

[Krisken]

Intelligent Design.

 

[Chazwozel]

Intelligent Design.

The bane of my existence!

 

[Chibibar]

Intelligent Design.

The bane of my existence![/QUOTE]

ID doesn't exist to me.

 

[Chazwozel]

Basically there is little incentive for companies to do the research.

So your entire line of reasoning is, "It is unprofitable to develop stem cell cures, therefore the government should throw billions of dollars at it." ?!?

So much for small government.

The funny thing is that NIH funded research often results in patents held by companies that stand to make millions from the patent.

So, in essence, people are insisting on gov't funding that results in the morally dubious destruction of embryos so that private companies can profit.

Awesome.

Because, you know, the gov't spent billions on cold fusion research just a decade or two ago, and, well, the results of that are astonishing to say the least. They proved cold fusion was possible, and it's a miracle energy source. But they still haven't been able to put it to any practical use.

Even if there was no ethical problem with embryonic stem cell research, I wouldn't want the gov't spending tons on it anyway. Spend some, yes, but a dollar you put into stem cell research is a dollar taken from one of the thousands of other research programs studying other ways to resolve heart disease, asthma, diabetes, cancer, etc. And it's a dollar taken from taxpayer's pockets to play a gambling game where they will rarely hit the jackpot, and when they do someone else gets the prize. This is a zero sum game. There are good reasons for public works, but there must necessarily be a line.

I'll say it again - people are complaining about a minor federal funding restriction that affects a small portion of the whole of stem cell research.

The reality is that if an embryonic stem cell derived cure was possible, it would be provable using animal models (using their embryonic stem cells, for which there is no restriction) and provable using the existing lines of embryonic stem cells (which have problems, sure, but it would work). Once a researcher can prove their cure to breast cancer using animal models and existing stem cell lines, guess what? Private money will come rolling in.

And they can use all the gov't money they want getting to that phase.

But they aren't even close on any front, and this is after nearly a decade of research.

They are making progress, and things still look promising, and some hot shot researchers have actually performed significant clinical trials with various stem cell therapies.

But the reality is that new lines of embryonic stem cells are not required to prove any basic, fundamental ability of any given stem cell therapy.[/QUOTE]

Steiny, I love ya, but if you think the only use ES cells have are towards looking for a one-shot, be-all cure for cancer you've got some major reading to do on the topic. And NO animal model is ever, ever, ever going to be as useful as an ES derived model.

 

[Necronic]

Intelligent Design.

The bane of my existence![/QUOTE]

ID doesn't exist to me.[/QUOTE]

Getting totally off topic, or sort of off topic (why not) I'm going to throw a bone in this whole conversation (because its a bit unexpected) by saying....

I believe in intelligent design.

....

sort of.

See, I think evolution is one of the most beautful systems in the universe, like molecular bonding. Its so beautiful, in fact, that to me it is something to be revered. It is something that has a level of perfection beyond what a human can truly understand. So, evolution is, in its own way, vague evidence of the possibility (the possibility) of a god thing.

Now the question is, how do we kill it.

 

[crono1224]

What about changes that don't stick around because they are useless or don't really benefit the species? I think it is more of a trial and error process until the adaption that best suits the situation continues on, hardly perfection .

 

[SpecialKO]

Now the question is, how do we kill it.

Does it bleed?

 

[Necronic]

Now the question is, how do we kill it.

Does it bleed?[/QUOTE]

It only bleeds hatred.

 

[SpecialKO]

Now the question is, how do we kill it.

Does it bleed?[/QUOTE]

It only bleeds hatred.[/QUOTE]

 

[Eriol]

And NO animal model is ever, ever, ever going to be as useful as an ES derived model.

The point was they can't do it with animal embryonic stem cells, despite "free reign" and so why do they want to go to humans so fast? In a way, it's bypassing animal models entirely, which usually isn't good science.

 

[Chazwozel]

And NO animal model is ever, ever, ever going to be as useful as an ES derived model.

The point was they can't do it with animal embryonic stem cells, despite "free reign" and so why do they want to go to humans so fast? In a way, it's bypassing animal models entirely, which usually isn't good science.[/QUOTE]

Mouse ES cells turn into mouse cells; not human. Good science involves using models that model what is actually happening, but believe me there is hardly any "bypassing" of animal models. There are tons of animal models for tons of studies. Who's "they" by the way?

There are a number of things you can model using mouse cell lines, but not as well as with human lines for human disorders. Fuck mouse cell lines, we can make transgenic mice! Why bother with mouse ES cells when you can model a disease in the actual mouse?!

Human lines are much more useful because models derived from human lines are very accurate to human conditions. Say I want to study a gene and its subsequent activation pathways and protein signaling, a human model using human derived cells is far more effective than using mouse cells. The reason Human ES cells are so useful is because you can manipulate them into differentiating into cells that are difficult to harvest for cell culture. For example, there are models of cystic fibrosis in mice, but a human cultured ES line modified as a model for cystic fibrosis would be much, much, much, much more beneficial for research. You can't make a knockout human, but you can make gene knockout ES cells.

I'm not even scratching the surface on how useful these cells are for research. Imagine doctors taking a small sample of ES cells before a person is born, without damaging the embryo, and storing those cells. Need a liver transplant when you're 40? Just take those cells out of storage, grow them up with the right genes being activated and presto, here's your new liver. Donor rejection free.

Any bullshit that you hear about ES cells not being useful or that there are "feasible" alternatives is just that: bullshit from the pro-life propaganda machine. ES cells essentially let you do research and manipulation on human cells that would be completely unethical otherwise. If someone's going to abort an embryo, why not make use of it?

 

[Eriol]

I'm not even scratching the surface on how useful these cells are for research. Imagine doctors taking a small sample of ES cells before a person is born, without damaging the embryo, and storing those cells. Need a liver transplant when you're 40? Just take those cells out of storage, grow them up with the right genes being activated and presto, here's your new liver. Donor rejection free.

That's the promise of ADULT stem cells since high-90s percentage of CURRENT people do NOT have cells (or cord blood) stored away for that future date. If they can make Adult stem cells fully totipotent, then that idea will work for all of us, not just the insanely-lucky who have them stored away.

And besides, where's the MOUSE they've done that with? The lifecycle is SO short that it's easy to experiment on them. But they can't do that with ANY type of stem cell yet (short of amphibians, I THINK), and definitely not mammalian. When they get it working in the lab for ANY mammal, then maybe people would have a point about "it is probably worth the cost" but right now? No way. Avoid the ethical quagmire until the animal models even look PROMISING. They're not even close yet. They are basically at "we know how to draw blood!" but getting funding on "we will be able to do heart transplants... maybe... someday!"

 

[Chibibar]

I'm gonna take a stab on this (forgive me Chaz) but I feel that some studies on the genetic level it is better to start with the same species genes. Sure we can get results from animal ES, but I don't know how well the result will transfer to human ES (i.e. this happen in mice ES cells, will it happen the SAME way in human ES cells?) The genetic level of anything is so complex we just recently got the full genetic map of human and apple. (yea I read an article about Washington apple genetic code map)

Am I way off Chaz?

 

[Chazwozel]

I'm not even scratching the surface on how useful these cells are for research. Imagine doctors taking a small sample of ES cells before a person is born, without damaging the embryo, and storing those cells. Need a liver transplant when you're 40? Just take those cells out of storage, grow them up with the right genes being activated and presto, here's your new liver. Donor rejection free.

That's the promise of ADULT stem cells since high-90s percentage of CURRENT people do NOT have cells (or cord blood) stored away for that future date. If they can make Adult stem cells fully totipotent, then that idea will work for all of us, not just the insanely-lucky who have them stored away.

And besides, where's the MOUSE they've done that with? The lifecycle is SO short that it's easy to experiment on them. But they can't do that with ANY type of stem cell yet (short of amphibians, I THINK), and definitely not mammalian. When they get it working in the lab for ANY mammal, then maybe people would have a point about "it is probably worth the cost" but right now? No way. Avoid the ethical quagmire until the animal models even look PROMISING. They're not even close yet. They are basically at "we know how to draw blood!" but getting funding on "we will be able to do heart transplants... maybe... someday!"[/QUOTE]

I'll just leave this here...

http://ntp.neuroscience.wisc.edu/neuro670/reqreading/transplanted.pdf
Efficient generation of midbrain and hindbrain neurons from mouse embryonic stem cells : Abstract : Nature Biotechnology
Cell - The Homeoprotein Nanog Is Required for Maintenance of Pluripotency in Mouse Epiblast and ES Cells
Embryoid-body cells derived from a mouse embryonic stem cell line show differentiation into functional hepatocytes - Chinzei - 2003 - Hepatology - Wiley Online Library
Mouse embryonic stem cells and reporter constructs to detect developmentally regulated genes -- Gossler et al. 244 (4903): 463 -- Science
De novo DNA cytosine methyltransferase activities in mouse embryonic stem cells
Pluripotent mouse embryonic stem cells are able to differentiate into cardiomyocytes expressing chronotropic responses to adrenergic and cholinergic agents and Ca2+ channel blockers - Wobus - 2006 - Differentiation - Wiley Online Library
Elsevier: Article Locator

These are just a few papers I scored by searching Mouse ES cell in pubmed, there were over 30,000 search results... Yeah, we have awesome knowledge of how mouse cells work; imagine if we were using human derived ES cells. The models are directly relevant to human biology.

 

[Krisken]

Google WIN, ^^^^

 

[Chazwozel]

Google WIN, ^^^^

I could go on....

For the record, there have been tons of studies using transgenic mice and mouse ES cells to graft tissues etc... It's so common to "make" a disease modeled knockout mouse in research that it's barely worth mentioning as a "new technology". Mice are incredibly valuable for research. I've read papers where tumors are grafted onto mice and all sorts of wacky stuff like that.

Just to drive the point home, yes, there are TONS of groups out there using mouse cells and mice and other animal models and bacteria and human derived primary cells and human cancerous lines. Human ES cells are a direct look into ANY tissue you want to study, and a DIRECT model of what happens EXACTLY as it happens in human cells. EXACTLY. The cell signaling pathways, the proteins, the genes, everything is directly homologous to what is going on in a human cell because they ARE human cells! You can model a signaling pathway in monkey cells all you want, they will never be as accurate as using the direct human lines. It's much easier (and faster) to make the tissue you're studying in culture rather than primary harvesting of limited access tissues. For example, a lot of human cell culture tissues are cancerous cell lines. Why? Because cancerous cells grow like crazy and they're immortalized. Primary healthy lines have a limited dividing time before they just stop dividing. This is one reason it's thought that things get old and die. ES cells are immortal AND they can make any cell in your body.

I'm sorry, but every single anti- ES cell argument I've heard that tries to reason that there is no good scientific reason to use human ES cells is complete bullshit, hearsay propaganda by the Pro-Life front. The ONLY ONLY ONLY reason not to use Human ES cells for research is the moral dilemma of destroying fertilized human embryos to harvest them. My argument is that specifically (or even spontaneously) aborted embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, why not make them useful?

 

[Dubyamn]

That's the promise of ADULT stem cells since high-90s percentage of CURRENT people do NOT have cells (or cord blood) stored away for that future date. If they can make Adult stem cells fully totipotent, then that idea will work for all of us, not just the insanely-lucky who have them stored away.

So in 4+ years when we are able to turn adult stem cells then we're supposed to start getting serious with stem cell research? You actually support holding back a huge scientific breakthrough years to decades because of the ethical concerns?

We are able to pursue embryonic stem cell research now in parallel with attempt to make adult stem cells just as pluripotent and in the future the techniques that are discovered in stem cells can be used with the pluripotent Adult cells. But you don't hold back promising research because there may be a breakthrough years down the line. It's bullshit logic and it's bullshit science.

 

[strawman]

The ONLY ONLY ONLY reason not to use Human ES cells for research is the moral dilemma of destroying fertilized human embryos to harvest them. My argument is that specifically (or even spontaneously) aborted embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, why not make them useful?

It's the same moral dilemma of the research that came out of the concentration camps.

Just because the holocaust happened doesn't necessarily mean that it's morally right to use the research the nazis gained by torturing people.

The moral dilemma does not go away simply because the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway.

Do you agree that simply because death row inmates in china are going to die anyway, it's ok to use them for whatever purposes the regime deems them useful for?

At the end of the day the ethical and moral question still remains, and a lot of people don't want to see their taxes going to fund something they feel is morally wrong.

 

[Chazwozel]

The ONLY ONLY ONLY reason not to use Human ES cells for research is the moral dilemma of destroying fertilized human embryos to harvest them. My argument is that specifically (or even spontaneously) aborted embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, why not make them useful?

It's the same moral dilemma of the research that came out of the concentration camps.

Just because the holocaust happened doesn't necessarily mean that it's morally right to use the research the nazis gained by torturing people.

The moral dilemma does not go away simply because the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway.

Do you agree that simply because death row inmates in china are going to die anyway, it's ok to use them for whatever purposes the regime deems them useful for?

At the end of the day the ethical and moral question still remains, and a lot of people don't want to see their taxes going to fund something they feel is morally wrong.[/QUOTE]

Sorry to break it to you bud, but they're just a lump of cells with no conscious thought. Harvesting embryos is not like murdering Jews. We're not dunking babies into ice cold water here...

A lot of people are misinformed about how useful these cells are because of the Pro-Lifers pushing their agenda. At the end of the day would you rather destroy an unwanted lump of cells, or save a person's life from a genetic disease?

 

[Chazwozel]

no the difference is that those fetuses were going to die for nothing anyway. Please do not cheapen the torture that those fully grown human beings went through by comparing it to an unborn fetus thats conciousness is debateable..

Now if your saying we shouldnt harvest the unborn babies of pregnant women for the sole sake of research thats shakey ground.

I don't think anyone would ever agree to that.

 

[strawman]

Sorry to break it to you bud, but they're just a lump of cells with no conscious thought

And yet there are many people that disagree with you. You insist you are right, and you believe that people who disagree for religious reasons are wrong.

It may not be on the same scale as other moral and ethical debates, but you can't say that there are absolutely no moral or ethical problems with it.

 

[Chazwozel]

Sorry to break it to you bud, but they're just a lump of cells with no conscious thought

And yet there are many people that disagree with you. You insist you are right, and you believe that people who disagree for religious reasons are wrong.

It may not be on the same scale as other moral and ethical debates, but you can't say that there are absolutely no moral or ethical problems with it.[/QUOTE]

Religion holds up human progress, news at 11.

This is what I'm after:

Not a human yet.

 

[strawman]

So, essentially, your response is, "Screw you and your religious beliefs. Your tax money should be used to destroy embryos for science." ?

 

[strawman]

So, essentially, your response is, "Screw you and your (overly emotional, superstitouse and illogical,) beliefs. Your tax money should be used to destroy embryos for science." ?

I would say that your beliefs make the mistake of thinking that unborn embryo = human. I'm still pissed that you would think that the pain and suffering endured by living people is the same as using a rejected, aborted, embryo. It is disgusting that you would make the comparison. Seriously, shame on you.[/QUOTE]

Nice way to polarize the discussion.

I was pointing out that moral and ethical dilemmas exist even though the final outcome has already occurred, or is a foregone conclusion. I was in no way trying to equate the two.

Chaz's point is simple - the embryo is going to be destroyed, therefore there should be no ethical dilemma - one type of destruction is the same as any other type of destruction.

I'm simply pointing out that there is still an ethical dilemma for many people, and to deny them their belief and their vote is closed-minded.

 

[tegid]

I have to agree with Chaz and Hun here. I understand the moral problem of abortion, but if the embryo is going to die anyway, why not use its death for something useful? I doesn't have a conscience, it won't suffer.
That's not debatable, people can believe what they want but this particular point (conscience and suffering) is in the realm of science and has a clear answer.

 

[Chazwozel]

So, essentially, your response is, "Screw you and your (overly emotional, superstitouse and illogical,) beliefs. Your tax money should be used to destroy embryos for science." ?

I would say that your beliefs make the mistake of thinking that unborn embryo = human. I'm still pissed that you would think that the pain and suffering endured by living people is the same as using a rejected, aborted, embryo. It is disgusting that you would make the comparison. Seriously, shame on you.[/QUOTE]

Nice way to polarize the discussion.

I was pointing out that moral and ethical dilemmas exist even though the final outcome has already occurred, or is a foregone conclusion. I was in no way trying to equate the two.

Chaz's point is simple - the embryo is going to be destroyed, therefore there should be no ethical dilemma - one type of destruction is the same as any other type of destruction.

I'm simply pointing out that there is still an ethical dilemma for many people, and to deny them their belief and their vote is closed-minded.[/QUOTE]

No more closed-minded then those same people believing that a lump of cells is a human being.

 

[Eriol]

No more closed-minded then those same people believing that a lump of cells is a human being.

Show me when it becomes one in a non-contestable BIOLOGICAL fashion. Hint: viability is NOT one, as that varies depending on the technology of the country. Conception IS a biologically distinct point.