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

Status
Not open for further replies.
That article is pretty severely lacking any kind of pertinent detail.

Any of our docs or soon-to-be docs weigh in?
 
C

Chibibar

Court Halts Federal Funding Embryonic Stem Cell Research | TPMDC

new article.
this sentence worries me
Bloomberg reported last fall that the pro-life groups who brought the lawsuit, including an embryo-adoption agency and the Christian Medical Association, were told by the same judge their case didn't have standing.
"Embryos lack standing because they are not persons under the law" and the unborn have no right to life protected under the Constitution's 14th Amendment, Lamberth ruled, Bloomberg reported.

I don't think I'm taking it out of context, but I am hoping these people are NOT going to try to make embryo to have protection of the Constitution (in this case 14th amendment) which can get scary.
 
Honestly, it doesn't matter. We already have methods of getting stem cells from blood, as well as means to cultivate said cells into sufficient quantities for treatments. It's already being done in other parts of the world... there are even companies in the US that will help you set up the process if you want to use stem cells for treatment. It usually goes like...

- You go to the company and get approved for the treatment. They take your blood.
- Your blood is sent to Israel, where labs will separate out the stem cells. They then cultivate the stem cells into the required amount.
- The stem cell culture is sent to a hospital in another part of the world (can't remember where), where you fly out and get the procedure done.

It's actually pretty straight forward. All that needs to be done right now is for it to get through the FDA... and for sufficient studies to be done to see if Stem Cells can actually DO what we think they can.
 
Honestly, it doesn't matter. We already have methods of getting stem cells from blood, as well as means to cultivate said cells into sufficient quantities for treatments. It's already being done in other parts of the world... there are even companies in the US that will help you set up the process if you want to use stem cells for treatment. It usually goes like...

- You go to the company and get approved for the treatment. They take your blood.
- Your blood is sent to Israel, where labs will separate out the stem cells. They then cultivate the stem cells into the required amount.
- The stem cell culture is sent to a hospital in another part of the world (can't remember where), where you fly out and get the procedure done.

It's actually pretty straight forward. All that needs to be done right now is for it to get through the FDA... and for sufficient studies to be done to see if Stem Cells can actually DO what we think they can.
Pluripotent adult stem cells are not as effective as embryonic stem cells. For instance, they can be affected by the method used to turn an adult cell into a stem cell (which is what you are talking about) and this hasn't been perfected yet to a level that can effectively be used to clone tissue and use in therapy.
 
Honestly, it doesn't matter. We already have methods of getting stem cells from blood, as well as means to cultivate said cells into sufficient quantities for treatments. It's already being done in other parts of the world... there are even companies in the US that will help you set up the process if you want to use stem cells for treatment. It usually goes like...

- You go to the company and get approved for the treatment. They take your blood.
- Your blood is sent to Israel, where labs will separate out the stem cells. They then cultivate the stem cells into the required amount.
- The stem cell culture is sent to a hospital in another part of the world (can't remember where), where you fly out and get the procedure done.

It's actually pretty straight forward. All that needs to be done right now is for it to get through the FDA... and for sufficient studies to be done to see if Stem Cells can actually DO what we think they can.
Pluripotent adult stem cells are not as effective as embryonic stem cells. For instance, they can be affected by the method used to turn an adult cell into a stem cell (which is what you are talking about) and this hasn't been perfected yet to a level that can effectively be used to clone tissue and use in therapy.[/QUOTE]

It IS being used in therapies in some... less than reputable locations (mainly because nowhere else is willing to touch the issue).
 
This only affects research organizations and companies that use federal funding to perform embryonic stem cell research.

Anyone can perform any kind of stem cell research with private funding*.

There are some ethical problems many (not most) people in the US have with this type of research, and they've voted in politicians that every year vote to pass the amendment in congress that prevents federal funding from going to research that destroys embryos.

The federal judge has simply affirmed that congress, who has power over the budget, has control in this situation, and that the executive branch can write all the executive orders it wants, but it won't affect how federal funds are spent for this type of program.

This is simply a big paper-rock-scissors war between the three branches (executive, legislative, and judicial) and at the moment the judicial branch is supporting the orders of the legislative branch (congress) in defiance of the executive branch (president), primarily because it concerns federal funding, and this type of funding is clearly under the control of the legislative branch. It is their responsibility.

This is one of the areas the President is free to pander to the masses about. He can claim that he'll take the bull by the horns and get something done, and he'll take the credit when things go well, and blame someone else when things don't go well, and no matter what happens it will only reflect positively on him.

If people want federal funding for programs which destroy fertilized human eggs, they need to bother congress, who holds the purse strings, not the president.

-Adam

* Yes, there is a tangled web of financial issues that make it difficult for research institutions to work outside federal law even if they aren't accepting federal funding, but if they want to do so and they have the private funds they can make it happen.
 
Stopped? Cause my supply was getting low and I was hungry. I'm tired of sharing my embryos with America. Go get yours from China like I had to during this bullshit testing phase I had to endure.
 
C

Chazwozel

Honestly, it doesn't matter. We already have methods of getting stem cells from blood, as well as means to cultivate said cells into sufficient quantities for treatments. It's already being done in other parts of the world... there are even companies in the US that will help you set up the process if you want to use stem cells for treatment. It usually goes like...

- You go to the company and get approved for the treatment. They take your blood.
- Your blood is sent to Israel, where labs will separate out the stem cells. They then cultivate the stem cells into the required amount.
- The stem cell culture is sent to a hospital in another part of the world (can't remember where), where you fly out and get the procedure done.

It's actually pretty straight forward. All that needs to be done right now is for it to get through the FDA... and for sufficient studies to be done to see if Stem Cells can actually DO what we think they can.

:facepalm: Just stop...
 
Honestly, it doesn't matter. We already have methods of getting stem cells from blood, as well as means to cultivate said cells into sufficient quantities for treatments. It's already being done in other parts of the world... there are even companies in the US that will help you set up the process if you want to use stem cells for treatment. It usually goes like...

- You go to the company and get approved for the treatment. They take your blood.
- Your blood is sent to Israel, where labs will separate out the stem cells. They then cultivate the stem cells into the required amount.
- The stem cell culture is sent to a hospital in another part of the world (can't remember where), where you fly out and get the procedure done.

It's actually pretty straight forward. All that needs to be done right now is for it to get through the FDA... and for sufficient studies to be done to see if Stem Cells can actually DO what we think they can.
Pluripotent adult stem cells are not as effective as embryonic stem cells. For instance, they can be affected by the method used to turn an adult cell into a stem cell (which is what you are talking about) and this hasn't been perfected yet to a level that can effectively be used to clone tissue and use in therapy.[/QUOTE]


A-yup yup. I'm all in favour of using pluripotent adult stem cells of and when they're completely able to replace embryonic stem cells. I'm pretty sure we'll be able to get that far, eventually. Given the choice, yeah, I would prefer using stem cells from adults who survive with some minor discomfort over those that have to destroy embryos...But I also think that, until that research is perfected enough to make this happen, it would be ridiculous not to use embryonic stem cells.
 
Given the choice, yeah, I would prefer using stem cells from adults who survive with some minor discomfort over those that have to destroy embryos...But I also think that, until that research is perfected enough to make this happen, it would be ridiculous not to use embryonic stem cells.
Why not just use those from embryos that would get destroyed anyway... there's bound to be plenty anyhow.
 
Damned Activist Judges.
I'm very against activist judges, but that NYTimes article above made it really clear what happened:

  • Law in (whatever year) said "no federal funding for research which destroys embryos except the pre-2001 lines."
  • Obama comes out last year and signs an executive order saying "money for all for whatever for embryonic research!"
  • Judge recently says "Uh, you can't contravene a LAW with an executive order."
That's about it. One of the more straightforward judicial decisions I've heard of. He basically said "if you don't like the law, pass another one, you can't just use an executive order."

If it wasn't already a law either way, this would be different.
 
Damned Activist Judges.
I'm very against activist judges, but that NYTimes article above made it really clear what happened:

  • Law in (whatever year) said "no federal funding for research which destroys embryos except the pre-2001 lines."
  • Obama comes out last year and signs an executive order saying "money for all for whatever for embryonic research!"
  • Judge recently says "Uh, you can't contravene a LAW with an executive order."
That's about it. One of the more straightforward judicial decisions I've heard of. He basically said "if you don't like the law, pass another one, you can't just use an executive order."

If it wasn't already a law either way, this would be different.[/QUOTE]

It was a joke about how the term "activist judge" has no real meaning except "judge who makes a decision I don't like," and it's usually conservatives who say it. Dave wasn't actually calling the judge activist.
 
C

Chibibar

Given the choice, yeah, I would prefer using stem cells from adults who survive with some minor discomfort over those that have to destroy embryos...But I also think that, until that research is perfected enough to make this happen, it would be ridiculous not to use embryonic stem cells.
Why not just use those from embryos that would get destroyed anyway... there's bound to be plenty anyhow.[/QUOTE]

The Pro-life don't care. They don't want any abortions at all or discarded embryos.

But I wonder how far would some of these people would hold on to that belief. I am not saying that stem cells will be "end all be all miracle cure" but what if other countries go ahead with their things and figure out a solid plan to recreate human organs from embryonic stem cell research (other countries are not restricted like the U.S.) would these people just wanted to die or they are willing to get that heart transplant, liver, etc etc.
 
It was a joke about how the term "activist judge" has no real meaning except "judge who makes a decision I don't like," and it's usually conservatives who say it.
Actually the term "Conservative activist judge" beats "Liberal activist judge" by a small margin. I'd call it pretty even, but you certainly can't claim it's a mostly a conservative complaint.[/QUOTE]

I apologize. I've personally never heard anyone complain about a Conservative activist judge. I still think it's a stupid term, no matter who is saying it.
 
of course the way that google works, conservative activist judge is not the term on the page, it is just that those 3 words are on the same document.

i.e. The conservative candidate railed about activist judges for 30 minutes on a campaign stop....
 
It was a joke about how the term "activist judge" has no real meaning except "judge who makes a decision I don't like," and it's usually conservatives who say it.
Actually the term "Conservative activist judge" beats "Liberal activist judge" by a small margin. [/QUOTE]

This can't be true. Sounds like another right wing conspiracy.[/QUOTE]

The right wingers are all up in your shizzle.

Dog.

---------- Post added at 09:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 PM ----------

of course the way that google works, conservative activist judge is not the term on the page, it is just that those 3 words are on the same document.

i.e. The conservative candidate railed about activist judges for 30 minutes on a campaign stop....
Even with quotes it's still pretty even.

Not that it really matters - we're arguing about who complains the most. Not exactly a productive topic...
 

Necronic

Staff member
If you think private funding will do any significant work in funding stem cell research you are sadly mistaken. As it stands, private funding for 'discovery' oriented sciences is very small, particularly in the pharmaceutical realm. This is because the profit potential of true discovery isn't nearly worth the risk of failure or cost, especially when compared to the easy money nature of things like modifying delivery systems or simply rebranding. Basically there is little incentive for companies to do the research.

And that's with pharmaceuticals. Stem cell research is the same problem but worse. If we realistically want to see stem cells being used in a medical setting (and maybe we don't) we have to have serious federal funding for it. Even charitable foundations can't really bring enough to the party to do much of anything. A handful of pieces of lab equipment can run into the millions quite easily.

Personally I don't know where I stand on the issue. I have moral objections to it, and I would like to see the alternate routes to generating stem cells being more heavily researched. However, as a utilitarian I also see that that route will set us back at least a decade, if not more. On the other hand, staying in the route we are now means that we will constantly see a start/stop nature of the funding as the political flux shifts one way or another, and that's not a good way to do research.

so.......
 

GasBandit

Staff member
As it stands, private funding for 'discovery' oriented sciences is very small, particularly in the pharmaceutical realm.
I'm going to need to see some sources on that, because it runs contrary to everything I've ever heard from anywhere for the last 10+ years. Big Pharma is booming.
 
As it stands, private funding for 'discovery' oriented sciences is very small, particularly in the pharmaceutical realm.
I'm going to need to see some sources on that, because it runs contrary to everything I've ever heard from anywhere for the last 10+ years. Big Pharma is booming.[/QUOTE]

They are doing just fine. CBO report on Pharma R&D spending

They spent roughly 18% of sales revenue in 2004 on Research and Development.
 
Basic research and applied research are very different things... Basic research is what Necronic called 'discovery' research, and although the larger companies do some of that, most cannot afford it, since it's 1- long term 2- very risky
 
It's true, most of the cost of drugs doesn't come from the discovery of the drugs, but in the development and trial testing. Which it says right in that CBO on page 30.

I'm having trouble finding solid numbers spend on discovery alone.

In actuality, apparently small firms are responsible for discovery while the testing is done by larger firms. I know we have a drug clinical testing facility within my city.
 

Necronic

Staff member
I'm including development and testing in the discovery cost. I just found a range of numbers that put the cost of developing and implementing a new drug from discovery to shelf as between 500 mil and 2 bil. Think about that. And that could be how much money you spend on a drug that gets shot down by the FDA in the last round of clinical trials. No company, no matter how big, can look at spending 2 billion dollars and getting nothing back as an easy risk to take. If, however, you are focusing on a delivery system, (like the molecular pump in Concerta or the time release mechanism in Vyvanse) you are looking at spending much much less, and you still get a highly profitable product.

---------- Post added at 02:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 PM ----------

As it stands, private funding for 'discovery' oriented sciences is very small, particularly in the pharmaceutical realm.
I'm going to need to see some sources on that, because it runs contrary to everything I've ever heard from anywhere for the last 10+ years. Big Pharma is booming.[/QUOTE]

They are doing just fine. CBO report on Pharma R&D spending

They spent roughly 18% of sales revenue in 2004 on Research and Development.[/QUOTE]

That is a really good article, and I need to spend some more time reading it. One note I found in there was that the cost of development of a truly new drug has gone up by 6 times since the late 70s (accounts for inflation.)

Part of the reason discovery is so expensive (and it does discuss that there) is that there are far more lengthy clinical trials for a discovery oriented drug than a delivery/incrementally modified drug.
 
C

Chazwozel

As it stands, private funding for 'discovery' oriented sciences is very small, particularly in the pharmaceutical realm.
I'm going to need to see some sources on that, because it runs contrary to everything I've ever heard from anywhere for the last 10+ years. Big Pharma is booming.[/QUOTE]


Big Pharma doesn't care about cures for cancer because they would be obligated to sell them below cost. Big Pharma is booming because everyone takes Tylenol on a daily basis, and you have a billion ads for "PLANTRUMEER *** ask your doctor if PLANTRUMEER*** is right for you."

Discovery science has and always will depend on academia, which gets most of its funding from taxpayers i.e. the NIH. Of course you have private investment companies like the Howard Hughs Institute, but for the most part, NIH and NSF is where academics get funded.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
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?
 
C

Chibibar

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]

Conspiracy Theory: If it is found, then no more money to be made after initial cost of curing. I mean can you imagine all the drugs you need to take when you do have cancer and radiation treatment?
 
Companies don't think long term anymore. I think the reason for this is businesses are not family oriented as they were in the past. Founders are not concerned about a company's legacy or being on solid footing for their next generation. Short term influences stocks and the value of the company.

Now, I can hear people saying "Krisken, what does that have to do with our discussion?" Well, if companies are more concerned with short term gain, wouldn't it be in the best interest of the company to successfully create cures? In the U.S. pharma companies who develop drugs approved by the FDA get exclusivity for X amount of years (I don't remember how many, but I seem to remember it was somewhere around 3-5) in distribution of the product. Also, imagine how many competitors would get hurt by loss of sales because they were developing drugs that dealt with the symptoms and not the disease itself.


One final note- thephrase Cure for cancer is a bullshit term. Lung cancer isn't the same as prostate cancer. It would be like collecting all inflammations under one heading. A cure for one cancer will have little to no effect on another type of cancer.
 
C

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.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top