Printable View
What do you guys think about this?
I support President Bush, but I think this is a bad call. Personally, I'm in favor of stem cell research. I see the point about destroying embryos, but the embryos are currently being thrown away anyway. Why not study them instead of discard them...
I'm with you stray. Why throw them out if they could possibly help somebody with a spinal cord injury walk again someday. I'm undecided on "fetus farming" at this point until it is proven that stem cell research is a very safe and viable means to help people and improve their quality of life.
IMHO, Bad call indeed.
It's a tough issue. My sister-in-law was in an accident at 3 and she's suffered a spinal cord injury that paralyzed her from the armpits down. I think the problem is the potential for fetus farming. The two groups on this issue need to get together to insure that we don't refuse to use cells on an ethical principle if the cells are going to be thown away. Like I said, it's a tough issue that could seriously use some common sense...too bad the decision has to come from Washington. Common sense isn't exactly in abundance up there.
I think he did the right thing. However, I'm not real strong on this issue.
But here's my issue... I've long said that stem cell research is on the clock. They have made huge promises about what can be done with stem cell research. Popular Science made projections about letting the blind see and the lame walk as early as this year or the next.
since that time, we have found out that this idea was very undeveloped. President Bush's original stance was that he would give a certain number of stem cell lines which could be used to determine the possibilities of stem cell research. We found that stem cells can be harvested from a variety of sources. May I also introduce that the most significant advancement of organ growing was not with stem cell research, but through growing from cells from that organ. In fact, this research is better since it reduces the chances of the body rejecting the organ.
Bottom line, President Bush said this with his veto...
He went against his base to provide scientists the opportunity to pursue this research. He paid a price to allow it. In the years since then, he has gotten jack squat. To quote him: "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." To quote Jerry McGuire: "Show me the money."
I don't believe federal dollar one should be spent on such research. I'm in favor of the veto. Yes, there are hard issues here and I don't have someone waiting for life saving or improvement because of this research, but I don't believe we can/should do whatever we want to get the results we want. I gas I don't believe pragmatism is always ok. The ends do not always justify the means. If we devalue life we are devaluing life - period. I think that's one of the problems with some of these Muslim terrorists - they just don't value life. So much of life is made up of slow changes in tolerance for things - its a very slippery slope.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
What do I think about this? Just another example of why our President is an idiot. But of course, that is just my opinion.
I think this has been dicussed before, but if stem cell research was so promising, why hasnt a private firm taken up research on it? Is it illegal?
There are many private firms working on stem cell research at this time. The most positive research has to be from John Hopkins, however, as they have used stem cells to help give lab rats back mobility (albeit limited). I'll provide a link in my next post that provides some info. on stem cell research and it's benefits/drawbacks.
So, then why does the federal government need to get involved in this? Number one, they will not be as efficient as private labs because private labs are wanting to earn a buck on it. Number 2, private labs probably have the resources to get the better scientists. So, I will ask again, why do taxpayers need to fund this, if it is already being funded elsewhere by people with plenty of motivation to do so?Quote:
Originally Posted by marketdawg
DB-I thought you werent in to government waste.
I agree on the need for ethics oversight by govt. but still think the benefits of future stem cell research may be too great to snub it now. As far as spending govt. dollars on research I believe that private firms should take the initiative as most great discoveries in medicine happened without huge govt. spending. The financial benefits from creating one wonder cure for a phar. co. is all they need to spur research.
Yep. This was all about funding when the funding is there anyway.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...607200322/1008
I am. This isn't govt. waste. Reasonable spending for the good of mankind with the possiblity of creating medical discoveries that could expand our economy along with lessening the burden of high medical insurance, is always good spending. One of the better bills that Clinton signed into law was the Americans with Disabilities Act. This was a humane bill that created jobs throughout the economic sector and in every community in the US and wasn't some 250 million dollar bridge to nowhere in Alaska where only a few contractors will benefit.
Bush needs to learn to reign in on his constituents pork spending habits instead of trying to appease the too far to the right wing evangelical vote.
Why go buy a 12 pack when someone is supplying the keg for free? If private firms are diong the job, why should the government waste time and money? Because that is what they would be doing. Marketdawg already told us of all of the private firms that are taking the risks for the big reward. Why should the the government buy the cow when they can get the milk for free? Better milk at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Two truths: (1) What the federal government touches, they almost always screw up. (2) Governmental spending at the federal level is out of control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Thus, stem cell research should not be funded by the federal government. We can't afford it and we will screw it up if the fed's get involved.
The problem is, those reasons were not GB's the reasons for not funding stem cell research. He did it on moral grounds. I may agree with that as well, but he could have kept the high road and cut it because we can't afford it. But the problem with that is, he would have to admit a zillion other things have to be cut as well.
I hate politics. Throw all of the bums out.
All true, if you are giong to attack something, attack Bush's real reasons behind it, not that it is a good policy. I could understand if the government was the only one willing to take the risk, but even then, I would have to question the potential of the product. Right now, as it stands, private firms are working hard on stem cell research. Why should the government waste time and money? you know they wont be as efficient in either category, so why DB? The public should not have to carry this burden, especially when the private sector is already committed to it. Anytime the government tries to get in on something good, it usually ends up being a debacle (see government housing, SS, or food stamps). I am with Sooner, throw them all out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soonerdawg
One of the better bills that Clinton signed into law was the Americans with Disabilities Act. This was a humane bill that created jobs throughout the economic sector and in every community in the US - Dawgbitten
Jobs created throughout the economic sector and every community is a bit strong. The intent may have been noble, but it drove up the cost of goods sold. The final result could have been realized without penalizing small business. Here in Louisiana, the Fire Marshal enforces the code. Not a fun group to work with.
And unfortunately - about the only jobs it created were those needed to bring existing buildings into compliance -Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
As you said - getting a Fire Marshal's stamp now on plans or drawings on an expansion or remodeling is catamount to jumping through hoops -
Really don't think it created many jobs for the handicapped - just made it alittle easier for them to use a public restroom...
I did some research on this this year. The impression I got was that when it comes to a lot of medical research that NIH funding is a pretty big deal because the research is just so expensive. Don't know if this is accurate because my research was more about organ transplant. So I think maybe the sheer monetary numbers might require significant gov't aid.Quote:
Originally Posted by dhussdawg
Secondly, the research is causing the top scientists in the field to leave the US. The gov't of Singapore, in particular, has really been pumping money into the research and we are seeing a lot of scientist moving there. Obviously, medical discoveries will be shared around the world but I don't know if there is any benefit to having American scientist doing the discovering.
DB, I'd be careful at looking at this issue in such black and white terms. The ethics of medicine seldom are one sided. Atleast conceed that this issue requires someone to look at the issue from several vantage points.
I trust the free market.Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldawgs03
I don't know about jobs for the handicapped, but it employed concrete workers to make concrete ramps in the parking lots, mechanical/carpenter people to install handicapped acessories in the public restrooms, hotel rooms, etc. How much do you think it would cost a person who owned a small pawn shop/jewelry store to upgrade? I would guess probably no more than a couple of thousand dollars. They increased cost of goods sold for this small amount? I wouldn't think so.
A couple of thousand may seem like small change to you, but to me that would be a big deal. Besides, it would cost a whole lot more than a couple of thousand dollars to upgrade my office. I have an old office building, and they did not design this with the idea of making it handicap accessible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Also, it is funny that one would believe that forcing people to do construction on their buildings contributes to the overall economy. Again, this is the government deciding how we can best invest our money. We are not allowed to decide if a handicap entrance is good for our business. We are not allowed to make a cost/benefit analysis. The government says you have to do it, and that is it.
Sooner, why you wanna hate on handicapped folks? They need to get into your office so you can sue the crap out of the person who hit them with a car and made them handicapped in the first place.
Good stuff!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Dawgbitten, I actually thought you were talking about jobs created for the handicapped and not how the economy was "impacted" by ADA.
I do know of some jobs ADA created for the handicapped. Some are legit, but some were generated by ADA and appear to be slave labor type stuff. Not saying they actually are, but that they appear to be. Some SOBs are getting rich of the ADA thing on the backs of the handicapped. Not to be judgemental, but I think there will be a special place in hell for them.
We set up a pool to see who would be the first to make this comment. I won. My wife picked Dirtydawg. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
In all seriousness, we do have clients that have been rendered handicapped by accidents. We work around it. Also, if I owned this building, I would probably make at least part of my office handicap accessible. At that point, it would be an economic decision as to what was best for my business.
Here's my 2 cents. I've worked in the lab doing medical research getting my masters and have spent the last 7 years working for one of the world's largest scientific reagent suppliers. First of all, NIH funding is paramount for progress to be made for any research. When you consider the sheer number of scientists at hospitals, universities, medical schools, etc around the country that are fighting for every penny that the government can give them, those pennies become harder to get and each of those pennies becomes very important. NIH funding follows directly with the political affiliation in power. Democrat equals more money for research, Republican equals less. My daughter of a small business owner in north Louisiana Republican self is definitely in the minority in my field.
Private firms/pharma companies/biotech companies are working with stem cells but they're working with the same cell lines that academic labs have access to. And while you're talking about a company like Pfizer or Merck - they might dedicate a tiny percentage of their R&D to stem cells where in academia you have entire departments that are focusing their research there.
Stem cells are amazing things. Just like any scientific research, it takes time to work out how to use them and how successful they will be down the road. Nobody really knows but when you consider that the potential exists to differentiate them into anything then that's really exciting.
I was in a lab here in Houston about a year ago and they had stem cells that they had differentiated to cardiac cells and you could see the original population of cells just "sitting" in a plate and the differentiated cells in another plate were beating. Just like you would expect from cardiac cells. Here's a link where you can see mouse embryonic cells like I described: http://www.exploratorium.edu/imaging...lls&Type=video
I'll stop typing now! :)
Oh and about scientists leaving - yes, there are scientists that have gone to other countries to have more freedom in their research when it comes to stem cells. A discovery anywhere is great but there is so much talk about the US no longer being the big dog when it comes to research that it would be great to keep those people here.
And another point - the states of Texas and Louisiana are both considering legislation around stem cells. If you have an opinion, let your representatives know. The revenue stream that some of the scientific institution in both states bring in is significant so eliminating any type of research around stem cells would be a pretty big hit. Scientists and their funding would be forced to relocate.
I own a small business that I had to upgrade for handicapped folks. I also have a sister -in-law who is confined to an electric wheelchair. I am always thankful for the handicapped parking spots and other accesible spaces that have been created for people like my sister-in-law who is the true definition of a fighter. How about sending me "no more than a couple of thousand dollars" and then refer to it as no more than "a couple of thousand dollars." FYI..it costs much more than "a couple" of thousand dollars to upgrade and every dime a good small business owner expenses comes out of his/her consumers pocket.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
As far as your next quip at atorneys I am no big fan of unethical personal injury lawyers but I leave you with a question..who's the first person you call when you get into big trouble (after the bail bondsman)? LAWYER!
May you stay healthy and personally mobile. It improves your cost/benefit analysis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soonerdawg
So true.Quote:
Originally Posted by marketdawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soonerdawg
What the hell do you mean we can't afford it?? Have you seen the pork projects that Bush didnt even think about vetoing in his last 6 years? Combine those projects and you could sustain the country of Iceland for 20 years! It's not about whether we have the funds, its about how we use them. Congress currently uses these funds just to keep their constituents happy rather than to help their constitutents. Don't get the two confused.
Hcet AL
I bet most if not all of those pork projects you are complaining about were hidden in other appropriations. Give him the line item veto and you just might see some of that pork go away! You would also get to see who is true to the country and who just spouts politics when you have a nut cutting line item veto. There will be no excuse for the portk with that tool!
I believe that it was more than a moral issue to veto the bill. By appropriating federal money, the federal government gives tacit approval of what the research may come to, be it good or something that could become gastly. You can let your imagination run wild in both directions. I think Bush made a wise decision to pass on federal money toward the research. I would love to have a cure for all that it might do but that is better run in the private sector when there is a potential conflict in protecting the people from lord knows what this may come to.
Despite your profane disagreement with me, I really don't disagree with much of what you have to say. You would know this if you read even a few of my posts. Both parties are way too guilty of overspending our money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hcet .AL
The truth of the matter is that there are simply too many outstanding causes for our government to fund them all. That is why our government was supposed to be limited. I have heard the story that the first "outstanding" cause our government funded was to help a person whose house burned down a few blocks from the capital. It seemed a little innocent to help that guy, but Pandora's box was opened. We are breaking ourselves funding good causes and the pork that goes with a huge government that likes to spend.
There are a lot of ways to look at this situation. But, any way you go, I think it was a bad decision on the part of the President.
1. Currently, these fertility clinics create several embryos. One is used to impregnate the mother, the others are simply discarded. The moralist claim that we are "saving human life" does not make any sense, because you don't save human life by throwing embryos into a bio-hazard trash can. If they disagree with the practices of the fertility clinics, then state legislatures should take that issue up separately. But, maintaining the status quo doesn't "save life".
2. At that same time, there are many people in this country who could benefit from new medical breakthroughs. Nevermind the major diseases like cancer, alzheimers, etc.. those will take years to solve anyway. What about the kid born with four fingers on one hand, who could grow a fifth? The senior citizen who could grow new healthy bones instead of needing joint replacement surgery? The guy who loses all of his front teeth in a car wreck and could grow new ones instead of wearing dentures for the rest of his life? You can't get much more pro-life than that. (Note: I have never argued in favor of abortion, but pro-life has more than one definition.)
3. This could have huge economic impact. It is true that our government is asked for money for thousands of causes and studies every year, and it's also true that we can't fund all of them. But, think about the arguments made on this board about the way our athletic department is run. We all favor (most of us anyway :) ) spending money on the sports that can generate the most money, i.e. football v. women's basketball. Our government should focus it's spending the same way. Currently, drug companies make enormous profits from medical and drug patents that they develop through R&D. Some of their R&D money is fedral. When (not if) these medical breakthroughs are made, huge amounts of money will be thrown at the country and companies who patents them. It's always better to have that money coming into your country rather than going out. Not to mention the "brain drain" we could suffer from scientists leaving. In the past, great scientists (Albert Einstein and others) fled their countries to come here. If that trend reverses, we are in trouble.
4. As a Republican, I think this could have major consequences for the Republican party. Ronald Reagan was able to get people "on the fence" to vote Republican. Lately, Bush seems to be pushing people "on the fence" the other way, and this won't help any. Social engineering is never good and the Democrats have been guilty of that many times in the past. The Republican Party has gotten so far in bed with the religious right that all decisions are now made based on morality rather than sound public policy. You can't legislate morality. Since we all see things differently, and since Bush has the "with us or against us" mentality, some are going to vote against the Republican Party in the mid-term election. Second term presidents typically suffer low approval ratings, because they make unpopular decisions that move the country forward. Bush has low approval ratings, but is still trying to please everybody. Stem cell research is going to be the first in many rifts between now and November. California has already funded stem cell research, and other states will follow suit. Eventually, Bush could lose control of and support of the party that he leads. Had he funded the research, Republican candidates across the country could have stood by him and made great "pro life" arguments about the possibilities of stem cell research. Instead, they have to keep talking about morality.
5. Finally, one of the biggest problems we have in the U.S. is public education. We always hear the we need to encourage students to pursue math, science, engineering, etc.. So, why not fund the means for scientific breakthroughs and "practice what you preach"?
Republicans put WAY more money into science and research than Democratic administrations. NASA people love to see a Republican elected. So, we fund research, just not THAT research. (And BTW - the government does currently fund some of that research it just doesn't ear mark it for stem cell research.)Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
And as far as the economic impact, I don't see your argument. If goverment sponsored research helps secure patents for big pharms, why continue that trend. Let them to their own R&D and let the research we fund be open... (and the brain drain thing is simply not happening. America is still pulling in the worlds brightest not just for education but for research as well)
And finally the pro-life thing. As I stated, the most significant gains in this area of bio-technology has come from organ cells and not stem cells. Why not fund those studies that have actually shown the most potential?
DBP,
Do you know how much this kind of research costs? This isn't some mad scientist locked in a closet with a few chemicals. You mentioned NASA... What if the US government had told Boeing to build it's own space shuttle (with private R&D and no gov't funding) and call us when it's ready? Answer: We would have had no space shuttle, because private companies simply can't afford that type of expense. Because it did receive gov't funds through NASA and other agencies, our society has made leaps and bounds. Space related research helped develop everything from microwave ovens to sunglasses with UV protection. Not to mention the many advancements in space travel.
The same is true with the Department of Defense and every military vehicle (air, land, and sea) that we use today. It's also true for the Manhattan Project that ended WW II, the Interstate Highway System, and countless other social advancements. Even big corporations can't finance this type of research without help from Uncle Sam.
Just to clarify, Bush Sr. made some significant cuts to NASA, and Nixon made some major cuts to NASA. Agencies like that have to fight every administration for funding, regardless of party affiliation. It's all about "what have you done lately?"
In the next two years, the United States will graduate between 40,000 and 50,000 engineers. In that same period China will graduate about 200,000. Now do the math and think 10 years down the road. In a global economy, we have to do everything we can to stay ahead of the game. In the past a lot of those new engineers/scientists might have fled China for greener pastures because of government oppression (like Einstein). While China is still not the shining example of social reform, it now offers great economic opportunity for it's citizens. The same is true for India and many other emerging countries, including former Soviet nations. You are right that we still attract the best and brightest, but it isn't guaranteed to stay that way. I'm not advocating giving drug companies more patents. I'm advocating giving American companies the OPPORTUNITY to make advances. If a Chinese company discovers the cure for Alzheimers, tons of money flows into China. If an American company discovers it, tons of money flows into the U.S. Simple as that.
I work with military engineers everyday. Trust me when I tell you that any good research scientist doesn't want to sit around and confirm something that has already been proven. They always want to be on the cutting edge. By not allowing this research, Bush is keeping our scientists from being on the cutting edge, no matter how deep their company's pockets. China and Western Europe are funding stem cell research along with other scientific projects. By the time Bush leaves office, those countries will be well ahead of us in medical research. Some of our scientists are considering leaving because we have chosen to not shoot for the top in medical research (similar to our complaint about our AD). That's just the way it is. We do have limited government funding and some private funding, but we are moving exteremely slowly compared to other nations.
Dont' get me wrong. I voted for GW in both elections and I support a lot of things he does. But, I'm not going to give him the rubber stamp on everything simply because we are both Republicans.
Organ cells have shown more promise, mainly because stem cells haven't been fully studied. We shouldn't have to choose between the two. Why not be the best at both? Should we strengthen our Navy at the expense of our Army? Should we guard the border with Mexico, but ignore the border with Canada? Those wouldn't be acceptable decisions by the government, so why is it acceptable to ignore the area of science that offers us the greatest promise?
dizzzam, I don't care who you are, that was a good post right thurr:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
Interesting that you brought that up... at the height of the so called private space race:Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12080376/
Can't or won't? I didn't pay for my tree to get removed from my front yard after Katrina. I could afford it, but why the hell would I do that when the government paid for hundreds of tree removal crews.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
A little dated, but here's some facts:Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
George H.W. Bush, who was president prior to Clinton, increased NASA expenditures by more than $3.437 billion during his single term from 1989 until January 1993.
NASA budgets since fiscal year 1992:
1993 $14.309 billion, existing NASA budget when Clinton took office;
1994 $14.568 billion, $259 million increase, first Clinton budget;
1995 $13.853 billion, $715 million decrease;
1996 $13.885 billion, $32 million increase;
1997 $13.709 billion, $176 million decrease;
1998 $13.648 billion, $61 million decrease;
1999 $13.654 billion, $6 million increase;
2000 $13.601 billion, $53 million decrease;
2001 $14.253 billion, $652 million increase;
2002 $14.892 billion, $639 million increase, first Bush budget;
2003 $15.000 billion, $108 million increase (estimated);
2004 $15.469 billion, $469 million increase (proposed);
Yes if a Chinese company makes a cure, then they do get money. That IS simple. But the rest of it is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
We will graduate 40-50K, our population: 280 million, ratio of: 1.4x10^-4:1
They will graduate 200K, their population: 1.3 BILLION, ratio of: 1.5x10^-4:1
Not a significant difference.
To make your point about scientist leaving to escape some sort of goverment oppression or to seek some opportunity, you must show that we are either oppressing scientists or that scientists are seeking the opportunity that exists overseas. THAT is simple.
I can only say that trust me as a research scientist working under a government grant, our government is wanting to be on the cutting edge. As far as medical research, this is ONE area of medical research that the government is not choosing to earmark funds for. Our support of research for AIDS, cancer, heart disease, and others is the best. I have a friend who was a Tech grad who did research in cancer treatments and had money literaly thrown at him.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
The more you talk about them, the more I want to meet these scientist who are heading for other countries... It sounds like the Hollywood syndrome of leaving for Canada... of course they are still here too.
I've never done that either. This is an issue that I agree with. There are plenty of things that Republicans do wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
Organ cell research has and is producing results. It is the better horse. If lives are in the balance, then yes, we concentrate more on one than the other. I'm not saying we eliminate stem cell research. Remember it was NOT banned, we just haven't earmarked tons of our money for it. To use our analogy, should we have beefed up our Coast Guard at the same rate we beefed up our Army in WWII?Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
I can only say that trust me as a research scientist working under a government grant, our government is wanting to be on the cutting edge. As far as medical research, this is ONE area of medical research that the government is not choosing to earmark funds for. Our support of research for AIDS, cancer, heart disease, and others is the best. I have a friend who was a Tech grad who did research in cancer treatments and had money literaly thrown at him.
As someone who is in scientific/medical research labs every single day - there's no money throwing going around these days. I wish there was because that would make my job alot easier! There isn't enough money to go around without a fight.
Maybe thrown at him is a bad wording. He had to fill out an application and open the acceptance letter... :rolleyes4Quote:
Originally Posted by SDDawg
The real point to that is that funding for things like cancer and AIDS research is better here than elsewhere. I don't know this for a fact, but I would have to be proven wrong.
One of the few Federal Government roles is national defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
And, where do you think the technology came from to get us to this point?Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
Hint: Publicly funded space research and space exploration. See my last post.
This comparison is pretty silly, because it really is apples and oranges. That money was already dedicated to the cleanup and you were just one of many who benefited. I'm pretty sure Congress would not have allocated money to remove a tree from your yard under normal circumstances. BUT...I see where you are coming from, so here's a response:Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
This isn't about lazy companies trying to get a free ride from Uncle Sam. This is about research that private companies can not afford on their own. One example. Lockheed Martin Corporation is building the F-22 fighter jets. The development cycle of the jets just ended and total cost was about $20 Billion dollars. Last year Lockheed Martin showed a Gross Profit (that's before all the bills are paid) of $2.5 Billion.
http://www.google.com/finance?cid=21553
That means that even in 2005 dollars, Lockheed Martin would have to operate at a net loss for over ten years just to see this single project through. And, that doesn't even count other projects that would die from lack of funding inside Lockheed Martin. The same is true for stem cell research at Merck, Pfizer, etc. Last year Merck spent just over $4 Billion on R&D of 43 different drugs.
http://www.merck.com/finance/annualr...ial_Review.pdf
Stem cell research would easily chew up their entire R&D budget and might not show any results for several years, while all 43 of the other drug projects died. Federal funding for these types of projects is absolutely crucial.
The actual dollar amount during the first Bush admin did to up, because it always does. That's the natural progression of operating costs, rate of inflation, salaries, etc. But, a lot of their programs died because it wasn't politically expedient for Bush. When I said it's all about "what have you done lately", I meant that Presidents (who submit the budget to congress) will use public budgeting to do what is politically expedient for themselves at the time. Nixon killed the Apollo program (the same program that took Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to the moon just a few years earlier) and later documented it in his memoirs as retaliation toward the Kennedy administration. And, for the record, I thought GHW Bush was an awesome president. I still think he's a pretty awesome guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
While pursuing a Masters of Public Administration degree, I had the privelege of attending a lecture given by James E. Webb who served as NASA administrator from 1961-1968. He talked about their relationship with Congress and how they constantly have to prove their worthiness to elected officials and ultimately to the American people. For the amount of money they receive every year, many other programs could be funded, and both parties are very aware of that. He also talked about how NASA loves close election years because they usually get increased funding, regardless of who is in office. Note the Clinton increase on your list, after a huge decrease the year before. During the 1972 election year, Nixon authorized NASA to begin work on the space shuttle (with public funding, of course :) )
George W. Bush is politically obligated to give increases to NASA since he has publicly proposed a manned mission to Mars. He would look like an idiot if he told them to do it and then didn't give them the money.
Indeed they do need more engineers to sustain their larger country, but most of their population lives in abject poverty and the communist government doesn't use the engineers the same way the U.S. does. We would have our guys all over the place improving drainage for farmers, purifying water and air for citizens, and improving processes for industry. The Chinese government ignores 75% of it's population, half of the water in their rivers is undrinkable, and all of their major cities have pollution problems that you wouldn't believe. A million well trained engineers in the hands of that government will do a lot of things with government funding, because they don't have to worry about quality of life issues for their fellow man. Just because we operate a certain way doesn't mean other people do.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
Dude, seriously....do I need to prove that Einstein was Jewish and escaping German occupation in Europe? That's pretty well documented. Do I need to prove that the Chinese government isn't the perfect model of an open society? You know about Yao Ming's contract with the Rockets, don't you? Last year a Chinese journalist got an email from the government telling him how he would do his job. No questions asked. He forwarded that email to the New York Times and is now serving a 10 year prison sentence for it. The government even strong-armed Yahoo into turning over the info on who sent the email. I say shame on Yahoo, but it still shows the tactics of the government. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0909/p01s03-woap.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
Ever heard of Tienanmen Square? Go to Google and type in "Tank Man" and look at the first several links that come up. Then read this story about how Chinese people under the age of 25 don't even know that the event happened because the government covers it up and the people don't know any better. Parents can be jailed for discussing the event with their children. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/
China is not a pretty place, bro. They want to control the flow of all information because the truth would upset their communist government. The last thing that people in power want is to be taken out of power. Science being as "scary" as it is, you can bet your ass they will keep the high-ranking scientists on a very short leash, but those scientists will still do good work.
I agree. I WANT to win a marathon, but I'm too lazy to run that much. Wanting gets you nowhere without the will to follow through. Besides, Dawgbitten is the marathon guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
And it is a very bad decision not to fund it. All of the areas of study you mentioned could be aided by stem cell research. How does your friend feel about the potential of stem cells?Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
I'm not saying you will see a mass exodus of scientists, and I doubt that very many will go to China. But, western Europe is a nice place to live and they would have the freedom to make real breakthroughs while guys in the U.S. twiddle their thumbs. Doctors also have a personal interest in this because foreign governments will offer good salaries to skilled American doctors. And, the doctors could not only become famous for curing a major disease, but they could also become insanely wealthy at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
Actually, that's a poor analogy. My point was about making decisions on known problems. Your analogy is about putting money where it is not needed. You can't really make a legitimate argument that way since we don't even know what stem cell research can do. How can you say that it is the "better horse" when no one has any clue what might happen if given the chance? RIght now, we don't know which 'force' needs to be 'beefed up'. When it comes to stem cells, we still don't know what we don't know. I realize stem cell research isn't banned, and I don't doubt the promise of organ cells. I'm just saying that this was a poor call by GW and the Republican party (of which I am a member) is going to suffer for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
Defend it all you want, my man. No hard feelings. Bush just made a terrible call on this one, and he made it for all the wrong reasons.
[quote=StrayDawg]And, where do you think the technology came from to get us to this point?
Hint: Publicly funded space research and space exploration. See my last post.[\quote]
You said that we would have no space shuttle without government funding, that is true. The space shuttle is a white elephant. Would we have space TRAVEL without government funding? I think yes.
[quote=StrayDawg]This comparison is pretty silly, because it really is apples and oranges. That money was already dedicated to the cleanup and you were just one of many who benefited. I'm pretty sure Congress would not have allocated money to remove a tree from your yard under normal circumstances. BUT...I see where you are coming from, so here's a response:[\quote]
It is not a silly comparison. Why would companies invest private money if they can get it for free. It isn't laziness it would be bad business for them to invest when the government is doing it's money dance. Just as it would have been bad business for me.
Lockheed Martin... Another defense analogy. A problem... we are talking about medical research. I doubt the government subsidizes the Boeing 747 as much as the F22 because people other then the US government can buy the 747.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
moving on to the pharms:
a) one of those other projects is the next Viagra. OK. A little cheap shot on the pharms, but they spend their money researching some crazy drugs.
b) how much is enough? You want the federal government spending more than a few billion on this? If stem cell research can produce no results within the near future despite billions and billions of dollars in research, then maybe, just maybe it is a bad investment and the private companies know that. But hey, it's just my money that was taken from me by force from the federal government, what do I care? This is the same government that funded the Stanford Research Institute to research remote viewing with tax payer dollars.
I didn't take it back to Nixon and I believe the facts are on my side for the first President Bush. He was the best President for the space program since Jack Kennedy. His son is even better.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
Bottom line: Increase during Bush, decrese during Clinton, increase during Bush.
That's a single year, Clinton still saw a decrease over those 8 years. The first President Bush saw a substantial increase. So if you say operating expenses go up, then the first President Bush at least supported those increases. Even with this election increase, Clinton did not.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
That's good he sets high goals and backs it up with funding. This reminds me of a certain John F. Kennedy saing we should go to the moon and then funding the project. I'm glad he did that and I'm glad President Bush has done that. As I said, the Republican Party is good for science specifically NASA.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
Spin all you want, but I'm looking at the math.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
Of course you don't have to explain to me that brain drain happened. Werner von Braun is another great example. We actually stole him. But we aren't exactly killing all he Jews over here. We are not run by a facist party despite what salty would have us believe. My point is that you are drawing a parallel between Einstein fleeing the country for fears of being killed and not having federal dollars to do stem cell research.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
And the fact that China is a scary place is exactly why I think there's one less innovator that we don't have to worry about stealing our guys and gals. I sit in a lab with 3 Chinese nationals every day. They would really rather not go back. We are doing the draining because of that.
Hey, I run marathons too. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
That friend is as much a Libertarian as I've ever known. He want's to abolish income tax. While I haven't asked him I'm pretty sure he's OK with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
OK, so I've got you crawfishing on the brain drain now with the exception of Europe. Is Europe really spending billions of Euros on SC research? Sorry man, but I just don't want speculation, show me some numbers. Even better show me some scientists because right now I'm looking at the faculty of Louisiana Tech and seeing a lot of Europeans. In fact, I would argue that there is still an exodus of foreign nationals into the US after looking at the faculty positions of LSUHSC School of Medicine.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
Don't be dissing my analogies man, you are the one who keeps bringing up defense spending like it is eqivalent. :) My point is exactly what you said, "we still don't know what we don't know". That is Phillip Armour's 2nd Order of Ignorance and not a good thing. When we are basically refining the process for organ cell regeneration, I say we have a better horse. The race being curing the paralyzed or providing the liver to those who are dying (or at least not walking) now or as you called it "known problems".Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
I realize I'm taing the unpopular side on this issue, and what's funny is that I think it was a good call for a completely different reason than the President. He made his decision based on morality. I think that was wrong. If you are throwing the dead bodies away, then you are wasting a resource. I want to see some sort of proof that baby farming is going on to dismiss SC research based on that. Until abortion is made illegal, we are not doing the morally upright thing by making sure the bodies are thrown away.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
And definitely no hard feelings, I haven't been this excited about a debate on this forum in a while. I am really enjoying it and appreciate the thought out replies.
Here's an article from the Boston Globe citing some of the research going on elsewhere and explaining why the same research can't happen in the US. It's from 2004 but still very relevant:
http://www.boston.com/news/science/a...earch_lagging/
And exerpts:
In the United Kingdom, as in the United States, there has been contentious public debate over embryonic cell research, but the government has designed a system of strict oversight. With the opening last week of the new UK Stem Cell Bank north of London, funded by the government at $4.6 million over three years, that country is taking the kind of international leadership role which in other fields has fallen to the United States. The bank will accept cell lines that meet a set of ethical standards, carefully study and grow them to ensure they are scientifically useful, and then make them available to researchers.
In Australia, the government is funding research and helping to set up a national stem cell center. In the Czech Republic, Dvorak's lab at the Mendel University of Agriculture and Forestry is part of a Centre for Cell Therapy and Tissue Repair, supported by the government. South Korea has derived almost as many new lines of human embryonic stem cells as the United States, according to the Globe survey, and researchers there were the first to create stem cells from a cloned human embryo (THIS PUBLICATION HAS SINCE BEEN RETRACTED!!!)-- a scientific milestone that American researchers grumble should have happened in the United States.
And the EU just voted in the past couple of weeks to continue financial support of embryonic stem cell research. $38M over the next 6 years. That's on top of money that is available at the country government level. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...8J2ETVG0.shtml
Singapore is another hot medical research country where they allow work with embryonic stem cells. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...2/b3915052.htm
The government has $600M to invest in startup biotechs focusing on stem cells. Korea and China are in the mix as well.
The fact of the matter is that if the federal government doesn't allow US scientists to work with a broader range of cell lines, then the research here will be much more limited than in other parts of the world. And without increased funding (NIH and NSF grant funding is flat over the past couple of years), then the dollars are tightly spread. The reality is that alot of funding goes to a few. The rest fight for what is left. http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/nih06p.pdf
Not trying to butt into y'alls debate (although it has been entertaining! :) ). As someone who claims to be a "geeky" scientist and spent my time in the lab fighting through graduate school and now spends every day in a lab as a sales person, this is my stuff! You go into labs where they are doing stem cell work and there is so much concern around funding and limitations - especially in Texas and Louisiana where the state governments are talking about eliminating it all together. It's hard not to let it get you all amped up.
And finally, here's a link to my company's webpage for stem cell research. You'll see a link at the bottom for a list of cell lines. You can see that probably about 50% or more are listed as NOT APPROVED meaning that US scientists are not approved to work with them as things stand now. http://www.invitrogen.com/content.cfm?pageid=10319 We don't sell stem cell lines but we do sell everything you need to grow them.
So there's my two cents laid out there... Whew...feel better!
California alone has spent over 3 billion dollars to fund stem cell research. That was recently upped by 150 million by Gov Schwatzenegger (I have no idea on that spelling we'll calm him Arnold). So I'd say given those numbers we are competetive if you only take California into account. No federal funds included.
I'm certainly not an expert in any of this, but in reading through all the arguments from both sides I noticed a continuing implication that Bush had virtually halted "stem cell research". From what I have observed in this issue, that is certainly not the case. In fact, the Bush administration is the FIRST administration to support and approve ANY federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. It is simply limited to a set of embryonic stem cell lines that were already in existence.
Further, there is no federal restriction on the reseach, only that fed funds are not available for any NEW lines.
Also, there is absolutely no restriction on research or federal funding on ADULT stem cells. From what I've read ( and considering how slanted and one sided most of the media is, who knows what's right) virtually ALL progress in stem cell research so far has come from ADULT stem cell lines. Considering that there has been considerable research on embryonic stem cells, does anyone know of any tangible breakthrough on these type stem cells??
That's a pretty slippery definition of travel. What the private guys are doing so far is just going to the edge of space and falling back down. They aren't really "traveling" in space. The shuttle is no white elephant. Without the thousands of engineers at NASA who worked on this project for over a decade, it just wouldn't happen. Some guy in his garage in Shreveport isn't going to accidentally create a craft that can (at a bare minimum) escape the bonds of gravity, orbit the planet, and re-enter without becoming toast. The guy from Virgin Atlantic is trying to sell rides on his first "spacecraft", but it isn't complete yet. From what I hear, it isn't really that close. So, I'm guessing he is just trying to get some cash and keep the project alive...hence the limitation of private funding.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
First of all, Boeing (the maker of the 747) disagrees with you. The 747 was built from technology that was developed from the C-5 cargo plane program. Guess where that came from.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/747.html
It's not about any certain industry; defense, pharm, or otherwise. It's about companies keeping their heads above financial water. Just as Lockheed Martin could not operate at a net loss for 10 years, neither could Merck or Pfizer give up all research on their pipeline drugs and throw all of their R&D funding into SC research. It would put them out of business.
No one is suggesting giving them a blank check. But, we have the money to open up more research and we aren't doing it. And, maybe, just maybe it would be the greatest investment we ever made. I hate big government and wasteful spending as much as every other Republican. But, I also understand that you can't simply look at dollars and cents. We should also judge the return on the investment. Think of the money that could be saved on Medicare and Medicaid with just a handful of medical breakthroughs. Big companies are licking their chops about this. Problem is they can't get access to the few lines that are available. The vast majority are thrown away.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
The Republican party is bigger than George Bush and the Democratic Party is bigger than Bill Clinton. The biggest NASA breakthrough during GHWB's administration was the Hubble Telescope which was authorized by Reagan. As I've said in my earlier posts, it's not about party. It's about what is politically expedient at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
And, if you want me to believe you instead of the guy who ran NASA for seven years, you're going to have a tough sell on your hands. :D
It's not only good to fund it, it's politically necessary. Just my two cents, but there are a lot of things between here and Mars that we should study first. But, that's just my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
No spin here. You keep looking at math. I'm looking at sociology, anthropology, and policy. Math can't predict governments.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
Who the hell said that we are a facist country oppressing people? I never said that. I said that in the past, we have benefited from receiving scientists who have fled oppression in other countries. With other countries now offering more opportunity, we won't have the same benefit in coming years, which is a reason to take every advantage to move forward in the world of science. Have you been reading my posts?Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
I run every now and then. Sometime for exercise and sometimes because people are pissed off at me.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
Not crawfishing, just making the same observations you are, but thinking a few years down the road. Why have those Europeans come here in the past? Because we have always been the best at a lot of things and we always look for improvement. Ignoring the most promising science of our time is not moving forward, and some American scientists could easily go to other countries for the same reason those Europeans came here.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
Next time I have dinner with Tony Blair and the Queen Mum at Buckingham Palace, I will get you some numbers on their stem cell spending.
I'm not familiar with Mr. Armour, but what does he say about failure as it relates to ignoring your own potential?Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
Actually, it's not that unpopular. Millions of people agree with you. It just makes no scientific sense to waste a resource and it makes no political sense to put your party in this situation during an election year. Your later post about California funding is a good example. Bush's decision is forcing Republicans (especially moderate Republicans) to separate themselves from him, which is splintering the party.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
Let's say that you are running for Senate as a Republican. A reporter asks you how you feel about the Presidents policy on stem cells. As a politician, you are looking for the answer that will please the most possible people. Had Bush OK'd stem cells, you could have talked about the "pro-life" aspect of stem cell research because it improves human life. That pleases the conservatives and still placates moderates and liberals who favor stem cell research. Since he vetoed stem cells, you have to either split from the "party view" by disagreeing with the president, or you have to give a sermon about morals, which is a losing propositon in many ways. Bottom line is that the world is moving forward on this and we aren't, which hurts us scientifically and hurts Bush policially.
I like it too, but I'm not sure how much more time I can dedicate to typing these damn long emails.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
BillPup,Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
From what I know about the subject, I think you are right. I thought Bush's decision in 2001 was pretty brilliant. He had to worry about his "base" and getting re-elected, so he didn't open funding all the way. But, he also understood what the research might produce, so he couldn't ignore it completely. Taking the middle ground was a good move.
Now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election and members of his own party passed the bill in the House and Senate, this would have been the time to sign the bill and allow our scientists to compete.
I'm sure you're probably sick of reading my posts by now, so I will leave you guys alone.
Take care.
They "rewired" a paralysed rat using embryonic stem cells. Pretty remarkable result.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
I wish Bush would take this approach about a bunch of things. He has no one left to please, he should make some tough decisions and put pressure on Congress to help pass these initiatives. He should make cuts, jab pork spending, etc. Of course, it would nearly be impossible to get those bastards in Congress to go along with it. They won't cut back on spending, ever. Our country is in dire need of it, we are already beginning to see some effect from our overspending over the years. The dollar is weakening everyday.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
"I run every now and then. Sometime for exercise and sometimes because people are pissed off at me."
Or if you are taking a nice leizurely late night drive around Monroe.
I'm reaching my time allowance too, you just got the last word. Thanks for the spirited debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
That's a good example of someone who was pissed off at me.:laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
SDDawg, how do you feel about somatic cell nuclear transfer?
OK, it's time for me to eat a little bit of crow.
There are some very successful procedures currently using stem cells for the generation of bone marrow. So on that point, stem cell research has produced results.
My bad, but at least I admit when I'm wrong :o
[quote=StrayDawg]That's a pretty slippery definition of travel. What the private guys are doing so far is just going to the edge of space and falling back down. They aren't really "traveling" in space. The shuttle is no white elephant. Without the thousands of engineers at NASA who worked on this project for over a decade, it just wouldn't happen. Some guy in his garage in Shreveport isn't going to accidentally create a craft that can (at a bare minimum) escape the bonds of gravity, orbit the planet, and re-enter without becoming toast. The guy from Virgin Atlantic is trying to sell rides on his first "spacecraft", but it isn't complete yet. From what I hear, it isn't really that close. So, I'm guessing he is just trying to get some cash and keep the project alive...hence the limitation of private funding.
Stray, I think Charlie is working on one in his garage right now!!!! He gave up on putting his old four wheeler together and decided a spacecraft would be easier.