1
   

Laura Bush vs. Science

 
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2004 04:27 pm
Thomas

I find the time frame optimistic also. That high light refers back to a previous post of mine on this thread. Much of the current wealth of the US results from its leadership in basic research. We are letting that slip away. Any patents and other advantages from this kind of research will go else ware to the long term detriment of the US economy.
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2004 04:35 pm
We are hardly letting our scientific and technological advantage slip away. Quit being a chicken little.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2004 08:35 pm
i love karzaks precious innocent views .
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2004 08:38 pm
I love a good cigar but sometimes I take it out of my mouth"
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2004 10:56 pm
dyslexia wrote:
I love a good cigar but sometimes I take it out of my mouth"


I don't want to know where it goes after that!
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 06:30 am
If you look at publications in research journals over the past three decades, we actually are losing our position of eminence in basic research relative to other countries. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is happening.

I'm curious that Britain is already jumping into therapeutic cloning. The basics of cloning in general still need to be worked out -- the North Korean team used almost 280 eggs to get one apparently viable embryo. Where are the Brits going to get all those eggs?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 06:38 am
Patiodog -- I don't know the answer to your question, but are you sure the 280 eggs are relevant to what the Brits are trying to do? It seems to me that you don't need a viable embryo for therapeutic cloning, as opposed to reproductive cloning. All you need is a couple hundred stem cells, and you can produce these with a lot fewer eggs. Correct?
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 06:42 am
farmerman wrote:
i love karzaks precious innocent views .


I love his cutting edge use of language...LOL, chicken little and such....and the way he's able to work the same expressions into every single thing he says...over and over....unfailingly.....neverending.....ad nauseum.....

No wonder he's the most popular and seriously considered member of A2K....
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 06:49 am
I really don't know too much about even the basics of stem cell tech. But if good can come of using those cells that otherwise would just sit there, then I can't see the harm and I can see good coming from it.

I can see a potential for corruption in it like there is in body organ donations.

I realize what I am about to say will separate me from most of my views politically, but in general I am uncomfortable with genetically messing with these kinds of things. I don't like to think of fertility clinics and all those extra embryos sitting around like so much spare tires. I also wouldn't want to be in the position of the parents in those clinics who have to kill some of those extra embryos because there are too may of them to safely bring them to life. But if good can come evil then that can't be a bad thing? (my belief of evil) (I am also strongly against abortion--not for religious reasons)

As for cloning, that is just werid in my opinion. And I don't see the need. We are already over populated as it is.

Furthermore, I don't see why people have to even go to fertility clinics. There are so many children in the world who need loving parents. Why does everyone have to have babies? It reminds me of puppies as christmas presents; they are wanted when they are little and cute but around july and they get bigger...
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 06:55 am
Quote:
Patiodog -- I don't know the answer to your question, but are you sure the 280 eggs are relevant to what the Brits are trying to do? It seems to me that you don't need a viable embryo for therapeutic cloning, as opposed to reproductive cloning. All you need is a couple hundred stem cells, and you can produce these with a lot fewer eggs. Correct?


This is true, but I have a hunch (half educated, half wild guess) that the reason most of the attempts failed is that they did not produce viable stem cells. In fact, if I remember correctly (it's been a few months since the stuff was published), "success" was counted as just reaching the blastocyst stage, when stem cells are harvested. If this rate is not greatly improved on, it would take a large number of eggs just to establish a single cell line -- and, as has been noted, most stem cell lines are not very stable.

I'm not saying that the researchers haven't addressed this stuff, I'm just saying that, given where the science is at right now, it doesn't seem feasible to me to start on the big stuff until the little stuff has been worked out in model organisms.

(Of course, a license doesn't mean their going to start looking for egg donors tomorrow; perhaps they are just trying to corner the market before the UK gov't changes its mind.)
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 06:57 am
It probably doesn't help my own credibility when I keep saying North Korea when it was, in fact, South Korean researchers that did the cloning.


Okay, gotta correct myself here...

Vogel, Science, 2/13/04...
Quote:
Perhaps the Korean scientists' most important advantage was the whopping 242 eggs they had to work with. The team obtained oocytes and donor cells from 16 healthy women, who underwent hormone treatment to stimulate their ovaries to overproduce maturing eggs. (The women donated specifically for the experiments, were not compensated, and were informed that they would not personally benefit from the research.) "More than 200 eggs? Wow. I'm drooling," says Jose Cibelli of Michigan State University in East Lansing, who is a co-author of the paper but did not take part in the cloning procedures. When he attempted human cloning at the biotech firm Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Massachusetts, a few years ago, he says, his team had fewer than 20 usable eggs.

The plentiful eggs gave Moon, Hwang, and colleagues a chance to tweak the methods they used, varying the time between inserting the new nucleus and triggering cell division as well as testing several different kinds of growth media. In the most successful protocol, the scientists were able to get 19 of 66 cloned eggs to develop into blastocysts. That success rate is lower than researchers have reported with mouse and cattle cloning, but "at this stage in the game, it's encouraging," says Ian Wilmut of the Roslin Institute in Midlothian, U.K., who helped lead the team that cloned Dolly.

The team's success in deriving stem cells was lower than that of other researchers, however. Whereas some teams are able to derive ES cells from up to half of their embryos (usually created for in vitro fertilization treatments but no longer needed), Moon and Hwang got just one cell line in 20 tries. The authors suspect that some of the cloned blastocysts might have suffered the chromosomal abnormalities observed in other primate cloning attempts.


So, 242 eggs, quite a few blastocysts (30 in all, 19 out of 66 in the most effective protocol), one successful stem cell line from 20 ICM cells. I misremembered it as one successful clone.






From the writeup (Hwang et al, Science, 2/13/04):
Quote:
A total of 242 oocytes were obtained from 16 volunteers (there were one or two donors for each trial) after ovarian stimulation: 176 metaphase II (MII) oocytes were used directly for SCNT, whereas the remaining 66 oocytes were allowed to mature to the MII stage before use in SCNT. Autologous SCNT was performed; that is, the donor's own cumulus cell, isolated from the cumulus-oocyte complex (COC), was transferred back into the donor's own enucleated oocyte.


So the nucleus came from the same individual as the egg. Huh.
0 Replies
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 09:32 am
It's how you get people to remember something - say it simple and say it often. Wink Just like dubya's White House.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
farmerman wrote:
i love karzaks precious innocent views .


I love his cutting edge use of language...LOL, chicken little and such....and the way he's able to work the same expressions into every single thing he says...over and over....unfailingly.....neverending.....ad nauseum.....

No wonder he's the most popular and seriously considered member of A2K....
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 11:05 am
Patiodog Wrote:
[/quote]If you look at publications in research journals over the past three decades, we actually are losing our position of eminence in basic research relative to other countries. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is happening.[/quote]

I think it is a bad thing, Patiodog. A very bad thing.

The thing about scientific research.... you never know what huge advance it is going to lead to, whether it be engineering, biological, physics, whatever....

Science and space exploration are probably the two most important things we can be spending our money on right now, by far. More than any petty wars, for sure. For the U.S. to truly keep on top of the world situation, we NEED the science advantage- after all, conventional warfare is out and our credibility is **** at the moment, our education sucks and our defecit is huge, we need SOME sort of advantage...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Aug, 2004 11:36 am
patiodog wrote:
If you look at publications in research journals over the past three decades, we actually are losing our position of eminence in basic research relative to other countries. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is happening.


How exactly is this not a bad thing?
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 06:45 am
Because the numbers I've seen don't necessarily indicate that we are slowing down -- they might simply indicate that other parts of the world are speeding up. China, for instance, is a major player in basic research.

(And this isn't Bush-bashing -- it's a very long-term trend.)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/24/2020 at 09:50:15