Stem Cell Battles

You are wrong. With the current amount being spent on research we will know in a few years if it will have any real promise. Don't get me wrong, I love technology and even love the idea of medical technology, but I don't see spending the money on something we know nothing about.

I would love to spend the money on space flight, and even going back to the moon or even to Mars. The only reason I don't push for it is because we don't know what kind of benefits we would get from such things. We could create some new drug in zero gravity that could cure cancer or AIDS but without some sort of proof it isn't worth throwing too much money at.

0 Replies

Baldimo
There is untold promise in fetal stem cell research. Bush has put every obstacle he can in it's way. Don't give me any baloney about how much money we are spending on research. The only reason for his intransigence is his religious beliefs.

0 Replies

That is what you beleive.

Do you think if there where other ways of doing stem cell research that he would do so?

Not being a Christian I can't speak for his releigious beleifs, I don't know if you are but are you one to judge anothers religious beliefs? Do you decry the religious beliefs of the Muslims?

I can respect a man who votes according to his morals.

0 Replies

Baldimo
Do you think before you commit what you write to paper. Someone called you unbelievable on another post. You truly are. Facts never seem to deter or inhibit you in any way. Discussion with an empty bag is to irritating. So long have a nice life. .

0 Replies

Baldimo Wrote:

Quote:

You are wrong. With the current amount being spent on research we will know in a few years if it will have any real promise.

Actually, it is you who are wrong in this case.

The Bush limit of Federal funding for Stem Cell research is both arbitrary and unscientific in the extreme. The 'existing cell lines' which are permitted by the Bush plan are full of problems; many have degraded past the point of usefullness, many are of a specific racial genotype and therefore of limited use in research, many are owned by corporations who do not allow them to be used in research at the University level.

These factors together lead to an effective ban on university-level research. The common argument, by those who do not know much about science, is that the private sector is not limited and therefore will pick up the slack; but this argument ignores the crucial difference between base research and applied research. You see, private firms who work with stem cells are much more likely to be interested in advancing a product or proccess; university researchers do a lot more work on fundamentals and basic understanding of the Cell itself.

This is problematic; applied research certainly leads to more usable products, but with less overall understanding of the base principles. Without a solid body of University research we will be behind the world in just a few years in this promising new area of science. England has already made major pushes to make stem cell research their primary area of medical research.

We ALREADY know that stem cells have a ton of promise. We know there are other ways of obtaining stem cells besides using human embryos. Without federal funding, however, we cannot explore the basics of this emerging science at the level it deserves.

Please, do your research before coming on A2K and telling people they are 'wrong.'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Let me ask this question.

Has everything that can be done with the existing stem cells been researched to the point where nothing new can be discovered?

Until that has happened, and it hasn't, scientists have more than enough to work with. At this point in time, stem cell research has bearely scratched the surface of what can be discovered, yet the scientific community is already complaining. Let's see some results from what they have instead of complaints about what they don't have.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

We know there are other ways of obtaining stem cells besides using human embryos.

What ways? I am undecided in the Stem cell debate. I see the benefits of such research but am uncertain about how we do it. I read (will look for source) that while they have made large steps in getting stem cells to turn into heart and nerve cells they are having problems getting them to turn into other cells such as liver cells. The reason (they think) is because the fetus does not need the liver cells right away and does not develop them until later on. So the question arises, do we let fetuses grow to a more developed state to gain more developed stem cells? If so, where do we stop?

0 Replies

Well, Jp, there is a good amount of evidence that Stem Cells can be obtained from Bone Marrow and also from certain types of adult human tissue, as well as from Placental and umbilical tissue.

IF we can do the research needed, we may be able to find a stable, steady source of stem cells that does not rely on early human development whatsoever. Without this research (which in many cases is much more oriented to University-level, rather than corporate research) we will not be able to find another source for the cells.

Just another reason why Bush's ban is retarded.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

It's not retarded.

You can find a lot of good information here JP.

0 Replies

I couldn't get to the original article but it is referenced here:

http://www.showmenews.com/2004/Aug/20040821Comm003.asp

0 Replies

It IS retarded. Pardon me, McG, but you don't know what you are talking about in this case.

I work in a cell biology lab at UT in Austin during the day with about 35 professors of Biology, Neurobiology, and bioscience. We talk about how retarded the ban is every day. It DIRECTLY limits the research our gradutate students can do. I have no doubt that you will respond with 'well, that's THEIR opinion' but I can tell you that it is the opinion of the entire scientific community on the subject...

So, please, do some research before commenting!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ok, I have to ask a question here since I have not been following this issue as closely as I should be. But am I correct in stating that Bush has only limited government financing to existing embryonic stem cells? Private financing of embryonic stem cell research is not covered in Bush's "ban".

Is this correct or am I off base here. Would someone who has followed this more closely than I bring me up to speed on this point? Thanks.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It IS retarded. Pardon me, McG, but you don't know what you are talking about in this case.

I work in a cell biology lab at UT in Austin during the day with about 35 professors of Biology, Neurobiology, and bioscience. We talk about how retarded the ban is every day. It DIRECTLY limits the research our gradutate students can do. I have no doubt that you will respond with 'well, that's THEIR opinion' but I can tell you that it is the opinion of the entire scientific community on the subject...

So, please, do some research before commenting!

Cycloptichorn

How much did they do last year compared to what they are doing this year? Which lines were they working on last year? What has come out of the laboratory that you work in? hat's been published as a result of the research being done on stem cells at your laboratory?

I am also glad to see you speaking on behalf of the ENTIRE scientific community. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Quote:

How much did they do last year compared to what they are doing this year? Which lines were they working on last year? What has come out of the laboratory that you work in? hat's been published as a result of the research being done on stem cells at your laboratory?

Your insinuation is disingenuous, McG...

Many supporters of Bush's ban on research like to tout the fact that there is actually more federal money spent on Stem Research than there was during any other admin, and hold that up as proof that Bush actually supports it... you are attempting to do the same thing here by implying that the amount of productive work has increased during the Bush admin.

But this fails to account for the fact that Stem Cell research is such a NEW field that there just wasn't anyone ASKING for federal money on it four years ago. Despite the ban, the profs. and grad students I work with are still working with cells; just not the ones they would like to have.

Quote:

I am also glad to see you speaking on behalf of the ENTIRE scientific community.

Good point. I revise my statement; 'that's the opinion of the MAJORITY of the scientifc community.' If you would like, I can link you to dozens of articles and statements supporting this... but I suspect that you don't really need me to; they've been linked here before, and you know that the opinion is quite widely held that Bush's ban makes little sense, among scientists.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Disingenuous?! How has the ban effected your lab? You said that "It DIRECTLY limits the research our gradutate students can do." I am asking how has it done this?

I do have a background in Biology as well. I understand how scientists work and I understand how scientists think. But, until there is actual evidence that this "ban" is hindering progress in a more substantial way than scientists not being able to work on the exact genome they want, then it holds no water.

0 Replies

Quote:

Ok, I have to ask a question here since I have not been following this issue as closely as I should be. But am I correct in stating that Bush has only limited government financing to existing embryonic stem cells? Private financing of embryonic stem cell research is not covered in Bush's "ban".

It amounts to a ban.

The rules for what lines can and cannot be used don't make much sense from a scientific point of view. Also, see my earlier post on the difference between base science and applied science.

We don't want to be a nation that relies on applied science; think of it as, say, a basketball team that dunks great and looks flashy but is weak on the fundementals.

Bush's ban has severely limited our researcher's ability to study the fundementals. Private sector companies do some research in this area, but the pressure to come up with APPLICATION of said research tends to bend the efforts to a more product-oriented approach than a base knowledge approach; while important, base knowledge rarely leads to finanical recuperation.

If you look at the amount of federal money spent supporting University-level research, it is tremendous. One of the best things about America, IMO. That being said, the limitations put on stem cell research at the university level are putting us behind from a world standpoint, and holding up crucial research that (many scientists agree) is one of our most promising avenues for fighting many diseases and afflictions that previously ruined people's lives.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

Disingenuous?! How has the ban effected your lab? You said that "It DIRECTLY limits the research our gradutate students can do." I am asking how has it done this?

My 'lab' is a conglomerate of a few different departments and proffessors that share some common space. I'd say inbetween 10-15 profs are using some of the stations at any time with requistite grad students.

One example of how it is limited, is in a GS who is studying racial differences in stem cell lines (according to him there are a lot of differences) and how they react to different drugs and compounds commonly used for cell testing and research. Just last week at lunch, we were discussing his difficulties getting funding to obtain stem cell lines other than white, black, and two different strains of asian lines.

Under Bush's ban, he cannot get the funding he needs to fully perform his expirement. The dep't is searching for private funds (which would help, I wish they would realize that more private funding is needed for this avenue of research and allocate more to it) but he is kindof in limbo right now per finishing his expiriments to the level he likes.

Quote:

But, until there is actual evidence that this "ban" is hindering progress in a more substantial way than scientists not being able to work on the exact genome they want, then it holds no water.

He can't work on the exact Genome he wants, and that IS a very substantial ban.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

the fundamentals of stem cell research can be done on ANY stemcell, even stromal cells. If labs are doing research on a specific aspect of stem cells, then they have moved beyond base science and into applied science. The fundamentals don't need specific stem cells, any embryonic stem cell should suit the needs for basic research into how they differentiate.

0 Replies

Thanks for the quick response Cy. I am not trying to be a royal pain, so forgive me if I seem dense.
But in your response to me you really did not answer the question that I am trying to get straight in my head (again, I may just not be reading your response well enough). I am inferring from your post that Bush has indeed only banned federal money from being used on anything but the existing line of embryonic stem cells and that research can still be done using other lines of embryonic stem cells as long as it is not funded by federal money. Am I correct in my understanding of your post?

Thanks.

0 Replies

Quote:

The fundamentals don't need specific stem cells, any embryonic stem cell should suit the needs for basic research into how they differentiate.

So, your argument is that any fundamental research on stem cells should work on any strain of stem cells? I find that somewhat hard to believe... there is 'fundamental' scientific research that can be done without moving into the realm of 'applied' research; that is, product-based research.

Quote:

If labs are doing research on a specific aspect of stem cells, then they have moved beyond base science and into applied science.

Nope. An expiriment to see whether certain chemicals/processes affect different genome lines in stem cells differently is base science, not applied science...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Stem Cell Battles

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know