Mickey Posted July 29, 2005 Posted July 29, 2005 What the hell are you implying here? The US shouldn't fund scientific research because it's not outlined in the Constitution? I've heard of strict interpretation, but that's just nuts. 393317[/snapback] No, what he is saying is that people can't get together and vote to spend some of their community chest on anything that wasn't authorized by John Adams or James Madison. Thus, if you want to build a road or a dam or a bridge or a levee or a hospital, you have to amend the Constitution of the United States first to allow you to raise the funds. Make more sense?
Johnny Coli Posted July 29, 2005 Posted July 29, 2005 Make more sense? 393435[/snapback] In the strictest sense of the word, yes.
Alaska Darin Posted July 29, 2005 Posted July 29, 2005 No, what he is saying is that people can't get together and vote to spend some of their community chest on anything that wasn't authorized by John Adams or James Madison. Thus, if you want to build a road or a dam or a bridge or a levee or a hospital, you have to amend the Constitution of the United States first to allow you to raise the funds. Make more sense? 393435[/snapback] Actually, those examples are pretty much covered in the Constitution.
Terry Tate Posted July 29, 2005 Posted July 29, 2005 No, what he is saying is I don't recall hiring you as my spokesman, but just in case - you're fired.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 29, 2005 Posted July 29, 2005 I don't recall hiring you as my spokesman, but just in case - you're fired. 393737[/snapback]
OGTEleven Posted July 30, 2005 Posted July 30, 2005 Thus, if you want to build a road or a dam or a bridge or a levee or a hospital, you have to amend the Constitution of the United States first to allow you to raise the funds. Make more sense? 393435[/snapback] Because we all know that there aren't enough State, County, City, Town, or Village goverments, bridge, port or transportation "authorities' to ever manage a project as big as putting up a bridge. We need an all powerful centrally controlled government for that. While we're at it, I think my town could use another McDonald's. We only have about six. There doesn't seem to be any private sector funding interested. The town fathers are asleep at the switch and Pataki is a lame duck. Should I call my congressman?
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted July 30, 2005 Posted July 30, 2005 Actually, Frist's flip-flop is actually somewhat refreshing. As a surgeon, I would think that he would understand the value of stem cell research better than other politicians. I just hope that his change is a result of conscience rather than political aims. It's doubtful, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 30, 2005 Posted July 30, 2005 It's doubtful, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. 394087[/snapback] Why the hell would anyone give a politican the benefit of the doubt?
finknottle Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 I guess that explains all the square wheels, stone tablets and everyone eating raw food before the US government was created. 393104[/snapback] I think these predate capitalism.
OGTEleven Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 I think these predate capitalism. 394266[/snapback] But they do not predate human nature which capitalism utilizes far better than any other economic system in history.
UConn James Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 So, states like California, NJ, Conn., etc. fund m/billion-dollar stem cell research for their universities and laboratories. Then every other state gets to cash in on the advances those states make. Free rider if I ever heard of it. Or maybe those states will forgo whatever cures are found. Nah, just like everything else, they'll complain about all the tax dollars (even though it's a drop in the bucket, spending $1 to save $6, and they're not even the ones paying for it), but then they'll be first at the trough for feeding time.
OGTEleven Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 So, states like California, NJ, Conn., etc. fund m/billion-dollar stem cell research for their universities and laboratories. Then every other state gets to cash in on the advances those states make. Free rider if I ever heard of it. Or maybe those states will forgo whatever cures are found. Nah, just like everything else, they'll complain about all the tax dollars (even though it's a drop in the bucket, spending $1 to save $6, and they're not even the ones paying for it), but then they'll be first at the trough for feeding time. 394607[/snapback] Does this mean that everything should be centralized at the Federal level in order to avoid any imbalance on any issue? If there were cures to come out of California funded research, the patient (let's say a Nebraska native) would pay and the company selling the cure would collect. If California was one of their "investors", then California would collect too right?
UConn James Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 Does this mean that everything should be centralized at the Federal level in order to avoid any imbalance on any issue? If there were cures to come out of California funded research, the patient (let's say a Nebraska native) would pay and the company selling the cure would collect. If California was one of their "investors", then California would collect too right? 394644[/snapback] The funding goes thru universities, etc., (and to my understanding, not private companies who would then profit, tho uni's can patent something and collect a vastly under-proportioned fee for its use) and progress and findings are diseminated thru peer review. Free rider program. Not saying that everything needs to, just areas where there's a nation-wide payoff for something a select few would be paying for. Like national security, interstate highways, etc. But whatever. Some people step up when something's important and do what's right and beneficial for everyone, rather than thinking about their own pocketbooks. I'd say Sen. Frist saw that light... if I didn't know better.
todd Posted August 1, 2005 Posted August 1, 2005 Whatever the reason, it's time level-minded people started calling the President's ban on funding stem cell reasearch what it really is. This is a common sense issue that Bush is clearly wrong on. Good for Frist! Frist to back expanded funding of Embryonic Stem Cell research This looks like he ripped a page out of Hillary Clinton's book. As she continues to position herself by taking bapy steps to the middle, Frist just took a somewhat giant step to the left. Do you suppose his reasons were motivated by a possible '08 run for the White House? 393020[/snapback]
todd Posted August 1, 2005 Posted August 1, 2005 The funding goes thru universities, etc., (and to my understanding, not private companies who would then profit, tho uni's can patent something and collect a vastly under-proportioned fee for its use) and progress and findings are diseminated thru peer review. Free rider program. Not saying that everything needs to, just areas where there's a nation-wide payoff for something a select few would be paying for. Like national security, interstate highways, etc. 394654[/snapback] This is changing. The U of R just lost a lawsuit about a patent. Apparently a company decided the patent was theirs. Not sure of the details, but the precident is changing.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 1, 2005 Posted August 1, 2005 Whatever the reason, it's time level-minded people started calling the President's ban on funding stem cell reasearch what it really is. 395246[/snapback] Non-existent? C'mon, it's not a ban on stem cell research, it's a ban on using federal funds to do research on new lines of embryonic stem cells. Some people aren't doing the research they'd like because of it, but no one's not doing any research. And the US government still spends more on stem cell research than the rest of the world combined. So let's be clear about the REAL issue here: the US government won't allow researchers to establish new lines of embryonic stem cells using federal money. That's a far narrower restriction than the total ban everyone likes to pretend exists...
todd Posted August 1, 2005 Posted August 1, 2005 Since existing lines will be exhausted, and this ban represents a stoppage of all new lines of embryonic research, I'll stand by what I say. It's essentially a ban on stem cell research. It's not based on science, it's based on a misguided opinion of our president. That's it. Non-existent? C'mon, it's not a ban on stem cell research, it's a ban on using federal funds to do research on new lines of embryonic stem cells. Some people aren't doing the research they'd like because of it, but no one's not doing any research. And the US government still spends more on stem cell research than the rest of the world combined. So let's be clear about the REAL issue here: the US government won't allow researchers to establish new lines of embryonic stem cells using federal money. That's a far narrower restriction than the total ban everyone likes to pretend exists... 395390[/snapback]
Johnny Coli Posted August 1, 2005 Posted August 1, 2005 Non-existent? C'mon, it's not a ban on stem cell research, it's a ban on using federal funds to do research on new lines of embryonic stem cells. Some people aren't doing the research they'd like because of it, but no one's not doing any research. And the US government still spends more on stem cell research than the rest of the world combined. So let's be clear about the REAL issue here: the US government won't allow researchers to establish new lines of embryonic stem cells using federal money. That's a far narrower restriction than the total ban everyone likes to pretend exists... 395390[/snapback] You are correct. It was a ban on using newly derived human embryonic stem cell lines. Federal money could/can be used for adult stem cell research, stem cells retrieved from umbilical cords, and existing lines of human embryonic stem cells. The issue with the human embryonic stem cell lines that were in existence at the time of the ban was that some of the lines weren't very robust, some had right-to-use issues, and the majority would never be useful for human therapy because of how they were derived and maintained (the medium used in tissue culture does not exclusively contain human "stuff", to put it into layman's terms). So, in a sense, Todd is right as well. There is an indirect ban on research that would result in a human therapy. These cell lines will never be allowed into human trials.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 1, 2005 Posted August 1, 2005 It's not based on science, it's based on a misguided opinion of our president. That's it. 395396[/snapback] That much I'll agree with. I don't agree with the restriction at all...but considering that the federal government last year spent a half-billion dollars on stem cell research, calling it a total ban is a gross mischaracterization. Either that, or a half-billion dollars was completely misappropriated.
todd Posted August 1, 2005 Posted August 1, 2005 Right. The important thing to note here is that there are unique properties of HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS that allow for different applications in HUMANS. But HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS are what President Bush opposes funding. That's what I find completely idiotic. You are correct. It was a ban on using newly derived human embryonic stem cell lines. Federal money could/can be used for adult stem cell research, stem cells retrieved from umbilical cords, and existing lines of human embryonic stem cells. The issue with the human embryonic stem cell lines that were in existence at the time of the ban was that some of the lines weren't very robust, some had right-to-use issues, and the majority would never be useful for human therapy because of how they were derived and maintained (the medium used in tissue culture does not exclusively contain human "stuff", to put it into layman's terms). So, in a sense, Todd is right as well. There is an indirect ban on research that would result in a human therapy. These cell lines will never be allowed into human trials. 395459[/snapback]
Recommended Posts