Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 won't it? didn't Roe vs. Wade lead to an increase in abortion? 725688[/snapback] Please explain to me how that's even remotely the same thing. This should be utterly surreal...
EC-Bills Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 won't it? didn't Roe vs. Wade lead to an increase in abortion? 725688[/snapback] How in the world have you made it this far in life?
cromagnum Posted July 20, 2006 Author Posted July 20, 2006 .. Very similar to AIDS research. That early-on (and even currently) was considered a "waste", because the "cure" for AIDS was "Stop having sex, dumbasses!" But the knowledge that developed from AIDS research is already worth many times more than the federal money that was put into it. That doesn't hold for all science, of course...but in this case, it's a reasonable expectation. 725724[/snapback] If another counrty developes stemcell medicines that alieviate and cure illnesses around the world. Would they be the new (Shining City on a Hill whose Beacon Light Quides People Everywhere I figure I will get some heat for this one, couldn't resist
Hollywood Donahoe Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 Actually, I'd even dispute the result being positive fiscally. It's a short-term budgetary gain...but the trade-off is a long-term loss of medical research skills and technology, and the benefits thereof. I certainly understand (and agree with, to a certain extent) that perspective, but at the same time, I wonder if the government should be funding something that will be (if it indeed has the potential to be highly useful within the field of medicine) well funded within the private sector anyway.
Wacka Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 Like abortions, stem cell research should be- You want it, pay for it yourself. The biggest advances (which are small) are from stem cells from say umbilical cord stem cells or the stem cells in mature animals. Yes, adults have stem cells. That is what you get in a bone marrow transplant.
cromagnum Posted July 20, 2006 Author Posted July 20, 2006 Like abortions, stem cell research should be- You want it, pay for it yourself. The biggest advances (which are small) are from stem cells from say umbilical cord stem cells or the stem cells in mature animals. Yes, adults have stem cells. That is what you get in a bone marrow transplant. 725783[/snapback] Abortions are legal in this country, and this veto just eliminated those stem cells from research, instead they will be incinerated... When they could be utilized in a field of science that Might produce medicine and cures for all humans suffering from diseases that our existing medical technology cannot. What if you had Wacka junior who was born with an incurable disease and our current medical solutions had no cure and minimal relief with medicines to ease Wacka juniors symptoms. Yet you read in a in-vitro stem cell research paper that they have developed a medicine to significantly reduce the symptoms, and a cure is attainable with more funding towards research. What would you say to wacka junior? (If your offended by my asking this hypothetical question ,let me know and I will delete this post)..
Wacka Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 They aren't anywhere near something like that. The press hears something about a small advanced and they tout it as the next big thing. The research is still legal. ust that it can't be federally funded. Bill gates could chip in, he's so loaded. That would be better than pushing the Microsoft garbage. Not offended at all. Science takes little steps. Very. very rarerly is there a tremendous breakthrough. Watson and Crick published the structure of DNA in 1953, won the Nobel in 1963 and it took until the late 70s or early 80s for recombinant insulin to be available.
Hollywood Donahoe Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 ...this veto just eliminated those stem cells from research... This veto, to my understanding, did no such thing. What it did do was eliminate federal funding for research on such stem cells, meaning that privately funded research can continue unfettered. To put it simply, if the federal government vetoes a bill that was to provide funding to you for a new plasma television, that doesn't mean you're barred from owning a plasma television. You're still free to buy one with your own money.
Alaska Darin Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 Man, I don't. All I really wanted out of 2004 was to have either the Presidency, or one house of congress to be controlled by the Democrats. I would have even taken Kerry. Tis why I voted for a mostly democratic ballot. Course, I always am scared when one party exclusively holds the legislature and executive. 725451[/snapback] Why? They haven't accomplished anything. The Dummycrats, en masse, signed off on both the war and the Department of Homeland Security.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 Abortions are legal in this country, and this veto just eliminated those stem cells from research, instead they will be incinerated... When they could be utilized in a field of science that Might produce medicine and cures for all humans suffering from diseases that our existing medical technology cannot. What if you had Wacka junior who was born with an incurable disease and our current medical solutions had no cure and minimal relief with medicines to ease Wacka juniors symptoms. Yet you read in a in-vitro stem cell research paper that they have developed a medicine to significantly reduce the symptoms, and a cure is attainable with more funding towards research. What would you say to wacka junior? (If your offended by my asking this hypothetical question ,let me know and I will delete this post).. 725785[/snapback] Don't even argue with him. He just stated that the research isn't worth doing because the results of the research wouldn't be worthwhile...even though we don't know that because we haven't done the research. How do you even begin to argue with a bull sh-- position like that?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 Science takes little steps. Very. very rarerly is there a tremendous breakthrough. Watson and Crick published the structure of DNA in 1953, won the Nobel in 1963 and it took until the late 70s or early 80s for recombinant insulin to be available. 725787[/snapback] Uh, actually you're wrong. Mendel started the field of genetics a little more than a century ago. Within 75 years of his discovery, you had Watson and Crick. Within 40 years of their discovery, the entire human genome was mapped. And within a decade of that happening, it's expected that the cost of mapping a person's individual genome will be around $1000. That's just one example of ACCELERATING RETURNS. Then there's also Moore's law. Shall we even go into advances in flight?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 Uh, actually you're wrong. Mendel started the field of genetics a little more than a century ago. Within 75 years of his discovery, you had Watson and Crick. Within 40 years of their discovery, the entire human genome was mapped. And within a decade of that happening, it's expected that the cost of mapping a person's individual genome will be around $1000. That's just one example of ACCELERATING RETURNS. Then there's also Moore's law. Shall we even go into advances in flight? 725870[/snapback] Yeah...how many federal dollars went into flight research? Wasted money...if God had intended us to fly, he'd have given us wings...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 Yeah...how many federal dollars went into flight research? Wasted money...if God had intended us to fly, he'd have given us wings... 725877[/snapback] That's not the point of my post, arse. The point was to refute Wacka's inane suggestion that science moves incrementally, despite all historical and sociological indicators to the inverse being true.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 The point was to refute Wacka's inane suggestion that science moves incrementally, despite all historical and sociological indicators to the inverse being true. 725879[/snapback] That's not the point of my post, arse. My point was to refute Wacka's inane suggestion that science shouldn't move if it goes against God's will...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 That's not the point of my post, arse. My point was to refute Wacka's inane suggestion that science shouldn't move if it goes against God's will... 725885[/snapback] Arse!
Wacka Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 CTM, you must be the reincarnation of Leonardo DaVinci! An expert in everything.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 CTM, you must be the reincarnation of Leonardo DaVinci! An expert in everything. 725921[/snapback] In comparison to your ignorant ass...yeah, may as well be.
Ramius Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 Like abortions, stem cell research should be- You want it, pay for it yourself. The biggest advances (which are small) are from stem cells from say umbilical cord stem cells or the stem cells in mature animals. Yes, adults have stem cells. That is what you get in a bone marrow transplant. 725783[/snapback] yes, adults have stem cells. yes they are useful in research and combating diseases, etc. but they have no where near the potential of embryonic stem cells. One of the biggest drawbacks to no federal funding is that any potential negatives of embryonic stem cell use will not be researched thoroughly. Private sources arent going to kick a lot of money into research looking to find the drawbacks of stem cells. Private funding wants positive research. So sure private funding will support stem cell research, but we wont know the problems that these things may cause. The government would fund this type of research tho, and that research will not take place now. Remember, its immoral to take stem cells from blastocysts that are going to be destroyed anyway,
Wacka Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 One of the biggest drawbacks to no federal funding is that any potential negatives of embryonic stem cell use will not be researched thoroughly. Private sources arent going to kick a lot of money into research looking to find the drawbacks of stem cells. Private funding wants positive research. So sure private funding will support stem cell research, but we wont know the problems that these things may cause. The government would fund this type of research tho, and that research will not take place now. 725955[/snapback] Public funding doesn't want the negatives either. Try to publish a paper with negative results.
Rubes Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 Public funding doesn't want the negatives either. Try to publish a paper with negative results. 725972[/snapback] Happens all the time. But it generally doesn't happen when the research is funded by a private company (read: big pharma).
Recommended Posts