namelesstavern.net

Financiers, at least up until very recently, shied away from any space commercialization as well. Does that mean you think that the government should not have funded space research?

Certain technologies are so expensive to develop, and have such a long-term period of development that functionally no business can sustain the expense or risk the losses. Thus, they simply don't do it. How much private development was there in 1965 for commercial space tourism? We have it NOW because the technology, funded almost entirelyby government money, has finally reached the point where privatization and profitability are becoming possible.

Is stem cell research going to have the chance to be profitable in 2 years? Fuck no. 5 years? Same. 10 years? Probably still the same. 15 years, might be possible. 20-25 years, possibly. That's with government research funding, mind you. Without it, it won't be in 50 years, at least not in the US. Of course, other countries who are not so short-sighted may well have funded it, and companies there will own the patents instead of US companies.

Also, the money does not necessarily have to go to pharmaceutical companies, you realize. Much of the funds could be given out as research grants to scientists associted with universities, or with one of the research think tanks. Gee, I SO oppose giving money to universities so that they might conduct basic research, yeah, really, honest.

-Arlos

arlos wrote:You realize that they're not proposing deliberately aborting fetuses just to do the research, right? They're taking unwanted frozen embryos left over at fertility clinics that are going to be effectively flushed down the toilet anyway. Yes, that's right, those embryos would be destroyed whether or not they were used for stem cell research. The veto just means they're going to be tossed to no purpose.

-Arlos

arlos wrote:

No, federal funding of embryonic stem cell research is a political ploy to further devalue the life of an unborn child, further entrenching abortion in our society.

Your tinfoil hat is slipping.

-Arlos

You rather quickly dismissed my statement that answers your question. I understand there technically no direct link in that aborted fetuses will be used, however I do believe it will have to an extent the result of the further devaluation of unborn human beings.

You see Arlos I do believe your support for embryonic research stems from a motivation to find something that will benefit mankind, but open your eyes and realize that there are political adgendas here on both sides. One side is pretty up front about it being an issue based in a moral compass that opposed the idea, the other hides behind shaky "scientific" conjecture stated as fact. The assumption is that the proposed research will yield results, it's just a matter of time and money. There is no real basis for this... it's supposed to be taken on.. dare I say faith?

that's a very good comparison of faith, lueyen, and i see your point. but i see the whole issue as idealism vs. pragmatism. yes, it's a tragedy that fetuses get aborted. no one is denying that. and it seems a waste to throw away frozen embryos that no one wants. it sure is. ideally, no embryo, frozen or in utero, would ever go to waste.

but they do.

the potential (i say potential, not inevitability) exists for those tragic throwaways to be used in finding cures for some of mankind's most devastating diseases. banning stem cell research will not save ANY of those embryos from destruction, it saves them from NEEDLESS destruction!

Wow. You guys are arguing that these embryos are just going to get flushed down the toilet. How much would you charge for someone for yourshit? If these embryos are so "worthless" then what's all the debate about funding? I've got $10, that should cover the gas cost of your to drive out to your local sperm bank and stock up on the cells....
Now tell me, does that make any sense?
The drug company debate, you guys argue that they are all about the money. Fine, what do they make money on? That's right, selling drugs. So their very motivation is to cure you. Don't give me that "they are not curing" bullshit either. If that was so, then we wouldn't have the debate of the insolvency of Medicare because people would not be living as long. Do any of you people think none of the drug companies are scrambling to produce a cure for cancer because that would mean serving the common good? Christ what naivety.

Eziekial wrote:Christ what naivety.

Indeed.

(AP) A day after President Bush vetoed expanded federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, the governors of Illinois and California each announced moves to make cash available for the research, which critics oppose because the process involves the destruction of human embryos.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Thursday authorized a $150 million loan to fund the state's stem cell institute, which has been stalled by lawsuits.

Schwarzenegger, a Republican who has been trying to put distance between himself and the unpopular president as he seeks re-election this year, said the state cannot afford to wait to fund the critical science associated with stem cells.

"I remain committed to advancing stem cell research in California, in the promise it holds for millions of our citizens who suffer from chronic diseases and injuries that could be helped as a result of stem cell research," Schwarzenegger said in a letter to his finance director.

The state's voters created the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine in 2004 when they passed a ballot measure that authorized $3 billion over 10 years for stem cell research.

Lawyers with ties to anti-abortion and anti-tax groups have sued, arguing that the institute is unconstitutional.

On April 21, a Superior Court judge ruled the institute was a legitimate state agency. But if opponents continue to contest the agency in court, they could hold up the institute's financing until at least next year.

Also Thursday, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat, announced Thursday that he is diverting $5 million from the state budget for stem cell research, despite repeated objections from state legislators.

"Investing in research that can save lives and prevent serious illnesses is more than a sound public health strategy, it's our moral obligation," he said.

The money will come out of administrative funds already set aside for the state Department of Healthcare and Family Services, Blagojevich said.

Last year Blagojevich used an executive order to spend $10 million for stem cell research, a move that caught many state lawmakers off guard. Illinois lawmakers have previously voted against stem cell research, and this spring they did not take up the governor's proposal for $100 million in funding over five years.

Legislators of both political parties criticized his move Thursday.

"Any time this happens, it's not good for the process when you circumvent the legislative body and the voice of the people," said Democratic Rep. John Bradley.

Embryonic stem cells are building blocks that turn into different types of tissue. Scientists hope to use them someday to regenerate damaged organs or other body parts and cure diseases. Some oppose such research because it involves the destruction of human embryos.

ezekiel, I am in no way talking about the conspiracy theories of pharmaceutical companies choosing not to cure people so they can constantly sell them drugs. What I am saying is exactly what arlos restated, they are looking for the quickest, easiest way to make a buck. Why do you think so much money is spent in research for antacids, and headache treatment compared to nasty genetic disorders, because the market is huge for one, and relatively small for the other. I honestly have no idea about the ratio of corporate vs government/private donations with regards to cancer treatment but I would guess the public money is far and away higher then what companies like merck put in.

It has absolutely nothing to do with faith, it has everything to do with people seeing the potential and not wanting promising studies to crash and burn because of lack of funding. The scientists would still have to write up a grant proposal and go before a board to get their money but at least it would be possible with this situation.

And Lueyen, lets say I'm an american tax payer and I decide to put all my income tax towards stem cell research, all that means is that your money will be more spread out and you will help fund my roads, my schools. It doesn't matter if it's me, or you or anybody else, if the government is putting funds towards something specific, you are paying for it.

Eziekial wrote:Wow. You guys are arguing that these embryos are just going to get flushed down the toilet. How much would you charge for someone for yourshit? If these embryos are so "worthless" then what's all the debate about funding? I've got $10, that should cover the gas cost of your to drive out to your local sperm bank and stock up on the cells....
Now tell me, does that make any sense? .

and this is just retarded

Ezekiel, do you have any idea how expensive the machiens are to do cell and genetic research? You need multiple pieces of equipment, and the CHEAPEST of them costs in excess of $50,000. Most of them are > $100,000. Then there's the slaries of the scientists working on this, and remember, these are people at the top of their field, who could make high-6-figure incomes from the private sector fromt he drug companies, so if you want a chance to keep them in academia, you need to be at least remotely competitive, salary-wise. etc. etc. etc.

It's not a matter of needing money to purchase the embryos. It's all of the other costs associated with research, down to the electrical costs to run all of the equipment, the super-specialized freezers that can hold tissue samples precisely at -40, etc.

-Arlos

if its got the chance of curing cancer if i get it someday, they can take alll the human embryo they want

Eziekial wrote:The drug company debate, you guys argue that they are all about the money. Fine, what do they make money on? That's right, selling drugs. So their very motivation is to cure you. Don't give me that "they are not curing" bullshit either. If that was so, then we wouldn't have the debate of the insolvency of Medicare because people would not be living as long. Do any of you people think none of the drug companies are scrambling to produce a cure for cancer because that would mean serving the common good? Christ what naivety.

You are making a major error in your logic. Yes drug companies primary concern is to sell drugs. What is the worst thing that could happen to the drug industry? People having no need for their drugs. If they developed drugs that actually cured ailments, then would not need to buy their drugs once you have purchased them the first time. This isn't a way to get rich.

The ultimate goal of a drug company is to create a drug that doesn't cure the illness, but acts as a cure as long as you continue to take that drug. Think about the elderly who take 40+ pills a day. They are what the drug companies want. The more pills you take, the better they are doing.

Look at things like aids and cancer. How much money a year do people with those illnesses pay on drugs a year? Now image there was a pill they could take once that would cure them, how much of a financial loss is that to the drug companies?

Drug companies are not about curing you, they are about making money.

lyion wrote:If this is going to be so groundbreaking and changing, why isn't there more private investment.

As per Snero, the private sector is out to make PROVEN money. Why was there a shortage of the flu vaccine awhile back? There's no profit in
it.

When electricity was first invented, did anyone donate to it? No they werent sure if it would make money. The same all around. This was taking something that would otherwise be WASTED and then try to use it to better ourselfs. Im sure the "if-ever-found-cure" would be extremely expensive, but atleast it would be there.


I find it funny, how people say "dont do it, its a baby." Yet, no one is saying a damn thing about how we eat eggs from a chicken.

ybik gnome wrote:I find it funny, how people say "dont do it, its a baby." Yet, no one is saying a damn thing about how we eat eggs from a chicken.

We also eat the chicken.

Eggs are also unfertalized.

Darcler wrote:Eggs are also unfertalized.

O_o

ybik gnome wrote:I find it funny, how people say "dont do it, its a baby." Yet, no one is saying a damn thing about how we eat eggs from a chicken.

Think this through more...

ybik gnome wrote:

lyion wrote:If this is going to be so groundbreaking and changing, why isn't there more private investment.

As per Snero, the private sector is out to make PROVEN money. Why was there a shortage of the flu vaccine awhile back? There's no profit in
it.

When electricity was first invented, did anyone donate to it? No they werent sure if it would make money. The same all around. This was taking something that would otherwise be WASTED and then try to use it to better ourselfs. Im sure the "if-ever-found-cure" would be extremely expensive, but atleast it would be there.


I find it funny, how people say "dont do it, its a baby." Yet, no one is saying a damn thing about how we eat eggs from a chicken.

Back in the 1800/1900s venture capital was limited and supply and demand were less.

Nowadays, that capital flows freely. Political parties on both sides recieve 100s of millions. Pharmacueticals have sick cash.

The flu virus was contracted and profitable, but we lost a bunch due to contamination, which has nothing to do with profit or the business model.

Finally, are you really comparing people to chickens?

As I said before, I see federal funding for this to be entirely analogous to federal funding for space technology.

-Arlos

space technology is infinitely more important than cancer.

Cancer won't descend legions of space zombies to concquer the earth anytime soon.

Space fighter jets should be the nation's top priority.

Ralf W. Bush

See, Californians are willing to pay for the research, what's wrong with that?

Gaazy wrote:if its got the chance of curing cancer if i get it someday, they can take alll the human embryo they want

Yes, that's one of the ideas behind it. However, all stem cell research has achieved so far is tumors and and other growths instead of actually doing what they hoped it would do. Long story short... stem cell research is not doing very well.

Oh, and Arlos... spare us the copy & paste stem cell propaganda you find on google searches of "stem cell research."

Mindia, you're pulling a Lyion. Assuming in the absence of evidence actions that have never been taken. I know a fair bit about the situation as it is, I neither needed to, nor did I google a damn thing in any argument I made in this thread. Please, I ask you sincerely, do not continue to pull Lyions, as it truly gets on my nerves, unless, of course, you wish me to reciprocate in kind and go back to attempting to get under YOUR skin. I think we both will agree we've gotten along better this time you've been back, yes? So, please, don't ruin it.

-Arlos

arlos wrote:Mindia, you're pulling a Lyion. Assuming in the absence of evidence actions that have never been taken. I know a fair bit about the situation as it is, I neither needed to, nor did I google a damn thing in any argument I made in this thread. Please, I ask you sincerely, do not continue to pull Lyions, as it truly gets on my nerves, unless, of course, you wish me to reciprocate in kind and go back to attempting to get under YOUR skin. I think we both will agree we've gotten along better this time you've been back, yes? So, please, don't ruin it.

-Arlos

Didn't you see the wink icon? lolz

Oh, and btw...

Scientists at Embryonic Stem Cell Research Mtg. Admit Failures

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
June 23, 2005


Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Hundreds of scientists who back embryonic stem cell research are meeting in California to discuss the current state of the controversial research are admitting they've not made much progress and losing millions in trying to perfect it.
"Many of the technologies we hyped to the general public haven't worked yet,'' Celgene President Alan Lewis said, according to an AP story.

James Thomson, the Wisconsin biologist who was the first to isolate embryonic stem cells also admits they have been oversold.

He told MSBNC that he understands the technology still has a long way to go and that embryonic stem cells are not being used in any human clinical trials yet.
"I'm very hopeful that there will be some transplantation applications for this technology, but they're going to be very challenging," he told MSNBC. "And it's been so hyped in the press that people expect it to come the day after tomorrow."

Thomson conceded that embryonic stem cell cures may not be available until "ten to twenty years from now."
Meanwhile, Lewis also pointed out that venture capitalists, the source of much of the funding of stem cell research companies, "are very cautious'' about investing because of the limited success and lack of future prospects.

That's true for William Haseltine, CEO of Human Genome Sciences, a leading advocate of embryonic stem cell research. He says results are decades away and his company is not spending money on the unproven embryonic cells.

“The routine utilization of human embryonic stem cells for medicine is 20 to 30 years hence," Haseltine admits.

"The timeline to commercialization is so long that I simply would not invest," Haseltine added.

As a result, leading embryonic stem cell research firms are losing money.

Geron, the California-based biotech firm has put over $100 million into embryonic stem cell research and, because it has little to show for the investment, lost $80 million last year.

Advanced Cell Technology, a Massachusetts company that was one of the first to claim to have cloned a human embryo, is running into significant financial troubles and, according to AP, is having problems finding enough eggs from women for research.

"There have been companies that have gone into stem cells, but nobody's made any money," researcher Thomson admitted.

In other words, it's a HUGE waste of money. Again, I have to reiterate that Bush did the right thing in VETO'ing this.

Narrock wrote:However, all stem cell research has achieved so far is tumors and and other growths instead of actually doing what they hoped it would do. Long story short... stem cell research is not doing very well.

I think it's important to note you are talking embryonic stem cell research, as the tumor problem is with that specifically no all stem cell research.

Lueyen wrote:

Narrock wrote:However, all stem cell research has achieved so far is tumors and and other growths instead of actually doing what they hoped it would do. Long story short... stem cell research is not doing very well.

I think it's important to note you are talking embryonic stem cell research, as the tumor problem is with that specifically no all stem cell research.

True, but didn't the bill specify "embryonic stem cell research?"

Narrock wrote:

Lueyen wrote:

Narrock wrote:However, all stem cell research has achieved so far is tumors and and other growths instead of actually doing what they hoped it would do. Long story short... stem cell research is not doing very well.

I think it's important to note you are talking embryonic stem cell research, as the tumor problem is with that specifically no all stem cell research.

True, but didn't the bill specify "embryonic stem cell research?"

Yes but keeping in context both types of research have been discussed in this thread, and technically your statement would encompass both types and is therefore is incorrect in the absence of specification.