Fed Up - Stem Cells

**RavenMad2099** · 08-23-2006, 05:27 PM

Scientists have found a new method of obtaining embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14481692/

The new method works by taking an embryo at a very early stage of development and removing a single cell, which can be coaxed into spawning an embryonic stem cell line. With only one cell removed, the rest of the embryo retains its full potential for development.

Problem solved, right?
Think again:

Some stem cell researchers complain that the new approach, though it may hold future promise, simply isn’t as efficient as their current method of creating stem cells. That procedure involves the destruction of embryos after about five days of development, when they consist of about 100 cells.

Well, boo hoo.

What about the pro-life side? Are they happy?

Meanwhile, hard-line opponents of stem cell science argue that the technique solves nothing, because even the single cell removed by the new approach could theoretically grow into a full-fledged human.

NEWSFLASH: people will have to compromise here. If one side runs roughshod over the other, we'll have another purely political issue that will be a constant source of argument and hard feelings, just like abortion. The actual science of the thing will be secondary. I'm for standing on principle as much as the next guy, but some people need to just...grow up!!!

What does Bush say? According to the article, he called this "a step in the right direction."

**12thRaven** · 08-23-2006, 06:56 PM

I'm very much anti-embryonic stem cell research in its current method of harvesting them, but completely support this new technique of obtaining them. It is a cell obtained from a living, developing human being - without destroying that living, developing human being.

Scientists who are opposed to this have an agenda that clearly goes beyond science and embryonic stem cell research.

**Admin Steve** · 08-24-2006, 06:10 AM

Neither Congress nor any administration has ever prohibited private funding of embryonic research. Public and private funding of adult stem cell research has no restriction whatsoever.

This should preface any discussion on this subject IMO.

**RavenMad2099** · 08-24-2006, 06:32 AM

Neither Congress nor any administration has ever prohibited private funding of embryonic research. Public and private funding of adult stem cell research has no restriction whatsoever.

Yes, and the article makes an allusion to their search for private funding...which is exactly ass-backwards, if you ask me. If the prospects for useful medical advances were as imminent as the media often claims, private funds shouldn't be hard to come by. Instead, they hold their hand palm up to the federal government first.

From a constitutional standpoint, we shouldn't spend federal dollars on this at all. Not one red cent. I see no provision anywhere that authorizes the funding of medical research. From a short-term political perspective, some sort of compromise will have to be made.

Changing people's expectations of the federal government will be a long-term process, requiring intensive education in government, civics, and our own US Constitution from elementary school on up before people see that it isn't the government's job to provide funding for everything from scientific research to retirement benefits. This will have to be done at a local level, where responsibility for education is supposed to reside.

At one time, it was considered beyond the federal government's perogative to provide disaster relief. Today, there's hardly anything the government doesn't spend money on.

Pah! Stem cell research, abortion, SS, welfare, healthcare, and a myriad of other programs/proposals should never even come up as subjects for debate or funding at the national level.

**Greg** · 08-24-2006, 10:39 AM

Well, since you guys summed up my position completely I really can add nothing of substance. Shouldn't be funded by the Feds for Consitutional reasons but this method seems to be fine in terms of protecting life and there is no reason why it should be objected to.

**Mobtown** · 08-24-2006, 04:55 PM

Privately funded reasearch means that once break-throughs are made they will only be available to those who can afford to pay those private companies prices. The Government must be involved on some level to ensure that all humans can benefit from this research, not just the rich ones.

**RavenMad2099** · 08-24-2006, 05:18 PM

That's a very nice sentiment there, but where is the federal government's authority to "ensure that all humans can benefit" from stem cell research (or any other scientific research, for that matter)?

Besides, they won't. The scientists researching this work for companies and corporations driven by a profit...and so do the doctors in the hospitals who will administer the benefits of this research. That won't change just because the federal government throws some money their way...and I, as a taxpayer, have no interest in paying people's healthcare bills if that's what it comes to.

BTW...more gets done more quickly by people working for a profit than people working for a goverment bureaucracy. If you want waste, inefficiency, and a snail's pace, let the government handle it. If you want results from stem cell research fast, let the private sector do it.

**gooselovechild** · 08-24-2006, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by Mobtown

Privately funded reasearch means that once break-throughs are made they will only be available to those who can afford to pay those private companies prices. The Government must be involved on some level to ensure that all humans can benefit from this research, not just the rich ones.

Just because the feds fund the research doesn't necessarily mean that the researcher/s won't patent the findings, which just means that you and I have to pay twice for the breakthrough treatments--we'd pay for the research and the results.

And, if the feds get involved, they would have oversight of all the research being done, which means that they can dictate who is involved in the research, where it is done, how it is done, etc.

The federal government couldn't pull off a one car funeral, but you want them involved in the research for potentially life altering medical advancements? Just look how poorly managed the CDC and NIH are for what lies ahead if the feds get into this equation.

It just doesn't make practical or economic sense for the feds to be involved in medical research...period.

**Mobtown** · 08-25-2006, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by gooselovechild

which just means that you and I have to pay twice for the breakthrough treatments--we'd pay for the research and the results.

Great point.

Originally Posted by gooselovechild

The federal government couldn't pull off a one car funeral, but you want them involved in the research for potentially life altering medical advancements? Just look how poorly managed the CDC and NIH are for what lies ahead if the feds get into this equation.

Well, we trust them in so many other areas...how about National Defense as an example. Most of me thinks that the opposition is motivated by moral idealism, not pratical realism.

Originally Posted by gooselovechild

It just doesn't make practical or economic sense for the feds to be involved in medical research...period.

But they already are. They fund cancer and AIDS research and no one seems to have a problem with that.

**Greg** · 08-25-2006, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by Mobtown

But they already are. They fund cancer and AIDS research and no one seems to have a problem with that.

I do, I think it sucks.

**Mobtown** · 08-25-2006, 03:56 PM

I do, I think it sucks.

OK, so how about I amend my statement to say that no one speaks out about that.

**Greg** · 08-25-2006, 04:31 PM

Stick around here for a while, you will find a few of us who think most of what the Fed Gov does not only sucks, but is unConstitutional.

**Mobtown** · 08-25-2006, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by Greg

Stick around here for a while, you will find a few of us who think most of what the Fed Gov does not only sucks, but is unConstitutional.

No doubt. I was more refering to those in the general public who are so up in arms over stem cell research.

**Sephy** · 08-25-2006, 08:19 PM

Edit: I reread the quotes. The pro-lifers are still wrong here. With the one cell removed, the others have the same ability to develop. Sure, that ONE cell could develop on its own, but it would be the SAME PERSON as the other ~7 then. Ridiculous.

**Canuckofithaca** · 01-17-2007, 08:49 PM

If stem cell research has the potential (keyword there, potential) to cure some terrible illnesses, then why don't more people fund the private companies researching at the moment? I'm very pro stem cell research, but i don't understand why people bitch about the government not funding research, but then not making contributions to it out of their own pockets.