Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Agreed. It was overly simplistic and it suggested that a cure for a variety of ailments was at best theoretical. That said, there is a lot of evidence that embryonic stem cells are different from existing line stem cells (usually taken from bone marrow).

What are you talking about? Are you trying to (ineptly) explain the difference between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells? Adult stem cells come from a variety of progenator cells, some (but by no means all) of which may be bone marrow derived. Adult stem cells have been derived from inter alia muscle, neurons, and connective tissue.

But there are quite a few embryonic stem cell lines already in existence in the US developed with US money (not federal government money). These cells were not taken from bone marrow - hence the term EMBRYONIC. They were taken from embryos - hence the term EMBRYONIC. One example are the lines developed by the University of Wisconsin. These lines were developed using research funds other than the federal government funds.

There is no ban on developing embryonic stem cell lines in the US and consequently, there are quite a few lines in existence. They just came to be because of private funds rather than federal funds. States are also free to use their money to fund embryonic stem cell lines. In fact, the state of California does fund embryonic stem cell research at some UC institutions.

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
It'd suck if everyone else owned the patents.

The broadest patents in this space are owned by the University of Wisconsin which has licensed them to US corporations. Any subsequent patents that are issued will be dominated by the UofWi's patents.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"Everyone dies anyway. Therefore, the government may as well execute everyone serving life in prison without parole."

Good analogy. Because the daily experience of an embryo in a freezer is exactly like that of a prison inmate.

Do we keep each embryo in cold storage in the off chance that someone will adopt and implant it and raise it to be a productive member of society?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
3) This does not, in fact, prevent anyone from doing research using the other 40-odd lines [the number may be off] currently existing in the world. However, to do so requires private money.

Is that the Bush Admin policy -- that if you do such research you can only do it with private money? Or is the policy that if your institution does such research, even with private money, your instituion loses ALL federal funding?

This is a serious question. The difference between those two policies is enormous.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What's the difference (seriously)? Is it just the stage of development?

Typically, it's brain birth, the stage where detectable brain activity is first present.

Given that we consider someone legally dead at brain death (and this isn't a hotly debated point by the right to lifers), this makes sense.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Is that the Bush Admin policy -- that if you do such research you can only do it with private money? Or is the policy that if your institution does such research, even with private money, your instituion loses ALL federal funding?

This is a serious question. The difference between those two policies is enormous.

I don't know for sure (RT may from her earlier post), but I think the latter.

Is there a federal funding program that isn't the latter?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Good analogy. Because the daily experience of an embryo in a freezer is exactly like that of a prison inmate.

Having heard what goes on in prisons, I would say the embryo has a better existence.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Put aside the substantive question or whether or not it's morally right, do you not see the hypocricy of someone who is pro-life approving of research on fetuses?

This is a curious argument. The non-religious right is attempting to apologize for a platform written by the religious right by pointing out that the platform is, at least, internally consistent, even if it's completely inconsistent with the core values of all others.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Is that the Bush Admin policy -- that if you do such research you can only do it with private money?

Just to clarify - you can do it with government money, just not federal government money. States can fund it if they want to with state money.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Or is the policy that if your institution does such research, even with private money, your instituion loses ALL federal funding?

This is a serious question. The difference between those two policies is enormous.

The policy is simply that you cannot use federal funds to research ESCs except for research using the lines that already existed at the point in which the policy was enacted. Prior to that point, no federal funds could be used. During that time, the UofWi and the Johns Hopkins University developed lines using private funds while still receiving federal monies for other research.

There is no bar to using non-federal funds. This is in fact being done using the state of California money and private funds at UC institutions, which still receive plenty of NIH grants.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The question was "Is the belief that the spouse of politicians are of particular poltical relevance a post-Hillary phenomenon," not whether there was precedent for the length of THK's speech.

As for what she said, how would I know? I got better things to do than watch the convention (I did Tivo Obama, though -- he is really a hell of a speaker).

Don't you want to hear how much Democrats hate America?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I don't know for sure (RT may from her earlier post), but I think the latter.

Is there a federal funding program that isn't the latter?

I suspect that you are right, in which case Slave's argument -- "Bush is just saying you need to do that research with private money" -- is seriously flawed. It's like saying that Carter didn't impose a national speed limit, he just told the states that they would lose all federal highway money if they allowed speed limits over 55.

I have no idea who really does serious stem cell research but I assume that it's almost exclusively done through universities and research centers that depend on federal money to support a huge range of programs (most of which, at least in universities, have nothing to do with stem cell research, or even medical research). The Bush policy -- which goes beyond "we won't support x" to "if you do x, we will cut you off from all financing for anything else" is in effect pretty close to a bar on the research.

As to your final question, the answer is yes -- there are any number of things the fed gov't won't support, but it will allow people to do without being punished. When the NEA or HHS turns down a grant application from a university, they don't take away the rest of the university's financing.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
There is no bar to using non-federal funds. This is in fact being done using the state of California money and private funds at UC institutions, which still receive plenty of NIH grants.

In that case, I stand corrected on the post that I was typing as you wrote this. Assuming you are correct -- I really have no idea, my general response to questions about medical research is "ick."

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
This is a curious argument. The non-religious right is attempting to apologize for a platform written by the religious right by pointing out that the platform is, at least, internally consistent, even if it's completely inconsistent with the core values of all others.

I'm not apologizing for anything because I do not see this as a major issue, just like I don't see abortion as a major issue. It just seems to me that Bush's position on this is consistent with his pro-life views, though, inconsistent with his pro-dealth penalty views. Similarly, the left's positions are consistent with the death penalty views, but inconsistent with their pro-choice/abortion views.

I have not yet formed a position on either stem cell research or abortion, though I tend to side on the side of science in most cases. I am anti-death penalty.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I don't know for sure (RT may from her earlier post), but I think the latter.

Is there a federal funding program that isn't the latter?

It looks like it's just federal funding for the project, though practically speaking, it means you have to build a separate lab if you're already under some sort of NIH, FDA, CDC or DOD grant.

[SlaveNoMore]

Atticus Grinch
Good analogy. Because the daily experience of an embryo in a freezer is exactly like that of a prison inmate.

The analogy isn't far off whatsoever. Both are non-productive "lives" that are ultimately going to die.

So what then, if we speed up the process.

Do we keep each embryo in cold storage in the off chance that someone will adopt and implant it and raise it to be a productive member of society?

Is this a trick question? Does the answer involve raising my taxes?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I suspect that you are right

Well he is wrong. An institution can do privately funded or state funded ESC research and still receive federal research grants.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I have no idea who really does serious stem cell research

If you are talking about ESC research in the US, Geron and the University of Wisconsin are the players. Geron funded the pioneering work done by the UofWi, which was the first ESC line in existence. In return, Geron is the exclusive licensee of many of the UofWi patents.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
but I assume that it's almost exclusively done through universities and research centers that depend on federal money to support a huge range of programs (most of which, at least in universities, have nothing to do with stem cell research, or even medical research).

Wrong. The most research is being done right in your own backyard down here in Silicon Valley.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The Bush policy -- which goes beyond "we won't support x" to "if you do x, we will cut you off from all financing for anything else" is in effect pretty close to a bar on the research.

Wrong again. That isn't the policy. UC Berkely does ESC research funded privately and with state of CA money and still gets plenty of federal grants.