Obama Ends Stem Cell Research Ban (merged)

#54
#54
allvol123 said:
Come on man. You said you don't have a problem with this. Explain why not. I thought you were fiscally conservative.
Click to expand...

What does being a fisical conservative have to do with stem cell research? He said he was lifting the ban.
 
#55
#55
oklavol said:
What does being a fisical conservative have to do with stem cell research? He said he was lifting the ban.
Click to expand...

He lifted the ban on federal funding of the research, there was not an all out ban on the research. Being a fiscal conservative has plenty to do with being against him lifting the spending ban.
 
#56
#56
allvol123 said:
He lifted the ban on federal funding of the research, there was not an all out ban on the research. Being a fiscal conservative has plenty to do with being against him lifting the spending ban.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I can really buy that side of the argument. NIH funding was already set for this year before the ban was lifted...and won't be increasing in future years any more than it would have otherwise. It isn't like a new agency is being created...or new money is being allocated specifically for this as far as I can tell.

I just look at it like this is just one more area for researchers to request funding from the existing government resources, just more competition for the dollars.
 
#57
#57
TennTradition said:
I'm not sure if I can really buy that side of the argument. NIH funding was already set for this year before the ban was lifted...and won't be increasing in future years any more than it would have otherwise. It isn't like a new agency is being created...or new money is being allocated specifically for this as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

How is that so?
 
#58
#58
allvol123 said:
How is that so?
Click to expand...

Opening up one new area for spending federal dollars among a myriad of other funding options will not drive noticeable increases in NIH (or other relevant sources) funding, IMO. I suppose it is possible that congress could use the potential of stem cells as a driver behind more NIH funding - but if they wanted to increase the funding, they could use a host of other research areas to promote it.

NIH funding was doubled over a 10 year period (I think) and has remained flat since then. They were able to justify the increase in funding at that time w/o stem cells...if they think a funding increase is necessary again, they wouldn't need stem cells to do it. That's my opinion on it.
 
#59
#59
TennTradition said:
Opening up one new area for spending federal dollars among a myriad of other funding options will not drive noticeable increases in NIH (or other relevant sources) funding, IMO. I suppose it is possible that congress could use the potential of stem cells as a driver behind more NIH funding - but if they wanted to increase the funding, they could use a host of other research areas to promote it.

NIH funding was doubled over a 10 year period (I think) and has remained flat since then. They were able to justify the increase in funding at that time w/o stem cells...if they think a funding increase is necessary again, they wouldn't need stem cells to do it. That's my opinion on it.
Click to expand...

Ok. I disagree. Stem Cells are the cure all of every currently non-curable disease. This certainly opens up avenues for NIH or anyone else that wants to ask for more funding for their research. Either way, I don't see how approving of this lift on funding would be a sign of someone fiscally conservative.
 
#60
#60
allvol123 said:
Ok. I disagree. Stem Cells are the cure all of every currently non-curable disease. This certainly opens up avenues for NIH or anyone else that wants to ask for more funding for their research. Either way, I don't see how approving of this lift on funding would be a sign of someone fiscally conservative.
Click to expand...

IMO, it certainly doesn't indicate that anyone is fiscally conservative...but it also doesn't suggest to me that they are not.

To me, it is nothing more than putting this field on the same playing field as all other biological research that the government funds. The decision to fund or not fund NIH requests will be a sign of fiscal conservatism, not the decision to stop preventing federal investment in a certain research area (that must apply for funding through the same avenues as all the others).
 
#61
#61
TennTradition said:
IMO, it certainly doesn't indicate that anyone is fiscally conservative...but it also doesn't suggest to me that they are not.

To me, it is nothing more than putting this field on the same playing field as all other biological research that the government funds. The decision to fund or not fund NIH requests will be a sign of fiscal conservatism, not the decision to stop preventing federal investment in a certain research area (that must apply for funding through the same avenues as all the others).
Click to expand...

We will not agree since we certainly have different definitions of fiscally conservative. I come from the viewpoint that the federal government has no business in any of this. So, you can obviously see my objection on lifting a federal spending ban on any research.

Also, I really disagree that opening another avenue will not allow for a budget to grow. These entities grow like a cancer.
 
Last edited:
#62
#62
allvol123 said:
We will not agree since we certainly have different definitions of fiscally conservative. I come from the viewpoint that the federal government has no business in any of this. So, you can obviously see my objection on lifting a federal spending ban on any research.

Also, I really disagree that opening another avenue will not allow for a budget to grow. These entities grow like a cancer.
Click to expand...

To bring up fiscal responsibility in this issue just doesn't make sense to me. It isn't like they are *creating* this new research area and agency to administer new money they are allocating for it. They stopped expansion of research in this area for non-scientific and non-fiscal reasons...now they are letting it start up again. The decision to not fund this is extra-regulation of the research market - I'm surprised you're not upset about that (tongue-in-cheek).

I'm sure you're right that at some time NIH will try to use this to get more money. However, the decision to be fiscally responsible will have to come then...it isn't to be made now. You do not restrict funding to any research area specifically over others as a measure of fiscal responsibility. You control the budget of the funding agencies and let them decide who deserves the research money the most.
 
#63
#63
TennTradition said:
To bring up fiscal responsibility in this issue just doesn't make sense to me. It isn't like they are *creating* this new research area and agency to administer new money they are allocating for it. They stopped expansion of research in this area for non-scientific and non-fiscal reasons...now they are letting it start up again. The decision to not fund this is extra-regulation of the research market - I'm surprised you're not upset about that (tongue-in-cheek).

I'm sure you're right that at some time NIH will try to use this to get more money. However, the decision to be fiscally responsible will have to come then...it isn't to be made now. You do not restrict funding to any research area specifically over others as a measure of fiscal responsibility. You control the budget of the funding agencies and let them decide who deserves the research money the most.
Click to expand...


I think the NIH created the Office of AIDS Research(OAR) in 1988. So you are thinking this required no additional money than what the NIH would have received otherwise? They receive the same money, just created a new department and kept on getting their yearly increases? So they created a new department with essentially no new money?

I don't care for the reasoning of why it was stopped. You really believe it will be "re-started" with no additional monies? They'll just go on happily with what they were already using and ask for no more?

Your second paragraph has plenty of truth. The horse is already out of the barn on spending issues. I can't applaud any measure that allows for more avenues to be opened.
 
#64
#64
allvol123 said:
I think the NIH created the Office of AIDS Research(OAR) in 1988. So you are thinking this required no additional money than what the NIH would have received otherwise? They receive the same money, just created a new department and kept on getting their yearly increases? So they created a new department with essentially no new money?

I don't care for the reasoning of why it was stopped. You really believe it will be "re-started" with no additional monies? They'll just go on happily with what they were already using and ask for no more?

Your second paragraph has plenty of truth. The horse is already out of the barn on spending issues. I can't applaud any measure that allows for more avenues to be opened.
Click to expand...

I think that you're right that research areas can grow causing an increase in staff in these areas...which requires money. Whether or not this money comes from other research areas or from existing funds is a matter for Congress to answer. But, I agree with you - it can (and probably will) cost NIH more money...and it is even possible that NIH uses that to leverage Congress for more money. I'll agree with all of that. That wasn't the best way to make my point...I was basically making the case that it doesn't have to mean increased funding if the lawmakers don't want it to...it can be done with existing funding, but they would have to make tough decisions.

But, my main point (and it took me a bit to finally articulate it clearly) is that restricting specific research areas is not a matter of fiscal responsibility. I find that to be a straw man in this discussion.

I understand your position. However, I think that to disagree with this decision on the basis of fiscal responsibility is wrong. That's the point that I was trying to make in my second paragraph...control the agencies funding to be fiscally responsible and let the agency decide what science should be funded.

As you might guess, I would also disagree with you if you argued to cut NIH funding a lot or completely, but that argument isn't as *wrong* (IMO) as it is an example of a fundamental difference in perspective that really isn't right or wrong in the classical sense.
 
#65
#65
TennTradition said:
I think that you're right that research areas can grow causing an increase in staff in these areas...which requires money. Whether or not this money comes from other research areas or from existing funds is a matter for Congress to answer. But, I agree with you - it can (and probably will) cost NIH more money...and it is even possible that NIH uses that to leverage Congress for more money. I'll agree with all of that. That wasn't the best way to make my point...I was basically making the case that it doesn't have to mean increased funding if the lawmakers don't want it to...it can be done with existing funding, but they would have to make tough decisions.

But, my main point (and it took me a bit to finally articulate it clearly) is that restricting specific research areas is not a matter of fiscal responsibility. I find that to be a straw man in this discussion.

I understand your position. However, I think that to disagree with this decision on the basis of fiscal responsibility is wrong. That's the point that I was trying to make in my second paragraph...control the agencies funding to be fiscally responsible and let the agency decide what science should be funded.

As you might guess, I would also disagree with you if you argued to cut NIH funding a lot or completely, but that argument isn't as *wrong* (IMO) as it is an example of a fundamental difference in perspective that really isn't right or wrong in the classical sense.
Click to expand...


I see your point. Restricting the research was never a financial decison and thus was not some indication of fiscal responsibilty or lack thereof. That said, lifting it just opens another road.

I will need to target more precisely my criticism of the lifting. I'll stick with the government has no business in this field to begin with and opeing another avenue just opens another reason to allocate more money.

I'll still say someone that is extremely fiscally conservative would not be happy with this.

Also, you're entirely too civil for this forum. :thumbsup:
 
#67
#67
Some questions for anyone:

1. How is embryonic stem cell research superior to adult stem cell research??

2. Does anyone have any moral problem will killing embryos??

3. Why is cloning human beings out of the question??
 
#68
#68
1. So, gs, this isn't my area...but as I understand it...the greatest potential presented by embryonic stem cells is that they are truly pluripotent, meaning that they can differentiate into any cell type one the appropriate factors (proteins, etc. located in a specific area of the body) are introduced to the cells. Adult stem cells are further differentiated than embryonic stem cells and thus have fewer cells they can become, limiting their application. Adult stem cells are found only in a few places of the body, and thus a limited number of cells types can be "grown" from them.

2. Stem cells can be harvested when there are about 8 or 10 cells in the embryo and then used to independently grow new stem cells from there (for example, in your picture above...those are certainly no longer stem cells...you can see the differentiation taking place). I don't know where I draw that moral line in my head, but I don't really have a problem with harvesting stem cells at that point. It is similar to my lack of a problem with not using all fertilized eggs in reproductive treatments.

I am most excited by recent studies that suggest that a single stem cell may be able to be harvested from a 8-10 cell embryo without damaging the embryo. I hope that this may be a way to resolve moral issues for more people...because ultimately the ethics matter...and though I might be OK with it, I know some are not.

3. Allowing a cloned human to be born raises additional ethical questions that have so far caused most people to not like the idea...that may not always be the case....so perhaps it isn't totally out of the question. I think that it would be very difficult for someone to know that they are v.2 of someone else. I also think that it could be exploited for nefarious purposes such as providing a very stable control for medical experiments - which seems to be a bad reason to bring a human into the world. Get back to me in 20 years I guess...we'll see if I've changed my mind.
 
#69
#69
TennTradition said:
1. So, gs, this isn't my area...but as I understand it...the greatest potential presented by embryonic stem cells is that they are truly pluripotent, meaning that they can differentiate into any cell type one the appropriate factors (proteins, etc. located in a specific area of the body) are introduced to the cells. Adult stem cells are further differentiated than embryonic stem cells and thus have fewer cells they can become, limiting their application. Adult stem cells are found only in a few places of the body, and thus a limited number of cells types can be "grown" from them.
Click to expand...

However five advancements have been made from the studies of adult stem cells and none from the studies embryonic stem cells.

Potentially the sea is going to rise twenty feet if we don't initiate cap and trade immediately.


TennTradition said:
2. Stem cells can be harvested when there are about 8 or 10 cells in the embryo and then used to independently grow new stem cells from there (for example, in your picture above...those are certainly no longer stem cells...you can see the differentiation taking place). I don't know where I draw that moral line in my head, but I don't really have a problem with harvesting stem cells at that point. It is similar to my lack of a problem with not using all fertilized eggs in reproductive treatments.
Click to expand...

According to Judeo/Christian beliefs, man is to be considered above the rest of the animal world.

According to the ethics of modern secular humanism, the human being is of no more importance than any other animal.

The secular humanists are making quite a bit of advancement in our society, in law, in medicine, in education and etc.

That opens a lot of doors to what one may or may not consider ethical.

TennTradition said:
I am most excited by recent studies that suggest that a single stem cell may be able to be harvested from a 8-10 cell embryo without damaging the embryo. I hope that this may be a way to resolve moral issues for more people...because ultimately the ethics matter...and though I might be OK with it, I know some are not.
Click to expand...

I share your enthusiasm for that if true, because it destroys nothing as far as we know.

Ethics do matter but people have different sets of ethics.

There is plenty of money to fund these kinds of experiments without using public funds and using public funds is a slap in the face to those who think it is morally wrong.

Mengele had ethics of a sort but other than the most hard core socialist, no one would say that he had any kind of morality.

What about using adults as guinea pigs without their knowledge???

Some that come to mind that we know happened in America, the syphilis study done on black men, the poor white pregnant women injected with radioactive material and studies on the effects of nuclear radiation on humans.

And then there have been tens of thousands of American service men abandoned to the Soviets who used them for all sorts of experiments about which we so far, know very little.



TennTradition said:
3. Allowing a cloned human to be born raises additional ethical questions that have so far caused most people to not like the idea...that may not always be the case....so perhaps it isn't totally out of the question. I think that it would be very difficult for someone to know that they are v.2 of someone else. I also think that it could be exploited for nefarious purposes such as providing a very stable control for medical experiments - which seems to be a bad reason to bring a human into the world. Get back to me in 20 years I guess...we'll see if I've changed my mind.
Click to expand...

The Albanians used captured Serbians for organ harvesting and so have the Chinese used political prisoners for the same purpose.

(Albania was aligned with the Chinese during the cold war, fwiw.)

I certainly believe there are people who have no problem at all with cloning humans and considering them to be disposable.

We'll see what the future holds.
 
#70
#70
GS...from your previous post:

gsvol said:
1. However five advancements have been made from the studies of adult stem cells and none from the studies embryonic stem cells.

2. According to Judeo/Christian beliefs, man is to be considered above the rest of the animal world.

3. According to the ethics of modern secular humanism, the human being is of no more importance than any other animal.

4. The secular humanists are making quite a bit of advancement in our society, in law, in medicine, in education and etc.


5. I share your enthusiasm for that if true, because it destroys nothing as far as we know.

6. There is plenty of money to fund these kinds of experiments without using public funds and using public funds is a slap in the face to those who think it is morally wrong.
Click to expand...

1. There is probably a good reason for that, refer to Bush's first veto.

2. Well I...for one...am glad they cleared that up for the rest of us. To bad everybody doesn't believe in the same myths.

3. I guess while we're at it, it is worth noting not everybody believes this way as well.

4. I know, they should all be thrown in prison and converted immediately. We can't have this business continuing.

5. I too share this enthusiasm, whatever get the religious right on the truly compassionate side of this issue and still lets them glide past the hypocrisy would be better for all of us.

6. First off, I would say there isn't, otherwise it would have been done given the promise stated by those who back it. And it is a slap in the face to all who don't believe (and the constitution for that matter) for all the money the Bush administration used to funnel to his faith-based initiatives and the silly office he created.
 
#71
#71
rjd970 said:
GS...from your previous post:



1. There is probably a good reason for that, refer to Bush's first veto.

2. Well I...for one...am glad they cleared that up for the rest of us. To bad everybody doesn't believe in the same myths.

3. I guess while we're at it, it is worth noting not everybody believes this way as well.

4. I know, they should all be thrown in prison and converted immediately. We can't have this business continuing.

5. I too share this enthusiasm, whatever get the religious right on the truly compassionate side of this issue and still lets them glide past the hypocrisy would be better for all of us.

6. First off, I would say there isn't, otherwise it would have been done given the promise stated by those who back it. And it is a slap in the face to all who don't believe (and the constitution for that matter) for all the money the Bush administration used to funnel to his faith-based initiatives and the silly office he created.
Click to expand...

ok
 
#73
#73
rjd970 said:
Kidding or not, it is precisely this kind of arrogance that is practiced by way too many of similar thinking that turns people off and gives the evangelicals a bad name.

Carry on.
Click to expand...

I was making fun of you for implying that anyone else would be too harsh on someone for not sharing the same beliefs.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top