[Q] Stem Cells

[brad8134]

I am Interested on people from a scientific perspective and their views regarding stem cell research and embryonic stem cells. As of right now isn't the big hype about embryonic stem cells all a theory? I have heard that china is making a break through in the research but China seems to SAY a lot and actually be doing little. So what are your Ideas?

[Buffy]

When you think about it, it really doesn't matter whether their claims are true or not, or whether it's China or anywhere else.

 

The sad part if you're an American who thinks basic research is the engine that makes our country successful is that they're all doing research and we're not.

 

Unless you can prove that there is no way that such research will ever bear fruit, then it's a loss for the US...

 

Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning? :naughty:

Buffy

[brad8134]

But The US is doing research its just not with embryonic stem cells. The claim is that embryos contain the info for all organs instead of being organ specific as adult stem cells are. So to say the US is at a loss, is right, but not because we are not diving into a controversial science. It's that no one is willing to give those working within our countries Moral boundaries enough credit for the research they are doing. I say our countries moral boundaries because our nation is divided on the matter, so, I see no need to push the the matter when we can do plenty of research and help without crossing moral boundaries.

[freeztar]

I'm glad Obama reversed Bush's halting of fed funding for hESCR.

 

A gallup poll from earlier May of this year shows a 56%/39% morally-acceptable/not-morally-acceptable response on the issue of stem cell research. In a democracy, should not the moral majority dictate policy?

 

For reference, below is a link to the NIH guidelines of hESCR.

Federal Policy [stem Cell Information]

[Buffy]

so, I see no need to push the the matter when we can do plenty of research and help without crossing moral boundaries.

So the US should choose to purposely put itself in an inferior position competitively purely for political purposes?

 

Whose morals should be chosen to dictate these positions?

 

Nothing is obvious here, but it is interesting to note the contradictory positions taken by so many...

 

It was like a gift placed in the palm of an outreached hand upon which the fingers do not close, :shrug:

Buffy

[brad8134]

who ever said we were at an inferior position? That's to say we are not making any progress with research now. We are making discoveries all that time using adult stem cells. When our country is divided on an issue such as this, than yes, politics serves as a checks and balances to ensure the science community stays within its boundaries. And yes even science has its boundaries when funded by the people.

[freeztar]

who ever said we were at an inferior position? That's to say we are not making any progress with research now. We are making discoveries all that time using adult stem cells.

 

Right, using adult stem cells. The inferiority comes from the fact that other countries are actively researching *embryonic* stem cells whereas we have quite a few restrictions here in the US.

 

When our country is divided on an issue such as this, than yes, politics serves as a checks and balances to ensure the science community stays within its boundaries. And yes even science has its boundaries when funded by the people.

 

Right, and in a democracy, majority rules. As I pointed out before, the majority is in favor of embryonic stem cell research. So the real political question is, why should the moral minority prevent democracy?

[JMJones0424]

Right, and in a democracy, majority rules. As I pointed out before, the majority is in favor of embryonic stem cell research. So the real political question is, why should the moral minority prevent democracy?

 

While I agree with the underlying assertion that we are placing ourselves at a disadvantage by not funding research in this line, and I also agree that the majority is in favor of pursing stem cell research-

 

I think the "real political question" is actually what role the federal government should have in directing research that some may legitimately feel to be immoral. If I had serious moral objections to this line of research, and refused to pay taxes because I did not want an admittedly extremely small percentage of that money to go towards an immoral act, I would be susceptible to legal action.

 

Embryonic stem cell research is not illegal, it is just federal funding of it that is prohibited, beyond the lines that have already been established. If one wished, they could put together non-profit organizations to promote the research, or incorporate the research into existing bio-medical research groups with the various pharmaceutical companies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is nothing stopping private research universities from pursuing this research, and the potential patents could be quite lucrative.

 

The constitution was specifically written to prevent the tyranny of the majority, not to enable it.

[freeztar]

While I agree with the underlying assertion that we are placing ourselves at a disadvantage by not funding research in this line, and I also agree that the majority is in favor of pursing stem cell research-

 

I think the "real political question" is actually what role the federal government should have in directing research that some may legitimately feel to be immoral. If I had serious moral objections to this line of research, and refused to pay taxes because I did not want an admittedly extremely small percentage of that money to go towards an immoral act, I would be susceptible to legal action.

 

You *could* claim conscientious objection, but I'm not sure the IRS would buy it. :Music:

 

Fwiw, there's a multitude of public initiatives funded by my tax dollars that I'm opposed to, both morally and rationally. I'm sure that's the same for nearly everyone. If the majority doesn't rule, then who does?

 

Embryonic stem cell research is not illegal, it is just federal funding of it that is prohibited, beyond the lines that have already been established. If one wished, they could put together non-profit organizations to promote the research, or incorporate the research into existing bio-medical research groups with the various pharmaceutical companies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is nothing stopping private research universities from pursuing this research, and the potential patents could be quite lucrative.

Federally, it is not illegal. States have the right to restrict though (like the death penalty).

 

The constitution was specifically written to prevent the tyranny of the majority, not to enable it.

 

Sure, but I'm wary of the association of embryonic stem cell research with tyranny.

[brad8134]

Fwiw, there's a multitude of public initiatives funded by my tax dollars that I'm opposed to, both morally and rationally. I'm sure that's the same for nearly everyone. If the majority doesn't rule, then who does?

 

does this make them right to be funded? no! and you can fight for the funding to stop. Besides, our country would be better if government stopped funding a lot especially in our economic crisis, that's a different topic though. Personal opinion, federal funding should not fund something that is split 60/40 especially when we are in debt trillions and going deeper with this health care reform, again another topic.

 

 

Federally, it is not illegal. States have the right to restrict though (like the death penalty).

This is the way it should be. People have more say at the state level than at the federal level

[TheBigDog]

I think that there is middle ground to be found on this issue. The problem is that the opposing political forces don't want middle ground. The fact is that US government dollars are nice, but the fact that they were missing did not stop US investment in R&D. Privately funded research continued. State funded research continued. Other countries have funded research. The fact that the US government may now be funding the research does not mean that the US will profit any more from discoveries, or that the therapies from any discoveries will be more or less available to people in the US.

 

There are still no breakthroughs from embryonic stem cells that I am aware of. There have been claims of being "months away" for years now. There are many existing therapies in practice from adult stem cells. All actual benefit to this date has come from adult stem cells. So focusing the funding there does seem to have its benefit. Once some actual usable technology comes from embryonic stem cells I think the funding will come much easier.

 

Bill

[Essay]

... politics serves as a checks and balances to ensure the science community stays within its boundaries. And yes even science has its boundaries when funded by the people.

I'd paraphrase that to say: "...politics serves as a checks and balances to ensure any corporate application of discoveries by the science community stays within its boundaries."

 

Science's boundaries are the material world, and should not be determined by some doctrine or ideology (or conflict of ideologies).

===

 

The thing about embryonic stem cells is that they are undifferentiated. We need to study that undifferentiated state to know what the discoveries with adult stem cells mean. Half of the work is de-differentiating the adult stem cells (undoing the partial differentiation of adult stem cells) to figure out how they work; and for that, they need to know how real undifferentiated cells (embryonic stem cells) work. Then on to differentiation, and all the discoveries of how things ("diseases") interfere with normal development and life processes.

 

p.s.

In reality, our focus on adult stem cell research will probably further the whole body of stem cell research much faster than it would have otherwise advanced.

The Lord works in mysterious ways.