Anyone remember Sputnik?

[Trevorum]

SR540, you have my compassion. I pray that one day, those wiser than I will discover a cure for diabetes. And, I pray that those more powerful than I will allow them the chance

[SR540Beaver]

Trev,

 

Thanks! I think I handle my diabetes pretty well, but it still takes its toll both physically and emotionally at times. There are other diseases that are far worse than I have to deal with and I hope that stem cell research will be allowed to be just one bullet in the gun that will one day lead to cures for all of them.

[packsaddle]

Beav, I too sympathize and I sincerely hope we will find a cure or a way to help you and many of my friends in similar situations. Disease does not care about political views. I wish politics would likewise stay out of the way of medical or other scientific research.

 

Brent, I disagreed with Clinton on that bill. And you are correct to note the long history of technological advances in reproductive and molecular biology. I also opposed other attempts to limit or regulate those other aspects of reproductive biology and molecular genetics. Fortunately, most of those other attempts failed. However, you are misrepresenting this issue regarding Bush's funding for stem cell research. The research would have been funded with little notice if not for the ethical objections you are concerned with. Bush's limited federal funding merely continued what already was begun and halted federal support for further development.

But you are correct, the business world IS pouring funding into this research. So is the state of California and the governments of numerous countries. In addition to the original post, I just read in 'The Economist' that China is planning to move into the R&D arena, now that they have taken a leading role in manufacturing. Where we have been the world leader in so many scientific advances, the global economy is spreading the opportunities elsewhere. The Bush veto will provide some assistance for this process.

 

But you are correct, and I have agreed, these technologies will happen, the developments will become available, and every aspect of your ethical concerns will happen anyway. As Gern and I have noted, however, every aspect of those ethical concerns also apply to IVF. And you still have not answered Gerns question. Gern might note that it would not be the first time you refused to answer the hard question.

 

I suppose that, given my tendency to promote market solutions, I should agree with the logic of the current situation. If a majority of the American people want to limit federal funding for this research, then they should get that result. And since the American people voted for leaders who have made this decision, I suppose we got what we asked for. Fair enough.

 

(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[GernBlansten]

Your right Brent, Clinton was the worst president in recent history and your knowledge of him far exceed mine.

Please answer my other questions.

[BrentAllen]

I'll give you my honest answer. I don't know enough about the issue to make an honest, moral decision. I don't know whether either process is destroying life as in abortion. I know very little about IVF - luckily we had kids without having to visit that arena. If you reread my posts carefully, I think you will find I mentioned the conservative objections to this process - moral issues using public dollars - but I never stated those were my objections.

To be clear, I will tell you my objections to the posts in this thread. packsaddle takes yet another shot at Bush which I felt was unjustified. Dems and libs use hype for political points on this issue, which is the worst form of political warfare I have seen. John Edwards was the bottom of the cess pool, with his "vote for me and we will cure you!" rhetoric. People need hope and realistic expectations - not hype. This has become a very emotional issue because we have been sold a bunch of hype. Once the federal trough gets opened up on an emotional issue, get ready for a stampede and plenty of waste and corruption (Katrina?)

I think there will plenty of private corporate money and charity to discover the cures, if any, that might come from stem cells. Now, for those who want to use public funding, please tell me how much is enough? I want to hear what each of you think is the appropriate amount of money that should be budgeted for stem cell research. Give it to me either in dollars or percentage of the budget. Should money be pulled from cancer research? Or Aids research?

 

So, morally, if Bush reversed course, I don't think it would bother me much. I guess I have more fiscal objections than I do moral. To some, that may sound crass. I feel that I am just being realistic about the possibilities. I'm tired of the hype and hypocrasy from the Dems - trying to use the issue to score political points while building false hope for some very sick people, and yet never mentioning Clinton's actions.

So no, Gern, I would not reject the cures for moral reasons. Have I answered your question?

 

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Stem cell research, abortion, drugs, pornography, it doesn't make any difference. We can outlaw all of it and some other country will make a profit both from the left and the right. Morals are impossible to legislate.

 

The politicians have a great time posturing and acting like they are doing great things but they are simply ignoring the real problems. Real problems are not popular. FB

 

What are the Real Problems Mr. Know it all?

 

[GernBlansten]

Thank you for the response Brent. However you have not convinced me that your reservations to stem cell research are fiscally based and not religion based. That's why I framed the issue around IVF. The moral issue is directly related to IVF and I think its hypocritical to be against the research and for IVF. Consistency is important to me.

 

How much budget? Not sure. However, I would like our government to quit basing its research money on moral grounds. I trust the researchers to self govern the medial ethics involved.

Cancer? AIDS? Restless leg syndrome? How much? Well, I think if there is research that shows promise and will impact millions of lives, its the peoples (government's) responsibility to pursue it, preferable in joint partnership with commercial interests.

 

As a fiscal conservative myself, I know that sometimes one has to invest to reap rewards in the future. If this research harvests cures (not just treatments) to diseases that cost the American public trillions to treat today, it is a worthwhile endeavor. The potential payback is higher than any other medical research today. Now compare that to our expenditures on the space program or nation building. The payback from those programs is much more tentative and much more expensive. Think about the progress we could make if we took just one months cost of running the Iraq war and reassigned it to medical research or preventative care.

 

You see, SRBeav and my son (along with millions of others) face a killer daily in our family lives. It isn't a perceived threat, its living in our house. We battle the monster every minute. Its a bio terrorist living within our family's bodies. Our households are on red alert, not orange or yellow. I guess I'm just trying to say that international terrorism (America's #1 priority) is a bit further down our threat list than most healthy Americans. Watching billions of dollars being sent to that far away land while simultaneously restricting a promising cure here at home rubs us the wrong way.

[Trevorum]

The Onion, Thursday, August 31, 2006

 

Vatican Against Ethical Stem Cells

 

A new technique of harvesting stem cells without destroying the embryos is coming under fire from the Vatican as unethical. What do you think?

 

 

"I expect this kind of knee-jerk moral grandstanding from Bush, but the Vatican?" - Blain Gunsrud, Spot Welder

 

"I wish, time and time again, that the Vatican were not composed of the foremost scientists on embryonic research in the world. This makes it very difficult for anyone to argue a case against them, and we are repeatedly left at an impasse." - Ivan Andresen, Music Promoter

 

"It serves those scientists right for trying to slip under the Vatican's ethical radar with these disease-eradicating, life-saving experiments." - Kelly Miller, Stained Glass Artisan

 

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/52279

[packsaddle]

Trevorum, you dog. You put me in the position of having to defend the Vatican!

Actually the Catholic Church is being perfectly consistent here. They oppose every aspect of this technology, including IVF. And the stated reason is grounded in scripture, to the effect that reproduction must be the product of the union of a man and a woman in a loving relationship. Someone please correct me if I got that wrong.

"In summary, the Catholic Church condemns as gravely evil acts, both IVF in and of itself, and stem cell research performed on IVF embryos." Hey, if IVF is evil the rest is moot. http://catholicinsight.com/online/church/vatican/article_475.shtml

 

The hypocrisy that I think you are attempting to highlight is that which shrugs at IVF and then, for no good reason, objects to stem cell research that does nothing more than IVF does in the first place. If THAT is your point, I agree.

[GernBlansten]

I recently wrote my congressman that with his vote against stem cell research, can I expect him to also take a stand against IVF? I informed him that if he didn't take a stand against IVF he was being inconsistent and a hypocrite and as a registered Republican in his district, I would do everything in my power to make sure he was not re-elected. The form letter I got in return made me go get his opponents lawn sign which I proudly placed in my yard.

[Trevorum]

"gravely evil ..." - Vatican

 

"Is there any other kind?" - Col. Jessup

 

 

 

(wow - this is the second time today I get to quote Col. Jessup! )

[SWScouter]

Wasn't Sputnik the first manned rocket? What does this thread have to do with Sputnik?(This message has been edited by SWScouter)

[SR540Beaver]

SWScouter,

 

Sputnik was the first object placed in orbit around Earth and it was done boy our hated and feared enemy the USSR. It started the space race with each country trying to be on the leading edge and beat the other to all of the "firsts" in the record book. It was viewed not only as a matter of national pride, but also national security. Technology grew by leaps and bounds during that "competition" and our society ended up reaping many rewards in the process. Many items you use today were a byproduct of the space race.

 

What it has to do with the argument of stem cell research is obvious. Does America want to allow other countries to one up us on scientific and medical breakthroughs and have other countries drain our best scientific minds to where the action is over on their shores? Also, if the results would provide some sort of benefit such as a cure for radiation poisoning, do we want our enemies to have it rather than us.

 

Stem cell research can be viewed as a race just like the space race that Sputnik started.

[scoutingagain]

SWScouter,

 

If you havn't done so, go to your video rental store and rent "October Sky". Its worth seeing regardless of what's going on in this thread.

 

 

 

SA

[packsaddle]

SA, it is also a great book, "Rocket Boys", the autobiographical book on which the movie was based. Homer is still writing books, by the way.

 

Beav nailed it regarding the reference to Sputnik. After WW2, when the best of American and German science had coalesced in this country, it was not only a surprise when the Russians put that satellite up first, but an embarrassment to have it orbiting over us, even transmitting a radio signal that did nothing but poke the stick in our eye even harder. We were complacent and arrogant. Sputnik woke us up and stimulated this country to seriously promote science and math at every level in our schools. My generation gained from it. But education is something that anyone can benefit from - or neglect. And when I visit third world countries and encounter people at truly remote locations, people that have better educational preparation than many of our college freshmen, I wonder what happened.

 

So far, I can't find sole culpability in the NEA or the political system. No, I think the public has taken an anti-intellectual turn and education is no longer as highly valued as it once was - complacency and arrogance, perhaps. But that's OK. This country is still on top of the world for higher education at least. I survey our graduate students and I see a majority from: India, China, other Asian countries. This is in the sciences and engineering. Only a blessed few of our own can compete successfully for entry at that level. If we're lucky some of that foreign talent will remain here instead of taking it all back home.

 

In the global economy, those individuals and organizations that are less able to compete will be removed through the natural selective process. And every little bit of our intellectual capital that we send (or drive) overseas (read, stem cell research) will just hasten the process. It is sad that persons in need may have to wait longer for research that might produce therapies and cures. But the hypocrisy of the decisions that produce that result is just a shaper point on that stick in our national eye.