Rumsfeld steps down

[Eagledad]

>>Secretly I think, only if we can get the right wing politicians to stop obstructing stem cell research.

[Trevorum]

That is obstruction, Barry.

 

In my opinion, it's absolutely unconscionable. Our Government spends billions of dollars - literally - on researching new and more efficient ways to kill people (yes, some people say, "National Defense") and at the same time refuses to assist medical research that will ultimately save and prolong the lives of millions of Americans. It is crazy. Absolutely insane.

[Lisabob]

Barry, while what you've written is true, there's a big gotcha in the policy as currently written as well. Current law says that any lab that receives federal funding cannot engage in embryonic stem cell research (beyond existing, flawed, lines which nearly everyone agrees are useless). Problem is that almost all of our major research labs in this country receive federal funding for some of their work at least indirectly. So to do stem cell research you'd need to set up duplicate facilities that are well equipped and staffed and that do not receive any federal funds - very costly, very redundant. Among other side effects, this may be driving some of our best up and coming scientists away from fields that include stem cell work because it is also not a successful way to run your professional (scholarly) life, where research grants are almost all based on federal money and academic tenure requirements most places are such that you'd better be able to do your research at an established facility without threatening the continued funding and existence of other people's programs by engaging in projects that will cause the lab to lose their federal funds eligibility.

 

I submit the above without reference to my personal views on stem cell research - just an observation on how the current rules are really a good deal more restrictive in practice than they may appear on the surface.

[Eagledad]

I understand what you are saying, and you give a good explanation of how some parts or our culture are handcuffed to the addiction of fat government. I just happen to work for a government agency that gives out lots of grants for research. The reason scientists rely so heavily on government grants is because the government is so willing to give them without a lot of accountability. Not that we dont need some of the research, but if scientist really think the research has value to our society from the research, they dont need the government, they just need to work differently for funding. Trust me, a lot of scientist that rely on government funding are just freeloaders. The system needs a good slimming down.

 

Now tell me, if Michael J. Fox and a few of his buddies ran commercials asking for money to fund Stem Cell Research, do you not think they would get the funding from folks who want the research? Instead they just go out and politicize and polarize our nation.

 

How about a compromise. Change the rules where labs can accept public funds as well as government funds. That allows everyone to choose if they want to fund it then. It is truly and issue about the quality of life, not about who wins and who looses the next election.

 

If we are so willing to kick Boy Scouts out of government buildings because a minority of folks disagrees with their policy, how can we not also accommodate folks who disagree with the morality of life?

 

The above is also not and expression of my personal views. I just dont like folks blaming all their ills on the politics they oppose.

 

Thanks for the thoughtful and kindly worded reply.

 

Have a great week.

 

Barry

 

[Lisabob]

In some ways I agree with you Barry.

 

However I don't lay most of the blame at the feet of (most of) the scientists; rather, in many cases, I believe we can fault our own, dear, elected leaders. For example, Congress has oversight authority and if the members of Congress (or the public for that matter) believe that federal grants are being sloppily administered then it is up to Congress to investigate the matter, take the various bureaucracies to task, and then keep an eye on things to ensure that grants are better administered in the future. Congress is supposed to be the public's watch dog in matters of oversight. Additionally I find it offensive when members of Congress use the "pork" or "ear marking" process to procure research funding for their state or district, such as the guy out in the plains who got federal research grants for the study of cow flatulence at one of his state's universities a few years ago (Clinton era). I'll have to see if I can dig up a specific citation again for that one but it did actually happen. Now if Congress fails to take seriously the above, then that's our fault for continuing to elect people who can't or won't do their job well.

 

This isn't to say that all scientists are blameless, but as individuals they're in a much more difficult position. To start up a new private lab takes gigantic amounts of money and while people might contribute to a campaign led by the likes of M.J. Fox or other celebrities, we're not talking about just a couple of million here. This is also a tremendous professional risk which essentially requires said scientists to leave behind their jobs in the public world (say at universities or gov't research labs) because you cannot realistically run labs in both contexts at once - too draining/taxing. There might also be conflicts of interest. Since the "rules" of the academic world require continued work, progress, publication, etc., in the university-affiliated lab, any academic scientists would likely need to quit their jobs to do this for that reason too. (If you think the administration of major research U's would be happy to see their faculty engage in research entirely outside the context of the U in place of university-affiliated rsearch, guess again because that's not how university politics works.) Given the tremendous and entrenched barriers to setting up private labs then, I find it hard to blame individual scientists for not bucking the system.

 

What I've heard from colleagues in the "hard" sciences and particularly in biology fields is that our better young scientists are warned away from research tracks that would lead to a focus on stem cell type work because a) that's not where the money is, b) that's not where the jobs are, and c) there's too much personal/professional risk involved. I'm also hearing that some scientists who do want to pursue these fields are choosing to study and work in other countries as a result.

 

Regardless of one's position on the ethics of stem cell research my point here is that we may be losing an edge in terms of attracting and retaining some of the brightest scientific minds of the current, and future, generation(s) and that will necessarily cause us problems as a country beyond the issue of stem cells.

 

Funny how these threads morph, isn't it? How'd we get from Rumsfeld to stem cells???

 

 

 

 

[GernBlansten]

As you may have sensed, the current administrations stance on Stem Cell Research funding is a raw nerve with me.

Gonzo, Barry and Brent: Please tell me why you draw the line at using embryos for research, but do nothing to stop the destruction of thousands of unused embryos that happen every single day? Why did Bush bring babies, adopted from in vitro fertilization clinics, onto the stage when he vetoed the legislation? Why didn't he immediately propose the elimination of in vitro fertilization clinics who don't place every single embryo they produce? Do you see the disconnect?

 

Trev said it best. Its OK, in fact great, to spend billions of FEDERAL dollars to devise and execute new ways to kill people, but it is immoral to spend it on saving the lives of Americans, including my son. Go figure.

[Gonzo1]

Gern, Let me begin by saying that I did not study Bio Ethics in my specialty. Please tell me why you draw the line at using embryos for research, but do nothing to stop the destruction of thousands of unused embryos that happen every single day? I don't know, didn't study Bio Ethics. Why did Bush bring babies, adopted from in vitro fertilization clinics, onto the stage when he vetoed the legislation? Maybe he has a religious conviction against it? Maybe he didn't want clinics to be farming embryos for research? Why didn't he immediately propose the elimination of in vitro fertilization clinics who don't place every single embryo they produce? I don't know, Do you see the disconnect? I can kinda see your point, but the human body has stem cells that can be used. The bigger deal is who is paying for the research, Government or private donations. I have no problem with non-embryo privately funded research. My mom passed away from complications of MS, I'm not complaining that the feds didn't do enough to save her, it's not Uncle Sam's responsibility. No, I'm not cold, just realistic. Maybe some MS group can raise funds, maybe some diabetes group can raise funds. My dad has had diabetes for almost 20 years, again, it's not the taxpayer's responsibility. Trev said it best. Its OK, in fact great, to spend billions of FEDERAL dollars to devise and execute new ways to kill people, but it is immoral to spend it on saving the lives of Americans, including my son. Go figure. Actually, lots of Americans and pharmaceutical companies and  philanthropists spend money on research, the federal government spends lots of money on research too. President Bush does ot want to spend federal money on   EMBRYONIC   STEM   CELLS.

[GernBlansten]

Gonzo,

You are in favor of the US spending (federal) in excess of $300 billion (and much more to come) on saving American lives by attacking Iraq. Yet you reject spending any federal money on promising research that will possibly save trillions in health care costs and millions of American lives?

 

And about medical ethics, shouldn't the conservative stance be to allow the medical professionals define and police their own ethics, not the government?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Gonzo1, (No Ginsus used)

 

Let me be perfectly clear on this issue. I believe that the Republicans have been good for the country in many ways. They have helped to upright the balance on several issues that seemed to have been right at one time but went terribly wrong later. Newt and his Contract with America is still a landmark set of goals worth remembering their importance. Welfare was one issue. I have changed my position now to, instead of giving people money to watch Springer and eat bon-bons to helping train people for jobs that will pay more than minimum wage. I believed that we should have gone to war with Iraq but the promise to not be a Nation Builder was not followed, so now we are in a mess that we should already exited.

 

I watch the Republican news cast periodically and they tend to not hear anything good about the Democrats, so I am guessing that there are those that are ignoring the results as well as those that are trumpeting the news.

 

I find myself split on abortion. I am personally against it but I know that no matter what the law is or what ones religion has to say that many will do it in spite of the rules. I believe that when a person has an abortion that they have somehow missed the gift that life brings. I also believe that making it a rule keeps people from a full understanding of how wonderful life really is. Beyond that there are many that have no idea what I am trying to say and cannot find life with both hands. Abortion for them is probably just a stop-gap measure from poverty.

 

I dont know how we can protect our borders. The borders are thousands of miles long so no matter how it is done, there just wouldnt be enough money. I would rather see us invest in diplomacy so that we could share the cost with the other countries in making the borders safer. If we lose, then our neighbors lose as well, so we might as well get them on board.

 

If we did not have the media, we most likely would do things that compares and surpasses our enemies. We have the capability of doing much worse than Saddam ever imagined. I hope we never have to unleash all that we have. Right now, our military is not geared for police action and Iraq is geared for full civil war, so there is no middle ground for troops trained for warfare.

 

I agree on line item vetoes. Keep the pork out. We have too many favorite projects that lead to nowhere except some brother-in-laws back pocket.

 

Bi-partisan work will be redefined by both parties several times and ways over the next two years. It will be pretty funny to hear about how they are all getting along now that they know how much the voters wanted it. They will be hard pressed to give us a good example.

 

I am leaning away from national health care. (*Dont tell anyone.)

 

I am not for the return of the C.C.C. It was a way to get the economy rolling by giving people work. I am for people working in a job that they have been trained to do. It allows them to make above the minimum wage. I will combine this one with the other. I would like to see the jail inmates made to clean up and restore our National Parks for free. They need the work to repay their debt to society.

 

Federal scholarship programs are already in place for those that have the ability to pass and are willing to work. I find this program to be exceptional in many ways for the overall economy. Social Security for the disabled is a program already in place and does a good job in protecting people that have endured hardship and do not have any other way to live. Our country does not do near as much as most other European countries and most likely never will. For those that come here illegally, they come for the money being offered. I live in an area where many reside. I find that employers are more than willing to hire them. I know that I cant. If the laws were enforced and new laws to jail employers that hire them were enacted there would be a considerable reduction in the illegals remaining. Doing away with the minimum wage would only further reduce their desire to come here.

 

We agree on changing the Income tax form so that 90% of the country can understand it instead of its present form. I dont think many from either party want to be on the dole. Work is a way of life for most Americans.

 

I think that disagreement is essential and that we should list our differences so we can process them individually. It is also good that we defend our policies. Figuring out how one policy affects another and how it works in the economy is difficult. Over the years, I have found out how easy it is to sound right on an issue but for it to be wrong when played out on the larger screen.

 

Let me hear from you,

 

fb

 

[Gonzo1]

Fuzzy Bear,

 

After reading your recent reply/post, I think we probably agree on more things than disagree. No need to go back over line by line, but I don't think the USA would gas our own people, but we have some common ground and some difference. Otherwise it might the United States of Gonzo or the People's Republic of Fuzzy .

 

The typed word is good, but does not do justice to discussion.

 

***************************************

Perhaps some of us could get together at some scout camp someplace and camp, eat, drink coffee and sit around a REAL campfire and chat, meet one another and see what each of us looks like, ah wait a minute, that would mean you and I would probably have to shake hands and smile at each other. I bet though, that by the time we pack up to head home, we could give each other a big ol' man hug and say 'how 'bout them Chicago Bears?!, yeah, how 'bout them Colts?!'

 

 

****************************************

Gonzo

 

[packsaddle]

Barry, if you can't name your government agency, could you share with us the type of research your agency funds? I think everyone would like to know if your characterization of scientists as unaccountable freeloaders applies generally or merely to the fields funded by your agency.

 

Gonzo1, the administration refused to support embryonic stem cell research that DOES NOT kill the embryo. As Trevorum implies, their decision is beyond hypocritical, it is unconscionable.

 

Edited part: OK, the Bears are good, but I'm thinking more in terms of the Braves (I know...wrong season).(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Gonzo1]

Packsaddle,

I was not aware that the embronic stem cell research does not kill the embryo.

 

If this is in fact the case, all of you / us should contact in writing, by phone and fax our congressman and both senators and encourage them to write and present legislation accordingly.

 

G

[packsaddle]

This was all covered in a previous thread:

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=139649

 

To recap: During in vitro fertilization it is now common to remove a cell from the developing embryo for the purpose of genetic testing. Presumably, if a defect is found the embryo does not continue.

However, new research has shown that if the cell that has been removed for genetic testing is allowed to grow in culture, then some of the resulting cells can be used for stem cell research and the rest for the genetic testing.

Note that this merely piggybacks the stem cell research on existing manipulations to the embryos, manipulations that will continue regardless. And needless to say, it eliminates the problem of embryo destruction during development of stem cell lines (which had been the reason for administration opposition in the past).

A new attempt was subsequently made to create legislation to fund embryonic stem cell research employing this approach. The administration opposed it again, without articulating clear reasons...they simply opposed it.

[GernBlansten]

Gonzo: If this is in fact the case, all of you / us should contact in writing, by phone and fax our congressman and both senators and encourage them to write and present legislation accordingly.

We did so Nov 8th.

[Gonzo1]

Gern,

 

Voting is one thing.

 

Writing a letter is another. Otherwise, they won't know. So, write a letter and call them, ask them to support stem cell research.