clone wars

nobody · Post by **nobody** » February 9, 2005, 1:44 am

we're on our way! heh, really though, i think it's a great step forward.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/09/inter ... clone.html

The British government gave the scientist whose team cloned Dolly the sheep a license on Tuesday to clone human embryos for research.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 9, 2005, 12:16 pm

hear that sound?

it is the Bush administration continueing to let foreign economies gain massive ground on the US. In this case the EU. But the massive deficits to fund the tax cuts for the ultra rich (who still havent seemed to invest enough to move the stock market 1% in a year) now funnels tax dollars out to the governments of China and Japan (who own the bonds to fund the debt) as our #3 line item expenditure.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 9, 2005, 1:02 pm

Our edge in biotech is about to evaporate, and if Japan and Taiwan keep doing R&D at the pace they are currently, our edge in IT will be gone as well.

WAY TO HELP THE ECONOMY, GODBOY!

nobody · Post by **nobody** » February 9, 2005, 1:09 pm

bush is allowing private stem cell research just not govt funded. i support it but there are too many people who don't want their money going tosomething they don't agree with.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 9, 2005, 1:16 pm

it is difficult to appreciate the complexity of what leads to a successful drug or medical treatment. I am not claiming to be the oracle of that knowledge.

But i can say with some level of credibility, that the vast majority of the major health innovations have had as their foundations government funded research chiefly through the budget of the National Institutes of Health.

the polymerase chain reaction probably wouldn't exist without government funding.

What does that mean? Well basically it is like electricity is to the computer industry - but in this case it is anything that is touched by genetics.

The private sector funds erectile dysfunction drugs from scratch. Hell even that stuff probably has a ton of NIH money behind it. Merck, and Pfizer, and similar companies are not in the business of acting in the health interest of the population. They are int he business of devising and implementing drugs that make them an assload of money.

Additionally, the vast majority of the best scientists in the world (are in the US) are employed by Universities and get their grants from the NIH. For them to operate a privately funded lab is certainly doable.

But it doubles their administrative costs. It has to be in a totally seperate facility. None of the supplies can be used for both budgets.

Basically it is a logistical pain in the ass, that wastes a lot of their time, and makes the execution of their NIH grants less efficient (ie taxpayer waste).

Additionaly problems with having the private sector run the funding:

1. danger of having findings being proprietary instead of public domain. Consider the ramifications of something like the Human Genome Project not being public domain information.

2. there is less control over ethical research when it is not funded by the NIH. The NIH has an absolutely impeccable record when it comes to the ethical direction of research and control over information with the population's interest at heart.

The industry of the 21st century is Biomedicine. Without the NIH the United States would not be the clear world leader in this field. Having the NIH forbidden from directing research in such a fundamentally important manner is potentially economically a disaster.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 9, 2005, 1:44 pm

nobody wrote:bush is allowing private stem cell research just not govt funded. i support it but there are too many people who don't want their money going tosomething they don't agree with.

In his State of the Union speech did he not mention making it "illegal" in the US? I remember that because yes, up to now he has allowed it, but now he has his sights set on illegalizing it.

Edit: Here it is

And because no human life should be started or ended as the object of an experiment, I ask you to set a high standard for humanity, and pass a law against all human cloning. (Applause.)

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 9, 2005, 2:01 pm

Lalanae wrote:
nobody wrote:bush is allowing private stem cell research just not govt funded. i support it but there are too many people who don't want their money going tosomething they don't agree with.
In his State of the Union speech did he not mention making it "illegal" in the US? I remember that because yes, up to now he has allowed it, but now he has his sights set on illegalizing it.

Edit: Here it is

And because no human life should be started or ended as the object of an experiment, I ask you to set a high standard for humanity, and pass a law against all human cloning. (Applause.)

But isn't that apples and oranges? Stem cell research doesn't necessarily equate to cloning.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 9, 2005, 2:11 pm

Cloning would make for a cheap and inexaustable source of stem cells.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 9, 2005, 2:12 pm

Aslanna wrote:
Lalanae wrote:
nobody wrote:bush is allowing private stem cell research just not govt funded. i support it but there are too many people who don't want their money going tosomething they don't agree with.
In his State of the Union speech did he not mention making it "illegal" in the US? I remember that because yes, up to now he has allowed it, but now he has his sights set on illegalizing it.

Edit: Here it is

And because no human life should be started or ended as the object of an experiment, I ask you to set a high standard for humanity, and pass a law against all human cloning. (Applause.)
But isn't that apples and oranges? Stem cell research doesn't necessarily equate to cloning.

It sure is.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 9, 2005, 2:14 pm

Oh and in recent related news, since people usually bring up the fact that the US has certain lines that do qualify for federal funding:

US stem cell research faces an uncertain near future after scientists reported that existing stocks of such cells are contaminated - and therefore useless for treating people - while the US administration has terminated federal funding for the extraction of fresh cells.

The contaminated cells are from batches collected prior to a George Bush 2001 executive order "restricting federal funding for stem cell research to only those batches of the cells that existed at the time", Reuters reports.

The problem is that current stocks have taken up a "non-human molecule called N-glycolylneuraminic acid or Neu5Gc" - probably when they were grown in a lab culture containing animal-derived materials from mice and calf foetuses. Neu5Gc is found on the surface of animal cells, but the human immune system attacks it - the major reason for transplanted animal organ rejection in humans.

Dr Ajit Varki of the University of California San Diego told Reuters: "The human embryonic stem cells remained contaminated by Neu5Gc even when grown in special culture conditions with commercially available serum replacements, apparently because these are also derived from animal products.

"It would seem best to start over again with newly derived human embryonic stem cells that have never been exposed to any animal products. However, such an approach could not be pursued under existing rules for the use of federal grant dollars."

The existing rules cited are designed to prevent the destruction of further embryos from which stem cells are extracted. The process has provoked considerable polemic in the US, with George Bush coming down firmly on the side of the antis.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 9, 2005, 2:23 pm

Can you be anti-abortion, but pro embyonic stem cell research?

I THINK NOT

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » February 9, 2005, 2:28 pm

I think stem cell research is a wonderful thing.. hopefully it will eventually cure genetic diseases like the one I am afflicted with. I'm all for using the afterbirth and cord to retrieve stem cells from, and think it should be a mandatory requirement for them to be donated to the hospital for dispersment to other medical facilities.

So, you think wrong. /shrug

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 9, 2005, 2:34 pm

I'm pretty sure that there are far too many things that can go wrong and kill the stem cells for that to be a viable source (long labors, ect.)

Unless we get that pesky Roe v. Wade taken care of! Then we'll have millions more 15 year olds giving birth to fund our stem cell research! That's what an enlightened country would do!

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 9, 2005, 2:49 pm

Aslanna wrote:
Lalanae wrote:
nobody wrote:bush is allowing private stem cell research just not govt funded. i support it but there are too many people who don't want their money going tosomething they don't agree with.
In his State of the Union speech did he not mention making it "illegal" in the US? I remember that because yes, up to now he has allowed it, but now he has his sights set on illegalizing it.

Edit: Here it is

And because no human life should be started or ended as the object of an experiment, I ask you to set a high standard for humanity, and pass a law against all human cloning. (Applause.)
But isn't that apples and oranges? Stem cell research doesn't necessarily equate to cloning.

Not really. Bolded the important part of that statement. Besides, were we not discussing cloning human embryos for research? (see above, 1st post)

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 9, 2005, 3:31 pm

Lalanae wrote:
Aslanna wrote:
Lalanae wrote:
nobody wrote:bush is allowing private stem cell research just not govt funded. i support it but there are too many people who don't want their money going tosomething they don't agree with.
In his State of the Union speech did he not mention making it "illegal" in the US? I remember that because yes, up to now he has allowed it, but now he has his sights set on illegalizing it.

Edit: Here it is

And because no human life should be started or ended as the object of an experiment, I ask you to set a high standard for humanity, and pass a law against all human cloning. (Applause.)
But isn't that apples and oranges? Stem cell research doesn't necessarily equate to cloning.
Not really. Bolded the important part of that statement. Besides, were we not discussing cloning human embryos for research? (see above, 1st post)

I disagree. His quote says nothing about stem cell research unless you take it out of context, regardless of how you choose to bold it.

And I know what we were originally discussing, which is why I responded to your post the way I did.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 9, 2005, 3:35 pm

What do you think he was talking about? Cloning for stem cell research, not cloning for other purposes. I wasn't taking out of context. Its obvious what he was talking about as this has been a hot issue the past year.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » February 9, 2005, 3:36 pm

Fash wrote:Can you be anti-abortion, but pro embyonic stem cell research?

I THINK NOT

i've stated in previous threads that i can understand allowing early stage abortions. my dispute with it is when it is used ignorantly as a method of birth control.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 9, 2005, 4:11 pm

Umbilical cord stem cells are only good for treating blood and bone disorders.

They are not "pleuripotent" cells. (that means a cell that can differentiate into any tissue type).

Fash, are you also suggesting that it is morally incongruous to support artificial insemination (comparing abortion to stem cell research)? Should fertility clinics be essentially considered the same thing as an abortion clinic?

I would argue that stem cell research is much more like the work that goes on in fertility clinics.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » February 9, 2005, 4:15 pm

Voronwë wrote: "pleuripotent"

ouch, my brain!

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 9, 2005, 4:22 pm

Voronwë wrote:Fash, are you also suggesting that it is morally incongruous to support artificial insemination (comparing abortion to stem cell research)? Should fertility clinics be essentially considered the same thing as an abortion clinic?

I would argue that stem cell research is much more like the work that goes on in fertility clinics.

Nope, I see artificial insemination as the same process just being helped along by some syringes and people with gloves. unfertilized egg transplanted, sperm dumped in... it's 'natural'..

I just don't see how someone who is against abortion can be for embryonic stem cell research if the only way to get them is from starting human life.. it's just one more reason choice wins.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 9, 2005, 6:30 pm

Lalanae wrote:I remember that because yes, up to now he has allowed it, but now he has his sights set on illegalizing it.

Lalanae wrote:What do you think he was talking about? Cloning for stem cell research, not cloning for other purposes. I wasn't taking out of context. Its obvious what he was talking about as this has been a hot issue the past year.

You realize that was from his 2003 SOTU...right? He said basically the same thing in this SOTU too, his position hasn't changed...

Personally, I'm for therapeutic cloning but not for reproductive cloning, which is also the stance of most scientists. I really doubt the Senate will pass an across the board ban on cloning like the House did (Brownback tried it and failed).

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » February 9, 2005, 8:14 pm

And because no human life should be started or ended as the object of an experiment, I ask you to set a high standard for humanity, and pass a law against all human cloning. (Applause.)

Hum.. I never understood the whole thing about pro-death penalty, against abortion and against a lot of the stem cell research..

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 10, 2005, 10:22 am

That's because it doesn't make sense.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 10, 2005, 11:30 am

nevermind 100,000+ civilian casualties in Iraq

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 10, 2005, 3:55 pm

Voronwë wrote:nevermind 100,000+ civilian casualties in Iraq

Nevermind that you're citing one study that's so off from all other estimates that not even far left anti-war people are willing to use it.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 10, 2005, 3:58 pm

its largely irrelevant to this thread though, but it is a study that is in a pretty well respected British medical journal.

Furthermore, your website does not dispute the estimate from the Lancet study. It simply calls it an estimate, which is true.

It doesnt matter to the point of this thread if it is 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000 really. The point is a contrast from the false ideology of crusading for the sanctity of innocents, while shrugging off civilian collateral damage.

moreover, some guy setting up a website with no credentials is hardly a refutation of doctors from one of the premiere medical schools in the world (Johns Hopkins), publishing a paper in one of the premier medical journals in the world.

That is not to say that the tendrils of politics do not extend to the editors of that sober journal, but it takes slightly more than an html editor and google to get published there, which is a bar not surpassed by iraqibodycount.com.

doesnt mean it isnt true. But at any rate, i was hesitant to post that Iraqi death toll thing anyway because I feared it would derail the thread.

hopefully it won't. I think it is certainly a topic for serious discussion though of how many civilian casualties there are and what the motivations might have been of anyone who publically asserts one figure or another. let's just do it on another thread

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 10, 2005, 4:12 pm

Voronwë wrote:moreover, some guy setting up a website with no credentials is hardly a refutation of doctors from one of the premiere medical schools in the world (Johns Hopkins), publishing a paper in one of the premier medical journals in the world.

Iraq Body Count (IBC), a volunteer group of British and US academics and researchers.

Ok, I'll stop

Edit: Didn't mean to post the old body count figures, just the credentials.