Stem cell research...Kinda like the space program

"We didn't get any benefit from spending all that money on rockets and stuff"...

First, the money was not crammed into the nosecone and shot into space. It paid for scientists, engineers, technicians, clerks, janitors, machinists and too many others to mention, each of which spent that money on houses, cars, groceries and all the other things people want and neet. Not even mentioning the multiplier effect. Then there is satellite radio, cable and dish television, cell phones, computers networks, more accurate weather projection and a myriad of things we take for granted.

One of the best "experts" on the subject, Mrs Bush, claimed nationally that stem cell research hasn't cured any diseases and probably holds no such promise. So much for the value of research. Might as well hang it up, folks, the experts have spoken. I am certain Dr Salk was looked at as some kind of nut for all those years he worked on a cure for polio. Once again, the nay sayers break the first cardinal rule of logic, trying to prove an unprovable. Might as well go back to snake oil and nostrums.

Interferon has proven to be a great benefit to society. It, in combination to some other drug (can't remember the name now) used to cure some strains of Hepatitis C.

Tho not used for it's original intentions, in the end run it has provided a benefit and humans are better off.

She said: "It really isn't fair to people who are watching a loved one suffer, to overplay the promise of stem cells. We don't know that stem cell research will provide cures for anything."

Hardly what you said.

But go back and read my posts. Then read this:

The most recent poll on California’s Proposition 71 (search) concerning state funding of embryonic stem cell research indicates that 46 percent of likely voters support the measure, 39 percent oppose it and 15 percent are undecided.

I wonder how those numbers would change if those “likely voters” knew what Proposition 71 was really all about — a transfer of $3 billion from already strapped California taxpayers to already wealthy venture capitalists and researchers by means of emotional extortion. I addressed the dim prospects of embryonic stem cell research in an earlier column.

Consider the case of Dr. Irving Weissman, currently featured in a TV ad sponsored by the advocacy group campaigning for Proposition 71, Californians for Stem Cell Research and Cures (search). The ad introduces Dr. Weissman as the “California Scientist of the Year” for 2002 and as a cancer researcher at Stanford University.

“We must pass Proposition 71. As an M.D., I took an oath that the very highest priority was the treatment of patients. The chances for diseases to be cured by stem cell research are high, but only if we start. If the promise of stem cell research comes true, we can hope for a single treatment with the right stem cells to cure diseases every family has. Please join me in voting YES on 71,” pleads Weissman.

Weissman should have candidly concluded his plea for support by disclosing that he has a financial interest in the future of stem cell research, and that Proposition 71 could make him a very wealthy man.

In the ad and other interviews, Weissman is usually identified as the director of Stanford University’s Institute for Cancer/Stem Cell Biology and Medicine. Usually omitted is mention of Weissman’s other job as a director and consultant to StemCells Inc. (search), a troubled biotech company engaged in research with adult stem cells (as opposed to the embryonic stem cells which are the focus of Proposition 71).

Dr. Weissman is one of four founders of StemCells Inc. According to the company's annual report (Form 10-K) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in April, in order “to attract and retain” the founders and to “expedite progress of the Company’s stem cell program,” StemCells Inc. gave the founders stock options representing approximately 1.6 million shares of company stock.

StemCells Inc.’s stock price exceeded $15/share in 2000, but is now around $2/share, up from $1.24/share during the summer.

“We used to recommend the stock of StemCells Inc., which uses adult stem cells derived from organs, but while it has some patents, it still really hasn't done anything yet,” John McCamant, editor of the Medical Technology Stock Letter (search) in Berkeley, Calif., told the Chicago Tribune in September. “There's no question that stem cell research has been significantly stifled here in the U.S.” (The stifled research Mr. McCamant refers to is the limited funding available for research using embryonic stem cells due to ethical concerns.)

Dr. Weissman’s options are essentially worthless until the share price of StemCells Inc. exceeds $5.25. Though StemCells Inc.’s current share price is about $2, it’s been climbing since the campaign to pass Proposition 71 began.

As the measure would provide $3 billion to California stem cell researchers over 10 years — including to StemCells Inc.’s researchers — it’s easy to imagine the mere passing of Proposition 71 on Nov. 2 could send StemCells Inc.’s share price zooming past the $5.25 share price needed for Dr. Weissman’s options to be in the money.

The value of StemCells Inc.’s shares, for example, increased by 45 percent in August 2001 after President Bush announced he would support limited research with embryonic stem cells.

Neither Dr. Weissman nor Californians for Stem Cell Research and Cures seem to be interested in disclosing his ties to StemCells Inc.

When reached for comment, a spokesperson for Californians for Stem Cell Research and Cures said that Dr. Weissman "is a respected scientist" and that there was "no need for disclosure" of his connection to StemCells Inc.

StemCells Inc. had "no comment" on the matter, and, as of publication of this column, Dr. Weissman had not responded to requests for comment.

The failure of Californians for Stem Cell Research and Cures to disclose the StemCells Inc. connection goes beyond the TV ad — a LexisNexis search for the last six months could only turn up a few glancing references to Dr. Weissman as merely a board member of StemCells Inc. No one seems to know about his options deal. This contradicts what Dr. Weissman told a National Journal reporter in July 2001: “I always disclose [conflicts of interest] … Everybody in this area should do that.”

California taxpayers should consider what happened to pharmaceutical giant Novartis (search) when it dealt with Dr. Weissman. In May, 1999, Forbes Magazine reported that Dr. Weissman made $25 million when he sold his share of another stem cell research company he co-founded called Systemix Inc. (search) to Novartis in 1997. Based on a pre-merger report, Novartis expected that Systemix would have nine approved cancer and AIDS therapies producing $1.9 billion in revenue by 2003. But those products didn’t pan out and Novartis shut down Systemix in 2000.

Similar to that 1997 pre-merger projection, a “report” from Stanford University (one of Dr. Weissman’s employers) projects that Proposition 71 will generate up to $12.6 billion in state revenues and health care cost savings. Meet the new hype — same as the old hype?

One thing seems likely: Dr. Weissman — and probably many others supporting Proposition 71 — will cash out if the measure passes, leaving California taxpayers much the same way as he left Novartis — holding an empty bag.

Proposition 71 isn’t likely to lead to any cures — except for Dr. Weissman’s and others' ailing investments.

Hey..if you guys in CA want to spend billions of your tax money that way (stem cell research)...good for you! Just don't expect any sympathy when Hollywood liberals and elected officials like Nancy Pelosi go on national TV and whine when services normally funded by bonds like roads, and schools, and hospitals need more funds and blaming the Administration and the rest of the US for not bailing them out.

hey, it isn't your state that is giving its money to already weathly venture capitalists and failed scientists, so why does this piss you off so much? The piece you posted is very biased. Somebody has an axe to grind. Wonder if the author is an ABD science student...they tend to be the most bitter people in the world.

So becuase there is one (alledgedly) "dirty" researcher, the entire concept of using public money funneled through VC to fund research is evil and flawed? In the grand scheme of things, $3B is a drop in the bucket. How much have we spent in Iraq to date? Research is expensive...and it DOES stimulate the economy, because someone has to make all of the lab supplies, and someone has to staff the work. The sad part is that due to a combination of a bad K-12 education system, lazy students and parents, and societal "values" of greed and sloth, we have to hire immigrants to do most of the research.

Look at any graduate science program in the US and note where the students and postdocs are from. If you want to get on a soapbox about something, I'd pick that over prop 71.

Back to the "why would we listen to losers" question. Let me ask the question; if Kerry had won with:

the largest number of votes in history
a clear popular vote majority (first in many years)
won the electoral college by a significant margin
won the popular vote by a significant margin
strengthened hold on both the house and congress (first time since FDR a second term pres. has done so)
carried ~5 times the number of counties (popular vote) as his opponent

Would you honestly be calling out for Kerry to "reduce divisioin in this country" by:

Reach out to the religous right by moving more toward their position on abortion
Keep Ashcroft and Rumsfeld on since they have protected the nation so well
Decide not to increase taxes and continue the Bush tax cuts etc
Allow for oil drilling in Anwar to reduce dependence on foreign oil
privatize a portion of Social Security
Give Rush or Dr. Laura a cabinent position
Appoint Zell Miller as Secretary of State
Release his Vietnam war records?
Post the "10 Commandments" in every school and a expect each to display a manger scene at Christmas
Nominate a couple Supreme Court justices who favor limiting abortion...or even one that favors interpreting the law vis writing it instead of the activist judges that the Dems usually support
outlaw partial birth abortion
keep troops in Iraq and finish the war on terrorism

Or would you just call anyone with these positions "stupid" and expect government to come up with some "sex education" type programs and commercials to attempt to reeducate the ignorant masses?

If Kerry won, I would expect the democrats to work with the republicans for the best solutions possible for the problems this country faces.

And just how would you determine which were best? Obviously there is a great divide in opinions...so agreement would never happen...of course the liberal view would be the best...because everyone who doesn't agree is ignorant...right?

You said that, not me.

I believe we are not as different as you like to believe. I believe that our ideals are more similar than you would like to believe.

In the end run, it's up to our politicians to find the middle ground....not you or me. And I have faith that this can be achieved.

Once again...why look for middle ground...when the majority clearly is looking for the conservative values? If the conservatives go to "middle ground"...then noone will be happy....and they will have played into the Democrat's hands...Just like GW senior did.

Well, time will tell. And if you are correct, it'll be reflected in the 2006 election, and subsequently the 2008 election. If you're wrong, then the democrats will gain some ground in these elections.

This election (at least the presidental election) was close, and I don't think anyone on either side can afford to take things for granted.

Can't argue with an idealogue. Just makes you look foolish to try. And that applies to ANY individual or group that considers themselves superior in intellect or strength or any other area.

There is a difference between a "majority" and an "overwhelming majority".

Island,
Your topic heading by itself is revealing:

"Let's be honest. . . Why would we listen to losers?"

Many who share your persuasion opted not to listen before the election. With this statement, I don't see any distinction before or after the election. So what's the difference anyway?

My wife sometimes uses the term, "listen" interchangeably with the word, "obey" as in "How come you don't listen (obey) me? Then we get into a "discussion" of what she really means. You know, men are from Mars ........

May I assume you actually mean, "obey"? Unless you are infallible and are never incorrect, a reasonable, objective, unbiased, unprejudiced and non-judgemental person would listen to all sides before coming to a conclusion. Does that sound unreasonable?

That's why you should "listen to" (not obey) winners and losers alike. But that's ultimately your choice.

Sherwood

while it is true that GWB received more votes than any presidential candidate ever, it is also true that never before have so many people voted *against* a candidate...let alone an incumbent.

Yeah, Sherwood, points taken. Realize that I took A'nolds words and applied them here. I gave examples of the extreme positions of many of the losers. All to bolster the point, that I'm moving toward nolonger listening to the LOSERS.

I had been giving some slack to the losers . . . acknowledging many are PO'd . ..but c'mon. ..some of the vile, contemptible rhetoric... It's getting tough to put-up with.

Furthermore, they aren't saying anything new.

If the Lib's have something new and compelling to say, then lets hear it.

But as it is, our nation just made one HUGE decision about issues, and priorities.

I'm glad someone has noticed this. The Dem pundits are still claiming that Kerry only fell-short on getting his message out. :rolleyes:

Anyway, one other point missing is, many of the Kerry voters threw a vote Kerrys way cuz he's more cool . . windsurfing, jet-set kinda guy. Those people aren't the ones posting here. They voted for the "cool-guy" and have gone back to their lives. They'll watch The Tonight Show or Letterman to get their jokes about the bumbling prez. . . .The chuckle & shrug crowd.

OTOH, the one's who voted for Bush, in large-part are very aware of what is at stake . . . just as the people here, who supported Kerry, were adamant.

So, what I'm trying to say is, if we measure the dedication to the individual Candidate, the Republicans won even bigger.

I agree. 51.5% of America likes what Bush is about. The only people trying to demonize Bush have been the radical lefties, the moore freaks and moonbats. They're the idiotarians who don't think we can do anything right, no matter what.

51.5% of america basically flipped the bird to hollywood/the left and all of their ilk. I don't want this radical minority deciding my future. I don't want them pushing their pro-do-whatever-the-hell-you-want, pro-abortion, anti-war, pro-gay, pro-defeatism, pro-loser agenda onto us.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1099870510.jpg

People say things.... as individuals. I try not to lump an individual's "extreme" rantings with their representing any particular group; much as I wouldn't want to necessarily interpret the rants of a Sean Hannity or a Zell Miller speaking for you or for all those in the Republican party .......... or should I?

Here's a couple of questions:
Who is the most visible and extreme person who calls themselves a Republican?
Who is the most visible and extreme person who calls themselves a Democrat?

Do they represent their respective party's political agenda?

Sherwood

My point exactly. The left are indeed idealogues. That is why the Republicans have always gotten screwed when trying to meet the dems halfway......The dems doublecross them and then laugh about how stupid conservatives are.

Pot, Kettle, Black . . . .