The Stem Cell Scam

[nostatic]

National Institute of Health funds the lionshare of biomed research in the US (mostly at universities). National Science Foundation funds much of the basic research behind biomed. The Office of Naval Research and Department of Defense also fund an incredible amount of basic and applied research (my graduate studies were in part funded by ONR grants)

It's all public money.

There are some apparent conflicts on interest in the stem cell CA thang, but the bottom line is that research needs to be funded. It (innovation) is the LAST thing that the US does better than any other country. And we're losing that edge too.

As for "it doesn't work"...I had a Research Council grant proposal that was denied because one of the three "learned" reviewers said my project would never work. Of course the joke was on him when my paper came out a year later.

If any scientist thinks he knows it all or has all the answers, they are not a scientist. They are a Fox News "reporter"

[350HP930]

Wow, stem cell research is just a scam?

Someone had better tell these guys ASAP before the human trials begin.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050510193918.htm

[Moses]

Originally posted by nostatic

It's all public money.

Not all, but definitely a lot. I guess my point is that the present system is doing a tremendous job of funding research that yields real dividends. A 3 billion dollar "stem cell tax" is unnecessary. Every grant proposal in the state will find some tangential connection to stem cells. This is not an efficient way to do science.

[Moses]

Originally posted by 350HP930
Wow, stem cell research is just a boondoggle?

Not the research. The tax. I have no problem with stem cell research.

[legion]

My point is, there have been zero promising developments from this research.

"Proteins called amyloid-B peptides that accumulate in plaques around brain cells are known to contribute to Alzheimer's disease. Stem cell researchers have been able to dissolve these proteins in laboratory conditions by discoving the body's natural mechanism for regulating them. It is the hope that this discovery will lead to an Alzheimer's therapy within the next ten years."

I made that paragraph up with the help of this article (copying the first sentence above.)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20050723/hl_hsn/scientistsshednewlightonalzheimers

The point is, that stem cell research has been going on for quite some time, and no such discovery has been made. In fact, at this point, they are still dreaming up possible cures that will come of the research; they have no idea if any of these will pan out.

Some say that unless we try, how do we know whether or not this will work?

I say, how do we know when this is a dead-end? You could have made the same argument about alchemy a few centuries ago. It wasn't until we understood nuclear chemistry that we could say that you can't realistically turn lead into gold.

Do we throw our tax dollars at this forever saying that the benefits are too far off to measure?

[techweenie]

Hydrogen fuel cells are taking a while to develop, too.

Maybe we should just trash all R&D and hasten our descent from "first world" status.

Some professionals feel medicine is already moving ahead faster outside the US than within.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Moses
Not all, but definitely a lot. I guess my point is that the present system is doing a tremendous job of funding research that yields real dividends.

Not with cuts to NSF and more and more pressure to do "applied" research with NIH dollars. Basic research spending is seriously shrinking.

If you don't do the basic, you can't do the applied. Just ask the drug companies. How many new antibacterials have been developed? New classes, not just variations on beta-lactam or cephalosporins? "Spray and pray" is not basic research...

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
weeniehead, killing babies in general is wrong. I don't need to keep a tally to know that it's wrong, but do you have any idea how many millions of abortions have happened since Roe v. Wade?

Stevepaa, are you honestly comparing abortion, killing an innocent baby, to executing the worst of the worst in our society? You live in Cali anyway, so it's not like the death penalty actually means anything out there.

Yes, your argument is purely religious. How many innocent have been executed? Too many. How many abortions? Too many. How many divorces? Too many? How many having sexual intercourse outside of marriage? Way too many. But it seems you will pick and choose in God's stead for which sins really count?


The discussion is on funding or not. Payback or not? Worthwhile endeavor or not?

[Moses]

Originally posted by nostatic
Just ask the drug companies. How many new antibacterials have been developed?

In the near future, we will not be producing any new meds. That's strictly because of liability issues. I don't believe any vaccines are currently produced in the US.

We have a big problem with autism. Why not another 3 billion? Breast cancer? 10 billion (if we really care). How about celiac disease? Crohns? we could have "Disease of the Week" funding days in the legislature.

[nostatic]

Kind of a specious argument. Stem cell research is not for a particular disease...it has the potential to treat an extraordinary spectrum of ailments. But you know that...we're back to the Rapala.

I saw an interesting bumper sticker the other day. How come we can always find the money to fund a war, but we can't find the money to fund education?

[Moses]

Originally posted by nostatic


I saw an interesting bumper sticker the other day. How come we can always find the money to fund a war, but we can't find the money to fund education?

Now you're talking. If you want to make the point that our military misadventures impair our ability to fund worthwhile projects, I'll take my seat in your cheering section.