Exactly, the "conservative" position is that the government can now regulate scientific research based upon biblical interpretations.

There's a lot of "screwballs" around, but they aren't the "liberals" that want the government the hell out of our lives.

Where does the gov't. regulate it? Just because the feds don't pay for it, that means they regulate it?

Gov't limits which stem cell lines are available for federal funding, like RL said.

Yes, but to use your analogy, this is what did happen. Assault Rifles (aka very light machine guns) were regulated starting in 1934, again in 1969 and 1986. You can no longer purchase a fully automatic firearm made after 1986.

The 1994 ban was on a made up class of semi-automatic rifles that "LOOKED" similar to the Assault Rifles. They were in fact no different than standard hunting rifles except the stocks were black plastic.

So yes, the "Religious Right" do believe that the more you open up abortion, the worse it will get.

I am opposed to government funding of research on the grounds that if it is worth pursuing, some one will fund it. I am opposed to most spending by governments, since usually it is not effciently used.

The Bridge to nowhere. It would be more cost effective to buy out the residents and move them.

Like it or not, federal funds find their way into every laboratory in academia. For many or most, it's the only way they can survive.

You may not consider it "regulation" but allocating 10 billion dollars for cancer research and shutting off all federal funds for any laboratory that gets near stem cells is regulation.

If the federal government gave ten million dollars to everyone on your street that didn't paint their house green, that's regulating the color of houses.

So either stay out of it all together, or don't regulate science based on what the biblical crowd tells you.

+100 Rodeo.
And that doesn't happen often!
;)

This kind of thinking and assumption will, without a doubt, prevent you from seeing clearly. You, my friend, are precisely the gullible voter that today's political marketing lies are targeted toward. And with you, it apparently works. Folks on the left don't really care about people? That's just as asinine as pretending that Republicans don't care about commerce.

Get a clue. Well, nevermind.

Absolutel false. You don't have to take the $10 million. Everyone knows gov't. money comes with tons of strings attached. Don't like it? Find your money somewhere else. You're free to do so and it ain't regulated.

So, Rick, I take it you supported the 55 mph "national speed limit" as well?

Although I disagree with the administration's funding policy re: stem cell research, RL is correct. A lab has to make the choice, federal funding or look for private funding. A homeowner who wants a green house either has to pony up the money for painting it green or accept a non-green federal paintjob.

Not at all. What does this have to do with anything? States don't have to take the federal money, but better yet, their Congressional delegations should just get the speed limit removed from the conditions. It was a joke then and still is, and plenty of states still have 55 even though the feds don't make it condition of hwy. funds anymore.

You seem to be confusing the term "regulating" with the term "prohibiting." That's just naive. And I'm afraid a bit simple.

If the feds gave a few thousand multi-million $ grants to groups to study the most effective means to abolish gun ownership in this country, and nothing to the pro-gun groups, you'd feel differently.

"Regulation" doesn't have to hit you on the head with "we prohibit" language to be 100% effective in securing the government's goals.

If you don't believe me, you give $1 million to everyone on your street that does not paint their house green, then count the number of green houses.

But that's how the 55mph limit was invoked, by withholding hwy moneys from states that did not use that limit. Nearly all or all of the states complied.

And in this case, MJF was trying to get the congressional support he needed (as demonstrated in your speed limit case).

The argument that stem cells (non adult) have not resulted in any cures is a favorite Ann Coulter style argument (she was making that on a talking heads show yesterday). I am sure that there are many types of research that do not result in instant solutions, and even many that are dead ends. But, to say that a certain type of research has resulted in no cures is disingenuous and although true, insinuates that it never will. The honest approach would be to add the words "until now".

Exactly right, the feds "regulated" 56 MPH out of existence. They didn't "prohibit" anyone from driving at 56 MPH, but they regulated it to where there was no longer any choice in the matter.

Same thing with stem cells. No laboratory in the country can perform scientific research on embryonic stem cells. Because they'd have to close their doors shutted within a few weeks.

Rodeo, I still don't buy your argument that a federal policy coupled with funding (or the lack of same) is "regulation." The State's still had a choice whether or not to take federal money in the speed limit example above. That they might chose not to is a decision based on the State governements' willingness to raise funds for road projects through taxation. You take this as regulation; however I submit that what you're seeking is "entitlement."

Labs involved in any research that receives federal funding with policy strings attached have to make a business decision. Federal funding for this research is not an entitlement, it is a means to bootstrap research. Your doors shuttered comment is pure hysteria. Labs must either use the limited stem cell lines currently approved for federal funding or seek fundng from other/private sources. And citizens (e.g., MJF, et al) can (should) try to influence federal policy through public campaigns and voter action. In a couple of years, the federal policy regarding funding stem cell research may shift dramatically. I'm all for it.

And Rush L. is a gas bag, druggie without scruples. :)

I would only object to that gun control study because it would be a piss poor use of public money, especially since the way to get more gun control is to simply elect more Dems to Congress. Studies don't make laws - elected reps. do.

Maybe I need to be more explicit. Of course I was not suggesting that liberals don't care about people. However, on this issue, their motivation is political. Embryonic stem cells don't show all that much promise compared to other less controvercial research. They do, however, give liberals an excuse to bait christians into the dilema of whether to help with research or destroy embryos which they consider to be destroying life.

It was suggested earlier in this thread that embryonic stem cell research is in it's early stages and as a result has not yielded as many results. The truth is that all stem cell research is pretty new and Adult stem cells are winning the compeition.

Embryonic Stem cell lines exist and are grandfathered. They will continue to support research both new and ongoing. The issue is the creation of new embryos for harvesting stem cells.

Really? Have you determined this through the work in your own lab or a colleagues? Or perhaps you have done an exhaustive literature review and polled a number of colleagues on trajectories for embryonic stem cell work?

No. It's not.