The Stem Cell Scam
 

Personally, I am still undecided on the moral implications of stem cell research, much as I am still undecided on abortion. As such, I don't really oppose stem cell research.

I do, however, vehemently oppose the public funding of stem cell research. Why?

I think this sums it up. I know I will be criticized for posting from this source, but this is the most recent place I have seen this. I've heard this all before from other sources.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163272,00.html

We did not vote for this expecting a short turn around for results. Investment capital looks short term. This is just a spin put out by anti stem cell people. It is totallly predictable for them to continue to wage the fight using specious arguments.

incorrect. if stem cell research were the panacea that pro groups make it out to be, then the private sector would be all over it. plain and simple

This is rught up there with Fox News' "Nobel nominee expert" claiming Terry Schiavo could be rehabilitated.

Steve is right. It's a long-term investment. One that won't pay off for over 10 years. Private investors want payback with interest in 6-18 months, and can get it other places.

Here's a fairly unbiased (lay) commentary on the status of ES research:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Swenson20050708.shtml

again specious. Stem cell research is long term and is not a panacea.

If you don't want it in your state, don't vote for it. We would appreciate that. thanks

As if that would do any good. We didn't vote for abortion either, but we have that.

same can be said for capital punishment and your agument is?

So if our tax dollars are funding stem cell research, what is our payback? We will still have to pay for any treatments derived from this technology. If/when it does pay off, and riches are made, how does the state benefit?

So what was your payback from space program?

Sometimes you need to look beyond your own wallet.

The hogs are gatherin' at the trough . . . business as usual . . .

Most of the learned biomedical research folks I pal around with (I work in the kendall area of Cambridge, MA...one of the epicenters of biomedical/genetic research) agree that stem cell research leading to anything useful is a pipe dream. That's also the opinion of one of my friends who is an M.D./PhD here at MIT researching just this kind of thing. I have no problem with stem cell research personally/morally, but I feel that the political polarization of this issue in our last election necessitated some fairly overstated claims as to the feasibility of realizing real benefit from stem cell research. People who are actually "in the know" about the feasibility are staying away.... Shouldn't that be telling us something?

The space program was of a slightly broader scope than simply funnelling tax dollars to a couple of private companies, to spend as they see fit.

"In the know" people back in the early 60's would also have said it was impossible to go to the moon. The enormity of the challenges was staggering.

The future does not come from "in the know" people. You get the present. They only know what they know today, not what will be discovered tomorrow.

It may not pan out, but I will support the effort.

So which companies are getting the money and what is meant by "to spend as they see fit". Can they buy condos in Rio?
Specious.

Look at it from the corporate perspective (re: private investment drying up).

Do you want to fund new ways to sell more drugs or would you rather fund developments that have the potential to effect cures?

More drugs! More drugs!

Do you really? How many abortions were performed in Nebraska last year?

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.

Back to the topic; How is it that we lead the world in biomedicine without public money? How did Genentech develop Humulin and Epogen without a special tax?

This stem cell funding is a boondoggle, pure and simple. Why don't they just build every professional sports team in California a new ballpark at public expense? The public would enjoy the new digs and the owners would be very grateful. It's the same damn thing.

Nebraska has executed a total of 3 people since 1976.

There are currently seven people on Death Row in Nebraska. Of the 7 Death Row prisoners, 1 is black, 5 are white and 1 is Latino.

-----

Yes, California has executed a total of 10 people since 1976.

There are currently 635 prisoners on Death Row in California. Of the 635 Death Row prisoners, 228 are black, 248 are white, 126 are Latino, 14 are Native American and 19 are Asian.

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" :p

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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...

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?

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.

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?

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.