First of all, for many of those potentials that are touted, scientists have already found alternate methods of using non-embryonic sources, and I see little reason to think that this couldn’t be the case for all of the potentials of ESC.

Unfortunately that’s not quite true. Some experiments have shown that there might be a possibility of alternate methods. None of them have been proven yet even in experimental animals much less humans.

But there is potential in ESC that adult SC don’t have, that’s why they are being studied so vigorously.

Lynx,
First of all, for many of those potentials that are touted, scientists have already found alternate methods of using non-embryonic sources, and I see little reason to think that this couldn’t be the case for all of the potentials of ESC. Can you name one or two cases where you don’t see that possibility? You’ve already stated some obvious pragmatic reasons that it would be preferable to go other routes (plentiful supply, ease of harvest, use of donor’s own cells). In addition, if we can avoid the ethical dilemmas then why not do so? In theory you could construct all kinds of potential ‘scientific advances’ which would have some benefit but most rational people would draw ethical lines somewhere.I assume, for example, that you wouldn’t advocate that we work toward the creation of human clones who lack higher cerebral function which could be kept in wait to supply genetically identical organ transplants for every individual? The only question is where you draw these lines, and people should stop insisting that these ethical questions are equivalent to religious arguments (because when you consider my example you see that everyone will have ethical concerns at some point along the spectrum).

Bush is the champion of life

In this cartoon, where is the six-gun in the holster on his belt? Or a Bible in his pocket? Or both, along with maybe a hole or two in his shoes under the gun?

That kind of thinking also ignores that resources are not unlimited and the choices of where to spend research money should be based on which paths are most likely to produce cost effective results.

Yes, indeed. Funds are finite. As someone once in Congress (you may remember the name, Tim Penny) said, some things are more important than others and we have to favor some things over others. We do not have an unlimited ability to do all that people would like us to do. As for cost-effectiveness, that is all too often ignored by activists.

K. Ritter:

We don’t seem to get as squeamish about throwing money into numerous new weapons systems

That’s because we use them against the bad guys. And there have been many examples about not only squeamishness, but anger and bizarre protest efforts (pouring red paint on missile silos or using hammers to try to vandalize the equipment, etc.).

Lynx:

Behind every cure and treatment is the work of hundreds or even thousands of people, and usually a very considerable amount of money and an almost unbelievable amount of man-hours

.

Then the results, often of public research, are often patented by a company who then sells a monopoly designer drug — I am not naive!

No, more money is not, by itself, the answer. But investing more in [spending more on] science is going to give you more scientific advancement.

No argument. It’s a general principle.

a lot of people could argue why the US is the top source of new therapies. people on the right would say that its because the US has the most capitalist system in the world, which fosters innovation.

i don’t tow that line exactly (though private enterprise has its benefits), but i think a lot of it has to do with just how the US is the cultural and economic power in the world.

as for ensuring scientists get the money they need, i’m sure private institutions and other governmental agencies have already selected those researchers that they feel are the best and brightest with most promising research and have secured them funding.

the issue isn’t them, but all of the other researchers, whose studies may or may not be promising. and they could add something, through lateral breakthroughs, but there’s a limit to how funding can help. increasing the funding 10x won’t increase the rate of discovery 10x. the most important lateral breakthroughs just as often happen from outside areas of development or even outside fields of study, which can’t be predicted by bureaucrats.

i would be more confident of the added value of increased funding if it were a more government concentrated project with a high degree of oversight and answering questions to hostile criticism in congress. in addition to funding concerns, this would also help satisfy the ‘moral’ concerns of those opposed to it.

but doling out money 10x doesn’t increase the rate of development 10x. the fact that money doesn’t correlate to progress all the time should be spoken to by the fact that when NASA had its funding cut it changed its approach to space exploration (for the better).

as for stem cell research, its not necessarily a bad thing for science that some of the money that might go to embryonic research is diverted into adult stem cell study, or even studies and fields that are unrelated to stem cell development.

i think a lot of people who too eagerly criticize the right’s political interests over the interests of science, whether on this or global warming, are naive about the fact that scientists are expressing their own political interests, and simplifying their science and simplifying the scientific process just to ensure more money or more laws. and that these political battles are just as much about politics as about science.

As to discouraging other lines of study, nothing could be further from the truth Christine. Adult stem-cell research is still going strong and getting stronger by the day. It has several advantages that ESC don’t have, not the least of which is easy availability (huge numbers can be found in adipose tissue, so imagine the possibilities) and the ability to extract them from a potential patient (therefore eliminating immune reaction). But there is potential in ESC that adult SC don’t have, that’s why they are being studied so vigorously. The adult stem cell research won’t be abandoned, it will be complemented.

It’s annoying as can be when people treat this research as some magic wand that is ready to produce miraculous results tomorrow, if only we spent twice or better yet, ten times the current amount of money on it.

That kind of thinking also ignores that resources are not unlimited and the choices of where to spend research money should be based on which paths are most likely to produce cost effective results.

Meanwhile, in the real world,

[Lynx]

As to the common complaint that SC haven’t cured people yet…I blame this on the media, who teaches us to ask for instant results.

It’s annoying as can be when people treat this research as some magic wand that is ready to produce miraculous results tomorrow, if only we spent twice or better yet, ten times the current amount of money on it.

As to money not bringing cures…well that’s just silly. The US is THE top creator of new therapies in the world, and it’s no coincidence that it’s also the biggest investor in biomedical research. Just money won’t do it sure, but you can’t do it without money. Federal grants will allow more projects and better ones.

As to the common complaint that SC haven’t cured people yet…I blame this on the media, who teaches us to ask for instant results. Serious SC therapy research isn’t even 10 years old!! Even if all goes well therapies take YEARS to pass the different steps from the biochemistry lab to the doctors office. Most of these studies aren’t even FIVE years old…and yet many are already in phase III (large scale clinical trials). They are promising, very promising. It’s not just scientists wanting to be paid.

Look, it’s going to happen. The force behind this research is stronger every passing year. If the US doesn’t study it fine, the rest of the world will. Of course the patents will belong to other countries and it’ll be harder going with the shining light of scientific investigation hobbled by it, but we’ll get there. At the most this means a little under a two year delay, until a new president goes in and signs the damn bill.

thank you for your comment. i didn’t claim any facts, except that scientists are getting a lot of funding from many sources, including the federal government, but from many more besides them. I don’t think you can say thats wrong. and i just want to remind people that more money doesn’t create scientific breakthroughs, despite what some researchers like to say. thats what i mean by politics.

there’s a common belief that solving problems is always helped by throwing more money at them. sometimes they’re even helped by removing funding, when researchers have to be more creative. either way, there are a good deal of sources of money to work with.

my comment wasn’t complicated enough to be so full of falsehoods to inspire anything.

and i don’t know what, behind that, was rationalization. you might even think that i’m against stem cell research? i’m not, i just find the politics behind it ludicrous.

christine, the politics behind this is implying that a cure to all of these diseases will be found quicker if the federal government gave scientists more money. that is the only thing i find ludicrous. it inspires millions of people to be so emotional about a political issue that is less meaningful than people treat it. we’ll find a cure, if there’s a cure to find, and nobody can say that it will be much later than if there was more direct funding.

I didn’t say anything about my opinions on Iraq either, but just the fact that its brought up should highlight what i’m saying, that i feel this is political. the outrage is, ‘where are our priorities’, not ‘i know a cure will be found with more money’

well, I’m not happy about billions in Iraq either, but that doesn’t make it true that government money will determinablly do anything.

my position, as i said, is all this talk about more funding, is mainly politics.

The thing is that the embryonic stem cell lines that the government will fund are contaminated. Scientists in the ‘public’ realm want new strains. The way it looks to the average person is that Bush is catering to the Big Pharm corps for their profit, not the common interest of the general public.

“for those that see it as a moral issue, the issue for them is to prevent abortion being turned into an industry where embryos are harvested.”

That will never happen because embryonic stem cells come from embryos are no more than 4 days gestation. An abortion never happens before the 6th week gestation. Those embryos have already defined themselves and are nolonger considered ‘embryonic stem cells’. They’ve already matured too much.

“it should be insulting to people who have diseases also, because scientists are giving false hope and using people’s hopes and lives for politics. scientists who want funds try to paint a picture of us curing all diseases in our lifetimes by merely smearing on a paste of stem cells.”

Um…. no scientist I know has ever stated something like that. Not to me, nor any member of my family. Do you even understand the level of hope that is generated by news that the Christopher Reeve Center was able to get an adult stem cell / genetic therapy to work successfully one time out of one hundred attempts on one specific type of nerve cell??

Why is it ok to throw billions at Iraq?? Those billions of dollars could go to anything a whole lot more useful.

how is science going to advance to find a panacea for all illnesses in people’s lifetimes by having more embryo lines funded than already are by the federal government, in addition to those funded by state governments, private institutions, and foreign governments? how much more millions do we throw at something before we find a cure? there are alternate paths of research also, such as adult stem cells, so every scientist in America doesn’t have to be doing the same thing. i think maybe we can progress more towards solutions anyway if every scientist weren’t doing the same thing. the way to scientific breakthroughs isn’t by doling out a 100th set of a million dollars to the same thing.

you may not find sense in bush’s logic that its a moral issue, but this is politics on all sides; there is no compelling scientific reason for more funding, its about politics from scientists who make a living and jockeying to get their hands on money. its also about people who are mad at what they perceive as the religious right standing against scientific interests. and, on the other side, people mad at the arrogance of science in the face of their moral interests, and churches that profit off of this.

for those that see it as a moral issue, the issue for them is to prevent abortion being turned into an industry where embryos are harvested. you may not find sense in that position, but you and others talk as if there’s this great loss to progress because of it. there is no determinable loss, the scientific process will continue on, and if there’s a cure to diseases through stem cells, we’ll find it in no more time than if scientists received another million dollars.

it should be insulting to people who have diseases also, because scientists are giving false hope and using people’s hopes and lives for politics. scientists who want funds try to paint a picture of us curing all diseases in our lifetimes by merely smearing on a paste of stem cells. that is, if they get more money from the federal government. otherwise, it won’t happen.

My Mom died this past Tuesday from complications of CMT (charcco marie tooth), an incurable, genetic, neuro-muscular disorder. All 3 of her siblings have this, as does my sister and 2 cousins. Mom had hoped to live long enough to see at least a hope for treatment to alleviate some of the symptoms, if not a cure for her youngest child.

What does Bush not get in that these embryos would be destroyed anyway?? How is using these embryos any different than using organs and tissue from someone that has died??