A Return to Scientific Sanity

Mottleydude said:
Son when it comes to science you are dumber than a bagfull of hammers. Bush used funding for existing lines which had little if any scientific value as these lines proved unfruitful and new lines were not available to be developed due the restrictions placed on developing new lines by the Bush administration.

You shouldn't pop off at the mouth about something for which you are not only uninformed but are profoundly ignorant of. Due to Bush's politicization of stem cell research a very important new technology, which was originally founded by US Scientist had to be developed over seas due to the Bush administrations knee capping our scientist.
Click to expand...


The facts remain facts...sorry about that

BUSH NEVER banned stem cell research and BUSH WAS THE FIRST PRESIDENT to use federal money FOR stem cell research...
THOSE ARE THE FACTS....

Bush did not support creating embryonic stem cells for the sole purpose of using those cells for research....
If you can't tell the truth....STFU for a change...
 
Mottleydude said:
Son when it comes to science you are dumber than a bagfull of hammers. Bush used funding for existing lines which had little if any scientific value as these lines proved unfruitful and new lines were not available to be developed due the restrictions placed on developing new lines by the Bush administration.

You shouldn't pop off at the mouth about something for which you are not only uninformed but are profoundly ignorant of. Due to Bush's politicization of stem cell research a very important new technology, which was originally founded by US Scientist had to be developed over seas due to the Bush administrations knee capping our scientist.
Click to expand...

Embryonic research and adult SC research are different tpopics....
 
bravo said:
2) I'm not sure what your second point is, but the bottom line is that Clinton provided for funding of research on embryonic stem cells, including stem cells derived from embryos that would otherwise have been discarded by fertility clinics. Bush said no to that and provided only for funding of stem cells already in existence.
--------------

Maybe it would be more accurate to say "Clinton WOULD HAVE provided for funding of research on embryonic stem cells etc....

I can find no reference to money allocated by the federal government that was spent on SCR before Bush....but the search continues
Click to expand...


Fine. But that was my point. Clinton WOULD HAVE but Bush blocked it. So saying over and over again that Bush was the first president to provide funding is kind of stupid.
 
Mottleydude said:
President Obama has over turned the Bush prohibition of funding EMBRYONIC stem cell research.

This is a clear repudiation of one of the most troubling aspect of the Bush administration. Its politicization of our nations science policy to appease religeous zealots.

In an era where sound science policy is just absolutely essential to our nations interest, national security and economic viability and competativeness it is indeed good news for this nation to see us return to sound and sane science policy.

One of the saddest and most pathetic legacy of the Bush years is how they marginalized the scientist and technologist of this nation. If now we can only emphasize science to youngsters so that they will think that being the next Feinman would be as cool as being the next Eminem or Tiger Woods. There's a lot of systemic damage that needs to be done from the Bush years to restore our reputation in science leadership.
Click to expand...

Corrected
 
bravo said:
Clinton did nothing to federally fund stem cell research while he was president as far I know....if you know different, link me up
Click to expand...

Why do you insist on making foolish comments on a subject on which you know nothing? Can't you do even the most least little bit of research on the subject?

Hell it's common knowledge in the field that the first Federal authorization for funding stem cell research was provided by the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act that was approved by Bill Clinton in 1993.

If your going to post on this subject could you at least take the time to learn at least a little about it? You're making a fool of yourself.

You act like stem cell research began in 2001. Hell, stem cells were discovered 100 years ago. There one of the first concepts you learn in embryology and histology classes. Basic research in stem cells goes back to the early 1960's and the first examples of applied research dates back to 1968 when the first bone marrow transplants occured based on research done on hemopoetic stem cells in mouse bone marrow.

Either do some reading and get up to speed or stay out of the conversation. Adult men and women who do take the time to study up, think and write intelligently on this subject are trying to communicate and exchange thoughts and we don't have time for those who's information is spoon fed to them by Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.
 
Norman Paperman said:
Personally, I'm against any federal or state funding for this type of research, especially in these troubling economic times. I am not opposed to the research itself, just government funding for it. I do not come to this viewpoint easily, the potential benefits to medicine are fascinating to say the least. But at the same time, should the research pan out and treatments and cures for various ailments are indeed discovered, the monetary windfalls for the drug and medical corporations are limitless. Profits for everyone. All from the taxpayers. Anyone want to bet they won't pay back the government? I also believe that private and corporate funding would lend itself to more freedom in research, less government restrictions and interference.

As I stated, I do not come to this viewpoint easily. I have lost more than one family member to more than one illness that some say could possibly be cured by potential treatments as a result of ESR.
Click to expand...

The problem with your logic is that if funded privately then the private entities could charge you maga bucks for that technology where as if it is developed by public funding then the technology belongs to the public domain.
 
Mottleydude said:
That wasn't the issue Damo. The issue was that he politicized science of an extremely important nature that should not have been politicized in the first place. Stem Cell research is just one example of where Bush neophyte officials and appointees politicized science policy for which they lacked the qualifications for making sound public policy decisions and for which they felt they had a mandate (very debatable) to advance a religious agenda over sound science policy.
Click to expand...

He politicized science?

SCIENCE dictates that a fertilized egg is a human offspring. Using the embryo thus became an ETHICAL question... not one of science. The genetic coding indicates the fertilized egg is a unique human life. THAT is the science of the matter. The ETHICS is whether or not it is justifiable to use embryos that otherwise would be discarded for scientific research.

Many, including myself feel that they should be used. The government at no time banned research using embryonic stem cells. They simply banned government funds from doing so. So people like the Stowers in Missouri or Lokey at Stanford donated private money to fund that line of research.
 
bravo said:
The facts remain facts...sorry about that

BUSH NEVER banned stem cell research and BUSH WAS THE FIRST PRESIDENT to use federal money FOR stem cell research...
THOSE ARE THE FACTS....

Bush did not support creating embryonic stem cells for the sole purpose of using those cells for research....
If you can't tell the truth....STFU for a change...
Click to expand...

Do you even bother to read? No one said he banned the research completely. Under heavy pressure from the scientific community he banned funding on developing further lines and greatly impeded progress by politicizing the issue.

That's the issue here. Not who banned what or who funded what. The harm was done by politicizing scientific policy in order to appease his religious right constituency.
 
Mottleydude said:
That is tue and no one is advocating that there shouldn't be a healthy dialogue about these very complex ethical issues.
Click to expand...
When the measure of "scientific sanity" is how much somebody agrees with you, it is not advocating a healthy dialog or even recognizing that some people may disagree with you as strongly as you believe you are right.

When people state simply, "He was against Stem Cell research," they are misinforming people without objectivity to enhance their political stance on the issue. They are effectively "politicizing" the issue.

Bush didn't politicize this, it politicizes itself.

The fact is Bush wasn't against stem cell research, he was against destroying a life in order to conduct the research.
 
Mottleydude said:
Do you even bother to read? No one said he banned the research completely. Under heavy pressure from the scientific community he banned funding on developing further lines and greatly impeded progress by politicizing the issue.

That's the issue here. Not who banned what or who funded what. The harm was done by politicizing scientific policy in order to appease his religious right constituency.
Click to expand...

actually... YOU said that very thing in your opening post.

"President Obama has over turned the Bush prohibition of funding stem cell research."

Had you clarified that by stating that he banned FEDERAL funding for EMBRYONIC stem cell research, then the confusion could have been avoided. But like every other nitwit out there, you instead generalize in order to make it appear as though Bush was against 'stem cell research'.
 
Dungheap said:
Fine. But that was my point. Clinton WOULD HAVE but Bush blocked it. So saying over and over again that Bush was the first president to provide funding is kind of stupid.
Click to expand...

:clink:To you it may be stupid...but to me its accurate....
 
Mottleydude said:
The problem with your logic is that if funded privately then the private entities could charge you mega bucks for that technology whereas if it is developed by public funding then the technology belongs to the public domain.
Click to expand...

It might be good to point out at this time that all data , not just published papers, from reseach studies funded by NIH must now be available to everyone. This is not so for privately funded research.
 
Superfreak said:
actually... YOU said that very thing in your opening post.

"President Obama has over turned the Bush prohibition of funding stem cell research."

Had you clarified that by stating that he banned FEDERAL funding for EMBRYONIC stem cell research, then the confusion could have been avoided. But like every other nitwit out there, you instead generalize in order to make it appear as though Bush was against 'stem cell research'.
Click to expand...

Mottly PWNED? I guess....
 
Mottleydude said:
The problem with your logic is that if funded privately then the private entities could charge you maga bucks for that technology where as if it is developed by public funding then the technology belongs to the public domain.
Click to expand...

To my knowledge, there are no guarantees in the funding that will make any of the potential treatments affordable. Furthermore, I suspect that once something is discovered, it may require a private company to develop treatments that will be accessible to the masses.
 
Superfreak said:
He politicized science?

SCIENCE dictates that a fertilized egg is a human offspring. Using the embryo thus became an ETHICAL question... not one of science. The genetic coding indicates the fertilized egg is a unique human life. THAT is the science of the matter. The ETHICS is whether or not it is justifiable to use embryos that otherwise would be discarded for scientific research.

Many, including myself feel that they should be used. The government at no time banned research using embryonic stem cells. They simply banned government funds from doing so. So people like the Stowers in Missouri or Lokey at Stanford donated private money to fund that line of research.
Click to expand...

Bush certainly did politicize science policy. Stem Cell research is just one example of many in which they politicized science policy.
 
Damocles said:
When the measure of "scientific sanity" is how much somebody agrees with you, it is not advocating a healthy dialog or even recognizing that some people may disagree with you as strongly as you believe you are right.

When people state simply, "He was against Stem Cell research," they are misinforming people without objectivity to enhance their political stance on the issue. They are effectively "politicizing" the issue.

Bush didn't politicize this, it politicizes itself.

The fact is Bush wasn't against stem cell research, he was against destroying a life in order to conduct the research.
Click to expand...


But the embryos will be destroyed anyway. If he opposed destroying life he should have passed a law banning fertility clinics from discarding embryos. He didn't do that. He instead attacked embryonic stem cell research. That being the case I think it is quite accurate to describe Bush as being against further development of stem cell research.
 
Norman Paperman said:
To my knowledge, there are no guarantees in the funding that will make any of the potential treatments affordable. Furthermore, I suspect that once something is discovered, it may require a private company to develop treatments that will be accessible to the masses.
Click to expand...


I hear what you are saying, but this is the case will pretty much all of the stuff that the NIH funds. The public pays for shitloads of basic research that pharmaceuticals profit from.
 
Mottleydude said:
Bush certainly did politicize science policy. Stem Cell research is just one example of many in which they politicized science policy.
Click to expand...

Again... since you cannot comprehend with one reading.... he did not politicize the science of the issue. There was an ETHICAL question regarding the science.

Science dictates that a fertilized egg is genetically speaking a unique human.

Thus, the ETHICAL question was... do you use federal tax dollars to support research that destroys the unique human?

That is not politicizing science. It is ETHICS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top