Victory on Stem Cells!

Superfreak said:
The problem lies in the fact that the scientists who are bitching about it are doing so because it means they dont have the government tit running for their particular projects. So now they have to go to state and private money sources and convince them that their projects are worthwhile. Boo friggin hoo.
Click to expand...

Generally the NHI is given the ability to fund any particular, ethical experiment it finds worthwhile. Singling out stem cell research and telling them they can't fund it under any circumstances is ridiculous, and just causes the money to be spent on other, far less worthwhile projects. It is quite possible that people are going to die and have died because of Bush's decision. Stopping the march of science, especially the medical sciences, costs quite a lot indeed.
 
Dungheap said:
Are you channeling Dixie today? No one mentioned a "war on science" except for you. Congratulations, you defeated your strawman.
Click to expand...
BS, Mottley used the words "systematic attack on science" in the other thread. At least keep up. Now we'll deal with your "limits" on funding. Since there were none, you have... um... well... "defeated your own straw man"... I think somebody recently said that or something much like it.
 
Dungheap said:
The issue, my little friend, is whether the statement "by eliminating tax payer funding [Bush] effectively limited the research." That statement is true and is not even controverted by anyone anywhere but you.

No one is claiming that Bush put limits on private funding. Just that the Bush limitations on federal funding effectively limited the research.
Click to expand...

and again my dumbass little friend.... NO he did not put any fucking limits on the research. He simply changed who decided whether it should be funded. That is all.

You continue to ignore the fact that when Bush made his decision, then you had States like CA and MO and individuals like Stowers and Lokey who in turn decided to fund those lines of research.

Saying research funding 'might' have been greater had the Fed funded it is nothing more than speculation on your part. Because you could just as easily state that if the Fed had funded the research that the states and individuals would not have felt compelled to do so.

Bottom line moron... there were no limits placed on the research or the funding on the whole. To pretend there were is nothing more than your obsessive desire to cry out 'if the Fed doesn't do it... no one will'.
 
Watermark said:
Generally the NHI is given the ability to fund any particular, ethical experiment it finds worthwhile. Singling out stem cell research and telling them they can't fund it under any circumstances is ridiculous, and just causes the money to be spent on other, far less worthwhile projects. Imagine how many millions of people are going to die in the future because of Bush's decision. Stopping the march of science for your religious beliefs is mass murder.
Click to expand...

and THERE lies the problem. When the ethics of a particular line of research is hotly debated, then it should not be funded with Federal money. Those lines of research should be funded by states and private sources.
 
Superfreak said:
and THERE lies the problem. When the ethics of a particular line of research is hotly debated, then it should not be funded with Federal money. Those lines of research should be funded by states and private sources.
Click to expand...

The ethics of the research aren't debated by anyone but a vocal minority of non-scientists, like Bush, who don't even understand where the cells come from. There is no serious debate on the issue. They'd rather they be thrown away than used to save millions of lives. This is pure, tragic ignorance.

And why is it any more legitimate for the state to fund things that are prohibited because some radical minority gots its toes stepped on than for the federal government to? That's not consistent, SF.
 
Last edited:
Superfreak said:
and again my dumbass little friend.... NO he did not put any fucking limits on the research. He simply changed who decided whether it should be funded. That is all.

You continue to ignore the fact that when Bush made his decision, then you had States like CA and MO and individuals like Stowers and Lokey who in turn decided to fund those lines of research.

Saying research funding 'might' have been greater had the Fed funded it is nothing more than speculation on your part. Because you could just as easily state that if the Fed had funded the research that the states and individuals would not have felt compelled to do so.

Bottom line moron... there were no limits placed on the research or the funding on the whole. To pretend there were is nothing more than your obsessive desire to cry out 'if the Fed doesn't do it... no one will'.
Click to expand...


But it is not speculation. It is true. NIH has an annual budget of about $30 billion. Pretending that states, private entities and individuals can fill the void created by rescission of the Clinton NIH funding is a joke.
 
SF's implication is that we require some supermajority of people in the polls to deal with any issue that deals with fanatical Christians anti-choice agenda. Especially when most of that opposition is due to ignorance about what is even going on. That's ridiculous; what science and the majority of Americans finds acceptable should be considered ethical.
 
Watermark said:
The ethics of the research aren't debated by anyone but a vocal minority of non-scientists, like Bush, who don't even understand where the cells come from. There is no serious debate on the issue. They'd rather they be thrown away than used to save millions of lives. They are mass murderers. The ignorant should not be allowed to murder.

And why is it any more legitimate for the state to fund things that are prohibited because some radical minority gots its toes stepped on than for the federal government to? That's not consistent, SF.
Click to expand...

1) Scientists do not determine what is ethical for the population. Thus, it matters not if those wanting the funding think it is ethical. It matters what the populace thinks.

2) The idiocy of calling it mass murder simply detracts from your point.

3) If you hadn't noticed, the States themselves have a lot of power to decide how their funds are used. Just as the Fed does. Whether the Fed supports the research or not, matters little when the States decide how they will proceed. They have the right to determine how the state tax dollars are spent. If their respective populace is against the what they decide, they run the risk of being pulled from office at the next election. So CA may find it acceptable whereas a bible belt state could decide it does not support such research.

Ultimately if you wanted a true representation of how important this issue is to the public, then you would let the public speak with the dollars themselves.... rather than force a decision on them at the state or federal level.

I again point to the examples of Lokey and Stowers who did just that. Something that not one of you has even recognized.
 
Dungheap said:
But it is not speculation. It is true. NIH has an annual budget of about $30 billion. Pretending that states, private entities and individuals can fill the void created by rescission of the Clinton NIH funding is a joke.
Click to expand...

LMAO... so tell us Dung... what dollar amount of that $30 billion was to have gone to embryonic stem cell research?

That $30 billion is the sum total of NIH and all the R&D projects it funds.

So tell us... what amount would it be? 1%?

Then we look at CA alone... the money the state is pumping into Stem Cell research... $3b in bonds they took out to fund it. The $50mm plus Lokey gave to Stanford (in addition to the $500mm plus the CIRM gave to Stanford for the same purpose in the past several years)

Just one state and that only covers what I have heard about.

Bottom line is this... YOU are indeed guessing. You do not know that total funding would have been greater had the Feds done it... because you cannot predict how much of the state and private money would have flowed had the decision at the Fed level been different.
 
Watermark said:
SF's implication is that we require some supermajority of people in the polls to deal with any issue that deals with fanatical Christians anti-choice agenda. Especially when most of that opposition is due to ignorance about what is even going on. That's ridiculous; what science and the majority of Americans finds acceptable should be considered ethical.
Click to expand...

I did not imply nor state that you had to require a supermajority. But when ethics are in question with regards to a particular line of research, then it is best the government stay out of it. Let the people speak with their own money.
 
http://report.nih.gov/rcdc/categories/

and there is the answer.... roughly 2.9 billion spent on ALL stem cell research by the NIH since 2005.

In CA.... roughly $3b since 2004. CIRM another $500mm. Lokey (one individual) $75mm.

So yes, I do think the States and Private funding can take up the slack for the NIH when they need to.
 
That's a few states bearing the burden of the entire nation, a nation which will then reap the benefits. It's just unfair. And it's unnecessary. There's a reason the FEDS do this research. There's absolutely no justification for restricting it to states alone.
 
Superfreak said:
http://report.nih.gov/rcdc/categories/

and there is the answer.... roughly 2.9 billion spent on ALL stem cell research by the NIH since 2005.

In CA.... roughly $3b since 2004. CIRM another $500mm. Lokey (one individual) $75mm.

So yes, I do think the States and Private funding can take up the slack for the NIH when they need to.
Click to expand...


1) You math is wrong by about a billion.

2) CA is $3 billion over ten years beginning in 2005. And CIRM is the entity through which the research is conducted. It is not separate funding from the CA $3 billion.

3) Lokey's $75 million was to build a research center, not to fund research activities themselves.

The states and private funding can supplement federal funding through the NIH, but cannot supplant it.
 
Dungheap said:
I didn't say that Bush stopped private individuals from raising money for embryonic stem cell research. I said his action limited research, which it did.

If public funding were available through the NIH more research would have been conducted. Limiting the funds available for research limited the amount of research that was conducted.
Click to expand...

research and experience shows that government funded research wastes about 85% of the money towards anything but results of the research.
 
Dungheap said:
The issue, my little friend, is whether the statement "by eliminating tax payer funding [Bush] effectively limited the research." That statement is true and is not even controverted by anyone anywhere but you.
Click to expand...
I never heard of a single companies complaint that they couldn't get some research done because the government denied them funding.
 
Superfreak said:
I did not imply nor state that you had to require a supermajority. But when ethics are in question with regards to a particular line of research, then it is best the government stay out of it. Let the people speak with their own money.
Click to expand...

Well if everyone felt as you did we wouldn't have nuclear energy or the Polio vaccine and we wouldn't be having this conversation because the satellites, PC's and the internet wouldn't have ever been invented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top