Cool stem cell news

Darla said:
Well, let's not be hasty. We better wait for Dano to check in. He might "know somebody" who was saved by a state, or, even private charity funded, adult stem cell discovery. I wouldn't be surprised, and I don't want to jump to conclusions and end up looking like an idiot.
Click to expand...

LOL

Hey, all of those old people from the '40's said that stem cell research was never federally funded back then, and they didn't have any problems...
 
Onceler said:
"Again, that is bullshit. Embryonic stem cell research is in very early stages. It has produced ZERO results to date. To act as though the Federal government throwing more money into that line of research would have changed anything is purely speculative (at best)."

Let's see...who to believe? Scientists in the field, or Superfreak?

You haven't read much about the research, quite clearly. It's potential at this point is not a matter of if anymore...it's a matter of when.

The fact is, research has been negatively impacted by Bush's decision; not just by the impact of funding, which is not negligible, but also on the nature of information-sharing & the the research in general. There is no argument that Bush has been an obstacle to progress on this topic; none.

You're just shooting from the hip, based only on how you feel funding should be handled...
Click to expand...


You're just shooting from the hip, based only on how you feel funding should be handled.


This is a long standing bone of contention. SF seems to feel that if we cut off ALL public funding for core scientific research, corporations would just step up to the plate to fund american scientific research. While this is partially true, and some core research does get funded privately, the funding tends to go to areas of applied research, where there is already a demonstrated potential for profit. This is where private industry excels: research that has a direct and clear potential for creating profitiable consumer products.

The other monkey wrench in the wheel, is that SF appears to assume that american mulitnational corporations have some sort of allegiance to america. That they will simply take the burden on themselves to replace all public funding for core research, when the feds bail out of it. Corporations aren't in the business of being patriotic, or allegiance to one nation. Their business is profit. If the UK, South Korea, or Japan are aggresively publically funding core scientific research, corporate capital and corporate activites are going to go where the research is being publically funded.
 
Onceler said:
"Again, that is bullshit. Embryonic stem cell research is in very early stages. It has produced ZERO results to date. To act as though the Federal government throwing more money into that line of research would have changed anything is purely speculative (at best)."

Let's see...who to believe? Scientists in the field, or Superfreak?

You haven't read much about the research, quite clearly. It's potential at this point is not a matter of if anymore...it's a matter of when.

The fact is, research has been negatively impacted by Bush's decision; not just by the impact of funding, which is not negligible, but also on the nature of information-sharing & the the research in general. There is no argument that Bush has been an obstacle to progress on this topic; none.

You're just shooting from the hip, based only on how you feel funding should be handled...
Click to expand...

1) Again, it has not been negatively impacted by the lack of federal funding. The research is being funded by the state and private funding.

2) Quite clearly you are the one that has not done any research into the matter. Embryonic research is in its infantile stage. It is pure speculation to say that it is "a matter of when". Show me any scientific study that suggests that claim.

3) Lets keep one other thing in mind.... of course the scientists in the field are going to tell you that it must be funded now and they will hype all the potential of the line..... because they want more money to fund their research. Not because they have any evidence as of yet.

4) Embryonic stem cell research is however close to being used without destroying the embryos. Which then aliviates many peoples objections to its use (not all, but most).

5) I am all for embryonic stem cell research. I simply do not believe as you do that the federal government HAS to fund it in order for it to be successful. Nor do I believe that a lack of federal funding will be a detriment.

Consider this.... If your R&D funding comes in at $20 billion and it is $10b from the fed and $10b from the state and private sources.... use the non-restricted money for research into this line. Use the restricted money for research into the other lines. (which to date have provided much better results)
 
"1) Again, it has not been negatively impacted by the lack of federal funding. The research is being funded by the state and private funding. "

Do you have any idea how stupid this sounds? Are you mathematically challenged?

It is an additional source of funding that has been greatly limited. Are you suggesting that researchers can do the same amount of work & achieve the same progress, with less money?
 
I don't approve of federal funding for much of anything, but I would support it for this solely because it pisses off the Religious Right. I sound like a tax-spend liberal, but we're already spending so fucking much on this war what's another few billion gonna matter.
 
Superfreak said:
1) Again, it has not been negatively impacted by the lack of federal funding. The research is being funded by the state and private funding.

2) Quite clearly you are the one that has not done any research into the matter. Embryonic research is in its infantile stage. It is pure speculation to say that it is "a matter of when". Show me any scientific study that suggests that claim.

3) Lets keep one other thing in mind.... of course the scientists in the field are going to tell you that it must be funded now and they will hype all the potential of the line..... because they want more money to fund their research. Not because they have any evidence as of yet.

4) Embryonic stem cell research is however close to being used without destroying the embryos. Which then aliviates many peoples objections to its use (not all, but most).

5) I am all for embryonic stem cell research. I simply do not believe as you do that the federal government HAS to fund it in order for it to be successful. Nor do I believe that a lack of federal funding will be a detriment.

Consider this.... If your R&D funding comes in at $20 billion and it is $10b from the fed and $10b from the state and private sources.... use the non-restricted money for research into this line. Use the restricted money for research into the other lines. (which to date have provided much better results)
Click to expand...


Anonymous Poster Superfreak:

"I am all for embryonic stem cell research. I simply do not believe as you do that the federal government HAS to fund it in order for it to be successful. Nor do I believe that a lack of federal funding will be a detriment."


VERSUS.....

U.S. National Academy of Sciences:

National Academy of Sciences Weighs in on Stem Cell Research

A comprehensive stem cell report from the nation’s top scientific body recommends far more publicly funded research than is allowed by the policy President Bush announced in August. In a case of advice after decision, the National Academy of Sciences issued its science and policy report in early September.

Written by a committee of top clinical and basic scientists who hold no stake in stem cell work, the report calls for a continuous supply of new embryonic stem cells. The Bush policy forbids public financing of new cells. The NAS report also concludes that limiting funding is unwise because "quality, publicly funded research is the wellspring of medical breakthroughs."

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/93/19/1447


Who to believe? SF? Or the National Academy of Science?
 
Onceler said:
"1) Again, it has not been negatively impacted by the lack of federal funding. The research is being funded by the state and private funding. "

Do you have any idea how stupid this sounds? Are you mathematically challenged?

It is an additional source of funding that has been greatly limited. Are you suggesting that researchers can do the same amount of work & achieve the same progress, with less money?
Click to expand...

Again, YOU are assuming that the total dollars would be different. Do you think the states would have pumped in as much as they have had the Federal government invested in this research? Private money would certainly have been less likely to invest if they knew they could get the research done with Federal money.

Quit making the assumption that the Federal money would have been in addition to what the states and private sources have put into the research. IT is a BAD assumption.
 
"Private money would certainly have been less likely to invest if they knew they could get the research done with Federal money."

WRONG. Private money tends to follow fed money in terms of investment.

You have no idea what you're talking about. I'll go w/ the pro's on this one...
 
Superfreak said:
Again, YOU are assuming that the total dollars would be different. Do you think the states would have pumped in as much as they have had the Federal government invested in this research? Private money would certainly have been less likely to invest if they knew they could get the research done with Federal money.

Quit making the assumption that the Federal money would have been in addition to what the states and private sources have put into the research. IT is a BAD assumption.
Click to expand...


The experts weigh in:

National Academy of Science - Nation's Top Scientific Body, reports:

"Public funding for research on human stem cells—both embryonic and adult—should be generous. Most existing knowledge derives from work with mouse embryonic stem cells and may not apply to humans.

The NAS report also concludes that limiting funding is unwise because "quality, publicly funded research is the wellspring of medical breakthroughs."
Click to expand...
 
Onceler said:
"Private money would certainly have been less likely to invest if they knew they could get the research done with Federal money."

WRONG. Private money tends to follow fed money in terms of investment.

You have no idea what you're talking about. I'll go w/ the pro's on this one...
Click to expand...

Wrong. Private money does not tend to fund basic research if it does not have to. The private money would come along AFTER the R&D process was further along. Private money only funds basic research when it is not being funded by the Fed or State level.

WHAT pros are you going with Lorax? Please tell me you are basing your above claim based on what an investment professional has told you. But you aren't... are you? You are pulling shit out of your ass on this. I have direct experience with private funding of R&D.... Do you?
 
"WHAT pros are you going with Lorax? "

The ones in the field; you know - the guys who understand that federal funding can serve as a catalyst for private investment, and affect private funding & research in a variety of positive ways.

"Private money only funds basic research when it is not being funded by the Fed or State level."

And your contention is that private money will increase according to how much is cut at the federal level, and there will be no dropoff?

Give it up, SF. Again: there is NO argument that Bush's decision was not a setback for this research. None.
 
Onceler said:
The ones in the field; you know - the guys who understand that federal funding can serve as a catalyst for private investment, and affect private funding & research in a variety of positive ways.

What "ones in the field"... provide an example that shows the private funding would continue into basic research if the federal government started funding it. Just one example...

"Private money only funds basic research when it is not being funded by the Fed or State level."

And your contention is that private money will increase according to how much is cut at the federal level, and there will be no dropoff?

Private money sees the profit in this. They will most certainly provide funding for it if the state and fed do not. This does not mean that they will fund every single scientist that wants funding. They will select the best in the field and go with them.... and they will most certainly be in competition with other private equity groups looking to be the first to make a breakthrough.

Give it up, SF. Again: there is NO argument that Bush's decision was not a setback for this research. None.
Click to expand...

Again, there is NO argument that you have provided to support your assertation. None. All you have is "the fed money will make it better" crap. You obviously do not have any personal experience in the matter, yet continue to act as though you understand how the private equity works. You do not. That much is clear. So please, continue to tell me to "give it up".... it is quite amusing.
 
"And your contention is that private money will increase according to how much is cut at the federal level, and there will be no dropoff?"

You must have missed this. Should I assume your answer is a "yes"?
 
Superfreak said:
Again, there is NO argument that you have provided to support your assertation. None. All you have is "the fed money will make it better" crap. You obviously do not have any personal experience in the matter, yet continue to act as though you understand how the private equity works. You do not. That much is clear. So please, continue to tell me to "give it up".... it is quite amusing.
Click to expand...

Who needs personal experience in the matter? Let's look at history. When this country needs something big done, who does it? Who paid to invade Iraq? Was it "left up to the states"? Who paid to develop the bomb during WWII? Come on, give me a break SF, you aren't making sense here.

This could change life in ways it's hard to even forsee, there is no excuse to not federally fund this research, and no case to be made that not federally funding it hasn't caused less money to be invested in it.
 
Superfreak said:
Again, there is NO argument that you have provided to support your assertation. None. All you have is "the fed money will make it better" crap. You obviously do not have any personal experience in the matter, yet continue to act as though you understand how the private equity works. You do not. That much is clear. So please, continue to tell me to "give it up".... it is quite amusing.
Click to expand...



Please stop pounding the table with your fist and proclaiming your expertise.

The National Academy of Sciences - the nation's foremost authorities on the matter - say that we need more public funding for stem cell research, and that indeed public funding is the "wellspring" for core medical and scientific research. That's good enough for me.
 
Onceler said:
"And your contention is that private money will increase according to how much is cut at the federal level, and there will be no dropoff?"

You must have missed this. Should I assume your answer is a "yes"?
Click to expand...

No. My answer is that there is no way to know if it would be the exact number or higher or lower. If you want me to guess, then I will... I would guess and say that it would be a lower and more efficient funding via private funding than if the federal government were involved.
 
Darla said:
Who needs personal experience in the matter? Let's look at history. When this country needs something big done, who does it? Who paid to invade Iraq? Was it "left up to the states"? Who paid to develop the bomb during WWII? Come on, give me a break SF, you aren't making sense here.

This could change life in ways it's hard to even forsee, there is no excuse to not federally fund this research, and no case to be made that not federally funding it hasn't caused less money to be invested in it.
Click to expand...

There is a HUGE difference between waging a war and funding R&D. That comparison is apples to hand grenades.

The development of the bomb could have been done privately, but there was really no benefit to the private sector to do so. So again, you are comparing apples to nukes.

There is NO evidence to suggest that this one line of research is going to be the one that works. There is NO evidence to suggest that the federal government pumping money into it will change the overall funding of the R&D.

Do you really believe the states would have funded this line had the fed not refused to do so? Do you really think private money would have been spent on basic research if they did not have to?

Personal experience in the funding process makes a LOT of difference. I know it because I do it consistently. We do private equity deals like this on a routine basis. Private money does NOT go into basic research unless it has too. But if the Fed and States do not provide funding (or adequate funding) for a particular line, THEN the private money will come in.
 
Superfreak said:
There is a HUGE difference between waging a war and funding R&D. That comparison is apples to hand grenades.

The development of the bomb could have been done privately, but there was really no benefit to the private sector to do so. So again, you are comparing apples to nukes.

There is NO evidence to suggest that this one line of research is going to be the one that works. There is NO evidence to suggest that the federal government pumping money into it will change the overall funding of the R&D.

Do you really believe the states would have funded this line had the fed not refused to do so? Do you really think private money would have been spent on basic research if they did not have to?

Personal experience in the funding process makes a LOT of difference. I know it because I do it consistently. We do private equity deals like this on a routine basis. Private money does NOT go into basic research unless it has too. But if the Fed and States do not provide funding (or adequate funding) for a particular line, THEN the private money will come in.
Click to expand...

We completely disagree and you've shown no evidence, by the way, that the funding is at the same level today, without federal funding, that it would have been with federal funding, and I completely reject your guess that it would be, just out of what to me is simple common sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top