Cool stem cell news

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.


Corporate interests in the United Kingdom are laughing at us, and praying we don't ramp up pubic funding - particularly at the federal level - for more stem cell research.

They view themselves as having a considerable commercial and scientific advantage over us in this realm of research, as long as the U.S. continues to stick with your president's policies. the UK wants you to keep sticking with Bush's policies.


http://chrismason.com/industry_library/assets/UKTI Stem Cell Res.pdf
 
Anytime a conservative opposes funding like this, they always throw out the "you lefties think the federal gov't can just solve all of our problems" card.

It has nothing to do with that. Anyone opposed to federal funding for medical research is seriously mathematically challenged. The return on investment for funding of research is astronomical. Does this mean we should bust the budget for funding of medical research? Of course not; but it DOES mean that the rather paltry sum the feds contribute is a no brainer.

This is the only comprehensive study that has been done on ROI for medical research; it estimated a $2.8 trillion dollar annual return on what at the time was a $45 billion annual investment (38% of which was federal):

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/447944

http://www.laskerfoundation.org/reports/pdf/economicvalue.pdf

We're already losing ground to the rest of the world in some areas. We should be LEADING, not trying to keep up...
 
Anytime a conservative opposes funding like this, they always throw out the "you lefties think the federal gov't can just solve all of our problems" card.

It has nothing to do with that. Anyone opposed to federal funding for medical research is seriously mathematically challenged. The return on investment for funding of research is astronomical. Does this mean we should bust the budget for funding of medical research? Of course not; but it DOES mean that the rather paltry sum the feds contribute is a no brainer.

This is the only comprehensive study that has been done on ROI for medical research; it estimated a $2.8 trillion dollar annual return on what at the time was a $45 billion annual investment (38% of which was federal):

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/447944

http://www.laskerfoundation.org/reports/pdf/economicvalue.pdf

We're already losing ground to the rest of the world in some areas. We should be LEADING, not trying to keep up...

Anytime a liberal gets worked up about embryonic stem cell research and federal funding, they pull out crap like this. Oh, if you are against the federal government funding this ONE line of research, you must therefore be opposed to ALL federal funding of research.

What an ignorant argument.
 
Anytime a liberal gets worked up about embryonic stem cell research and federal funding, they pull out crap like this. Oh, if you are against the federal government funding this ONE line of research, you must therefore be opposed to ALL federal funding of research.


Isn't that what you're arguing, essentially? If your main point of contention is that without federal funding, private & state funding will basically pick up all of the slack, aren't you then opposed to all federal funding of research?

If not...why not? If I believed that, which - with a discerning, logical mind, I do not - why would you support fed funding in other areas?
 
Anytime a liberal gets worked up about embryonic stem cell research and federal funding, they pull out crap like this. Oh, if you are against the federal government funding this ONE line of research, you must therefore be opposed to ALL federal funding of research.

What an ignorant argument.
Well, now that we know you are a closet socialist and promote the government owning all research facilities...

;)
 
Anytime a liberal gets worked up about embryonic stem cell research and federal funding, they pull out crap like this. Oh, if you are against the federal government funding this ONE line of research, you must therefore be opposed to ALL federal funding of research.

What an ignorant argument.

"Anytime a liberal gets worked up about embryonic stem cell research and federal funding, they pull out crap like this.... What an ignorant argument"

Crap like what? Links to the nation's leading scientific experts, and other expert authorities on the matter?
 
Isn't that what you're arguing, essentially? If your main point of contention is that without federal funding, private & state funding will basically pick up all of the slack, aren't you then opposed to all federal funding of research?

If not...why not? If I believed that, which - with a discerning, logical mind, I do not - why would you support fed funding in other areas?

Quit taking lessons from Cypress on creating strawmen.
 
Quit taking lessons from Cypress on creating strawmen.

What strawman?

What is incorrect about what I'm saying?

Why is stem cell research different from any other area? Why would different logic apply?

You're being silly. You made an irrational, unsupportable argument that doesn't hold up...
 
I don't see how this provides evidence of anything other than the known fact that the feds, under bush, aren't funding this research. I read the whole thing.

Take a look at the article again. Page 9. Take a look at the amounts raised solely on the private side.... $1.7 billion compared to the NIH budget as a whole. Grain of salt alert. As the article states, they cannot be certain that the entire amount went to embryonic stem cell research. Though it also stated that it was impossible to track all private donations, so the total is likely larger than the 1.7 billion.

Take a look at the sentence I pointed out to Lorax on the state funding. It says exactly what I said.... that most states prior to the stem cell issue had not participated in funding genetic research. Now they are... and they too are doing so at a higher rate than NIH.

I would also like to highlight the last paragraph on page 13.
 
Take a look at the article again. Page 9. Take a look at the amounts raised solely on the private side.... $1.7 billion compared to the NIH budget as a whole. Grain of salt alert. As the article states, they cannot be certain that the entire amount went to embryonic stem cell research. Though it also stated that it was impossible to track all private donations, so the total is likely larger than the 1.7 billion.

Take a look at the sentence I pointed out to Lorax on the state funding. It says exactly what I said.... that most states prior to the stem cell issue had not participated in funding genetic research. Now they are... and they too are doing so at a higher rate than NIH.

I would also like to highlight the last paragraph on page 13.

Yes, I understand that states are spending more than the feds right now, that's not in dispute. I think I am missing your point, or, you are?
 
Yes, I understand that states are spending more than the feds right now, that's not in dispute. I think I am missing your point, or, you are?

Look closely... the Fed numbers are on ALL lines of stem cell research... and the states and private are both beating the Fed. The total of stem cell funding by the fed DOUBLED from 1999-2003, then remained relatively stagnant since then.

The whole point is that the State and Private funding took the place of the Fed on this issue. Thus, Lorax's argument that by "the fed not funding embryonic stem cell research" the research was set back is false.

THAT was my point. That just because the fed wasn't funding this line doesn't mean the line of research suffered. In contrast, some states are now investing into genetic research for the first time. CA has committed $3b over the next decade. Money that would otherwise not have been spent on this type of research before. Private funding also escalated beyond the norm for this type of investing.

They picked up the slack when the fed backed off.
 
Darla... a nice young lady once told me....

"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."

This article shows just that. The NIH funding of all stem cell research does not compare to the amount of funds on either the state or federal level. The states came in to a field they previously had not been in. Private funding picked up as well.
 
Take a look at the article again. Page 9. Take a look at the amounts raised solely on the private side.... $1.7 billion compared to the NIH budget as a whole. Grain of salt alert. As the article states, they cannot be certain that the entire amount went to embryonic stem cell research. Though it also stated that it was impossible to track all private donations, so the total is likely larger than the 1.7 billion.

Take a look at the sentence I pointed out to Lorax on the state funding. It says exactly what I said.... that most states prior to the stem cell issue had not participated in funding genetic research. Now they are... and they too are doing so at a higher rate than NIH.

I would also like to highlight the last paragraph on page 13.


You mellowed since the days of full politics. You used to say that a woman aborting a fetus was murder, and that life began at the moment of conception. I'm suprised you would support stem cell research in any form: state, federal or private.

:cof1:
 
What strawman?

What is incorrect about what I'm saying?

Why is stem cell research different from any other area? Why would different logic apply?

You're being silly. You made an irrational, unsupportable argument that doesn't hold up...

Read the article... it totally supports my argument.

The reason EMBRYONIC stem cell research is different is because there is a moral issue that many people have with regards to it destroying the embryo. Note, the Fed did NOT ban the research. It just banned the use of fed funds for it. The States stepped in and did what their constituents wanted. Some restricted state funding others issued state funding.

Private money came in and spent almost THREE TIMES the amount that NIH spends on all stem cell lines. Even if the Fed were to invest in stem cell research... do you think that one line would get more funding than all other lines? Even if it got twice the amount of the other lines, the private side still would have out spent it.

The article quite clearly points out that for most states, this is there first foray into genetics research funding. Which directly supports what I said, that if the fed cuts a particular line of research, that the states would step in. Had the fed not done so, would the states have been inclined to go into an area they previously had not? doubtful.

But please, continue calling me silly. It is providing me a good chuckle.
 
Look closely... the Fed numbers are on ALL lines of stem cell research... and the states and private are both beating the Fed. The total of stem cell funding by the fed DOUBLED from 1999-2003, then remained relatively stagnant since then.

The whole point is that the State and Private funding took the place of the Fed on this issue. Thus, Lorax's argument that by "the fed not funding embryonic stem cell research" the research was set back is false.

THAT was my point. That just because the fed wasn't funding this line doesn't mean the line of research suffered. In contrast, some states are now investing into genetic research for the first time. CA has committed $3b over the next decade. Money that would otherwise not have been spent on this type of research before. Private funding also escalated beyond the norm for this type of investing.

They picked up the slack when the fed backed off.

SF, let me put this in simple terms, so that my simple mind can get around it. You are saying:

The Feds spend 5.00 on research in 1999, and doubled it to 10.00 by 03, where it has stayed.
Since that time, states have spent more than the 10.00 the feds spent. So since the states have stepped up and increased their own spending to the point that they match or perhaps exceed what the feds spend, then there has been no overall lowering of available research dollars.

If that is not correct please let me know, I get confused when a lot of figures are thrown around.

Now, I can see that this would be correct on its face. However...you are comparing the only federal figures available to us, and those are figures under the bush adminstration. Simply put, this was not a field in the Clinton admistration. I have seen people say "Bush is the first president to spend any federal dollars on stem cell research" as if this was an issue in the 90's and Clinton vetoed it or refused to fund it. We have the spending of ONE adminstration to go by and that is an adminstration hostile to stem cell research, and frankly, to science in general.

My point is, that's great that the states are spending some money in an attempt to make up for bush refusing to, but if we had a adminstration that resided in the 21st century and to whom this was a priority as it shoudl be, then the federal government could and would dwarf any state spending just as they always have, and then you would see some shit getting done.

And I don't want to hear about how some people find it "immoral" I don't care. No one cared when I found it immoral, and outright criminal to drop bombs on Iraq, I can tell you that. The fact is only a very small, very radical, and very loud minority of Americans believe cells are human beings.
 
Read the article... it totally supports my argument.

The reason EMBRYONIC stem cell research is different is because there is a moral issue that many people have with regards to it destroying the embryo. Note, the Fed did NOT ban the research. It just banned the use of fed funds for it. The States stepped in and did what their constituents wanted. Some restricted state funding others issued state funding.

Private money came in and spent almost THREE TIMES the amount that NIH spends on all stem cell lines. Even if the Fed were to invest in stem cell research... do you think that one line would get more funding than all other lines? Even if it got twice the amount of the other lines, the private side still would have out spent it.

The article quite clearly points out that for most states, this is there first foray into genetics research funding. Which directly supports what I said, that if the fed cuts a particular line of research, that the states would step in. Had the fed not done so, would the states have been inclined to go into an area they previously had not? doubtful.

But please, continue calling me silly. It is providing me a good chuckle.

The states previously had "not gone into it' for the same reason it wasn't funded under Clinton: it did not exist in any meaningful way.
 
Back
Top