Cool stem cell news

[Damocles]

No, he is saying that previously the States spent $0 on Genetic research, when they began spending on it, it more than replaced the gap in Federal spending.

It would be like if I stopped paying your insurance as a parent, then you started paying it for yourself.

The money is there, it just comes from a source that previously gave nothing to that pot.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

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.

Incorrect. The article states that most of the states had never done ANY genetics research before. Not just with regards to stem cells.

 

[Cancel7]

No, he is saying that previously the States spent $0 on Genetic research, when they began spending on it, it more than replaced the gap in Federal spending.

It would be like if I stopped paying your insurance as a parent, then you started paying it for yourself.

The money is there, it just comes from a source that previously gave nothing to that pot.

Yeah, I got that part.

Addressed with: the feds also "previously spent zero" on the research. It didn't exist.

 

[Cancel7]

Incorrect. The article states that most of the states had never done ANY genetics research before. Not just with regards to stem cells.

But we are talking about stem cell money here. So let's not try and confuse the issue further.

 

[Cypress]

No, he is saying that previously the States spent $0 on Genetic research, when they began spending on it, it more than replaced the gap in Federal spending.

It would be like if I stopped paying your insurance as a parent, then you started paying it for yourself.

The money is there, it just comes from a source that previously gave nothing to that pot.

Darla's right. Its a semantic trick.

States have funded biotech, and biological science for decades. Hello? State universities?

The fact that they haven't funded "genetics", which sounds like code word for stem cell research, is simply because the field of stem cell genetic research didn't exist a decade ago.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

But we are talking about stem cell money here. So let's not try and confuse the issue further.

I understand that Darla.... but if they had never gone into any type of genetic research before... what was the reason they started investing now?

My contention is that because their constituents wanted it and the Fed wasn't going to do it... the states stepped in and funded it.

also fyi... stem cell research has been on-going since the 70's. It just didn't get much attention until the genome projects of the 90's and beyond really opened up new doors of genetic research. I do not fault Clinton at all and in no way was trying to place blame on him or turn the topic around onto him, my point with regard to the doubling was that for ALL of stem cell research, the total investment was less than what the private and state funding did.

 

[Damocles]

Yeah, I got that part.

Addressed with: the feds also "previously spent zero" on the research. It didn't exist.

It existed, if you note it was increasing. Until the feds stopped spending the states spent $0, they would have continued spending that fantastic amount if it were "fully funded" by the feds.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yeah, I got that part.

Addressed with: the feds also "previously spent zero" on the research. It didn't exist.

Except that was not my point. The point was that the Fed was only spending about $650m on ALL stem cell lines. When the fed came and said they were not funding embryonic lines... the Private funding alone came in with at least 1.7b. Dwarfing the Fed spending on all other lines. Not to mention what the states contributed.

I was not trying to compare what the Fed spent on embryonic research in a current vs. pre-Bush manner.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"1995 - U.S. President Bill Clinton signs into law the Dickey Amendment which prohibited federally appropriated funds to be used for research where human embryos would be either created or destroyed. "

Oops....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment

 

[Cancel7]

I understand that Darla.... but if they had never gone into any type of genetic research before... what was the reason they started investing now?

My contention is that because their constituents wanted it and the Fed wasn't going to do it... the states stepped in and funded it.

also fyi... stem cell research has been on-going since the 70's. It just didn't get much attention until the genome projects of the 90's and beyond really opened up new doors of genetic research. I do not fault Clinton at all and in no way was trying to place blame on him or turn the topic around onto him, my point with regard to the doubling was that for ALL of stem cell research, the total investment was less than what the private and state funding did.

I agree that the states began funding it because bush refused to. My contention is that even so, if we had a scientific-friendly admistration, that took this seriously, the federal government could fund it to a greater degree than the states do now. What is America really the best in the world at right now, seriously? I know we say we are number one at a lot of shit, but then you know, statistics get in the way. But, I am not sure it could be argued that we don't have the best, most expensive, deadliest, most state of the art, weaponary in the world, no? Isn't that because that is where our priorities lie, and because that is where our priority is, we federally fund it? That is my contention. When you really want something done, the fed does it, because they have the power and the funds to really do it.

From what I understand about actual stem cells, they didn't become a field of interest until some breakthrough in the late 90's, I think in 99 even. But I am not an expert in that field.

 

[Cancel7]

1995 - U.S. President Bill Clinton signs into law the Dickey Amendment which prohibited federally appropriated funds to be used for research where human embryos would be either created or destroyed.

Oops....

Actual embryos not stem cells, the stem cell breakthrough didn't happen until several years later, and that is when Clinton began funding of the field, but it was in its infancy.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I agree that the states began funding it because bush refused to. My contention is that even so, if we had a scientific-friendly admistration, that took this seriously, the federal government could fund it to a greater degree than the states do now. What is America really the best in the world at right now, seriously? I know we say we are number one at a lot of shit, but then you know, statistics get in the way. But, I am not sure it could be argued that we don't have the best, most expensive, deadliest, most state of the art, weaponary in the world, no? Isn't that because that is where our priorities lie, and because that is where our priority is, we federally fund it? That is my contention. When you really want something done, the fed does it, because they have the power and the funds to really do it.

From what I understand about actual stem cells, they didn't become a field of interest until some breakthrough in the late 90's, I think in 99 even. But I am not an expert in that field.

My contention is that you are wrong. If that were the case, then why is the fed not spending more on the lines of stem cell research that are not restricted?

As for your last paragraph... genetics research into mapping the human genome most certainly expanded the ability to shift more specifically into stem cell research. But stem cell research itself has been on-going for decades. I think it simply did not receive more attention because we did not at the time understand the potential until the human genome was mapped. So I really do not fault Clinton for not putting more money into stem cell research on the whole. But I will make a BIG BIG note of the Dickey Amendment. Because I am evil like that.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Actual embryos not stem cells, the stem cell breakthrough didn't happen until several years later, and that is when Clinton began funding of the field, but it was in its infancy.

"The Dickey Amendment is the name of a piece of federal legislation passed by United States Congress in 1995, and signed by former President Bill Clinton which prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from using appropriated funds for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in which human embryos are destroyed. "

Note: prohibits funding for research purposes in which human embryos are destroyed. THAT would prevent funding for embryonic stem cell research... because at present the embryos are indeed destroyed.

 

[Cancel7]

My contention is that you are wrong. If that were the case, then why is the fed not spending more on the lines of stem cell research that are not restricted?

As for your last paragraph... genetics research into mapping the human genome most certainly expanded the ability to shift more specifically into stem cell research. But stem cell research itself has been on-going for decades. I think it simply did not receive more attention because we did not at the time understand the potential until the human genome was mapped. So I really do not fault Clinton for not putting more money into stem cell research on the whole. But I will make a BIG BIG note of the Dickey Amendment. Because I am evil like that.

I don't really know what the Dickey amendment is about and don't feel like researching it because I don't think it's relative right now. Stem cell research wasnt' an issue until about 99, maybe 98 at the earliest, but again in its infancy. Most likely for the reasons you state, we just didn't know.

But to answer your question, I think that they are not putting more money into other lines because it is not a priority of this adminstration at all, and nothing scientific is. This admistration actively works against science of any kind. Now your ideology tells you that we are going to stay on top, technologically and scientifically speaking, because of private funding and "leaving it to the states". Mine tells me we got on top, and stayed there, in the exact opposite way. So why would it be different now?

Well, I guess the next ten years are going to tell that story. My bet is we will no longer be what we were, and we will be surpassed by other countries who fully fund these kinds of research, through the government. I know how we got here, and that is what I base my opinion on.

 

[Cancel7]

"The Dickey Amendment is the name of a piece of federal legislation passed by United States Congress in 1995, and signed by former President Bill Clinton which prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from using appropriated funds for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in which human embryos are destroyed. "

Note: prohibits funding for research purposes in which human embryos are destroyed. THAT would prevent funding for embryonic stem cell research... because at present the embryos are indeed destroyed.

SF, at your own linked site:

"In 1998, privately funded research led to the breakthrough discovery of hESC (Human Embryonic Stem Cells). This prompted the Clinton Administration to re-examine guidelines for federal funding of embryonic research. In 1999, the president's National Bioethics Advisory Commission recommended that hESC harvested from embryos discarded after in vitro fertility treatments, but not from embryos created expressly for experimentation be eligible for federal funding[3]. Even though embryos are always destroyed in the process of harvesting hESC, the Clinton Administration decided that it would be permissible under the Dickey Amendment to fund hESC research as long as such research did not itself directly cause the destruction of an embryo. Therefore, HHS issued its proposed regulation concerning hESC funding in 2001. Enactment of the new guidelines was delayed by the incoming Bush administration which decided to reconsider the issue.

 

[Cypress]

"1995 - U.S. President Bill Clinton signs into law the Dickey Amendment which prohibited federally appropriated funds to be used for research where human embryos would be either created or destroyed. "

Oops....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment

that's been debunked before. As I recall, it was the republican congress that inserted that prohibition into an appropriations bill. It wasn't clinton's idea. Dickey was a republican Con, who inserted the amendment into an appropriations bill. One, that clinton didn't want to veto, for reasons unrelated to Dickey's amendment.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"research as long as such research did not itself directly cause the destruction of an embryo"

AS long as it did not directly cause the destruction of the embryo. BUT it DOES directly cause the destruction of the embryo.

Side Note: Researchers are close to being able to use the embryo's for stem cell research WITHOUT destroying the embryo. But they are not quite there yet.

 

[Cypress]

I agree that the states began funding it because bush refused to. My contention is that even so, if we had a scientific-friendly admistration, that took this seriously, the federal government could fund it to a greater degree than the states do now. What is America really the best in the world at right now, seriously? I know we say we are number one at a lot of shit, but then you know, statistics get in the way. But, I am not sure it could be argued that we don't have the best, most expensive, deadliest, most state of the art, weaponary in the world, no? Isn't that because that is where our priorities lie, and because that is where our priority is, we federally fund it? That is my contention. When you really want something done, the fed does it, because they have the power and the funds to really do it.

From what I understand about actual stem cells, they didn't become a field of interest until some breakthrough in the late 90's, I think in 99 even. But I am not an expert in that field.

you're right on all counts. I'm impressed.

This is where conservative ideology falls down. Lets dispense with the semantic angle.

The federal government is in the unique position to fund areas of science that are of national importance.

So what if seven or eight blue states fund stem cell research? Yeah, that's great and all, but do you think California is doing it to be charitable to the nation as a whole? Nope. They're doing it to gain a competative advantage for the state of california. As such, they're program is going to be structured to benefit the research institutions and universities within the STATE. In other words, they are NOT going to be utilizing the full intellectual and research capacity of the whole nation.

Much as I hate to admit it there are great research universities and institutions throughout the south and the bible belt. A few blue states funding stem cell research is not going to support the collective intellectual capacity of the nation. This is the unique responsiblity of the federal government. NIH, CDC, and NOAA support core science, throught grants that do not take geography, state interests, and local economies into account. They utilize the WHOLE, the best, and the most deserving of the nation's intellectual capacity.

I understand cons might want to go back to the articles of confederation: a loosely knit collective of individual states. But, the federal government is uniquely positioned to support the entire nation's intellectual capacity for areas of science that are important to the public welfare. You cited Manhattan Project, as a great example.

 

[Cancel7]

you're right on all counts. I'm impressed.

This is where conservative ideology falls down. Lets dispense with the semantic angle.

The federal government is in the unique position to fund areas of science that are of national importance.

So what if seven or eight blue states fund stem cell research? Yeah, that's great and all, but do you think California is doing it to be charitable to the nation as a whole? Nope. They're doing it to gain a competative advantage for the state of california. As such, they're program is going to be structured to benefit the research institutions and universities within the STATE. In other words, they are NOT going to be utilizing the full intellectual and research capacity of the whole nation.

Much as I hate to admit it there are great research universities and institutions throughout the south and the bible belt. A few blue states funding stem cell research is not going to support the collective intellectual capacity of the nation. This is the unique responsiblity of the federal government. NIH, CDC, and NOAA support core science, throught grants that do not take geography, state interests, and local economies into account. They utilize the WHOLE, the best, and the most deserving of the nation's intellectual capacity.

I understand cons might want to go back to the articles of confederation: a loosely knit collective of individual states. But, the federal government is uniquely positioned to support the entire nation's intellectual capacity for areas of science that are important to the public welfare. You cited Manhattan Project, as a great example.

I agree. It is different ideologies I guess.

 

[Thorn]

The federal government is in the unique position to fund areas of science that are of national importance.

So what if seven or eight blue states fund stem cell research? Yeah, that's great and all, but do you think California is doing it to be charitable to the nation as a whole? Nope. They're doing it to gain a competative advantage for the state of california. As such, they're program is going to be structured to benefit the research institutions and universities within the STATE. In other words, they are NOT going to be utilizing the full intellectual and research capacity of the whole nation.

Much as I hate to admit it there are great research universities and institutions throughout the south and the bible belt. A few blue states funding stem cell research is not going to support the collective intellectual capacity of the nation. This is the unique responsiblity of the federal government. NIH, CDC, and NOAA support core science, throught grants that do not take geography, state interests, and local economies into account. They utilize the WHOLE, the best, and the most deserving of the nation's intellectual capacity.

I understand cons might want to go back to the articles of confederation: a loosely knit collective of individual states. But, the federal government is uniquely positioned to support the entire nation's intellectual capacity for areas of science that are important to the public welfare. You cited Manhattan Project, as a great example.

Correct. Moreover, in response to the suggestion (not yours) that no great advances have yet been made in the field of stem cell research because it's in its infancy:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070918/sc_nm/stemcells_lungs_dc;_ylt=AqqrkDXwoi0QG5dBMG8mO2ghANEA