Great news on stem cells

[Onceler]

In 1998 to 2002, America produced 85 NMEs (new molecular entities) to Europe's 44."
America has half the population of Europe and developed almost double the amount of discoveries in drugs as left-wing Europe did.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/16/opinion/meyer/main674561.shtml

You trot out the same junk all of the time.

On cancer research alone, the U.S. spends SEVEN TIMES MORE than Europe, per capita. And the return on investment that we get for our commitment to funding research is astronomical.

We're talking about this field, which has the potential to revolutionize medicine in almost every area & specialty, and I was talking mainly about countries like Singapore.

Like I said: you ask for good news, we provide it, and you respond with poorly researched partisan strawmen.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

How can anyone argue that you're not losing time when you withdraw funding from research like this?

If research has X # of dollars and it COULD have much more if there weren't insane religious wacko's dictating policy, how can you argue that it is "just as far along" with fewer resources?

Idiots...

Prove to me that there are fewer resources. You are making a false assumption that if the Fed doesn't fund something that the funds are simply not replaced by the private sector. This is a ridiculous assumption to make, unless you would like to provide evidence that the private sector hasn't stepped up.

If insane "government must hold my hand wackos" would actually pay attention they may actually learn something.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"Because to date adult stem cell research has provided far more results. "

That's like saying at the start of the internet age "we're getting more results with fax machines, so why should we invest in this new thing?"

So shortsighted. It's not even worth debating.

That is simply ignorant. To equate adult stem cells to a fax machine? You clearly need to research this issue, as your comprehension of what can be done with adult stem cells is pathetic. Yes, there is great promise in embryonic, but there is also great promise with the adult lines.... as we see with YOUR article.

You just cannot let go of the "fed won't fund it" line of B.S.... and THAT is not worth debating.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Nailed it, beautiful post.
Lefties like Lorax keep lying and pretending that religious beliefs are stopping them doing something when really they are just stopping government from funding them.

I would have told Michael J Fox that if he wants stem cell research funded, his millionaire Canadian ass can fund it and stop trying to get regular American taxpayers to be forced into paying for it.

They aren't even stopping "government" from funding this line of research. The states are still capable to decide for themselves and they are.

 

[Onceler]

"Prove to me that there are fewer resources."


This is an old article, but it sums up the dilemma. Bush didn't just stop funding for most cell lines; any new cell line is basically "off limits" for any researcher who receives gov't funding in any way, so - surprise, surprise - those lines, as well as additional funding, are finding their way overseas:

"Although the first human embryonic stem cell line was created in the United States, a Globe survey has found that the majority of new embryonic cell lines -- colonies of potent cells with the ability to create any type of tissue in the human body -- are now being created overseas, a concrete sign that American science is losing its preeminence in a key field of 21st-century research.

Nearly three years ago, the Bush administration prohibited the use of federal money to work with any embryonic cell lines created after Aug. 9, 2001, because of moral concerns over the destruction of human embryos. At the time, the president said there would be more than 60 lines of these cells available. But today there are only 19 usable lines created before that date, and that number is never likely to rise above 23, according to the National Institutes of Health.

However, the number of cell lines available to the world's researchers, but off-limits to US government-funded researchers, is now much higher: at least 51, according to the survey. It could rise to more than 100 over the coming year. There are three new lines in Dvorak's lab, with four more in progress. And there are also new lines in Sweden, Israel, Finland, and South Korea. Last week, the world's first public bank of embryonic stem cells opened in the United Kingdom, a country where there are at least five new lines and more on the way.

''Science is like a stream of water, because it finds its way," said Susan Fisher, a professor at the University of California at San Francisco. ''And now it has found its way outside the United States."


http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2004/05/23/us_stem_cell_research_lagging/

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You really have no comprehension of the ROI for medical research. It's astronomical; I've posted it for you a few times, but you always ignore it.

And you're ridiculous, anyway - always posting about how "lefties" never post good news. I give it a shot, and your 1st response is a partisan strawman...

You really need to apply that ROI to the private and state funding that the lines receive. Funding that would not have happened to the extent it has had the Fed decided to go along with this line of research.

 

[Cypress]

Prove to me that there are fewer resources. You are making a false assumption that if the Fed doesn't fund something that the funds are simply not replaced by the private sector. This is a ridiculous assumption to make, unless you would like to provide evidence that the private sector hasn't stepped up.

If insane "government must hold my hand wackos" would actually pay attention they may actually learn something.

Superfreak: "Prove to me that there are fewer resources!"

National Academy of Sciences - Nation's Foremost Scientific Authorities:

Public vs. Private Funding

Without public funding of basic research on stem cells, progress toward medical therapies is likely to be hindered. Ample federal funding would speed progress by increasing the number of studies and also the number of scientists who participate in the research.

Public sponsorship of basic research helps ensure that many scientists can pursue a varietyof research questions and that their results are made widely accessible in scientific journals.The publicly funded National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the primary sponsor of basic biomedical research in the United States. Although private, nonprofit entities, such as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, also support basic research, most private-sector funding comes from companies with an interest in research that will yield commercial applications, such as new drugs, diagnostic tools, and medical devices. These private companies, which need to satisfy shareholders with commercial results, may be reluctant to invest in basic research on stem cells because it could take years to yield therapeutic products. In addition, in contrast to publicly funded research, results from privately funded research are often considered proprietary and not openly exchanged.

http://books.nap.edu/html/stem_cells/reportbrief.pdf

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"Prove to me that there are fewer resources."


This is an old article, but it sums up the dilemma. Bush didn't just stop funding for most cell lines; any new cell line is basically "off limits" for any researcher who receives gov't funding in any way, so - surprise, surprise - those lines, as well as additional funding, are finding their way overseas:

"Although the first human embryonic stem cell line was created in the United States, a Globe survey has found that the majority of new embryonic cell lines -- colonies of potent cells with the ability to create any type of tissue in the human body -- are now being created overseas, a concrete sign that American science is losing its preeminence in a key field of 21st-century research.

Nearly three years ago, the Bush administration prohibited the use of federal money to work with any embryonic cell lines created after Aug. 9, 2001, because of moral concerns over the destruction of human embryos. At the time, the president said there would be more than 60 lines of these cells available. But today there are only 19 usable lines created before that date, and that number is never likely to rise above 23, according to the National Institutes of Health.

However, the number of cell lines available to the world's researchers, but off-limits to US government-funded researchers, is now much higher: at least 51, according to the survey. It could rise to more than 100 over the coming year. There are three new lines in Dvorak's lab, with four more in progress. And there are also new lines in Sweden, Israel, Finland, and South Korea. Last week, the world's first public bank of embryonic stem cells opened in the United Kingdom, a country where there are at least five new lines and more on the way.

''Science is like a stream of water, because it finds its way," said Susan Fisher, a professor at the University of California at San Francisco. ''And now it has found its way outside the United States."


http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2004/05/23/us_stem_cell_research_lagging/

1) You are correct, it is outdated... but even YOUR article says the following....

"As much as the Bush rules have limited embryonic stem cell research, they have prompted a substantial private effort to keep the research moving forward. Harvard announced last month that it is building a privately funded effort to do the work, and it has a fund-raising goal of $100 million. The University of California, San Francisco is already underway with a similar effort, started with a $5 million gift from Intel's Andy Grove, as are a number of other academic institutions. Earlier this month, the governor of New Jersey signed an agreement opening the nation's first state-funded stem cell institute.

Thanks partly to this effort, none of the researchers contacted by the Globe said they had seen signs of a scientific ''brain drain" that some critics predicted......"

2) The article does indeed go on to say that they are "worried" that Universities may have trouble attracting talent. But nothing to show evidence that has occured.

3) Because the article is outdated it doesn't have the knowledge we have today. The billions that have been pumped into the R& D from the states (like CA and MO) and from the private sector...like the Stowers foundation etc.....

Bottom line, your article is speculative and has been shown to be wrong since the article was written.

 

[TheDanold]

You trot out the same junk all of the time.

On cancer research alone, the U.S. spends SEVEN TIMES MORE than Europe, per capita. And the return on investment that we get for our commitment to funding research is astronomical.

We're talking about this field, which has the potential to revolutionize medicine in almost every area & specialty, and I was talking mainly about countries like Singapore.

Like I said: you ask for good news, we provide it, and you respond with poorly researched partisan strawmen.

Lorax, who is "the US"? Is it our government or is it our private sector?

You are turning my argument from government funding to OVERALL funding. Yes we spend more capita, NO our government does not spend more per capita.