House Passes Stem Cell Bill

It depends on what sort of basic research you're talking about. Today there was an important story (research just published in Nature) about embryonic stem cells provoking improvement in spinal injuries. It was rat work, thus falling into the realm of "basic" research, but nevertheless it was specifically targeted work that if successful (and it appears that it was successful) would have tremendous benefits for the company. It was reported that following the announcement of the publication of these findings, the company's stocks soared.

Other types of basic research, the sort of "fact-finding" that entails so much of research in this category, are not necessarily directly tied to a specific ailment and thus do not attract as much private funding. In my own field, the disorder is not contagious, for instance, and is restricted to a very small segment of the population, so when overall funding is tight the purse strings tend to remain closed for basic, etiological or even descriptive research. We find ourselves now working in the treatment side of things -- good in its way because the side effects of traditional treatments can be horrific -- but not really helpful in the long run. If research becomes more end-goal targeted, much of this fact-finding activity will suffer. This is most unfortunate because many if not most major findings have arisen from serendipitous circumstances.
 
Plus, a lot of basic research at universities, is funded by corporate grants -- because post-docs and researchers at publically funded universities are cheaper, and most of the nations top academic expertise in medicine and science is found in universities and public labs.


So, the money that corporations "spend" on basic research, is to a large degree going to universities because they are cheaper, and much of the academic expertise is concentrated in adademia and universities. So that makes the case for the need for publically funded labs and universities; i.e., centers of publically funded research.
 
Thorn said:
It depends on what sort of basic research you're talking about. Today there was an important story (research just published in Nature) about embryonic stem cells provoking improvement in spinal injuries. It was rat work, thus falling into the realm of "basic" research, but nevertheless it was specifically targeted work that if successful (and it appears that it was successful) would have tremendous benefits for the company. It was reported that following the announcement of the publication of these findings, the company's stocks soared.

Other types of basic research, the sort of "fact-finding" that entails so much of research in this category, are not necessarily directly tied to a specific ailment and thus do not attract as much private funding. In my own field, the disorder is not contagious, for instance, and is restricted to a very small segment of the population, so when overall funding is tight the purse strings tend to remain closed for basic, etiological or even descriptive research. We find ourselves now working in the treatment side of things -- good in its way because the side effects of traditional treatments can be horrific -- but not really helpful in the long run. If research becomes more end-goal targeted, much of this fact-finding activity will suffer. This is most unfortunate because many if not most major findings have arisen from serendipitous circumstances.
Click to expand...


This company "Geron" got the basic science from the basic research which was done at a public university - the Univ. of Wisconsin.

GERON WEBSITE:

Geron funded the research by Dr. James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison in which Dr. Thomson first derived human embryonic stem cells. Geron has a license from the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) which grants Geron exclusive commercialization rights to three cell types (cardiomyocytes, neural cells and pancreatic islet cells) and non-exclusive rights to three other cell types (hematopoietic cells, osteoblasts and chondrocytes) for therapeutic and diagnostic products; and non-exclusive rights to commercialize research products based on six cell types.


This is how it works S-freak. Biotech startups are based on the basic research done at publically funded university labs.
 
Cypress said:
This company "Geron" got the basic science from the basic research which was done at a public university - the Univ. of Wisconsin.

GERON WEBSITE:

Geron funded the research by Dr. James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison in which Dr. Thomson first derived human embryonic stem cells. Geron has a license from the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) which grants Geron exclusive commercialization rights to three cell types (cardiomyocytes, neural cells and pancreatic islet cells) and non-exclusive rights to three other cell types (hematopoietic cells, osteoblasts and chondrocytes) for therapeutic and diagnostic products; and non-exclusive rights to commercialize research products based on six cell types.



This is how it works S-freak. Biotech startups are based on the basic research done at publically funded university labs.
Click to expand...


Also from the GERON corporate website:

"As of today, Geron has nine cell lines, seven of which are listed on the NIH registry (details below). Five of them were derived at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, two are clones of one of the Wisconsin lines and two were derived at the University of California-San Francisco. "


http://www.geron.com/showpage.asp?code=prodstst


The BASIC science was done at publically-funded research facilities. Without public funding, the University of Wisconsin and University of California wouldn't exist to do basic research, which can be used by companies to make consumer products.
 
Superfreak said:
As with virtually all government activity that is not directly concerned with protecting national freedom, non-defense-related government-funded research is considered unethical and/or inefficient by libertarians, as it necessarily involves taxation and the allocation of resources by non-market means, which is considered to be always inferior to the alternative of leaving the matter to the free market. An often-quoted example used to illustrate the difference in efficiency between government-funded and privately funded research projects is the quest of mapping the human genome. The U.S. government was funding such a mission, called the Human Genome Project, while at the same time the quest was being pursued separately with private venture capital by Celera Genomics. Celera Genomics used a newer, albeit riskier technique and proceeded at a faster pace and at a fraction of the cost of the tax-funded project (approximately $3 billion of taxpayer dollars versus about $300 million of private funding). Some HGP researchers claimed Celera's method of genome sequencing "would not work," however that project eventually adopted some of Celera's methods.
Click to expand...
This is exactly why libertarians are consistently, fundamentally and irretrievably wrong -- and why I'm no longer a libertarian. ;)

Such a categorical indictment of the public sector is simply too broad and too ideologically driven. In practice, there are a number of things that the public sector tends to do more effectively than the private. One of them happens to be funding scientific research that hasn't any immediate application.

The popular media are partly to blame here. They tend to make it seem as if stem cell therapy is just around the corner; that all we have to do is to iron out the proverbial bugs. That's grossly inaccurate. We're a long, long way from commercially profitable treatments. There may not even be any, though I'm sure that someone will figure out some way to profit from the ancillary equipment, if nothing else.
 
This company "Geron" got the basic science from the basic research which was done at a public university - the Univ. of Wisconsin.

GERON WEBSITE:

Geron funded the research by Dr. James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison in which Dr. Thomson first derived human embryonic stem cells. Geron has a license from the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) which grants Geron exclusive commercialization rights to three cell types (cardiomyocytes, neural cells and pancreatic islet cells) and non-exclusive rights to three other cell types (hematopoietic cells, osteoblasts and chondrocytes) for therapeutic and diagnostic products; and non-exclusive rights to commercialize research products based on six cell types.



This is how it works S-freak. Biotech startups are based on the basic research done at publically funded university labs.

Try reading that again....

specifically THIS part....

Geron funded the research by Dr. James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison in which Dr. Thomson first derived human embryonic stem cells.

The COMPANY FUNDED the research that was done at UW. I never said the public universities didn't do basic research. Just that the basic research is NOT all federally funded. That is the problem with you ex-libertarians turned democrats.... ya forgot how to read ;)
 
"Such a categorical indictment of the public sector is simply too broad and too ideologically driven."

Agreed.

"In practice, there are a number of things that the public sector tends to do more effectively than the private. One of them happens to be funding scientific research that hasn't any immediate application."

We disagree greatly here.
 
Superfreak said:
This company "Geron" got the basic science from the basic research which was done at a public university - the Univ. of Wisconsin.

GERON WEBSITE:

Geron funded the research by Dr. James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison in which Dr. Thomson first derived human embryonic stem cells. Geron has a license from the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) which grants Geron exclusive commercialization rights to three cell types (cardiomyocytes, neural cells and pancreatic islet cells) and non-exclusive rights to three other cell types (hematopoietic cells, osteoblasts and chondrocytes) for therapeutic and diagnostic products; and non-exclusive rights to commercialize research products based on six cell types.



This is how it works S-freak. Biotech startups are based on the basic research done at publically funded university labs.

Try reading that again....

specifically THIS part....

Geron funded the research by Dr. James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison in which Dr. Thomson first derived human embryonic stem cells.

The COMPANY FUNDED the research that was done at UW. I never said the public universities didn't do basic research. Just that the basic research is NOT all federally funded. That is the problem with you ex-libertarians turned democrats.... ya forgot how to read ;)
Click to expand...

Right. I already pointed out that companies fund basic reasearch at public universities - researchers who draw their salary and much of their funding and infrastructure from public sources and taxpayers.

And the reason corporations use public universties for research, is because they're cheaper and generally have the top research talent in the nation, compared to private companies.

So, if you support the basic research done at University of Wisconsin and University of California, you by neccessity support public funding for university researchers and science.
 
Cypress said:
Right. I already pointed out that companies fund basic reasearch at public universities - researchers who draw their salary and much of their funding and infrastructure from public sources and taxpayers.

And the reason corporations use public universties for research, is because they're cheaper and generally have the top research talent in the nation, compared to private companies.

So, if you support the basic research done at University of Wisconsin and University of California, you by neccessity support public funding for university researchers and science.
Click to expand...
They accept the funding and do it for the company, the company is therefore granted exclusive rights or non-exclusive patents to the research completed with their money.

Saying that this somehow was funded by the Feds is incomplete and clearly disingenuous. If the funding was by the feds they would have to pay for the patent granted to the University. Instead they get exclusive rights to many of the product that they pay for. This allows the University to hire better teachers, et al. Clearly the Feds did not fund the research. Pretending that because it was done by students at the direction of a Professor it was all public funds is a bit ridiculous when, in fact, if the Federal funds were there for the University to do what they wanted they would not accept the company funds.... The fact is, the company paid for the research and not the government.
 
Superfreak said:
ok Ornot... if the research is being FUNDED by the company, then it is not being funded by the government.
Click to expand...


The government is funding the research.

In a true, "libertarian" free market, the company would do all the research themselves, and not use tax-payer funded scientists and taxpayer funded universities to do the basic research for them. It amounts to a subsidy. The university scientists are cheaper and more efficient for the company to use.


Our taxes and public funding are what keep those university labs open. We pay the salaries of the scientists.
 
Cypress said:
The government is funding the research.

In a true, "libertarian" free market, the company would do all the research themselves, and not use tax-payer funded scientists and taxpayer funded universities to do the basic research for them. It amounts to a subsidy. The university scientists are cheaper and more efficient for the company to use.


Our taxes and public funding are what keep those university labs open. We pay the salaries of the scientists.
Click to expand...
So, when the same company gets a private university to make the same deal they are not funding the research?

Had the company not paid for the research, the students would have made rudimentary studies because they would lack the funding otherwise. Those that pay for it get the proceeds.
 
Cypress... what part of "the company funded the research" are you having trouble grasping? YOU posted that fact. How in the hell can you twist it into saying the government funded it??????

Yes, the research was done at UW. But the costs involved in the research were paid for by funds from the company. This means the costs to run the labs etc... The reason companies do this is that (as you mentioned) it is cheaper to pay a university because for the most part the students who are doing the research are not paid. They are gaining experience and the companies are gaining cheaper research. The Universities get the prestige of completing the projects and the funding to help pay for better professors, which in turn attracts more students.
 
Okay, cut off all public funding for university and basic science research in your states.

California and New York, who are heavily investing in stem cell and biotech, will steal all your top scientists, and dominate the biotech economy. ;)
 
Cypress... what part of "the company funded the research" are you having trouble grasping? YOU posted that fact. How in the hell can you twist it into saying the government funded it??????


I'm the one who pointed out first, that companies do fund basic research at public universities. It amounts to a public subsidy for them - the taxapayer-funded researchers and labs are cheaper for them. If we went with the pure libertarian model, we would say fuck to subsidizing corporate capital and research, with taxpayer funded scientists and facilities.

And most funding for basic research still comes from public sources.
 
Cypress... " the taxapayer-funded researchers and labs are cheaper for them. "

The above is where you are wrong. The researchers and labs are funded by the company. NOT the taxpayers. It is cheaper because the students are not paid (typically), whereas the company would otherwise have to pay researchers.

Add in the fact that many Universities have buildings donated by alumni, that donations come in from private grants/foundations etc... and you will see that the majority of the costs are not being funded by taxpayers.
 
Here's an interview with the taxpayer-payed Scientist at University of Wiscosin, who did the original stem cell research, funded in part with the corporate funding you mentioned (GERON Corp).

He says scientific progress has been slowed down by a lack of public funding ;)



http://www.madison.com/wsj/mad/top/index.php?ntid=99876&ntpid=2

Interview with Dr. James Thomson:

"we are eight years in and because of the political controversy, things have gone much slower in this field than they could have. We do have a president that's not terribly supportive of this research. Even though there is a compromise that allows federal funding, there is not a substantial amount of federal funding for this area of research. So even though it's possible to apply for NIH research dollars - and we do that and we're successful with it - given the importance of this field and the general enthusiasm for it, there's not substantial funding for it.



State of Wisconis providing taxpayer money, to fund Dr. James Thomsons stem cell work:


http://wistechnology.com/article.php?id=3385
 
Superfreak said:
Cypress... " the taxapayer-funded researchers and labs are cheaper for them. "

The above is where you are wrong. The researchers and labs are funded by the company. NOT the taxpayers. It is cheaper because the students are not paid (typically), whereas the company would otherwise have to pay researchers.

Add in the fact that many Universities have buildings donated by alumni, that donations come in from private grants/foundations etc... and you will see that the majority of the costs are not being funded by taxpayers.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute....you're saying that the University of Wisconsin, its researchers, it labs, its building, its infrastructure, its IT systems, its employee compensation packages, are not mostly paid by the State and with public support?


:tongout:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top