Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Seducing Scientists: California and Massachusetts do battle over stem cells

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Seducing Scientists: California and Massachusetts do battle over stem cells

    Three weeks ago, Larry Goldstein, a neurobiologist at the University of California, San Diego, had a few choice words for Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who surprised the nation by coming out against a specific kind of stem-cell research. The words were: "Thank you." Goldstein, unlike Romney, supports all stem-cell research. He helped write California's Proposition 71, which raised $3 billion for it (and was backed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger). "We've been trying to recruit the very best people in the world, and a few of them happen to be at Harvard," Goldstein said in the wake of the governor's announcement. He hoped it would "tip the balance" in his university's favor, sending scientists scurrying West.

    But last week it was California's turn for a setback—and, as it turns out, Goldstein may have smirked too soon. Stem-cell supporters in the Golden State now face two new lawsuits from conservative groups dead-set on keeping that $3 billion out of scientists' hands; questions from government watchdogs about the money's dispersal, and an upcoming hearing in the state Senate on a moratorium against some types of stem-cell science.

    When President George W. Bush limited federal funding for stem-cell research in 2001, he threw the burden onto the states. Now dozens of them are mired in two-steps-forward, one-step-back legal struggles. From an academic standpoint, Massachusetts may have the most to lose if stem-cell research is outlawed or discouraged. "At this moment," says Boston-based state Sen. Cynthia Creem, "there are more scientists doing groundbreaking biological and medical research within 10 miles of my desk than in any other city in the world." Creem introduced a bill last fall to promote stem-cell research, thinking it would be a relatively easy win. The bill failed in the House, but the state Senate approved it "with more than enough votes to override any veto," she says.

    Until three weeks ago, Creem & Co. figured Romney might be on their side. The governor, whose wife suffers from multiple sclerosis, a potential target of stem-cell research, had met with a prominent Harvard scientist and backed Creem's original bill. But Romney, a Republican rumored to have national political ambitions, stunned stem-cell supporters with a carefully crafted statement. Yes, he would support some forms of the research. But nuclear transfer performed on embryos created solely for research purposes—the most controversial and one of the most promising techniques—was out of the question.

    Even if Massachusetts state legislators, led by Senate President Robert Travaglini, a Democrat, end up overriding Romney, they'll still have to convince their nervous scientists that the Bay State will remain friendly to their work. Meanwhile, in California, it's damn the lawsuits, full speed ahead. The California Institute of Regenerative Medicine, born with money from Prop 71 (which specifically allows for the research Romney objects to), announced on Friday that it hopes to start dispersing grants by May. It's astonishingly fast progress, thanks largely to the efforts of Robert Klein, another coauthor of Prop 71 who's overseeing the institute's creation. Klein knows he needs to move quickly; like Goldstein, he expects that Romney is about to drive Massachusetts scientists into his open arms.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7037226/site/newsweek/

  • #2
    This is a subject I'm torn on, the research part that is. The government should not be funding research to make pharmaceutical companies rich.
    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
    I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Confed999
      This is a subject I'm torn on, the research part that is. The government should not be funding research to make pharmaceutical companies rich.
      You are right in some respects, in that it is kinda wrong for the government to subsidize research that has direct commericial applications. At the same time though, there are a lot of new commercial technologies that rely on the increased level of understanding brought about by basic science research that is not profitable in any sense.

      I really can go both ways on government funded stem cell research. I don't think that it is in any way immoral, but it is research that should have enough commercial pressure behind it to develop. If not, then the research will just be paid for by a European or Asian country, and American companies can use the results to provide a service. So basically, I'm for stem cell research, but I think that its proponents are hugely overstating the benefits in order to make it a political issue. Therefore I can understand the position of those who oppose government funded stem cell research.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by barrowaj
        I don't think that it is in any way immoral
        Depends on what lengths they are willing to go to get the stem cells for the research.
        No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
        I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
        even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
        He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

        Comment


        • #5
          Good point confed999. The supply should be monitored.

          This type of research will reap hundreds of millions. There is no need to subsidize companies for this. Pharmaceutical companies are all ready rolling in our dough. If the government does fund the research then the government should be able to put price controls on the end product. If the companies do not like price controls, they can fund the research themselves. Then they can charge what they want. They have earned the right to do so. Unfortunatly, with the lobbyist the pharmeacuetical companies have, the companies will be able to "have their cake and eat it too."
          Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by bonehead
            If the government does fund the research then the government should be able to put price controls on the end product.
            Either that, or a monetary return on the investment.
            No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
            I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
            even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
            He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Confed999
              Depends on what lengths they are willing to go to get the stem cells for the research.
              Well, I guess you are referring to the fact that embryonic stem cells have to come from destroying an embryo?

              From my background in Biology, I wouldn't consider an embryo to be human, so I wouldn't have any qualms with that. Furthermore, the embryos in question aleady exist, and are being stored indefinitely in a freezer, so they aren't "alive" in any sense. So if you did consider such an embryo to be human, then you aren't destroying a living being. With time, cosmic rays and the laws of entropy will destroy the DNA of the embryo, rendering it inviable anyway, if it already isn't.

              Finally, if you argue against government funding for stem cell research from a (misguided) ethical standpoint, how is commercially funded stem cell research any more ethical? The only non-hypocritical solution would be to unilaterally ban embryonic stem cell research. Not that I would ever try to expose our President as a hypocrite or anything...

              I'm just apathetic towards government funded stem cell research because the benefits of this research are unproven, and are generally overhyped by its proponents.

              Comment


              • #8
                The most disturbing thing about the entire stem cell debate is the fact that major decisions are being made by people who with no knowledge of the subject and for the most part couldnt find their ass with both hands.

                I dont know that providing funding for the research is really going to help these companies that much. Just depends on where the research goes from here which looks like no where at the moment. While America debates the issue other countries are moving forward. When they have the patents then you will wish our greedy companies had them instead.

                BTW from a biological stand point you are absolutely correct. People against it seem just fine letting them sit in a deep freeze for eternity or just thrown away.
                Victory is the only end that justifies the sacrifice of men at war.

                Col. Robert W. Black

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by barrowaj
                  Well, I guess you are referring to the fact that embryonic stem cells have to come from destroying an embryo?
                  I was thinking something more devious than that really. But I wouldn't condone creating embryos for the sole purpose of research either.
                  Originally posted by barrowaj
                  I wouldn't consider an embryo to be human
                  Others of us do though, and you can't really say anything to prove us 100% wrong.
                  Originally posted by barrowaj
                  Furthermore, the embryos in question aleady exist
                  Use them over throwing them out. Anyone legally getting an abortion should be required to sign the dead fetus over to medical research as well. At least some good should come from all those people who never got a chance.
                  Originally posted by barrowaj
                  Finally, if you argue against government funding for stem cell research from a (misguided) ethical standpoint
                  Mengele was willing to put ethics aside too.
                  Originally posted by barrowaj
                  how is commercially funded stem cell research any more ethical?
                  I don't have a problem with the research I previously noted, or the use of donated adult cells. I'm all for it.
                  Originally posted by barrowaj
                  The only non-hypocritical solution would be to unilaterally ban embryonic stem cell research. Not that I would ever try to expose our President as a hypocrite or anything...
                  Actually he's doing his job, compromising. Just like the compromise offered on gay marriage. He's just doing what he thinks is best for the country and it's people, and I agree with both stands.
                  No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                  I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                  even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                  He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Confed999
                    Others of us do though, and you can't really say anything to prove us 100% wrong.
                    Yeah, I didn't mean to say that I could prove you wrong at all. I just thought I'd state my view.

                    Originally posted by Confed999
                    Use them over throwing them out. Anyone legally getting an abortion should be required to sign the dead fetus over to medical research as well. At least some good should come from all those people who never got a chance.
                    Requiring people to sign over their fetuses to medical research seems a little overly harsh. It would be like requiring everyone to be an organ donor, and also donate their body to medical science. But having the option presented wouldn't be a bad idea.

                    Originally posted by Confed999
                    Mengele was willing to put ethics aside too.
                    Hey, I never said that scientific progress should trump ethics. I was critisizing the ethical basis itself as being unsound. I resent the implication that you are getting at...

                    Originally posted by Confed999
                    Actually he's doing his job, compromising. Just like the compromise offered on gay marriage. He's just doing what he thinks is best for the country and it's people, and I agree with both stands.
                    Comprimising is good; but I don't see how allowing commercial stem cells while refusing federal funds for research is really a comprimise, when the basis for the decision is an ethical one.

                    As I write this though, I am considering the fact that a significant portion of the population probably opposes embryonic stem cell research. I guess the reasoning might be that it affords those people a clear conscience by knowing that their tax dollars aren't being spent on something that they consider immoral. On the other hand, a significant portion of the population opposed the war in Iraq, and we didn't see those views represented.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by barrowaj
                      Yeah, I didn't mean to say that I could prove you wrong at all. I just thought I'd state my view.
                      Me too, just tossing 2 cents about. ;)
                      Originally posted by barrowaj
                      Requiring people to sign over their fetuses to medical research seems a little overly harsh. It would be like requiring everyone to be an organ donor, and also donate their body to medical science. But having the option presented wouldn't be a bad idea.
                      I just don't like the idea of tossing it in the trash afterwards. Have to get as much good from the bad as we can, and that would be another little bit. Heck, I wouldn't even ask the "parent", if they can even be considered that, I would just do it.
                      Originally posted by barrowaj
                      I resent the implication that you are getting at...
                      You should only resent it if you are willing to put ethics aside. Otherwise it was a true and valid statement.
                      Originally posted by barrowaj
                      As I write this though, I am considering the fact that a significant portion of the population probably opposes embryonic stem cell research. I guess the reasoning might be that it affords those people a clear conscience by knowing that their tax dollars aren't being spent on something that they consider immoral.
                      You got it. ;)
                      Originally posted by barrowaj
                      On the other hand, a significant portion of the population opposed the war in Iraq, and we didn't see those views represented.
                      Not according to the polls before the war, and the votes of their representitives. A significant portion of the population opposed involvement in WW2, and the American Revolution as well, but needs must as the Devil drives...
                      No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                      I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                      even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                      He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Confed999
                        You should only resent it if you are willing to put ethics aside. Otherwise it was a true and valid statement.
                        No, I resent this because I consider it an insult. Its like calling somebody a racist. Its an insidious accusation that's not easy to clear oneself of. I feel like I clearly constructed my position based off of an ethical position. Just because my postion doesn't agree with yours doesn't mean that it is unethical.

                        Originally posted by Confed999
                        You got it. ;)
                        But that still doesn't reconcile the fact that if Americans oppose using embryonic stem cell research then they should press to make it wholly illegal. It seems like a cop out to simply say "we don't support it so we won't fund it, but if someone else pays for it its ok."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by barrowaj
                          No, I resent this because I consider it an insult. Its like calling somebody a racist. Its an insidious accusation that's not easy to clear oneself of. I feel like I clearly constructed my position based off of an ethical position. Just because my postion doesn't agree with yours doesn't mean that it is unethical.
                          I said "Mengele was willing to put ethics aside too." Thus, IF you are willing to put ethics aside as you implied in your post by saying, "argue against government funding for stem cell research from a (misguided) ethical standpoint" you should feel insulted...
                          Originally posted by barrowaj
                          But that still doesn't reconcile the fact that if Americans oppose using embryonic stem cell research then they should press to make it wholly illegal. It seems like a cop out to simply say "we don't support it so we won't fund it, but if someone else pays for it its ok."
                          Who says the federal government can/should make that decision to begin with? And there is a large group out there who wants to make it totally illegal, as well as a group that wants to make it legal anytime for any reason. My position is that abortion is wrong, but I'm not you, so I will not decide for you. I feel that way right up until the baby has a greater chance of survival than death, at around 500 grams.
                          No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                          I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                          even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                          He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I could give a rat's ass about stem cells, cloning, & the rest of the whacky medicine.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              You seem to could care less about any discussion here. Why waste everybody's time, and board bandwidth?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X