stem cells

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: filipino
Date: July 10, 2008 at 01:48 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/stem-cells.3213/

I have something of a vested interest in this topic, and I'm looking for input - especially from my learned American colleagues - about the chances of this becoming an election issue in the fall. I don't mind if it turns into a debate, but I'd like to know if and how US policy will change depending on the results of the 2008 General Election. I'm also unsure if funding and support for research falls entirely under Federal regulation, or if states make their own rules.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Brick
Date: July 10, 2008 at 02:05 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/stem-cells.3213/

An interesting topic, because it is widely misunderstood. Many think the Bush administration put some sort of ban on stem cell research, and many others point out that no, he only banned embryonic stem cell research. In fact,
there is no such ban.
Bush only said that federal taxpayer dollars would not be used to conduct research on lines other than already existing. I still think he was wrong (but enough on that, because I don't think that is the purpose to your thread), but it is important to understand exactly what the controversial law did.
So, private organizations, states, charity foundations, or whatever are free to fund such research -- it is not against the law (I think it is against the law to create an embryo in a lab for the sole reason of harvesting stem cells, so called "fetal farming"). However, it is likely that the federal government had the most resources to fund this research, so while not a ban per se, Bush's actions were a huge blow. So, to answer your questions, states (and whoever else wants to) make their own rules, but funding is the problem.
How might this change in the election? McCain has a staunch pro-life record, and supports Bush's position. He doesn't mind adult stem cell research (which is much less effective) or other similar methods, but is against funding the embryonic research. Obama supports the opposite position. But how much this actually changes based on the Presidential election depends on what happens with Congress, so who knows.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Archean_Life
Date: July 10, 2008 at 02:51 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/stem-cells.3213/

Brick said:
An interesting topic, because it is widely misunderstood. Many think the Bush administration put some sort of ban on stem cell research, and many others point out that no, he only banned embryonic stem cell research. In fact,
there is no such ban.
Bush only said that federal taxpayer dollars would not be used to conduct research on lines other than already existing. I still think he was wrong (but enough on that, because I don't think that is the purpose to your thread), but it is important to understand exactly what the controversial law did.
So, private organizations, states, charity foundations, or whatever are free to fund such research -- it is not against the law (I think it is against the law to create an embryo in a lab for the sole reason of harvesting stem cells, so called http://forums.mmajunkie.com/posting.php?mode=quote&f=5&p=62140#"fetal farming"). However, it is likely that the federal government had the most resources to fund this research, so while not a ban per se, Bush's actions were a huge blow. So, to answer your questions, states (and whoever else wants to) make their own rules, but funding is the problem.
How might this change in the election? McCain has a staunch pro-life record, and supports Bush's position. He doesn't mind adult stem cell research (which is much less effective) or other similar methods, but is against funding the embryonic research. Obama supports the opposite position. But how much this actually changes based on the Presidential election depends on what happens with Congress, so who knows.
Click to expand...
It's my understanding that if you want to work on embryonic stem cells and anything in your lab has been purchased in the past with federal funding, you cannot use it for embryonic stem cell research. So stem cell researchers have to build entirely new labs with private funding. Only a very few scientists have this level of private funding. Also, in California we passed a ballot measure, which provides $3 billion in funding for stem cell research at California universities and research institutions. The initiative has been mired in legislation. If you're interested, the funding agency is called the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: sallgeud
Date: July 10, 2008 at 05:22 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/stem-cells.3213/

Brick said:
... it is likely that the federal government had the most resources to fund this research, so while not a ban per se, Bush's actions were a huge blow. So, to answer your questions, states (and whoever else wants to) make their own rules, but funding is the problem.
Click to expand...
If there's money to be made in it... funding will never be the problem. Given how much you can charge for virtually anything medical these days, I'd imagine that lack of federal funding is not an issue. Look at research into every other treatement for virtually anything and you'll find big private dollars at work.
Obviously there are times when private industry cannot be relied upon fully, and the overriding public interest in curing something (polio? smallpox?) can potentially benefit from public money. However, until stem cell research in general shows huge progress, beyond where it has already, in areas of greater public concern... I'm not sure it's the best use of our money. Some will say that's a bit of a catch-22... but if you look at the times when federal money was injected in the past, it was typically done in this fashion.
My bigger question is... what is the primary target for federal funding of stem cell research? Parkinsons? Alzhiemers? Cancer? Speaking for myself, I would rather have my tax money go into prevention and research of prevention before I'd want it to go into cures for things such as this. I'm all for cures... and as someone far more prone than others to the diseases I just named, I hope that there are new or better cures in the very near future... I just don't know that federal money will help [or speed up the process].

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: ddog323
Date: July 10, 2008 at 05:30 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/stem-cells.3213/

sallgeud said:
I just don't know that federal money will help [or speed up the process].
Click to expand...
But wouldn't any money be good money? More money and resources will never hurt, right? (Assuming it's not squandered, embezzled, etc.) Obviously just throwing money at a problem isn't enough, but if put in capable hands....?

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Archean_Life
Date: July 10, 2008 at 06:05 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/stem-cells.3213/

ddog323 said:
sallgeud said:
I just don't know that federal money will help [or speed up the process].
Click to expand...
But wouldn't any money be good money? More money and resources will never hurt, right? (Assuming it's not squandered, embezzled, etc.) Obviously just throwing money at a problem isn't enough, but if put in capable hands....?
Click to expand...
Saligued, basic research is needed to figure out how stem cells work before they can be applied to the treatment of a specific disease. IMO, asking for stem cell research that is only focused on a specific disease is like asking for an iphone before we even understand the basic principles of electromagnetism. To the best of my knowledge, biotech isn't doing much of this, but there is some private funding through the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Brick
Date: July 10, 2008 at 06:33 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/stem-cells.3213/

sallgeud said:
Brick said:
... it is likely that the federal government had the most resources to fund this research, so while not a ban per se, Bush's actions were a huge blow. So, to answer your questions, states (and whoever else wants to) make their own rules, but funding is the problem.
Click to expand...
If there's money to be made in it... funding will never be the problem. Given how much you can charge for virtually anything medical these days, I'd imagine that lack of federal funding is not an issue. Look at research into every other treatement for virtually anything and you'll find big private dollars at work.
Click to expand...
Yes, I was thinking about this very issue on the way home from work and I am somewhat torn on it. The example that came to mind for me was that Big Pharm companies spend untold billions in research to come up with those wonder pills that will change people lives and make a ton of dough (Lipitor, Viagra, etc.). It seems that if Emb. Stem Cell Research was promising, venture capital would fund it. I mean, what would a blindness or paralysis cure be worth? A trillion dollars? Seems that's worth some investment, and why do we need to rely on the federal government for STILL MORE dollars spent on something that perhaps the free market could address?
But then I think about the truly big breakthroughs in science, and it seems only the federal government has the resources to pull them off. Things like space travel, splitting the atom, landing on the moon, the Hubble telescope, the Superconducting Super Collider (until it got killed). Maybe this is one of them. I'm just a big fan of science, so I think I'd like the federal govt to put some muscle behind it, but only if that's the only way we can get there.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: filipino
Date: July 11, 2008 at 12:10 AM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/stem-cells.3213/

Thank you, guys - some very thoughtful responses. I'm a bit surprised this generated discussion revolving around government fiscal issues and not the usual moral/ethical debate. Brick's political synopsis was thorough and helpful, but I continue to be interested in whether or not, with all the issues swirling around this election, this is an issue that will have legs in the fall. Perhaps it's too hot?
Brick - I'm sure you know by now that I don't completely share your assertion that the free market will solve all or even most societal problems, but we disagree only by degrees. I think you have it right in your last post.
Sallgeud - You make some persuasive arguments, and are then kind enough to make my counter arguments for me. Stem cells have the potential to have far-reaching benefits for such a wide range of conditions that it is simply unfair to compare this research to any that has come before. Archean rightly points out that a great deal of general work must still be done before too much progress can be made in specific directions. I know you want that work done first, and you acknowledge the catch-22 nature of your position, but I feel the potential of this research is too great to be ignored until the "breakthough" gets the capital flowing.