- Joined
- May 21, 2005
- Messages
- 9,196
- Reaction score
- 9,348
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
That's not true, the fraudulant research in Korea is not the only reported success. I've already linked the results with paralyzed mice, and if you look around you'll see things like this coming from scientists:faithful_servant said:Sorry, but that's not true. The only reported success in thias area turned out to be a fraud.
I think investors are being driven off by things like putting a hold on Federal funding in 2001 while the NIH reviews the matter. It's not a smart investment when the government is questioning the legal and ethical implications of the thing you want to invest in.faithful_servant said:The biggest reason this is ven an issue is that there is a bunch of federal money to be sucked up by the researchers. If this line of research had any real potential, investors would be lining up to invest in it. But strangely enough they aren't. I wonder why......
Of course it's just my opinion that they should fund it. For the same reason I think they should fund the military - the public good. You might (I hope) never have a spinal chord injury, but what about prostate cancer or diabetes? People who know more than me about this stuff are pretty much in agreement when they say it has the potential to cure these things and more, so why not fund it?Goobieman said:Doesnt matter.
Fact is, that the government doesnt fund it doesnt mean it won't be funded.
Your position presupposes that government -should- fund this, but that's just a presupposition on your part.
Your turn, got a link for that? I'm not sure about the word "better."DeeJayH said:interesting but not impressive
seeems adult stem cells is seeing better results
That is really cool, I didn't know that. I hope they're able to confirm it. Wierd thing though, that "Ultimate Stem Cell Found" article was written in 2002, but my NIH link was last updated in 2005, and NIH still says that adult cells can't differentiate into all other types like embryonic cells can. I wonder, were they not able to confirm the Ultimate Stem Cell or is the NIH web administrator out to lunch?tecoyah said:My Grandfather suffers from Parkinsons, I am not upset at this Veto. At least not for the reasons most are. Truth be told, science has all but abandoned Embryonic Stem Cells for many reasons, not the least of which is the recent findings in Adult stem cell research:
Binary_Digit said:That is really cool, I didn't know that. I hope they're able to confirm it. Wierd thing though, that "Ultimate Stem Cell Found" article was written in 2002, but my NIH link was last updated in 2005, and NIH still says that adult cells can't differentiate into all other types like embryonic cells can. I wonder, were they not able to confirm the Ultimate Stem Cell or is the NIH web administrator out to lunch?
I guess that settles it, the NIH dude has been smoking since August 2005 and he's not sharing.tecoyah said:Sorry...old Data....searching my archives now for current....heres a snippet:
"Adult Stem Cells: It's Not Pie-in-the-Sky
February 3, 2005
Binary_Digit said:I guess that settles it, the NIH dude has been smoking since August 2005 and he's not sharing.
knicksin2010 said:s
It's a sad day for millions of Americans who are affected in some way by loved ones being inflicted by diseases to be told that frozen Petri dishes should be thrown away without researching potential gains we could get from them that could one day save their loved ones
What do you mean by that? You posted information I didn't know about, and seems to contradict the National Institute of Health when they say, "Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin. However, some evidence suggests that adult stem cell plasticity may exist, increasing the number of cell types a given adult stem cell can become." If what you posted is true, then that constitutes more than just "some evidence" to me, and I concluded that the NIH website must be out of date. Did we misunderstand each other?tecoyah said:I take it by your statement....any further information I share is rather....pointless. No biggy, Science really does not require your understanding.
Alex said:I agree with this. It is not the government's responsibility to fund medical research.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1996/biotechmitgov.htmlThe Massachusetts Institute of Technology has traced the effects of government-funded research at MIT in the 20-year- old biotechnology industry, and found that the university-government- biotech partnership has been very fruitful indeed.
Nine of the top ten best-selling biotech drugs in 1994 were developed by three companies that were founded or co-founded by MIT alumni or faculty. These drugs treat heart attacks; cancer; leukemia; viruses; infections from chemotherapy, infectious diseases, and AZT treatment of AIDS; anemia; diabetes; hepatitis; growth hormone deficiency; Kaposi's sarcoma, and other diseases.
Forty-five biotechnology companies in the United States are MIT- related--they were founded or co-founded by MIT alumni or faculty, or they have licensed technology patented by MIT. These companies employ nearly 10,000 people and produce aggregate annual revenues of $3 billion, almost a quarter of the total annual revenues ($12.7 billion) of all U. S. biotechnology companies.
tecoyah said:Sorry...old Data....searching my archives now for current....heres a snippet:
"Adult Stem Cells: It's Not Pie-in-the-Sky
February 3, 2005
by Carrie Gordon Earll
Great point! It's much better to spend tax money on rebuilding Iraq or a Bridge to Nowhere, or more than a billion dollars for mobil homes intended for Katrina victims that are rotting in giant parking lots at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars a month just to sit there.Stinger said:This only has to do with some federal funding not whether such research can occour. So contribute to, invest in and raise money for it if you support it. It's a highly controversial area of research and taxpayer money should not go towards it, tax money can support adult stem cell and cord blood stem cell research which has shown much more promise anyway.
You the man Hipster! Great point, great rebuttal, great truth!hipsterdufus said:Ah, Carrie Gordon Earll, James Dobson's Scientist from Focus on The Family. :rofl
http://www.family.org/welcome/bios/a0032221.cfm
Dobson and Science?? I think not.
Interesting? Really? As far as I can see the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS is 100% responsible for our crazy spending and it is BUSH the DEBTOR who has signed every single spending bill...so why don't you, just for once do something very un-Republican and accept responsibility for your parties total screw-ups? If you truly were a "proud American" you wouldn't allow purely partisan politics to color who is responsible for the horrible state of our country.ProudAmerican said:Interesting. I bet many of the left leaners in this argument are in other threads, somewhere, talking about how the Bush administration is spending too much money.
:doh
Source: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/09/14/delay_says_no_fat_left_in_budget.htmlSeptember 14, 2005
DeLay Says No Fat Left in Budget
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R) said that "Republicans have done so well in cutting spending that he declared an 'ongoing victory,' and said there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget," the Washington Times reports.
26 X World Champs said:You the man Hipster! Great point, great rebuttal, great truth!
BTW - Did you know that my dog is named KRAMER?
Here lets break it down real simple like, tax dollar funding for:ProudAmerican said:Interesting. I bet many of the left leaners in this argument are in other threads, somewhere, talking about how the Bush administration is spending too much money.
:doh
Well said, again! It reminds me of the "scientists" who were hired by the tobacco companies to say there wasn't a link between smoking and cancer!hipsterdufus said:Hipster knows all my friend.
It's just like "Big Oil" Scientists arguing against global warming. What's the old saying by Upton Sinclair? "It is hard to get a man to understand something, if his living depends on him not understanding it."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?