Post by: roo_ster on February 12, 2007, 07:04:04 AM
I think the adult stem cell vs embryonic stem cell research debate has tilted in favor of "adult.*"
Quote
Stem cells used for 'natural' boob jobs
By John Stapleton
February 12, 2007 09:06am
Article from: The Australian
WOMEN may be able to undergo a "natural" form of breast enlargement using their own stem cells and fat.
The technique, pioneered in Japan, results in breasts that look and feel smoother than conventional cosmetic surgery using implants.
Stem cells, which have the potential to change into any cells in the body, are found in embryos, but the most plentiful supply in adults is from body fat. When body fat is transferred to the breasts, the stem cells enable the fat to grow its own blood supply, thus becoming an integral part of the breast rather than a foreign object.
Dozens of women in Japan have received the enlargements during trials. This month, German authorities gave approval to the process. Under EU rules, this means that the procedure is now legal throughout Europe, including Britain.
But Australian women may have to wait for the procedure to become widely available because of litigation concerns.
Michael Zacharia, president of the Australasian College of Cosmetic Surgery, said the technique could make the detection of subsequent breast cancer more difficult.
While the procedure "gives a very nice natural result", he said it could be hard to determine whether changes occurring in a breast were as a result of cancer or the fat transfer.
"Medical insurance companies just refuse to cover it," he said.
In a separate development, scientists have unearthed a genetic mutation that gives one in four women a small shield against breast cancer.
This is the first concrete discovery of a common gene linked to the disease, and is the biggest breast cancer find since two rare and high-risk genes were identified a decade ago.
Australian researchers contributed to the international study which found a genetic variation that gives some women a 10 per cent reduced risk of breast cancer.
Everyone has the gene, called Caspase 8, but 25 per cent of women of European descent have a mutated variation which gives them a little protection. And 2 per cent have two variations, giving them twice the defence.
Leader of the Australian research arm, Georgia Chenevix-Trench from the Queensland Institute of Medical Research, said confirmation of a low-risk gene for breast cancer was significant.
It has no immediate implications for women already diagnosed with breast cancer, but Dr Chenevix-Trench said researchers expected to unearth similar genes which women could eventually be screened for.
"After that we can start to think about testing protocols to see whether it's worth identifying women who have multiple variants," Dr Chenevix-Trench said.
The results are published in the journal Nature Genetics.
Additional reporting:
AAP, The Times
By John Stapleton
February 12, 2007 09:06am
Article from: The Australian
WOMEN may be able to undergo a "natural" form of breast enlargement using their own stem cells and fat.
The technique, pioneered in Japan, results in breasts that look and feel smoother than conventional cosmetic surgery using implants.
Stem cells, which have the potential to change into any cells in the body, are found in embryos, but the most plentiful supply in adults is from body fat. When body fat is transferred to the breasts, the stem cells enable the fat to grow its own blood supply, thus becoming an integral part of the breast rather than a foreign object.
Dozens of women in Japan have received the enlargements during trials. This month, German authorities gave approval to the process. Under EU rules, this means that the procedure is now legal throughout Europe, including Britain.
But Australian women may have to wait for the procedure to become widely available because of litigation concerns.
Michael Zacharia, president of the Australasian College of Cosmetic Surgery, said the technique could make the detection of subsequent breast cancer more difficult.
While the procedure "gives a very nice natural result", he said it could be hard to determine whether changes occurring in a breast were as a result of cancer or the fat transfer.
"Medical insurance companies just refuse to cover it," he said.
In a separate development, scientists have unearthed a genetic mutation that gives one in four women a small shield against breast cancer.
This is the first concrete discovery of a common gene linked to the disease, and is the biggest breast cancer find since two rare and high-risk genes were identified a decade ago.
Australian researchers contributed to the international study which found a genetic variation that gives some women a 10 per cent reduced risk of breast cancer.
Everyone has the gene, called Caspase 8, but 25 per cent of women of European descent have a mutated variation which gives them a little protection. And 2 per cent have two variations, giving them twice the defence.
Leader of the Australian research arm, Georgia Chenevix-Trench from the Queensland Institute of Medical Research, said confirmation of a low-risk gene for breast cancer was significant.
It has no immediate implications for women already diagnosed with breast cancer, but Dr Chenevix-Trench said researchers expected to unearth similar genes which women could eventually be screened for.
"After that we can start to think about testing protocols to see whether it's worth identifying women who have multiple variants," Dr Chenevix-Trench said.
The results are published in the journal Nature Genetics.
Additional reporting:
AAP, The Times
* Adult stem cells have produced several viable treatments and embryonic has produced bupkis.
Post by: mfree on February 12, 2007, 07:28:57 AM
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on February 12, 2007, 07:42:33 AM
Post by: Ezekiel on February 12, 2007, 08:00:08 AM
Two birds, one stone.
[voiceover] Don't like those thick thighs? Want a little more, "up top?"
This is going to be on ALL the late night channels...
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 12, 2007, 08:09:23 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 12, 2007, 09:01:20 AM
Post by: Trisha on February 12, 2007, 10:42:40 AM
After all, you still get to be worried when she sneezes, and while most of her face doesn't move, there's that disconcerting kick from her left leg. . .
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 12, 2007, 11:03:43 AM
Post by: SomeKid on February 12, 2007, 01:43:43 PM
I too support natural beauty. Especially when it comes via my 20 year old female classmates who have nothing better to do than make themselves hot.
Post by: Ned Hamford on February 12, 2007, 02:14:39 PM
CA,
I too support natural beauty. Especially when it comes via my 20 year old female classmates who have nothing better to do than make themselves hot.
I too support natural beauty. Especially when it comes via my 20 year old female classmates who have nothing better to do than make themselves hot.
I do look foward to summer on the University Campus
Post by: roo_ster on February 13, 2007, 02:04:03 AM
Yeah, but they'll still see the effects of gravity and age - good old DuPont silicone enhancements still stand proud even after death from old age. Okay, maybe that's why you want this new proceedure? The girl of your dreams might have two less serial numbers/batch lots contributing to that "perfect look?"
After all, you still get to be worried when she sneezes, and while most of her face doesn't move, there's that disconcerting kick from her left leg. . .
Having spent much time in gyms moving iron against gravity, I have seen quite a few fitness gals with pretty much no body fat sporting the mammary equivlent to Glock Fotays (hard, plastic, and unnatural) upstairs. IMO, the implants look a mite unfriendly.After all, you still get to be worried when she sneezes, and while most of her face doesn't move, there's that disconcerting kick from her left leg. . .
Call me a traditionalist, but stuffing plastic & silicone where Nature's God never intended it to go is the wrong answer on so many levels (with exception for therapeutic and reconstructive purposes). The article's procedure seems less risky for gals who want to flaunt some "false advertising."
Post by: Ron on February 13, 2007, 02:41:34 AM
Post by: brimic on February 13, 2007, 05:42:40 AM
Or be forced to take a lifetime supply of anti-tissue rejection drugs if they did use fetal stem cells.
Post by: tyme on February 13, 2007, 06:34:43 AM
Quote from: jfruser
* Adult stem cells have produced several viable treatments and embryonic has produced bupkis.
So... we should give up on all areas of scientific research that have not yet produced mass-marketable results? Goodbye, civilization.
Post by: roo_ster on February 13, 2007, 09:45:04 AM
Quote from: jfruser
* Adult stem cells have produced several viable treatments and embryonic has produced bupkis.
So... we should give up on all areas of scientific research that have not yet produced mass-marketable results? Goodbye, civilization.
), though, as this is still America.But, hey, let's debate what the dearth of progress WRT embryonic stem cell (ESC) treatments, and the increasing number (not just bust size!) of therapeutic uses adult stem cells (ASC) might mean.
I'll go first:
From a betting perspective, a venture capitalist likes to see some results before tossing seed monies at a startup company. The effect of this may be to starve ESC research of VC monies. I think this perfectly resonable. "A bird in the hand beats two in the bush," as it were.
Anybody else?
Post by: brimic on February 13, 2007, 12:01:50 PM
Post by: TMM on February 13, 2007, 12:55:55 PM
~tmm
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on February 13, 2007, 01:00:53 PM
Post by: gunsmith on February 13, 2007, 01:45:00 PM
Post by: Nightfall on February 13, 2007, 02:47:25 PM
Post by: Antibubba on February 13, 2007, 09:14:22 PM
Post by: Monkeyleg on February 13, 2007, 09:37:21 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 13, 2007, 10:08:39 PM
Nice posts. I'm sure that Barbara and other females will want to reply.
Sensitivity training?
Post by: HankB on February 14, 2007, 03:41:03 AM
Quote
Stem cells, which have the potential to change into any cells in the body, are found in embryos, but the most plentiful supply in adults is from body fat.
I hate to ruin a good thing but . . . just imagine seeing a donor list that included Rosie O'Donnell . . . 
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 14, 2007, 08:31:49 AM
That said, anyone else getting tired of the too easy and too often made Rosie/Hillary jokes? Not trying to slam ya Hank but they aren't really "funny" or clever anymore, they're just obvious insults and everyone here agrees that we don't like those two. What's the point anymore?
Anyway, fetal stem cell research is being done all over the world, not just in the US, and is still being done in the US by private companies with private money. All that is happening is no tax money is going toward it, which is how it should be, regardless of moral feelings.
As was suggested, if real promise was being shown anywhere it is being researched, venture capital would be climbing all over it to get in on the money when a treatment arises. If even the speculators aren't backing it (and these folks back anything that might maybe could possibly even someday make a buck) then there probably isn't much there.
If we are going to spend tax money on research on a practical basis we should concentrate on the morally uncontroversial AND demonstrably productive adult cell research. If the private guys worldwide find a cure with fetal cells we can always jump on board then (though we won't have to, because the private money will flow like water).
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 14, 2007, 09:12:41 AM
Quote from: carebear
venture capital would be climbing all over it to get in on the money when a treatment arises.
Not necessarily. If gov outlaws fed support for certain research, who is to say they won't outlaw the research itself and its fruits? The US is the single biggest pharmaceutical market. If your product is suddenly denied it, you will be hurting real bad.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 14, 2007, 11:06:45 AM
Quote from: carebear
venture capital would be climbing all over it to get in on the money when a treatment arises.
Not necessarily. If gov outlaws fed support for certain research, who is to say they won't outlaw the research itself and its fruits? The US is the single biggest pharmaceutical market. If your product is suddenly denied it, you will be hurting real bad.
Suddenly denied it?
It's been denied for years. The investors in the US and worldwide are not "holding back" strictly due to a lack of US tax funding. The cell lines being used in this country are legal and no move at all has been made to change that, even by the Rep. Congress and Pres. who weren't supporters. The opnly restrictions are no more US gov. sanctioned lines and no tax dollars for domestic research. There is similar research going on worldwide with no such strictures and that research isn't being bought into either. The investors view it, correctly thus far, as a dry hole, not 'politically risky'.
Adult stem cell research has shown results everywhere it's being researched, embryonic has yet to deliver one solid gain anywhere, just lots of "but, but, we're kinda showing promise, please give us Carebear's money to pay our Lexus leases".
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 14, 2007, 12:21:46 PM
Also, if there is no gov funding for research in it now, then it is a self-fulfilling prophecy that nothing practical will come out of the field. Also, the Bush lines are essentially unusable. Don't take my word on it, dig a little yourself and talk to stem cell researchers.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 14, 2007, 12:34:21 PM
Come on, fundamentally you object to it on ethical grounds,
One would hope so.
In another thread, you acknowledged that the unborn might be human persons with rights. But you would rather favor the "right" of pregnant women to be un-pregnant. Now it appears you have found that the handicapped or ill have a right to cures from cells that don't even belong to them. What happened to those rights you thought the embryos might have? Don't really care, do you?
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 14, 2007, 01:05:42 PM
Come on, fundamentally you object to it on ethical grounds, not on practical/utilitarian ones. If suddenly tomorrow hESC research cured 1,000 quadroplegics, I bet you would still object to it.
Also, if there is no gov funding for research in it now, then it is a self-fulfilling prophecy that nothing practical will come out of the field. Also, the Bush lines are essentially unusable. Don't take my word on it, dig a little yourself and talk to stem cell researchers.
Also, if there is no gov funding for research in it now, then it is a self-fulfilling prophecy that nothing practical will come out of the field. Also, the Bush lines are essentially unusable. Don't take my word on it, dig a little yourself and talk to stem cell researchers.
Wrongo, I object on ethical (questions about embryos) AND practical (lack of any achievement thus far) and libertarian (gov. shouldn't be involved either way, certainly not with tax dollars for research or to subsidize something as controversial as using viable embryos). But, just as I am willing to bend my personal beliefs to how I believe the Constitution is best interpreted on the abortion issue, I would be willing to bend on embryonic stem cell research.
BUT IT DOESN"T WORK.
Talk to US scientists and sure they'll cry you a river about coulda/shoulda/woulda but the fact remains they have been free to do private research for a dog's age and haven't produced a single thing except cries for more taxpayer funded research dollars.
If big pharma or venture capital thought there was real promise in actually producing a marketable product they'd take the research offshore with other stem cell lines, where research is ALREADY GOING ON FREE OF CONSTRAINT, or invest in that existing ongoing research. They aren't. Guess why. There have been no real gains out there either.
If there was any evidence from any researchers anywhere in the world that there was more than vague "promise" we'd hear about it. But we don't, all we hear foreign and domestic is "more money" "more lines" "more money" without anything concrete to show after all this time.
Meanwhile, adult stem cell research neatly sidesteps any health (bodily rejection) and ethical (it's your own cells)issues and seems to be producing gains day after day. I believe in backing a winner (though still not with tax dollars). The promise of effective natural breast enhancement not only points to future, more significant healthwise, 'gains' (heh) but also provides a medium where such future research draws the investment it needs to continue without any tax dollars involved.
Win, win, win.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on February 14, 2007, 01:12:05 PM
Post by: valencia on February 14, 2007, 01:13:14 PM
Not just bigger, but more ergonomic: She could have a second pair grow out the back, to even out the strain on the spine. That and to make big hugs even better!
I've wondered why women don't have breasts that come closer to the side- it would make nursing at night so much easier.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 14, 2007, 01:34:22 PM
Not just bigger, but more ergonomic: She could have a second pair grow out the back, to even out the strain on the spine. That and to make big hugs even better!
I've wondered why women don't have breasts that come closer to the side- it would make nursing at night so much easier.
Doesn't that presuppose that sleeping on your back is the "right" way? Whether it's evolution or ID, it seems to me sleeping curled up is more "natural" for our design and that puts everything right where the baby next to you needs it. Of course the other hominid's kids are born a little more capable than ours and have prehensile toes to hang onto mom's fur with in front too.
All in all, I'll go with the smooth-skinned non-prehensile inconvenience.
Post by: roo_ster on February 15, 2007, 05:47:33 AM
Also, if there is no gov funding for research in it now, then it is a self-fulfilling prophecy that nothing practical will come out of the field.
That is an awfully odd line to hear from someone who espouses libertarian views. "Gov't is the only one professional enough in this room to fund research...BANG!"Usually, it the other way 'round: Gov't is a poor picker of winners, be it chip manufacturing, pharmeceuticals, or what-have-you.
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Come on, fundamentally you object to it on ethical grounds, not on practical/utilitarian ones.
I think this "question" is best directed back at its author, with it being ASC research.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 15, 2007, 07:37:00 AM
Quote from: fistful link
In another thread, you acknowledged that the unborn might be human persons with rights. But you would rather favor the "right" of pregnant women to be un-pregnant. Now it appears you have found that the handicapped or ill have a right to cures from cells that don't even belong to them. What happened to those rights you thought the embryos might have? Don't really care, do you?
Come on, fistful, I know this is a very emotional issue for you but don't let that fog up your logic. There is no inconsistency in my position.
I support the rights of women to their bodies and I also support the use of human cells that would otherwise be thrown away, to help cure the sick. I do not know for certain that a blastocyst has person rights, but I do know that the woman has voluntarily relinquished her property right over the blastocyst. If you throw something down the drain and another person finds use for it, does he violate your rights by using it? Btw, do you know that the city recycles your refuse and makes money off of it? Have you filed a suit against them to reimburse you?
Something that you might also want to consider is that in-vitro fertilization produces many fertilized eggs, of which only a quarter are considered A-grade and put back inside the hopeful mother. The rest are abnormal to a varying extent and so are NEVER meant for implantation. Something to think about.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 15, 2007, 09:06:12 AM
Come on, fistful, I know this is a very emotional issue for you but don't let that fog up your logic.
You seem to say that to me a lot. Is it because you presume that I'm some over-heated reactionary? Or is it because you think you can discredit my posts by dismissing them as raw anger or something? Quote
There is no inconsistency in my position.
There certainly is. You have acknowledged that you don't know whether embryos have rights. You have failed to show they do not have the same rights as other human creatures. Yet, despite the possibility of that right to live, which you acknowledge, you will gladly allow someone else to murder them, even though the supposed conflict with the rights of the mother is not an issue. So can you show that embryo humans do not have the rights of other humans, or will you just admit that you don't care? Quote
Btw, do you know that the city recycles your refuse and makes money off of it? Have you filed a suit against them to reimburse you?
See, now this is more straightforward. Humans in embryo stage are just trash to you. Even though you have no excuse not to understand that they are as human as you are. You do have some kind of scientific training, do you not? Quote
Something that you might also want to consider is that in-vitro fertilization produces many fertilized eggs, of which only a quarter are considered A-grade and put back inside the hopeful mother. The rest are abnormal to a varying extent and so are NEVER meant for implantation. Something to think about.
Do you mean that infertile people who want to have children are actually having multiple children produced in a lab and then letting most of them sit in storage or be thrown away? Yes, I have considered that, and I am opposed to those sorts of things. The desire to have children doesn't outweigh the gravity of neglect or murder of "extra" children. There are plenty of "unwanted" children for such infertile people to adopt. If they weren't being killed in abortuaries, that is.
Post by: MechAg94 on February 15, 2007, 09:49:50 AM
Contrary to popular belief, advancement in the modern age is possible without govt funding.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 15, 2007, 10:09:54 AM
Isn't embryonic stem cell research still completely unregulated in the US as long as you are using private funding? The limits are based on using federal funding.
Contrary to popular belief, advancement in the modern age is possible without govt funding.
Contrary to popular belief, advancement in the modern age is possible without govt funding.
Not quite unregulated.
The government is also limiting research to several existing embryonic genetic lines. No more embryos are allowed to be destroyed to gain new genetic material to work with. That is a complaint by US researchers and is based on this administration's ethical beliefs. In theory I believe Congress could override that decision, but the cowards won't. It's far easier to point fingers at the administration as "medieval and extremist" rather than take the political heat to allow more human embryos to be actively destroyed.
This is in essence the same discussion as abortion. If embryo's aren't "human" yet and don't have "human rights", and the couple who produced the embryos wants to give them to science or abort them or do anything else they want to with them, in theory those embryos are simply their property and they should be allowed to do so.
But, if embryo's are "human" from conception and do possess rights of their own, then they can no more be donated to science to be destroyed than one could donate a child of 10 for the same purpose.
This is the key issue in any question involving embryos. Where is the line of "humanity" drawn. It's going back and forth on the theocrat/neocon thread AND DOESN"T NEED TO BE REPEATED HERE. (I'm looking at both of you CAnnon and fistful
)However, as embryonic research with any number of additional genetic lines is ongoing outside the US, saying that one nation's ban on new lines for research seriously hampers overall research is a red herring and simply an excuse for scientists to freeload off your tax dollars. If US scientists can get the new lines approved, that means the funding issue should bootleg along as the underlying moral controversy will have been resolved in the researcher's favor.
Post by: cordex on February 15, 2007, 11:12:22 AM
Quote from: jfruser
* Adult stem cells have produced several viable treatments and embryonic has produced bupkis.
So... we should give up on all areas of scientific research that have not yet produced mass-marketable results? Goodbye, civilization.
I don't think it is about rejecting all research that is not immediately productive at all. It is about choosing the right path of development. Today we know that Ur wasn't completely wrong - if you break water apart you get hydrogen and oxygen and the hydrogen can burn nicely. The point is that Ur and his descendants can smack water with rocks all day long and only get wet while Og could have a roaring fire by nightfall. We're not going to have hydrogen-powered cars if we stop at smacking rocks together, but we're not going to have them any faster if we just spend our time throwing rocks in a pond either.
Embryonic stem cell research may some day be the panacea that it is often touted to be. Who knows, maybe we'll eventually replace first-aid kits with a tube of stabilized, universal stem cells that you can just squeeze onto any wound for near instantaneous healing. I'm no expert, but it is my guess that figuring out how to grow new, plug-and-play organs from extra-chunky embryo paste would be easier to do if we had already figured out how to manipulate cells from a patient's own body.
Just for my own edification, Tyme, what is the claim made of BabyBits (tm) brand stem cells that makes them superior to adult stem cells? Are we just playing with them because we had a metric boatload on hand, or are they in some way superior to adult stem cells?
Post by: Gewehr98 on February 15, 2007, 11:32:50 AM
Quote
That said, anyone else getting tired of the too easy and too often made Rosie/Hillary jokes? Not trying to slam ya Hank but they aren't really "funny" or clever anymore, they're just obvious insults and everyone here agrees that we don't like those two. What's the point anymore?
I dunno, I think jokes at the expense of Rosie and Hillary are still pretty darned funny. Then again, in my book, if at least one person laughs, it's funny. Were I to subtract "Rosie" or "Hillary" from the joke and insert "Carebear", it just wouldn't work as well, and maybe not even garner the one mandatory laugh required to label the joke as genuinely funny.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 15, 2007, 12:44:56 PM
Quote from: fistful
You seem to say that to me a lot. Is it because you presume that I'm some over-heated reactionary? Or is it because you think you can discredit my posts by dismissing them as raw anger or something?
The tone of your posts leaves little doubt as to your emotional state. I don't need to portray you as anything to refute your points logically. On the contrary, I often seem to be the target of exactly such silly tactics.
Quote
So can you show that embryo humans do not have the rights of other humans, or will you just admit that you don't care?
I do not need to show anything to stop myself from violating other people's rights. When uncertain about rights, I prefer to be passive. The anti-abortion side has not shown the fetus has rights, instead they assume so and based upon that, they work diligently at brutal violation of the established individual rights of women over the latter's own bodies. I am convinced that my position is far more reasonable, pragmatic, and principled.
Quote
Humans in embryo stage are just trash to you.
Like it or not, fertilized eggs in in-vitro clinics are substandard biomaterial leftovers. Legally, they are treated as such. What do you suggest we as a society do with them?
Quote
Even though you have no excuse not to understand that they are as human as you are. You do have some kind of scientific training, do you not?
This is the kind of pointless emotional personal attack I am talking about. If you cared to process my previous posts, including on other threads, you'd see there is no contradition. Instead, you imply there is something wrong with my training, just as jtfuser did. Very silly.
Quote
Do you mean that infertile people who want to have children are actually having multiple children produced in a lab and then letting most of them sit in storage or be thrown away? Yes, I have considered that, and I am opposed to those sorts of things.
Great. So now you want to limit the right of people to have biological children. Any other rights you would like to attack based on your assumptions concerning fetal rights?
Btw, I have friends that married very late and had enormous amount of trouble getting pregnant. Eventually, they went through in-vitro and now have a beautiful very smart 14-year-old daughter. You'd have prevented her from being, yet you attack my position on fetuses. How very curious.
Post by: m1911owner on February 15, 2007, 12:53:38 PM
That said, anyone else getting tired of the too easy and too often made Rosie/Hillary jokes?
Wow! What did I miss? What's going on between Rosie and Hillary? Did Hillary finally "come out" as a lesbian? With Rosie???! I always thought she had better taste than that.
Post by: MechAg94 on February 15, 2007, 03:08:33 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 15, 2007, 03:18:16 PM
Quote from: jfruser
That is an awfully odd line to hear from someone who espouses libertarian views. "Gov't is the only one professional enough in this room to fund research...BANG!"
There is nothing odd if you look at it more carefully. While I would like a society in which everybody stays out of everybody else's way, the current reality is as is. We have a gov which we can use cleverly or we can use foolishly. Gov funds research that ultimately generates new industries, technological advancement, and prosperity, as well as supports our national security. This has been proven over and over again. Gov recoups the investment by taxation of the respective new industries as well as by the indirect savings from what it would otherwise be forced to pay to unemployment and social costs. Like it or not, the only thing in the gov budget that produces a tangible fiscal return (other than infrastructure, and the military in some sense) is science. The rest of it is pork, bureaucracy ("cost of government"), and illegal entitlements.
Quote
Usually, it the other way 'round: Gov't is a poor picker of winners, be it chip manufacturing, pharmeceuticals, or what-have-you.
Again wrong, if you look more closely. Gov funds virtually all of fundamental research, which is expensive, long-term, and high-risk yet critical for long-term success. Industry concentrates on applied research, which mostly is a massive but ultimately straightforward short-term optimization. Thus the gov takes the harder but necessary bets, and so it appears it is "a poor picker". Also, the gov ROI is hidden in tax revenue, while XYZbiotech can post record earnings and associate them with a particular drug. Finally, a lot of industrial "research" success was essentially bankrolled by gov through preceding successful fundamental or applied research in academia.
Essentially, in terms of a mining analogy, the gov does virtually all the prospecting, while industry moves to exploit only the already identified deposits. Thus it would be unfair/inaccurate to say that industry has a much better "nose" for it than the gov.
Quote
I think this "question" is best directed back at its author, with it being ASC research.
I thought it was clear that the "it" was hESCR and the comment was directed at carebear.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 15, 2007, 07:28:56 PM
Carebear: That additional limitation is attached to federal research funding correct? Not law that is can't be done privately.
Preface - I've been drinking wine, I'm a salesman in the real estate industry, I drink with realtors and those guys are all alki's.
...so I can't find a clean cite. I may even be wrong and in fact all private is unrestricted except for funding (which Pres. Clinton first cut off BTW). Which would cut the only remaining leg out from under the "the government should fund it argument" (heh, I bring balance to the Force
)Check out wiki, I can find it drunk, looks pretty thorough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controversy
NO, count it, NO results anywhere in the world in at least a decade.
Regardless of any wishful thinking on the part of researchers CAnnon, adult cells are the only rational, libertarian game in town. Embryonic cells create problems even before not producing any results, ever.
Post by: Strings on February 15, 2007, 08:53:09 PM
wait a sec... look at his avatar. That's funny all alone... :neener:
Ignoring any "abortion" arguements, I have to agree with cordex: working with cells from the subjects own body first makes FAR more sense than working with foreign tissue...
I've got a friend who had a kidney transplant: his brother donated. LOTS of expenditure for anti-rejection drugs, for the rest of his life. Had he tried a kidney grown from ESCs, he'd have the same problem. Had he tried one done via his own ASCs, there wouldn't likely be the issue. So let's worry about harvesting lil' junior for "building blocks" after we've perfected working with the easier ones...
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 15, 2007, 10:22:55 PM
>Were I to subtract "Rosie" or "Hillary" from the joke and insert "Carebear", it just wouldn't work as well, and maybe not even garner the one mandatory laugh required to label the joke as genuinely funny.<
wait a sec... look at his avatar. That's funny all alone... :neener:
Ignoring any "abortion" arguements, I have to agree with cordex: working with cells from the subjects own body first makes FAR more sense than working with foreign tissue...
I've got a friend who had a kidney transplant: his brother donated. LOTS of expenditure for anti-rejection drugs, for the rest of his life. Had he tried a kidney grown from ESCs, he'd have the same problem. Had he tried one done via his own ASCs, there wouldn't likely be the issue. So let's worry about harvesting lil' junior for "building blocks" after we've perfected working with the easier ones...
wait a sec... look at his avatar. That's funny all alone... :neener:
Ignoring any "abortion" arguements, I have to agree with cordex: working with cells from the subjects own body first makes FAR more sense than working with foreign tissue...
I've got a friend who had a kidney transplant: his brother donated. LOTS of expenditure for anti-rejection drugs, for the rest of his life. Had he tried a kidney grown from ESCs, he'd have the same problem. Had he tried one done via his own ASCs, there wouldn't likely be the issue. So let's worry about harvesting lil' junior for "building blocks" after we've perfected working with the easier ones...
This from a guy with a beautiful wife and bo staff skills and.... wait, those aren't insults.
Crap.
Touche Mr. Rose.
Post by: MechAg94 on February 16, 2007, 04:28:48 AM
Post by: cordex on February 16, 2007, 05:36:35 AM
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 16, 2007, 07:36:00 AM
There is no contradiction in my position. It is simply the difference between ideals and reality. We are all grownups (I assume) and we know how the world works (I hope).
While I like most libertarian ideals (small gov, low taxes, personal responsibility, gun freedom), I also recognize that most of them have no chance of being implemented under the current sociopolitical conditions, while some are utterly unpracticeable considering the state of the world (e.g. "open borders").
What I would support in terms of practicalities is a slow cultural and political shift towards libertarianism, if at all possible. That would take many decades to accomplish and some of it will essentially involve waiting for the natural passing of certain age groups (e.g. baby boomers before medicare can be killed, and hippie gen before multicultural liberalism can be forgotten). And even then, I give it a 20% chance of any success, because we all know there are powerful economic and political groups that push the US in exactly the opposite direction.
Meanwhile, we have to work within the system and do as best we can. That means opposing stupid political moves, liberals, socialists, and dumb spending, while supporting conservatives, good stewardship of USS America, and spending that makes our economy and country stronger.
Finally, I would point out that "pure" libertarians are marginalizing themselves and effectively helping their enemies by refusing to take more practical short-term positions and join conservatives in damage control and reconstruction of our ship. Certainly, the purists can turn up their noses at pragmaticists like myself, and feel good about their untarnished principles, but in my eyes at least, they are ultimately childish and have made themselves irrelevant.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 16, 2007, 07:42:59 AM
The tone of your posts leaves little doubt as to your emotional state.
Let me very calmly and politely say that all of that is in your head. Perhaps you'd like to substantiate your claim with some examples of my emotionalism. Am I frustrated by the paper-thin arguments that justify abortion, yet continue to have credibility? Yes, of course. I probably should be a little piqued when people are being murdered. Quote
The anti-abortion side has not shown the fetus has rights
Again, the burden of proof is on your side. Your side must show why existing laws against murder, which you believe in, should not apply equally to all. Quote
Like it or not, fertilized eggs in in-vitro clinics are substandard biomaterial leftovers.
That's not true. Some of them are adopted and brought to term. Quote
Even though you have no excuse not to understand that they are as human as you are. You do have some kind of scientific training, do you not?
I wasn't questioning your training, I was pointing out why you ought to know that embryos are human and treat them as such. It's interesting to me that you aspire to be so rational and objective, yet you wish to further subjectify law with issues such as personhood or sentience. Quote
This is the kind of pointless emotional personal attack I am talking about.
Oh, calm down. You accuse me of rape and brutality, I accuse you of ignoring murder. That's inherent to the debate, not ad hominem.Quote
Great. So now you want to limit the right of people to have biological children.
They have a right to have biological children, but they cannot claim a right to knowingly, unnecessarily produce multiple children that they plan to abandon or have murdered. If that means in vitro is not an option, that is very sad. I hope such people find another, more ethical, option.Quote
Any other rights you would like to attack based on your assumptions concerning fetal rights?
It's not my assumption, it's the logical extension of the concept of human rights we all agree to. Quote
Btw, I have friends that married very late and had enormous amount of trouble getting pregnant. Eventually, they went through in-vitro and now have a beautiful very smart 14-year-old daughter. You'd have prevented her from being, yet you attack my position on fetuses. How very curious.
I thought you were opposed to personal, emotional attacks? I don't know what sort of processes these people went through. I will only question whether they did not themselves prevent some of their own chidren from living out their natural lives once they already existed. That would be called murder. Preventing the conception of the smart, beautiful fourteen-year-old, on the other hand, is called birth control. You're not opposed to that, are you?
Post by: Strings on February 16, 2007, 08:01:41 AM
Y'all hurt your chosen cause (whichever side) when you bring it into ANY discussion, regardless of subject...
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 16, 2007, 08:15:42 AM
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 16, 2007, 08:28:41 AM
Quote from: fistful
Again, the burden of proof is on your side. Your side must show why existing laws against murder, which you believe in, should not apply equally to all.
Nope. Your side is the one that pushes to extend the power of current laws over new territory. Therefore the burden of proof is on you.
Simple example. Dorothy is convinced her cat is the reincarnation of her grandmother, Wilma, and therefore should be accorded the respective rights Wilma once had. Before society does that, Dorothy must prove her claim. Society is under no obligation to accord the rights automatically and then try to disprove Dorothy's claim if they believe the cat is just a cat.
Quote
That's not true. Some of them are adopted and brought to term.
Certainly not the grades B, C, and D. Also, when there is no space, even grade A are flushed down the drain and nobody goes to jail over it.
Quote
I was pointing out why you ought to know that embryos are human and treat them as such.
I have never questioned that they are genetically human. My extension of rights is sociologically based as described in a different thread.
Quote
It's interesting to me that you aspire to be so rational and objective, yet you wish to further subjectify law with issues such as personhood or sentience.
Nothing subjective about it. Laws are about duties and rights. Both categories are fundamentally social, contextual, and conditional. Thus the natural way to handle them is sociological, not genetic.
Btw, the insistence on common genetics as a basis of absolute rights is rather curious to me. What if Homo Sapiens splits into multiple species, e.g. as a result of natural mutations or eugenics? What are you going to do then?
Quote
It's not my assumption, it's the logical extension of the concept of human rights we all agree to.
It is a logical extension only if rights are genetics-based. We certainly not all agree to that.
Btw, the skin cells you naturally shed every day are also genetically human. Should we afford them rights as well? I can take any one of them, extract the nucleus, clone it into a fertilized egg, and produce a new fistful in 9 months. Since your skin cell gave life to Fistful MkII, is it entitled to equal rights? If it is, we are all mass-murderers. If it is not, genetics is a poor basis for social rights.
Quote
Preventing the conception of the smart, beautiful fourteen-year-old, on the other hand, is called birth control. You're not opposed to that, are you?
I have no contradictions because I am both pro-choice and pro-birth-control. The question is where you stand.
And this is not about birth control. Based on your position, you would have prevented her from existence, without being her parent.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 16, 2007, 08:50:06 AM
could someone explain how a discussion about the uses of ADULT stem cells turned into an arguement about abortion?
Y'all hurt your chosen cause (whichever side) when you bring it into ANY discussion, regardless of subject...
Y'all hurt your chosen cause (whichever side) when you bring it into ANY discussion, regardless of subject...
Hunter,
As of yet there is no way to acquire embryonic stem cells without destroying the original embryo. Deliberately killing an embryo is abortion by definition.
Now the researchers, both here and abroad, have been working on ways to extract a "starter set" of cells without causing the death of the embryo but they haven't pulled it off yet. Once that happens then a lot of the moral reason to oppose embronic research goes away.
Except (there's always an "except") that it then enters the same level of debate as the generation of multiple embryos for in vitro fertilization. There is a moral question on whether it is "right" to deliberately generate an embryo just for research or for treatment, knowing it is never going to be allowed the chance to develop and live a life. The parallel raised is that such an embryo is a "slave", created only to be exploited by someone else. Even if the cells can be extracted without destruction, it is sophistry to claim a moral difference if the embryo is just put on ice or destroyed later.
Note that even a non-destructive generation of stem cells does nothing to solve the massive rejection issues of using any cells but someone's own for their treatment. So we are back to trying to use a person's own cells to heal them, which, unless you planned ahead and extracted, non-lethally, hESC from every infant's embryo in the womb for their future use, means using adult cells, which has generated, so far, a proven series of successful treatments.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 16, 2007, 09:04:10 AM
Quote from: fistful
Again, the burden of proof is on your side. Your side must show why existing laws against murder, which you believe in, should not apply equally to all.
Nope. Your side is the one that pushes to extend the power of current laws over new territory. Therefore the burden of proof is on you.
Simple example. Dorothy is convinced her cat is the reincarnation of her grandmother, Wilma, and therefore should be afforded the respective rights Wilma once had. Before society does that, Dorothy must prove her claim. Society is under no obligation to afford the rights automatically and then try to disprove Dorothy's claim if they believe the cat is just a cat.
Quote
Quote
That's not true. Some of them are adopted and brought to term.
Certainly not the grades B, C, and D. Also, when there is no space, even grade A are flushed down the drain and nobody goes to jail over it.
Quote
Like it or not, fertilized eggs in in-vitro clinics are substandard biomaterial leftovers.
Quote
Laws are about duties and rights. Both categories are fundamentally social, contextual, and conditional. Thus the natural way to handle them is sociological, not genetic.
Btw, the insistence on common genetics as a basis of absolute rights is rather curious to me. What if Homo Sapiens splits into multiple species, e.g. as a result of natural mutations or eugenics? What are you going to do then?
Btw, the insistence on common genetics as a basis of absolute rights is rather curious to me. What if Homo Sapiens splits into multiple species, e.g. as a result of natural mutations or eugenics? What are you going to do then?
I am not proposing a genetic basis. I am saying that humans are humans regardless how young, and shouldn't be denied their rights based on ephemera like sentience or contrived definitions of personhood.
Quote
Btw, the skin cells you naturally shed every day are also genetically human. Should we afford them rights as well? I can take any one of them, extract the nucleus, clone it into a fertilized egg, and produce a new fistful in 9 months. Since your skin cell gave life to Fistful MkII, is it entitled to equal rights? If it is, we are all mass-murderers. If it is not, genetics is a poor basis for social rights.
Do I really have to help you sort out the difference between a skin cell and a fertilized egg? I know you're not that dumb. I love how guys like you think you can trip me up with these kinds of questions. Or I should say I used to love them? They're getting monotonously easy to bat out of the park. The answer is obvious. At what point is a new human life conceived? Did I ever say that UN-fertilized eggs are human beings? Quote
I have no contradictions because I am both pro-choice and pro-birth-control. The question is where you stand.
I'm sorry, was I not clear? Preventing conception, OK. Killing zygotes, murder. And can you drop the "pro-choice" nonsense? Just say you're pro-abortion, and I'll be anti-abortion.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 16, 2007, 09:49:12 AM
Quote from: fistful
Your example is poor, because I am not proposing some new, non-provable idea from thin air.
If it is not non-provable, then it is provable. Please do so and I will consider. How old or new an idea is is irrelevant to its truthfulness.
Quote
We could also use Black civil rights as an example. Is it necessary to prove that Blacks are equal to Whites,
Strictly speaking, society must recognize equality. It did and it became law. In the same way, society must recognize equality of embryos and then it will be law. The processes are parallel and both purely social and conditional.
Quote
So, you knew that some frozen embryos are viable?
For grade A, yes, they are expected to develop normally if implanted. The other grades would likely produce miscarriage or varying levels of congenital deformity.
Quote
I am not proposing a genetic basis. I am saying that humans are humans regardless how young, and shouldn't be denied their rights based on ephemera like sentience or contrived definitions of personhood.
You are contradicting yourself. You spent half the time arguing that embryos are genetically human and therefore deserving human rights. Now you say that is not the basis. What is it? Please define what you mean by "human" then.
Quote
I love how guys like you think you can trip me up with these kinds of questions.
Just answer the question or identify a failure of logic.
Quote
At what point is a new human life conceived?
You will really hate the next 30 years of biotech. When adult stem cells are reprogrammed to become cloned embryos, what will you do then?
Quote
Preventing conception, OK. Killing zygotes, murder.
If you prevent your own pregnancy, it is birth control. When you prevent others from pregnancy, it is something else.
Quote
And can you drop the "pro-choice" nonsense? Just say you're pro-abortion, and I'll be anti-abortion.
If you will knit-pick about that, I might decide to call you "anti-choice". Hehehe.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 16, 2007, 10:04:55 AM
Quote
So, you knew that some frozen embryos are viable?
For grade A, yes, they are expected to develop normally if implanted. The other grades would likely produce miscarriage or varying levels of congenital deformity.
So, did you mis-speak or did you lie?
Quote
You are contradicting yourself. You spent half the time arguing that embryos are genetically human and therefore deserving human rights. Now you say that is not the basis. What is it?
On further thought, you can call it genetic if you like.
Quote
You will really hate the next 30 years of biotech. When adult stem cells are reprogrammed to become cloned embryos, what will you do then?
My answer should be obvious to you. I recognize the right of human embryos to live. Clone or not, it matters not to me. If a cloned sheep is a sheep, a cloned human is a human. Wait, do you understand the difference between a skin cell and an embryo or not?
Quote
Quote
Preventing conception, OK. Killing zygotes, murder.
If you prevent your own pregnancy, it is birth control. When you prevent others from pregnancy, it is something else.
Quote
Quote
And can you drop the "pro-choice" nonsense? Just say you're pro-abortion, and I'll be anti-abortion.
If you will knit-pick about that, I might decide to call you "anti-choice". Hehehe.
And I'll nit-pick that it's "nit" as in lice larvae, not "knit."
If you call me "anti-choice," I'll call you pro-death. Hehehe.
Post by: roo_ster on February 16, 2007, 11:15:16 AM
Quote from: jfruser
That is an awfully odd line to hear from someone who espouses libertarian views. "Gov't is the only one professional enough in this room to fund research...BANG!"
There is nothing odd if you look at it more carefully. While I would like a society in which everybody stays out of everybody else's way, the current reality is as is. We have a gov which we can use cleverly or we can use foolishly. Gov funds research that ultimately generates new industries, technological advancement, and prosperity, as well as supports our national security. This has been proven over and over again. Gov recoups the investment by taxation of the respective new industries as well as by the indirect savings from what it would otherwise be forced to pay to unemployment and social costs. Like it or not, the only thing in the gov budget that produces a tangible fiscal return (other than infrastructure, and the military in some sense) is science. The rest of it is pork, bureaucracy ("cost of government"), and illegal entitlements.
Govt does not recoup the money "invested" in research that the private sector won't fund. First, there is serious loss in transmission. All those sticky fingers and bureaucrats to please and forms to fill out. Second, if there is fruit borne of the research, the return to gov't is usually not in dollars, but in functionality. New, expensive functionality that is proven is usually beau coup expensive to first-movers/adopters.
Every dollar that gov't takes from an entrepreneur or company that engages in private research is money less efficiently spent that it would have been. We'd best be darn sure that the added functionality is worth pouring dollars into.
Quote
Usually, it the other way 'round: Gov't is a poor picker of winners, be it chip manufacturing, pharmeceuticals, or what-have-you.
Again wrong, if you look more closely. Gov funds virtually all of fundamental research, which is expensive, long-term, and high-risk yet critical for long-term success. Industry concentrates on applied research, which mostly is a massive but ultimately straightforward short-term optimization. Thus the gov takes the harder but necessary bets, and so it appears it is "a poor picker". Also, the gov ROI is hidden in tax revenue, while XYZbiotech can post record earnings and associate them with a particular drug. Finally, a lot of industrial "research" success was essentially bankrolled by gov through preceding successful fundamental or applied research in academia.Essentially, in terms of a mining analogy, the gov does virtually all the prospecting, while industry moves to exploit only the already identified deposits. Thus it would be unfair/inaccurate to say that industry has a much better "nose" for it than the gov.
The Japanese have tried this gov't-led tech research on a massive scale and failed in a massive way.
In some cases, it may be worthwhile to spend dollars inefficiently toward some furture goal or functionality. Most of it is just slop for the grant-seeking hogs. There are 100 Mohair Utilization Studies for every Manhattan Project.
I've seen it in the ivory sties and in the private sector. Sooee-Pig! The private sector is only marginally better, due to more stringent accountability standards required by management, stockholders, SEC, DSS, a very interested customer (in most cases) and the discipline of hte market. Sometimes.
I see no need for the gov't to fund any sort of stem cell research. One route (human) is already producing results. The other route has been a dry well. Our private sector will figure a way to provide a product and make a buck while gooberment and its toadying grant-seekers are still flushing dollars down the toilet.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 16, 2007, 01:31:26 PM
Getting research grants is very competitive especially nowadays. Only the best of the best end up securing significant funds. Generally, less than 10% of the submitted grants ever get funded, and even then, it is a custom to grant less than what was requested. Also, whatever is submitted is very serious and well documented, because if it were not, the submitter would no longer be taken seriously by the study sections and would never be funded again.
This stuff about "sticky fingers" is simply boloney. The federal granting agencies have minimal staff and most of the work is done by academics at outside institutions that do not get paid to do it. You might want to educate yourself about the system before slinging mud at it and at the people involved.
If you stop dissing your NASA friend and dig up some data, you would see the sheer volume of technological development coming out of it, as well as its technology transfer to industry.
Finally, please explain to us how it is that the gov does not get the money back through direct and indirect taxation of successful new industries.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 16, 2007, 01:45:55 PM
Quote
So, did you mis-speak or did you lie?
"CAnnoneer lied, embryos died" Bleh.
Fertilized eggs end up being distributed in grades - A, B, C, D. Usually, you get several grade A's, all of which get implanted in the hopeful mother because even they have a small chance of successful implantation. Thus the A-grade are used up while the others do not get used because of even lower chance of successful outcome and for fear of congenital defects. If you are lucky, you can get more A's than you want to put back, in which case they become leftovers as well. The bottom line is that the crushing majority of leftovers are substandard, although not all of them.
Either way, I do not understand why you keep coming back to this point. From your perspective, all of them are equally deserving of equal rights. What does it matter to you what grade they are? What is your point here?
Quote
On further thought, you can call it genetic if you like.
I can call it many things. The question was what you consider to be the basis of humanity. If it is genetics, we go in one direction. If it is not, what is it? Just answer the question.
Quote
I recognize the right of human embryos to live. Clone or not, it matters not to me. If a cloned sheep is a sheep, a cloned human is a human.
Fair enough. Logged for future use.
Quote
Something else, indeed. It's called using law to prevent the murder or abandonment of children.
Unfortunately for you, they seem to come hand in hand under your system of views.
Quote
And I'll nit-pick that it's "nit" as in lice larvae, not "knit." If you call me "anti-choice," I'll call you pro-death. Hehehe.
If you call me "anti-choice," I'll call you pro-death. Hehehe. I warned you. Now you are definitely "anti-choice". Hehe. Why do you hate freedom, fistful?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 16, 2007, 01:59:26 PM
Are y'all having fun?
Post by: Strings on February 16, 2007, 02:03:26 PM
Buy you a beer?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 16, 2007, 02:34:37 PM
Post by: Antibubba on February 16, 2007, 07:40:33 PM
Maybe a Moderator needs to nip this in the bud?
Post by: Strings on February 16, 2007, 08:20:30 PM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 16, 2007, 10:59:47 PM
Technically it's only a little off-topic; it started with an argument about boobs, and it's turned into an argument among boobs.
Maybe a Moderator needs to nip this in the bud?
Maybe a Moderator needs to nip this in the bud?
A nip here, a tuck there, pretty soon we'll have this thread looking like it did when it was young.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 17, 2007, 06:34:49 AM
Post by: cosine on February 17, 2007, 08:20:10 AM
Technically it's only a little off-topic; it started with an argument about boobs, and it's turned into an argument among boobs.
Maybe a Moderator needs to nip this in the bud?
Maybe a Moderator needs to nip this in the bud?
