Discussions
Pro or Anti Stem Cell Research ?
Posted by gerryPlanetEarth • 3/09/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: stem_cell
George W. Bush was Anti-Stem Cell Research...
Obama is Pro-Stem Cell Research...
What is your opinion regarding Stem Cell Research?
User Comments
-
I support Obama's decision. Stem cell research offers the hope to cure or alleviate many of today's most devastating diseases including diabetes, Parkinson's disease and severe spinal cord injuries, which in turn may reduce suffering, increase both length of life and quality of life for the afflicted, and also reduce the health care burden on us all.
Canada has been a world leader in research into stem cells — in fact, two Canadian scientists are credited with proving their existence. Canada and California together account for about 70 per cent of all stem cell research conducted in North America. In June of 2008 the Canadian federal government pledged $100 million to fund cancer stem cell research by scientists in Canada and California.
My only concern is that Obama's decision may create a brain drain from Canada to America, because the the US will be injecting large amounts of funding into basic stem cell research at a time when Canada is not doing so.-
"In June of 2008 the Canadian federal government pledged $100 million to fund cancer stem cell research by scientists in Canada and California."
100 million dollars is a lot of taxpayer money...I wonder sometimes if the 100 million taxpayer dollars would be better spent on providing compassionate palliative care to people actually suffering from cancer instead of creating a porkfest for researchers and the accompaning usual charletans...There is no need for government funds to be used for stem cell research...Stem cell research could easily be funded by issuing shares on public stock markets... -
Science is a more worthwhile investment than throwing money at suffering, terminally ill people who have nothing to offer society in return. -
"I wonder sometimes if the 100 million taxpayer dollars would be better spent on providing compassionate palliative care to people actually suffering from cancer"
What about the other diseases mentioned??
My husband is diabetic. He is 36 years old and must take 5 injections daily along with more than a dozen pills. It would be very nice if stem cell research could come up with a genetically engineered CURE for the disease. My husband could then look forward to living longer than his father, who died in his early 50s.
And Parkinson's? Do you advocate palliative care for Parkinson's sufferers? It's not all old people who you can hide away in nursing homes: you know, think of the young and vibrant, like Michael J. Fox.
And spinal cord injuries...wouldn't it be wonderful if we could eliminate quadriplegia from the world and give those people their lives back?
Am I pro stem cell research? You betcha!! I cannot think of even one legitimate reason to be against it. -
@gerryplanetearth
(1) Given that the $100 million Canadian dollars in question was allocated in 2008 to embryonic stem cell research, the alternative you suggest is not "on the table". Consequently, discussing it now is an after the fact distraction that is not worthy of pursuing in this context, which is Obama's decision made in 2009.
(2) With regard to: ... creating a porkfest for researchers and the accompaning usual charletans
Do you have any hard evidence of the forgoing occurring that directly relates to embryonic stem cell research in Canada and/or in California and/or elsewhere in the USA?
(3) Is it possible that your POV which appears to be against embryonic stem cell research is primarily based on your well known and frequently articulated stand on this forum against abortion?
(4) Is it your position that the biological waste utilized for embryonic stem cell research ought to be disposed of as trash, rather than be used to explore the feasibility of alleviating the suffering of many humans, who are enduring the symptoms and loss of quality of life due to being victims of today's most devastating diseases? -
@voodooKobra...
"Science is a more worthwhile investment than throwing money at suffering, terminally ill people who have nothing to offer society in return."
By the same token one could easily argue that there many other investments that are more worthwhile financially than science...
At the end of the day however the one common denominator we as humans share is we all become "suffering terminally ill" and die.. -
[By the same token one could easily argue that there many other investments that are more worthwhile financially than science...]
You'd have to prove it. Science is the most worthwhile long-term investment one can make. -
@SweetViolet...
"Am I pro stem cell research? You betcha!! I cannot think of even one legitimate reason to be against it."
I would somewhat agree with you and also cannot think of even one legitimate reason to be against it...Nonetheless I do not understand why spending 100 million dollars on it is so necessary...By the same token Canada will spend well over 10 billion dollars in the Afghanistan war games so 100 million is no big deal,5 dollars per Canadian.... -
Because $100 million of investment into stem cell research will produce several billion dollars worth of pharmaceutical product, as well as increase the livelihood of the world. It's win-win.
-
@voodooKobra..
"You'd have to prove it. Science is the most worthwhile long-term investment one can make."
Food, shelter, transportation etc. offer more investment opportunities than science...
Most Scientific Research is conducted in a non-profit University setting or conducted in a private sector setting where losses and costs are usually inflated to create a tax writeoff so how does one invest in "Science" anyways? -
[Food, shelter, transportation etc. offer more investment opportunities than science...]
You're not making sense, especially since you're excluding transportation and shelter from science. (Have you ever heard of an engineer before? They turn scientific discoveries into products for us to use.)
[Most Scientific Research is conducted in a non-profit University setting or conducted in a private sector setting where losses and costs are usually inflated to create a tax writeoff so how does one invest in "Science" anyways?]
Science itself produces ideas. The engineers who work with the scientists create the products which the marketing executives sell to the public. That's ignoring the pharmaceutical aspect, of course. In the medical sciences, organic chemists, computer scientists, biologists, etc. work on new medicines and procedures that are rarely marketed. However, something is still produced that the public makes use of.
Science builds on science. That is why it's the most worthwhile investment. A little bit more science means a lot more in the future. It's exponential.
Because it's exponential, well, let me show you an example. The difference between 3.9022376^x and 3.9022377^x is negligible at first, but at x=20, the values range from 6.70307664 × 10^11 to 6.70308008 × 10^11, or a difference of 343,550.495. As x get larger, the difference between the two becomes larger too. At some point, the higher value will be more than double the smaller value. -
[I wonder sometimes if the 100 million taxpayer dollars would be better spent on providing compassionate palliative care to people actually suffering from cancer instead of creating a porkfest for researchers and the accompaning usual charletans]
So you're effectively suggesting a very comfortable 100 million Canadian dollar euthanasia. Why deal with the symptoms if there's a chance that you could deal with the cause?
Canada has relatively cheap skilled labour. That 100 million will go much further in Canada spent on research than in most other countries. It's not money taken away from ailing people, it's money spent on curing them. -
Brain Drain? As long as it moves forward all the world will reap the benifits in the end.
-
-
Depends on exactly what is being done, but I wouldn't say I'm anti research. I don't see why we can't make productive use over what would end up as bio-waste otherwise. -
Aargh! Stop draining Polybore's brain Obama. news.scotsman.com/scotland/Fears-of-brain-drain-from.5054077.jp
Polybore is pro stem cell research. The main argument against it is the use of foetal tissue. However the use of foetal tissue appears to have been a transient phase in the development of the technology.
A recent break through in stem cell research has resulted in stem cells being created from adult skin cells. www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article5830251.ece
So the ethical disagreements surrounding this field of research are going to be less of an issue in the future. As exemplified by the Catholic Church and it's position on this new technique. www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15256 -
Totally Pro. -
Pro. -
pro
-
pro -
PRO! I have too many family members and friends that suffer because we have not adequately dealt with stupid diseases like juvenile diabetes. Instead we choose to make pharmaceutical companies richer and richer. Our system of incentives has been screwed up for far too long. It is going to take a real long time still to see improvements but at least it is a step in the right direction. Would have been nice to begin the journey 8 years ago. -
Pro -
Definitely pro. -
Pro! -
Proooo -
Pro!
-
Ok, I'm a believer in helping the body fight for itself, boosting the immune system. Most disease ie: cancer are the result of underlying issues in the body and if you can help the body resolve the issue then these schedule a disease tend to go into "remission" as the hospitals would put it. Now I don't know alot about stem cell research so I can't give my decision on yes or no as it would be an uninformed decision. But having read a few articles and this one www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=3957 in particular. Seems to me, you would be no better off then having chemo treatment for your cancer.
Just wanting people to make sure they know ALL sides before they make their decisions.
I agree, it could quite possibly help people. But there were times in the past when hospitals and health professionals didn't do things Ie: hand washing or did things ie: electric shock therapy, that they believed were correct at the time.
I believe stem cell research is way too new a discovery to believe it could be the saving grace in treatments for certain diseases.-
I don't think anyone is claiming that it is a miracle cure for cancer. But, stem cell research is an important avenue to explore for treatment of Senile Dementia, Alzheimers, Stroke, Epilepsy, Autism.
I think most of on this thread are just saying "pro" to yes, please conduct more research. -
scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/a_major_change_in_stem_cell_po.php
This blog post by PZ Myers is relevant to your post in this forum, sensfaction.
"Cancer is a whole collection of diseases with multiple causes. It is not at all easy. We have decades of incredibly useful research into the regulation of cellular processes that has been driven by the long term goal of "curing" cancer, but along the way has increased our understanding of biology. There is no magic pill, and there never will be — but what we have is a strong foundation for plunging deeper into the mechanisms. There are no promises of insta-cures, but there is a track record of increased knowledge. How would we know what we know of cell cycle regulation, apoptosis, and signal transduction in multicellular animals without support for cancer research?"
-
-
I am pro-life and that's why I am pro-embryonic stem cell research. -
PRO! -
Quid quo pro.
-
Regardless whether people are pro or anti life, the research goes on. When blood transfusion is first introduced, there were mixed opinions and this potential life saving procedure was considered as unethical approach: play god, dirty, unsacred, disease spreading blah blah blah
It is time to recognise what needs to be done. Embronic research is a direction of intense pursuit of medical treatments for many uncurable conditions. -
Pro stem cell research. If only Obama made such good decisions about the economy too.
-
Stem cell research is a must. Not just cancer, but aging in general may be slowed down a lot. Superman ended up in a weelchair (Christopher Reeve) and in a decade or so people with the same condition may be saved if we go with stem cell research. That alone is enough.
-
Not only am I PRO healing, pro research, pro science, I have a blog for stem cell stocks, stemcellstock.blogspot.com
This will revolutionize medicine, who wouldn't be for this? Invitro Fert. clinics have killed 500,000 embryos, stem cell research about 20-25, so it's a MOOT argument re 'deaths' - tell these women to ADOPT and quit killing embryos just to creat a little clone!
..the Jman.. -
This article sums up the ethical debate pretty well:
Stem Cells 101: The Ethics and Debate | www.stemcellweblog.com/2009/08/stem-cells-101-controversy-and-debate.html
StemCellTracker.com also a good place for daily updates: www.stemcelltracker.com-
I've bookmarked that tracker site. Very interesting.
-
-
Pro. Absolutely. One big tragedy of the Bushco years is that we fell too far behind on the scientific front.
So, thank you once again, Bush! Another way you screwed us all over!-
I really think his administration was part of a big conspiracy to destroy America -
Me too. And I also think that Dick Cheney might actually be Satan. He's just hiding his tail and horns.
-
He's just hiding his tail and horns.
But not his shotguns. He shoots people with those. -
Yep--he's a bad combo: evil with a love of guns. thankfully, he's a lousy shot.
-
Very lousy shot. Was hunting for quail, hunted a guy instead.
Now, if he'd gone hunting with Dan Quayle, it might have been more accurate. -
lol
-
-
Pro, definitely. As someone mentioned earlier, I can't think of any good reason why you shouldn't be for it. -
I'm surprised no one has gone private with it yet.
There are companies that can afford to develop and research the project and profit in the future.
Pfizer, Dupont etc comes to mind.-
that would require venture capital, which scarcely exists anymore.
wealthy investors want to make money off government investment, plain and simple
-
-
some recent stem cell stock explosions should show people the power of investing in some of these.. OPXA up 270% the other day
I post daily updates here: stemcellstock.blogspot.com
our Stem Cell Index is now up 44% year-to-date (2009)
the biotech ETFs are only up 14%
..the Jman.. -
Yeah .. as Peter Griffin would say
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxy0bYkCTtE -
Gerry bush wasn't against stem cell research. He was against federal funding for the harvest of embryonic stem-cells. He had no problem with the private sector doing their own research. -
I support Obama, I'm pro. After all, it is for the betterment of Mankind. Hopefully, they'll may come out with big medical revolution from this stem-cell research.
I'm living with Muscular Dystrophy and may this technology cure me real soon :). -
Goat silk went private, someone has the $ to invest.
The gov, is not the investment firm of the world.
If I had the fiances I would want the gov to touch my investments or research. Why increase the expense and have too many cooks in the kitchen?
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
