Jump to content


Stem Cells


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 suitedinc

suitedinc

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 45 posts
  • Location:Indianapolis

Posted 01 March 2006 - 08:29 AM

Hey DN,Like the education issue, 20/20 probably left out some terribly important points here.Embryonic stem cell research has produced next to no fruit. The research is always bad and never gives results. It is Adult stem cell research that is resulting in advancement. These are the stem cells that hold promise for curing future disease, not embryonic.The other thing that I'm sure that 20/20 did not touch much on is this. Do you really want the govt in charge of this research??? The president's issue is in regards to the govt. funding and sponsoring the research. I whole heartedly agree with him. Think about it...the govt cannot even get out of there own way in making common sense laws. I certainly would not trust them in something like life altering research. You really want Ted Kennedy holding a beaker or a flask?? Of course he wouldn't be doing the research himself, but we all know the power is in the money source. Virtually all of the life altering inventions and discoveries, as of date, have been done with PRIVATE funds. That is the difference.

#2 lordchadwick36

lordchadwick36

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 40 posts
  • Location:Wisconsin
  • Interests:POKER, reading, playing with my kids

Posted 01 March 2006 - 09:09 AM

View Postsuitedinc, on Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, 8:29 AM, said:

Hey DN,Like the education issue, 20/20 probably left out some terribly important points here.Embryonic stem cell research has produced next to no fruit. The research is always bad and never gives results. It is Adult stem cell research that is resulting in advancement. These are the stem cells that hold promise for curing future disease, not embryonic.The other thing that I'm sure that 20/20 did not touch much on is this. Do you really want the govt in charge of this research??? The president's issue is in regards to the govt. funding and sponsoring the research. I whole heartedly agree with him. Think about it...the govt cannot even get out of there own way in making common sense laws. I certainly would not trust them in something like life altering research. You really want Ted Kennedy holding a beaker or a flask?? Of course he wouldn't be doing the research himself, but we all know the power is in the money source. Virtually all of the life altering inventions and discoveries, as of date, have been done with PRIVATE funds. That is the difference.
You're kidding right? Many huge new discoveries and inventions came from govt. grants and research. The WWW, that we are using right now, is the first big one that comes to mind. I LOVE it when conservatives bring up Ted Kennedy. Too funny reallly!
LordChadwick of Hummingbird

#3 chrozzo

chrozzo

    hi™

  • Members
  • 23,051 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Geico

Posted 01 March 2006 - 10:36 AM

View Postlordchadwick36, on Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, 9:09 AM, said:

You're kidding right? Many huge new discoveries and inventions came from govt. grants and research. The WWW, that we are using right now, is the first big one that comes to mind. I LOVE it when conservatives bring up Ted Kennedy. Too funny reallly!
We bring up Kennedy because hes a JOKE of a national leader. BTW, im ignoring your responses now so I feel I got the last word in...have a nice day! :club:
FCP CBO: Chief Beer Officer

I'm kind of a big deal.




#4 frazwood

frazwood

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 28 posts
  • Location:Minnesota
  • Interests:Fishing, Poker, Science, Camping

Posted 01 March 2006 - 10:37 AM

View Postsuitedinc, on Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, 8:29 AM, said:

Embryonic stem cell research has produced next to no fruit. The research is always bad and never gives results. It is Adult stem cell research that is resulting in advancement. These are the stem cells that hold promise for curing future disease, not embryonic.
I find this to be an incredibly ridiculous comment. Do you understand the way research works?Embryonic stem cell research is currently underfunded but has substantial potential for fantastic results. Your argument is that no results have yet to be produced so we should not fund it. We'd never accomplish anything with that attitude. You have to try thousands of different permutations before you invent the light bulb, the telephone, or a Dyson vaccuum for that matter.I will accept that you are morally or philosophically opposed to embryonic stem cell research. I truly respect that, but please do not make comments regarding the science. The reason why research is needed is because we DO NOT KNOW how the results will turn out.

Quote

Do you really want the govt in charge of this research??? The president's issue is in regards to the govt. funding and sponsoring the research. I whole heartedly agree with him. Think about it...the govt cannot even get out of there own way in making common sense laws. I certainly would not trust them in something like life altering research. You really want Ted Kennedy holding a beaker or a flask?? Of course he wouldn't be doing the research himself, but we all know the power is in the money source. Virtually all of the life altering inventions and discoveries, as of date, have been done with PRIVATE funds. That is the difference.
Again, do you have any idea how government-funded research works in the United States?For example, Congress funds the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which then awards the funds to scientists in a competitive fashion. The awards are based on peer-reviewed proposal competitions (i.e., a panel of scientists who do similar research). Many of the scientists are academics (i.e., they work for universities); some of them even work for private companies. Bush's ban prohibits all government-funded projects from working on and developing new embryonic stem cell lines. You are somewhat correct that no good research has come out of embryonic stem cell research; most scientists believe this is because our current supply of embryonic stem cell lines are insufficient.
I'm not paranoid; everyone DOES hate me. Read my blog at: frazwood.blogspot.com

#5 Vikingmn

Vikingmn

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 26 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota
  • Interests:Family, outdoors, sports, poker, cigars, and current events.

Posted 01 March 2006 - 10:38 AM

The main thing here is that Bush is only opposed to govt funding research of this type. It is not against the law for private companies to perform the research, they just won't get govt funding. There are a lot of views on this issue and a lot of unknowns so it doesn't make sense for the US govt to go all in on this one. I just opened up another can of worms didn't I? Have fun!

#6 nopunk

nopunk

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 322 posts
  • Location:Kirksville

Posted 01 March 2006 - 11:08 AM

View Postfrazwood, on Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, 10:37 AM, said:

I find this to be an incredibly ridiculous comment. Do you understand the way research works?Embryonic stem cell research is currently underfunded but has substantial potential for fantastic results. Your argument is that no results have yet to be produced so we should not fund it. We'd never accomplish anything with that attitude. You have to try thousands of different permutations before you invent the light bulb, the telephone, or a Dyson vaccuum for that matter.I will accept that you are morally or philosophically opposed to embryonic stem cell research. I truly respect that, but please do not make comments regarding the science. The reason why research is needed is because we DO NOT KNOW how the results will turn out.
If one way of making a lightbulb used an iron filament and completely didn't work, but another one used tungsten and it didn't work either, but it showed potential, which metal would you pursue in your research?Adult stem cells are the only stem cells where progress was made. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.In addition, DN made several ridiculous statements in his blog.

Quote

Oh, I also changed my stance on stem cell research after watching a 60 Minutes program about it. I've always been a little creeped out about the idea of "cloning" and things like that, but it seems as though stem cell research is the real deal.Unfortunately, George Bush won't budge on the issue and won't allow government funding for it.
So in the last day you've completely changed your stance on an issue based on 60 MINUTES!!!!! Read that again, let it sink in. ONE DAY....because of 60 MINUTESHe immediatly jumps on Bush for no allowing funding, when 24 hours earlier, he would have had THE EXACT OPPOSITE STANCE.

Quote

I think it's really hard to KNOW when life really begins. I'm not pro choice, but there has to be a line somewhere? Doesn't there? I'm no expert on this so forgive my ignorance if what I've said comes across as foolish.
You are a Christian, read the Bible, it begins at conception. Don't let your being a liberal get in the way of your faith.Try this on for knowing when life begins. Maybe babies aren't really 'alive.' I mean, they can't talk. They can't survive on their own. Let's kill newborns we don't want. It's basically just a third trimester abortion with a little less harm to the mother. It's a slippery, slippery slope.

Quote

I find George Bush's stance on this to be totally hypocritical to say the least, "We don't want to kill embryos to advance the medical field, but we are ok with allowing fertility clinics to just... dump em' in the garbage." Are y'all with me on this? Doesn't it seem hypocritical to you?
Not at all, he's trying to stop abortion. Look at the Supreme Court Justices he's put in. That's probably a secondary issue though. For too many people it seems that politics comes before religion somehow. However, it IS hypocritical for an alleged Christian to support a political party that would break the sixth commandment./end rant

#7 suitedinc

suitedinc

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 45 posts
  • Location:Indianapolis

Posted 01 March 2006 - 11:15 AM

Fraz, you just made my point. If we are seeing results with limited adult research and none with embryonic, it would only seem logical to allocate funds to what is actually producing results.Viking, thank you for saying what i was trying to say.If the people who created these embryos, the mother and father, want to sell the embryo off to a research lab, that is their choice. But 20/20 would have you believe that Bush is causing all of these embryos to be thrown away because he won't allow govt money to be put towards the research and that is simply not even close to true. If this were an issue with that much promise for the future, it should not be hard to garner private funds and investors.

#8 lordchadwick36

lordchadwick36

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 40 posts
  • Location:Wisconsin
  • Interests:POKER, reading, playing with my kids

Posted 01 March 2006 - 11:16 AM

View Postchrozzo, on Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, 10:36 AM, said:

We bring up Kennedy because hes a JOKE of a national leader. BTW, im ignoring your responses now so I feel I got the last word in...have a nice day! :club:
Typical reply from a NEO-Conservative RUSH Nazi. Get back to your radio so you can listen to the lies from the bloated drug addicted hippocrit.

View PostVikingmn, on Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, 10:38 AM, said:

The main thing here is that Bush is only opposed to govt funding research of this type. It is not against the law for private companies to perform the research, they just won't get govt funding. There are a lot of views on this issue and a lot of unknowns so it doesn't make sense for the US govt to go all in on this one. I just opened up another can of worms didn't I? Have fun!
The problem with this line of thinking is there is no MONEY in it right now, and private companies won't or can't fund something like that unless they know FOR SURE there will be a pay off in the end. It is the responsiblity of the people(govt) to fund these types of things. Look at history and you will see this has brought about many important discoveries and inventions, in both medicine and technology.Flame away folks.
LordChadwick of Hummingbird

#9 avsfan

avsfan

    I don't know!

  • Members
  • 4,167 posts
  • Location:la

Posted 01 March 2006 - 11:52 AM

I agree with DN. That episode of 20/20 is the bees knees. The only danger IMO in regagard to stem Cells is what ppl will do with the science . PPl are the biggest ethical dilema in Stem Cell research. I like to think of the scene in 2001 where the monolith some how helps a early human use a tool. It is important to note the obolisk helped humans use tools but it was all the humans own actions after that. Yeah the humans in 2001 went on to make some pretty poor ethical choices with their new found abilities. I hope that stem cell research will be a postive thing for humanity and not somethin used to exploit seperate etc.... Yes, Thats it! The real Stem Cell diliema is how we use the science not if we allow the science or not. p.s. Please don't fear the fire. Learn to use the fire safely and postively.

"The aspiring one lives in Javel and me I was living in the spiral." -Marcel Duchamp

#10 Nikki_N

Nikki_N

    FCPHA Angel

  • Members
  • 31,865 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:An epic too small to be tragic.
  • Favorite Poker Game:PLO8

Posted 01 March 2006 - 03:37 PM

Posted ImageThat being said. I have to agree that if there are embryos going to waste (I know, terrible way to put it) they might as well serve a purpose and also, like avsfan said, it's how we use the science that's so very important.I have a friend with Primary/Progressive Multiple Sclerosis. Stem cell research offers her hope.
Valar Morghulis


#11 herokid7

herokid7

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 628 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mississippi

Posted 01 March 2006 - 03:49 PM

Allow me to be the first to say i don't know. The Bible says that God knew us while we were still in the womb, so obviously, life starts at conception. But, I think that research on stem cells could be helpful, so if they are just throwing them in the garbage like Daniel says, either stop them from throwing them in the garbage or do research on them. The thing about the liberal view for using stem cells as reasearch is that they sound like it's a no-brainer that they will find the cure for paralysis if they were allowed to research them. Here's a scary thought, what if they were allowed to research them and never found anything useful? This whole argument would be for nothing. But, like i said, I don't know.
www.xxxchurch.com

www.myspace.com/brandongradelle

"For altough they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools" Romans 1: 21-22

#12 princeof56k

princeof56k

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,520 posts
  • Location:houston, tx

Posted 01 March 2006 - 04:09 PM

Daniel is right on this one, and while I'm not a big fan of 60 Minutes, they did get that story right for the most part.These are extra embryos produced we're talking about here. They were produced by medical science solely for the purpose of giving the parents as many chances as possible for a child. The embryos that are not needed will never be brought into the world and will be disposed of. It is absolutely wasteful and irresponsible to not put them to good use.And it is a huge mistake of the government not to fund this. Government funding is absolutely necessary for the scientific community to advance It benifits everyone.

#13 DanielNegreanu

DanielNegreanu

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Root Admin
  • 8,250 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas

Posted 01 March 2006 - 08:13 PM

View Postsuitedinc, on Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, 8:29 AM, said:

Hey DN,Like the education issue, 20/20 probably left out some terribly important points here.Embryonic stem cell research has produced next to no fruit. The research is always bad and never gives results. It is Adult stem cell research that is resulting in advancement. These are the stem cells that hold promise for curing future disease, not embryonic.The other thing that I'm sure that 20/20 did not touch much on is this. Do you really want the govt in charge of this research??? The president's issue is in regards to the govt. funding and sponsoring the research. I whole heartedly agree with him. Think about it...the govt cannot even get out of there own way in making common sense laws. I certainly would not trust them in something like life altering research. You really want Ted Kennedy holding a beaker or a flask?? Of course he wouldn't be doing the research himself, but we all know the power is in the money source. Virtually all of the life altering inventions and discoveries, as of date, have been done with PRIVATE funds. That is the difference.
Thanks for sharing, that's an excellent point and you make a lot of sense. It's a position I never really thought about much, thanks...
Posted Image

#14 76clubs

76clubs

    Retired

  • Members
  • 4,666 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Not Boston

Posted 01 March 2006 - 08:22 PM

View Postlordchadwick36, on Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, 9:09 AM, said:

You're kidding right? Many huge new discoveries and inventions came from govt. grants and research. The WWW, that we are using right now, is the first big one that comes to mind. I LOVE it when conservatives bring up Ted Kennedy. Too funny reallly!
this is true. if you ever want to piss off a republican, just mention either clinton or ted kennedy. its funny really...

#15 Farnan

Farnan

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 285 posts
  • Interests:Golf, Poker, Music

Posted 02 March 2006 - 11:19 AM

One of the main reasons Adult Stem Cell research is more advanced than Embryonic Stem Cell research is the fact that Adult Stem Cells have been studied since the early 60's and Embryonic Stemm Cells were only discovered and studied for 7-8 years now. A lot can happen in 35 years that cannot in 8.My view is that neither type should be ignored--both should be expored. This technology has unbelievable potential and to ignore part of it because of your PERSONAL religious beliefs is unacceptable. To eliminate governmental funding is also unbelievably stupid because we're going to only have private for-profit companies developing technology that could result in a very positive impact on all human kind and they're going to need to dump some serious coin for it and we are going to pay dearly for its benefits once those benefits are realized.

#16 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,378 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 02 March 2006 - 04:07 PM

View Postlordchadwick36, on Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, 11:16 AM, said:

Typical reply from a NEO-Conservative RUSH Nazi. Get back to your radio so you can listen to the lies from the bloated drug addicted hippocrit. The problem with this line of thinking is there is no MONEY in it right now, and private companies won't or can't fund something like that unless they know FOR SURE there will be a pay off in the end. It is the responsiblity of the people(govt) to fund these types of things. Look at history and you will see this has brought about many important discoveries and inventions, in both medicine and technology.Flame away folks.
I must agree with you...FAT people have no right to have an opinion. Good job pointing out Rush's limitations. Bummer about Michael Moore, he really has no right to say anything.Short lesson from Business school. R&D is a budgeted item, regardless of government help or not. Very simplistic to say unless government helps, no one will do anything new. Glad government helped with Ipod, LaMachine, George Foreman grills, ketchup, oil spill obsorbant, toothpicks, sandels, etc.But you are right that government does do a good job in funding the defense industry which has brought us many uselful items. So I will continue to support Republican's in their backhanded goal to give us velcro and Tang.

View PostFarnan, on Thursday, March 2nd, 2006, 11:19 AM, said:

One of the main reasons Adult Stem Cell research is more advanced than Embryonic Stem Cell research is the fact that Adult Stem Cells have been studied since the early 60's and Embryonic Stemm Cells were only discovered and studied for 7-8 years now. A lot can happen in 35 years that cannot in 8.My view is that neither type should be ignored--both should be expored. This technology has unbelievable potential and to ignore part of it because of your PERSONAL religious beliefs is unacceptable. To eliminate governmental funding is also unbelievably stupid because we're going to only have private for-profit companies developing technology that could result in a very positive impact on all human kind and they're going to need to dump some serious coin for it and we are going to pay dearly for its benefits once those benefits are realized.
Side note, doesn't it kind of burn you to think that 'we the people' fund so many good things, then the individual scientist / company that 'discovers' the idea gets full patent rights. They should have to give half the profits back to the government if they use funding to finance their research. Oh wait, they do pay half their income in taxes in California, so never mind

View Post76clubs, on Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, 8:22 PM, said:

this is true. if you ever want to piss off a republican, just mention either clinton or ted kennedy. its funny really...
You are wrong, if you want to piss of republicans, mention taxes.If you want to piss of democrats, mention Florida recountTed Kennedy and Clinton are for jokes.Like; Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have with my gun.Or What do you get when you cross a crooked politician with a crooked lawyer? Chelsea.
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

The government was set to protect man from criminals - and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. - Ayn Rand

#17 Zeatrix

Zeatrix

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 806 posts
  • Location:Sweden
  • Favorite Poker Game:HORSE

Posted 02 March 2006 - 04:10 PM

View Postherokid7, on Thursday, March 2nd, 2006, 12:49 AM, said:

The Bible says that God knew us while we were still in the womb, so obviously, life starts at conception.
Why bring mythological beeings into the discussion. Science has proved that there is no way to prove that god exists. But we have a lot of proof that the bible is wrong, for example, the age of the earth. So your point is irrelevant.
FCP's resident swede...
...and global warming informer.

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." - Albert Einstein
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca
"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the
evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something
which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest
evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.
" - Bertrand Russell

#18 herokid7

herokid7

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 628 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mississippi

Posted 02 March 2006 - 05:42 PM

View PostZeatrix, on Thursday, March 2nd, 2006, 4:10 PM, said:

Why bring mythological beeings into the discussion. Science has proved that there is no way to prove that god exists. But we have a lot of proof that the bible is wrong, for example, the age of the earth. So your point is irrelevant.
How do you know the age of the earth? You weren't there at the beginning. Personally, i think the world is only 6000-10000 years old. Visit www.drdino.com for more info on how science has gotten the age of the earth, carbon dating, evolution and the big bang theory wrong. As for not being able to prove God exists or not. You're right. I can't. But, I have seen extraordinary miracles in the lives of people to prove to me that the God of the Bible does exist. You can't explain miracles with science either. Plus, what proof do you have that the Bible is wrong, no one has ever proven that to me or millions of other people that trust in it. I am sorry if any Christian has ever wronged you in the past, and i want you to know that I love you and am praying for you. God bless.
www.xxxchurch.com

www.myspace.com/brandongradelle

"For altough they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools" Romans 1: 21-22

#19 Zeatrix

Zeatrix

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 806 posts
  • Location:Sweden
  • Favorite Poker Game:HORSE

Posted 03 March 2006 - 01:37 AM

View Postherokid7, on Friday, March 3rd, 2006, 2:42 AM, said:

How do you know the age of the earth? You weren't there at the beginning. Personally, i think the world is only 6000-10000 years old. Visit www.drdino.com for more info on how science has gotten the age of the earth, carbon dating, evolution and the big bang theory wrong. As for not being able to prove God exists or not. You're right. I can't. But, I have seen extraordinary miracles in the lives of people to prove to me that the God of the Bible does exist. You can't explain miracles with science either. Plus, what proof do you have that the Bible is wrong, no one has ever proven that to me or millions of other people that trust in it. I am sorry if any Christian has ever wronged you in the past, and i want you to know that I love you and am praying for you. God bless.
One thing I do admire about religious people is that they always try to be nice =)Anyways, unfortunately the carbon method is very true and working, the stuff you find at www.drdino.com and other similar information is only religious propaganda produced to have some sort of counter-proof to the overwhelming proof produced by real scientists.In my mind there is only one miracle and that is the universe. It's really amazing how evolution have been able to produce such complicated forms of life. What still bothers me is how people ignore all the archeological findings that has been made on earth, like dinosaurs and early manlike apes that have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they in fact are thousands and sometimes millions of years old.I have nothing against telling people to respect each other and treat each other like one would like to be treated oneself. That is common sence and I don't need a 2000 year old fictous book to tell me that. All religion does and have done the last couple of thousand years is to give us a "us" and "them" mentality where we have to convert "them" to "us".And you ask what chrisitans have done to me? Besides the Iraq war and global police in the form of President Bush they made me spend two hours in church every sunday for a year when I was an exchange student in Canada.Oh btw, the only reason why the US is so overly religious is that all the people in europe that had religious beliefs that wasn't welcome moved to the states. Europe is finally gettting away from religion, hopefully the US will too soon...
FCP's resident swede...
...and global warming informer.

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." - Albert Einstein
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca
"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the
evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something
which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest
evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.
" - Bertrand Russell

#20 Farnan

Farnan

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 285 posts
  • Interests:Golf, Poker, Music

Posted 03 March 2006 - 07:57 AM

Quote

Side note, doesn't it kind of burn you to think that 'we the people' fund so many good things, then the individual scientist / company that 'discovers' the idea gets full patent rights. They should have to give half the profits back to the government if they use funding to finance their research. Oh wait, they do pay half their income in taxes in California, so never mind
Personally, I think that if government funded the research--the patent rights should be given up to the public domain or at least limited in some way.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users