change?!

[slackin@dabass]

well well well obama... change indeed.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090309/ap_ ... stem_cells


thoughts? opinions?

[bassist_25]

thoughts? opinions?

I'm not a fan of everything that Obama has been doing since he's taken office, but I say kudos for trying to step out of the effin' (<---- Chad-approved) dark ages. The fundies have been holding back science in the name of morality on this issue for far too long. I lost my mother to cancer-related complications at the beginning of the year, and if there would have been some treatment that would have helped her recover and some fundie is effed off (<---- Chad approved) about it, then to hell with them...no pun intended. I'm pro-life, but this is an entirely different issue, IMO.

[DrumAndDestroy]

i think this is a step in the right direction. there are many illnesses/conditions that could be treated from this.

[songsmith]

Another feelgood positive news story... Obama needs a few of those, but it's kind of a non-issue for me. First, because it's just gov't funding being allowed, private research has gone on in the US, and it's always been legal elsewhere. It just held us back scientifically a little.
Second, because if the embryo's aren't used for stem-cell research, they're thrown away. It's not a pro-life issue, even if they want to make it that. They don't keep them alive, they're destroyed as medical waste.
Smoke and mirrors. It pushed Warren Buffett's declaration of the end of the world (financially) to Page Two.---->JMS

[Feelgood]

Another feelgood positive news story

Thanks.

[slackin@dabass]

well, at least i'm not the only one on here that approves of this.

i always thought it would be smarter for the government to handle this kind of stuff (and i'm not for big government!) because it seems the government can fund this research (oh shit. i really am a hypocrite sometimes) much better than a private company. i don't really want the government to waste my money or anyone else's, but i think that only good can come from stem cell research.

just my 2 cents. pro-choice blah blah it's a completely different matter.

[witchhunt]

I've got a bike.
You can ride it if you like.
It's got a basket, a bell that rings,
and things to make it look good.
I'd give it to you if I could, but I borrowed it....
Pink Floyd

[RobTheDrummer]

I'm for stem cell research.

[Banned]

B. Hussein said he wanted to get politics out of science.

As a libertarian, I want to know why government is now in science?

Where is that line in the Constitution?

Why is my tax money going into biological research? Isn't free market capitalism the means for this to be done? So, if my tax dollars help find a medical cure, will I then get free treatment?

Right.

[UNEARTHA7XMatt]

I've got a bike.
You can ride it if you like.
It's got a basket, a bell that rings,
and things to make it look good.
I'd give it to you if I could, but I borrowed it....
Pink Floyd

You're the kind of girl that fits into my world, I'll give you anything, everything, if you want thing.

I've got a mouse and he hasn't got a house I dont know why I call him Gerald. He's getting rather old but he's a good mouse!

[songsmith]

As a libertarian, I want to know why government is now in science?

.

Why not, if you're okay with religion in science?--->JMS

[bassist_25]

As a libertarian, I want to know why government is now in science?

...because some research is not immediately profitable yet still retains a large amount of social significance and value that will benefit the human race outside of just profitability for private entities. Research is often a conglomeration of multiple areas that converge to create a value-laden gestalt. Each area may not be immediately valuable, at least in terms of profit. You work for a pharmaceutical company, correct? Have you ever thought of how much of the medicine that you sell has its origins in government-sponsored subsidies?

Should we have left the Human Genome Project funding up to private entities? The human genome may have yet to have been mapped if we did that.

[Banned]

As a libertarian, I want to know why government is now in science?

.

Why not, if you're okay with religion in science?--->JMS

I have analyzed my post several times now, and I cannot find where I said that I want religion in science.

[Banned]

As a libertarian, I want to know why government is now in science?

...because some research is not immediately profitable yet still retains a large amount of social significance and value that will benefit the human race outside of just profitability for private entities. Research is often a conglomeration of multiple areas that converge to create a value-laden gestalt. Each area may not be immediately valuable, at least in terms of profit. You work for a pharmaceutical company, correct? Have you ever thought of how much of the medicine that you sell has its origins in government-sponsored subsidies?

Should we have left the Human Genome Project funding up to private entities? The human genome may have yet to have been mapped if we did that.

Yes Paul. Zero medicines that I have ever represented have ever come from government.

There are a few medicines that come out of NIH, mostly vaccine breakthroughs. But they still need pharmaceutical companies to make and distribute the vaccines.

Outside of vaccines, for all practical purposes, NO pharmaceutical company makes and sells a medicine that they did not discover and develop.

[Banned]

As a libertarian, I want to know why government is now in science?

...because some research is not immediately profitable yet still retains a large amount of social significance and value that will benefit the human race outside of just profitability for private entities. Research is often a conglomeration of multiple areas that converge to create a value-laden gestalt. Each area may not be immediately valuable, at least in terms of profit. You work for a pharmaceutical company, correct? Have you ever thought of how much of the medicine that you sell has its origins in government-sponsored subsidies?

Should we have left the Human Genome Project funding up to private entities? The human genome may have yet to have been mapped if we did that.

Good point on the Human Genome Project. The project is finished as far as locating all the human genes. Now all the biotech companies that had invested in the project (my company invested) are working on using the information. This is a new area, but they are all working on it, mostly for the non-humane reasons of making a profit if they find medical solutions from their investments. I have been hearing tidbits of possible medical cures to some chronic disease conditions, but this is research done at a level never tried before (the DNA/RNA level after all). I predict that in 10 years or so we will start to hear about some new therapies at the gene level. The FDA is going to be real careful about approving something new like this.

[bassist_25]

Yes Paul. Zero medicines that I have ever represented have ever come from government.

There are a few medicines that come out of NIH, mostly vaccine breakthroughs. But they still need pharmaceutical companies to make and distribute the vaccines.

Outside of vaccines, for all practical purposes, NO pharmaceutical company makes and sells a medicine that they did not discover and develop.

I'm talking even smaller than that level. I'm not denying that the eventual end product that you sell and distribute was developed privately and is the sole ownership of private companies. However, much of the fundamental principles of the science that has gone into developing these medicines has most likely recieved governmental funding of some sort, whether it was at the university research level or private entity recieving grant money. There are probaby a myriad of biologists and chemists working at state universities who probably influenced the science that has gone into the development of your company's products. I'm sure many research and developers in the private sector have their noses glued to the pages of the peer-reviewed academic journals of their fields. Many fields of science that are ultimately of social benefit wouldn't exist at the magnitude at which they do if they relied soley on private investment. Think about the benefits of sociology we have recieved; then think if we'd have those benefits if investment in the field was left up to private entities.

[Banned]

Yes Paul. Zero medicines that I have ever represented have ever come from government.

There are a few medicines that come out of NIH, mostly vaccine breakthroughs. But they still need pharmaceutical companies to make and distribute the vaccines.

Outside of vaccines, for all practical purposes, NO pharmaceutical company makes and sells a medicine that they did not discover and develop.

I'm talking even smaller than that level. I'm not denying that the eventual end product that you sell and distribute was developed privately and is the sole ownership of private companies. However, much of the fundamental principles of the science that has gone into developing these medicines has most likely recieved governmental funding of some sort, whether it was at the university research level or private entity recieving grant money. There are probaby a myriad of biologists and chemists working at state universities who probably influenced the science that has gone into the development of your company's products. I'm sure many research and developers in the private sector have their noses glued to the pages of the peer-reviewed academic journals of their fields. Many fields of science that are ultimately of social benefit wouldn't exist at the magnitude at which they do if they relied soley on private investment. Think about the benefits of sociology we have recieved; then think if we'd have those benefits if investment in the field was left up to private entities.

Paul, why is government wasting so much of our money funding university research? Let the free market capitalist companies fund the research and then they can capitalize on it with products sold on the market. Maybe that way we would not be $11 TRILLION IN DEBT.

[bassist_25]

Paul, why is government wasting so much of our money funding university research? Let the free market capitalist companies fund the research and then they can capitalize on it with products sold on the market. Maybe that way we would not be $11 TRILLION IN DEBT.

...because some research is not immediately profitable yet still retains a large amount of social significance and value that will benefit the human race outside of just profitability for private entities. Research is often a conglomeration of multiple areas that converge to create a value-laden gestalt.

[lonewolf]

Speaking of $11 TRILLION IN DEBT! President Pelosi's spending spree has created some very scary and unexpected consequences. This could turn into some really serious stuff people:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090313/ap_ ... us_economy

When you keep borrowing money and keep blowing it, eventually you run out of creditors. We are getting there very quickly. This may not be an immediate threat--we may have another year or two before nobody will buy our treasuries any more.

[slackin@dabass]

i dunno about you guys but cutting medical research spending from the government is kinda like... medicine saves lives. saving lives falls into the category of protecting you citizens. at least it does in my book.


i'm all for the government getting out of debt. to do that they may have to cut or reduce certain research, but i mean... medicinal research is pretty fucking important.

[Banned]

i dunno about you guys but cutting medical research spending from the government is kinda like... medicine saves lives. saving lives falls into the category of protecting you citizens. at least it does in my book.


i'm all for the government getting out of debt. to do that they may have to cut or reduce certain research, but i mean... medicinal research is pretty fucking important.

I can understand the sentiments, but I still have not read the line in the Constitution that says it is the government's job to fund any kink of research.

[lonewolf]

i dunno about you guys but cutting medical research spending from the government is kinda like... medicine saves lives. saving lives falls into the category of protecting you citizens. at least it does in my book.


i'm all for the government getting out of debt. to do that they may have to cut or reduce certain research, but i mean... medicinal research is pretty fucking important.

I can understand the sentiments, but I still have not read the line in the Constitution that says it is the government's job to fund any kink of research.

Actually its in there under Article I, Section 8, ppg 8:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

Unfortunately, Congress has a broad definition of the words "promote" and "limited"

[songsmith]

As a libertarian, I want to know why government is now in science?

.

Why not, if you're okay with religion in science?--->JMS

I have analyzed my post several times now, and I cannot find where I said that I want religion in science.

The whole point of this thread is that the Religious Right opposes stem-cell research for religious reasons, and that the left thinks that science and religion are mutually exclusive (as do I). You, personally, may not oppose such research on religious grounds, but that's the conservative stance, and ostensibly the reason Bush outlawed it.
Again, this issue is fluff. At the end of 100 days, Obama will be pointing with one hand to this as something he actually got done, and the other hand will be extending it's middle finger to the Neo's. It really has no other value. Embryonic stem-cell research went on the entire time the Bushies opposed it. The embryo's literally are thrown in the biohazard garbage if they don't get used. It's not a research issue OR a pro-life issue. The money issue? Ha, peanuts. They spent more on the Ken Starr investigation into a presidential BJ.--->JMS

[Banned]

It is the moral conservative's stance, not the fiscal conservative. The only issue for a fiscal conservative or a libertarian is that absolutely no tax money should be going into this research. That is unconstitutional.

The Ken Star investigation found that the President, chief legal officer of the nation, lied under oath. If you or I lied under oath, that is perjury and we would end up in jail. The Slickster lost his law license, no minor thing that, but became a greater hero to liberal socialists.

[songsmith]

but became a greater hero to liberal socialists.

... And guys who like blowjobs.--->JMS