Judge Halts Human-Embryonic Stem Cell Research

[simmonjam1]

Originally Posted by fredr123

1. It's a thriller, not a horror novel.

2. "...Ancestor is the rare thriller that's based on cutting-edge science and is entirely possible."Phil Plait, PhD, author of DEATH FROM THE SKIES and creator of BadAstronomy.com

3. It has nothing to do with monopolizing technology or raping consumers.

4. The possibility of curing disease needs to be balanced against the risk of creating a pack hunter predators set about the demise of the human race.

The 0:50 mark in the trailer must have thrown me off....

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Do as I say, not as I do.

Exactly! But as I said, not like I have a real choice.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by valo403

It means quite simply that without government funded research to get the ball rolling private industry is unlikely to take the initiative, and therefore advancement will be stifled.

Even after decades of lobbying, the federal government never funded any IVF research, and today the U.S. has the largest IVF industry in the world. Human IVF is a $3 billion a year industry, human reproductive technologies as a whole is a $6.5 billion a year industry, and the total assisted reproduction industry, including animal husbandry, is close to a $16 billion a year industry. All that without any federal funding.

...

It’s understandable that researchers are tempted by the prospect of easy money from government sources, but as the record shows, getting government funding is not worth the effort. Only private funding lets researchers do what they need to and leads to truly reliable results.

http://www.genengnews.com/gen-articl...research/2061/

The article also points out the LONG process that government money takes before the actual researchers actually get it.

Another article talking about private donations.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/333633_stemcells29.html

[valo403]

Originally Posted by peter12

Exactly! But as I said, not like I have a real choice.

Really? Student visas are incredibly easy to get, plenty of private institutions in the US would be pleased to take your tuition dollars.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by valo403

Really? Student visas are incredibly easy to get, plenty of private institutions in the US would be pleased to take your tuition dollars.

Its because Canada has government sponsorship research so pedro can do his philosophy on why government should not be giving public sponsorship for research.

[AC]

Do those that oppose embryonic stem cell use realize that the cells predominantly come from leftover embryos used during in-vitro fertilization?

Once an embryo successfully implants into the woman, any leftovers will either be thrown away, or used to harvest stem cells.

People seem to have some weird association in their minds between stem cells and abortion, which is far from the truth.

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by Azure

http://www.genengnews.com/gen-articl...research/2061/

what a strange article.

getting government funding is not worth the effort

I'd estimate 95%+ of all independent medical research (university or medical institutes) is funded by public money (it's probably 99% in Canada).

Private industry (the Pfizers and Mercks of the world) do devote billions of dollars to R&D, but I don't know of anyone who has significantly tapped into those dollars - maybe small 5 figure pilot project grants, but nothing compared to NIH or NSF grants. Those billions are for company research. Private foundation money is insignificant - millions compared to billions from public sources

Only private funding lets researchers do what they need to and leads to truly reliable results

This is laughable. Private foundation grants are highly restrictive in what you can do. If your research does not align to their mandate, there is no chance of being funded. In terms of reliablility, would you trust, for example, a lung cancer biologists work funded by NIH over one funded by Phillip Morris?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

I'd estimate 95%+ of all independent medical research (university or medical institutes) is funded by public money (it's probably 99% in Canada).

From wikipedia, so consider the source.

Government funding for medical research amounts to approximately 36% in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_funding

I'm not saying that the government shouldn't fund any kind of research. I'm saying that the private side can spent a lot of money on R&D too, especially if they see a profit.

And if the initial research down on stem cells is even slightly correct, the process could be the greatest medical discovery in a LONG time, and I don't see how any private organization wouldn't want to get their hands all over that.

[Thor]

Pure science, the part of researching thats more based on our curiosity to questions than going after some practical result is a really key component to science.

Obviously private funding tends to go for goals and looks towards attainable research, near the cusp of something big as is often the case.

However 'pure' science is often publicly funded and done in the interest of curiosity and is usually where you find discoveries happening that weren't expected.

This is why both types of funding are so key.

[Canada 02]

I said 95% of independent medical research. I don't consider the billions spent by Pfizer etc to be independent

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by AC

Do those that oppose embryonic stem cell use realize that the cells predominantly come from leftover embryos used during in-vitro fertilization?

Once an embryo implants into the woman, any leftovers will either be THROWN AWAY, or used to harvest stem cells.

People seem to have some weird association in their minds between stem cells and abortion, which is far from the truth.

You can also donate your baby's cord blood which contains stem cells.

[MarchHare]

Only private funding lets researchers do what they need to and leads to truly reliable results.

Where's the supporting data to back up that claim?

One of the most cutting-edge research organization in the world is CERN, which is publicly funded through contributions by its member nations. Note that the world wide web, arguably the single most important commecial innovation of the last 25 years, was invented by a CERN researcher using public funds.

For a well-known Canadian example, Frederick Banting used public research grants while pioneering insulin treatment for diabetes. The Canadian government gave Banting a life-long annuity to continue his research.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Azure

And if the initial research down on stem cells is even slightly correct, the process could be the greatest medical discovery in a LONG time, and I don't see how any private organization wouldn't want to get their hands all over that.

You'll find right now theres a lot of talk about what stem cells could theoretically do, but you are not finding a lot of strong results in research yet.

I think a lot of private funding is waiting for something to break in this research, its often the case when a breakthrough is found you'll see a flury of private labs all going after the next step with private funding.

A race to see who can get the golden ticket first, considering when you discover and can patent a process or a drug you'll be rolling in the dough.

But there is caution with these private funds because so many times in the past large sums of money have been put into promising 'leads' and have yielded nothing. Science is about opening hundreds of doors before 1 actually leads anywhere, that one open door then might lead to another 1000 doors of which maybe 1 will allow you to keep going, or those 1000 doors lead to nothing. But you still have to open all those doors to be sure.

This is why its so bloody hard for research, and why there is so much tentativeness from private funding.

[Phanuthier]

It depends on the type of research. From a sciences POV, I know initial research can be found quite dominantly in US National labs like Sandia. Even Canadian universities will partner with US labs, so its a little vague who pays for what and what is done where.

Research that is a little more industry oriented may be sponsored, provided, partnered or done by private industry. My employer has a large portion of their money go towards R&D Labs with such application as Tesla's cars.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

I said 95% of independent medical research. I don't consider the billions spent by Pfizer etc to be independent

True, but you can't discount what those organizations do(not that you are).

Any source on the funding for independent medical research? Or independent research of any kind for that matter. Would be interesting to see the breakdown. I can't really find anything on Google.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Where's the supporting data to back up that claim?

One of the most cutting-edge research organization in the world is CERN, which is publicly funded through contributions by its member nations. Note that the world wide web, arguably the single most important commecial innovation of the last 25 years, was invented by a CERN researcher using public funds.

For a well-known Canadian example, Frederick Banting used public research grants while pioneering insulin treatment for diabetes. The Canadian government gave Banting a life-long annuity to continue his research.

And like the article pointed out, something from the private side....

Even after decades of lobbying, the federal government never funded any IVF research, and today the U.S. has the largest IVF industry in the world. Human IVF is a $3 billion a year industry, human reproductive technologies as a whole is a $6.5 billion a year industry, and the total assisted reproduction industry, including animal husbandry, is close to a $16 billion a year industry. All that without any federal funding.

Nobody is saying public funding for R&D isn't effective. I'm saying that the private side can get involved too. And at times in more effective ways(ask Bill Gates).

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by Azure

Any source on the funding for independent medical research? Or independent research of any kind for that matter. Would be interesting to see the breakdown. I can't really find anything on Google.

its anecdotal, based on what I see and hear when applying for grants and talking to colleagues, which is why i said it was just my own estimate. There is ~$80-90B spent in the USA on medical research. ~$50-60B is big pharma R&D; ~$30B is public (NIH); a few scraps and leftovers from charities and private foundations

[Calgaryborn]

Since there is a limited amount of government money that can be committed to research and no shortage of worthwhile projects to invest in why put money in a controversial area. Government money is actually tax payer money and should be used with consideration of whoes money is being spent. I don't know what the percentage of Americans oppose this stem cell research funding but, even if it is 25% that is a huge chunk of taxpayers.

If the pro research crowd is so certain that this is the holy grail they can invest or donate their own money.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Since there is a limited amount of government money that can be committed to research and no shortage of worthwhile projects to invest in why put money in a controversial area. Government money is actually tax payer money and should be used with consideration of whoes money is being spent. I don't know what the percentage of Americans oppose this stem cell research funding but, even if it is 25% that is a huge chunk of taxpayers.

If the pro research crowd is so certain that this is the holy grail they can invest or donate their own money.

Absolutely. Government should only make decisions and take action where more than 75% of the population agree with the decision.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Since there is a limited amount of government money that can be committed to research and no shortage of worthwhile projects to invest in why put money in a controversial area. Government money is actually tax payer money and should be used with consideration of whoes money is being spent. I don't know what the percentage of Americans oppose this stem cell research funding but, even if it is 25% that is a huge chunk of taxpayers.

If the pro research crowd is so certain that this is the holy grail they can invest or donate their own money.

I'm sorry, but while I agree that taxpayer money shouldn't be spent in direct opposition to what the general populace wants if it is at all possible, you have to realize that there are unhappy people in every situation. Everyone has a gripe with how money is currently being spent, has been spent and will be spent.

Part of living in a large society is recognizing that you will not always get your way. You live beside millions of other people with different needs and wants. The government has the tough job of spending money in what it sees as the greater good of the people that they are employed to serve. If you truly want to adopt a "you want it, you pay for it" attitude for everything, you are best served living alone somewhere. There is always going to be something that the average layperson is funding without fully supporting it in a large society like ours.

This in my opinion, is in the greater good category. It might not be universally supported (the reasons boggle my mind however) but it is potentially ground breaking stuff that enhances the lives of everyone.

Also, huge agreement with Thor earlier in differentiating the motivation of research. I think that most discoveries that greatly influence how we live are usually the result of "curiousity" research. It is much more rare to go after something directly in scientific research and acquire it. Instead, most discoveries are byproducts of other research. You never know what you will uncover when you are investigating something, and it is often something that you would never expect.