San Francisco Getting Stem Cell Agency HQ

karvind writes "San Francisco was chosen Friday as the headquarters for California's new stem cell agency, beating out San Diego, Sacramento and Emeryville. The stem cell institute was created in November after voters overwhelmingly approved a measure allowing the state to borrow $3 billion to fund human embryonic stem cell research. According to Yahoo, the plans call for a 17,000-square-foot office with a maximum of 50 employees who will help dole out nearly $300 million in research grants annually over 10 years."

Comments

President Ahnold

[Anonymous Coward]

They better be careful, the governator has terminated people for less than this. Ok, ok, so he backs it, but I can't help but feel he is only doing so just in case these advances trickle down to reproductive cloning, because then he can create an United States citizen born copy of himself. Uh oh.

Re:President Ahnold

[Fallingcow]

Ok, ok, so he backs it, but I can't help but feel he is only doing so just in case these advances trickle down to reproductive cloning, because then he can create an United States citizen born copy of himself.

Surely not. Why, wouldn't that be a violation of the 6th Day Law?

"Ban"

[XanC]

That's right people, there is no federal ban on stem cell research of any kind. No matter what the media tries to tell you.

Re:"Ban"

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, I hate Bush as much as the next person. But, when Ron Reagen was at the Dem convention spewin' lies, I'd have to say that was a very bad day for America. /Canadian

Re:"Ban"

[natrius]

That's right people, there is no federal ban on stem cell research of any kind. No matter what the media tries to tell you.

There's a ban on federal funding for stem cell research. Most funding for scientific research comes from the federal government, so taking away funding for stem cell research is far more significant than you make it out to be. States rarely pass legislation funding specific areas of scientific research like California has now, and I doubt that many states will follow in their footsteps. Future advances in this area will come solely because the residents of the states who fund it chose to do so, and I'm sure people in other states won't have a problem with curing their Parkinson's when a cure comes along. It's easy for people to whine about destroying embryos when there's not a concrete benefit out there that has come from it yet. When it happens, it'll be fairly easy to spot the hypocrites.

Re:"Ban"

[XanC]

I would say that this is an argument against government funding of scientific research. Why do a few people in Washington know what's important to focus on?

Future advances in this area will come solely because the residents of the states who fund it chose to do so.

And what's wrong with that?

Re:"Ban"

[Brandybuck]

The left never lets the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Re:"Ban"

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do a few people in Washington know what's important to focus on?

Regardless, your solution is ensuring only the people in Washington will get to choose what they are. The states have other, more important things to worry about.

The federal government is not going away. The federal money you hate so much will continue flowing. It will just go to other things.

The solution here is to allow science, not politics, to direct science funding. Not to have state politics rather than federal politics choose where the funding goes.

Re:"Ban"

[Rakishi]

Because everyone benefits and uses the research, not just people in that state?

Also, that doesn't do anything for your first question. What is the difference between a few people in DC and even fewer people in some state capital?

Re:"Ban"

[XanC]

What I said was that government funding of science is a bad idea. The few people in Washington were the example because they've taken that authority.

Re:"Ban"

[Thunderstruck]

Because everyone benefits and uses the research, not just people in that state?

SO what you're saying is that we should demand funding from Canada, France, Russia, and Iraq because hey, the'll use the research too?

The problem with letting science direct "the funding" is that "the funding" is comming out of MY pocket and frankly, I'd rather decide where it goes than a bunch of people in DC or California, be they scientists or politicians. I want my money going to research retinal implants for the blind rather than stems cells. The folks in California don't. I think they call this diversity.

Re:"Ban"

[natrius]

I would say that this is an argument against government funding of scientific research.

When government funds research, it gets published. Everyone gets to use the knowledge that comes from it. In private research, that's not the case.

The reason research sponsored by individual states isn't ideal is because they have less money to work with. I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with it, especially because I'm a California resident studying biology. This legislation creates jobs for me, and I like that. The only problem is that there should be more money out there for this research, and that's not happening because the people in power think it's wrong.

You obviously don't think there's anything wrong with government funding of scientific research, or you'd have a problem with this as well. The California government is sponsoring research, and good things will come of it.

Re:"Ban"

[Anonymous Coward]

When government funds research, it gets published. Everyone gets to use the knowledge that comes from it. In private research, that's not the case.

Oh, it would be nice if it were the case. But alas I think you need to look more carefully at the epidemic of publicly funded research which winds up being "owned" lock stock and barrel by private companies. Ever hear of the Bayh-Dole act?

I want there to be public funding of the sciences. But we are in need of serious review of how our public research money is disseminated and used.

Re:"Ban"

[natrius]

SO what you're saying is that we should demand funding from Canada, France, Russia, and Iraq because hey, the'll use the research too?

International funding of scientific research would be even better. This isn't about forcing anyone to do anything, it's about the government choosing to fund research. It's better when people from more places contribute, since everyone will benefit. What California is saying right now is, "Fine. You guys don't have to fund the research, but we're going to do it and create more jobs for our residents at the same time."

The problem with letting science direct "the funding" is that "the funding" is comming out of MY pocket and frankly, I'd rather decide where it goes than a bunch of people in DC or California, be they scientists or politicians.

That's what elected representatives are for. You alone can't fund anything worthwhile. When combined with your fellow citizens, you can.

I want my money going to research retinal implants for the blind rather than stems cells. The folks in California don't.

What you fail to realize is that funding for a specific area of research isn't commonplace. Since the federal government won't fund it, California is. The federal government does fund research to help the blind, so California doesn't need to pass special legislation to do so themselves.

Re:"Ban"

[Anonymous Coward]

Future advances in this area will come solely because the residents of the states who fund it chose to do so.

And what's wrong with that?

It means that there will be no funding at all, because the federal government sucked up all the potential tax money and there's none left for the states

Re:"Ban"

[SA Stevens]

When government funds research, it gets published. Everyone gets to use the knowledge that comes from it. In private research, that's not the case.


In private research, if the results of the research are patented, the important information is published, and becomes 'free' in a matter of years.

Re:"Ban"

[Bonhamme Richard]

There's a ban on federal funding for stem cell research

There is a ban of federal funding for stem cell research that involves killing a human fetus. The government funds over 60 different stem cell resreach groups, they just all get their cells from other sources. (ambilical cords, bady teeth.)

Check out http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20 010809-1.html

Re:"Ban"

[Rakishi]

Then who is supposed to fund it? The average person? Amusing since I'd say most people have no idea what research is going on, much less so than the people in Washington. Then again those people in Washington don't decide all that much who really don't do much themselves (besides some broad things), they send it to other agencies which at some point have scientists involved. And if you say "well regular people can do that too" then I'm going to counter with "yeah, if they want to waste time finding all those agencies." The truth is that the world is a very complex place and you can't decide everything yourself, I trust the government more than I do myself since I doubt I'd like to spend the effort figuring all the crap out about who to fund and so on.

Private companies? Say good bye to anything which doesn't give them a profit in the short term and probably most research period. I doubt it's easy to do research where every company guards what they do with an iron fist.

Re:"Ban"

[Rakishi]

And until then no one can use it unless they license, and given what I've heard about the paten system most scientists won't even be allowed (by their companies) to see what is happening for fear of unintentionally using patented information. In other words, research is slowed to a halt as no one can do anything with recent research unless they work for the same company (they can't even license it since they won't know about it). Research in areas like bio-informatics (at least some parts) gets revolutionized every decade, so your decade old paper is basically worthless

Re:"Ban"

[Rakishi]

That would be nice.

Are you aware of how much research there is and do you think you can for every piece of research figure out what the potential effects are? The thing about research is that in numerous cases it DOESN'T have specific uses or its uses are not known at the time, for example no one envisioned what the laser could do when it was first invented. So you want to help the blind, eh? What about growing new eyes using stem cells? How about research in growing organs, developmental biology research (ie: how does the body grow eyes), general implants, immune system research, neurobiology, computer science (better software control), electrical engineering (smaller electronics), camera research? How specific does it have to be?

Re:"Ban"

[Anonymous Coward]

Facts are just a barrier for the insane people to continue to bump their heads on. Without facts, everything would be perfect.

Thank the great mushroom, from which all stuff flows, that the overseeing lifetime moderators have trouble sniffing excriement.

Re:"Ban"

[jcr]

Then who is supposed to fund it? The average person?

Sounds like a great idea... How about restating slightly as "whoever chooses to fund it, with their own means, for whatever legal purposes they see fit"?

It does not follow that because the bulk of research is funded by the taxpayers today, that the taxpayers are the only possible source of that funding.

Science and technology were advancing at a pretty good clip in the two centuries before DARPA and the NIH came along. For medical research in particular, ever heard of the Howard Huges foundation?

-jcr

Re:"Ban"

[Rakishi]

Which models gives more money to research? "Good clip" and "great clip" can mean a lot in science, especially biology. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute (which I assume you meant) is nice however it is nowhere near NIH in grants and did not have a lot of money till the 80s.

I'd like to note, that if most people agreed with you then we wouldn't have the government spending on research however it seems most people do agree (as California's vote has showed if you don't believe that the government really represents the voters).

Re:"Ban"

[izzo nizzo]

Compare that 'pretty good clip' to this year, when there are enough significant scientific advances that Slashdot can post one every day.

The federal government is clearly the easiest source for scientific funding because the width of their tax base allows them to have large wads at their discretion. By contrast, state governments have many local expenses that they are directly responsible for, and citizens who have more direct control over how much they pay and whatnot. Their budget is more strained in several ways, and they don't generally have millions left over to use in ways that don't affect the state individually (hence California is borrowing). The feds, responsible to all the citizens of this country, and (in theory) more responsible to the citizens of other countries than any other official branch, have a clear duty to spend their tax income in ways that will promote the well-being of everyone under them. Scientific, and medical, research tends to be a cost-effective way to do so in the long run. The tax scheme used by the feds, which ideally takes more from those who can afford it, or those who indulge in certain luxuries or vices, is also a fairer way to fund non-essential initiatives, compared to the property taxes and sales taxes used by other tax authorities.

And remember, the reasons that federal politicians give for banning funds for stem cells are not economic, but dogmatic in nature. The possibility that someone could be compelled to abort their child so that the fetus' stem cells could be used for research is apparently very frightening to many of them. But there are other, better, ways to prevent this possibility than banning funding, especially since that scenario could theoritically still happen under the current scenario of state funding for the research.

But I think that while relief of disease and suffering is an excellent application for the growing knowledge of stem cells, I think our researchers should also be pursuing applications such as growing steaks and milk-generating cells without having to use actual livestock, and customizing organs for use in things like circuitry and plumbing. Maybe even vocal chords for my Mac so that it doesn't use those fake voices anymore.

Re:"Ban"

[Elranzer]

Headline should read: "Stem Cell research continues to progress. Christians continue to be upset..."

Re:"Ban"

[jadavis]

This isn't about forcing anyone to do anything, it's about the government choosing to fund research.

That's EXACTLY what this argument is about. It's about the federal government of the United States forcing people to pay for embryonic stem cell research even if they are morally opposed to the practice.

You talk about the government choosing to spend the money as if the government was the one who earned it. The people earned it, their representatives outlawed the use of federal funds for that purpose, and the president signed it.

Re:"Ban"

[Anonymous Coward]

A bunch of people keep saying the Feds have to fund stem cell research and that's the only way anything will happen. Of course federal funding has worked so well with commercial space flight.

How much did they give to the X Prize again?

Re:"Ban"

[Rakishi]

...and how much did the x-prize base on previous research in rocket and airplanes, including that done by NASA and other government agencies?

And research does not mean "market a device that does X" but usually more like "go find the basic principles so some company can make a device that does X".

And why do you say "commercial space flight", by saying "commercial" you are no longer talking about research so your point is useless. Now if you say "space-flight" then please explain how NASA fails to do that, and how the x-prize managed to do that (which they didn't really, they barely reached space)?

Also, the space comparison isn't exactly good since space lacks pre-existing companies and the cost makes it hard for new companies to enter, so NASA can't just do pure research right now. Many other fields already have companies or allow companies to enter relatively easily, so that governments can fund basic research while the companies can go and make commercial products if they wish to.

Re:"Ban"

[SeventyBang]

Score: 5? Insightful? ????

WTF?

Whatever those people smoking, pass it down the line.

There isn't a ban on federal funding for stem cell research. Some strains, families, chains - whatever the proper term is, are already available so they have been grandfathered.

One of the debates in the science, and specifically the genetic branches is how viable those cells are for ensuring genetic diversity for true research. I'd liken it to the question of "How many people (and how many of each gender) would you need on a deserted island in order for them to reproduce without introducing any genetic funny business. Many who will be planning the various projects believe there's not enough to go around and anything they do will not be comprehensive.

In terms of states funding their residential scientists, California is not doing so well financially. Ah-nold is starting to find the honeymoon is over and he better find a way to get the financial house in order.

As a side note, I'm waiting to see some research as to whether my guess about stem cells could be used to cause cancer. After all, stem cells can be used pretty much as a "one size fits all." So why couldn't something along the lines of things we know triggers cancer: chemicals, radiation, smoking (which does have some radiation as well), heredity, bacteria (when all else fails) drive them into becoming cells running hog wild.

Re:"Ban"

[aichpvee]

What does commercial space flight have to do with science again? Yeah the X Prize competition was neat, but where is the scientific value in it? Building rockets isn't exactly cutting edge technology these days.

This seems like a much more valuable example of privately-funded scientific research in space to me.

I also don't remember the United States government being in the commercial sector, though I do seem to recall a lot of commercial interests getting all sandy when it is seen to be in any way cutting into their profits.

Re:"Ban"

[jfern]

Those 60 cell lines are crap.

Re:"Ban"

[M1FCJ]

Then who is supposed to fund it? The average person?

The annoying thing is, that's what federal funds come from: Average people's tax. No government should be able to limit research just based on some arbitrary pseudo-religious/ethical argument.

Re:"Ban"

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a ban on federal funding for stem cell research. Most funding for scientific research comes from the federal government

No it doesn't.

Re:"Ban"

[TheOtherShoe]

Ditto for the right.

Re:"Ban"

[Anonymous Coward]

My graduate work involved embryonic stem cells from mice, and, frankly, it is astonishing to me that anybody (well, except opportunistic politicians) would want to spend $3 billion on human stem cell research in CA, not to mention similar efforts in NJ and Massachusetts. There are a lot of areas of medical research where this money would be far, far better spent...this is nothing more than good old pork barrel politics taking advantage of coastal backlashes against GW Bush (anything he opposes, we should be for!) I am not opposed to stem cell research in general, nor am I starved for funding for my own field of work. I just think it's ludicrous for states with major fiscal problems to be funding this area of science at such high levels. The science simply does not merit it.

Re:"Ban"

[Fortunato_NC]

Left to its own devices to decide what medical treatments to pursue, the pharmacuetical industry delivered two hair loss prevention treatments and three different erection pills. While that's undoubtedly a benefit to bald guys who can't get it up, we're lucky that federal research dollars are used to find cures for diseases that are not as "commercially viable". If we depended on "the market" for everything, we'd still be using dirt trails and Indian guides for transportation, since no one would find the ROI of an interstate appealing.

Re:"Ban"

[Thunderstruck]

How specific does it have to be?

Just specific enough to reach a general consensus among the people of my state. If our research priorities are very different from those of California or Texas, We can fund them accordingly.

It is a common mistake to assume that all of our rules have to come down from the Federal Government. We're not all playing the same game.

Re:"Ban"

[ScrewMaster]

Well, it's certainly an argument against such selective, politically-controlled funding of research. There is nothing wrong with states funding their own research, but it is the Federal government that controls the bulk of research funds. Granted, the overhead in the research community is enormous and surprisingly little of that funding ever makes it to the actual researchers. The universities that provide accredited facilities for researchers to do their work absorb the bulk of money targeted for science and spend it on whatever they please. I spent several years doing data acquisition software for a couple of major universities, and I was shocked when I found out the amount of money the university took from each grant as "overhead". One doctor I worked for got a million dollar grant for some neurological research, and yet he actually received less than a fifth of that. And for the money that the university took, he got an old converted burn unit in the basement (two rooms and a small office.) Quite a rakeoff, I thought. However, if you were to try and go off on your own you won't get a penny from the Feds because you aren't working for an "accredited" institution.

So, if a state like California can work around the corrupt University/Federal system to some degree, I think it's worth a try. It's generally difficult, if not impossible, to prove that a particular line of research will pay off: some do, some don't. On the average though, good science and solid research has always paid society back in spades: if the Land of Fruits and Nuts can pull it off, I'm all for it.

Re:"Ban"

[xkztvft]

"You talk about the government choosing to spend the money as if the government was the one who earned it. The people earned it, their representatives outlawed the use of federal funds for that purpose, and the president signed it." You could also argue that the opinion polls have said that more Americans favored stem cell research. Just because their representatives are against stem cell research does not mean that the embryonic stem cell researcher supporters are in the minority. More regarding government funding of research: 1. Sure, there are private funds that help pay for research, but the vast amout of funding comes from the NIH and others. What the private funders can do, however, is to direct reseach to an area they think is important. 2. Do you know how the NIH got itself involved in medical research? I'll tell you a story a professor told me. FDR pushed for the March of Dimes so that kids with polio could go to this spa he really liked (among other things). There was so much money coming in that they decided to fund research. They gave money to Salk, who was working in a basement. In a couple of years, he had his vaccine ready. 3. The American public is generally supportive of government funding of research... one perception I've come to see often is that, with enough funding, there will be discoveries.

Re:"Ban"

[xkztvft]

Get your developmental stages right. The best embryonic stem cells come at the blastula stage. By the time the cells reach the "fetus" stage, they have become increasingly differentiated--making them less useful.

Re:"Ban"

[Anonymous Coward]

Boo fucking hoo, I'm morally opposed to war, so why is my tax money being spent on it?

Re:"Ban"

[Rakishi]

Why the state level? Why not county, city or individual level?

And how do you plan to get a consensus? Vote for every single science initiative? Vote based on fields, general research categories? My previous post showed how childish it is to think one can say "I want to help the blind" and have any idea (without a lot of research, and I mean a lot) what research they should support. That is assuming anyone can even predict what effects certain research will have.

What about those who don't agree in your state, how are they different than those who disagree with a federal decision?

You somehow think the state will do something different, in the end it will just end up the same as the federal level but with less money and more overall bureaucracy (as half the states, hopefully, have the same redundant programs). The individual citizens will never really decide, except for some specific "media rich" situations about research but simply will allocate some money for your bureaucrats to make agencies to allocate it with.

Re:"Ban"

[Thunderstruck]

" Why the state level? Why not county, city or individual level?

Because the city and county are just organs of the state government and do not enjoy independent authority.

And how do you plan to get a consensus? Vote for every single science initiative?

Why not, presently we vote on new taxation bills, and we frequently vote on any other topic that captures public interest. In fact, any law at all can be brought to a public vote with a minimum of effort. The same is not true in the federal column.

What about those who don't agree in your state, how are they different than those who disagree with a federal decision?

One gets a more homogeneous population at the state level, at least in terms of values and interests. It is therefore possible to obtain the support of very large percentages of the population if a proposed law or spending effort is to be enacted. Again the same is simply not true in the federal column. Further, those who disagree can more easily reach the entire voting population should they desire to oppose the consensus, or they can easily hop to a state that values the areas of law or research they prefer. One cannot easily reach the entire population of every congressional district in the united States, nor can one easily leave and hop to another place that better suits his values.

You somehow think the state will do something different

Having had to take and pass a Bar Exam in two different but very closely related states, I can attest to the vast differences in the laws and the underlying values that put them in place. It is not that I think individual states will do something different, this is very much a fact.

Re:"Ban"

[jcr]

It would appear that you are unfamiliar with the history of transportation. Railroads and steamships, not to mention aircraft, were all developed with private funds.

The example of aircraft is particularly interesting: Langley, with all his government backing, failed. The Wright brothers, working with their own money only, succeded.

-jcr

Re:"Ban"

[jcr]

Which models gives more money to research?

Is that your only criterion?

Remember, that the money that NIH hands out, is collected forcibly from the taxpayers. The money that HHMI spends is not.

-jcr

Re:"Ban"

[Retric]

Which models gives more money to research?

Is that your only criterion?

YES.

All economic growth is a direct result of research. We are a wealthy nation because of our research. But, the amount of time and effort needed to find new technologies keeps increasing. So we need a system that dumps insane amounts of money into research. Yes we could use some of that money to say feed the poor but society gains more from tossing 1 billion to research than it does from spending that money on education or most other projects. As long as people benefit from research they did not fund forcing them to fund research is a reasonable position.

Re:"Ban"

[jcr]

Thank you for playing, but I won't be taking you seriously anymore.

-jcr

Re:"Ban"

[Retric]

Thank you for playing, but I won't be taking you seriously anymore.

Why not? Let's look at Viagra well I am 24 and everything works fine so over the next 20 years I am unlikely to pay for it but in 40 years when I might want such a product it's going to be dirt cheep because the patent's will have expired. So your idea is even though it's going to help me out I have no responsibility to pay for it's research?

Research seems to work the same way as roads in that I am never going to donate money to build one but I am more than willing to use them once there built. If you wanted a system where patents lasted till everyone who was alive when it was invented dies that's one thing, but unless you want to extend patents I think it's reasonable to fund research up front to get access to that research faster.

Re:"Ban"

[jcr]

Why not?

Umm.. Because you're willing to give up liberty for research funding. Do I need any more reason?

-jcr

Re:"Ban"

[Retric]

Are you willing to give up the internet, computers, satellites, jet planes and a host of other teck for a little cash in your pocket?

O wait I forget you would be making less money now with out government funded research so umm, what do you gain?

Liberty? What liberty it's cash and not much cash at that. I like the libertarian ideals but in the real world private industry does not build highways systems and they don't do basic research. Take scram jet's they can bring the cost to orbit down by a factor of 10 but you don't see any private money going in that direction.... Why?

Re:"Ban"

[jcr]

There's another reason not to take you seriously. Your answer presupposes that if government doesn't fund research, then nobody will.

-jcr

Re:"Ban"

[Retric]

There's another reason not to take you seriously. Your answer presupposes that if government doesn't fund research, then nobody will.

NO! I never said that I said that governments fund research that nobody else will. In the world nobody is investing in scramjets outside of governments. QED governments invest in areas that nobody else will.

Some things like H-bombs are less useful but this 'let the markets decide' idea is stupid as you are giving up anything that's not useful right now. Government spending is not efficient but when it comes to research it does not have to be. Research needs to be OPEN and EXPLORITORY. If I want some new Viagra clones I will ask private industry, but if I want nanites, high temperature super conductors, fusion, scram jet's or most other 'novel' teck I am going to look at government spending as the only way until somebody else steps up to the plate.

Re:"Ban"

[jcr]

if I want nanites, high temperature super conductors, fusion, scram jet's or most other 'novel' teck I am going to look at government spending as the only way until somebody else steps up to the plate.

Your desire for these things does not justify the use of force to fund them. Are you truly unable to grasp this simple concept? I think so, and that's why I'm not taking you seriously.

-jcr

Re:"Ban"

[Retric]

Your desire for these things does not justify the use of force to fund them. Are you truly unable to grasp this simple concept? I think so, and that's why I'm not taking you seriously. That is one way to look at it. I tend to look at government as a compromise I would like defense spending to be around 5% of what it is now for example. But it's a question of how much you're willing to trade. Basically, I would agree to support all the other pork spending as long as we spend a lot of money on basic research. Now it sounds like you're the type of person who wants to keep as much of your money as possible but unless you move you can't stop playing the game. So are you willing to trade a 00.00000005% tax break for say giving up some freedoms you and some other people can form a block and get things done.

Yes, you're forced to compromise but that's the way the system works. If you want to spend a lot of time and effort you can have a disproportionately large impact on how the system works because most people don't vote and don't get involved in anyway at all. I want to spend some of your money you want to pay less how about we work together to cut most programs except research. Or you can try and fight all pork but that's just not going to happen so what are you going to do?

Re:"Ban"

[jcr]

My, you do go on and on, don't you?

It's almost as if you realize that you don't have a leg to stand on.

-jcr

Biggest story of the day

[nilbog]

HANDS DOWN the biggest story of the day was google getting hacked. I took a screenshot for myself- it's true even though nobody believes it.

Why won't /. cover this? What's going on here?!?!

http://www.myplanet.net/gthing/Picture%202.png

Re:Biggest story of the day

[NickV]

That really wasn't a hack. Safari (and Firefox and IE) try their best to approximate a url if one fails.

For instance, if you type in "microsoft" it tries "microsoft.com" and finds it.

If you type in "www.google.com" and it can't find "www.google.com" (because of DNS issues) it tries "www.google.net.com") and wa-la!!! That's how you got that image.

So it wasn't a Google Hack... it was a DNS issue (and it also seemed to have affected amazon.com, microsoft.com, yahoo.com and a few other sites... but not nearly as hard as Google.)

Why Slashdot is refusing to even mention this?

I have no freaking idea... it's kinda ridiculous. Half the comments in all the stories today are about it... people are DYING to talk about it, and slashdot refuses to mention it in any topic...

What gives with Slashdot?

Re:Biggest story of the day

[abulafia]

HANDS DOWN the biggest story of the day was google getting hacked. I took a screenshot for myself- it's true even though nobody believes it.

Why won't /. cover this? What's going on here?!?!

God, he's so right.

Stewart, do you know what the aliens are doing to the soil?!?

I like you. You're not like the other kids. Here at the trailer park.

Um, Sorry, you were saying, about the stem cells, and San Francisco?

Re:Biggest story of the day

[Aqua OS X]

hands down?

erm. This Stem Cell Agency is going to have a fairly big impact on the SF economy. Google being hacked doesn't nearly have as big of an impact.

I could give two sh*ts about Googling being hacked... and I'm a web developer.

Re:Biggest story of the day

[DAldredge]

./ doesn't cover it because it is a tech story and /. doesn't cover tech stories any more.

Re:Biggest story of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it sill not working for you? I havent noticed anything today but I've mostly been using google.ca so maybe I wouldn't have caught It before.

Works fine now though.

Re:Biggest story of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

It's very strange. The most popular search engine on the planet, a lifeline to information for many people, gets DNS jacked, and there's a big resounding silence...

Re:Biggest story of the day

[One Childish N00b]

Google wasn't hacked, that's just your browser redirecting to google.com.net because .com was down - it's the default behaviour for Safari, as far as I recall, isn't it? (notice how http://www.google.com.net/ is the page your screenshot shows?). The real issue is the major DNS poisoning going on, seemingly centered around gulli.com, seemingly a German hacking/cracking site (not directly linking, possible spyware risk);

Open a terminal and run a whois on any major search site you can think of - google.com, yahoo.com, altavista.com, etc - you'll get results like:

matt@site-4:~$ whois altavista.com

Whois Server Version 1.3

Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net/
for detailed information.

Server Name: ALTAVISTA.COM.IS.N0T.AS.1337.AS.SEARCH.GULLI.COM
IP Address: 80.190.192.4
Registrar: KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH
Whois Server: whois.rrpproxy.net
Referral URL: http://www.key-systems.net/


So wake up Slashdot! No need for the coverup, it wasn't just your baby Google that got damaged, there's something serious going on that definately is 'News for Nerds' and you're posting stories about stem cells (admittedly fairly important) and some loser being picky about his motherboard.

Mod me and all these other posts Offtopic, but please, editor on duty, whoever you are, give us someplace to discuss this.

Re:Biggest story of the day

[SA Stevens]

Well, I could give two shits about the SF economy.

Unless it gets bad enough that all that SF-ness leaks out and spoils other areas of the country, of course.

Re:Biggest story of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

You are seeing that result becuase it contains Altavista.com, which is what you are searching for.

ALTAVISTA.COM.IS.N0T.AS.1337.AS.SEARCH.GULLI.COM is just another valid URL that contains what you are searching for.

I'm pretty certain that is not DNS poisoning. Scroll down and you will see the entry for Altavista.com:

Domain Name: ALTAVISTA.COM
Registrar: EMARKMONITOR INC. DBA MARKMONITOR
Whois Server: whois.markmonitor.com
Referral URL: http://www.markmonitor.com/
Name Server: NS1.YAHOO.COM
Name Server: USW1.AKAM.NET
Name Server: USE1.AKAM.NET
Name Server: USC2.AKAM.NET
Name Server: EUR1.AKAM.NET
Name Server: ASIA1.AKAM.NET
Name Server: NS5.YAHOO.COM
Name Server: NS2.YAHOO.COM
Name Server: NS3.YAHOO.COM
Name Server: NS4.YAHOO.COM
Name Server: NS1-45.AKAM.NET
Name Server: NS1-79.AKAM.NET
Name Server: NS1-92.AKAM.NET
Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK
Updated Date: 12-oct-2004
Creation Date: 09-sep-1998
Expiration Date: 08-sep-2013

(Posted AC because this will get modded down OT)

Re:Biggest story of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it consistently hilarious how slashdot consistently posts stories five to ten days after whatever news event the stories are covering, yet if slashdot doesn't react to a breaking story within five to ten hours, it's considered a "coverup".

Re:Biggest story of the day

[ProfaneBaby]

doesn't cover tech stories any more...

Unless it portrays one of the token issues (linux, filesharing, video streaming, apple, OSX, iPod, etc) in a favorable light.

Google DNS outage? Big deal. Even NANOG didn't seem to do more than a blip over it. Why not start with the huge WorldNIC outage first?

Re:Biggest story of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who first thought, "Of course altavista.com doesn't work, the site is altavista.digital.com" before realizing altavista doesn't belong to digital anymore? For that matter digital doesn't belong to digital anymore.

Sigh http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://altavista.digi tal.com

Good ole days. Back before slashcode mangled your links

Re:Biggest story of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

it's "queers", not "aliens".
Stuart by The Dead Milkmen.

you were on target, though.

Obligatory dead baby joke...

[SpartanVII]

How do you get a baby out of a blender With- *is overrun by thousands of stem-cell protestors*

Re:Obligatory dead baby joke...

[natrius]

I declare this the official dead baby joke thread.

What's the difference between a Ferrari and a dead baby?

I don't have a Ferrari in my garage.

Re:Obligatory dead baby joke...

[SpartanVII]

I might as well finish off mine-

How do you get a baby out of a blender?

With tortilla chips.

Re:Obligatory dead baby joke...

[Anonymous Coward]

You people are some sick puppies.

Re:Obligatory dead baby joke...

[[cx]]

Whats more fun than nailing a dead baby to a tree?

Tearing it down.

Re:Obligatory dead baby joke...

[rawb]

What do you get after nailing a dead baby to the wall with a giant spike through its chest? ...

I don't know about you... but I get an erection...

Re:Obligatory dead baby joke...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the sound of a baby being stabbed to death?

I don't know, I was masturbating.

Re:Obligatory dead baby joke...

[rawb]

What's the difference between a dead baby and a trampoline?

When you jump on a trampoline, you take your boots off.

http://www.dead-baby-joke.com/

Re:Insane

[Rakishi]

...you're joking right?

I Know

[certsoft]

They could just remodel "Colossus" programming headquarters. How's that for an obscure reference?

Re:I Know

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont get it... so pretty obscure I suppose!

Re:I Know

[jdigriz]

I remember that movie. My Dad and I used to mock it when it was on tv.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064177/

Used furniture?

[Anonymous Coward]

"San Francisco is offering 10 years free rent, free used office furniture and 80 to 90 percent discounts on new furniture. The city is also offering to pick up the costs of the agency's move from Emeryville to San Francisco's emerging Mission Bay development."

Since when is San Francisco in the used furniture business?

Re:Used furniture?

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you joking me? Haven't you heard of Fort Ikea, it was an office building built entirely out of discarded Ikea furniture left over from the Dot Com era. I imagine they must have scrapped it for some extra cash.

Bad pun...

[evenprime]

...but someone has to say it.

I bet they can't STEM the tide of calls from reporters....

[thank's I'll be here all week]

Re:Bad pun...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad...

Re:Bad pun...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, nobody really needed to say it, and it's a lame joke to boot.

Re:Bad pun...

[bloggins02]

[thank's I'll be here all week]

That's unfortunate, considering it's only Sunday. Could you possibly be persuaded to leave early?

They gave up a lot of freebies to land this...

[jeblucas]

Heard about it on NPR. Free rent, free furniture, plasma screens, etc. All for 50 bureaucrats that won't actually do any research--they are strictly oversight. SF is hoping the Center will attract biotech firms to set up offices and labs in the city. A "prestige" coup. I kind of doubt it. You can get a lot more labspace a LOT cheaper not too far away. Not to mention the fact that a lot of biotech companies (Amgen, Genentech, IDEC, &c.) already have big centers in the state and don't need to set up facilities to land the bids.

Re:They gave up a lot of freebies to land this...

[mako1138]

What you're saying about it being "prestige" is right on target. Even our (I live in the SF Bay Area) local paper isn't too enthusiastic.

Re:They gave up a lot of freebies to land this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you know, they are into blow jobs and masturbation in SF...

Re:They gave up a lot of freebies to land this...

[H310iSe]

And those are some FAT beurocrats they're putting in there... 17,000 square feet / 50 employees = 340 sq ft per beaurocrat. That's some fat cats they have there. Or a really, really spacious server room and a Mr. Burns style executive washroom.

Re:They gave up a lot of freebies to land this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who isn't into blow jobs and masturbation?

Re:They gave up a lot of freebies to land this...

[Caseyscrib]

Yeah... The article is very poorly written. Take a look at this one, which explains a few more details.

All the finalists offer free rent and a wide range of incentives that include free office furniture, free parking and free gym memberships for agency employees.

I don't live in SF, nor have I been following the proposal, but this seems like a big waste of money. Since when do benefits such as free gym memberships for employees have to do with anything? This place isn't even doing any research, they are merely organizing who gets the money. This sounds like its corrupt from the start. "Want some money? Too bad, you're not on the list."

Re:They gave up a lot of freebies to land this...

[Seumas]

To be fair, there's a lot of footage that goes into bathrooms, reception/lobby, conference rooms, break rooms and hallways.

But with that said, my own office space is around 20 square feet. Even if only 50% of the space they have is office space, that's still about 11'x16' per person for office space.

The cost of living is expensive in SF. The cost of housing and office space is insane. We're talking 150% to 200% of anywhere else in the 48 (other than New York). California is the largest fucking state and the only place they could pick was the most expensive city in the entire fucking coast?!

Re:They gave up a lot of freebies to land this...

[Seumas]

More importantly, why don't they just outsource the oversight to India? I thought that the American Way was to undermine the employee's power of supply and demand by expanding the workforce pool globally? At least, when it comes to people who actually do the work. So why are oversight people so important and valuable that people in other countries can't not-do what these fat-cats are going to sit around and not-do?

Re:They gave up a lot of freebies to land this...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not expensive for them. It's being given to them for free. If you were given the option of free rent in Sacramento, Emeryville, San Diego, or San Francisco, ...which would you pick. But wait, before you answer, some of those landlords are trying to sweeten the deal ...free furniture, free gym-memberships, etc.

I don't blame them for picking San Francisco, it was probably the most attractive deal for them all around. And in exchange, San Francisco can now claim to be the home of The Stem Cell Research Institute.

Is it a waste of local taxpayer dollars? Maybe, but no more so IMHO than funding a stadium in order to attract a proffessional sports team.

Just trying to put this in perspective.

Re:They gave up a lot of freebies to land this...

[Seumas]

I wasn't talking about the company (or whatever). However they spend their money is not relevant except where tax money comes into play. The city giving them very valuable property and incentives, however, IS important.

This is no different than Nike or Intel getting a really sweet tax break (or other deals) which the type of people that live in SF would typically freak out over and call "evil" use of government.

And yes, it's exactly like publically funding a private stadium. Also evil and stupid.

Re:They gave up a lot of freebies to land this...

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife, unfortunately.

Re:They gave up a lot of freebies to land this...

[frostman]

Yes, but South San Francisco, where most of the biotech companies are located, has a pretty symbiotic relationship with San Francisco.

Almost nobody with a good job at any of those companies actually lives in South City - they either live in the 'burbs, in the Valley, or in the City.

And being a good corporate citizen in those parts means supporting things in SF proper. Genentech is a corporate sponsor of the SFMOMA, the opera and lots of other things.

In short, what's good for local (SSF) biotech is generally good for San Francisco too, at least as far as that equation can ever go with corporations.

And let's not forget UCSF.

Re:They gave up a lot of freebies to land this...

[dubl-u]

I don't live in SF, nor have I been following the proposal, but this seems like a big waste of money. Since when do benefits such as free gym memberships for employees have to do with anything? This place isn't even doing any research, they are merely organizing who gets the money.

I live in SF and have, at least casually, been following the proposal. The theory here is that these things cluster, so it's worth planting a seed. This isn't their only effort in this direction; this is related to the life-sciences-focused UCSF campus in the Mission Bay part of San Francisco.

San Francisco did very well off the rise of the Internet, and tying in biotech, especially given the rise of bioinformatics, makes a lot of sense. It's a diversification of the commercial base, but one that takes advantage of a lot of San Francisco's existing strengths. I voted for the bond measure, and I think offering some sweeteners to get the center here is a good use of city money.

Stem Cells and Medical Experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

We must ensure that Chinese nationals are banned from accessing the new stem-cell headquarter in San Francisco. Beijing currently funds human medical experiments on prisoners. Access to the technology of the stem-cell research center will enable the Chinese to perform ghastly experiments in cloning and creating human-animal hybrids.

In fact, Slashdot has reported on a rabbit-human hybrid created in a Beijing laboratory. Buddha help us when the Chinese control the world.

Re:Stem Cells and Medical Experiments

[jericho4.0]

What I don't get is; you're not a bot, your extremely persistent, but you always link to the same thing. Why not branch out a bit?

Also, google only reports one other link to this page, which suggests that this is your only venue. Do you think that much of slashdot?

Not Joking

[Mark_MF-WN]

He's not joking. As you are no doubt aware, teenagers only get themselves pregnant because of their support for bioscience. Birth control never fails accidentally -- it fails because of people's subconcious desire to see researchers discover new forms of treatment for organ damage. Even rape was only created by God to ensure that when the second millenium arrived, there would be a mechanism by which a surplus of unwanted foetuses could be ensured.

Seriously man, get with the program.

Re:Not Joking

[T-Ranger]

Third mellenium, at least, dumbass. God is not a EE and does not count from 0.

Re:Not Joking

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, God knows how to spell "millenium" *and* he has a job, no way he's an EE!!

It's worse than that.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a ban on federal funding for stem cell research.

It's worse than that. There's a ban on stem cell research if you've received federal funding. If you have in the past received federal money, if any of that federal money went to facilities, etc, you can't do stem cell research with anything that money's touched. Not facilities, buildings, desk chairs, whatever.

So, the government offers these groups money. They get pretty much every important research institution infected with having received this money. Then suddenly they bait and switch and announce they're banning anyone who's received this money from doing vital medical research because it offends their leaders' religious sensibilities. Then they get to shrug, do a "who me", and have their lackeys on slashdot claim they didn't ban anything. Neat trick.

Re:Google was hacked!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they like watching idiots like you freak out about it. Besides I doubt the editors sit around all day posting stories, it's all just a cron job.

Steam Cell research is good

[Anonymous Coward]

Until it's sold back to us at an exhorborant price

Re: Mission Bay development

[Anonymous Coward]

Next stop, Hunter's Point

Flamebait??

[Anonymous Coward]

We're having a discussion here, mods... Seems to be on-topic and interesting...

No ethical quandries

[mark-t]

This is for _embryonic_ stem cell research.

There are no ethical quandries of any kind for this, in any groups, religious or not. The stem-cells are harvested from matter that would have normally been discarded after a perfectly normal birth anyways.

Re:No ethical quandries

[thinkliberty]

You are wrong.

There are 3 places you can get stem cells --
adult cell, core blood cell (which is extra blood taken from the umbilical cord at birth) and embryonic cell.

The only ethical forms of stem cell research is adult cell and core blood cell.

Embryonic cells, come from embryos. Should companies be harvesting test tube embryos, then kill them before birth, to get stem cells? _embryonic_ stem cell research is NOT ethical.

Re:No ethical quandries

[mark-t]

You are wrong.

I know. I already admitted as much.

For some stupid reason I was thinking this was from the umbilical cord.

Re:No ethical quandries

[Rakishi]

So all those embryos which are destroyed right now should go to waste instead of being harvested? If you have no idea what I'm talking about then maybe you should go look at what in-vitro fertilization entails and then come back.

Re:No ethical quandries

[Daniel Dvorkin]

We'll see what kind of ethical concerns you have when you're dying of Parkinson's or Alzheimer's.

Re:No ethical quandries

[MikTstar]

Not ethical to you or anyone who follows that belief but what about people & there are just as many of them who's beliefs say the opposite. Just because your (everyone who's against)beliefs say do the opposite to every other form of life on the planet (fight for survival) doesn't mean our beliefs are wrong it just means when you go to hospital dying you can refuse the treatment & opt for other options & we can CHOOSE to have it. For people who say ESC don't or haven't done any good do you read the news? yes other forms have also proven good sources but not always as good the only reason you haven't seen these excellent results in animals done in humans is because your beliefs are stopping ours (because yours are right??). Lets do what peoples beliefs normally end in a blumin war (because this is really ethical!!), when will people realize nobody is right! & we are all different you cannot force your beliefs on us as we you; we can only CHOOSE what we believe to be right.

Re:No ethical quandries

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see how your "everything fights for survival" doesn't support me stabbing someone dead in the street in order to get a kidney transplant so that I survive.

Argue what you will about the difference between killing an adult human and destroying an embryo. However, by outlawing the example I've just given, society has *already* made the decision that fighting for survival is not the overriding rule, regardless of what every other form of life does.

Re:No ethical quandries

[shadow_slicer]

"Should companies be harvesting test tube embryos, then kill them before birth, to get stem cells?"

It's not really harvesting, as that implies they're ripping things off the vine and such. They're really just keeping embryos they would have discarded, the left-overs from fertility treatment. (It's more like recycling...)
It's not killing them before birth (the cells would be useless if dead), and they weren't going to be born anyway..

Re:No ethical quandries

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Unfortuneately that type of logic is useless on religious people.

Take jehovah witnesses, who will happily lie down and die when a simple blood transfusion will save them.

Take the damn fools in a religious community in Ottawa, Canada who refuse to vaccinate their children against the common childhood diseases, even as they see their kids dying from them.

To them, iIt's all in god's plan, no matter how many helpless kids (or adults) die that could easily have been saved, instead they become virtual suicides.

God helps those who help themselves ... unless you dare to use medical technology! then its to hell with you!

Your tax dollars at work in California

[MerlynEmrys67]

So california voters decide to spend 300 Million a year for 10 years on a science project. Where does the funding start - well 50 people at 100,000 a piece (and that is cheap, assume some of those people are high ranking folks making a ton more) is 5 million a year.

I don't even want to know how much a new 17,000 ft office building is going to cost in San Fransisco - but that can't be cheap (assuming you can build it after the environmental impact).

All this and no real science being done yet.

Re:Your tax dollars at work in California

[WhiteBandit]

So california voters decide to spend 300 Million a year for 10 years on a science project.

Yes. Considering the the federal government doesn't even fund certain types of stem cell research that have the potential to be extraordinarily useful, California is doing an awesome thing by providing a place (and motivation) to carry out this research.

I don't even want to know how much a new 17,000 ft office building is going to cost in San Fransisco - but that can't be cheap (assuming you can build it after the environmental impact).

Basically "nothing." They are getting space in a new office building that was already being built (and it's already cleared the environmental impact reports, etc.). It's part of the whole Mission Bay redevelopment plan. San Francisco is just giving up some space in the building to potential future tenants.

All this and no real science being done yet.

You have to start somewhere. Californians obviously supported it and knew exactly what we were getting into. The ballot clearly stated "$3 billion dollars over the next 10 years," and despite our budget crisis, we still overwhelmingly voted in support of it.

Granted, while the "competition" to land the stem cell HQ was fairly ridiculous (as well as the free perks they are giving away... worth $17 million dollars total), the proposition passed by voters is an awesome thing and has the potential to spurn quite a lot of research that can lead to useful cures for certain diseases.

Re:Your tax dollars at work in California

[whorfin]

This whole stem cell research thing is nothing more or less than California very directly and publicly giving Bush and the Neocons the finger.

If the current federal mandates didn't place severe restrictions on what sorts of stem cell research could be done with federal funds, this wouldn't have been proposed, and certainly wouldn't have passed, given California's current significant financial issues.

I hope something useful comes from it, but don't kid yourself...this was and is primarily California posturing itself. (I'm allowed to say that because I live here)

Re:Your tax dollars at work in California

[sfjoe]

So california voters decide to spend 300 Million a year for 10 years on a science project.

No, voters approved state backing for a bond sale to raise funds for research. A big difference.

Not Funny: Stem Cells and Medical Experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

We must ensure that Chinese nationals are banned from accessing the new stem-cell headquarter in San Francisco. Beijing currently funds human medical experiments on prisoners. Access to the technology of the stem-cell research center will enable the Chinese to perform ghastly experiments in cloning and creating human-animal hybrids.

In fact, Slashdot has reported on a rabbit-human hybrid created in a Beijing laboratory. Buddha help us when the Chinese control the world.

I'm an idiot. Mod me down.

[mark-t]

Mod me down as offtopic, troll, or just plain wrong...

I realized after I pressed enter that I was confusing this with stem cells harvested from the umbilical cord

why not private industry?

[crimethinker]

I just have to ask ... if stem-cell research is SOOOOOO promising, why hasn't a company already picked it up and done research, instead of wailing for Sugar Daddy Federal Government to pay for it?

Without getting into the ethical questions and some peoples' objections to the source of the cells, really, if stem cells will cure cancer and parkinson's and alzheimer's, why isn't Amgen and their ilk forging ahead with the research?

Count me another overtaxed libertarian-leaning voter. I voted against the initiative solely on the basis of "who's going to pay the debt?" California's fiscal problems will not end until the state quits spending money like a venture capitalist circa 1999.

-paul

Re:why not private industry?

[Anonymous Coward]

Saving lives is not profitable. Viagra and headache medicines are. Private enterprise is going to go with the opportunities with the better margins.

Libertarians often have this funny idea that just because something is a good thing, there is a financial incentive to make it happen. This is in reality rarely the case.

Re:why not private industry?

[DAldredge]

Because one doesn't make money on cures, the make money on treatments that require monthly 'investments' into prescription drugs.

Re:why not private industry?

[qewl]

Libertarians often have this funny idea that just because something is a good thing, there is a financial incentive to make it happen. This is in reality rarely the case.

But oh, that really is quite often the case. If the government just decided to start funding businesses, any business really for that matter, then the business has less incentive to compete and improve their product.

Now the Libertarian idea is that the government has three responsibilities: 1. Protect the people. 2. Breakup harmful monopolies. 3. Reduce negative externalities from business.

Point three can be simplified pretty easy. Regulate things like pollution levels, which businesses may not find reason to control, and support things like basic research. When businesses are all competing in a rough market, they lean toward better immediate margins as parent said. But the government would offset that negative externality by throwing money at causes with a possible great future benefit or just basic research to advance knowledge of certain things around us, those that would not be in a position profitable for private bussinesses to ensue. But any way, more funding would be donated to science, since people have more money to spend, instead of watching it get redristributed through the country by the unfortunate means of vote, which is a 'true democracy' as Thomas Jefferson fiercly warned us against.

Short Badnarik essay

Re:why not private industry?

[Anonymous Coward]

Riiiiight . . .

Maybe check out www.gene.com. Then go check to see if they've made any profits recently.

Saving and extending lives definitely can be profitable.

Re:why not private industry?

[Peter La Casse]

Libertarians often have this funny idea that just because something is a good thing, there is a financial incentive to make it happen. This is in reality rarely the case.

Well, I think of myself as libertarian, and I think that if something is a good thing, there will be people who will do it despite financial disincentive.

Saving lives is one of those things.

Re:why not private industry?

[real gumby]

Saving lives is not profitable. Viagra and headache medicines are.

Trials on patients with morbid conditions are very difficult. OK: The patient died. Was it related to the medication? They had an underlying condition (and that underlying condition can itself cause all sorts of problems).

If you go for medications that the patient can choose to use, well, the lawyers can still try to come after you for an imaginary problem, but they will have less raw material to dress up and twist around.

Funny

[abulafia]

It would be unethical, but funny, to tie any use of end-therapy based on the results from California based stem cell reseach to being a resident of California, as established by a tax return or three. Of course, we couldn't exclude our French pals, that wouldn't be fair. But Texans...

Re:Google was hacked!

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Yeh, they have a bot that trolls Google News. Well know fact that the only "real" editor (well, I mean human) is Timothy.

why are we funding an industry rolling in dough?

[SuperBanana]

Question- why are we funding an industry that is rolling in record amounts of dough? Biotech research and development is almost 100% government-funded already, and we're giving them even more?

What do we get for all these tax dollars? Why, scandals like Vioxx...and drugs like Nexium, which don't work much better than the pill they replaced, but have some little bit patented so it can't be cloned by generic drug companies...and a new catchy name or color for the public to run to their doctors, demand these premium drugs, and rip off our health insurance companies.

Oblig.

[Dachannien]

Professor Farnsworth: Is it true that stem cells may fight the aging process?
Stem Cell Agency Staffer: Well, yes, in the same way an infant may fight Muhammad Ali, but....
Professor Farnsworth: One pound of stem cells please!
Stem Cell Agency Staffer: (setting container labeled "Stem Cells" on the counter) Of course, any age-reversing effects will be purely temporary.
(Professor Farnsworth opens the container and starts slopping the stem cells on his face.)
Stem Cell Agency Staffer: Auugghh!!

Not about force?

[XanC]

This isn't about forcing anyone to do anything, it's about the government choosing to fund research.

Government == Force. They "choose to fund" with money taken at the point of a gun.

Re:Not about force?

[natrius]

Government == Force. They "choose to fund" with money taken at the point of a gun.

If that's what you think, then you've got bigger problems than scientific research. Last time I checked, you vote for the people who choose how much money to take and choose what to use that money for. If you disagree, vote for someone else. If there's no one running who agrees with your views, run yourself.

Scientific research is probably the last place that I'd say government funding is being wielded irresponsibly.

Re:Not about force?

[XanC]

If that's what you think, then you've got bigger problems than scientific research.

Do you disagree? Where do you think they get the money? Is it from Santa Claus or the tooth fairy? An even more ridiculous question: do they earn it?

Re:Not about force?

[natrius]

Yes, they earn it, especially when it comes to scientific research. I think that's something that a society should support. I'm pretty sure we're a bit far from each other on the political spectrum when it comes to taxation, but if we're going to pay for anything as a group, shouldn't it be the advancement of science? Raw ideas aren't always appealing from a free market standpoint.

Re:Not about force?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you could always move and start your own country.

Or move to a country where you won't be taxed.

Re:Not about force?

[taylortbb]

The above is very true. From a commercial standpoint research ventures generally fail becuase they require long-term investment with low payback. These research ventures are however something that needs to be done, the world is not yet perfect, and stopping research wont help that.

Science has what is called "indivisible benefit", it will always benefit everyone, regardless of whether they pay or not. However if the payment was left up the those willing to pay regardless then they would there wouldn't be enough money to fund research. The idea in government funding is forcing everyone to pay becuase it helps them in ways people don't realize directly enough that they would give money without being forced.

The same idea applies to cleaning up the environment, building a complete road infrastructure, millitary and so on. They are all essential things to do which cannot be done without forcing everyone to chip in.

BTW, sorry if this double-posts.

Re:Not about force?

[mosb1000]

"From a commercial standpoint research ventures generally fail becuase they require long-term investment with low payback."

Part of the problem here is the fact that people don't realize when expensive research had been performed, and are unwilling to pay for it. For example, many people are saying that the government should claim imminent domain and claim the patents that certain drug companies hold. The problem is that for each successful drug a company develops, 10 fail.

This is why you see much more commercial development in fields that are considered "non-essential" like entertainment or consumer electronics. Developing new technologies in these fields is no less expensive and risky, but people are more willing to pay for the R&D because they don't have this absurd notion that it is bad for a company to profit from their inventions.

Fundamentally, I don't see why a medical related or food related company is less entitled to make a profit. Indeed, this notion is what slows development in these fields. I wish more people would realize this, we'd all be a lot better off.

"The same idea applies to cleaning up the environment, building a complete road infrastructure, millitary and so on. "

I agree with points one and three, but how is the benefit of a complete road infrastructure transparent? Would it be so hard to charge people a fee to use roads? We all use them, it's not some kind of abstract need that is hard to grasp. That way, we'd get a better idea of how much transportation costs, which is good because we all pay for it.

Re:Not about force?

[HanzoSpam]

Last time I checked, you vote for the people who choose how much money to take and choose what to use that money for. If you disagree, vote for someone else.

We did. So what are you complaining about?

Re:Not about force?

[taylortbb]

"I agree with points one and three, but how is the benefit of a complete road infrastructure transparent? Would it be so hard to charge people a fee to use roads? We all use them, it's not some kind of abstract need that is hard to grasp. That way, we'd get a better idea of how much transportation costs, which is good because we all pay for it."

The reason is universal service. In some parts of the country (cities) your method would work well, the cost is spread out over alot of people. However in rual areas the number of people that use the roads means that they would never turn a profit (my prediction). You charge people more and they would use them less.

It is however not an option to simply ignore these people, everyone needs roads, and we don't want the entire population of a country in cities, that would completely destroy agriculture.

"Universal service" is why I listed it, it is one of those basic things that *everyone* needs. Another example is telephone service. (Water and electicity can be found/generated onsite, that is why they are not listed).

Re:Not about force?

[mosb1000]

"You charge people more and they would use them less." That's true to some extent, but people need to use roads, so the usage wouldn't drop much, even with a fairly large price increase. Besides, if rural roads use more resources to maintain, it's deceptive to subsidize their cost with taxpayer dollars. A less resource intensive method of transpiration may exist (like light rail, trains, bicycles, aircraft) and would take over from roads in rural areas, since they are more efficient. With roads subsidized as they are now, that can never happen. As far as universal service goes, I can't think of any universal needs that still need to be government subsidized. When highways were built, it was to allow for massive movement of people in the event of a nuclear war. Now, though, the need for a federally funded highway system is less clear, after all, people can still get around. Universal access to telephones is now possible (thanks to satellite) without any government subsidies. In my opinion, this means that it should no longer be government subsidized (you'll probably see this happen soon, anyway). I'm sure that there are contemporary examples of where universal access is still necessary, but I think there aren't nearly as many as the government pays for.

Flamebait.

[lheal]

I enjoy dead baby jokes as much as the next sophomore, but what does that have to do with stem cell research?

Answer: obviously, embryonic stem cells are best harvested from dead babies.

That sucks the humor right out of a perfectly good genre.

Sigh......

[Anonymous Coward]

California voted for embryonic stem cell research, even though cord blood stem cells, as well as adult stem cells, show more promise. Right now california has a bufget defcit that is out of control, basic infrastructure is growing obselete, and health care and retirement benefits are bankrupting local governments. The UC medical system is turning away emergency room patients, UC Davis can no longer afford to pay for it's life flight helicopters, and a major trauma center in Los Angeles is being closed. Imagine what could have happened if the money for this "Feel Good", initiative had been used for...........HEALTHCARE

Re:Sigh......

[eluusive]

I hear what you said repeated by Anti-Abortionists repeatedly. Honestly though, It's not true. For a simple explanation of the difference see this FAQ entry: http://www.stemcellresearchfoundation.org/About/FA Q.htm#4

For many years, scientists have conducted studies to determine whether the stem cells in adult tissue have the same developmental capability as embryonic stem cells. The general consensus is that adult stem cells seem to be less versatile. Scientists think that embryonic stem cells have a much greater utility and potential than the adult stem cells, because embryonic stem cells may develop into virtually every type of cell in the human body. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, may only be able to develop into a limited number of cell types. Embryonic stem cells also continue to divide indefinitely when placed in culture, while this may not be the case for adult stem cells and this would reduce their capacity to form new cell types. Both adult and embryonic stem cell research should continue simultaneously as they are both critical to our understanding of the etiology, progression and treatment of disease.

While this page is rather neutral between the two, the difference is actually pretty substantial. Especially in regards to their ability to change type, and in their ability to divide indefinately. It has not been shown that adult stem cells do this.

Re:Sigh......

[isurge]

and healthcare 'costs' will not be solved with more money .... :-) lol you got to read more about health care costs basically the good ole USA is getting ripped off day after day .... you give more money and the health care industry will bleed you more .... money is not the solution ... what I do when I feel like I am getting ripped off is go some place else and try and get back my money where I got ripped off ... I suggest you do the same... I go to ***** **** once a year for more than the beaches.

Re:Sigh......

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Healthcare?

Come on! where do you think you live? Canada?

Re:Sigh......

[Anonymous Coward]

As a resident of California, I'm willing to pay for both. The actual amount paid per person as a result of this isn't all that big.

As a sort of interesting aside, there is a bit of glee in doing something as a state that you know the Bush federal government is so against. It can be disheartening to see so much shit happening federally, and funding something like stem cell research at a statewide level makes me feel much better.

Re:Sigh......

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see... $100+ billion/year for a war in Iraq and you're complaining about 300 million/year for stem cell research not going into the general health care system? WTF?

God is a CE

[Anonymous Coward]

A mechanical engineer, an electrical engineer and a civil engineer were arguing over what type of engineer God was. The ME pointed to the body's intricate skeletal/muscular system and proudly stated that God must have been an ME. The EE said that was ok but he felt that the brain and nervous system were of such incredible design and complexity that God had to be an EE. The ME and the EE both looked at the Civil engineer who was smiling at their discussion. "I suppose you think God was a civil engineer" they said. "Of course" replied the CE. "Who else would run a sewer system through a major recreational area"?

Re:Google was hacked!

[Anonymous Coward]

I see Slashdot on Google News sometimes, I guess that explains the dupes...

ok, so with the 340 sq foot per person in SF...

[dAzED1]

17,000 square feet in San Francisco...that's quite a lot of overhead on the $300Mill. Wonder how much will be lost in that office alone - esp when one of the selling points was that some of the loans would be paid back. Anyone know who is responsible for this fiasco, and what the budget for this needless office is?

Re:ok, so with the 340 sq foot per person in SF...

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA -- The office space was donated by the city.

"San Francisco is offering 10 years free rent, free used office furniture and 80 to 90 percent discounts on new furniture. The city is also offering to pick up the costs of the agency's move from Emeryville to San Francisco's emerging Mission Bay development."

Re:ok, so with the 340 sq foot per person in SF...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would one RTFA when one could simply bitch about:

a) government
b) liberals
c) Californians

Christ, come to think of it, this story may have more fodder for mindless conservative and libertarian griping than anything since the election. Facts would just get in the way.

Re:ok, so with the 340 sq foot per person in SF...

[dAzED1]

how in the HELL is that offtopic?

Re:ok, so with the 340 sq foot per person in SF...

[dAzED1]

OOOooooh....

It's obviously free then! I mean, the city doesn't incur any expenses in it or anything...

"embryonic stem cell research is NOT ethical"

[Anonymous Coward]

For you perhaps...

Re:why are we funding an industry rolling in dough

[Kenrod]

CA is funding this to stick a fork in Bush's eye. It's basically "You've banned federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, well, we'll do it anyway, so take that!". It's no surprise the most liberal area of the state won the project, they would are desparately willing to do anything to show Bush the error of his ways. The whole thing will wind up being a bureaucratic boondogle, and lots of already-wealthy investors will laugh all the way to the bank with state money.

Emeryville will just sue

[ManoMarks]

There are only a few thousand people in Emeryville. Eventually, they will be forced out by all the retail and businesses brought in.

Re:Emeryville will just sue

[thinkliberty]

Because no one in Emeryville needs a job right?

Re:Emeryville will just sue

[jfern]

Emeryville isn't exactly in the middle of nowhere, being right next to Berkeley and Oakland, and only a few miles from San Francisco and a bunch of other cities.

Re:Emeryville will just sue

[ManoMarks]

No, because Emeryville is so tiny, and there are now three major shopping complexes and an Ikea. Most of the people who work at these places are not Emeryville residents, but rather live in Okaland or other nearby cities.

Re:"Ban" --- Pleeeeze... Get it Right just once.

[Anonymous Coward]

The ban is on stem cell research derived from human embryos. And to be much more specific it is a federal ban on *NEW* embryos.

Here is an actual snippet from the prez:

"As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist" I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines " where the life and death decision has already been made", This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research" without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life."
-- George W. Bush

The Real Thing

And yes, that means that FEDERAL FUNDING *IS* ALLOWED for embrionic stem cells.

There is *NO* limitation on other types of stem cells.

And we already have created products from adult hair, skin, bone and blood stem cells. Most medical researchers insist that embrionic stem cells have less potential than other types of stem cells.

California has literally jumped the shark. Any facility that would like to touch that money *MUST* do embrionic stem cell research exclusivily.

This is equilivent to Wyoming deciding that ARM processors may save lives and setting up a research fund. In order to touch the fund you must do verifiable research on the ARM processor.

And yes, it really *IS* as silly as that. And we are not talking about magical money.... It is strictly tax payer money. Remember that last pizza... well forget it...

As a former resident of San Francisco I says...

[Anonymous Coward]

Take that, East St. Louis!

We're not...

[hung_himself]

The funding is going to be like NIH funding, providing peer-reviewed grants for scientists, mostly from academia since the pharmaceuticals do very little of this type of research. If research money did not come from public or charitable funds, it would not be done since the short term profitability of trying to find a cure for Parkinson's or diabetes is rather dubious

The anger and frustration you seem to have about the drug industry should not be directed at the (relatively scant) tax dollars for basic research but towards the way that the drug research is structured downstream of the initial discoveries that encourage the wastefulness that you describe.

Submit a story

[Anonymous Coward]

please, editor on duty, whoever you are, give us someplace to discuss this.

Submit a story and it might happen.

Re:Submit a story

[nilbog]

submitted two stories ... both rejected within 10 minutes, and the story not published until hours later.

Re:It's worse than that...... THIS IS BUNK!

[Anonymous Coward]

It is Embrionic Stem Cells.....

And federal funding is not restricted on the current lines of EMBRIOS. It is restricted on *NEW* Embrios.

And it is *NOT* Backword looking. Geeze...
Moderators, please MODERATE!

Here is a link to the real story
And for thoes challenged:
Embryonic Stem Cell Research
August 9, 2001

"As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist" I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines " where the life and death decision has already been made", This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research" without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life."
-- George W. Bush

Federal funding of research using existing embryonic stem cell lines is consistent with the President's belief in the fundamental value and sanctity of human life. The President's decision reflects his fundamental commitment to preserving the value and sanctity of human life and his desire to promote vital medical research. The President's decision will permit federal funding of research using the more than 60 existing stem cell lines that have already been derived, but will not sanction or encourage the destruction of additional human embryos. The embryos from which the existing stem cell lines were created have already been destroyed and no longer have the possibility of further development as human beings. Federal funding of medical research on these existing stem cell lines will promote the sanctity of life " without undermining it " and will allow scientists to explore the potential of this research to benefit the lives of millions of people who suffer from life destroying diseases.

Federal funds will only be used for research on existing stem cell lines that were derived: (1) with the informed consent of the donors; (2) from excess embryos created solely for reproductive purposes; and (3) without any financial inducements to the donors. In order to ensure that federal funds are used to support only stem cell research that is scientifically sound, legal, and ethical, the NIH will examine the derivation of all existing stem cell lines and create a registry of those lines that satisfy this criteria. More than 60 existing stem cell lines from genetically diverse populations around the world are expected to be available for federally-funded research.

No federal funds will be used for: (1) the derivation or use of stem cell lines derived from newly destroyed embryos; (2) the creation of any human embryos for research purposes; or (3) the cloning of human embryos for any purpose. Today's decision relates only to the use of federal funds for research on existing stem cell lines derived in accordance with the criteria set forth above.

The President will create a new President's Council on Bioethics, chaired by Dr. Leon Kass, an expert in biomedical ethics and a professor at the University of Chicago, to study the human and moral ramifications of developments in biomedical and behaviorial science and technology. The Council will study such issues as embryo and stem cell research, assisted reproduction, cloning, genetic screening, gene therapy, euthanasia, psychoactive drugs, and brain implants.

BACKGROUND

Embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells, which come from the inner cell mass of a human embryo, have the potential to develop into all or nearly all of the tissues in the body. The scientific term for this characteristic is "pluripotentiality."

Adult stem cells. Adult stem cells are unspecialized, can renew themselves, and can become specialized to yield all of the cell types of the tissue from which they originate. Although scientists believe that some adult stem cells from one tissue can develop

Re:why are we funding an industry rolling in dough

[Jello7]

Drug companies (large pharma) are not biotech companies. Drugs like Vioxx are the result of outdated drug finding technology. Biotech provides a much needed replacement. Biotech tries to understand the biological system it is trying to fix and use this knowledge for new therapies (e.g. protein/antibody therapies, gene therapy, stem cell therapy), where large drug companies have traditionally just screened large libraries of small molecules to find new drugs - a process that is getting progressively more expensive as the low hanging fruit is gone. Through biotech research, we will be able to find better and more personalized therapies with less side-effects, many of which won't be small molecule drugs.

you can do stem cell research with federal money

[thinkliberty]

Sorry. But you CAN do stem cell research with federal money.

Here are the basic guidelines:

Federal funds will only be used for research on existing stem cell lines that were derived: (1) with the informed consent of the donors; (2) from excess embryos created solely for reproductive purposes; and (3) without any financial inducements to the donors. In order to ensure that federal funds are used to support only stem cell research that is scientifically sound, legal, and ethical, the NIH will examine the derivation of all existing stem cell lines and create a registry of those lines that satisfy this criteria. More than 60 existing stem cell lines from genetically diverse populations around the world are expected to be available for federally-funded research.

No federal funds will be used for: (1) the derivation or use of stem cell lines derived from newly destroyed embryos; (2) the creation of any human embryos for research purposes; or (3) the cloning of human embryos for any purpose. Today's decision relates only to the use of federal funds for research on existing stem cell lines derived in accordance with the criteria set forth above.

See:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20 010809-1.html

Re:It's worse than that...... THIS IS BUNK!

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot makes idiots completly informed _________ consultants.

Re:you can do stem cell research with federal mone

[Daniel Dvorkin]

And, since the existing stem cell lines are pretty much useless due to contamination, this boils down to a ban on effective research. Meanwhile, fertility clinics destroy embryos that will never be implanted or have the potential to become human beings -- each one a potential source of a new stem cell line -- every day. This is insanity.

other issues need money first

[ianguy]

How about funding the University of California so we can have more scientists than beurocrats? Or figure out what to do with the gang-infested areas of LA? Nope, the governemnt has decided it is more important to shoot for the moon than to fix current problems that affect everyone. I do wish the state had the ability to properly fund the research, since the people have voted in favor of it. I would prefer it to be with adult and umbilical stem cells, because of the moral questions, though I am not against research using embryonic stem cells. I don't think the government should fund something that many of its citizens don't like. I don't want the ten commandments being posted for the same reason.

Re:other issues need money first

[dwbryson]

Nope, the governemnt has decided it is more important to shoot for the moon than to fix current problems that affect everyone.

Wrong. California is a direct democracy. It's not 'the government' that voted for the measure it was the people directly. So vote/blame the californias(DISCLAIMER: I am one of them, but voted agains the measure).

Re:other issues need money first

[Anonymous Coward]

Or how about we fund schools so that the next generation knows how to fucking spell?

Re:other issues need money first

[ianguy]

yes, the people directly voted for the measure, but who put the measure on the ballot? Also, the governor and many other elected officials endorsed the measure. While in my original statement the use of the word "decided" was wrong, my point is still valid: the government is not working for all of the people first, as it should be.

Re:other issues need money first

[Anonymous Coward]

How about funding the University of California so we can have more scientists than beurocrats? Or figure out what to do with the gang-infested areas of LA? Nope, the governemnt has decided it is more important to shoot for the moon than to fix current problems that affect everyone.

Well, since I am not a student of UC nor do I live in the "gang-infested areas of LA" these problems don't affect me, so I guess your definition of "everyone" if a bit broad.

I would prefer it to be with adult and umbilical stem cells, because of the moral questions, though I am not against research using embryonic stem cells.

Because adult stem cells are limited in the types of cell-lines they can be coerced into, making them useless for certain types of treatments and of limited use even for the sorts of treatments their proponents support. Umbilical stem cells contain some undifferentiated stem cells, but they are more valuable for the treatments we already know we can perform using these cells. It is a bit difficult to convince the public to let you raid the existing stem cell banks for pure research when these same cells can be used to cure a child suffering from lukemia or other deadly disease.

I don't think the government should fund something that many of its citizens don't like.

Which is why we put it to a vote here. And guess what? Your side lost.

Get over it.

Re:other issues need money first

[dwbryson]

yes, the people directly voted for the measure, but who put the measure on the ballot?

I believe this measure was put on by the people. This in fact is how most of the 'measures' are put on the ballots each year.

Wikipedia says on the California government:

"The constitution can be changed by initiatives passed by voters. Initiatives can be proposed by the governor, legislature, or by popular petition, giving California one of the most flexible legal systems in the world. The constitution makes the California legislature bicameral, with a Senate and an Assembly."

Also, the governor and many other elected officials endorsed the measure. While in my original statement the use of the word "decided" was wrong, my point is still valid: the government is not working for all of the people first, as it should be.

I'm not sure what this actually means: "all of the people first".

In California we have democracy. Which means majority rules and government does whatever that majority says. Whether the decision is bad or good.

How much is Sergey paying CmdrTaco?

[Anonymous Coward]

How much is Sergey paying CmdrTaco for this coverup? We hear 50 stories about google per day and when one bad PR comes around, the cat's got slashdot's tongue?

Wake up to the conspiracy of Google and Slashdot. CmdrTaco & Sergey possible love partners?

Re:How much is Sergey paying CmdrTaco?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is probably the most plausible answer. Well done sir.

That's why I voted against it...

[Quiet_Desperation]

...despite being rabidly pro stem cell anything. Hell, I advocate using prisoners (lifers & death row) for medical research, and I support abortion up through the fifty-seventh trimester.

I warned everyone a new bureaucracy would be created, but do people listen to reason? Nooooo...

A small team of people with the required expertise working out of some existing offfice and handing out checks is all that is needed.

Re:That's why I voted against it...

[MerlynEmrys67]

Why does it take 50 people to write checks. assume a research project is 10 million a year (and that is pretty low by the time you get into interesting medical equipment, and highly trained profesionals) that is 30 checks a year... that is about .6 checks written per person. I write about 6 checks a month just paying bills... more if you count automatic stuff.

Tell me why they need 50 people again ?

Re:That's why I voted against it...

[JDevers]

I'm not in stem cell research, but I am in molecular biology so I have at least a bit of a point of reference. Only an almost insignificant number of grants are for 10 million a year, most are in the 60,000-500,000 range. The overall plan is probably to support one or two really large foundation building type grants (where really expensive things like confocal scopes are purchased). That takes up a small subset of their yearly budget and then they dole out the rest of the money in much smaller packets, remember this is almost like taking the place of the NIH and NSF in the stem cell area...they aren't trying to just get their names spread around by having buildings named after them. This will fund science, not construction. If they fund 500 proposals a year (I would say that is far closer to reality than 30), that means they get a minimum of 5,000 proposals to REVIEW a year (and that is assuming one in ten get approved, which isn't even close to reality in the national picture). While they will convene panels to do much of the reviewing, internal employees will chair those panels and also do all the completeness checking etc. I would say that of those 50 employees, less than 20 will be "check writers" most of the rest will be receptionists, data entry clerks, secretaries, and other office personel. So, while still not a bad job to have, it is far from the one check per year per person you perceive.

It's not $300M It's $3B

[Palal]

The Yahoo article is not entirely correct. The allowed amount is anywhere from $300M to $3B.

reminds me of a voyager episode just recently

[Adult film producer]

The holographic doctor (whatever his name is, EMH?) is faced with a tricky surgical procedure that involves removing face-sucking-alien from one of the klingon chick. His technical prowess is not up to the task so he creates another holographic doctor based on the research database of a infamous alien doctor that employed nazi'ish and genocidal techniques in his bio/health research.. Of course the episode revolves around this ethical dilemma for the most part and explores the ramifications of using such knowledge... In the end, the captain/doctor toss aside the ethics to save one of their crew.

I don't believe, at least as far as I know, there was much debate about using the research the nazi's compiled with their experiments on unwilling test subjects. At least not public debate, I'm sure in some medical circles there was some dialogue over the subject but in general westerners didnt put up much fuss about it..

So why all of a sudden is there such a mess being made of the research of aborted fetus tissues? If a medical discovery for the treatment of parkinsons or diabetes or whatever that was based on the research of these dead fetuses, then don't get the treatment.. don't empower or support people that do that kind of research, if God wants you to suffer, so be it and accept it... pretend it's one of his tests of faith or whatever.. this is all part of his grand scheme/plan right?

Re:reminds me of a voyager episode just recently

[Anonymous Coward]

Even the Voyager episode was pretty much about a non-issue IMHO, and in this case, there's even less of an issue.

Embryonic stemm cells most certainly don't come from fetuses. They're present long before the formation of recognizable organs or a human-like shape.

Ok, obviously there are some people who would consider even a fertilized egg or a blastocyst (a spherical lump of about a hundered cells) "human", despite the fact that many of those don't end up developing into humans, in any case.

Re:reminds me of a voyager episode just recently

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should I, as a resident of Claifornia, be forced to pay taxes which support what I and a significant number of my fellow-citizens (well over 20%) find to be abhorrent?

Re:reminds me of a voyager episode just recently

[bVork]

I think the idea is that you should vote for people who will use tax money for things you agree with. If you don't like what the current government is doing, vote them out.

Also, to spin your question around... why should the vast majority of people (well over 70%) residing in California be prevented from paying taxes that support something they think will have significant future benefits?

Re:reminds me of a voyager episode just recently

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about where you live, but here in California, a significant majority of the population voted to do just that. It's called democracy. I realize that word doesn't appear in the Bible, so you may have trouble with it; I recommend the Oxford English Dictionary as a reference.

Re:reminds me of a voyager episode just recently

[saldek]

Why should I be forced to pay taxes which support the army?

Re:you can do stem cell research with federal mone

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, fertility clinics destroy embryos that will never be implanted or have the potential to become human beings -- each one a potential source of a new stem cell line -- every day.

They do have the potential to become (adult) human beings. This is why they are called human embryos. What they do not have is the opportunity to be human beings -- because they are destroyed.

Re:why are we funding an industry rolling in dough

[BTWR]

scandals like Vioxx...

I'll say this... as a medical student, I believe that Vioxx, Celebrex and Bextra are 3 of the greatest medications created in the last 25 years. They have helped HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of arthritis, lupus, scleroderma, spondylitis and dozens of other disease-sufferers with their pain that was NOT helped by typical ibuprofen-like drugs.

The whole anti-Vioxx thing is, in my opinion, driven largely (not *entirely*, but largely) by the malpractice lawyers. I was visiting my grandmother in Fort Lauderdale (grandparent capital of florida) the week the Vioxx story broke, and literally, the next day there were ads in the paper to sue Merck, special flyers, and billboards. It's absolutely insane.

Here's the thing: if Merck knew of the risks, and buried it, which is suspected but NOT PROVEN, then let them burn. However, taking into account that a) Vioxx dangers seem to come from people that took WAY more than a usual amount and b) Bextra or Celebrex were never proven to be harmful and now might be taken off the market (Bextra already is), it's the American people that will suffer. The lawyers will make out fine.

And every one of those little grandmas that signs up for the class-action suit will each get $1,000 of the $200-million settlement, while the 15 lawyers will split a 30% cut of $60 million.

have some little bit patented so it can't be cloned by generic drug companies

Lemme guess: You think drug companies are "evil corporations," right? People like you just don't get it. 1 out of every 10 drugs is profitable. OK? Every 9 chemotherapy drugs which are unprofitable is funded by the 1 Viagra or Advair. I say thank heaven/buddah/karma/Linus (pick your deity) for the fact that drug companies can make a profit from medications. You really think the gov't would be so quick to develop medications? It's the profit that drives the research, and I say that it's win-win. Sure, each cancer pill costs 10 cents to make, but that's the second pill: the first one cost $300 million. If you make Pfizer spend $300 million to develop a drug, then say "Thanks! We'll now clone that and sell it to everyone for 30 cents!" then Pfizer will bacially have to suck it up. BUT... they sure as hell won't be spending a quart-billion next time to make it, and they'll stick to acne and penis pills for middle and upper-class people. People like you want a quick solution which will ultimately doom billions.

Go Arnold

[carcosa30]

Support of stem cell research, even going against the White House party line to do so, is the only good thing I know of that The Governator has done during his term in office.

As a biotechnological monster himself, he knows that we shouldn't be running away from technology. Also, he may be getting worried that the cancer chickens are going to come home to roost.

It's much more of a scam than you'd expect

[billstewart]

They're doing something like $3B in bond issues up front, and after they've borrowed all the money and gotten it locked in to their non-profit corporation, *then* they'll start doling it out over many years. That means that there's no way for the state government to control it, or to cut back the amount of money if they get into budget trouble or if they're not satisfied with the results. It's a great deal for the scammers who end up running it, but it's also going to cut down on the state's willingness to invest in other science projects.

While much of the opposition to the bond issue was from those of us with ethical objections to the research, as well as objections to using bonds to fund things that should be funded from general-fund tax revenues instead, some of the strongest arguments against the proposition in the official debates were made by people who support government-funded stem cell research and thought that the whole project was an overpriced scam.

Re:why are we funding an industry rolling in dough

[tonydiesel]

Simple - drug companies cannot be trusted to do this kind of research. And, to be honest - we shouldn't let them fund this kind of research. Recent reports have shown that something like 80 percent of the results reported for research funded by drug companies is favorable, while only 60 percent (I think, maybe less) is favorable for independent, government funded studies.

We do not want the drug companies tainting stem cell research with their money - too many of them will cook the books to make it appear more favorable than it really is. If stem cells do yield something, I want to know for sure that I can trust the results.

It's about time

[Zoyd]

Thank God. Now I can get some hair and some teeth.

No Big Surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

This is no big surprise. SF was the city best suited for the facility due to the all of the biotech-related businesses based in the bay area combined with the prestige of the city over some place like Emeryville. I'm definitely glad they got it as opposed to some other place getting it based solely on politics.

Re:No Big Surprise

[chialea]

San Diego has UCSD, which is quite active in all kinds of biomedical research. They get a crapload of research funding for it, as well. Obviously they can't take this money from the state, but there may well be quite a few biotech firms that popped up around UCSD.

That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Lea

but will it last

[m0llusk]

California has $80 billion in debt, continues to loose about $10 billion per year, bonds are the lowest level of junk there is, and creditors are saying no more. It might be interesting to see if the full $3 billion promised ever gets payed out given that California is about as broke as a state can get.

$300,000,000

[sl4shd0rk]

The research grants are the same price as the 17000 square feet of building space.

About that Viagra thing

[danratherfan]

Viagra was discovered serendipitously in 1992 when Pfizer was researching a drug for angina. They noticed that some of their patience were getting hard ons, but the drug wasn't helping their angina. The rest of course, is history.

The drugs you've seen come out since viagra all use the same mechanism to produce an erection. Just in case you thought they hit upon it by anything but dumb luck. You're right about it being profitable, though.

What, not Kansas???

[Phocas]

But everyone knows Kansas is the place to be for top notch biological science...

Makes perfect sense...

[argStyopa]

1. borrow money you don't have
2. use it to fund an office of people who won't actually work
3. ...
4. profit!

Re:you can do stem cell research with federal mone

[Anonymous Coward]

no, they did have the potential to become humans. Sorry bud but I don't think these embryos are going to be implanted anytime soon so it's destruction or destruction for a purpose.

I'd choose the one with a purpose but fundie idiots and republican zealots seem to think that it would be better to just destroy them all. /Doesn't think the contamination was an accedent.

CA voters taxing themselves into debt

[Doppler00]

It never amazes me how ignorant the CA voting population is. People wonder how this state got into so much debt, well it's exactly because of things like this where the public gets swayed into voting for more tax increases on unneccessary services.

If companies want to make a profit on stem cell research, let them do it with their own wallet. These grants are simply going to make the state go further into debt.

Plans call for a 17,000-square-foot office with a maximum of 50 employees who will help dole out nearly $300 million in research grants annually over 10 years.

No actual stem cell research is planned at the headquarters, but supporters said winning the bid would give the successful city scientific and marketing prestige that can be used to attract biotechnology companies.

So this means that every citizen of California is funnelling money into the city of San Francisco? Hmm.... is it just me or does it seem like some favors are being traded around here? My guess is that maybe 20% of the money actually goes to research if not less.

Re:CA voters taxing themselves into debt

[xkztvft]

Your guess won't be allowed under Proposition 71 From a legislative analyst: "Under the measure, any funding needed for various bond-related costs (for example, the cost of administering the bond sales) would be deducted before bond proceeds were spent for other purposes. The institute would be able to use up to 3 percent of the remaining bond proceeds for general administrative costs and up to an additional 3 percent for administrative costs associated with grantmaking activities. The remaining funds would be used for the grants and loans for research and research facilities. Priority for research grant funding would be given to stem cell research that met the institute's criteria and was unlikely to receive federal funding. In some cases, funding could also be provided for other types of research that were determined to cure or provide new types of treatment of diseases and injuries. The institute would not be allowed to fund research on human reproductive cloning. Up to 10 percent of the funds available for grants and loans could be used to develop scientific and medical research facilities for nonprofit entities within the first five years of the implementation of the measure." http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/propositions/prop7 1-analysis.htm or you can read the whole thing here: http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/propositions/prop7 1text.pdf

Re:CA voters taxing themselves into debt

[Anonymous Coward]

So this means that every citizen of California is funnelling money into the city of San Francisco? Hmm.... is it just me or does it seem like some favors are being traded around here?

If you'd RTFA, you'd have seen that San Francisco is offering a $17 million set of perks (including 10 years free rent, free furniture, and almost $1 million worth of free hotel rooms). Now, if the Stem Cell Agency HQ brings in more than $17 million in perks to San Francisco over the next ten years, then yes, the taxpayers of California will be "funneling money into the city of San Francisco". However, at this point it is just as likely that San Francisco will not receive $17 million back, and San Francisco will end up subsidizing the Stem Cell Agency for the whole state.

Re:"Ban" --- Pleeeeze... Get it Right just once.

[xkztvft]

Do you know why the facilities that do embryonic research on new lines must do it exclusively? It's because the existing facilities were funded in part because of the federal government. The solution is then to set up facilities that won't suffer under federal government interference.

Corporate research is *not* the answer

[Anonymous Coward]

What I said was that government funding of science is a bad idea.

XanC, I'm going to have to disagree with you. I've done computer science research in an academic setting, and worked at two corporate research labs. I have found that people working alongside me in the academic settings produced far more useful and valuable research than those working in the corporate research labs.

The root cause of this seemed to be at least partly the "patent quota" (or "invention disclosure quota"). At least in my experience in academica, there is no requirement to produce N patents or invention disclosures per time period, whereas in a corporate setting, one often must produce N patents or N invention disclosures. This quickly produces the expected effect -- a large number of uninteresting-from-a-computer-science-standpoint set of patents that can be used by the company's legal department, with minimal or no advancement to the field of computer science. Trying to measure research achievement is difficult, true -- but those who work in a corporate research setting have strong pressure to justify their funding in a manner that can be directly applied to product production. And the easiest way to do this in a generic fashion is simply to count how many pieces of IP you have produced.

Note that I *do* think that corporate research makes a lot of sense for very applied research -- when some things with risk attached are tried, where a company is trying something technically new in an area that it does not yet have any customers, but from the beginning knows what kind of a product it is trying to produce. When it comes to pushing ahead human knowledge, though, I have generally been pretty unimpressed with the culture fostered by corporate research. At the least, I do not view corporate research as a complete answer to the problem of how to push ahead technology. University and government-funded research has had a vastly disproportionate impact on the advancement of Internet technologies, for example. Even the popular-on-Slashdot Google Labs started their work on their central achievement, text searching of the Web, at Stanford.

XanC, your attitude is one of the most important problems I have with many libertarians and other advocates of a universal laissez-faire approach to knowledge production -- in the real world, corporate research is simply not stunningly effective when compared to academia at bringing new ideas into play.

Take, for instance, medical technology. I'm not saying that Merck would *suppress* a cure for AIDS if it stumbled upon one, but it is overwhelmingly in its interests to fund research work to find drugs that suppress symptoms of illnesses than to fund research that attempts to find techniques to cure those same illnesses.

Goverment funding of research is, in my view, one of the most important duties that government has. Goverment exists to solve public good problems. Research is an absolutely perfect example of a game-theoretic public good problem -- work must be done that is in no individual entity's short-term interest, but is almost always in everyone's long-term interest. Frankly, I'd like to see *more* funding be provided to the NSF (and while I won't attempt to argue for this, I wish that some DARPA funding was transfered to the NSF -- the contortions that some people go through to transform their (useful) research into something with military application so that they can obtain DoD money is astounding).

This is, of course, just my two cents. I think that the fact that the United States is a leader in producing technology has far more to do with the fact that it has excellent research universities than with any claimed "corporate research culture" or with its strong intellectual property law.

I doubt that many people will sway one way or another based on one post on Slashdot, but I wanted to point out that there are those of us (in my experience, a majority) in the US research world who disagree with the current US IP e

Re:"Ban" --- Pleeeeze... Get it Right just once.

[diaphanous]

Most medical researchers insist that embrionic stem cells have less potential than other types of stem cells

This simply is not true. Perhaps you heard this claim from someone else and accepted it, but please stop repeating this claim.

Unfortunately people who know better are lying about the usefulness of embryonic stem cells, because it serves their agenda. It's one thing to oppose embryonic stem cell research because one believes it is unethical, but it's deceptive and insulting to attempt to shape public debate by lying about the science.

Adult stem cells are good and useful; they are used in existing medical treatment, and research on them should continue. However, the fact is that they are more limited that embryonic stem cells. There isn't any scientific dispute about this.

As an organism develops from a fertilized egg, cells become restricted into what sort of tissue they can become. This restriction occurs because each kind of cell has a different set of its genes active depending on its type. The set of active genes is proximally dependent on (at least):

1) Which transcription factors are present in the cell. Transcription factors are proteins that associate with DNA and turn genes on or off.

2) Chemical modifications to DNA itself("methylation") and to histones ("acetylation"). Histones are proteins which package up DNA within the cell.

The current state of the cell is determined in a history-dependent fashion by the previous state of the transcription factors and chemical modifications. The farther you get from the initial embryonic state- the more changes the cell has been through, the more specific in its abilities the cell becomes, but also the more restricted in it's capability to spin off new developmental fates.

To us, this is mostly a good thing. This developmental winnowing is what allows us to have different tissue types: neurons, blood cells, muscle cells, etc. And we probably want our cell types to be stable: we don't want our brains to have any chance of suddently becoming muscle! But there is a trade off: by losing our embryonic generative capacity we gain variety in our bilities, but lose flexibility.

The potency (the range of cell types that the cells can develop into) of embryonic stem cells is much wider than those of adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells can develop into any tissue type (this is called "pleuripotency"), while adult stem cells can develop into a one or a few different kinds of tissues ("unipotency" or "multipotency"). This is the main reason that researchers are interested in embryonic stem cells.

Future stem cell-base medical discoveries and treatments will almost certainly need to utilize the full generative capabilites of embryonic stem cell, abilities that great exceed what adult stem cells can offer.

Cloning

[thomn8r]

Looks like the gay reproductive issue is solved...

Clarification Entry

[Kobun]

Rather than type it all out again, the Wikipedia article does it very nicely. Check out the section on the policy debate in the U.S.

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