Slashdot Mirror
Stem Cell Research in a Judge's Hands
deman1985 wrote to mention a San Francisco Chronicle article discussing the future of stem cell research in California. The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine has had a suit filed against it for doling out money to stem cell research groups, and the future of the organization is now in the hands of the Judge on the case. From the article: "The taxpayers groups said that at least five members of the 29-member board have conflicts because they are University of California officials and the school's various campuses have already applied for stem cell grants. Others on the board are biotechnology executives and investors whose investments could benefit from stem cell grants."
America in and of itself would be a great country.
I wanted to abuse them like a red-headed stepchild.
I don't remember exactly what the numbers were, but as I recall this proposition passed in CA by a large margin. Even if it has to be passed again, I think it will be. This will be at most a temporary setback.
...masturbation jokes.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
C'mon editors. Are you guys just trying to drive this site into the ground? Every day, this place has been less news for nerds, and more politics for left-wing idiots.
This is really an arm of SlashKos now. Politics stories practically every day fill up the front page, and hardly any of them are really about real politics.
I remember once CmdrTaco said that this place wasn't about politics, but that exactly has happened. I guess pagehits and flamewars are easier than real news for geeks.
"Others on the board are biotechnology executives and investors whose investments could benefit from stem cell grants."
Meanwhile, the people who will benefit the most from stem cell research must continue to suffer disabilities while governments and special interest groups keep beating each other with their dicks!
Maybe if CmdrBush wouldn't say stupid things like, "stop animal-human hybrid research" and thus make scientific research a political issue he's against, then speaking up for scientists' rights wouldn't be an "anti-Bush left wing" thing.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
As far as I can tell, the stem cell agency was created as much as a backhand to Bush for not supporting stem cell work on a federal level as it was to actually get some work done. Well, the work isn't getting done.
Personally, I'd like to see some good come of this. Unfortunately, when a public agency is born out of controversy, unified support is hard to come by.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
The institute which is being sued was a direct result of the passing of California's Proposition 71.
n tire.pdf
The proposition basically said that a institute would be created to oversee applications and grants of stem cell research, and fund said research by issuing bonds worth up to $350million per year, up to a maximum of $3billion overall.
It's ironic that the representativesof the voters that voted this bill in are the ones that are now suing the institute the bill created, completely ignoring the fact that the bill itself states that funding deliberations are exempt from the state's open-meeting law.
Go read it, it's all here: http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov04/prop_71_e
They voted for something they DID NOT READ AND UNDERSTAND FULLY. This is a sad reality in today's elections; very rarely you find anyone who actually knows what they're voting for, instead following the misleading propaganda out there, with stupid statements like "If you don't pass this bill, millions of kids will die!". Just check out the homepage for the institute itself:
http://www.curesforcalifornia.com/
Sometimes, it boggles the mind how ignorant and idiotic my fellow Californians can be....
"We'll need 2000 crickets, 4 cans of Easy Cheese, and the fluid from 18 glowsticks for this plan to work...." - ph0n1c
..all tech news is surrounded by the stench of governments doing everything they can to hold back any scientific, medical, and technological advancement.
Want politics out of tech? Write your congressman.
I'll say!
I'd be happy to give my scientific opinion about almost anything if I could do it in a secret meeting!
Religous people trying to stop research.
. html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.01/cadavers
TO all of those who say this should not be on slashdot..BS!..This is as scientific as nasa, nano technology or anythign else.
This did pass with a wide margin during the last elections, and they really need to shape this up. I think any college applying for grants should not have people on the board..Its called bias, and there are not enough people in the political system who do not have it.
I believe that the more schools help themselves without the grants, the more they should get because of the grants..Instead of putting all thier money into sports, cheerleading and Aestetic purposes, put it into something useful..
We have already proven that this is the next step in curing disabilities, regrowing missing parts(such as teeth..imagine never having to get dentures or an implant), possibly even giving hearing back to the deaf, sight back to the blindies, and possibly(they theorize) regrowing limbs..
If you dont call this science(which is one of the major categories on slashdot) then tell me what do you consider science? All robots and machines..If so i feel sorry for you!
This is not flamebait post, no is it trolling, for people who look at this and shun it, wait until the day they need this science for themselves...I have heard Christians who shun this, until the break thier back, then the whole argument is completely reversed and they are all for it.
~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
Hey, if stopping animal-human hybrid research can mean "jail and slaugther each and every furry i'd probably vote for him too, even though i'm not american right now.
Long live to the Fursecution
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
From TFA: The three tax payers groups are led by Gene Hackman ...
Timmyyyy!
from where the rest of the world stand the only thing on the right is USA, the political term "the left" has lost all meaning in the US, its either "right wing" or "far right wing" or where your current goverment stand is more correctly termed "facists"
so thats quite a sizeable audience left who are on "the left"
ever thought that spouting "left vs right" is part of your problem, bit like "you are with us or with the terrorists" mantra your supreme leader spouts
you really have no idea how much damage your current regime is doing to your image globally, but you will realise it, right about when Bin Laden and his sickos get their "revenge" for all that torture and oppression you have brought to his friends in the name of "freedom"
you keep kicking dogs and they will bite
The judge will hopefully rule in favor of stalling this. Prop 71 uses taxpayer funds and this will never go away. Even though it's s'posed to expire in 10 years, it will keep getting renewed and we CA taxpayers get to foot the bill. More CA spent on research that may go nowhere. The fact that embrionic stem cell research isn't largely funded elsewhere in the world should be a big hint that the controversy isn't just religious. The private sector doesn't want to invest in this. That should speak volumes about even the scientific community's faith (pardon the pun) in embrionic stem cell research.
As far as CA judges go, they CONSTANTLY overturn voter approved initiatives. Prop 187, passed in 1994, forbids funding for just about anything for illegal immigrants. But a judge overturned it, and this is just one of many bills passed by whopping margins that a judge has said "no way" to.
It's sad the $3 billion of tax payer funds won't go to adult stem cell research, where the results have been forthcoming. There's been
Of course, most of those studies are funded already. Maybe it's because venture capitalists don't want to throw good money at bad research. Sadly, the CA taxpayer does.
I didn't read it . I thought it was another of a countless attacks on stem cell research by religous groups.
Typical liberal slashdot poster. No social skills, angry because he got picked on as a kid, no real-world intelligence. Pimply, too, I'll bet.
Read the article, you fucktard. "Alameda County Superior Court." This is a STATE judge. You really have no idea what the difference is between the state and federal level, do you? Go mod your PC case and leave real world issues to the 99% of socially normal people out there.
At quick glance I read Sperm "Cell Research in a Judge's Hands"...nevermind, form your own joke about it...
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." ~Thomas Jefferson, 1802
It's shame that American forefathers' words have gone completely unheard. One would think that these men had it correct, given America's dominance in the world today. Why then is the government still making descisions based soley on religion and not on scientific advancement. If God did not intend for us to discover the miracle of life (DNA, stem cells, etc) he would not have made our minds capable of understanding them.
Almos every memeber of congress is a member of the Bar association. Clearly, they have a vested interest in passing laws which benefit lawyers. Based on the proposed argument, no member of the Bar should be allowd to serve in Congress.... My God.. that is a great idea!!! Eliminate the conflict of interest... Why are these people worried about something as insignificant as funding stem-cell research when there are real opportunities to eliminate conflicts of interest.
What's happened to Slashdot? Almost half of the articles recently seem to be Politics or Your Rights Online with political leanings. What happened to the tradition of News For Nerds? Technology news that truely piques the interest of techies. I get more than enough political garbage from TV and the radio, and when I turn to the Internet to read interesting technology articles I find more politics. I'm just so sick of politics and am worried that Slashdot will turn into a political website and bail on it's techie roots...so I thought I would rant about it. What do others think?
You can wipe those "stem cells" out of your hands with a towel and get back to work.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
For it to be stem cell research the stuff in his hand would need to combine with an ovum.
If scientists were allocating $3 billion in public funds for research then I doubt that embryonic stem cell research would be allocated very much. Energy research would be the highest priority. The demand for Bush bashing is far higher than the actual demand for embryonic stem cell research. The proposition was also sold on many false promises, like the promise that the research would pay for itself. If their promises were true than there would be no need for public funding. There are also constitutional problems with open meetings, conflict of interest, and the use of tax-exempt bonds for taxable assets.
We would be much better off if the funds raised to pass the initiative had been used for research instead.
Seriously, early Christianity (or at least organized Christianity in the Catholic church) has tended to not like Science and anything that didn't have to do with the Church.
Remember Copernicus? Galieo?
Back then, Islam was more into science and learning. Remember most of the Greek works that would have been lost during the dark ages were saved by Islamic Scholars and later made their way back into Europe after 1400's.
Even though today, being religious shouldn't mean that you are against science and knowledge. But some are... Most people aren't however including the Papacy which has apologized for its stances in the middle ages against said scientists.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I'm not sure when Markos Moulitsas Zuniga snuck in here and stole Slashdot, but can we have it back, please?
How many political articles does this make this week?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Its not about helping people, its about making a buck.
if someone happents to be cured along the way, so much the better.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
To be more exact, the future of Proposition 71 funding of stem cell research is in question. There is still other stem cell research going on in California, and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine has started doing private fundraising, having raised $30 million so far:
http://www.islet.org/forum/messages/41345.htm
Yes, but Christianity theology is based heavily on Plato, and later Aristotle, which science owes a lot to. Yes, the West was reintroduced to the Greeks through Islam, but it was theologians and philosophers, not scientists, who were introduced. Historically, the courage that scientific inquiry would find some sort of answer in an ordered world grew in part out of faith in a creator. Kepler famously believed the Sun should be at the center of the solar system because he found it a fitting place for God to live. The Catholic Church has, in general, been a great patron of both the arts and of the sciences. Galileo found the Church at a bad time, when it was politically reeling from the Reformation. In fact, Copernicus published his theory with the blessing of the Church, which makes the persecution of Galileo all the more historically interesting.
I'm a fairly well informed Californian, who voted against this measure. It was a boondoggle from the get go. And only gets worse with time.
I voted against the measure for one simple, obvious fact. The supporters sold this to the state as a moneymaker. That it was a "can't lose" "investment" and that any research that was commercialized would send money back to the state, more than sufficient to repay the bonds, etc. Of course if that was the case, and that there was tons of medical cash to be made. Then private companies would already be funding this research.
Basically, *ANY* sure fire, guaranteed investment, where there our outsized returns that are 100% guaranteed is going to have people lined up around the block to get in on it. And the State has no need to float a massive bond to fund it. The market will throw money at anything even remotely like that.
So the basic premise that the measure was sold to the voters on, was a blatant lie. There's never been any guarantee at all that the taxpayers of Calif wouldn't be on the hook for the whole 3 Billion.
And since the measure was passed, it's only gotten to be less of a deal for the residents of Calif.
The part that the article referenced neglected to mention. Is that there are now some questions about the legality of the measure as it was passed. Specifically, now that they have all the $$ they wanted, they have discovered a tax issue. In order for the bonds to be issued as tax-free issues, then the state can't use the monies in profit making enterprises. So the State can't compel the grant recipients to pay the state back, no matter how much the generate in revenue from the discoveries that the taxpayers are now funding for them. And apparently the legal/tax ramifications of all of that were made clear to the primary boosters of the measure *before* the election. And they just neglected to mention that to the voters at all. They just kept selling how it was a "sure thing" investment. And the bonds are FAR less appealing in the market, and FAR more expensive to issue, if they aren't tax free bonds.
Anytime anyone tells you they have a sure fire investment, guaranteed to make you rich beyond your wildest dreams, RUN the other way, tightly clutching your wallet. A lesson that the state will be learning the hard way, this time around.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
and how stupid you sound? Seriously, there's little difference between your soap box and the soap box the crazy religious zealots are standing on. Your typical political rhetoric aside, you seem to be totally clueless about how research is conducted, or why many religious (and non-religious) people are against stem cell research. In other words, you don't have a fucking clue.
First, the major issue most of the zealots have seems to be pretty justified to me. They don't want human beings (surprise, embryos are human too!) *harvested* for the sake of other human beings. I'd say that's a pretty legitimate moral and ethical ground to be standing on. You might be able to prove that slavery is scientifically more efficient, or beneficial to humanity, or some other nonsense (such as a dedicated caste system), but that wouldn't be very moral or ethical in a free society, now would it?
Now, unfortunately, there's a good share of extreme zealot technophobos out there who will jump from using dead embryos -> harvesting them for $$$. It's this group that I have a problem with (and if you knew what the fuck you were talking about, I imagine you would as well). *This* minority of religious people are either ignorant of the facts on the matter (true for many religious people) or are too arrogant to believe that they're wrong (the real root of the problem).
Now, here's a newsflash: There are companies in the United States conducting stem cell research. I know, you're 'omfgwtfholyshitbbq batman'ing your pants right now because you thought the ebil President stopped it. Infact, he didn't stop it, he simply said FEDERAL money will not go to stem cell research. While *I* do not subscribe to his notion that this is the right step for the advancement of medical science, I acknowledge and accept the fact that there are legitimate ethical and moral concerns in regards to stem cell research that must be dealt with by society as a whole before things go too far (such as stem cells being commercialized).
You need to step back and read up on the subject before opening your mouth like a dumbass and posting on Slashdot. Hey, at least you're not an Anonymous Coward like I am!
All that has *EVER* been banned, is federal funding of research. If there are so many promising avenues out there, just begging to be investigated, so they can yield fabulous, cheap treatments, then private reseach, funded by private dollars will find them.
Anyone that thinks that a government operation funded by someone elses money can make more rational decisions that a private company investing it's hard earned $$ needs to have their head examined.
If the market says that it's a losing bet, I don't want to fund that bet w/ my tax dollars instead. Unfortunately, my fellow voters in this state, aren't as smart.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
There are a lot of stem cells out there. There is no actual need to use embryonic cells. The popular press and most people think of the two as the same thing, they are not, one is specific, the other is general. There is a clear cut and obvious (and quite dangerous) slippery slope using embryos, so it is better to focus research on all the other sources.
The "beauty" of the proposition system in Calif, is that the voters can create laws without the involvement of the Legislature of the governator.
The good news is that you can get stuff done, that the big bucks special interest types might otherwise oppose.
The bad news is that with a little spit, polish, and a marketing campaign you can blow smoke up peoples asses till they feel all warm inside, and will vote for just about anything.
So now we have 2 paths for creating laws. Corrupt politicians, or stupid voters.
Can I take door #3 please? Pretty please?
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
You can people names but it doesn't change a thing.
It must be said...
That link is worthless without pictures.
The actual wisdom of large government grants for this is questionable, but once they start giving out checks, who are they going to give them to?
Who has R&D facilities besides universities with great medical and research programs and biotech companies? Some guy who wants to do a start-up in his garage? Goodwill? That'll put people to work! Seriously, the only way you can benefit from a grant like this is if you *already* have made huge investments in facilities. If there's anyone else who can do this research, please enlighten me.
Currently the 'Market Space' for stem cell biotechnology is estimated to be worth more than 15 times more money
than being spent in all the computer software/hardware technology market space. Ba-hig Phat Loot, so to speak.
A number of well intentioned people asked if it was better for America to cash in on that money pie,
or if America should be cow-towing to anti-scientist, Intelligent Duhsigning, Book Burning, women beating,
stem cell banning FunDuhMentalists.
In California, rational people voted down the American Taliban types who would replace Biology with Bible Study.
American citizens should not have to fly out to Asia to get basic health care.
I'm sure that $3 Billion research pork barrel in California has quite a few 'interesting' grants and connections going on,
but by and large - I would rather have the USA develop and market said stem cell biotechnology, than have the USA become dependent
on yet another foreign producer.
May the best company win!
Three: Two; One, Fight!
A blog about stuff.
I wouldn't do it. I'm against it, using embryos, and yes it is a slippery slope that was passed into barbarism as far as I am concerned, a long time ago. I am way pro technology, but also pretty strong proponent of human rights, ALL humans, not just the ones certain groups pick and choose from. I was a civil rights worker, meaning I think we all have them, born with them, back when it meant personal physical danger. I feel that strongly about this issue of human rights. Not rights for this human but not that human, ALL humans.
I think the entire idea of farming humans for parts is disgusting, it is a violation of civil rights deluxe, and just because something is currently legal doesn't make it un-disgusting to me. I'm against current "war on some drug" laws. it's still a law or "legal" that they can restrict hemp for medicinal purposes for instance. Ethically I think that's wrong. I don't care if it is the law, it's still wrong and I'll say so if I think it.
And so on. I am not the least bit shy on ethical issues as opposed to "laws". When you restrict someone's freedoms, you restrict all of ours, and starting with the very very very youngest then switching to the most elderly, our society is de-evolving into a "too inconcenient, get rid of them, or use them for some commercial purpose" mentality.
Disgusting.
And yes, given the utterly shameful and disgusting track record of the "eugenics movement" in the 20th century, I think it's safe to say that people would eventually be killed for parts, in fact, I think the practice goes on in china openly right now, where a variety of "crimes" get you the death sentence pretty readily and your parts sold. Maybe a quick buck might have something to do with sentencing? And no telling if it is going on other places, I bet it is though.
And the potential for on purpose human cloning for parts is right here right now with the tech we have. And it all starts with embryos, and treating them as commercial products to be bought and sold and fooled around with, and works up from there. And I don't have a dividing line, because none exist that are of any credible worth (IMO), so you are left with the creation of the embryo as the starting point.
Just because something is possible to do is no reason it should be done. For another for instance, I would support a global ban on nuclear weapons research, period, right this second if such a thing was possible.
Humans won't be able to socially evolve until we become mature enough to say NO to some things based on collective ethics. We've tried the mass "yes, anything goes" method, it is somewhat lacking... Once you drop everything to a dollars and cents level as your primary criteria of "worth", then life becomes too cheap, and it gets treated as a commodity. Once "convenience" becomes acceptable in disposing of humans, then life has gotten too cheap, something socialy is out of whack. what do souless corporations call their employees now again? Oh ya, "human resources" like so many tons of coal. Who has the best deal on a wholesale lot of "human resources" today?
See? Disgusting.
I'm still *totally in favor of stem cell research*, to be clear, there's a ton of promise there and I welcome all of it, just not embryonic. As to the other issues about how all those embryos get there in the first place where they become "disposable" and "we might as well use them then", that's another topic for another time.
..and then we'll see where the hypocrites are when cures and treatments for horrible diseases appear.
..don't panic
Disclosure: Resident of California. I recall voting against this proposition, using a paper ballot (we have the choice), though I have no idea if my vote was actually counted.
In this case I wonder if maybe it's not possible for all of the following to be true about each member of such an advisory board:
The board is supposed to be chosen based on "knowledge and experience"; that implies that they're "in the field", and so the first two are clearly true but the last two probably are not.
Would we want people _not_ to be knowledgeable about that matter? I don't think so; that would ensure bad decisions. There's enough specialization involved that there's no other way to make informed judgements, as I understand things.
But that basically means people are getting paid to work in that field, so there's no way they can be completely free of financial interest in the series of outcome. How much conflict is acceptable? Catch-22
For that matter, "unbiased" is in practice impossible. If you could get people who don't have a financial interest, they may still have so-called "religious" interests. (Right, we believe life is sacred. Except if your skin color doesn't match ours, or maybe you're a woman. Or maybe your politics are different, or you have some resource -- oil maybe? -- we want.) And with this much money, kickbacks can easily create conflicts of interest where none existed before.
Now, I'd absolutely agree that the Bushistas have damaged an important-for-humanity area of scientific research, and I support doing that work, especially here in California where frankly a lot of the work it would be done in any case. (Even given the way our school systems got trashed by Prop-13.) I read that strong "pass" for stem-cell research as being fundamentally an extremely well deserved slap in the face to certain fascist trends.
But I don't quite see how throwing that much money into a process that's brand new (and hence by definition broken) is the solution we want.
Anyone that thinks that a government operation funded by someone elses money can make more rational decisions that a private company investing it's hard earned $$ needs to have their head examined.
So it is a hatred of governemnt that fuels the choice to delay treatments by reducing funding. Don't you want to see people cured? Don't you think that private organizations are raising money? Wouldn't you think that additional research being done, even with government money, will speed a cure, even if not as quickly as if it were perfectly managed in the manner you think it should be?
I always saw it as a religious issue. The people whining loudest about stem cell research don't complain as heavily about other disease research funded by the government. I can't recall anyone complaining about cancer research funds coming from the government, certainly not anyone that got national news coverage. Or maybe they were always there, but people thought them anti-government nuts and dismissed them. It wasn't until they could show pictures of dead babbies and claim that embryonic stem cells used for research kill babbies that they got on the news. If you are for a lost cause, just show how it hurts babbies or children, and show lots of pictures of them dead or dying. It works for so many other causes too.
Learn to love Alaska
I am against government funding of all research. Government is good at essentially nothing. It is a necessary evil since anarchy would be the complete lack of government. If stem cell reasearch was so promising then it would attract funding based on its merits. Why are you so quick to spend my money? Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. Why is research on stem cells more important than other research? Following your point, why is it that people that are pushing hardest for these funds are very much pro-abortion?
I for one don't mind that our tax dollars go for important research. What I DO MINE IS THAT THEY GIVE THIS MONEY, OUR TAX DOLLARS, TO COMPANIES THAT GET PATENT FOR THE RESEARCH. These publically funded research grant often result in the US TAX PAYER GETTING FUCKED OUT OF NOT ONLY MONEY BUT ACCESS TO THE RESULTS..........
COME ON MAN I THOUGH SLASH DOTTERS WERE SMART PEOPLE......
MORONS
Well, I don't know about your idea that all rational thought about money is based on profit motive. Expenditures that fuel the common good are not necessarily going to lead to short-term profit. For example, how about grade-school education? Clearly this is a public good in my mind that should be funded, although I am generally a libertarian philosophically. But few corporations would fun childhood primary education, nor should they. I prefer that the government fund it, but I would like to see them run privately. Similarly with some medical research. I think we should fund certain private research with government grants, with full visibility. My understanding is that the objections to this particular group is that they do not disclose their conflicts of interest, etc.
Currently hooked on AMP
Baloney. Private industry, by and large, does not fund basic research. They wait for governmentally funded research to get to a nearly-marketable place, and then take it up. Stem cell research is still a long way from being marketable, and thusly, big pharma is happy to sit around making obscene amounts of money from cialis, vioxx (doh), etc etc until we're 10 years down the road researchwise.
Anyone that thinks that a government operation funded by someone elses money can make more rational decisions that a private company investing it's hard earned $$ needs to have their head examined.
Anyone who thinks private companies spend more than a pittance on basic research needs to have their head examined. Speaking as a biomedical researcher, I can assure you that the vast majority of basic reasearch occurs in publically funded labs. The non-linear nature of basic scientific research means for-profit companies have little patience with it.
If the market says that it's a losing bet, I don't want to fund that bet w/ my tax dollars instead. Unfortunately, my fellow voters in this state, aren't as smart.
This fallacy of the market as an all-knowing, all-powerful, most-efficient means of everything, though accepted by you, is not accepted by everyone (including, fortunately, the majority of our fellow californians). There are many areas where market forces are applicable and positive...but basic biomedical research, like law enforcement, like road-building, like military protection, like public health, is simply not one of them.
-Ted
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
"Just to point out, that if you are against stem cell research, you must be against Invetro Fertilization because the cell are harvested from the discarded matrial of Invetro."
Just to point out, this statement isn't logically consistent in any way. In fact, it is completely backward logically, and makes no sense.
"I wouldn't mark your post as troll or flamebait, just ignorant."
Stones, glass houses, can't put together a coherent argumment but is snotty enough to call others ignorant...
No, I'd call your post a troll. Don't worry though, it's also ignorant.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
The other side of this, is that if a publicly funded research project leads to discoveries, they are available to all. If a private company through stem cell research finds a cure for cancer, guess what?
How much are you willing to pay for a cure for cancer, sir? 100,000? 200,000? 7 million?
No thanks, lets make this a public venue.
You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
I don't understand why people are against it. The Fetuses are already dead, so it's hardly a life to save life situation, and since most people against it for for the war in Iraq, I don't see how their opinions are relevant. This is exactly what happens when you let either uneducated officials or the common public decide on issues that they don't understand. The results from Stem Cell research are amazing, in 10 years we could be attatching heads to new bodies, I suppose that scares people! But it could lead us down a road where nothing is truly incurable. It's damn worth it, in my opinion. This is another example of right-wing nonsense holding back all progress for no logical reason. Some day, we may be able to synthesise Stem Cells, so it will not be a problem. But unless we research them, that will not become a reality. If anything, it means that the death of those fetuses was not a total waste. It's a good cause.
EpiAdv - if you like Pokey the Penguin, try this comic!
Europe is not as bigotted as America as we learned a lot from World War II. Saying that "Oh everywhere else is like that" is avoiding the issue completely. While you can't blame any specific person, there is very much so an "asshole culture" in America at the moment, which is reflected heavily on the internet with legions of trolls and totalarian ban-happy administrators. The Europreans are more sexual, actually. America's obsession is violence, not sex. Most people know this. A couple of nuts calling for GTA to be banned don't speak for the majority. And which one do you think is more harmful? Canada is the same. The video "Paranoid Android" by Radiohead was a very disturbing Video. In Canada and some places in Europe, they censored a violent scene where a man cut himself up with a Chainsaw. In America, they left that disturbing scene in, and instead censored some cartoon mermaid nipples instead. That, to me, is a wonderful example of the contrast of values between the U.S. and Canada & Europe.
EpiAdv - if you like Pokey the Penguin, try this comic!