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."
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.
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.
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
Please don't tell me you're so naive as to believe this taxpayers' group nonsense.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
Um...did you read the article. It sounded more like people had a problem with a commitee doling out 3 billion dollars without having to hold public hearings on who gets the money. No where did I read that a religious group was involved. This sounds more like "old as time...liberals blame 'right wingers' for something." btw, I am not religious nor against stem cell research so don't blame me.
These are a few people who lost on the ballot who are now resigned to purporting to represent voters. Hey, I got an idea, I'll create a group with my buddies, slap a "People for Tax Payers and Other Americans" then hold up any ballot initiative I don't like. Win for democracy and our representative form of government!
Californians voted for this. End of story, don't spin it.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
"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.
Oh, puhhhlease. That's the old Nazi/Imperial Japan justification.
You're claiming your hoped-for results justify the means, whatever those may be. That's intellectually and moraly bankrupt.
Your statement is the same line of thought that would promote "growing" human beings as unwilling test subjects for medical testing.
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
Your statement is the same line of thought that would promote "growing" human beings as unwilling test subjects for medical testing.
Yes, like how harvesting organs from people killed in accidents promotes "'growing' human beings as unwilling test subjects for medical testing."
Like how fertility clinics paying women for their eggs and men for their sperm promotes "'growing' human beings as unwilling test subjects for medical testing."
You're claiming your hoped-for results justify the means, whatever those may be.
That's funny, I seem to have missed the "whatever those may be" part. Maybe it's because (like many people) I don't consider it any sort of ethical issue to make use of stem cells. I don't see any need to "justify the means" because there are no "victims" to justify them to.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
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
..and then we'll see where the hypocrites are when cures and treatments for horrible diseases appear.
..don't panic