I haven't read much of the voluminous coverage of the recent stem cell breakthrough, covered by the Seattle Times in their "Close Up" today. Thus, I'm not sure if this angle has received much discussion yet, but I do hope that the scourge of beating the political drum of embryonic stem cell "cures" and related hyperbolic posturing has passed. John Edwards, circa 2004, encapsulated the worst of many examples of such antics (which have occurred locally as well). Our political discourse would be better if such irresponsible talk were behind us.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 21, 2007 07:49 AM | Email ThisTheir rationale is that the new studies using skin cells to create stem cells is not settled science - only a few positive studies.
I believe what this shows is that the debate was never about stem cells - its about abortion, and that stem cells were simply a wedge issue to obscure the truth of their cause.
Posted by: deadwood on November 21, 2007 08:24 AMLooks like MORE wasted money.
By the way, have we heard any cures form the pro-group?
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 21, 2007 08:33 AMAnd I hope the people who talked to Fox and Reeves had clear hearts and beliefs the embryonic cells held the most promise (whereas in reality, they were know to cause diseases, etc.).
I know I was torn on this issue.
Posted by: swatter on November 21, 2007 08:34 AMI seem to recall our own Queen has also dedicated tax money to the crusade. Will she use the same lame "not settled" argument here? I expect the answer will be affirmative.
Posted by: deadwood on November 21, 2007 08:44 AMI'm with you on this one, but the pro side hasn't been real truthful on their results. which has been zero.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 21, 2007 08:46 AMA lot of people (myself included) were torn by these appeals.
Posted by: deadwood on November 21, 2007 08:47 AMIn the abortion debate, there are pro-abortion, pro-choice and pro-life groups, e.g.
If you are referring to the pro-embryonic side, there have been no breakthroughs.
Posted by: swatter on November 21, 2007 08:58 AMYep that's what I was talking about. But you'll not hear a word about it. )-:
You notice that when newspapers print about stell cells, you have to hunt it down on which type it is. (sorry bunch)
I have always made the point, that is some eminent Liberal scientist came out and said that using embryos for research might have moral or just biological detriments the Blue States would be jumping up and down in assent. But if Bush says essentially the same thing, they go on automatic to oppose it!
Another example: does anyone in this country know about that Bush from the onset of his administration has been a champion of alternative energy such as hydrogen fuel cells? He's been funding it since 2001. In fact, he gave a major State of the Union speech in 2003 that emphasized alternative clean (green) energy -- wasn't that years before Al Gore's movie??
Posted by: John Bailo on November 21, 2007 09:40 AMStem cell research should not be subsidized by taxpayers. This is a special interest handout! It should be funded by the corporations and other private entities that stand to benefit from selling and providing the future cures that are developed. Federal money just distorts the market. It is much more likely than private funding to be spent on dead-end research. The WORST studies tend to get government grants and funding, because the government tends to do a bad job of identifying promising research compared to private organizations.
But neither should the federal government be restricting what kinds of research gets done in the US, as long as that research violates no rights.
So, does using fetal stem cells violate rights? That depends on when you assume rights begin. If at conception, then you can STILL use fetal stem cells from fetuses that were either spontaneously aborted, or were aborted in order to save the life of the mother.
But I don't think that the fetus acquires rights at conception. I think rights can only accrue after the fetal brain is complex enough to sustain consciousness, or a "soul." A soul can not inhabit a stem cell, it can only inhabit a complex enough brain. No one knows what this point is in fetal development, but it is almost certainly after the first month of gestation, when there are no brain-waves. So, aborted fetal tissue from less than one month old fetuses should be allowed to be used in stem cell research.
All of the stem cell lines come from VERY early fetal tissue, some on the order of hours old. So all of these stem cells should be allowable for research.
By the way, we must not forget that stem cell research has amazing possibilities for curing diseases like cancer. I am no consequentialist, but restricting stem cell research in the US could cost one of you a loved one. My wife of 17 years died of Breast cancer about two years ago.
Those of you opposed to stem cell research should never be forced to pay for it via your taxes. But you have no right to restrict private labs from doing research with private money on very early-term fetal tissue. Stage a boycott or a protest outside the research lab, but don't restrict our liberty by taking the easy way out and using the law to prohibit peaceful, free market, scientific research.
The argument about funding applies to ALL scientific research funded by the government. There will always be someone who objects, if only on the basis of their own right to property, or the principle of limited government in the Constitution.
The separation of church and state gives us freedom of religion and conscience. There ought to be a separation of science and state in order to preserve our right of peaceful inquiry and freedom of thought. We need to get the government out of peaceful labs.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 21, 2007 10:21 AMPolio.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 21, 2007 10:32 AMLook, federal alternative energy funding is just another subsidy to a special interest group. It is corporate welfare. Some alternative energy organizations are big corporations and some are small, but all are special interests who can make big campaign finance contributions.
The free market will develop alternative energy because it is profitable. It will use money more efficiently because it will direct research dollars to better research prospects than will the government bureaucrats. Capitalism is better for the environment than socialism. Just look at the pollution in the former Soviet Union and in China!
All this wasted research funding came from taxpayers. It wastes our money. It violates our rights. It hurts the environment!
We need a separation of science and state.
In Atlas Shrugged, there is an eminent scientist, Dr. Roberet Stadler, who sells out and accepts government funding. We soon discover that his research has been bent to benefit the politicians in power and that he has been totally corrupted. Power corrupts.
Government funding is retarding and corrupting science. And we have set this precedent. One result is that government funding of science is feeding the global warming socialists. Big government socialists are using the good name and respect of science to sell fear of environmental disaster that leads the people to vote them more power. The color of socialism is no longer red. It is green.
Governemnt MUST be limited, or it will take over everything. Our liberty is at stake. We are squandering the legacy of the founding fathers.
Support Ron Paul!
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 21, 2007 10:40 AMI'll bet the polio vaccine would have been developed faster if government had gotten out of the way.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 21, 2007 10:43 AMAnd to go further, reading too much into the tea leaves, I see. No one in the comments suggested the government should criminalize embryonic cell research. We may wish it were to happen, but that is not the same as (well, there are the thought police).
Posted by: swatter on November 21, 2007 10:44 AMFor your reading
In America in the 1950s, summertime was a time of fear and anxiety for many parents; this was the season when children by the thousands became infected with the crippling disease poliomyelitis, or polio. That burden of fear was lifted forever when it was announced that Dr. Jonas Salk had developed a vaccine against the disease. Salk became world-famous overnight, but his discovery was the result of many years of painstaking research.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 21, 2007 11:00 AMArmy Medic, he does that to get your goat and to pull your beard after he gets it.
Posted by: swatter on November 21, 2007 11:13 AMSay it ain't so!
Posted by: pudge on November 21, 2007 11:22 AMIt is my opinion that the money funding RP is coming from the fringe left who want to introduce a third party candidate on the right to siphon off votes from small gov't libertarian leaning types.
I hope someone is carefully tracking the source of funds for RP as they are for mainstream candidates. If anyone knows where to look, let us know.
Posted by: deadwood on November 21, 2007 12:09 PMTime magazine, November 26, 2007 (Michael Grunwald):
[Georgia's] drought was a natural event transformed into a natural disaster by human folly. And while it's still hard to say whether global warming caused any particular drought or flood or fire, it's going to cause more of all of them.
Time magazine, June 24, 1974:
In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims... Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
I find this a bit hypocritcal from a "Ron Paul supporter" since his entire candidacy is a product of the Internet...which was created by government leading industry with funding from the American taxpayer.
It's the same hypocrasy as that of Ross Perot who wanted the government "off our backs"...but, of course, he made all his money being the sole provider for computing services to Medicare and Medicaid!
Posted by: John Bailo on November 21, 2007 01:59 PMSorry, but I still have to function in society. You can't set it up so that I have to become a hermit or leave the US just because I think that the world was better off without corporate welfare. You can't set the standards for avoiding hypocrisy so high that almost none can attain it.
There is a long libertarian tradition of opting out. Thoreau's stay at Walden Pond was one of the more famous attempts. It is the right of anyone to opt-out of the social contract. Otherwise it can not be a valid contract.
People who move to Alaska, Montana or NH are often trying to do this, if only in part. When people move to a place that has lower taxes and regulations, they are doing this in an incomplete way. The story of Atlantis within Atlas Shrugged is this kind of thing as well.
But I prefer to stay in society and work to make it more just from the inside, at least for now. It is not yet time to leave the US. If this means partaking of the very system and the very injustices that I decry, well, that is my business, not yours.
Your attempt to call Ron Paul and his supporters hypocrites fails, because there is no way to remain unhypocritical, and still be a member of society.
But at least we do not advocate getting MORE subsidies for our own special interests. We don't want government subsidies for ourselves. You won't hear us lobbying for new ones, and you will hear us defending the repeal of subsidies we "benefit" from.
For instance, I want the federal government to stop subsidizing roads and the internet, even though I am a heavy user of both.
For real hypocrisy, you need to look at the other candidates, who tout lower taxes and limited government, but then vote for tax increases and big government programs. Ron Paul never does this kind of thing.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 21, 2007 02:41 PMYa know, it takes a the courage of one's convictions to go with where the evidence leads when it is against popular opinion. Actually with Anthropogenic Catistrophic Global Warming it is NOT going where the popular opinion is leading that takes courage, because the evidence clearly does not lead in any certain dirrection. It is INCONCLUSIVE, and in fact it doesn't even suggest a conclusion either for or against. Where there are conclusions drawn, they stretch credulity to the breaking point.
Posted by: JDH on November 21, 2007 03:16 PMIt is money that wins elections these days, unfortunately, and with Ron Paul having raised about $9 million total in the 4th quarter so far, it is getting really hard for the MSM to keep ignoring him!
Ron Paul is on the right side of the global warming issue. He sees global warming as mostly natural, and something we can adapt to with less cost than trying to change affect the climate ourselves.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 21, 2007 05:42 PMIt is money that wins elections these days, unfortunately, and with Ron Paul having raised about $9 million total in the 4th quarter so far, it is getting really hard for the MSM to keep ignoring him!
Ron Paul is on the right side of the global warming issue. He sees global warming as mostly natural, and something we can adapt to with less cost than trying to affect the climate ourselves.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 21, 2007 05:43 PMEmbryonic research has produced no tangible results, yet it is embraced by liberals as the key to utopia.
Actual positive research is disregarded because it obviates the need for abortion.
Ultimately, its the nihilism that doomed (or perhaps was simply a manifestation of the doom) of the Vienne cafe society.
Posted by: The Real Sporer on November 21, 2007 05:59 PMI'm curious if this will begin the crack in Romney's support. If he didn't appoint law and order judges in Massachusetts, what makes anyone think he will appoint conservatives as president? I like Romney, and think he has accomplished a great deal. But he isn't a conservative, and he barely ranks as a Republican. I'd rather see the openly social liberal Rudy over someone who says whatever to appeal to the audience in front of him.
Posted by: janet s on November 21, 2007 07:32 PMShe voted for the war, hated Saddam, now am against the war, Hate Bush
She supported the NY governor giving drivers licenses to illegals, before the last debate when she was a NO against it
Put your finger up in the air, and see which way the wind blows
That is Hillary Leadership....
Posted by: GS on November 21, 2007 08:02 PMThe latest from the team that killed the Global Warming "Hockey Stick"
"Climate Change Scare based on SpreadSheet Error"
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2406#comments
Posted by: deadwood on November 21, 2007 10:55 PMGlobal Warming has a similar fingerprint, but it will take longer to disprove the Enviro-hysterics premises. Although, the playing field is gradually being evened as the disinfectant of light is being shown on the issue and the snake oil salesman as they slither underground.
Posted by: KS on November 21, 2007 11:06 PMNow I don't really care about a microscopic clump of cells one way or another. Its not meaningful life in my book, but it seems that those that do would have an even bigger problem with this technique, what with it actually created 'life' and all.
I think we should go after all avenues of research. We simply don't know at this point which will pay off. Thats why we do research.
As for Bruce's argument against science funding, the general welfare clause and interstate commerce clause both provide plenty of ground for funding research. See United States v. Butler.
Federal investment though universities, national labs, the military, NASA, and so on is responsible for most of the modern technology we have, from jet planes to the internet. The general pattern is that government funds initial research, especially the really costly and risky kind. Some pays off and some doesn't. A private actor, evaluating the risk, would stay away from it as failure means death, whereas a state actor given thats its survival is not so at stake can pursue it.
Also since federally funded research is often tied to some degree of openness the breakthroughs are available for all spurring entrepreneurs and established actors to improve the idea and develop commercial products.
Though, if we wanted to be really strict about it, the federal government could fund research, but not ban it.
Posted by: Giffy on November 22, 2007 06:38 AMYour suggestion is merely a smear; a kind of guilt by association tactic.
You're better than that, my friend.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 22, 2007 12:06 PMIn fact, the general welfare clause is a limitation on government power. It says that the government may do ONLY what is in the general welfare, NOT what is in the welfare of a special interest. The general welfare clause excludes corporate welfare. Well, what is science funding from the feds other than corporate welfare? The scientists and the drug companies are all special interests. It is against the principles of the free market to give them subsidies. It is against all morality to steal from poor people, via their income taxes, to give to big corporations who may benefit from government funded scientific research. It is Robin Hood in revearse.
The interstate commerce clause was intended to promote free trade between the states by ensuring that any interstate tarriffs were low, covering only the costs of inspection, and not raised in order to protect local businesses from competition in other states. It does NOT say that the federal government may pass any kinds of laws or regulations on any business that sells it't products across state lines. Just because scientific discoveries and products that result from them cross state lines, does not give the govenrment the power to regulate or subsidize it.
It was the big-government FDR types, who brow-beat the Supreme Court in to accepting a reading of these parts of the Consitution that effectively destroyed the purpose of the Constitiution: to limit government power. I'm not surprised you can name a supreme court case, but lots of supreme court cases were decided in error.
I have no problem disagreeing with a law or a supreme court decision. The rule of law only says that I must follow the law or accept the punishment, not that I must agree with every bad law or court decision on the books.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 22, 2007 09:27 PMAnd, if anybody was listening, many scientists were saying that embryonic stem cells we're the answer anyway. Private sector money automatically flowed to the more vioable solutions as should happen in a free market.
The media's leftist, big government agenda is really what kept this ESC brouhaha on the boil. They viewed it as a perfect way to show America how "backward" the religious right could be or was. I viewed it as keeping big government out of places they don't belong. This new direction is a real win that way.
Posted by: G Jiggy on November 23, 2007 09:55 AMDo you have Ron Paul underwear as well?
Posted by: pbj on November 23, 2007 10:04 AMI'll have the taste not to ask you whether you wear GW Bush boxers or briefs... That would have been tacky, and none of my business. It would also have been a sort of belittling, personal attack that conservatives are supposed to be above.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 23, 2007 11:56 AMOK?
My preparations for Y2K were limited to getting a little extra cash out of the bank.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 24, 2007 09:40 AM