Bumped from Saturday morning, because Gregoire's spurious behavior on the same topic two election cycles in a row says a lot about the woman who wants to be Governor again. - Eric
Christine Gregoire's recent foray into stem cell research as a campaign issue contains a jarringly similar absence of truth that marked her campaign's dalliance on the same issue in 2004. Her recent and appalling ad on the topic is simply an additional, emotional layer to an issue where she has played a lot with politics, but done precious little with policy. The Seattle Times' fact check story on the ad doesn't include the full context, which deserves to be expanded upon. Gregoire is being absolutely fraudulent on the issue and deserves to be called on it.
Back in 2004, Gregoire tried to make stem cell research a big campaign topic via a large institute she was proposing as a means to boost the research itself and to add tens of thousands of jobs in the state's biotechnology sector. Indeed, the Seattle Times called it a "centerpiece proposal" of her campaign effort.
By chance, I served as Director of Public and Government Affairs for the Washington Biotechnology & Biomedical Association (WBBA) from January 2001 to the end of 2002. Knowing just a thing or two about the industry and its policy agenda, I knew the proposal was unrealistic garbage from the minute I first heard an ad touting the idea in late September of 2004.
The policy wonk in me loathes blatant misrepresentation of reality on issues I hold dear -- as I do the local biotech & life sciences research community. Thus, without my current blogging capacity to fire back with, I went to war via other means.
I started emailing journalists covering the issue including David Postman and then Seattle Times biotech reporter Luke Timmerman. I contacted the Rossi campaign to let them know how out-of-touch with reality Gregoire's proposal was, and then proceeded to help brief Rossi on the issue and speak at length to then Tacoma News Tribune reporter (now Politico scribe) Ken Vogel about the topic.
Here was the result after reporters did some further digging:
1) A Sunday, October 17th front-page splash in the Tacoma News Tribune exposing Gregoire on the issue. Regrettably the article is hiding behind the paid archives firewall, but here are some excerpts:
A focal point of that promise - and her campaign for governor - is the Democratic candidate's idea for a state-funded institute to study stem cells, the largely undeveloped cells that scientists say hold the key to repairing neurological damage and curing ailments including Parkinson's and diabetes.Biotechnology leaders say state government attention and funding to life sciences is overdue, but they say Gregoire's focus on stem cells is misguided.
"We have a very, very limited stem cell infrastructure in the region right now," biomedical research institute executive Jim Gore said in an interview after Gregoire toured his Seattle research facility. "And I would be hard-pressed to identify any changes that could result from an investment of state capital or changes in state law."
Later in the article:
But state and national biotechnology leaders and economists disputed several of [Gregoire's campaign assertions] in interviews with the News Tribune, from the economic impact of biotechnology generally and stem cell research specifically to Washington's ability to compete in stem cell research.Even the adviser whom she confidentially cited as the source of the prediction of 40,000 to 70,000 jobs said it was "just the wildest of guesses."
2) A Wednesday October 20th front-pager in the Seattle Times bringing some reality back into the broader discussion of job potential in the biotech industry, dismissing the stem cell research institute as a comparative non-starter, and including a quote from yours truly.
With the rationale for the stem cell research institute publicly questioned, it faded from prominence in Gregoire's advertising and campaign rhetoric. That threw her already mediocre campaign off-kilter - it being difficult to move forward on the issue after having your campaign "centerpiece" publicly debunked and all.
I like to think the deserved collapse of that disingenuous, unrealistic proposal contributed to Gregoire's limp to the finish that allowed Rossi to close the gap in the final weeks of the 2004 race so splendidly. Either way, Gregoire was dreadfully wrong on the merits of her stem cell campaign pitch in 2004.
Indeed, the New Tribune's editorial board followed-up on the issue on February 27, 2005 (also in the paid archives) after their own news pages found Gregoire had dropped the topic upon becoming Governor. The editorial board concluded Rossi was "dead on" in calling Gregoire's proposal a "'political ploy'" since indeed, the stem cell research institute wasn't remotely realistic for Washington state - regardless of one's position on controversial embryonic stem cell research.
In 2008, Gregoire is just as wrong too. Last time she was making up facts about potential job creation out of whole cloth. This time she's being untruthful about Rossi's position while omitting her own absent record on the issue while in office - all while desperately fleeing from discussions of the issues our next Governor will have to face.
This is not leadership. And it deserves the same jeers and grief this year as it earned the last time around.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 22, 2008 06:56 AM | Email ThisIf this is the only place Gregoire feels comfortable poking up her head while Rossi hits her from all sides on transportation, the budget, Tribal deals, etc. then she is doomed.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 20, 2008 09:59 AMRead my lips. I. DON'T. CARE.
Posted by: Palouse on September 20, 2008 10:23 AMExpect Christine to get an atomic wedgie from the voters in November...
Posted by: Rick D. on September 20, 2008 10:32 AMI have serious doubts this can work with the economy so high up on everyone's radar.
But heck, it seemed to work last time. Maybe I'm reading this all wrong.
Posted by: deadwood on September 20, 2008 10:34 AMWith the financial markets in meltdown and the NW MLS saying that the median price of homes in King County are down from 11% August 2008 over 2007, these idiots are jacking up property assessments by huge percentages.
I think it's time for a new cause to be picked up by Sound Politics. The fraudulent elections system in King County has been a good one. Perhaps now it's time to start pushing for a property tax revolt.
Posted by: BananaLand on September 20, 2008 11:39 AMPoor Dino -- he really thought he could tell one tale to the Craswell crowd, and keep quiet about it to the rest of us. But he opposed I-120, and he said so, in front of a video camera. Naral now owns that record, and so Dino cannot deny his acts, without losing his Bible-banging base.
The rest of the voters do not want such valuable, potentially life-enhancing research at UW, WSU, and South Lake Union -- all of which receives some level of support from local government -- censored because some young-earth Creationists believe that a single cell is a human being. Dino could destroy those research opportunities if he becomes governor, and his hardcore anti-choice constituency will expect it of him. The voters deserve to know all about this, and why the G.O.P. Party's candidate won't talk to them about it.
The anti-choice side has wasted thirty years, becoming ever more extreme and emotionally manipulative, calling young women baby-killers, and even engaging in terrorism. Now it's all blowing back on you, and you don't like it one bit. Too bad.
Posted by: tensor on September 20, 2008 11:50 AMThere's no "whining" from anyone but the fringe-left idiots who see it all slipping away again... and there is certainly no delusion, unlike the pap in your post.
Queen Chrissy The Liar has to run on her record. That she's decided to throw up this smokescreen... since, of course, her only record is her brilliant engineering of our $3.2 billion deficit... not to mention her purchase like a hooker by the tribes... and least we forget her multiple and abysmal transportation failures? (How's that viaduct looking, eh?) and those three little elements are hardly something to run on, now, are they?
Instead, we're given more playground BS and lies about taking any tax increase to a vote of the people... like she ever did that during her tenure... from people like you.
Posted by: Hinton on September 20, 2008 12:21 PMStem cells fall off agenda - Gregoire omits research institute
KENNETH P. VOGEL; The News Tribune
Published: February 20th, 2005 12:01 AM
After less than six weeks in office, Gov. Christine Gregoire is dropping one of her major campaign promises: a state-funded stem cell research institute.
It was the part of her �life sciences� investment proposal that she talked about most prominently during the campaign last fall.
She accused her Republican opponent, Dino Rossi, of allowing ideology to get in the way of medical and economic progress because he opposed funding stem cell research.
But when she unveiled a package of life science bills earlier this month, including a $350 million Life Sciences Discovery Fund, there was no mention of a stem cell research institute.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
So... she has already proven herself a liar and a hypocrite on this issue... and now she hands Dino a golden opportunity to bludgeon her with her own lies?To be a Gregoire supporter is to be involved in an exercise in total, utter, futility.
Posted by: Hinton on September 20, 2008 12:32 PMAt the same time, I have trouble distinguishing what Rossi believes from his choice of political partisans. Is Dino actually opposed to stem cell research or is he merely pandering to his radical religious supporters? The latter may be very bad for our biotech future.
The presence of a rational, scientifically committed leadership is critical to the growth of the industry in WASTATE. Between the UW and the Hutch the Seattle area is among the top five recipients of federal research funding. However, our industrial biotech base is no where near as impressive. Seattle is way behind Boston, San Francisco, San Diego, North Carolina, and Philadephia. Why?
Having our leaders represent the luddite radical religious republicans will drive any sensible investor out of our area .. just as few VC I know would invest in bioteh in Kansas or Mississipi.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 20, 2008 12:39 PM
How do you figure that Tensor? he is not against privately funded embryonic stem cell research. Kind of puts a hole in that theory of yours doesn't it? Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what Gregoire has done to advance this cause in her 4 years of failure in Olympia...I'd love to hear it.
"...and his hardcore anti-choice constituency will expect it of him.
You mean those silly pro-life people that consider an infant a person? That's just called civilization, you should try it sometime.
"The voters deserve to know all about this,"
Obviously you mean Christine Gregoires transportation plan right? Don't worry Tensor, Gregoire plans to release it in December...ensuring Washington voters have all the information after the election in November. Does that make sense to you?
Posted by: Rick D. on September 20, 2008 12:42 PM2. The idea that private research can fund much of stem cell biology is naive. Basic research is almost never privately funded and private funding follows the federal funding.
3.Seattle has a good but small position federally funded stem cell research. This is one of several key fields that underpin modern basic science. Without fed. support for these basic areas, more applied research funding from corporate reasearch, will nto chose Seattle.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 20, 2008 01:02 PMWhat part of "[Rossi is] not against privately funded embryonic stem cell research." is so hard for you to understand?
"The idea that private research can fund much of stem cell biology is naive."
Only to a big government liberal. As I challenged Tensor, feel free to enlighten us as to how Gregoire has advanced this cause in her 4 years? Answer: She dropped it as soon as she was elected by the rubes dumb enought to vote for her in 2004.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 20, 2008 01:10 PMHAHAHA, have we been here before. So shall we ask the dem's & Lib's How many great things have come out of EMBRYONIC cells.
(ZERO)
You hit it again buddy.
So SeattleJew you like killing life for no reason. Shame, shame.
And to think. Men like my father died to save the jews. )-:
BULL.
If there was money to be made there you can darn well be assured people would be clamoring to invest, to get in on the ground floor.
They aren't.
BUT they sure do appear to be investing in ADULT stem cell research that IS working.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 20, 2008 03:02 PMGregoire is going to lose. She's completely in hiding on most of the issues that she has exacerbated if not caused outright. Ask anyone who really knows her. Her modus when the going gets tough is to hide in her office.
Between foolish ads like this, her massive new deficit and latent anger over how King County counted unauthenticated provisionals in 2004, this is the twilight of the Gregoire era.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 20, 2008 03:10 PMFACT: There are two types of stem cell research: Adult and Embryonic. Rossi is not banning either of those types of research. What he is against is using government funds for embryonic stem cell research. No one is "banning" any private party from doing this on their own, they just won't get taxes from you or me to do this. Given our transportation problems and $3 billion Gregoire budget deficit, we cannot afford to waste money on non-promising lines of research. There is nothing stopping Paul Allen, Theresa Heinz Kerry or George Soros from opening up their wallets and funding embyonic stem cell research.
Adult stem cell research has shown promise and doesn't require killing humans for frankenstein style experimentation. Rossi does support this type of research as this is where all the breakthrough have come from.
Furthermore, Gregoire herself has not awarded a single penny
Four years ago Gregoire also tried this ploy. How much money has SHE granted to embryonic stem cell research? Gregoire's Discovery Fund has made 17 grants to Washington-based scientists, totaling $31.5 million and not a penny was granted for stem cell research of any kind, not adult, not embryonic.
The leftists simply want the taxpayer to foot the bill. This is a phony wedge issue that voters should rightly ignore.
Posted by: pbj on September 20, 2008 03:19 PMOur biotech industry does not match the strength of our life sciences research community because of two major issues:
1) We do a much poorer job than other large research hubs of commercializing technology. There a multitude of reasons for this, including barriers in state law and tech transfer offices at research institutions that aren't very productive.
2) Access to venture capital (the primary means of biotech financing until a company matures significantly) is low, especially compared to the Bay Area, San Diego, & Boston...the three most vibrant biotech clusters in the country. We simply don't have a truly critical mass of venture capital here, for a variety of reasons unrelated to our research community. And early stage companies often locate near one of their primary venture capital funders.
Stem cell research is not an issue that's holding us back. Indeed, the return on investment for California's $3 billion investment in that research (which we could never match) has not been high at all. In sum, stem cell research is a minute portion of life sciences research and biotechnology product development (especially compared to our obvious local strengths in research related to cancer, global health issues, etc.)
Posted by: Eric Earling on September 20, 2008 03:27 PMThere are also very difficult religious issues with adult stem cells as well. Cloning, which most scientists oppose for humans, is actually no different then using an adult stem cell to make an entire individual. So if you and i may agree that we should not be cloning people, would we agree on which tissues could be derived from an adult clone ....? How about if we derive an ovary or a testes? or, for that matter an embryonic stem cell?
As a scientist, I need to know about what defines an embryonic stem cell if only to know how best to re-engineer adult cells to perform different functions.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 20, 2008 03:34 PMAgain, private funding is far too limited to support this sort of basic research.
There are two major reasons for this:
1. VC can not and should not support research h that does nto have a remunerative end. There may be profits at the end of the stem cell tunnel but it is not all clear now that this will be so.
2. VC and pharma are both based on relatively short term visions. Even big pharma rarely supports research that does not have a fairly concrete financial goal within 5 years .. at the very least therapeutic leads.
Typically Pharma research ONLY happens after a target, e.g. a cancer causing viru7s or a molecule that controls pain has been identified by basic scientists. In my own field, now 35 years old, the first drugs coming our of our research are less then five years old now. Without the 30 years effort before then, the drugs would not have been developed.
Typically successful biotech regions have grown up around large basic science complexes with the biggest successes in the world being near Stanford/Ucal and near MIT/Harvard.
A good (and somewhat frightening) lesson may be rising in San Diego where the State, UCSD, Scripps, and the Burnham Foundation have been having great success in a shared effort to enrich the local biotech effort. Similar efforts are underway in Massachusetts, North Carolina, Florida, Texas, California and Michigan.
The effort in WASTATE is pathetic by comparison depite the fact that in aggregate the Seattle academic biology effort (UW,Hutch, Benaroya) is among the top three in the country.
Even the Life Sciences Fund pales in comparison to programs in these other states.
Finally, I am not be thew best person to talk about this but it seems to me that government leadership in an area like this is even more importnat than just funds. Seeing the State support stem cell research .. and other state of the art biology efforts, should help private philanthropy take us more seriously.
Creationism and stem cell opposition do nto serve that end.
There is FAR more adult SC research supported by the NIH than all companies combined.
Do you actually understand the difference between adult and embryonic stem cells?
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 20, 2008 04:00 PMWhy would you say such a filthy thing?
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 20, 2008 04:04 PMOf course stem cell research is a small part of biotech. It is however, a research area that attracts cutting edge scientists to work in Seattle labs. The lessons from San Francisco and Boston are clear, it is those labs that spin off biotech.
Can we succeed w/o stem cell research? Yes, but not having a large stem research effort puts the UW and Hutch at a big disadvantage.
There are other areas less visible to the public where we really could also use support. Seattle, for example, is very weak in murine genetics. although I do know a wonderful guy who is currently being recruited.
Another dreadful weakness until very recently has been the antagonism on the uW campus towards Microsoft. This seems to em t be changing now.
@18 Jeff B
If you see my regular posts you may know that I am not a Gregoire supporter and agree with a lot of what you are saying.
My vote is not proG, it is anti Rossi. I think the conservative cause is greatly hurt by his alliances with the radical religious movement. i see NOTHING conservative about Rossi's on antiscience stands, do you?
I also think that while better cadidate than CG, DR is like her in not having plans for much of anything.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 20, 2008 04:17 PMUltimately I think all that needs to be said about the need for stem cell research in the Seattle area is that the biotechnology community itself does not consider it a top tier issue for improving the industry in this area.
There are bigger fish to fry with how the state does, or does not, go about supporting the industry given its current status. And that's even before one considers the notion that major new spending programs (such as specific state support for certain kinds of research) is not going to happen in the current budget environment...which looks to be with us for a while.
You are also correct that there are improvements that could be made to how the UW relates with private industry. The biotech industry has in the past had similar problems to what you describe with MSFT.
Posted by: Eric Earling on September 20, 2008 04:59 PMPlease be specific when you say "stem cell research". Otherwise you are just trying to obfuscate the issue similar to pro-illegal debaters who use nefarious terms like "immigrant" to describe illegal alians.
Please tell me what specifically Rossi has done to stop stem cell research (either Adult or Embryonic). What laws exist that prohibit any private individual or company from doing that research?
SJ - in 11 you said:
"Having our leaders represent the luddite radical religious republicans will drive any sensible investor out of our area .. just as few VC I know would invest in bioteh in Kansas or Mississipi."
But then when told that there is no law stopping any company or individual from doing embryonic stem cell research, you said @24:
"1. VC can not and should not support research h that does nto have a remunerative end. There may be profits at the end of the stem cell tunnel but it is not all clear now that this will be so.
2. VC and pharma are both based on relatively short term visions. Even big pharma rarely supports research that does not have a fairly concrete financial goal within 5 years .. at the very least therapeutic leads. "
So which is it, evil Rossi is preventing VC funding or isn't he?
Regardless, I put forth your entire thesis is incorrect. Namely, yes a company WILL put forth VC for promising stem cell research. EMBYRONIC stem cell research is not proming like ADULT stem cell research.
Furthermore, promising ADULT stem cell research DOES attract VC as proven by VC firm Kliener Perkins investing in Bay Area company, iZumi Bio Inc which s a center of scientific work on novel methods of "reprogramming" adult cells to recover the versatile properties.
SeattleJew, until I see a single post from you where you bother to differtiate between EMBRYONIC and ADULT stem cell research, I can only conclude you are being disingenous and decpeptive.
It is fun talking about this. My concern is not just with stem cells but with the antiscientific attitude of folks at places like the DI, THAT is a major negative for this area.
I am excited to read of your past work. If you want, I would like to meet some time (if you can't find me at UW, try the emaill at SJ). An issue we may share ground on is how to get the R party to do a better job of supporting WASTATE tech and education. I have tried in the past to convince Mike McGavick to make this an issue.
Katomar, PBJ
Katomar Good question!
PBJ may also find this helpful. \
I am critical of our community for the hype over stem cells. The promise, is, however real.
To some extent stem cells are already used everyday. A bone marrow transplant is a kind of stem cell transplant and 100,000 folk a year have theor lives saved this way.
The bigger promise is use of stem cells for many organs and that depends on what we can learn. there
Let me try to explain.
As you know cells contain DNA and this determines most of what we inherit. BUT, since most cell types have the same DNA, there must be (and is) a second level that determines what type of cell each cell is ... liver cells, heart cells, red blood cells,. etc.
This kind of programming is only now being worked out but let me call it "epigenetics."
We have learned that epignetic programming of cell type is reversible. That is how we cloned Dolly.
Cells with the complete potential to make a person or an animal are the ultimate stem cells, the obvious examples are embryonic stem cells since these an be used to grow a complete person or animal.
Stem cells exist with different ranges of cell types they can become .. e.g. a liver stem cell can become a number of different cell types in the liver. A bone marrow stem cell can make red cells and white cells, etc.
So when someone says they have made a "stem cell" this may mean something fairly limited in abilities or the equivalent of an embryonic stem cell.
As I said we now know that we can take cells that are fully differentiated and reprogram them and there is some evidence that even normal adult tissues contain rare stem cells.
Most of the tools for doing all this are very new and very crude in the sense we may not that 4 hormones can have an effect but may not yet know why.
So, the way reearch goes on, work is being done at several levels at once. Some people are working at a v ery basic level, even at the DNA level, to understand how epigenetics works while others are taking practical approaches.
Thes epractical approaches might surprise you because often we do things that are stiull not much better than guesses. For example, there are a large number of proteins that we call growth factors or proteins. Often growing a certian stem cell depends on guesisng which of these proteins will work.
So the major reason people need to work with embryonic stem cells si to learn how the system works. Once we know that, my gues sis that little clinical work will be dne with esc because of issues in the immune system.
Does this help?
PBJ ...
from a scientific point of view, the distinction you make between adult and embrynic stem cells makes no sense, at least not yet, because we do not yet know enough to define stem cells at a fine molecular level. We do not even know that "adult" stem cells are the same thing as embryonic.
As to your other points, if you read wht I wrote, you will find that I actually agree. The main reason for stem cell biology now is not short term investment in stem cells but because the underlying basic science has immense promise to lead to the kinds of knowledge that will be very remunerative.
As one example, you may know that there are four molecules that can reprogram an adult cell to behave a lot like an embryonic cell. Right now we know very little about how these 4 proteins work but the potential is there to discover drugs that work through these molecules and those discoveries will have fiscal value.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 20, 2008 09:28 PMNope. All research is intertwined, both in the overlap between various types of biological research, and in mingling money from various sources. If the Washington State government suddenly demanded that NO state funding could support embryonic stem cell research, this would cripple the entire field of microbiological research around here.
Furthermore, the very idea of discouraging science because of a small, Bible-banging contingent whose ideas have been repeatedly defeated in actual elections won't sit well with the voters, hence these ads.
As far as "unpromising" research, all of the work on heavier-than-air flying machines didn't result in powered flight, from the time of Leonardo until the day, several centuries later, when Lord Kelvin declared such machines to be impossible. Should we have just given up at that point?
Posted by: tensor on September 21, 2008 11:28 AMYou are a brave one! Watch out for the bears here.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 21, 2008 05:14 PMOops, I've gone and done it. Now, your radical fringe may start bombing these fertilization clinics, and shooting these medical staffers -- all in the name of "pro-life"! It's just about the only way the anti-choice side could get any more absurd.
Posted by: tensor on September 21, 2008 08:11 PMSeriously, why should Dino Rossi's pandering to the Craswell crowd go unnoticed? Their position makes no sense (big surprise there), and no leader should adopt it. Voters in high-tech jobs on the Eastside won't like having scientific research constricted to please the whims of Bible-bangers, and it's politically smart for Rossi's opponents to emphasize this.
Posted by: tensor on September 22, 2008 07:10 AMI'm in the medical field and I'll ask both you and Seatlejew. Has embryonic stem cells had "any" break thru's?
Try ZERO.
I just love it when the MSN would say in large print about a stell cell discovery, but you must read more than half way through it to find out it's adult cells.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 22, 2008 07:34 AMWOW!
Let's refer to the Gregoire/KLOWNstein duo as TEAM HORSESASS!
"PBJ ...
from a scientific point of view, the distinction you make between adult and embrynic stem cells makes no sense, at least not yet, because we do not yet know enough to define stem cells at a fine molecular level. We do not even know that "adult" stem cells are the same thing as embryonic."
Adult stem cells are not the same as embyonic, I never claimed they were. Embryonic stem cells that are found in blastocysts, and adult stem cells that are found in adult tissues
WE keep hearing how embryonic stem cells are showing all this promise, but no one is willing to pony up their money. Even Gregoire refused to give out money for stem cell research even though she promised 4 years ago Washington would be the natioanl leader for this. She did give out over $30 million, but not a penny for stem cell research. Clearly her actions don't match her rhetoric.
Arguing for public money for unpromising lines of research is like asking for R&D money to develop a better horse and buggy.
Tensor:
"As far as "unpromising" research, all of the work on heavier-than-air flying machines didn't result in powered flight, from the time of Leonardo until the day, several centuries later, when Lord Kelvin declared such machines to be impossible. Should we have just given up at that point?"
Heavier than air flying machines weren't the result of a big government research program, it was a couple of high school dropouts in their father's barn. Leonardo was never commissioned by any government agency to develop a flying machine, that came from his own imagination and ingenuity.
"Having a creationist, anti stem cell governor would drive VC away."
Any exactly how much VC has embryonic stem cell research attracted under the Gregoire administration? She gave out over $30 million in grants, buit not a penny for stem cell research.
In contrast VC firm Kleiner Perkins is investing in San Francisco's iZumi Bio Inc. for adult stem cell research
Now why is it that after 4 years of the "pro-choice" no ethical limits Gregoire regime that there is no VC in Washington State for stem cell research but in SF there is? Perhaps it is for the same reason that SF could replace their earthquake damaged Cypress viaduct in under 7 years and after seven years since the Nisqually quake, Gregoire hasn't even demolished the Alaskan Way viaduct. It is a case study in leadership vs lacksidaisical.
Posted by: pbj on September 22, 2008 10:09 AMHowever there are lots of breakthroughs in adult stem cell research and as a consequence, it is drawing lots of VC:
Kleiner Perkins makes bet on adult stem cells
In our own backyard:
Fate Therapeutics Launches Stem Cell Firm
The firm said it has received $12M in backing from ARCH Venture Partners, Polaris Venture Partners, Venrock, and OVP. The firm's team includes Randall Moon, the Director of the University of Washington's Institute for Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine, along with stem cell scientists from Stanford, Scripps Research Institute, and Harvard.
Osiris Trumpets Its Adult Stem Cell Product
There is no law preventing a couple who had 50 eegs fertilized from giving permission to the clinic to use the unused ones for research. Furthermore there is no law preventing SJ and Tensor from ponying up the money for it personally I challenge tensor, sj or anyone else to show us the law.
Posted by: Truth on Stem Cell Research on September 22, 2008 10:28 AMOne place this can be seen is diabetes research. While some studies have claimed progress in getting embryonic stem cells to differentiate into insulin-producing cells in culture, those claims are called into doubt in a recent study in the journal Diabetologia. Researchers from the University of Calgary found that the insulin-producing cells derived from embryonic stem cells are not the "beta cells" needed to reverse diabetes. While the cells were coaxed to produce some insulin, they did not do so in response to changes in sugar levels, and when they were transplanted into mice they formed tumors.
y contrast, the most promising new treatment for juvenile diabetes in recent years didn't involve stem cells but pancreas cells harvested from donors. It's called the Edmonton protocol. And of the roughly 250 patients who have received the newest version of the transplant, more than 80% have been free from insulin shots or insulin pumps for more than a year.
There have also been some recent advances using adult stem cells to treat diabetes. Researchers in Canada have shown that transplanted adult stem cells from bone marrow can cause pancreatic tissue to repair itself, restoring normal insulin production and reversing symptoms of diabetes. The team has reversed diabetes in mice and hopes to move to human trials. And researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital have used adult cells from the spleen to regenerate insulin-producing cells and cure diabetes in mice. Essentially the spleen cells "retrain" the body's immune system to stop attacking its own insulin-producing pancreas cells, and new cells then naturally regenerate.
Another failure of this stem cell lie.
Calif put forth a 3 billion dollar bond for Embryonic stem cell research. The total bill will be 6 billion or more.
Have you noticed that Calif has said zip since Adult cell has moved fwd and embryonic has not.
6 billion in the hole folks, for what?
This is the same kind of gov waste that we see all to often. Like paying for a study on why cows fart!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 22, 2008 10:41 AMAdult stem cells: two years of sugar control. Ebryonic stem cells: ZERO sugar control, becomes a tumor instead.
Hmm, which one do I choose - two years of control or a tumor?
"Another failure of this stem cell lie.
Calif put forth a 3 billion dollar bond for Embryonic stem cell research. The total bill will be 6 billion or more.
Have you noticed that Calif has said zip since Adult cell has moved fwd and embryonic has not."
OK, in August 2001, President Bush crippled embryonic stem-cell research in the United States. He used it as another type of 'wedge issue', needlessly driving barriers in between scientists in the UK (where Parliament has voted to support the research) and here. Neat trick, Medic: first cripple the effort, then complain it has gone nowhere. Amazing how that works!
"Heavier than air flying machines weren't the result of a big government research program, it was a couple of high school dropouts in their father's barn. Leonardo was never commissioned by any government agency to develop a flying machine, that came from his own imagination and ingenuity."
Nice try, but my point was that a major scientist had concluded that centuries of failure would continue. I was showing how foolish it was to condemn failure after a few years of (politically crippled) research. (BTW, if I recall properly, the Congress offered a prize of $10,000 1890's dollars for a flying machine, despite Lord Kelvin's expertise, so there was a U.S. federally-funded effort to push this "impossible" research. As for the Wright Bros., their use of the stiff breeze at Kitty Hawk meant their claim would be disputed as late as 1942 -- hardly a clear-cut triumph, eh?)
Of course, there's little scientific justification for giving up so easily. The real motivation is political correctness. The Craswell crowd, soundly defeated in election after election, still craves power over us, and Mr. Rossi has apparently agreed to give them what they could not earn. Now, these advertisements are calling him on it, and you don't like it one bit. Too bad.
Posted by: tensor on September 22, 2008 09:24 PMHey, that's great the UK voted to take MORE of its citizen's money to throw down the loo. You DO understand the our Federal Govt is not the same as the UK's, right? What the UK decides to do, or not do with their taxes dollars has NO relevance whatsoever on what US decides to do. You seem to suggesting Bush's decision was a bad thing. Quick, show me where in The Constitution the Federal Govt. has the authority to take my money to fund scientific research. Here, I'll actually help you by giving you the specific article from the Constitution:
Article 1, Section 8,"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States ..."
So, please, where is the authority? (and NO: "General Welfare" is not the answer. See: Federalist Paper #41, wherein James Madison, recognized AUTHOR of the Constitution wrote: "Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ``to raise money for the general welfare.'' But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?"
The "specification of the objects alluded to" is the list of the enumerated powers of Congress.
So, with that background, please describe where The Constitution grants the power to the Federal Government to take my money and spend it on scientific research. (and yes, this goes for NASA, CDC, NIH, etc). You have 45 minutes. Please, no talking. If you need to use the bathroom, let the proctor know.
Posted by: Dave on September 23, 2008 12:03 AMtensor didn't do his homework. tensor is still copying others. tensor gets an F!
42 days until the final exam. tensor still has time to change his grade.
Posted by: Silkworm on September 23, 2008 06:45 AMEpic FAIL. I made no claim as to the Constitutional legitimacy of federal research funding; I merely noted the politically-correct crippling of that research by an unscientific ideologue. As President Bush has continued federal funding for other research, you can take your cut-and-paste job to him. (I'm sure he'll have great respect for your 'research'.) Meanwhile, you get an 'F' in reading comprehension.
The question was on whether a Governor Rossi would cripple research to please the political losers who form his base. I would be very surprised if The Federalist Papers addressed in intrastate issue, but, hey, knock yourself out.
Posted by: tensor on September 24, 2008 10:52 PM