News Can Political Promises Truly Accelerate Medical Breakthroughs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GENIERE
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around John Edwards' campaign promise that electing John Kerry would lead to advancements in stem cell research, potentially allowing individuals like Christopher Reeve to walk again. Participants debate the implications of President George W. Bush's policies on stem cell research, particularly the distinction between a ban on federal funding for new embryonic stem cell lines and an outright ban on stem cell research itself. Key points include the assertion that while Bush did not ban stem cell research, he restricted federal funding for new embryonic lines, which many argue stifles scientific progress. The conversation highlights conflicting interpretations of Bush's policies, with some asserting that the restrictions effectively hinder research, while others maintain that research can still occur without federal funding. The debate also touches on ethical considerations surrounding the use of embryos from fertility clinics versus aborted fetuses, illustrating the complexities of the issue. Overall, the thread reflects a deep divide over the interpretation of stem cell research policies and their impact on medical advancements.
GENIERE
Talk about pure b*llsht!

Edwards on the campaign trail -

"When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.' Edwards made the unprecedented campaign promises during 30-minute speech at Newton High School gym in Newton, Iowa... "

If he promises to cure old age, I might vote for him.

..
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Lmao... aww poor Edwards.

Of course, he was talking about if Kerry is elected there won't be a ban on human stem-cell research which could ultimately lead to a cure for paralysis. I don't know...might not be too far from the turth.
 
There's a ban on stem cell research?
 
check said:
Lmao... aww poor Edwards.

Of course, he was talking about if Kerry is elected there won't be a ban on human stem-cell research which could ultimately lead to a cure for paralysis. I don't know...might not be too far from the turth.
There's no BAN on human stem-cell research. Bush did not ban stem cell research, in fact he lifted the ban he inherited from the Clinton Administration on federal funding for stem cell research.
 
Duh, GENERIE. What, did you think he meant he was going to faith-heal him or something? :rolleyes:

Bush enacted a ban on federal funding of research on new stem cell lines.

- Warren
 
And Bush said in 2002 that he'd create over 5 million jobs...

And I've read in Scientific American that they have paralyzed rats in laboratory situations and injected stem-cells into their spine, and the rats regained astonishing amounts of movement. It's not like stem-cell therapy is something that's so far off from helping people who are parapalegic from an injury walking, especially for a science that's only been around for 6 years.
 
Last edited:
kat said:
Bush did not ban stem cell research, in fact he lifted the ban he inherited from the Clinton Administration on federal funding for stem cell research.
No, he enacted the ban on federal funding for stem-cell research.

- Warren
 
He lifted the ban on funding for existing EMBRYONIC stem cell lines.
 
Chroot- NEW EMBRYONIC are the key words, I believe.
 
  • #10
Ha! I love it!

Bush banned stem cell research.

No he didn't, he LIFTED the ban.

No, he enacted it.

No, he lifted it.

No, he enacted it.
 
  • #11
Bush vs. Kerry

Aliens vs. Predator 2: Whoever wins, we lose
 
  • #12
kat said:
He lifted the ban on funding for existing EMBRYONIC stem cell lines.
There was no ban of any sort under the Clinton administration. I don't know where you're getting your "facts" from.

- Warren
 
  • #13
kat said:
Chroot- NEW EMBRYONIC are the key words, I believe.
Right, Bush enacted a ban on federal funding of new embryonic stem cells on August 9, 2001. Such a ban did not exist before him, and did not exist under the Clinton administration.

- Warren
 
  • #14
chroot said:
No, he enacted the ban on federal funding for stem-cell research.

- Warren

Bush did not ban stem cell research. He is the first president to fund stem cell research. Federal funding of stem cell research prior to the BUsh was $0. The 2003 budget included $24.8 million for human embryonic stem cell research, an increase of 132 percent from 2002 and $190 million in funding for adult stem cells. There is no ban on private research of stem cells at all.
 
  • #15
Listen closely kat:

He enacted a ban on August 9, 2001, that prohibited the US government (including the NSF, the largest grantor in the world) from funding new embryonic stem cell research.

Paradoxically, he is indeed the first president to put money into existing stem cell lines, but he cut off funding for new stem cell lines. That's akin to funding black and white television. Who cares?

- Warren
 
  • #16
Bush's policy on embryonic stem cell research is just plain self-contradictory. He's against it, because it involves killing. But he's okay with maintaining some limited number of lines. But he's not okay with funding the use of discarded embryos from fertility clinics because...that involves killing :confused:
 
  • #17
Federal funding on New Embryonic...there is no ban on stem cell research! and I agree! Just like there should be no federal funding of abortions! Why should people have to pay for acts that they deem to be murder?
I'm very pro-choice. In fact if one of my children(2 of which are adults) were to become pregnant or get someone pregnant I would gladly pay for or assist in attaining an abortion, if that is what they wanted. I think if you want to fund embryonic stem cell research YOU SHOULD! But people who believe it is murder and unethical should not have to have their money funding it.
BE THAT AS IT MAY...


THERE IS NO...

Let me repeat that

THERE IS NO>...ZERO ZIP ZING ZONG NO
NO BAN ON STEM CELL RESEARCH!

And BUSH is the first president to ever back funding for stem cell research! EVER! Hurrah for Bush!
 
  • #18
Gokul43201 said:
Bush's policy on embryonic stem cell research is just plain self-contradictory. He's against it, because it involves killing. But he's okay with maintaining some limited number of lines. But he's not okay with funding the use of discarded embryos from fertility clinics because...that involves killing :confused:


You peopel love the straw man. Don't inject a fallacy so you can argue with yoruself.

The stated reason (I won't comment on my own views on this subject right now) is that there are moral and ethical ramifications that need to be figured out before opening the floodgates. Does using aborted fetuses create a social inclination towards abortion because the aborted fetus will go to a good cause? I don't know, Bush doesn't know, and neither do you. It's a question worth discussion, and is one at the crux of why we have the federal ban on funding for NEW LINES. The existing lines, whether you consider their creation bad or good or neutral are already in existence, and thus federal funding to use them is in no way a government sanction to increase the populous' willingness to get an abortion.

It is not a self-contradictory position, but more of a compromise between an alll out moratorium and doing something that may have further ramifications than we presently can see.
 
  • #19
kat said:
THERE IS NO>...ZERO ZIP ZING ZONG NO
NO BAN ON STEM CELL RESEARCH!
That's just spin. Even if you put it in capital letters, it's still misleading to the point of being wrong.

Virtually all research in this country is government-funded. The NSF, particularly, is repsonsible for much of the research funding in this country. The NSF is no longer able to fund research on new embryonic stem cells. Sure, it's not illegal, but scientists can't get funding to do it. Perhaps ol' Bush wanted to make sure the research was crippled without having to actually admit his religious-right purposes in actually banning it?
And BUSH is the first president to ever back funding for stem cell research! EVER! Hurrah for Bush!
Bush is also the first president to ever restrict government funding of any form of stem cell research. Why do you want to focus on the irrelevant?

He funded old stem-cell research that is now seriously behind the times. There are almost 100 new embryonic lines around the world which are totally unaccessible to the vast majority of US researchers because they cannot receive funding to study them.

If you want to close your ears and act like an moron and declare that this is good, I really do fear for this country's future. People like you scare me.

- Warren
 
  • #20
*sigh* Pardon me for my reply’s factual inaccuracies with regards to the Bush administration’s policy towards human stem-cell research.

Anyway, the point of the matter is that if the Kerry promise holds when he is elected, research on human stem-cells will be much easier than it is with the current Bush policies. Is that better?
 
  • #21
virutally of the research in this country is government funded?
Link to this? How about specifically medical research?
 
  • #22
kat said:
Bush did not ban stem cell research. He is the first president to fund stem cell research. Federal funding of stem cell research prior to the BUsh was $0. The 2003 budget included $24.8 million for human embryonic stem cell research, an increase of 132 percent from 2002 and $190 million in funding for adult stem cells. There is no ban on private research of stem cells at all.
You realize that stem cells were only first isolated in 1998, and that with Clinton getting a blow-job and essentially being politiclaly deadlocked for the end of his second term, Bush was pretty much the only guy who even had the opportunity to fund it.

kat said:
Federal funding on New Embryonic...there is no ban on stem cell research! and I agree! Just like there should be no federal funding of abortions! Why should people have to pay for acts that they deem to be murder?
By that logic, hippies should either be exempt from paying taxes, since the government makes bombs and guns etc., or the government should stop making weapons of war. You guys get to go bomb countries and set up fascist dictatorships to later overthrow, god damnit, just let us save lives!
 
  • #23
phatmonky said:
virutally of the research in this country is government funded?
Link to this? How about specifically medical research?
NSF's site appears to be down right now, but I'm not dodging the question. I'll be happy to provide evidence later.

- Warren
 
  • #24
Bush caving to pressure from religious groups to stop stem cell research infuriated me. No he didn't ban it, he just hogtied it.

He wimped out and decided that the US would only support research done on the already existing supply of stem cells, even though scientists testified that the cells involved were actually pre-embrionic "On the first issue, are these embryos human life -- well, one researcher told me he believes this five-day-old cluster of cells is not an embryo, not yet an individual, but a pre-embryo. He argued that it has the potential for life, but it is not a life because it cannot develop on its own."

"My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs."

I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our Creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your President I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world. And while we're all hopeful about the potential of this research, no one can be certain that the science will live up to the hope it has generated."

"I have made this decision with great care, and I pray it is the right one.

Thank you for listening. Good night, and God bless America."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
I retract my previous statements. Bush quite clearly stated his religious-right purposes in enacting the ban and crippling the science.

- Warren
 
  • #26
GENIERE said:
Talk about pure b*llsht!

Edwards on the campaign trail -

"When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.' Edwards made the unprecedented campaign promises during 30-minute speech at Newton High School gym in Newton, Iowa... "

If he promises to cure old age, I might vote for him.

..

Ch.Reeve = zombie?
 
  • #27
phatmonky said:
You peopel love the straw man. Don't inject a fallacy so you can argue with yoruself.

The stated reason (I won't comment on my own views on this subject right now) is that there are moral and ethical ramifications that need to be figured out before opening the floodgates. Does using aborted fetuses create a social inclination towards abortion because the aborted fetus will go to a good cause? I don't know, Bush doesn't know, and neither do you. It's a question worth discussion, and is one at the crux of why we have the federal ban on funding for NEW LINES. The existing lines, whether you consider their creation bad or good or neutral are already in existence, and thus federal funding to use them is in no way a government sanction to increase the populous' willingness to get an abortion.

It is not a self-contradictory position, but more of a compromise between an alll out moratorium and doing something that may have further ramifications than we presently can see.

These are not reasons given by Bush, ever. And I'm not talking about embryos from aborted foetuses. I was talking about the hundreds of thousands of embryos from fertility clinics that will stay frozen until they're useless.

I've never read or heard Bush talk of the opssible opening of the floodgates to abortion as a result of changing ethical standards. If you have, okay, I think that is a reasonable argument as far as using aborted embryos is concerned - but for nothing else. During the second debte, Bush said : "Embryonic stem-cell research requires the destruction of life to create a stem cell." That seems to be the line he's using to gather support for his policy.
 
  • #28
chroot said:
NSF's site appears to be down right now, but I'm not dodging the question. I'll be happy to provide evidence later.

- Warren
I await anxiously :)
 
  • #29
Gokul43201 said:
These are not reasons given by Bush, ever. And I'm not talking about embryos from aborted foetuses. I was talking about the hundreds of thousands of embryos from fertility clinics that will stay frozen until they're useless.

I've never read or heard Bush talk of the opssible opening of the floodgates to abortion as a result of changing ethical standards. If you have, okay, I think that is a reasonable argument as far as using aborted embryos is concerned - but for nothing else. During the second debte, Bush said : "Embryonic stem-cell research requires the destruction of life to create a stem cell." That seems to be the line he's using to gather support for his policy.

I will find you links tomorrow - I have an English paper to write. My statements come from a combined reading of Bush's position on stem cell research and the popes public conversations with Bush on the issue.

And I might as well make this clear since I see the wave coming... I am for federal funding of stem cell research from new lines,and to the extent of my present knowledge support such research almost unfettered.
 
  • #30
chroot said:
That's just spin. Even if you put it in capital letters, it's still misleading to the point of being wrong.
There is no ban on stem cell research. Saying that there is when you know that there is not is not only misleading but an outright lie.


Bush is also the first president to ever restrict government funding of any form of stem cell research. Why do you want to focus on the irrelevant?
I've never considered over 300 million in funding to be irrelevant.

If you want to close your ears and act like an moron and declare that this is good, I really do fear for this country's future. People like you scare me.

- Warren
I think you could perhaps leave off with the personal attacks/insults. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
kat said:
I think you could perhaps leave off with the personal attacks/insults. Thanks.

Thats the liberal way! Don't address the facts, attack the messenger. A little admonishment from Evo would be justified.
 
  • #32
kat said:
There is no ban on stem cell research. Saying that there is when you know that there is not is not only misleading but an outright lie.
There is a ban on new federally-funded embryonic stem-cell research. That is a type of ban. There is therefore a ban.

Similarly, I have a blue umbrella. It is a type of umbrella. I therefore have an umbrella.

There is a type of ban present, so I am justified in saying there is a ban present. You are unjustified in saying there is no ban present.

If you'd like me to always specifically use the entire phrase "ban on new federally-funded embryonic stem-cell research," I'd be happy to. It doesn't make any difference if I just call it a "ban," though, because everyone here already understands its scope.

- Warren
 
  • #33
There is a ban on new federally-funded embryonic stem-cell research. That is a type of ban. There is therefore a ban.

Hehehehehe! Liberals for ya! No, there is no ban.

Anyone can do research on stem cells, period. They just can't use federal money to do it. Its that simple. get off your lying horse.
 
  • #34
I'm sorry but when did they place a "ban on new federally-funded embryonic stem-cell research" ? the fact that it's "new federally funded" would suggest it's being funded and not banned...I don't know why you want to twist words to say something they cant. There is no ban on stem cell research, period.
 
  • #35
How exactly is a prohibition on funding not a ban? You people just don't like to hear the word ban!

phatmonkey,

http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind04/c4/fig04-06.htm
http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind04/c4/c4s1.htm#c4s1l6a

"Moreover, the Federal Government funded 61.8 percent of the basic research performed by universities and colleges in 2002."

- Warren
 
  • #36
If there's no ban, why does Bush keep telling us that it's morally unacceptable? If it's morally unacceptable, why is there no ban ? :biggrin:

Help...I'm starting to sound like JFK :eek:
 
  • #37
PRBot.Com said:
Hehehehehe! Liberals for ya! No, there is no ban.

Anyone can do research on stem cells, period. They just can't use federal money to do it. Its that simple. get off your lying horse.

PRBot, you of all people should not be tossing the word 'liberal' around so losely. --> https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47501
 
  • #38
kat said:
I'm sorry but when did they place a "ban on new federally-funded embryonic stem-cell research" ? the fact that it's "new federally funded" would suggest it's being funded and not banned...I don't know why you want to twist words to say something they cant. There is no ban on stem cell research, period.
Oh, I see the problem. The problem is that you're illiterate.

The "ban" I'm speaking of is a policy enacted by Bush on August 9, 2001, that says that federal money -- the largest source of funding for science research -- can no longer be used to fund any new embryonic stem-cell research. This is the most promising kind, the stuff that has not already been studied.

Before August 9, stem-cell researchers could get grant money from the government to do new work. After August 9, they could no longer get grant money from the government. This is a ban. I have no idea why you think it's not.

- Warren
 
  • #39
placing guidelines on government grants towards assisting purchasing housing is not banning house purchases.
Placing guidelines on government grants for park improvements is not banning park improvements...
placing guidelines on government grants for stem cell research is not banning stem cell research...
etc. etc. etc.
 
  • #40
chroot said:
Oh, I see the problem. The problem is that you're illiterate.
- Warren

Relax Warren :smile:
 
  • #41
There is a BAN on FEDERAL MONEY which cannot be used FOR the research NOT on the research itself.

1+1=2
 
  • #42
chroot said:
Oh, I see the problem. The problem is that you're illiterate.

First it's that I am a moron and now its that I'm illiterate...Oh I see, you're a major jerk who can't seem to carry on a dialogue without name calling. Screw you.
 
  • #43
kat said:
placing guidelines on government grants towards assisting purchasing housing is not banning house purchases.
Placing guidelines on government grants for park improvements is not banning park improvements...
placing guidelines on government grants for stem cell research is not banning stem cell research...
etc. etc. etc.
These are not relevant examples. As I've indicated, the government is largest contributor to scientific inquiry in this country. It is not the largest contributor to housing purchases or to park improvements, so your analogy is deeply flawed.

The federal government's policy to not support new stem-cell research means the death of that research, since the government is (and historically always has been) the largest funding agency in the world.

What, do you really think it doesn't affect the research?

- Warren
 
  • #44
kat said:
First it's that I am a moron and now its that I'm illiterate...Oh I see, you're a major jerk who can't seem to carry on a dialogue without name calling. Screw you.
If you can't figure out whether or not the government is or is not funding new stem-cell research, please don't vote. Please.

- Warren
 
  • #45
chroot said:
What, do you really think it doesn't affect the research?

- Warren
The statement being argued was not that it affected research. Were that the argument then I would agree that it affected research. Having an affect on research is not a ban, no matter how you twist or turn it...there is NO ban on stem cell research.
 
Last edited:
  • #46
I think the total research labs doing stem cell research in the US at the present time is about 5,800 +/- according to a New Scientist article which lists labs doing ACTIVE research. The reason these labs can do active research is because it is not illegal to do stem cell research in the US. It is very legal, thus no ban.

very simple stuff. Nough said.
 
  • #47
kat said:
The statement being argues was not that it affected research. Were that the argument then I would agree with it affected research. Having an affect on research is not a ban, no matter how you twist or turn it...there is NO ban on stem cell research.
As I keep repeating, there is a ban on federal funding for new embryonic stem cell research. That's a ban, no matter how you twist and turn it.

- Warren
 
  • #48
chroot said:
If you can't figure out whether or not the government is or is not funding new stem-cell research, please don't vote. Please.

- Warren
Stop twisting and putting words in my mouth. There is no ban on stem cell research. You know it and I know it, trying to twist my statements is not going to create a non-existent ban on stem cell research.
 
  • #49
chroot said:
As I keep repeating, there is a ban on federal funding for new embryonic stem cell research.
Thank GOd, he finally gets it.

That's a ban, no matter how you twist and turn it.

- Warren
Yeah, a ban on funding not on research.
Yadda yadda yadda...
 
  • #50
That's a ban, no matter how you twist and turn it

Correct. That is a ban ON FEDERAL MONEY not on stem cell research. If you can't understand the difference than you just like to argue for the sake of arguing.
 

Similar threads

News How long until the left labels Zell Miller a traitor?
Replies
27
Views
5K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
2
Replies
65
Views
10K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top