Can Political Promises Truly Accelerate Medical Breakthroughs?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter GENIERE
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the impact of political promises on medical research, specifically regarding stem cell research and its potential to lead to medical breakthroughs. Participants debate the implications of past and current U.S. presidential policies on stem cell funding and the feasibility of claims made by political figures about curing paralysis.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about political promises, citing John Edwards' claim that a future president could enable people with paralysis to walk again as unrealistic.
  • Others clarify that Edwards was referring to the potential lifting of a ban on human stem cell research, which they argue could lead to significant medical advancements.
  • There is confusion about whether a ban on stem cell research exists, with some asserting that President Bush enacted a ban on federal funding for new embryonic stem cell lines, while others argue he lifted a previous ban on funding existing lines.
  • Participants discuss the implications of Bush's policies, noting that while he funded existing stem cell lines, he restricted funding for new lines, which some view as contradictory.
  • Some contributions highlight experimental successes in animal models, suggesting that stem cell therapy is closer to application than often perceived.
  • There are ongoing disagreements about the nature of the funding restrictions and the ethical implications surrounding stem cell research, with some participants arguing that the restrictions hinder progress in the field.
  • One participant emphasizes the need for a nuanced discussion about the ethical ramifications of using stem cells, particularly in relation to abortion and the societal implications of such research.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the existence and implications of funding restrictions on stem cell research. There is no consensus on the accuracy of claims about past presidential policies or their impact on future research potential.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include varying interpretations of presidential policies, the complexity of ethical considerations surrounding stem cell research, and the dependence on definitions of what constitutes a "ban" on research funding.

  • #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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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.
 
  • #51
There is no ban on stem-cell research. I agree. That is not what I am saying. I am saying there is a ban on federal funding for new stem-cell research, and this is fact.

- Warren
 
  • #52
Can we just agree to use a different word? Restriction? It seems you people just don't want to admit it's a direct attempt to shut down research.

- Warren
 
  • #53
kat, we would have better luck talking to walls than to this guy.
 
  • #54
chroot said:
There is no ban on stem-cell research. I agree. That is not what I am saying. I am saying there is a ban on federal funding for new stem-cell research, and this is fact.

- Warren

OH my lord, we've come to an agreement! This is what I've been saying all along... :wink:
 
  • #55
Hehehehehe! There are restrictions on driving on the wrong side of the road too! :D
 
  • #56
PRBot.Com said:
Hehehehehe! There are restrictions on driving on the wrong side of the road too! :D
And that's relevant because?

- Warren
 
  • #57
Hmm. Wording aside, the situation seems to be that thanks to president Bush we have little to no meaningful stem cell research going on. This is what the original topic was concerned with, and its ramifications would have been a more interesting discussion in my humble opinion.

Am I to understand Kerry intends to remove all restrictions on funding research into new areas of stem cell research?
 
  • #58
Locrian said:
Hmm. Wording aside, the situation seems to be that thanks to president Bush we have little to no meaningful stem cell research going on. This is what the original topic was concerned with, and its ramifications would have been a more interesting discussion in my humble opinion.
Yes, I agree. But the Bush supporters wanted to argue semantics instead.
Am I to understand Kerry intends to remove all restrictions on funding research into new areas of stem cell research?
This is what he has claimed in his campaign.

- Warren
 
  • #59
phatmonky said:
virutally of the research in this country is government funded?
Link to this? How about specifically medical research?

Yes, unless you're developing drugs in a pharmaceutical company, where they don't do the basic science work to understand how things work, just develop the drug to fix it after the university scientists have figured out the mechanism involved, you're most likely funded by the government.

The largest funder of medical research is the NIH. If you work at a medical school, you're not likely to get tenure unless you can demonstrate that you're able to obtain NIH funding...it's that critical to keeping university research going. NSF actually doesn't provide much funding for medical research, but would be the place that funds the ground-breaking work. The real basic science where you're still trying to figure out how a new observation fits into the bigger picture of human biology is what they fund. There are small, special interest, private foundations that fund research, but they are few and far between, and usually only provide enough funds for very small-scale projects (these are a good source to tap if you need some funds for exploratory projects to develop preliminary data to support an NIH proposal).
 
  • #60
If you'd like more information about stem cells and stem cell funding, you can visit the NIH stem cell information home page.
http://stemcells.nih.gov/index.asp
They have an FAQ page with good explanations of what is funded, what is available, and what the limitations are to adult stem cells.
Stem Cell FAQs: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/faqs.asp

Regarding the number of lines available, this is what is posted in their FAQs:

4. When does NIH anticipate that more stem cell lines will become available?
As of September 1, 2003, there are 12 human embryonic stem cell lines that federally supported researchers may purchase. This number is up from only one or two lines in Spring 2002. The increased availability of the lines is a direct consequence of NIH’s funding of infrastructure awards to support cell providers to develop their eligible lines into distribution-quality, well-characterized cell lines. Up-to-date information on available lines can be found on the NIH Stem Cell Registry.

However, upon visiting the stem cell registry, it currently appears there are 22 lines (NIH is attempting to help researchers with potentially eligible lines get them characterized so they will be suitable for distribution). Of those 22 lines, 1 has an abnormal karyotype, reducing the total number available to 21. 20 indicate they have mouse feeder cells, and 1 doesn't provide information about whether mouse feeder cells are present or not.

Also, here's a link to an NSF report on Federal research funding compiled for all Federal agencies: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/infbrief/nsf04331/start.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

News How long until the left labels Zell Miller a traitor?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K