Hopefully sanity will prevail on stem cells.

It looks like Congress feels the prevailing wind, as there is bipartisan support there. Hopefully they can work out a compromise with Bush.

You disagree with not funding embryonic stem cell research so you will probably disagree with this analysis:

I think the above post is correct in its predictions unless the GOP does a good job (for once, please? C'mon Hughes and Rove...) of getting their message (embryonic stem cell research is murder) out there.

In case you hadn't noticed, I am a social conservative. And fiscal. And libertarian.

btw, the above comment is directed to Bill, not TallDave. TallDave posted while I was writing.

Well, that's a perfectly valid political plan, but ...

embryonic stem cell research is murder

... they are going to have to do a heck of a lot more than "get their message out there," as most Americans do not share that ethical frame of reference. It's a bit more work to change that.

Refusing to spend tax dollars on a line of research that has had NO success yet (while adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells are out there curing things as we speak) that is controversial at best in the moral/ethical department is NOT "anti-science."

Too bad Soros is more interested in Leftist anti-Americanism than actually putting those millions upon millions to use.

I voted against the CA EMBRYONIC stem cell boondoggle not because I want people to die, but because I believe when people are starving you start by proposing to feed them hamburger not peacock tongues.

BTW when polls accurately reflected what the Schiavo case was really about, the numbers were quite different than the very agenda driven ABC one.

It is a matter not only of fact, but message and the MSM still smarts after being knocked off as kingmaker so they will not put anything from the GOP as positive under any circumstances (and they'll make darlings of the 'mavericks')

It's reminscent of how CA's legislature for years punished CA citizens for having the audacity to pass Prop 13 (cap on property taxes)... every unfixed classroom, every increase in crime, members would sniff.."You asked for it!"

But Darleen, while I have some rather strong disagreements about the specifics of your comment, what's more notable is that you're pining for imaginary context. It's not what YOU think it to be, or the perspective that COULD be presented "when," "if," it's how the public perceives the moves and how they are spun.

And I'm telling you, for example, every time Delay steps anywhere near a mic, it's bad for the GOP. Same with Randall Terry and the Schiavo thing.

And this, btw, is spin:

on a line of research that has had NO success yet (while adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells are out there curing things as we speak)

Ask yourself why? WHY hasn't it shown success yet? This is one of the most ridiculous arguments that I've heard out of people against this bill thus far. Castigating a nascent research angle because it isn't "out there curing things" IS anti-science. And silly.

How come there is the same support for banning abortion? What's the difference?

If you really think about it, the only difference is how well the message has been gotten out. If you believe abortion is wrong you must, by logical extension, believe that embryonic stem cell research that destroys embryos is wrong.

I have no problem with research that wouldn't harm the human embryo, but I'm not aware of any such research.

The whole frustrating thing about this debate is the unrealistic claims proponents of embryonic stem cell research make. They claim to be able to cure a whole range of diseases with embryonic stem cells.

Two problems: #1 The same things can be done with, say, umbilical cord stem cells. (i.e. they don't need to kill an embryo to do it.) #2 Those claims as to miracle cures are not realistic. There is no animal testing that has been done, which is always an essential prerequisite to knowing that something will work on humans. Its all totally theoretical that it might somehow. They have nothing concrete. They don't even have a *theoretical blueprint* of how to go about solving those diseases.

Furthermore, embryonic stem cell research has not been "banned" as the Liberals like to say. All that's happening is that the federal gov is not *funding* ESCR. Private money is free to research it.

If all these miracle cures will result, it's a good business investment right? As you know, hundreds of millions of dollars are pouring into ESCR. Oh, wait...

Anyway: I don't think that it is right that the government fund a research project that a large portion of the population objects to on moral grounds. I think it is a fair compromise to let it be legal, but to not let our tax dollars fund it.

For the record, I was against the whole "objecting to removing the Terry Schiavo feeding tube" thing. I had a premature little brother that lived for a week. We took him off life-support when we saw he was not going to make it. I support removing artificial life support when the patient is suffering and is going to die anyway. I am a social con, but not a knee-jerk one. I try to think things thru... :)

How come there is the same support for banning abortion? What's the difference?

Hate to break it to you Hans, but banning abortion is not particularly popular either. About 2/3 of Americans support first trimester abortion.

The whole frustrating thing about this debate is the unrealistic claims proponents of embryonic stem cell research make. They claim to be able to cure a whole range of diseases with embryonic stem cells.

This is hyperbolic. SOME proponents make wild claims, like Dem presidential candidates.

Others recognize that the resaerch MAY have unique POTENTIAL, as the cells are a template for any type of diseased cell.

If all these miracle cures will result, it's a good business investment right?

See the comments under my other post. Private corporations aren't predisposed to fund nascent research, as there is no short to midterm profit potential. Government funded research often lays the groundwork for practical applications.

Sorry, but there's a lot that's ideological about your comment yet not rooted in practical terms. And it strikes me that while a few well-informed folks have poked holes in my arguments on this issue, the majority seem to have no conception of how research takes place, the timelines or uncertainty of engaging in initial exploratory research, etc.

The federal government refusing to fund embryonic stem cell research is not anti science, it is just not going to give the research taxpayer dollars.

If you feel strongly about the issue, by all means pull out your checkbook and start writing some checks.

The US doesn't forbid the research it only refuses to handover taxpayer dollars to do it.

Also, at this moment in time the research with the most promising results is in adult stem cell and umbilical stem cell research. I figure if our federal dollars are going to be used for research, it would be a lot less wasteful to support the research that is getting results.

This issue does not need the news coverage of the Schiavo case to resonate Bill. And, it only takes a Randall Terry, Alan Keyes and Pat Buchanan on the cable news outlets to be damaging to Bush and the Republicans.

And, God forbid Nancy Reagan makes a public statement!

Though I'm a social con, I agree that there are limits. I tend to lean libertarian on certain issues.

tcf is absolutely right - Pat Buchanan is an embarassment. How he ever managed to stick the right is beyond my comprehention. He's not really right, he's just nationalist... well, that might be considered right wing, but heh - do we really need to put up with that guy? As long as he runs on the reform party ticket, that's fine with me. But please get him off the air!

Some people, like Randall Terry and Alan Keyes, are primarily targetting the "party faithful" - or maybe we should say the "idiology faithful". What they say may be disasterous if published nationally. So yes, do keep them off the mainstream air. The way I see it, though, they don't represent the Republican party - or even social conservatism. They are on one extreme of it, and their purpose (whether or not they realize it) is to ensure that things don't continue to drift leftwards. In this sense, I am thankful to have them around as a check. But please, please, don't consider them the voice of the Republican party.

Ah, one more thing. I've spoken with German scientists in the field of embryonic stem cell research (and incidentally AIDS research) and they told me that at the current stage of research, there are no benefits that we can possibly see arising out of embryonic stem cell research. They recommended rather focusing on adult and umbilical stem cells.

As Just Me said - if you want taxpayers dollars, you better have evidence that you're doing something worthwhile. Else get private funding. There should be enough of it out there. But why dump federal dollars into something where there's no proof that there may even possibly be any positive results. Start researching on animals. Chimps, maybe. See if that's any good. If you get any worthwhile results (I'm talking about big findings, not just hints that there might be something worthwhile in in), then you might have a valid reason to apply for federal funding.

Ideally, the feds shouldn't fund any research. It should all be done by private foundations and donors. Why do we want to keep growing the federal budget? If we'd strip some research grants, we might be able to lower taxes. Or at least not raise them for a while.

Ask yourself why? WHY hasn't it shown success yet?

Bill

I hope you are not misunderstanding me. I have two issues going on here... first, I have, personally, little ethical problems with research on discarded embryos though IMHO I think the usual dismissal by pro-embryo-research advocates of ANY ethical discussion is what gets under the skin of those that either oppose it or at least want to question it. Advocates seem to immediately slip into the "you just want people to suffer or DIE" stance. Such argument makes me perversely want to challenge 'em even if I baseline agree.

Second... there is a finite amount of Fed dollars and the reason embryonic stem cell research hasn't panned out is NOT due to a lack of funding. It's due to the fact that this wonderful "template" has been found through reseach not to be the panacea as first breathlessly promoted. The cells have proven, so far, unstable and tumors/cancer has resulted.

Adult/umbilical cord stem cells have shown, in about the same timeline of research existence, to be stable and thus, have moved into the actual therapy realm.

So that's where I get back to my argument with tax dollars. Adult/umbilical is my "hamburger" and embryonic is my "peacock tongues." Fund the things that have a PROVEN track record for the most good and let the private concerns pick up the tab for the exotic and unproven.

How much Fed $$$ do you want to pour down the hold for cold fusion research??

I absolutely agree with Darleen.

When it comes down to it, this debate over the bill isn't about whether or not the researchshould be permitted, but whether or not the taxpayer is going to fund it.

The reserach at this point says the taxpayer gets a better deal if they fund the adult stem cell and cord stem cell research.

Darleen,

Unless you're a research Phd, I don't want YOU making decisions about what science holds the most promise via your selective political backing.

Second... there is a finite amount of Fed dollars and the reason embryonic stem cell research hasn't panned out is NOT due to a lack of funding. It's due to the fact that this wonderful "template" has been found through reseach not to be the panacea as first breathlessly promoted.

This statement is out there, I'm sorry. "Panaceas as breathlessly promised" don't MATERIALIZE within your timeframe for "prove to me this works." This is still an immature research angle with potential that sets it apart from the other avenues that you mention.

And one reason it's not used is because the lines approved for use are contaminated, thus have no ability to be used in human trials.

Another reason it hasn't been used is it can a cancer vehicle (guess what, so can gene therapy).

Another reason it hasn't been used is because the ability to do experiments with it was severely curtailed due to the inefficiency of the production process.

Which, guess what? Was just severely boosted by the S Koreans, widely considered a big step in the direction to baseline research that might facilitate applications that you impatiently pine for.

The fact is, there are hundreds of blockbuster, theoretical avenues of research that aren't anywhere near the standard of usefulness that you seem to demand for ESR. Gene therapy accidentally causes cancer. Nanobots that destroy cancer cells are only theoretical computer models.

And calling for no investment in pursuing these avenues because they haven't been turned into applications yet is ridiculous.

There is a finite amount of money. As I mentioned, some of this money goes to researchers exploring penguin humping in Antarctica. That money would be better earmarked for ESR, rather than penguin humping, and given the interest in the topic, this is what will happen in the dog-eat-dog world of grant hunting. Money will shift. Scientists will steer the direction of what is promising research via their interest and ingenuity. Not you, the layman, Not the moralist or cynical politician. The scientists.

Rah-rahing a BAN for any reason other than moral purposes (which I also don't agree with, but has rationale) is silly.