Stem Cells

Well now we can just sit back and wait for the cures & industry growth this seed money will produce.

Anyone want to keep score on how Illinois gains from this expenditure? (Besides, of course, growing
a 'stem-cell research dollars' lobby & dependent class)

Hopefully he can leverage this notoriety into a position at Florida State or the University of North Dakota

Because Rod is all about buying votes with State money - one constituency at a time.

anon 4:10 -

I think you are under estimating the amount of money it would take to do meaningful research.

I didn't imply there needed to be an economic benefit from stem-cell research. I simply stated that dubious research shouldn't fall within the purview of our state government. Especially one that continually seems to operate in financial crisis mode. If the state government can't seem to find the money to suspend an excessive tax on gasoline during a time of record prices, then it shouldn't pour our tax dollars down the experimental research hole. And any potential "public health benefits" resulting from this research are certainly unsubstantiated.

run4cvrlib - the problem for pharmaceutical companies and stem cell research is that such research produces cures, which are much less profitable than treatments for chronic diseases.

Stem cells are tasty, especially with ranch dressing on them.

Mark: That wasn't my point, and you know it.

If I was given a grant of $250k to do stem cell research, the first thing I'd do is hire a lobbyist for $150k a year to lobby for me in Springfield to get me more money next year. I'd reserve some of the remaining $100k for campaign contributions. Then I'd pay myself for the year. If anything was left over, I'd buy a microscope to look at stem cells.

Part of the lobbyist message would be to spread the word that more tax payer funded stem cell research is needed in Illinois. I'd usse the money to smear big pharma and get a grass roots movement going. The RSWs of the world will *never* support me, but the Squires of the world will. I will build my lobbying effort around those types of people. The message would be of hope, that one day miracle cures will be found. That will resonate with a lot of people. Not a day would go by without the average taxpayer hearing how important stem cell research is, and how important it is to Illinois. I'd use every channel available - newspapers, the internet, local talk shows (radio and TV), colleges, libraries, etc.

By the time that $150k was spent, no one will bat an eye next year when Springfield wants to triple stem cell research spending. Are YOU going to be the one that argues against hope?

John Galt, Your right it doesn't matter to the pro-choice movement if embryonic stem cell research has had any success as Adult stem cell research has. They want something that makes abortion look positive in someway. They don't care if they are wasting money that could be used to really help the people they purport to want to help. They will even continue to drop the word Embryonic to confuse the issue and the people who really need help. It's also a great political issue because a liberal media does not differentiate between Adult and Embryonic stem cell research and that one works and the other does not. Then they say that the republicans don't care because they don't support stem cell research not saying which kind.

So, Mark, you seem to be saying that it is wrong in principle to put public money towards research unless you can guarantee positive results. I guess that makes you anti-Star-Wars defense program as well? Anti-fusion-nuclear-power research?

The nature of research is that you are *investigating* whether something is workable - there are no guarantees. The reason embyonic stem cells need alternate funding sources is because the Bush administration has cut off federal funds for it. There is money for other kinds of research, so it makes sense for states to fund it instead. Maybe this is a political ploy by Blago, but the money isn't being wasted if it helps determine whether or not stem cells can be used to treat or cure disease. Even determining that they are not useful is money well spent - it ends the debate in a scientific way.

Also, run4cvrlib, it is ludicrous to say that people who support embryonic stem cell research are doing so only as a way to support abortion. Nobody likes to see abortions happen. People who don't support it do so mainly because they are anti-abortion, and people who support it do so because they don't want avenues to potential health cures cut off due to political reasons (rather than scientific reasons).

http://backyardconservative.blogspot.com/2006/04/playing-politics-with-life-and-death.html

There was no promise of success when explorers sought to show the earth was very large, and round;
there was no promise of success that Pasteur would cure anthrax, or Salk would cure polio,
there was no promise of success that humans would conquer space;
there was no promise of success that American military forces would prevail in Europe or in the Middle East;
there was no promise of success that the memory of the acts and words of a Jewish man would become the recognition of a Saviour;

It's not the promise of success, it's the possibilities, possibilities which must be explored before dismissing out of hand.

But, cons don't see possibilities, cons only see through their very narrow "morality driven" perspectives.

Without getting into the politics of this....

Profit motive or not, is this even something within the scope of pharmaceutical companies?

I may be off base, but my understanding is that, for the most part, pharmaceutical companies develop drugs...chemicals...which are used for prevention, treatment, and cure of diseases.

I could be wrong, but aren't most medical procedures, such as surgeries, organ replacements, etc. developed in universities, hospitals, or medical schools?

I could be completely misunderstanding how stem cells therapies would work, but it seems to me that it is more of a procedure than a product that you can develop, box, and dispense like medication. So I don't know what pharmaceutical companies would have to do with this.

Really a shame that anyone would let their actions be driven by their "“morality driven” perspectives".

If you believe an embyro is a human being, and I do, then you cannot support any research or cure that must destroy an embryo, anymore than you could support a cure that required the destruction of a 80 year old man.

But of course, ultracons, just like ultralibs immediately engage in ignorantium ad hominem.

Feh.

Actually the probability of success of adult stem cell research are far greater than the probabilities for embryonic. Unfortunately, adult stem cell research doesn't fit into the political agenda of the left.

Supercon John, that's ridiculous.

If scientists discovered that only lawyers had an extract made from their eviscerated black and evil hearts, and the extract cured (well, reduced) hangnails, I'd say, go for it!

GH, of course there is. Wacko Bramfield is silly, but correct, for a flake. (NOTE to our African Amercan readers, there are no extracts, conditions, potions, or whatnot that we put in your Brown's fried chicken to make you sterile or so we can cut you up and steal your parts. It is a myth. There are other myths, too, but they are myths nonetheless.)

God, and only God, determines who lives and who dies. God, and only God, drives the choices which result in the life or death of people.

Embyonic stem research is NOT aborting babies to suck their cells out. The cells are already available, are grown in laboratories, the scientists grow more cells from the cells, and the resulting cells have absolutely no chance at life. None. It's not Jurassic Park.

So it doesn't mean a pro-embryonic-stem-cell person is pro-abortion, it means he/she is pro-medical research.

GH, what is the matter with you?

OK, here's one, ala Bramfield:

it would be morally reprehensible to crack open the heads of 4 year olds so scientists could rub their brains on warts to see if the warts would shrink.

Good enough? Or don't you have anything better to do than try and make this a pure black and white, pro-embyronic stem cell research so you must be pro-abortion and an unfeeling murderous thug to boot, vs any and all termination of a petri dish with some cells that have come from a human embryo many generations (of stem cells) ago because it is murder and to be for it will put you in eternal damnation and perdition?

Sheesh. Of course some medical research is wrong, I ain't Josef Mengele.

Man, things degenerate around here quickly. I take a break to work for a few hours, and I come back to learn that, basically, everyone in the world is evil based on their particular take on stem cell research. :)

So, I'll add some more gas to fire: Bramfeld, are you against organ transplants?

More gas:

Would you rush into a burning house, risking, even costing you your life, to save a child?

Would you shoot a person who was preparing to shoot children, or would you wait until he shot a child or two?

Would you shoot down an airplane if it was flown by terrorists who were about to crash into a building full of people?

Would you perform an abortion to save a mother's life?

If not, I'm glad you are not: a firefighter, a police officer, a USAF pilot, or a surgeon.

redstate, you've touched on one of the things that makes this debate so ridiculus. Every year thousands of frozen embryos are discarded when the parents who created them for their fertility treatments no longer need them. What do the family values folks say should be done with them?

It's unfortunate we reward lawyers more than researchers because the bureacratic costs of keeping them employed as trial lawyers, public defenders, state's attorneys, judges, politicians, etc. is draining our economy with very limited tangible improvements to show in return.

We need less paid quibbling about philosophy and more useful products to export and keep our economy and national defense strong.

The best options for breaking the lawyer monopoly are:

1) Dramatically reduce the ever growing volumes of rules that keep lawyers busy meddling in people's business for their own personal gain.

2) Allow anyone who can pass the bar to become a lawyer, even if they studied at home like Lincoln. The increased supply will drive down wages without sacrificing quality and reducing costs.

The smart young money chasers will decide to study medicine, science or engineering and be much more useful and valuable at solving problems to improve the quality of life for society.

We need to keep our priorities straight or someday our freedom will be gone because bureacracy drained our economy leaving us weak compared to countries that guided their best minds towards more productive pursuits!

redstate, how exactly do you plan to implant those hundred thousand or so embryos that currently exist? You really think that if a couple has 30 embryos that the woman should bring 30 of them to term?

no, cyberlib, if the law says they all have to be implanted, then 30 embyros aren't produced. I assume that current U.S. procedures create all these "extras" because it ensures the extraction process won't have to be repeated if the artificial insemination fails. After all, what is the big deal if we have 25 left over (under current U.S. law)?

"And, in equal seriousness, I wish these folks would put more attention on actual, live children"

it happens every day, with multitudes of Catholic and Christian charitable organizations.

right. not inconsistent.

"Can" speaks to potential.

Those otherwise to be destroyed embyros CAN be utilized to help mankind, because they are not going to be stored forever, and they are not all going to be implanted.

Shouldn't some good from a few of the vast majority of frozen embryos destined to never have life, to being literally tossed in the trash?

If science can advance and help the suffering of countless people, wouldn't that give meaning to the potential that embryo had, potential that would have otherwise been for naught?

i dont see it as conceding, but yes, that is correct.

All embryos inside women are on the path to birth, and should be born.

Most frozen embyros inside freezers are destined for destruction, and some could help mankind.

We need fewer abortions, and we need fewer frozen embryos being created and destroyed. We do not need hundreds of thousands of abortions, and we do not need hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos, even "30" at a time.

Has anyone else missed the fact that Kaufman spends an inordinate amount of his time, on the taxpayer's dime, promoting his political agenda?

Did you all miss that Steven Kaufman admitted that he committed an act of theft last fall when he stole enough postage that it should have been considered a felony offense, while promoting his political agenda on the taxpayer's dime?

Did you all miss that he made a claim of representing the University of Illinois, an arm of the Illinois government, using the US Postal Service to do so, which should have been investigated as the possible federal crime of postal fraud?

The man, no matter how 'outstanding' he may be in his field, has no right to still be employed by the University of Illinois. He DOES have the right to be outfitted for an orange jumpsuit.

"Government funding is usually reserved for more basic research that can't attract private dollars."

this is just untrue. How absurd.