Give that poor man a snake!
A lack of state support for stem cell research in the US has resulted in the country falling behind other nations in this area of science, a group of American politicians said today.
Members of a bipartisan delegation of US congressmen and women, who have met British researchers, government officials and regulatory agencies to find out more about stem cell research in the UK, said that “leadership in this field had shifted to the UK”.
In the 1990s the US was a major player in this field of research. The first published accounts of the production of human embryonic stem cells in 1998 came from teams based at the University of Wisconsin and Johns Hopkins University.
But, as restrictions have tightened, the US has seen more scientists moving to the UK, which allows research involving stem cells derived from human embryos up to 14 days of development. The most high-profile of these defections was Roger Pederson, who left the University of California in San Francisco for the University of Cambridge five years ago.
However, the Royal Society warned that the UK “should not be misled” into thinking the US restrictions were good news for British researchers.
“UK research is slower because US colleagues lack vital federal support to aid development of therapies based on research on human embryonic stem cells,” said Sir Richard Gardner, who has chaired major studies into stem cell research for the society.
“UK patients suffering from diseases and injuries that could potentially be treated with stem cell therapies could benefit from treatments that are based on research carried out anywhere in the world and are best served if progress is based on a concerted international effort.
Take a number and get in line to describe the ignorance, bigotry, superstition, parochialism, fear and opportunism — that describes our nation’s government when it comes to policies affecting science and technology.
Perhaps if US scientists tried telling their government that they were trying to cure the “gay gene”, they would loosen the restrictions around stem cell research
And why can’t it be privately funded?
I’m sick to death of everybody thinking that everything should be funded or fixed by the federal government — My house gets flooded, it’s the federal government’s responsibility; I can’t afford to medicate myself, it’s the federal government’s responsibility; gas prices are too high, it’s the federal government’s responsibility; I need money to pursue my obscure artistic desires, it’s the federal government’s responsibility; we need more money for stem cell research, it’s the federal government’s responsibility.
Jesus Christ, you wouldn’t that there was ever such a thing as self reliance from government. And we might as well just disolve the states, since they themselves are all on the federal wellfare dole.
#2
Why? Because my private pocket (and yours) funds this government …
Stem cells on crackers is one of the favorite hors d’oeuvres at our god-cursing liberal orgies. We always get the munchies when we smoke so much pot, and stem cells really hit the spot for a light snack. When we’re really hungry, we eat the charred remains from the animal sacrifices.
We could use more government research funding to see how to eliminate the stem cell aftertaste, or possibly just to find a good wine to complement the flavor.
Mike,
I agree with you. Part of the problem is our reliance on government and the huge amount of dollars they have to throw at a problem. Our current administration does have a neandethal mind set in this area.
Mike — have to head off to work; so, I’ll try to make this brief.
1. Scientists would be happy if the government just got out of the way. You sound more like the crowd who’d be perfectly happy to have the Feds get in the way — and hurl your tax dollars to the wind — if they’re doing something you approve of, that day. That’s called hypocrisy.
2. Maybe you really are one of those strict constructionist Libertarians. Let’s get rid of public education — instead of fixing it. Let’s get rid of the FCC, Congress, Social Security and Medicare — instead of acting like citizens of a democratic republic and exercising a bit of responsibility and Fixing It! Let’s get rid of a standing Army. The one we have doesn’t defend us any better than our federal police. Instead of Fixing it.
After all, we can always go all the way back to the roots of our Constitution and leave all the power in the hands of [corporation or] land-owning white males. Oh…that’s right.
Well, how about a constitutional monarchy where we could have figurehead families representing corporate greed by inheritance? You know. Like the Kennedy and Bush families? Oh…that’s right.
#3 – If we expect the federal government to do everything for us then we aren’t paying nearly enough in taxes. I know I don’t want them doing everything for me. I like being able to choose what I spend my money on, hence the free market economy.
Art,
The difference is that organizations and individuals have a choice to give their own money privately; but unless you want to go to jail, contributing to the public spending sprees of the government is compulsory.
The White House hasn’t passed gas for decades without calling for a quick phone poll. The pollsters charge a lot of money, and regularly backs up their numbers with research. The question is, do you ignore the majority of Americans totally ignorant about most serious topics and listen to the few knowledgeable experts? Can we admit that a Representative Democracy doesn’t require daily pandering to the electorate?
No, Moss, I prefer states and local communities come up with solutions to their own problems, instead of having “one size fits all” mandates rammed down their throats by the federal government. Which is what all strict constructionists who believe in federalism would want.
Just because the states entered into a federal union, doesn’t mean that the federal government is now there to take over all of their responsibilities for them. States can’t even maintain their damned roads without getting money to do so from the federal government. To me, that is a clear sign that too much money is flowing into Washington, and not enough is flowing into the respective state capitols.
cyberdork, why should they if they know the government will pay the lion’s share, and they can come in afterwords and reap the benefits?
There is nothing these days that is more hyped than stem cell based treatments. Supposedly everything from paralysis to alzheimers will someday be curable thats to the wonders of stem cells. So are you seriously going to tell me that there would be no private funds available in the absence of public funds?
#7
Agreed 100%, however, we pay them enough! to fund research like that and many other things. If they don’t want to fund anything but their paycheck, military and alike than I want a refund!
As I mentioned at another Post, I found some wi-fi whilst out and about.
Reasonable reply, Mike — avoiding most of what I raised and what the article [remember that?] is about. The topic is government interference in private research — whether there are federal funding options or not.
Researchers like Pederson could be persecuted by the Feds if they pursued the research here — he’s doing in Cambridge.
Phew! You gotta be dedicated to John Dvorak to suffer with 80211.b and a really cheap hookup here.
Mike, you really don’t even read much science, do you?
how do you “read much science”?
The US is probably #1 in funding stem cell research. Even embryonic stem cell research gets funding. Also, most of the successes have come from non-embryo stem cell research.
the republicans are trying to turn america into a nation that looks at a man with a disability who can’t work, has no family, and no money to pay his medical bills that the government should just let him die.
that is a cold fact.
because i’m not smart enough to participate in your discussion:
i live in madison, wi – where the stem cell research is and i ran into a group of researchers at jolly bob’s on my birthday. STRANGE bunch of people and HORRIBLE flirters.
they think they’re gods.
1st. I agree with mike
2nd. Partisan politics and scientific research has worked great for the debate on global warming hasn’t it? [smirk] Now we want to add stem cells to the mix!?! Good grief.
AB CD continues his strident defense of anything Bush does.
“The US is probably #1 in funding stem cell research.”
Probably? What does that mean? The truth is the US isn’t.
“Also, most of the successes have come from non-embryo stem cell research.”
That’s how you do research. Only research what worked in the past.
Horrible flirters? What is a good flirter?
>Probably? What does that mean? The truth is the US isn’t.
Then who is? I said probably because I can’t find a list of what other countries are spending. Just how much is the US government spending on this research? Then the research companies played the abortion card to get money from the states.
>That’s how you do research. Only research what worked in the past.
Huh? They are doing new stuff with adult stem cells, and it’s shown the most promise. But you’d rather spend most of your money on avenues that haven’t panned out in the past?
AB CD: You shouldn’t rely on Faux News for scientific data:
“Embryonic stem cell research is “thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells,” according to the National Institutes of Health.[3] Research using embryonic stem cells remains at the zenith of stem cell science because, unlike somatic cells, embryonic stem cells are totipotent.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cells#News
As to who’s doing the research it’s probably one the countries that hasn’t banned it as the US has done.
Not one cure for disease has ever come form private sector research.
When did the US ban embryonic stem cell research? Last I heard the US was funding it. I know the claims of potential, but I was referring to the successes to date.