Stem Cell Research and Torture

[TheScout 10]

Why is a federal subsidy of stem cell research needed anyway. If there really is a potential for a cure, private companies will respond due to a profit motive. Some states are begining to subsidize it as well.

 

I do not think it is proper for the government to be spending my hard earned money on researh that is not related to the core functions of the federal government.

 

"They also knew those Founding Fathers did, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does no thing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy." -Ronald Reagan

[packsaddle 753]

Are you saying that public health is not a legitimate function of government? I suppose that, yes, this could be turned over to the private sector. Actually it is an interesting option, one that would efficiently apply Darwinian principles to our society.

So what parts of NIH or CDC would you shut down? Any others?

[DanKroh 11]

"I do not think it is proper for the government to be spending my hard earned money on researh that is not related to the core functions of the federal government."

 

So we should abolish the entire NIH? Nothing that the NIH does or funds is a core function of the federal government. I'm sure that $20 billion that the NIH gave out in research grants last year could better spent in Iraq, huh? Heck, while we're at it, lets get rid of the CDC, too. They don't do aything core to the federal government either, right?

 

BTW, in the federal vs. private funding argument, federal funds generally make up anywhere from 50% to 75% (depending on the year) of funds that have been availabe for biomedical research. So saying "they can get private funding" basically removes the majority (and sometimes vast majority) of funding opportunities.

 

I think packsaddle has an excellent example in the genesis of molecular biology advances. When molecular biology began, many were sceptical about it's ability to produce anything useful. But the medical advances that have been accomplished are too numerous to name.

 

I also agree with Gern's assessment about in-vitro fertilization. Instead of trying to dissuade the use of the left over embryoes from the procedure, why has there not instead been an outrage aimed at outlawing IVF instead?

 

Seems to me that those who oppose the use of those embryoes for stem-cell research are hypocritical if they don't also oppose the creation of those embryoes, many of which will be destroyed.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[BrentAllen 10]

"BTW, in the federal vs. private funding argument, federal funds generally make up anywhere from 50% to 75% (depending on the year) of funds that have been availabe for biomedical research."

 

Source please. Mine says otherwise.

 

"According to a 2005 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association: "Biomedical research funding increased from $37.1 billion in 1994 to $94.3 billion in 2003 and doubled when adjusted for inflation." Fifty-seven percent of biomedical research dollars came from industry and 28 percent from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The JAMA study added that in 2003,"the United States spent an estimated 5.6 percent of its total health expenditures on biomedical research, more than any other country."

 

In July 2006, the research lobbying group, Research!America, estimated that by 2005, health care research spending had risen to more than $111 billion. Of that total, industry spent $61 billion, government paid out $37 billion, and universities, states and philanthropies shelled out $13 billion. Total U.S. research and development expenditures, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, rose to $312 billion in 2004, nearly two-thirds ($200 billion) of it coming from private industry. Private industry and the government in the United States together provide 35 percent of the world's total R&D funding."

http://www.reason.com/news/show/36942.html

 

CDC is certainly part of providing for the common defense, regarding chemical warfare, if nothing else.

[DanKroh 11]

Brent,

 

The article I referred to in The Scientist (http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/23813/) was actually a response to that JAMA article, and examined the sources of funding for the most frequently cited articles. It suggests that the percentage of federal funding is cyclical, and has reached a higher precentage just the year before the JAMA data you quoted. But yes, there has been an overall trend in the last decade to increase private funding sources.

 

I don't have access to the original JAMA article, so there are several questions I would have about their data. The summaries I have read said that they examined the data for a decade, but doesn't say anything about whether the increase has been steady or cyclical (as suggested by The Scientist's study). It also seems to only be considering the NIH, which is NOT the only source of federal funding. Do you have access to the article so that you could address these concerns?

 

Also, as someone else pointed out, getting private funding is only part of the issue. Labs that conduct research on non-federal approved lines cannot use what federal funding they do have to pay for expenses that might even indirectly support that non-allowed research, which means administrative and facilities costs. It makes so much extra work that most scientists are dissuaded from the research for fear of losing their federal funding, which is NOT that easily replaced.

 

But my overall point is, it is not so simple to just "get private funding". All the labs I've had experience with get some of their funding from both private and federal sources. And having seen labs fold completely from losing one federal grant, I don't know many scientists who are going to put their federal funding at risk, even if that federal funding is only a part of their funding sources.

[TheScout 10]

"So we should abolish the entire NIH? Nothing that the NIH does or funds is a core function of the federal government. I'm sure that $20 billion that the NIH gave out in research grants last year could better spent in Iraq, huh?"

 

Well the NIH was founded in 1930. The United States did OK for over a century and a half without it. And instead of spending it in Iraq or anywhere, they can give the money back to you and me. It is ours anyway. I can spend it better than they can.

 

"Are you saying that public health is not a legitimate function of government?"

 

Yes. Our federal government is one of limited powers. Read the Constitution. Let us not make it a blank piece of paper. State governments can do as much research as they wish. Each state legislature can decide on its own based on the traditions and values of the state. Thats democracy.

[packsaddle 753]

Gern, your question on page 1 to Brent regarding the frozen embryos went unanswered but I remembered it when I read this headline:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15701301/site/newsweek/

 

The issue regarding the frozen embryos, a byproduct of IVF, is an issue that is vexing for those who oppose embryonic stem cell research - I understand why Brent didn't answer. The article I mentioned above does not directly answer your question but it caused me to think of one potential answer.

If all of the millions of devout Christians and others who support the right to life movement and oppose things like abortion or embryonic stem cell research...because they believe that unborn human lives are being destroyed...If they would merely open their wombs (or their wives' wombs) to implantation, one by one, of those frozen and about-to-be destroyed embryos, they would solve the problem little-by-little and it would be a generous gesture that surely would serve as an example for the rest of us.

So...what do you think? Anyone ready to step to the plate and save a human life? It is 'adoption' in the most fundamental sense, right?

[DanKroh 11]

"Well the NIH was founded in 1930. The United States did OK for over a century and a half without it."

 

Hmmm, smallpox, cholera, yellow fever, influenza epidemics. An average life expectancy of about 45. Oh yeah, I want to go back there.

 

"And instead of spending it in Iraq or anywhere, they can give the money back to you and me. It is ours anyway. I can spend it better than they can."

 

No thanks. I'd rather have the heart surgery that allowed my older son to survive past 8 years old. I'd rather have the cure for cancer that may come in time to prevent my sons from suffering from the form of cancer that claimed their mother. But you go ahead and spend your share.

[packsaddle 753]

TheScout, You need to read the posts more carefully in the future. I didn't write 'federal government'. I wrote "government". You clearly think public health is NOT a legitimate function of the federal government. Why then would it be a legitimate function of a state government as opposed to a county or parrish? Or city? Or family?

 

Moreover, your position could be applied, for that matter, to many other functions of government. Care to list them? I'd be interested in reading them.

 

Edited part: Dan and I evidently were typing at the same time. I agree with his posts.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[TheScout 10]

Packsaddle, you say, "You clearly think public health is NOT a legitimate function of the federal government. Why then would it be a legitimate function of a state government as opposed to a county or parrish? Or city? Or family?"

 

Its because different governments have different powers and authority. The constitution limits the power of the federal government to spend except in several enumerated cases. Just cause you think public health research is a good idea does not mean that it is constitutional. There is not a "good idea" clause in the constitution.

 

 

Dan, you said, "No thanks. I'd rather have the heart surgery that allowed my older son to survive past 8 years old. I'd rather have the cure for cancer that may come in time to prevent my sons from suffering from the form of cancer that claimed their mother. But you go ahead and spend your share."

 

If the government gave us all back our money. You could donate yours to a cancer research fund and I could spend it. But we all know if that happened, people would not donate on their own. That is why the government has to coerce the spending out of people.

 

Thanks,

 

The Scout

 

[BrentAllen 10]

packsaddle,

You said you understand why I didn't respond - well, you are wrong again. As I have said before on this site (I even gave you the answer earlier), I haven't studied the issue enough to make my own opinion.

I have two problems with this whole ESC issue. 1. The issue is a moral problem for a substantial number of citizens, and their tax dollars shouldn't be used to perform it - similar to federal funding of abortion. 2. I am sick of seeing it hyped and politicized - John Edwards saying if you vote for him, spinal cord patients will walk again.

 

Back when the Georgia flag was a hot issue, I was strongly against changing it (surprise?). I had a long discussion with a black friend, and he pointed out that he didn't care if I flew the flag at my house or anywhere else. The State flag, however, represented all Georgians, and many black residents found if offensive. I agreed after hearing his argument.

 

Take the same approach to ESC. Many residents are against abortion and against ESC. Using their tax dollars to promote the issue is offensive to them, and against their religious views. I can see their point. Now, you would have to go ask each and every one of them Gern's question. I don't have their answers. I'll try to read up on the issue, in between my one hour a week (per hat, per boy, per......)

[packsaddle 753]

TheScout, I'm not sure what you mean. I do support public health research and I think it is a good idea. Are you implying that public health research is NOT a good idea?

The question is not about constitutionality but rather how research is funded. The way I interpret your message (and this could be wrong) is that you are OK with embryonic stem cell research, even if funded by state governments. As I understand what you write, if your state decided to fund this research you would agree with that action. Or am I wrong?

My question, that you still have not answered, is about government funding in general. Do you believe that for any idea, it's 'legitimacy' is determined solely by what's written in the constitution?

[packsaddle 753]

Brent, I understand and apologize.

[TheScout 10]

Packsaddle, I do not believe in government funding for public health research.

 

I think that if people talk about research funding, or any sort of expenditure, it always must bring up a question of constitutionality.

 

Reading the federal constitution, it seems plain to me federal spending for public health research is not authorized. So I do deny the right of the federal government to do so.

 

I would interpret my state constitution, New York, to allow such funding, even though I do not support it. I would also assume most other state constitutions would as well since they tend to be more expanisve in nature then the federal one.

 

 

"Do you believe that for any idea, it's 'legitimacy' is determined solely by what's written in the constitution?"

 

Yes of course. I do not understand how anyone could say otherwise. Governments only exist to exercise the powers the people delegated to them. Otherwise, our constitutions are mere blank pieces of paper.

[Hunt 11]

"It is easy to stand in opposition to abortion until your 14 year old daughter comes home and tells you that she is pregnant."

 

It is also easy to oppose torture until you capture the guy who knows where the bomb is planted.

Notice that opponents of both torture and stem cell research will spend a great deal of time arguing that those practices will not (or may not) save lives after all, when that's not their real objection to them. Do you think that most opponents of stem cell research would change their position if it could be clearly proven that it would save lives? Ditto for opponents of torture?