shropshire 0 #1 January 23, 2009 QuoteUS regulators have cleared the way for the world's first study on human embryonic stem cell therapy. The US Food and Drug Administration have been considering the 21,000 page application for months. The decision by the FDA to give the go-ahead comes at a symbolic moment, just days after the inauguration of President Barack Obama. Since 2001 there have been limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The decision of the FDA is independent of White House control, but the new president is widely expected to adopt a more pragmatic and science-oriented approach to stem cell research. clicky I'm not sure how I feel about this (I don't know enough/anything about it). I certainly don't have any religious issues ....What do you think? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,989 #2 January 23, 2009 I think it's great. It will lead to more rapid research into cures for Alzheimer's, diabetes, leukemia and treatments for spinal cord injuries. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #3 January 23, 2009 QuoteI think it's great. It will lead to more rapid research into cures for Alzheimer's, diabetes, leukemia and treatments for spinal cord injuries. +1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #4 January 23, 2009 Thanks - that seems like genuinely useful application. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #5 January 23, 2009 +2 Its about time SCIENCE has the go ahead without the theocrats intruding into what everyone else is doing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #6 January 23, 2009 QuoteI'm not sure how I feel about this (I don't know enough/anything about it). I certainly don't have any religious issues ....What do you think? It's unfortunate that the last eight years have been wasted in the US. President Bush (43) didn't stop the research, he simply stopped it in the US. We're technologically behind and thats not a good thing. Fortunately, we should be able to catch up quickly.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #7 January 23, 2009 Personally I think it's an exciting field and there is so much to learn about who/why we are as we are.... but I also want to temper that enthusiasm with respect for life. I don't want to encourage science at the cost of morality. The studies from some of the concentration camps in WWII were NOT ethical. I don't know when "life" begins. My personal belief is that the collection of cells is not life.... but I might be wrong. I am VERY excited about using somatic cells for research and hope that more funding goes toward evaluation of those applications. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,989 #8 January 23, 2009 >I don't want to encourage science at the cost of morality. I agree. But when the choice is to dispose of frozen (and unwanted) human embryos in an incinerator vs. using them for medical research, I don't see one option being morally superior to the other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy_Copland 0 #9 January 23, 2009 Being a guy that had to do the incineration of them i cant see any better use.1338 People aint made of nothin' but water and shit. Until morale improves, the beatings will continue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AWL71 0 #10 January 23, 2009 QuotePersonally I think it's an exciting field and there is so much to learn about who/why we are as we are.... but I also want to temper that enthusiasm with respect for life. I don't want to encourage science at the cost of morality. The studies from some of the concentration camps in WWII were NOT ethical. I don't know when "life" begins. My personal belief is that the collection of cells is not life.... but I might be wrong. I am VERY excited about using somatic cells for research and hope that more funding goes toward evaluation of those applications. +1, These cells should be used as opposed to incinerated.The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #11 January 23, 2009 I think it's great research to pursue and private companies should be all over it. I see no reason for government to pay for it. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #12 January 23, 2009 If we start believing in science, then the terrorists will win. Or something. oh wait. wrong thread. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stitch 0 #13 January 23, 2009 + 3.14"No cookies for you"- GFD "I don't think I like the sound of that" ~ MB65 Don't be a "Racer Hater" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #14 January 23, 2009 Quote+ 3.14 +http://filebin.ca/nastsa/pi_data.txt"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #15 January 23, 2009 QuoteQuote+ 3.14 +http://filebin.ca/nastsa/pi_data.txt Thank you. This is very useful.7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SimonBones 1 #16 January 23, 2009 Though I know that Bush bashing is pretty popular here, I'd like to throw one thing out here. Let's not forget that although Bush had put a ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, he was the first president in history to approve federal funding for all other types of stem cell research. Clinton (for whatever reason) did not even though it was an option while he was in office. Not a bash against Clinton at all, I've got no disrespect for the guy, but Bush did do more for stem cell research than Clinton did and he believed strongly in it. He was only opposed to embryonic stem cell research. Through federal funding in non-embryonic stem cell research, a lot of scientific advancement has been made in skin stem cells, pancreatic stem cells, placenta stem cells, and many many more to the point where many scientists I've read reports from said that there would not be as much use in embryonic stem cell research as previously thought. It seems to me that with all the advances made in non-embryonic stem cell research, lifting this ban is really more symbolic than anything else.108 way head down world record!!! http://www.simonbones.com Hit me up on Facebook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,989 #17 January 23, 2009 > Let's not forget that although Bush had put a ban on federal funding for >embryonic stem cell research, he was the first president in history to approve >federal funding for all other types of stem cell research. I agree. Bush merely limited stem cell research; he did not oppose it completely. Thus, while this executive order will surely expand the scope of stem cell research by allowing access to more cell lines, it did not "restart" research that had been "stopped." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #18 January 23, 2009 Quote>I don't want to encourage science at the cost of morality. I agree. But when the choice is to dispose of frozen (and unwanted) human embryos in an incinerator vs. using them for medical research, I don't see one option being morally superior to the other. I'm going to stir the pot a bit to get people talking. Now, I'm in favor of this. And while I'm not Catholic, this reminds me of the other recent thread in which Micro made us do our homework and read Humanae Vitae. Consistent with the logic of that document, which seems to warn against committing acts that could create a slippery slope to greater moral evil, I'd think that Catholic and other conservative ethicists would argue that allowing embryonic stem cell research, which involves destroying an embryo to harvest its stem cells, might encourage the systematic creation, abortion and destruction of human embryos specifically for the purpose of producing and maintaining a supply of embryonic stem cells - and that that would be a moral abomination. I don't think these ethical concerns can be summarily dismissed; they must be discussed and debated. Discuss! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #19 January 23, 2009 Quote The US Food and Drug Administration have been considering the 21,000 page application for months. maybe i'm straying a little bit here, but a 21,000 page application?! how far off from normal is this? how can any one person or group of people collectively fully comprehend 21,000 pages ina reasonable amount of time? if just the application to do the study is this long, imagine how long the results of the study will be. maybe this is a clue as to why the government is so expensive to run and why our prescriptions are so expensive. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,989 #20 January 23, 2009 >maybe this is a clue as to why the government is so expensive to run . . . Ironically, many of those pages are no doubt government-mandated cost estimates intended to make the cost more apparent and keep government spending down. >and why our prescriptions are so expensive. The government neither manufactures drugs nor charges for the research it does. Prescriptions are expensive because they take years (sometimes decades) to research, develop and test - and the companies who make them want to recoup that cost. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #21 January 23, 2009 QuoteI don't think these ethical concerns can be summarily dismissed; they must be discussed and debated. Discuss! Please reach back and check for the nipple at the back of your neck.. the machines are already doing that to a bunch of these guys.. they just do not realize it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #22 January 23, 2009 Quote Quote The US Food and Drug Administration have been considering the 21,000 page application for months. maybe i'm straying a little bit here, but a 21,000 page application?! how far off from normal is this? how can any one person or group of people collectively fully comprehend 21,000 pages ina reasonable amount of time? if just the application to do the study is this long, imagine how long the results of the study will be. maybe this is a clue as to why the government is so expensive to run and why our prescriptions are so expensive. A document of that size almost assuredly contains many smaller documents in their entirety, most of which likely include large quantities of data, e.g. results that were produced as a result of animal studies. There is also most likely a significant amount of boilerplate compiled from previous applications, e.g. generic language about the nature of QA/QC measures, safety & health, etc. Personally, it's not uncommon for me to churn out multiple 40-100 page documents in a week. This week I "wrote" two 70+ page documents that are addendums to a 300 page document. It wouldn't take *that* many similar iterations to add up to 21,000 pages. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
