Replacement parts. Cool.

[quade 4]

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=6090693§ion=news

Now, you might be wondering why this is in Speakers Corner.

Can you imagine what we might be able to do some day if we could only have stem cell research in this country? Maybe it would be possible to grow spinal connections. Us, being skydivers, you'd think we'd be all for this.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

if we could only have stem cell research in this country?

The government does sponsor such research, with limitations.

Isn't it true that private research is not limited?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Maybe it would be possible to grow spinal connections. Us, being skydivers, you'd think we'd be all for this.

I was thinking more along the lines of being able to grow a new ACL/MCL to unfuck the ones I have. But a new spinal connection might be nice...actually I hope I never have to seriously think about that. I'll stick with 1/2 of my swoops coming out 10' too high instead of too low.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Just imagine the benefits if some chick pulls a "Bobbitt" on you and they don't find your pecker in the gutter! They could just grow you a new one on your back!

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[quade 4]

Quote

Isn't it true that private research is not limited?

Any time you limit -some- research, you limit -all- research. It becomes -very- difficult to work completely outside the system and there is no free expression of ideas between researchers inside and outside of the system.

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2004/08/09/prsa0809.htm

Quick quote in pertinent part;

Quote

"This is not a speed bump. We have an entire area of biomedical research that the NIH frowns upon," he said. "The net effect is that the research will go forward, but it's a trickle compared to what [it] could be."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[bhammond 0]

Any time you limit -some- research, you limit -all- research. It becomes -very- difficult to work completely outside the system and there is no free expression of ideas between researchers inside and outside of the system.


BULLLSHIT..... you are so far off the mark

[quade 4]

Quote

BULLLSHIT..... you are so far off the mark

Educate me then.

BTW, also read this.

http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/press2001/pr07_17_2001stemcell.html

Again, in pertinent part;

Quote

I additionally urge my colleagues to keep in mind the other implications of not funding this research.  Without public funding, scientist will increasingly turn to private companies.  Private companies restrict the free flow of information, keeping their discoveries to themselves.  Without the free flow of information, we risk slowing down major advancements in this field of research.  We also risk losing our top scientists to other countries.  This has already been a result of the delayed decision in continued funding.  Yesterday morning, the newspapers reported the decision of Dr. Roger Pedersen’s of the University of California, San Francisco to move to Britain to work on embryonic stem cell research.  Last year, the British Parliament explicitly authorized research involving embryonic cells, as well as the creation of embryos for research purposes, for scientists who obtain permits.  This action made Britain one of the most permissive nations on embryo work, though teams in Australia and Singapore have also aggressively pursued work on human embryonic stem cells.  Without federal funding, we risk falling behind other countries such as Britain, Australia, and Singapore.

Just think of the logic of it.

Let's say you were a researcher before the GWB decision against federal funding -- afterward, what do you do? Give up research or . . . go work for a private drug company. None of the drug companies are going to "share" their information with their competition and they sure as hell aren't going to give away anything they can patent. So, instead of everyone sharing information, they keep it close to the vest -- slowing down all research on the subject. Seriously, do you think for a second that if Pfizer discovered a -cure- for diabetes they'd just give it away? Why would they? They spent their research dollars and rightfully expect to recoup their investment. Same goes for any condition that might be cured by stem cell research.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

Seriously, do you think for a second that if Pfizer discovered a -cure- for diabetes they'd just give it away? Why would they? They spent their research dollars and rightfully expect to recoup their investment. Same goes for any condition that might be cured by stem cell research.

Welcome to the free enterprise system.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[miked10270 0]

The problem with Stem-Cell research is where we get the stem cells from. As I understand it the primary source of stem cells is human embryos.

Stem cells are the very basic building blocks of animals. Put them somewhere, give them the right instructions (which is apparently fairly simple), and they'll grow the appropriate bit.

For example, it has been suggested that if stem cell research is allowed to continue, then within 10 years, false teeth will be an anachronism. Lose a tooth, lose 10 teeth, and all the dentist has to do is give a quick injection(s) to the gums, wait 3 months, and presto! New teeth! Of course, the real biggy will be nerve tissue and organ regeneration. For example, Kidney failure could be treated with a 3 month course of dyalysis while your new kidneys are growing inside you and once they've taken over the job you're cured.


BUT.

Stem cells come from embryos, and the embryos get killed in the process. Now we're into the whole abortion / right to life argument. Should a technically human embryo, a "life" be killed so someone may be able to walk again? get new Kidneys? New Teeth?

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

They could just grow you a new one on your back!

Well, THAT'D make rodeo skydives a LOT more popular, methinks....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Seriously, do you think for a second that if Pfizer discovered a -cure- for diabetes they'd just give it away? Why would they? They spent their research dollars and rightfully expect to recoup their investment. Same goes for any condition that might be cured by stem cell research.

Welcome to the free enterprise system.

That's the only reason we have such good medical opportunities, it companies develope them in the expectation that it will make them money.

Just one more example how greed is a good thing.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 3,120]

>Any time you limit -some- research, you limit -all- research.

Agreed, but all that means is that Sweden or Germany will take the lead from the US. We will someday be able to get new organs grown to replace failing ones; we'll just have to move to Sweden to do it. That will last until the first senator needs a new heart. Then we'll suddenly see a flurry of bills passed to legalize stem cell usage.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

That will last until the first senator needs a new heart. Then we'll suddenly see a flurry of bills passed to legalize stem cell usage.

This is exactly what I was thinking the first time I heard about Nancy Reagan advocating stem cell research. I am curious to know if she was for or against it before Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. It is interesting how some people's views on an issue can change drastically when that issue suddenly has a direct effect on them... Makes it appear that they are incapable of looking beyond their own needs. (Not saying this is necessarily the case with the Reagans; I honestly don't know what their position on stem cell research was in the past.)

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

That will last until the first senator needs a new heart.

This is not directed only at you, Bill....

But, have you signed your donor card?

Seriously...if more people would, then there wouldn't be such a shortage of needed organs to harvest from.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[miked10270 0]

Organ transplant is OK as a stop gap just now, but organ & tissue regeneration through use of stem cellshas the advantage of giving a perfect tissue match to the recipient. No more tissue typing and immunosuppressants.

As for Nancy Reagan's position on stem cell research, it's amazing how religiously held principles can give way to scientific sense in the face of a loved one's suffering... And if it takes some political figure NEEDING the fruits of this research, then I'm happy however it comes about that the Luddites are overruled.

Mike.

.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Quote

That will last until the first senator needs a new heart. Then we'll suddenly see a flurry of bills passed to legalize stem cell usage.

This is exactly what I was thinking the first time I heard about Nancy Reagan advocating stem cell research. I am curious to know if she was for or against it before Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. It is interesting how some people's views on an issue can change drastically when that issue suddenly has a direct effect on them... Makes it appear that they are incapable of looking beyond their own needs. (Not saying this is necessarily the case with the Reagans; I honestly don't know what their position on stem cell research was in the past.)

Was stem cell research even known to the general public when RR was diagnosed with Alzheimer's? Seems to me that he was diagnosed quite a while ago (public announcement on 11/05/1994), and the stem cell research is still fairly new. Am I wrong?

Quote

As for Nancy Reagan's position on stem cell research, it's amazing how religiously held principles can give way to scientific sense in the face of a loved one's suffering... And if it takes some political figure NEEDING the fruits of this research, then I'm happy however it comes about that the Luddites are overruled.

Does anyone have any documentation of Nancy Reagan speaking out against stem cell research?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Was stem cell research even known to the general public when RR was diagnosed with Alzheimer's?

Probably not... I think stem cell research has been going on for some time now (15-20 years???), but human embryonic stem cell research is relatively new... and that is what the big debate is about. (This is from my very limited knowledge on the subject, so anyone please correct me if that is wrong.) So your point is probably right on... that the Reagans most likely had no real stance on the issue until after RR was diagnosed with Alzheimer's... bad example/assumption on my part.

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

The problem with Stem-Cell research is where we get the stem cells from. As I understand it the primary source of stem cells is human embryos.

Stem cells are the very basic building blocks of animals. Put them somewhere, give them the right instructions (which is apparently fairly simple), and they'll grow the appropriate bit.

For example, it has been suggested that if stem cell research is allowed to continue, then within 10 years, false teeth will be an anachronism. Lose a tooth, lose 10 teeth, and all the dentist has to do is give a quick injection(s) to the gums, wait 3 months, and presto! New teeth! Of course, the real biggy will be nerve tissue and organ regeneration. For example, Kidney failure could be treated with a 3 month course of dyalysis while your new kidneys are growing inside you and once they've taken over the job you're cured.


BUT.

Stem cells come from embryos, and the embryos get killed in the process. Now we're into the whole abortion / right to life argument. Should a technically human embryo, a "life" be killed so someone may be able to walk again? get new Kidneys? New Teeth?

Mike.

This whole line of reasoning is just so absurd to me. It is sort of like "Why would we allow someone to get a liver transplant, someone had to die to give up that liver"

The fact is embryos are aborted every day. Removing the ban on stem cell research isn't giong to change that.

If you feel SO strongly about this, ban fertility clinics instead, as they do create embryos that they know will be destroyed.

illegible usually

[Ron 10]

Quote

This whole line of reasoning is just so absurd to me. It is sort of like "Why would we allow someone to get a liver transplant, someone had to die to give up that liver"

You don't tend to kill the person to get the liver...They are dying anyway. Thats the difference.

Quote

The fact is embryos are aborted every day. Removing the ban on stem cell research isn't giong to change that.

I agree.

Quote

If you feel SO strongly about this, ban fertility clinics instead, as they do create embryos that they know will be destroyed.

again, I agree.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334