Stem Cell Rsch-This August in CongressFollow

You can say "bailing" or you can say "going where the work is", your choice of course. I'm not sure what you think this entity called "the science field" might be, or why it would have money.



So what's your solution? Cut all funding cold turkey?

No. What I'm against is needless burning of tax dollars on something we aren't sure will have a positive outcome. For all we know at this point, it could go either way. Funding it and it actually working would be a major success not only for which president does allow federal spending for it, but for the people. But that again raises the question of how will they afford the costly price tag it will no doubt have? But I'll put a positive light on the aspect. If it does succeed after federal funding, then it will most assuredly be a 100% fix to a number of problems. I personally know these problems. I've suffered from diabetes for over 10 years now. Trust me, if there was a certain cure for it, I'd have sold my left ******** to have the cure by now. But that's putting a positive light on the subject.

We can't just say "It's going to happen because we said so" though. We have to view it from the other side as well. What if it's a waste of our time? What if research still finds that even with uncontaminated specimens, they still result in the same tumor outbreaks the previous ones have yielded? What will happen when people realize that after throwing all of their tax dollars at the problem, there won't be a solution? There is no white and black to this conversation.

Until we can find clear evidence of a remote possibility of it being able to function in a way we want, then we shouldn't just stick to the "throw more cash at it" reasoning. Let's take baby steps before learning to run. Let's open small federal reserves to fund a new line of stem cells for scientists to study, not just give them free roam and a check they can fill out later please.

What are you on about? No one is advocating a "blank check" here. We are discussing whether or not federal funding should include/allow work on newly harvested lines of embryonic stem cells.

If you want to limit funding, that's easy. You limit funding. Allocate, say, $250mil to the research for the year and that's that. Let the brains at the NIH noodle out how to distribute it. The question isn't how to limit funding, it's whether to allow the funding in the first place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

there should be no federal funding at all.

that is what capitolism is all about.

lobbiest are all about getting tax dollars to further line the pockets of for profit bussiness.

if the government is going to spend MY TAX DOLLARS, then i expect to be cut in on a share of the profit as opposed to help finance a luxury yacht for a hand full of executives.

any private company that wants to do research with stem cells currently can. the private companies want US to assume any potential risk if ot doesnt pan out, without sharing the profit if it does.

this is a bill written by lobbiest, for lobbiest, at the expense of tax payers, for the benifit of private for profit companies.

the veto of this bill by bush is proof that even a stoped clock is right twice a day.

If that's your *****, go yell at Lockheed-Martin or someone. Government R&D for military applications is greater than every other aspect of government R&D spending combined.Strawman much?

Besides, that's only 8 of 25 in the EU! That's what? 32%? Scientifically forward countries are still in the majority! Hooray!

Of course, two of those eight are Malta and Luxembourg which, combined, still have fewer people than the city of Detroit

Coincidentally, 30% was also the number of people in the U.S. who disagreed with federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. I'm not sure what that proves, but it's kinda interesting.

Edited, Jul 24th 2006 at 11:03pm EDT by Jophiel