Stem Cell research question... Why do proponents leave out an important fact ?

Question

There is NO stem cell research ban. None. There is only a ban on FEDERAL FUNDING of reearch. If you are John Kerry you could sell a couple million shares of Heinz Ketchup stock and fund it for a year. If you're Bill Gates rich, you could fund it forever. There is absolutely no ban on PRIVATE funding of stem cell research.

Personally, I'm not against stem cell research per se, but I do think(1) Any public funding of controversial things should be done with great care (2) If stem cell research was that promising, you'd have pharmaceutical and medical companies tripping over each other trying to fund the best medical minds. This isn't happening, folks, because it is a medical dead end.

Still, why does the media NEVER report that there really is no ban on research only a ban on federal funding of such research. There IS a difference.

OK getting back to the original question(because we could argue all day about the merits of embryonic stem cell research)...

Why the deception by the media and proponents of research ? Why not say a "ban on funding ?" Doesn't it hurt the credibility of your cause when you don't tell the truth ?

don: actually I oppose a constitutional flag burning amendment.

Heidi: Just noticed one of your questions so I see this is something you feel strongly about. Perhaps I am just a bit skeptical on the research and am very anti-government spending. But hypothetically, even if stem cells are not patentable, the procedures which would come about should such research become fruitful would be very patentable.

Answer 1

There are more important facts omitted by most of the proponents of this sort of federal spending.

#1 is found in their insistence on calling it simply "stem-cell research" as if we were talking about ALL stem-cell research. In fact, the WHOLE debate is about ONE type, viz., EMBYONIC stem-cell research. Yet proponents refuse to make that clear.

Of course, that totally ignores "adult" stem cells, including those from cord cells from human placentas. Not only does no one object to using these kind of cells, but these are already being used successfully to treat a wide variety of diseases.


This brings us to LIE #2, which is that embryonic stem cells (as opposed to 'adult' ones) hold all sorts of promise. Well, not that we have seen so far. In fact, unlike the research with adult stem cells, the embryonic sort of had NO success... and have shown all sorts of problems (e.g., problems with REJECTION that can be avoided with one's one cells, and the tendency to ABNORMAL-- i.e, cancerous growth)

Sad to say, the truth is that there are some who are so very much against the "pro-life" groups that they are either extremely careless and dismissive, or in some cases even willing to deliberately misrepresent what is and isn't being discussed -- where we have and haven't had success, etc. I understand how some politicians demagogue the subject (and am hardly surprised at their remaining ignorant when they think a position might help them at the ballot box), but it is very discouraging to see the press make so little effort to get the basic facts right.

One other piece of this -- private industry (like anyone, I suppose) is only too glad to get government to pay for things. If the companies can reap the benefits WITHOUT having to lay out the money -- and doesn't have to worry about 'wasting' their own funds if the research is not so fruitful, can't you see why they would do so? And why it is even in their interest to encourage the idea that NOTHING is possible unless the government (that is, all the OTHER taxpayers!) fund it?

This may also be a sign that the industries are not all that convinced about the possibilities of success -- since the government funding will likely mean some government controls in the future, industry would rather avoid this... take on the risks themselves and reap the full benefits without the controls. But if you are much less sure you CAN succeed, sure, let the government pay....

Sadly, private companies duped California into taking exactly this approach -- committing billions of taxpayer dollars. A real fiasco! And now they want to do it nationally. . . . and to do so it is NOT in their interest to make sure the electorate is FULLY informed and able to have a full, open, thoughtful discussion of the subject.

Answer 2

Opponents leave out important facts or they simply twist them to fit their agenda. Tony Snow, Whitehouse Press Secretary, said that GW Bush does not support murder. He then followed it up by saying stem cell research is not illegal, that private companies can continue to do the research, it will just not be funded by the federal government. Here, I shall try to argue like the Rapture Right: Stem cell research is murder. Stem cell research is not illegal. Private companies can murder because it is not illegal.
The real science, however, say this; It all begins with the five to seven days after conception. This is the time period during which embryonic stem cells can be harvested. Most on the right believe that life begins at the moment of conception. So many believe that to kill the cytoblast (the term for the embryo at this particular stage) is amoral and should not be done. i.e. It is murder.
When a couple decides they no longer want any more invitro procedures done, the companies that do the procedures are under the obligation to destroy the remaining supply of cytoblasts, the very same cytoblasts that could otherwise be used for stem cell research.
The Rapture Right's logic on this subject then leads me to believe that it is better to throw life in a garbage can than to use it for research and possible cures to diseases.
The embryos are frozen, they have 150 cells, they aren't even embryos, they are cytoblasts. They already exist and the Rapture Right would rather put them in the trash than in a laboratory.

Answer 3

I agree, up until the hospitals tripping over each other thing. You cannot patent stem cells, or anything natural, so it isn't profitable to research and or fund research for these things. And, it is a different world we live in today, where republicans support stem cell research. 15 years ago, the right to life movement successfully got a ban on ALL types of stem cell research, which was lifted a couple of years later. We just remember those days, and feel that the right DOESN"T support this resaerch, but the average american does, and since they aren't looking so good in the upcoming elections, they need to start listening to what the voters want, and representing manstream america's views on the matter. What did a 2 year ban on stem cell research do? It prevented people like my brother from being able to benefit from the research, as too much time has passen since his injury, to try and repair it at this point. And, even if they could restore function to his lega, they have been amputated as a result of being in his wheelchair. Too late for him, and many others. Of course those of us with interests in this debate are going to fight for everything we can get. People have sacrificed too much, not to.

Answer 4

I believe your question is relative and important especially with the postscript that no stem cell research is banned.
In hope of making a statement specifically concering your important fact I'll leave out everything regarding any justification for the research althgether.
Your absolutely right!
No actual ban for private funding; however, the injunctions and lawsuits from pro-life entities will prevent any funds release. This is expected to remain as a major obstacle for, at least, the next year or so until the courts decide the validity of ethical prohibitions.
The fact you brought up through your question will play an important part in the courts decisions.

Answer 5

Public research does a lot of work in basic science. Private research is to find treatments...not cures. Private research is all based on a bottom line.

Not to mention most universities will not allow the research to go on even if it is done with private money. The reason is that if the government decided to do an audit and "found" that even a penny of public money was spent anywhere near embryonic stem cell research....they'd pull every public dollar going into that university.

To much risk. And it's cute that you think the "best" medical minds work for private companies. Some of us really don't care about money and want to do our own research where the bottom line is getting results and not making money.

I always hear it refer'd to as "federally funded stem cell research"


You're right about one thing. We may do research and find stem cells are so close to cancer cells they can never be usefull. Government money spent by the NIH is some of the best spending our government does. The reason we have the best scientists in the world is because of that money. Even if you want to make a case about private industry....where do you think those scientists got their training?????? Even private schools eat up tons of NIH money.

Answer 6

I have never heard anybody leave out that fact. According to an ABC poll 6 in 10 americans support federally funded stem cell research. People are smart enough to know that any information from this research should be in the public domain and not controlled by private corporations. Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

Answer 7

I am in research and I am aware that some of the most important research is funded by the Federal Government. Even if what you are claiming is correct, it vastly limits the amount of research. Besides, do you really think the pharmaceutical companies are the best bet for this kind of vital research?

Answer 8

well if federal funding of stem cell research is such an evil that bush opposes it.....why are'nt they trying to get a constitutional amendment against any stem cell research......i mean they are trying to protect me from flag burning married gays

Answer 9

If you are 1/2 as intelligent as you sound, why believe anything the media repots on? it's 90% imbellishments & 10% fabrication??