Video of Mort Kondrake interviewing Republican War on Science Author Webcast

[Derek0783]

Great Webcast video.



Original Webcast Date: September 12, 2005, Washington, D.C.

With the recent debate over pending Embryonic Stem Cell research legislation, the conflict between political ideology and scientific progress appears to have come to an impasse. Our moderator Mort Kondrake interviews author and journalist Chris Mooney, whose recent book The Republican War on Science, has raised considerable interest about political ideology, and its role in topics ranging from Stem Cells to Intelligent Design. Join us to find out how politics and policy of science is shaping up today and what it may hold for the future.


http://sagecrossroads.com/Default.aspx?tabid=181

[Derek0783]

Any comments? Opinions? Supporting/Opposing views?

[Derek0783]

33 views and no comments? This is an important topic.

[xer0xed]

I'm a Republican and I'm not against science. *shrug*

Also, stem cell research is relatively moot now as an issue, since they've figured out how to derive stem cells from skin cells recently. Might want to keep up on the latest trends.

[Derek0783]

Originally Posted by xer0xed

I'm a Republican and I'm not against science. *shrug*

Also, stem cell research is relatively moot now as an issue, since they've figured out how to derive stem cells from skin cells recently. Might want to keep up on the latest trends.

Stem cell research is far from a moot issue right now. And, don't worry, "keeping up on the latest trends" - not just up to the very day, but ALL trends up to the very hour - is a major interest of mine my friend. Yes my scientific E-Cock is this [-------------------------] big times 10.

The current consensus, for those of us who "keep up on the latest trends, is that adult stem cells are limited in their ability, and that both embryonic and adult stem cell research are currently, and for some time, will be required to develop cures for severe and degenerative diseases.

One of my biggest beefs with the political system right now is that they are diliberately confusing "somatic cell nuclear transfer" with "reproductive human cloning" and by delaying research, we're letting 100,000 people die a day who don't need to die.

....anyways, have you watched the entire webcast, xer0xed?

[xer0xed]

Originally Posted by Derek0783

Stem cell research is far from a moot issue right now. And, don't worry, "keeping up on the latest trends" - not just up to the very day, but ALL trends up to the very hour - is a major interest of mine my friend. Yes my scientific E-Cock is this [-------------------------] big times 10.

The current consensus, for those of us who "keep up on the latest trends, is that adult stem cells are limited in their ability, and that both embryonic and adult stem cell research are currently, and for some time, will be required to develop cures for severe and degenerative diseases.

One of my biggest beefs with the political system right now is that they are diliberately confusing "somatic cell nuclear transfer" with "reproductive human cloning" and by delaying research, we're letting 100,000 people die a day who don't need to die.

....anyways, have you watched the entire webcast, xer0xed?

I am] talking about embryonic skin cells. Embryonic skin cells developed and programmed from skin cells. This is mentioned at about 11:45 in the webcast. Source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082101180.html

From the Article:

More immediately, the new work could have an impact on Capitol Hill, where the Senate is poised to vote on legislation -- already passed by the House -- that would loosen Bush's restrictions on human embryonic research.

Last month, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) surprised many of his colleagues by announcing he would break with the president and support the Senate bill, which Bush has promised to veto.

See how this is old news? If this webcast is a recent publication, it can be attributed more to political partisanship than an actual defense of science. Oh, and I'm just noticing the date of this publication in relation to the date the webcast was published... and my suspicions are confirmed. Looks like the ploy of special interest groups, embodied in scientists trying to get more government $ in their pockets.

I also disagree with the idea of teaching Intelligent Design in science class. And.... I don't consider myself a "moderate" Republican, as the Mooney guy attempts to differenciate.

I highly encourage your interest in science, however such interest should be differenciated from credence given to special interest groups. If you look at the title of the man's book, it alone makes his bias obvious.

[xer0xed]

He never explains how those who make the arguments in favor of using skin cells are "misappropriating science." All he does is innoculate against those who are in favor of it with an unfounded statement. That's a typical psychological tactic used in public speaking.

The bottom line is this: the public doesn't want their money going toward funding research that kills embryos. I know I don't like the idea, either. You can't impose contrary policy on the will of the public. It's just not going to happen.

[Derek0783]

The first sentance of that Washinton post article says it all - "Appear." "...into what appear to be embryonic stem cells..."



Xer0xed,

"Just because a cell has some of the markers of Embryonic Stem Cells does not mean it is one. Cancer cells have ESC markers. There's a lot of work that will need to be done in order to find out what kind of stem cells they really are and what they are capable of. In the meantime, we KNOW that ESC cells are clean slates and their behavior is more predicatable than de-differentiated adult stem cells.

ESC's don't have the baggage that a previously differentiated cell does. Think about all the genes that would need to be reactivated and turned off in order to turn a terminally differentiated adult cell into a true embryonic stem cell that has the same capacity for regeneration as ESCs. Resetting over 30,000 genes and who knows how many regulatory regions is going to be pretty tall order.

I would guess that these cells have *some* of the characteristics of, but are a long ways from being, true ESC's. There is a lot of hype on both sides of the fence and the answer is.... more work. In the meantime people are dying.

One day we will be able to reprogram an adult cell to an embryonic state, but that day did not happen last year on August 22, 2005 in Harvard." - when I asked someone else about the washingtontimes article you just presented, I recieved this answer from Kevin Perrot, who is someone who knows more about the technicals of this issue than I do.



EDIT:
I just came across this article; it's in direct regards to your "embryonic stem cell" from skin cell article - I'm not sure you'll be able to read it unless you are signed up.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/aug05/350195.asp

It says it all in the first sentance - "While a potential scientific breakthrough released on the eve of a landmark vote in the Senate holds great promise, scientists warn that even if the new stem cell approach works, there are still significant hurdles to be overcome - obstacles likely to take years, if not decades, to resolve."

[xer0xed]

Originally Posted by Derek0783

The first sentance of that Washinton post article says it all - "Appear." "...into what appear to be embryonic stem cells..."

...

Originally Posted by Washington Post Article

The technique uses laboratory-grown human embryonic stem cells -- such as the ones that President Bush has already approved for use by federally funded researchers -- to "reprogram" the genes in a person's skin cell, turning that skin cell into an embryonic stem cell itself.

Originally Posted by Derek0783

Xer0xed,

"Just because a cell has some of the markers of Embryonic Stem Cells does not mean it is one. Cancer cells have ESC markers. There's a lot of work that will need to be done in order to find out what kind of stem cells they really are and what they are capable of. In the meantime, we KNOW that ESC cells are clean slates and their behavior is more predicatable than de-differentiated adult stem cells.

ESC's don't have the baggage that a previously differentiated cell does. Think about all the genes that would need to be reactivated and turned off in order to turn a terminally differentiated adult cell into a true embryonic stem cell that has the same capacity for regeneration as ESCs. Resetting over 30,000 genes and who knows how many regulatory regions is going to be pretty tall order.

I would guess that these cells have *some* of the characteristics of, but are a long ways from being, true ESC's. There is a lot of hype on both sides of the fence and the answer is.... more work. In the meantime people are dying.

One day we will be able to reprogram an adult cell to an embryonic state, but that day did not happen last year on August 22, 2005 in Harvard." - when I asked someone else about the washingtontimes article you just presented, I recieved this answer from Kevin Perrot, who is someone who knows more about the technicals of this issue than I do.



EDIT:
I just came across this article; it's in direct regards to your "embryonic stem cell" from skin cell article - I'm not sure you'll be able to read it unless you are signed up.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/aug05/350195.asp

It says it all in the first sentance - "While a potential scientific breakthrough released on the eve of a landmark vote in the Senate holds great promise, scientists warn that even if the new stem cell approach works, there are still significant hurdles to be overcome - obstacles likely to take years, if not decades, to resolve."

Well, granted that it does work, there are hurdles to overcome in Stem Cell research period. By that same argument, you oppose engaging in the research on all grounds that it will take time to draw a solution up for these diseases.

Also, I'll say it again, verbatim: the public doesn't want their money going toward funding research that kills embryos. I know I don't like the idea, either. You can't impose contrary policy on the will of the public. It's just not going to happen.

[honez]

Don't most of those unused embryos get thrown away anyways? Seems to me if it's that case, we may as well use them to benefit society.

[xer0xed]

Originally Posted by honez

Don't most of those unused embryos get thrown away anyways? Seems to me if it's that case, we may as well use them to benefit society.

I concur. But, I don't think that's the point of most disagreements nowadays. :P

[Derek0783]

Originally Posted by xer0xed

...





Well, granted that it does work, there are hurdles to overcome in Stem Cell research period. By that same argument, you oppose engaging in the research on all grounds that it will take time to draw a solution up for these diseases.

I'm not exactly sure how you figure I oppose engaging in the research on all grounds that it will take time to draw a solution for these diseases. I support research on all ethical grounds. Reprogramming cells into true embryonic stem cell state is an exciting avenue of research which holds great promise for curing diseases and has the added value of bypassing religious/political ethical opposition; this research I do support. But, that doesn't mean, in my opinion, we can simply give up on other areas of stem cell research due to this new reprogramming ability that is still years from useful.

Originally Posted by xer0xed

...
Also, I'll say it again, verbatim: the public doesn't want their money going toward funding research that kills embryos. I know I don't like the idea, either. You can't impose contrary policy on the will of the public. It's just not going to happen.

There's a world of difference between reproductive cloning - something that should be banned right away - and therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Therapeutic cloning is the transplanting of a patient's own DNA into an unfertilized egg in order to grow stem cells that could cure devastating diseases. Reproductive cloning is the use of cloning technology to create a child. CAMR, along with leading scientists and most Americans, oppose reproductive cloning.


Therapeutic cloning produces stem cells, not babies. With therapeutic cloning, there is no fertilization of the egg by sperm, no implantation in the uterus and no pregnancy. Dr. Harold Varmus, the former head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and a Nobel laureate, says there is a profound distinction between cloning with the intent of making a human being and research cloning to help understand and treat life-threatening diseases and conditions. NO sperm is used in the procedure and the cells are NOT transplanted into a womb.

Adult stem cell research shows promise in some areas and should be pursued. However, our nation's top scientists, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Academy of Sciences all agree that embryonic stem cells have greater potential - they are "pluripotent" (can make any cell in the body) and "immortal" (can be grown in a lab indefinitely) - than adult cells.

http://www.camradvocacy.org/resources/SCNT_FAQs.htm
http://www.camradvocacy.org/resource..._FACT_SCNT.htm

And i'll repeat; Embryonic and adult stem cells appear to have different effects, limitations and abilities. The current scientific consensus is that adult stem cells are limited in their utility, and that both embryonic and adult stem cell research will be required to develop cures for severe and degenerative diseases.




[QUOTE=xer0xed]I'm a Republican and I'm not against science. *shrug*
QUOTE] I agree with many republican views...theres only a few MAJOR issues that hold me back from voting republican...

[xer0xed]

Originally Posted by Derek0783

I'm not exactly sure how you figure I oppose engaging in the research on all grounds that it will take time to draw a solution for these diseases. I support research on all ethical grounds. Reprogramming cells into true embryonic stem cell state is an exciting avenue of research which holds great promise for curing diseases and has the added value of bypassing religious/political ethical opposition; this research I do support. But, that doesn't mean, in my opinion, we can simply give up on other areas of stem cell research due to this new reprogramming ability that is still years from useful.




There's a world of difference between reproductive cloning - something that should be banned right away - and therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Therapeutic cloning is the transplanting of a patient's own DNA into an unfertilized egg in order to grow stem cells that could cure devastating diseases. Reproductive cloning is the use of cloning technology to create a child. CAMR, along with leading scientists and most Americans, oppose reproductive cloning.


Therapeutic cloning produces stem cells, not babies. With therapeutic cloning, there is no fertilization of the egg by sperm, no implantation in the uterus and no pregnancy. Dr. Harold Varmus, the former head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and a Nobel laureate, says there is a profound distinction between cloning with the intent of making a human being and research cloning to help understand and treat life-threatening diseases and conditions. NO sperm is used in the procedure and the cells are NOT transplanted into a womb.

Adult stem cell research shows promise in some areas and should be pursued. However, our nation's top scientists, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Academy of Sciences all agree that embryonic stem cells have greater potential - they are "pluripotent" (can make any cell in the body) and "immortal" (can be grown in a lab indefinitely) - than adult cells.

http://www.camradvocacy.org/resources/SCNT_FAQs.htm
http://www.camradvocacy.org/resource..._FACT_SCNT.htm

And i'll repeat; Embryonic and adult stem cells appear to have different effects, limitations and abilities. The current scientific consensus is that adult stem cells are limited in their utility, and that both embryonic and adult stem cell research will be required to develop cures for severe and degenerative diseases.

It's a moral issue that many are against and don't want their tax money going toward it. Fertilized embryos are typically destroyed during the process. If you're against something you're not going to want your tax dollars going toward it. If scientists want to pursue stem cell research using embryos, they can do so using private funds. Addressing and acknowledging an argument isn't rebutting it, and is all Mr. Mooney does in this webcast. If you support it, by all means donate to the cause.

If they're using theraputic cloning alone, where the egg isn't fertilized (and thus no embryo is destroyed), I'm sure that would turn into a whole different issue and would likely recieve funding and public support. But, to lump them all together in the funding department is not logical. Don't you agree?