The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:07 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:51 am 
BBlalock wrote:
IS_Wolf wrote:
Consider this though. The expected time required to finding a cure for Alzheimers by way of the same technology is 5 to 10 years. If Kerry has two terms of president, then it's quite possible that a cure for Alzheimers would show up during his time in office.

Now granted, I'm not sure as to what the temporal prognosis is for the restoration of nerve cells to allow people to walk again, but something similar to the Alzheimer estimation isn't that unreasonable an expectation.


It's possible, yes, but Edwards' statement didn't even hint that it might not take place.

And yes, in eight years we could easily have a cure for Alzheimer's due to stem cell research. On the other hand a cure for Alzheimer's could easily come from a serendipitous source.

There is literally no way to know what the future will bring, so there is no way for Edwards to make the promise he made.


He's a politician, of course he's going to be "liberal" with the truth. And the truth of the matter is still that most scientists involved in the field expect stem cell research to really start paying off within the next 5 to 10 years, provided they're allowed to do proper research into it and not have both arms tied behind their back and one of their legs chained to the wall.

Thus making the promise that he did.. It's at least plausible enough to make such statements and not be caught with his pants down. Yes, there's a 2 year gap. Quite the gamble.

Now contrast that with Junior's claims about the draft, the troop requirements on the ground, and the possible need for additional troops for the next adventure annex weaponry test country.

Not plausible one damned bit. But then that's just my reading of it all..


BBlalock wrote:
IS_Wolf wrote:
As for Edwards promising that Reeve would be resurrected from the dead.. One must take into account when the speech was made, does it predate Reeve's passing or not?? If it does, then he did no such thing. If it doesn't, then the speech wasn't adopted to fit the new reality of his passing. Sloppy certainly, but does it make it likely that Edwards was going on a Religious tangent??


The speech was after his death, and the only reason I brought the resurrection of Reeve up was to show that if I wanted to misinterpret what he said by being excessivly literal there was a real whopper in what he said. I never claimed that Edwards promised to raise Superman from the dead.


Already addressed by the others, but that like in his comparison makes all the difference in whether or not such a literal reading is even possible.

BBlalock wrote:
IS_Wolf wrote:
Not imo. Religious goofballness is (generally speaking) an area at which Republicans excel and not Democrats. With Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell being two of the most obvious examples.


Alan Keyes, as he is a full-time politician is an even better example.


He works as well.. :)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:51 pm 
IS_Wolf wrote:
He's a politician, of course he's going to be "liberal" with the truth. And the truth of the matter is still that most scientists involved in the field expect stem cell research to really start paying off within the next 5 to 10 years, provided they're allowed to do proper research into it and not have both arms tied behind their back and one of their legs chained to the wall.


No federal funding != "both arms tied behind their back and one of their legs chained to the wall".

---snip---
IS_Wolf wrote:
Already addressed by the others, but that like in his comparison makes all the difference in whether or not such a literal reading is even possible.


The identity of the potential ressurectee was not critical to the red herring I could have thrown out if I had wanted to misrepresent what Edwards clearly wanted his audience to believe.

---snip---


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:47 pm 
BBlalock wrote:
IS_Wolf wrote:
He's a politician, of course he's going to be "liberal" with the truth. And the truth of the matter is still that most scientists involved in the field expect stem cell research to really start paying off within the next 5 to 10 years, provided they're allowed to do proper research into it and not have both arms tied behind their back and one of their legs chained to the wall.


No federal funding != "both arms tied behind their back and one of their legs chained to the wall".

Yes, that's it exactly. Virtually all of this basic research has been dependent on federal funding since the 1950s. Private foundations and university trusts make a contribution, and some small amount comes from commercial interests. The latter have a larger role at the application end of the research (I've attended and worked on some of their conventions; fascinating stuff) but even there, federal grants are important.

The days when a lot big discoveries in biology come about from someone tinkering with a few test tubes and some filter paper are long gone.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 12:35 am 
IS_Wolf wrote:
Imnsho, he probably could've done a better job than Junior has done. Least he wouldn't have shattered the record of most vacation days of any president since the start of the Republic.


Hey, I gave you that Bush was also incompetent. It's the exact opposite for Bush/Cheney. Cheney is the brains of the campaign. Although I'm not sure if gore is incompetant, or just so completely full of himself that he isn't paying attention to what is going on. Bush/Cheney and Gore/Lieberman, either way the brains were with the vice president.

Quote:
Though I must admit, the idea of Tipper Gore as First Lady isn't exactly pleasing to me.


Absolutely terrifying to me. Especially coming off Hillary's powertrip as first lady. Imagine if Tipper managed to get as much power as Hillary had her first few years in the whitehouse. It'd put the republican's censorship record to shame.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:39 am 
Berken wrote:
BBlalock wrote:
IS_Wolf wrote:
He's a politician, of course he's going to be "liberal" with the truth. And the truth of the matter is still that most scientists involved in the field expect stem cell research to really start paying off within the next 5 to 10 years, provided they're allowed to do proper research into it and not have both arms tied behind their back and one of their legs chained to the wall.


No federal funding != "both arms tied behind their back and one of their legs chained to the wall".

Yes, that's it exactly. Virtually all of this basic research has been dependent on federal funding since the 1950s. Private foundations and university trusts make a contribution, and some small amount comes from commercial interests. The latter have a larger role at the application end of the research (I've attended and worked on some of their conventions; fascinating stuff) but even there, federal grants are important.


If the cure was as sure a thing as Kerry and Edwards want us to believe then why isn't there loads of private funding?

Investigating stem cells to find a cure for Alzhiemers, paralysis, or nerve regeneration in general isn't basic science, it's goal oriented. If there is no cure to be found then the money is wasted. (unless serendipity intervenes)

We'd be much better off letting the researchers figure out the properties of stem cells without hanging goals over thier heads.

Berken wrote:
The days when a lot big discoveries in biology come about from someone tinkering with a few test tubes and some filter paper are long gone.


There's still serendipity. Rogaine was created because someone noticed that their heart patients were growing lots of hair.

If we tell the researchers to find a cure for X, Y, or Z using secret ingrediant F we're throwing away the possibility of a cure for thousands of other diseases.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 2:28 pm 
Kazriko wrote:
IS_Wolf wrote:
Imnsho, he probably could've done a better job than Junior has done. Least he wouldn't have shattered the record of most vacation days of any president since the start of the Republic.


Hey, I gave you that Bush was also incompetent. It's the exact opposite for Bush/Cheney. Cheney is the brains of the campaign. Although I'm not sure if gore is incompetant, or just so completely full of himself that he isn't paying attention to what is going on. Bush/Cheney and Gore/Lieberman, either way the brains were with the vice president.


Well, if you put Gore next to Quayle and Junior, then he does seem to be the brightest of the three by far. So full of himself might be a better judgement, course I don't know the man personally, so I can't really say whether or not such a judgment would be accurate, but at the very least even if incorrect, it would still be more accurate than the incompetent assessment.

Haven't seen enough of Lieberman to say either way, must say that I haven't been impressed thus far with his anti-video games crusade.


Kazriko wrote:
Quote:
Though I must admit, the idea of Tipper Gore as First Lady isn't exactly pleasing to me.


Absolutely terrifying to me. Especially coming off Hillary's powertrip as first lady. Imagine if Tipper managed to get as much power as Hillary had her first few years in the whitehouse. It'd put the republican's censorship record to shame.


Quite possible, though Gore could've kept her on a short leash, rather like Junior does with his own wife when it comes to political statements. Having seen the damage caused by Hillary's well meant helping the administration, it's quite conceivable that Gore could've learned from that and shut her out of the decision making process.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 2:52 pm 
BBlalock wrote:

IS_Wolf wrote:
Already addressed by the others, but that like in his comparison makes all the difference in whether or not such a literal reading is even possible.


The identity of the potential ressurectee was not critical to the red herring I could have thrown out if I had wanted to misrepresent what Edwards clearly wanted his audience to believe.

---snip---


It was still an.. shall we say.. unfortunate mistake to have made on your part. Especially when dealing with Non-Yanks who are not fully aware of the exact speech you are referring to or its specifics.

Makes debating rather difficult, if one is fed false information.

BBlalock wrote:
Berken wrote:
BBlalock wrote:
IS_Wolf wrote:
He's a politician, of course he's going to be "liberal" with the truth. And the truth of the matter is still that most scientists involved in the field expect stem cell research to really start paying off within the next 5 to 10 years, provided they're allowed to do proper research into it and not have both arms tied behind their back and one of their legs chained to the wall.


No federal funding != "both arms tied behind their back and one of their legs chained to the wall".

Yes, that's it exactly. Virtually all of this basic research has been dependent on federal funding since the 1950s. Private foundations and university trusts make a contribution, and some small amount comes from commercial interests. The latter have a larger role at the application end of the research (I've attended and worked on some of their conventions; fascinating stuff) but even there, federal grants are important.


If the cure was as sure a thing as Kerry and Edwards want us to believe then why isn't there loads of private funding?

Investigating stem cells to find a cure for Alzhiemers, paralysis, or nerve regeneration in general isn't basic science, it's goal oriented. If there is no cure to be found then the money is wasted. (unless serendipity intervenes)

We'd be much better off letting the researchers figure out the properties of stem cells without hanging goals over thier heads.


Why the lack pf private funding?? Because the pharmaceutical companies can make more money with making drugs that deal with the symptoms as opposed to the actual diseases. Spending money in such research will only be done if it delivers a big payoff. See the AIDS vaccin researches for more on that..

Stem Cell research on the other hand deals with solutions that in the end can be far cheaper, and which cannot be patented by the companies due to a lack of the starting resources.

When one looks at in-vitro fertilization one sees that multiple eggs are fertilized, yet often enough only one or two are used. The remaining eggs are discarded. Using them for stem cell research and possibly harvesting as a resource would be a far more cost effective method.

In-Vitro fertilization could then become part of basic health care, provided the potential parents are willing to waive all rights of ownership from the non-used eggs.

Everyone wins in that scenario. Either way the eggs would've been destroyed, yet in this scenario someone's or multiple someone's life/lives could be altered for the better,

Hell stem cell research may even give researchers a leg up with cloning human cells. Which could make a dramatic impact on organ transplantation. That would be part of the serendipity factor you mentioned later.

Additionally, it has been the scientists themselves who have said that the afflictions you mentioned could become treatable courtesy of stem cell research. They already understand the basics of how stem cells work, it's just those damned details that they need to nail down, and the devil is in those details.

Hence the need for the research.
Hence the need for federal funding, because the pharmaceutical companies aren't going to help them out any time soon either.

And even b[]IF[/b] a pharmaceutical company did sponsor the research, they could then end up sitting on the information. No differently from the oil companies buying up the rights and patents to engines working on say hydrogen, certain types of biofuel etc etc etc.


BBlalock wrote:
Berken wrote:
The days when a lot big discoveries in biology come about from someone tinkering with a few test tubes and some filter paper are long gone.


There's still serendipity. Rogaine was created because someone noticed that their heart patients were growing lots of hair.

If we tell the researchers to find a cure for X, Y, or Z using secret ingrediant F we're throwing away the possibility of a cure for thousands of other diseases.


Well, we're not telling them anything. They themselves have made those claims. In addition, any unusual findings will be set aside, while the original team continues witht heir work. Set material will then be freely available to other scientists who can then work on it as well.

Hell, that's how the pharmaceutical companies stumbled across the use of Viagra as an erectile enhancer or that new drug they came across which stimulates a woman's sex drive counteracting certain hormonal changes due to menopause. The latter was originally meant as a heart cure as well iirc.

Or was it against osteoporosis??

You get what I'm driving at.

Serendipity will not be effected by goal oriented research.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 3:36 pm 
IS_Wolf wrote:
Well, if you put Gore next to Quayle and Junior, then he does seem to be the brightest of the three by far. So full of himself might be a better judgement, course I don't know the man personally, so I can't really say whether or not such a judgment would be accurate, but at the very least even if incorrect, it would still be more accurate than the incompetent assessment.


If you toss Edwards in, I will cheerfully admit that Gore is the brightest of the four, and then promptly note that it isn't saying much. :)

Quote:
Haven't seen enough of Lieberman to say either way, must say that I haven't been impressed thus far with his anti-video games crusade.


I'm afraid I hadn't heard much about that, but what I was going by was merely how informed he seemed on more issues than Gore was. Informed people can still be dead wrong. ;)

Quote:
Quite possible, though Gore could've kept her on a short leash, rather like Junior does with his own wife when it comes to political statements. Having seen the damage caused by Hillary's well meant helping the administration, it's quite conceivable that Gore could've learned from that and shut her out of the decision making process.


Possibly, and he had kept her on a short leash after Hillary did her damage, but it was still a terrifying thought.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 6:22 pm 
IS_Wolf wrote:
---snip---
It was still an.. shall we say.. unfortunate mistake to have made on your part. Especially when dealing with Non-Yanks who are not fully aware of the exact speech you are referring to or its specifics.

Makes debating rather difficult, if one is fed false information.


Please tell me exactly why the mistake I made was critical to the argument.

Tell me exactly what you believe that I gained by being (as you seem to believe) deliberately misleading.

IS_Wolf wrote:
Why the lack pf private funding?? Because the pharmaceutical companies can make more money with making drugs that deal with the symptoms as opposed to the actual diseases. Spending money in such research will only be done if it delivers a big payoff. See the AIDS vaccin researches for more on that.


Granted.

IS_Wolf wrote:
Stem Cell research on the other hand deals with solutions that in the end can be far cheaper, and which cannot be patented by the companies due to a lack of the starting resources.


Human DNA can be patented. Right now you could have within you DNA that somebody else owns the intellectual property rights to.

With a system that is that silly I find it very difficult to believe that a cure from stem cells can't be protected.

IS_Wolf wrote:
When one looks at in-vitro fertilization one sees that multiple eggs are fertilized, yet often enough only one or two are used. The remaining eggs are discarded. Using them for stem cell research and possibly harvesting as a resource would be a far more cost effective method.

In-Vitro fertilization could then become part of basic health care, provided the potential parents are willing to waive all rights of ownership from the non-used eggs.

Everyone wins in that scenario. Either way the eggs would've been destroyed, yet in this scenario someone's or multiple someone's life/lives could be altered for the better,


Naturally that's the best source, and reducing the cost of the care in exchange for full rights to the byproducts is a nice win-win situation.

IS_Wolf wrote:
Hell stem cell research may even give researchers a leg up with cloning human cells. Which could make a dramatic impact on organ transplantation. That would be part of the serendipity factor you mentioned later.


Assuming that goal oriented research doesn't put other potentially useful properties of stem cells on the back burner.

IS_Wolf wrote:
Additionally, it has been the scientists themselves who have said that the afflictions you mentioned could become treatable courtesy of stem cell research. They already understand the basics of how stem cells work, it's just those damned details that they need to nail down, and the devil is in those details.


Will the researchers be given the resources to follow any promising line of inquiry, or will they be given a list of stuff to cure?

Neither of us knows how these research programs will be run.

The devil is lurking in those details as well.

IS_Wolf wrote:
Hence the need for the research.
Hence the need for federal funding, because the pharmaceutical companies aren't going to help them out any time soon either.


Drug companies spend piles of cash on projects that fail, research is a gamble. If this was as close to a sure thing as we are being led to believe it would be funded.

IS_Wolf wrote:
And even b[]IF[/b] a pharmaceutical company did sponsor the research, they could then end up sitting on the information. No differently from the oil companies buying up the rights and patents to engines working on say hydrogen, certain types of biofuel etc etc etc.


It might happen, it might not.

Right now this is pure speculation.

IS_Wolf wrote:
BBlalock wrote:
Berken wrote:
The days when a lot big discoveries in biology come about from someone tinkering with a few test tubes and some filter paper are long gone.


There's still serendipity. Rogaine was created because someone noticed that their heart patients were growing lots of hair.

If we tell the researchers to find a cure for X, Y, or Z using secret ingrediant F we're throwing away the possibility of a cure for thousands of other diseases.


Well, we're not telling them anything. They themselves have made those claims.


They have an interest in gaining federal funding. I'm an equal opportunity cynic.

IS_Wolf wrote:
In addition, any unusual findings will be set aside, while the original team continues witht heir work. Set material will then be freely available to other scientists who can then work on it as well.


You can assume there will be researchers and resources available to follow up things that arn't on the main track.

IS_Wolf wrote:
Hell, that's how the pharmaceutical companies stumbled across the use of Viagra as an erectile enhancer or that new drug they came across which stimulates a woman's sex drive counteracting certain hormonal changes due to menopause.


And those are *BIG* things, with lots of moneymaking potential.

A medication for porphyria almost certainly would have been ignored.

IS_Wolf wrote:
The latter was originally meant as a heart cure as well iirc.

Or was it against osteoporosis??

You get what I'm driving at.


Yes I do.

We disagree, but hopefully we can disagree amicably.

IS_Wolf wrote:
Serendipity will not be effected by goal oriented research.


That depends on how strictly the goals are being adhered to and the availability of other researchers and resources to follow the lines of inquiry that are off the proscribed track.

Niether of us know how these programs will be run.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 1:11 am 
BBlalock wrote:
If the cure was as sure a thing as Kerry and Edwards want us to believe then why isn't there loads of private funding?

Investigating stem cells to find a cure for Alzheimer’s, paralysis, or nerve regeneration in general isn't basic science, it's goal oriented. If there is no cure to be found then the money is wasted. (Unless serendipity intervenes)

We'd be much better off letting the researchers figure out the properties of stem cells without hanging goals over their heads.

Berken wrote:
The days when a lot big discoveries in biology come about from someone tinkering with a few test tubes and some filter paper are long gone.


There's still serendipity. Rogaine was created because someone noticed that their heart patients were growing lots of hair.

If we tell the researchers to find a cure for X, Y, or Z using secret ingredient F we're throwing away the possibility of a cure for thousands of other diseases.

Not really, at least in the case of medical research. You would be right, of course, about various defense department boondoggles, such as Star Wars and the latest generations of fighter planes, super-cannons and super-tanks.

Ideas for basic medical research usually start in university, hospital, or private laboratories, either from theoretical work or as an offshoot of related experimental results.

I was allowed to read a research paper of this sort just last weekend, while waiting for (of all things) a Dungeons & Dragons campaign to start up. The paper concerned the isolation of an enzyme that triggers RNA activation of cellular chemical activity to adapt muscle and organ tissue to a colder environment (something we Midwesterners and our Canadian neighbors are quite familiar with.) The last section of the paper suggested further experiments and applications, including the possibility of hyper-activated tissues being better able to resist damage due to type II diabetes and degenerative diseases.

Once an idea is picked up by a scientist, research department, or ambitious graduate student, it is taken as far as it can go with local resources. Most often, someone will then have the task of asking for private or federal grants to pay for larger scale and more expensive experimentation. Of these, the federal funds are probably larger by a couple of orders of magnitude. Any claim that removing federal funds from a research field is a minor matter is disingenuous, whether it was intended to be so or not.

Most private and federal grants are handed out by committees of veteran researchers who investigate proposals and allocate funds to whichever ideas seem most likely to produce results useful to science. Some of these grant-givers are more interested in immediate results, others in basic research. Since they are specifically tasked with the chore of finding new ideas, any notion that is coherently presented has a decent chance of getting funded.

Traditionally, our elected federal officials have next to nothing to do with how grants are handed out from federal research programs (note the similarity to federal art funding.) I expect that this separation was deliberately created by the politicians who do understand how science works to protect it from the politicians who don’t understand it.

The restrictions on stem cell research were inflicted on this process after the initial decisions had been made in the scientific community. The biologists made a judgement some years ago as to which lines of research might benefit from the use of stem cells and have been trying to remove the restrictions so they can get on with their work.

What is under discussion, primarily, is a barrier to the flow of scientific thought being removed rather than a new channel being added to the flow of research. Some small amount of additional funds might get allocated to the specific programs mentioned as a symbol of the promise being kept, but that can be considered scar tissue to cover the healing of the original injury caused by the restrictions.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:26 pm 
Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group