If isolating ESC in mice for the first time doesn’t count as embryonic stem cell research, then, I guess you can shift your mobile goalposts wherever you wish them to be.

In terms of producing a human therapy, which is your entire point in playing with the timeline, no it does not count as it is not human ESC research. You can move the goalposts to Venus if you like. ASC vs. ESC will still be a false dichotomy and a lousy argument.

The past 25 years, as per the source I cited (and you can go back and watch the video), ecompasses the years in which human embryonic stem cell research has been conducted.

1981 = MICE, not humans. This statement is false. Read your own freaking posts. Then go read your link again, where it says:

It took seventeen more years [from 1981 until 1998 - Ed] for Jamie Thomson to isolate ES cells from human embryos, one of the great milestones in human biomedical research.

I do hope that I don’t need to explain the difference between a human and a mouse to you. You really should read the things you link to. The first time we were able to derive, and therefore experiment with, human ESC’s was 1998, period.

Do you morally equate the destruction of mouse embryos with the destruction of human beings for the sake of research?

No, but who is destroying human beings for research? And shouldn’t you be saying “destroying mice” if you think an embryo is in fact what it might possibly one day become? Isn’t an acorn really an oak tree?

Do you support creating human beings to destroy for research?

No, that’s murder.

Do make any moral distinctions or are all human embryos (or all human beings) candidates for the research mill?

No, I firmly believe in leaving alone the ones which are developing into humans in the only place where that is possible. I’ve said that here repeatedly.

That is why your attitude of superiority discredits you as much as the intellectual dishonesty exhibited here.

Says the guy who continues to refuse to answer a perfectly straightforward question. If you’re so confident in the morality of your position, why won’t you answer the question?

Willful ignorance is NOT intellectual honesty.

Discovered not derived. They are not the same thing

Actually, I first said that the embryonic stem cells were “first isolated in mice in 1981″, see F. Rottles on October 27, 2006 at 8:55 PM. I was mistaken to slip into playing with your moved goalposts.

If isolating ESC in mice for the first time doesn’t count as embryonic stem cell research, then, I guess you can shift your mobile goalposts wherever you wish them to be.

The past 25 years, as per the source I cited (and you can go back and watch the video), ecompasses the years in which human embryonic stem cell research has been conducted. You have misread the quote and are determined to spin it your way.

You win — I believe that you believe that you are right about this nitpick.

Revolutionized. How about that?

Do you morally equate the destruction of mouse embryos with the destruction of human beings for the sake of research?

Not who, but what. The embryos, of course.

Yes, revolutionary indeed.

The criterion is that the project be good science.

Sure, based on embryos being the “what” rather than who. Do you support creating human beings to destroy for research? Do make any moral distinctions or are all human embryos (or all human beings) candidates for the research mill?

Right is superior to wrong. I can’t help that.

No, I guess you can’t. That is why your attitude of superiority discredits you as much as the intellectual dishonesty exhibited here.

And in keeping with your own remarks, I noted the first embryonic stem cells derived from mice in 1981, 25 years ago.

Discovered not derived. They are not the same thing. Let me repeat myself: Knowing that a thing exists does not mean you’re conducting medical research with it.

Below are three references in case readers have become confused by your nitpicking, which now appears to be intellectually dishonest, and which points a larger problem that goes to your claimed credibility on this topic.

25 years of Embryonic Stem Cells
Nature Reviews Genetics 7, 319-327 (April 2006)

The first para of that, in it’s entirety:

This year marks the 25th anniversary of two papers reporting the first isolation of mouse ES cells. The first impact of the mouse ES papers was enabling targeted gene knock outs in mice, a technology which has revolutionized mouse genetics and developmental biology. It took seventeen more years for Jamie Thomson to isolate ES cells from human embryos, one of the great milestones in human biomedical research.

Thank you for confirming what I’ve been saying all along. Do you know why that was a great milestone in human biomedical research? Scroll up to where I told you about it and you will find the answer. As for the other two cites, I’ll bold this again: mouse cells. A mouse is not a human and you cannot create a human cure with mouse cells. But, as far as what we’ve done with mice and their ESC’s, we know that “The first impact of the mouse ES papers was enabling targeted gene knock outs in mice, a technology which has revolutionized mouse genetics and developmental biology.” Revolutionized. How about that?

Instead of talking of the year that stem cells were first derived, you now shift to slightly more defensible ground with the phrase, “doing medical research”.

The year mouse ESC’s were discovered, not derived. They are not the same. If you can’t keep the terms straight, I can’t help you. But in fact, I don’t think you’re trying to. I think you hope to confuse the issue. It ain’t gonna work, my friend.

And you have yet to put forth a reasonable argument for whatever it is you are advocating here.

Perhaps you’ve missed the ongoing discussion. See here, here, here and here.

I think you’d find that most of them see the distinction as relevant when weighing how to vote on funding.

And they voted yes on it by a 2-1 margin.

I’m for helping sick people with morally and ethically sound treatments, but what precisely do you mean by “with them“? Who, precisely?

Not who, but what. The embryos, of course.

What do you mean by “incinerating embryos intact“?

I mean what they do to them when they’re not going to be implanted in a mother and have the opportunity to realise whatever potential they have and they will not be donated to research. They are treated as medical waste which is often incinerated.

I ask not out of ignorance of the issues involved but because of your history of hyperbolic nitpicking and goalpost-moving in this discussion.

Um…yeah. Right.

What is the relevance of your question?

Hypocrisy. You’re soaking in it. That’s why you refuse to answer the question.

And, as you emphasized process (i.e. peer-review), are such reviewers only technical experts?

The majority are. There are also budget and administrative specialists, and patient advocates.
The criterion is that the project be good science. Sound design, quality investigators, compelling research questions, institutional support, etc.

Again, you should be more clear and cutback on the superiority attitude hich is just getting in the way of your argument.

Right is superior to wrong. I can’t help that.

I’m going to drop this in here again, in it’s original form, just in case anyone decides they’d like to take a crack at it.

Are those of you who think that ESC research violates the sanctity of human life also against military intervention that violates human life of the most incontrovertible sort, i.e. living breathing human beings?

If not, how do you reconcile the two?

You objected to the following quote from the cited video:

“After 25 years of research with embryonic stem cells — mouse and human — there’s very little evidence that embryonic stem cells are effective in treating disease and repairing tissue”

You first objected by saying:

That’s a damned neat trick, given that researchers didn’t derive the first human embryonic stem cell line until 1998, 8 years ago. Meanwhile, we’ve been working with human ASC’s since 1963, 42 years ago.

You talked of deriving the first human embryonic stem cell line in 1998. You talked of working with adult stem cells in 1963.

And in keeping with your own remarks, I noted the first embryonic stem cells derived from mice in 1981, 25 years ago.

Below are three references in case readers have become confused by your nitpicking, which now appears to be intellectually dishonest, and which points a larger problem that goes to your claimed credibility on this topic.

25 years of Embryonic Stem Cells
Nature Reviews Genetics 7, 319-327 (April 2006)

Also look up the following 1981 article:
Establishment in culture of pluripotential cells from mouse embryos, Nature 292, 154 – 156 (09 July 1981)

And this 1981 article:
Martin, G.R. (1981). Isolation of a pluripotent cell line from early mouse embryos cultured in medium conditioned by teratocarcinoma stem cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 78, 7634–7638.

The quote from the video was 100% accurate.

But now you quibble by moving the goalposts:

We have NOT been doing medical researc with ESC’s for 25 years.

Instead of talking of the year that stem cells were first derived, you now shift to slightly more defensible ground with the phrase, “doing medical research”.

You may wish to define that term so that you can communicate more clearly your previous objections to a quotation that referred to embryonic stem cell research.

* * *

Pablo, you said that “ASC vs ESC is a false dichotomy and a lousy argument.”

And you have yet to put forth a reasonable argument for whatever it is you are advocating here.

* * *

I said:

Destroying a human being (or harming or risking the harm of a human being) as the forseeable consequence of one’s argument for research funding is an important distinction.

Pablo said:

You’ll find a large amount of disagreement on your characterization, particularly among the 64 United Styates Senators that voted to expand funding.

I think you’d find that most of them see the distinction as relevant when weighing how to vote on funding.

But what do you think about incinerating embryos intact? How is that more ethical than trying to help sick people with them?

I’m for helping sick people with morally and ethically sound treatments, but what precisely do you mean by “with them“? Who, precisely?

What do you mean by “incinerating embryos intact“?

Is the human embryo is a human being?

I ask not out of ignorance of the issues involved but because of your history of hyperbolic nitpicking and goalpost-moving in this discussion.

* * *

Why should money not be spent on things you morally disagree with, where it’s ok to spend it on things other people disagree just as strongly with?

What is the relevance of your question? Debates about selectively funding research will usually include disagreement.

Peer review of grant applications in a competetive process works pretty well. Having participated in many such peer review groups, can I cite myself?

You have self-cited all along. I asked about the criteria, not the process. So you might respond to that.

And, as you emphasized process (i.e. peer-review), are such reviewers only technical experts? Such as the 64 senators?

Again, you should be more clear and cutback on the superiority attitude hich is just getting in the way of your argument.

I never said it was the question. I was only making a point about how you’re trying to frame the debate.

I’m asking a question that logically follows from the situation. You want to critique it nine ways to Friday but you won’t answer it. It isn’t a complicated question.

Refusing to answer is an answer, really. You just won’t voice it.

As for the rest, I’m with you on a certain level, being a libertarian at heart. But we don’t live in a society that embraces libertarian principles and we never will. And that argument has nothing to do with ESC’s either, except that it would also do away with breast cancer research and everything else the NIH does. That argument doesn’t treat ESC research differently. But it won’t float for two seconds in America, and that’s the system we have to work with.

“How dare you object to your money being taken from you by force to pay for things you find morally repugnant?”

That is not the question.

Pablo on October 28, 2006 at 7:56 PM

I never said it was the question. I was only making a point about how you’re trying to frame the debate.

We, as a country, have taken a number of wrong turns. We took a wrong turn when we put down the Whiskey Rebellion. We took a wrong turn when we violently repressed the right of states to secede. We took a wrong turn when we decided that government should subsidize private business. We took a wrong turn when we handed government control of education. We took a wrong turn when we decided the income tax would be a good idea. We took a wrong turn when we decided it was government’s job to take care of everyone’s retirement needs. We took a wrong turn when we decided to help the poor by creating economic incentives to break up families. We took a wrong turn when we decided the 2nd Amendment doesn’t mean what it damn well says. We took a wrong turn when we decided it was proper to outlaw any number of peaceable, honest exchanges between consenting adults.

It doesn’t matter what the Constitution specifically authorizes funding for. It doesn’t specifically authorize highway funding either. Yet we do it.

“That’s the way we do it now” doesn’t cut it. Having a long, sordid, well-established history of pissing on the Constitution is no excuse. The saddest thing about the American experiment is how much of its history we’ve spent trying to convince each other that free enterprise isn’t enough, that free people are inadequate, that anything worth doing should be done by government.

We can’t turn back the clock and go the way we should have gone. There may be no way now to get ourselves out of the situatation we’ve created. But the very least we can and should do is resist any further temptation to take even more steps down that sorry path.

And to answer your question:

There never should have been an NIH.

Creating tissue is not repairing tissue nor is it treating disease — of any kind (human or otherwise).

That’s also funny, given that creating new tissue is a big part of the success ASC research has yielded. You really have no idea what you’re talking about, do you?

How dare you object to your money being taken from you by force to pay for things you find morally repugnant?

That is not the question. Using your frame, it would be “How dare you object to your money being taken from you by force to pay for things you find morally repugnant while you support taking other people’s money away from them to fund things they find morally repugnant?” That phrasing is fine with me.

It doesn’t matter what the Constitution specifically authorizes funding for. It doesn’t specifically authorizes highway funding either. Yet we do it. Your point has absolutely zero to do with the question. It is a strawman, and this time of year that dude belongs out in the yard.

How about answering the question now?

So I’ll ask again: Why should money not be spent on things you morally disagree with, where it’s ok to spend it on things other people disagree just as strongly with?

Pablo on October 28, 2006 at 12:12 PM

Way to elicit a response by contolling how you phrase the question. Why don’t we try that another way?

How dare you object to your money being taken from you by force to pay for things you find morally repugnant?

See how that works?

Nobody’s objecting to folks choosing to spend their own money on whatever research of any kind they want. Nobody’s outlawing ESC research.

The Constitution limits the federal government. The general welfare clause is not a blank check, an open-ended blessing for Congress to do every little last thing they damn well please just as long as they can get a popular majority to go along.

Defense is specifically authorized by the Constitution. ESC research is not.

So I’ll ask again: Why should money not be spent on things you morally disagree with, where it’s ok to spend it on things other people disagree just as strongly with?

Is anyone going to actually answer this question, or are we going to just dance around it?

The quote with which you take issue is 100% accurate. Your complaint, considerly less so.

No it isn’t. We have NOT been doing medical researc with ESC’s for 25 years. that is simply false. Trying to spin it into truth is right next door to lying. Your quote is misleading and it is wrong.

Destroying a human being (or harming or risking the harm of a human being) as the forseeable consequence of one’s argument for research funding is an important distinction.

You’ll find a large amount of disagreement on your characterization, particularly among the 64 United Styates Senators that voted to expand funding. But what do you think about incinerating embryos intact? How is that more ethical than trying to help sick people with them?

Pablo, what criteria would you propose to use by society to determine when public funding of this or that research is a-okay? Maybe you can cite a technical expert to speak on your behalf.

Peer review of grant applications in a competetive process works pretty well. Having participated in many such peer review groups, can I cite myself?

The quote with which you take issue is 100% accurate. Your complaint, considerly less so. That has not changed with your repeating the error, and the hyperbole, in an effort to reframe the facts.

We know they’re very effective at creating tissue and those who study these things think it’s a worthwhile endeavor. Of those people, the vast majority also study ASC’s, so their expertise is more relevant than yours or mine.

Both sentences are irrelevant to your now refuted nitpick.

Creating tissue is not repairing tissue nor is it treating disease — of any kind (human or otherwise).

The technical experts agree on this point. Twenty five years and very little evidence that ESC could do either.

But hopeful speculation? Laden with emotional promise? Sure.

So in their area of expertise, the technocrats agree. On matters of moral and ethical import to society at-large, their opinions carry no greater weight than the opinions of the rest of us.

ASC vs ESC is a false dichotomy and a lousy argument.

Destroying a human being (or harming or risking the harm of a human being) as the forseeable consequence of one’s argument for research funding is an important distinction.

Pablo, what criteria would you propose to use by society to determine when public funding of this or that research is a-okay? Maybe you can cite a technical expert to speak on your behalf.

As you may know, ESC were first isolated in mice in 1981, 25 years ago just as the quote said.

And no human cures yet? Golly gee, Wally. That rots.

The first human stem cell line, which marked the beginning point of our ability to conduct human embryonic stem cell experiments was in 1998. Knowing that something exists is not the same as conducting medical research with it. With ESC’s that has been going on for just 8 years, and largely without federal funding, which ASC research has been able to get.

Also, since that time, little evidence has been produced to show that ESC are effective in treating disease and repairing tissue.

We know they’re very effective at creating tissue and those who study these things think it’s a worthwhile endeavor. Of those people, the vast majority also study ASC’s, so their expertise is more relevant than yours or mine.

ASC vs ESC is a false dichotomy and a lousy argument.

Defense is one of the damn few legitimate, Constitutionally-authorized functions of the federal government.

That has absolutely nothing to do with my question, unless you’re ready to scrap the National Institutes of Health. Are you? That would prevent funding for research that offends you. BTW, medical research is part of promoting the general welfare.

So I’ll ask again: Why should money not be spent on things you morally disagree with, where it’s ok to spend it on things other people disagree just as strongly with?

From article quoted above by myself: “After 25 years of research with embryonic stem cells — mouse and human — there’s very little evidence that embryonic stem cells are effective in treating disease and repairing tissue,”

Hyperbolic reaction by Pablo:

That’s a damned neat trick, given that researchers didn’t derive the first human embryonic stem cell line until 1998, 8 years ago. Meanwhile, we’ve been working with human ASC’s since 1963, 42 years ago.

Correct about ASC but you have misread the quote.

If you doubt that, read the article that was linked for context. Follow the available links to the online video. Read and listen with greater care.

As you may know, ESC were first isolated in mice in 1981, 25 years ago just as the quote said.

Also, since that time, little evidence has been produced to show that ESC are effective in treating disease and repairing tissue. Obviously, in context, the quote does not refer only to human disease and tissue.

Of the 25 years mentioned, 8 have included human ESC. But research on human disease and tissue would follow where promise had been indicated with the prior research on mice. So the 8 years with human ESC are part an parcel of the “25 years of research with embryonic stem cells” that has produced “little evidence that embryonic stem cells are effective in treating disease and repairing tissue”.

As for where I found the quote, follow the link I supplied to the article about the DVD. The video is also available online. See my comment above for that link.

According to the Cook Report:

…Most have underestimated Steele’s appeal as a candidate. Steele is among the GOP’s few Senate recruiting successes. He is charismatic and possesses the gift of being able to connect with voters easily. He has been….

And then there’s war, which many people vehemently disagree with as it violates their moral and/or religious beliefs because it kills human beings. Should they be also able to opt out, or should we never spend a Federal dime on war because they don’t like it?

Pablo on October 27, 2006 at 7:34 AM

Apples and oranges. Defense is one of the damn few legitimate, Constitutionally-authorized functions of the federal government.

Family ties was one of my favorite shows growing up, Alex P. Keaton is one of the reasons I’m a Republican today. (Well, not really, but at least I could relate to him).

“What happens to us in the future? What, do we become assholes or something?”

How prophetic.

Government funding is common for medical research.

To the tune of $28.6 billion this year. Yep, pretty common.

Maybe Fox can get together with Ali and raise some money on their own. Everyone who is for embryonic stem cell research can simply make a nice tax-deductable donation and get the research going. Why is it so important to secure federal dollars? Is there any such group? – I really don’t know. Americans are pretty damn charitable, and the private sector is 1,000 times more efficient than the feds.

The real villian here is McCaskill, that’s where the anger needs to be directed.

We don’t need to pay taxes to pay for this research and if embryonic stem cell research were as promising as all you Libs maintain, private funds would be chasing it down to beat the band, but they’re not.
(Hence their desperation to get taxpayer dollars.)
That’s one of its problems.
The other is that many of us can’t stomach the moral and ethical breaches that are involved in the basic materials of the research–human embryos and fetuses.
Fox’s add was for an amendment to the Missouri constitution for cloning, not any kind of stem cell research. Cloning is on even shakier moral and ethical grounds than SCR.
This is not gonna happen and Fox’s ad will backfire on the Dems.
They pulled it from the World Series program just last night.

Which isn’t really the point of this discussion. The point is was this a good thing for the Dems or not? I would say yes in that it puts on a face on the issue. I find the argument that Fox is unassailable a bit disingenuous–the OxyMoron wasn’t assailing his point of view, he was assailing Fox personally. Particularly liked the mocking of the tremors–that wins friends and influences people for sure!!!

Michael has sentenced his 3 children to a 50-50 chance of getting Parkinson’s.