Comments on: The Bush Veto: The Republican War on Science Escalates http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/the-bush-veto-the-republican-war-on-science-escalates/ Where science collides with life, slams into culture, crashes with politics, and gets totaled. Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:28:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: RickD http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/the-bush-veto-the-republican-war-on-science-escalates/#comment-2636 RickD Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:48:09 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/the-bush-veto-the-republican-war-on-science-escalates/#comment-2636 "If that's really true, then why don't Bush and Rove push for the defunding of the National Institutes of Health..." Shh! Don't give them any ideas! “If that’s really true, then why don’t Bush and Rove push for the defunding of the National Institutes of Health…”

Shh! Don’t give them any ideas!

]]> By: G http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/the-bush-veto-the-republican-war-on-science-escalates/#comment-2635 G Mon, 24 Jul 2006 15:39:34 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/the-bush-veto-the-republican-war-on-science-escalates/#comment-2635 "Stephen Hawking, the world's best-known living scientist, has attacked "reactionary" forces in Europe and America which are trying to ban research into stem cells from human embryos." -- The Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article1193119.ece The nerve of that guy. I mean, who the hell does he think he is? God? Or George Bush? Hawking (one of the world's most brilliant minds) has a degenerative nerve disease that has confined him to a wheelchair and allowed only the movement of a few of his fingers for much of his life. “Stephen Hawking, the world’s best-known living scientist, has attacked “reactionary” forces in Europe and America which are trying to ban research into stem cells from human embryos.” — The Independent
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article1193119.ece

The nerve of that guy. I mean, who the hell does he think he is? God? Or George Bush?

Hawking (one of the world’s most brilliant minds) has a degenerative nerve disease that has confined him to a wheelchair and allowed only the movement of a few of his fingers for much of his life.

]]> By: Davis http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/the-bush-veto-the-republican-war-on-science-escalates/#comment-2634 Davis Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:02:34 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/the-bush-veto-the-republican-war-on-science-escalates/#comment-2634 Anyone want to compare the Bush spending on stem cells with the Clinton spending? I'm not really sure how that's relevant. Human embryonic stem cells weren't even isolated until 1998. And (someone correct me if I'm wrong) allocation of federal money for biological research is via NSF and NIH grants, in the absence of any specially-focused federal initiatives. Thus, prior to Bush's restriction on federal stem cell research funding in 2002, the amount of spending on stem cell research was not a function of which administration was in power. Anyone want to compare the Bush spending on stem cells with the Clinton spending?

I’m not really sure how that’s relevant.

Human embryonic stem cells weren’t even isolated until 1998. And (someone correct me if I’m wrong) allocation of federal money for biological research is via NSF and NIH grants, in the absence of any specially-focused federal initiatives. Thus, prior to Bush’s restriction on federal stem cell research funding in 2002, the amount of spending on stem cell research was not a function of which administration was in power.

]]> By: Walter E. Wallis. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/the-bush-veto-the-republican-war-on-science-escalates/#comment-2633 Walter E. Wallis. Sun, 23 Jul 2006 02:37:04 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/the-bush-veto-the-republican-war-on-science-escalates/#comment-2633 Anyone want to compare the Bush spending on stem cells with the Clinton spending? Anyone want to compare the Bush spending on stem cells with the Clinton spending?

]]> By: Phobos http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/the-bush-veto-the-republican-war-on-science-escalates/#comment-2632 Phobos Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:54:08 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/the-bush-veto-the-republican-war-on-science-escalates/#comment-2632 Thanks, Keanus. Not to play semantics, but I wonder if the debate would be less heated if they were called blastula stem cells instead of embryonic. Probably not. Thanks, Keanus. Not to play semantics, but I wonder if the debate would be less heated if they were called blastula stem cells instead of embryonic. Probably not.

]]> By: Keanus http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/the-bush-veto-the-republican-war-on-science-escalates/#comment-2631 Keanus Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:05:30 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/the-bush-veto-the-republican-war-on-science-escalates/#comment-2631 Phobos, I'm neither a physician nor scientist, but let me run through a brief primer addressing your questions. Embryonic stem cells are derived from blastulae created via in vitro fertilization. The blastula is a sphere of about 100 or so cells shaped like a hollow sphere formed several days after an egg is fertilized. In utero it would normally attach itself to the lining of the uterus. But in vitro it is either frozen stored in liquid nitrogen or implanted in a petri dish for harvesting stem cells. In size it's a very small fraction of the size of the period at the end of this sentence. Creating such blastulae involves only the harvesting of egg from a woman and sperm from a man. It does not require or use abortion. The fundamental posture of Dobson, Bush, and their supporteres is that life begins at conception, when a sperm fertilizes a egg; they argue that, from that point, on a blastula is endowed with a unique soul and is a human being. That position ignores the fact that well over half of all fertilizations (if my memory serves me correctly) never implant and of those that do, a very substantial spontaneously abort, most in the first few weeks when the woman isn't even aware she's pregnant. In other words Bush's and Dobson's argument is fundamentally (no pun intended) religious and not in the least scientific. And Dobson, and Bush as well, are flatly wrong to argue that adult stem cells offer better prospects of for producing unique therapies than embryonic stem cells. No one in the field agrees with them. Phobos, I’m neither a physician nor scientist, but let me run through a brief primer addressing your questions. Embryonic stem cells are derived from blastulae created via in vitro fertilization. The blastula is a sphere of about 100 or so cells shaped like a hollow sphere formed several days after an egg is fertilized. In utero it would normally attach itself to the lining of the uterus. But in vitro it is either frozen stored in liquid nitrogen or implanted in a petri dish for harvesting stem cells. In size it’s a very small fraction of the size of the period at the end of this sentence. Creating such blastulae involves only the harvesting of egg from a woman and sperm from a man. It does not require or use abortion. The fundamental posture of Dobson, Bush, and their supporteres is that life begins at conception, when a sperm fertilizes a egg; they argue that, from that point, on a blastula is endowed with a unique soul and is a human being. That position ignores the fact that well over half of all fertilizations (if my memory serves me correctly) never implant and of those that do, a very substantial spontaneously abort, most in the first few weeks when the woman isn’t even aware she’s pregnant. In other words Bush’s and Dobson’s argument is fundamentally (no pun intended) religious and not in the least scientific. And Dobson, and Bush as well, are flatly wrong to argue that adult stem cells offer better prospects of for producing unique therapies than embryonic stem cells. No one in the field agrees with them.

]]> By: Phobos http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/the-bush-veto-the-republican-war-on-science-escalates/#comment-2630 Phobos Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:28:01 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/the-bush-veto-the-republican-war-on-science-escalates/#comment-2630 I caught part of Dobson's reponse to the stem cell veto. He and his radio show guests were saying that adult stem cells are a better candidate for research because (1) there are actual adult stem cell treatments being used now whereas there are zero embryonic stem cell treatments being used anywhere in the world; (2) embryonic stem cells are more susceptible to tumors; and (3) of course, there's no moral issue with the use of adult stem cells. I'm not too familiar with the stem cell debate but it did strike me that they kept focusing on the term "embryo", probably equating this debate to the abortion debate. But aren't stem cells harvested from a very early stage (much less developed embryo)? They also commented on the 400,000 frozen embryos which people talk about using "since they'd be destroyed anyway" and noted that most were intended for possible future use by parents and that only a small fraction (2%) would be destroyed. 2% is a small fraction, but that's still a large number overall (8,000). I can see their concerns (sacrificing human life, or potential life), but I have to suspect that they're not telling the whole story (based on their history on other topics). I caught part of Dobson’s reponse to the stem cell veto. He and his radio show guests were saying that adult stem cells are a better candidate for research because (1) there are actual adult stem cell treatments being used now whereas there are zero embryonic stem cell treatments being used anywhere in the world; (2) embryonic stem cells are more susceptible to tumors; and (3) of course, there’s no moral issue with the use of adult stem cells. I’m not too familiar with the stem cell debate but it did strike me that they kept focusing on the term “embryo”, probably equating this debate to the abortion debate. But aren’t stem cells harvested from a very early stage (much less developed embryo)? They also commented on the 400,000 frozen embryos which people talk about using “since they’d be destroyed anyway” and noted that most were intended for possible future use by parents and that only a small fraction (2%) would be destroyed. 2% is a small fraction, but that’s still a large number overall (8,000). I can see their concerns (sacrificing human life, or potential life), but I have to suspect that they’re not telling the whole story (based on their history on other topics).

]]>