More Stem Cell Excuses from ESCR Advocates
It is a given that President Obama will dismantle the funding limitations on ESCR imposed by President Bush. Even though Bush's plan still resulted in about $160 million in human embryonic stem cell NIH funding, "the scientists" complain that it is his fault the field has not proved as fruitful as expected. From the story:
Though optimistic about the effects of a new federal policy, research institutes caution that the fruits of this research will take time and that cures are not around the corner. "There's still a lot of basic science to be done....The [Bush] policy has set research back five to six to seven years in this country," Devitt said.
Oh please. First, thanks to Bush probably more money was thrown at ESCR than ever would have otherwise been the case--think Proposition 71 among other state agendas. Second, according to the Rockefeller Institute, the field has received a whopping $2 billion in research funds in the USA alone! Third, as the story acknowledges, there will probably not be any more money provided by the NIH under the new policy. Thus, while it will be more convenient for researchers not having to segregate federally funded research from that which didn't use approved lines, and while newer lines will be able to be used in federally funded projects--it is hard to believe that these inconveniences have held back the field five or six years. Otherwise, why would countries that have not operated under the Bush restrictions, gotten no further along than have USA scientists?
The most pressing problems for ESCR have been the technical difficulties associated with the field and patent disputes. But that isn't good for the politics of the thing. So expect Bush to continue to be a convenient excuse for the failure of field--so far--to fulfill the hype. In this sense, he might be worth his weight in political gold.
The most pressing problems for ESCR have been the technical difficulties associated with the field and patent disputes. But that isn't good for the politics of the thing. So expect Bush to continue to be a convenient excuse for the failure of field--so far--to fulfill the hype. In this sense, he might be worth his weight in political gold.
Labels: Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Bush Policy. Obama Policy.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 10:43 AM
10 Comments
10 Comments:
I didn't like his stance on tort reform, and he really shouldn't say nucular, and he wasn't quick enough on some things, but other than that, I'm going to miss President Bush. Overall, he understands what's important. People didn't realize how good they had it with him, and by the time they do, it's going to be too late. God help us from what we're going to have to deal with now.
So expect Bush to continue to be a convenient excuse for the failure of field--so far--to fulfill the hype.
so far? Are you implying that you think in the future it will fulfill it promises you call "Hype"?
Well then full steam ahead buddy.
I think SHS is saying the opposite, that "the field" is incapable, in the past, present, and future, of fulfilling the hype, and knows it, and has used Bush as a convenient excuse, and in the future will be saying "Well we could have done it by now but Bush set us back and setting us back then has messed things up in such a way that we can't do it now," etc. I think "so far" references that at no matter what point at time, it will, as it has, fail to fulfill the hype because the hype IS just hype, but that they will keep saying "so far" in order to try to get funding sources to buy into the notion that if they just keep getting funding, they'll achieve what they claim that they can, even though they themselves know that they can't. Sort of like the concept of getting the greyhound to run trying to catch the rabbit on a stick so that the greyhound racing industry can make money. Ain't never going to catch that rabbit, and plus on top of everything else, at the end, get euthanized. While everyone is putting down money on bets. A casino can't stay in business unless house always wins, but everyone goes there, just as everyone buys lottery tickets, hoping for a big payoff, which doesn't happen often enough so that everybody wins. If the payoff were assured, gambling would be risk-free rather than addictive, and the game couldn't exist; the scam works based on the "You can't win if you can't play,a and you've got to be in it to win it" philosophy.
That's, "can't win if you can't play" as far as the "genius researchers" whom society has blindly placed on pedestals the researches use as soapboxes in order to retain their oen lucrative positions on them are concerned, and "can't win if you don't play" as far as those solicited for funds (i.e., the government, which = taxpayers, as well as private funding sources, because after all, it's going to take a LOT of money to accomplish such "miracles," "but don't worry we can do it, and would have already, if only...") are concerned. If the greyhound ever caught the rabbit, the whole enterprise would have to shut down.
I meant, "can't win if you can't play" as far as the "genius researchers'" PITCH is concerned. They're playing, all right.
they will keep saying "so far"
To be clear, it was Wesley who said "so far", not whoever 'they' are - as if he was hedging his bets in case ESCr and the technological feats possible with undifferentiated stem cell become a success. He wants to dump on ESCr, but appears to need an escape clause for being accountable to his statements if it is a success. He doesn't want his own words used against him in the future, that's how Lawyers like Wesley and Politicians roll.
Otherwise, there was no obvious reason for Wesley to add a conditional "so far", unless he legitimately believes in ESCr potential.
No Dark Swan: I didn't use "so far" as an escape clause, I used the term because it is accurate and honest. I have never written that ESCs have no scientific value or that they might not prove one day to be of some therapeutic value. I have exposed the hype from the political scientists that seek to win an ethics fight shoveling manure about the field and downplaying the usefulness of other areas. And I have exposed the junk biology used by many supporters of ESCR and cloning research, e.g. the Stowers Institute crowd.
As I have had to remind you repeatedly, to the point that I understand you don't care, this is an ethics debate and not a science debate. Accuracy in describing the state of the science is essential to such a debate.
Since I have come to believe you are willfully obtuse, I only respond to you, as here, when I think it necessary to ensure that new readers are not misled about my position.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Well thank you for offering a platform to voice my opposition to your view on this topic.
I sincerely appreciate it and Happy New Year.
You are most welcome, Dark Swan, in both senses of the term.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home