[Mishmash] Explain please!

[Richard Barth]

At 02:46 PM 6/22/2007, you wrote:
>your right - there is plenty of embryonic tissue available - but - 
>it is indeed being used.  the research is not limited because much 
>private research is being done.  the embryonic tissue is usually not 
>being discarded but being sold to these private research companies.

Do you have a basis for these statements?  Everything I've read on 
the subject says exactly the opposite.  You are the only person I've 
heard say that there is plenty of research in place -- if there were, 
why would there be so much clamor for government funding?  Where is 
the research taking place, And who is buying the tissue everything 
else I've read says is being destroyed?

>  there is also research going on that is government sponsored.

Not by the Feds.  California is funding some research, it's 
true.  There is some done by other state and local bodies.  But 
Federal funding is limited to that done only with existing strains of 
stem cells, and it's well known that most of these are ruined by 
earlier contamination with non-human cells, making them useless for human use.

>  these bills that bush keeps vetoing are simply to have the 
> government take more of a part in funding and providing this research.

Because inadequate work is currently being done.

>  i'd like to see actual figures on how much advancement had been 
> made by government research and how much by the privates
>-  i have a feeling that percentage-wise - the privates have a much 
>more impressive track record.

Given the Federal government's refusal to participate in such 
research, you're probably right.
You won't score any runs if you refuse to play the game.

>as hugh says - anything the government is involved with doesn't go well.

Including, presumably, the space effort, developed and funded by 
NASA. Putting men on the moon.  Launching space exploration efforts 
that have taught us more about the universe in the last half century 
than was learned in many centuries before that.

Or did you have in mind the national weather-forecasting effort 
built, operated and maintained by NOAA?  Who do you think pays for 
and runs the weather satellites, and the weather radars, and the 
weather balloons that provide the information you see on your TV 
every day?  The Weather Channel?
(I have to admit, there was one ignorant Congress-critter who 
famously remarked that the Weather Service wasn't needed because we 
have TWC.  Meteorologists have been cackling about that one ever 
since he said it.)

Or maybe you're thinking about the many other projects that the 
government is handling because there is no way to make money at them.

>and why should it?  anyone worth their salt will work for a private 
>so as to make way more money with less hassle than working for the govt.

Precisely.  It is the business of business to make money, and if 
there is money to be made, investors will be found.  If no payoff is 
in view, industry will sit back and harangue the government to do the 
spadework so the private sector can then pick the cherries.  Do you 
have any idea how much of today's industry is based on the 
discoveries of the government-run and government-funded space 
exploration effort?  If not, I'd suggest you look into it.

>i know this cause i worked for the govt

Doing what, and at what level I wonder?  You don't seem to have a 
clear view of what the government does and how it works.

>and the good ones always left.

It's true that you're not likely to get rich working for the 
government, and if that is your primary objective in life you'd be 
better off as a lawyer, or a car salesman, an arbitrageur, an 
entrepreneur or something else in the private sector.  My experience 
in the Federal government shows it to be populated largely by people 
who have other things as their primary interest.

>   also, so far they really haven't proven that embryonic brain 
> cells are any better than adult brain cells - and there are lots of 
> those.  in fact, i have several that i'm not using.

I wouldn't touch that one with a ten foot pole.  :-)

>so, these vetoed bills are not stopping or hindering any research - 
>just keeping it out of the hands of an already too big government.
>cb
>
>There is plenty of embryonic tissue available; after all, it's not 
>exactly a consumer item.  There is a limited amount of medical 
>research going on in any area and in most cases, including this one, 
>it's limited by a lack of money rather than a lack of 
>materiel.  There is a potential to alleviate a huge amount of human 
>suffering if the money for a modest amount of research (we're not 
>talking high school biology labs here) were being done.  It's a fact 
>that abortion exists; it's also a fact that the by-products of 
>abortions (which aren't likely to go away any time soon) are 
>currently destroyed because useful research with them is not being 
>funded.  Abortion ends a potential life; it is neither necessary nor 
>desirable that it should have ended totally in vain.
>
>Second point: stem cells can be obtained from the placenta after a 
>normal birth.  Research might be done with these, too, if the funds 
>were available. But they're not, because some people (including our 
>beloved president) either haven't thought much about the matter, or 
>are working so hard to maintain the support of their unthinking base 
>that the consequences of their behavior doesn't concern them.  It 
>probably isn't any of their kids who will die early of inherited 
>genetic conditions.
>
>Dick