Stem Cell Research

[bideau]

I guess it's time for a different thread on this topic.

Yes, it's true that government policy does not prohibit stem cell research. What it does is limit the way federal money can be spent on stem cell research. Essentially, the stem cells being research must meet the following criteria (from NIH's Role in Federal Policy (http://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/NIHFedPolicy.asp) :

The derivation process (which begins with the destruction of the embryo) was initiated prior to 9:00 P.M. EDT on August 9, 2001.

The stem cells must have been derived from an embryo that was created for reproductive purposes and was no longer needed.

Informed consent must have been obtained for the donation of the embryo and that donation must not have involved financial inducements.

So then, we may ask, what's the big deal about this? The big deal actually runs a little deeper. I'll start by quoting an excerpt from the NIH's FAQ on stem cell research (http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/faqs.asp#guidelines) :

I am a university research administrator. One of our NIH-funded investigators would like to use a cell line that was created after August 9th, 2001, and it is not eligible for research using Federal funds. What should I tell the investigator who wants to work with these cells in his laboratory?

Institutions need to provide clear instructions to investigators who conduct research that is "unallowable" under Federal research funding policy. In laboratories where there is both Federal and non-Federal funding, investigators and their staffs must separate allowable and unallowable activities in such a way that permits the costs incurred in the research to be allocated consistently to the appropriate funding source. In your example, for instance, the time and effort of laboratory personnel working on the stem cell line created after August 9, 2001, may not be charged to any Federal grant. Acquisition of equipment, use of cell and tissue culture supplies in the project, and travel to a conference to discuss or present this work likewise may not be federally supported.

I am an investigator who receives NIH funding, and I am planning to derive new human embryonic stem cell lines. Can I conduct the derivations in my laboratory, or do I need to find a non-university funded laboratory to do this work?

You may do the derivation in your university supported laboratory as long as: 1) you carefully and consistently allocate all costs of doing the derivation to a non-Federal funding source; and 2) your university or research center has in place a method of separating the costs of supporting your laboratory so that any of the facilities and administrative (F&A) costs allocable to your new stem cell line work are excluded from the federal share of the organized research cost base, per the provisions of OMB Circular A-21.

Can you explain what accounting principles are necessary to demonstrate that unallowable charges are not being absorbed by NIH funded research, e.g., indirect costs?

The cost principles contained in OMB Circular A-21, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a076/trans21final.html
particularly with regard to treatment of allowable and unallowable costs, contain the necessary guidance. Federal policy is explicitly clear that no Federal funding may be used, either directly or indirectly, to support human embryonic stem cell research outside the criteria established by the President on August 9, 2001, i.e., it is unallowable. Therefore, the direct costs of such work must be charged only to non-Federal sources of funding. With respect to indirect costs, also known as facilities and administrative (F&A) costs, institutions engaged in unallowable stem cell work must be able to demonstrate that none of the costs of supporting this work have been included in the rates established and used to charge F&A costs to federally funded research.

Again, what's the big deal?

There are two problems.

First, most research institutions receive large amounts of federal aid which is used for many purposes from paying researcher salaries to buying important medical equipment. If an institute wants to research stem cells which fall outside the government guidelines, they must get private funding. The problem is that they have to use very detailed accounting of every piece of equipment that has been used in this research to ensure that it was not obtained via government funding. Any lab technician position which is being funded by government money cannot be used in any manner unless that portion of the work comes from private funds. The bottom line is, it's an accounting nightmare which discourages most institutions from not even bothering. The mountain of paperwork would be daunting. And the private money needed to setup an independent lab fully stocked with equipment and manpower is exceedingly difficult.

That's where problem #2 comes in. Many investors are not willing to fund independent research because they fear that government policy will not allow them to recoup the costs commercially. Here's some excerpts from an article date 11/2/04 entitled U.S. stem cell policy deters investors (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021101-053230-6291r) :

The Bush administration's restrictions on embryonic stem cell research could be discouraging investment in companies working on these cells, thereby delaying the development of potentially life-saving medical therapies, venture capitalists told United Press International.

A lot of investors "are very, very, very unhappy about the federal position on this," Linda Powers, managing director of Toucan Capital, a venture capital firm in Bethesda, Md., told UPI. "It is having a chilling effect not only on science but also on the investment community," she said.

"Embryonic stem cell investors worry about ... whether the technology works or not, (about) regulatory approval but also plain old political risk," she said. "We could get five years into it and then have Congress pass a law saying it is illegal."

:
:

Bush has limited embryonic stem cell research conducted with federal funding to 78 cell lines the administration deems acceptable because they were derived from surplus embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization procedures. Scientists recently testified before the Senate, however, that these restrictions are stifling their research because they have been unable to obtain only a handful of these lines.

"Scientists are moving to where the funding is," Powers said, noting one embryonic stem cell researcher has left the University of California in San Francisco to go to Cambridge University in England. There are rumors "two prominent scientists are moving to Singapore (where the research is supported by the government) to sit up lab operations there," she said, adding, "I predict we will see more of this."

If stem cell research is pushed offshore, it could have "a very, very negative impact," both medically and economically, Powers said. "Other places in the world will become centers of excellence for the basic science involved in stem cell technology. The U.S. has been the absolute leading edge on new life sciences technology (and) for the U.S. to be left behind would be a huge blow to its scientific standing."

Powers noted Singapore, Australia, Israel and England have made stem cell research a national priority and "are pouring massive amounts of government money into it. It's a real issue, not just a sort of theoretical policy debate."

Joel Martin, of Forward Ventures in San Diego, agreed the administration's policy is a factor in investors' decisions, but said "the compromise as it stands today is not too negative for the commercial implications" of this technology. This is because "there will be more stem cell lines available in the future that have been developed with private money" and that are free of the restrictions imposed on research conducted with federal dollars, he explained.

Martin also said a total moratorium on stem cell research "would set us back. If that happens, it will move offshore pretty dramatically. If the environment in the U.S. makes it too difficult to do this type of research ... probably the United Kingdom would be the place you would see the commercialization," he said.

[bideau]

I guess what I'm trying to get at with all this is that the Bush policy, while not directly prohibiting research, is having a very detrimental effect on it. We're going to see our European and Asian competitors take the lead. We're seeing a brain drain as well as financial drain with a large part of it going overseas.

We can never underestimate the importance of federal money to these research institutions. Very few of them are willing to risk that funding because of a paperwork mistake.

[Undertaker #59]

Thank you for the enlightening post, Bid. I can see now where this might pose some problems. However, the libertarian in me keeps screaming about anything that the government decides to spend less of MY money on, the better.

The article talks mainly about institutions, but I would think that there would be many private sector companies investing lots of money into this research because of the potential to make money.

Something for me to ponder more anyway. Thank you.

[bideau]

Originally posted by Undertaker #59
Thank you for the enlightening post, Bid. I can see now where this might pose some problems. However, the libertarian in me keeps screaming about anything that the government decides to spend less of MY money on, the better.

The article talks mainly about institutions, but I would think that there would be many private sector companies investing lots of money into this research because of the potential to make money.

Something for me to ponder more anyway. Thank you.

Unfortunately, as the article from UPI stated, many investors are worried about doing the research in the US. There's just too much uncertainty. Keep in mind, there are strong factions within the administration as well as congress, that would like to ban stem cell research completely. Why would a commercial interest invest in a venture that may be ruled illegal?

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Good post, Bideau.

I hear you and understand the issues. I don't agree that the biggest problems are accounting. It's actually a pretty simple procedure to shift funding around. If federal monies can't go to research A, you take your private funding and shift it in that direction.

It's an extra division within a trust account out of which bills are paid. It's a paper barrier, and any accounting firm should be able to do it without much of a problem. Its a problem encountered all the time, both with federal monies for all sorts of issues, and with private donations which are directed for certain use.

Look at it this way: Say the laboratory has $5MM in undirected private funds. $5MM in federal grant money. 5 $1MM directed private donations.

If they have a projected budget of:
$4MM - Stem Cell
$3MM - A
$2MM - B
$2MM - C
$2MM - D
$2MM - E

where A through E each have one of the directed private donations earmarked for them, you just fund $1MM to A through E from there, $1MM of the federal money to A-E, each, $4MM from undirected funds to stemcell, and the remainder to fill up the shortfall on A.

It's all paper pushing. Non-profit organizations do it ALL THE TIME. Yes, the federal goverment requires more detailed accounting separation. That means that you have a certain bank account specifically for expenses from that part of the laboratory. You have to take a little more time to quantify, for example, how much time a lab tech takes in the stem cell lab as opposed to the A lab, and only bill the grant monies for that % of his/her time. It isn't hard to do once you know what you're doing and have a system set up.

As far as investor confidence, that's a different story. It's a controversial issue, and yes, there's the chance that it might be banned at some point in the future. That's a big risk for an investor to take. But IF one assumes that there is a moral issue at stake here, that HAS to take precedence. For instance, if we had a modern economic/investment system in 1858, cotton futures investors would be awfully skittish about investing in Farmer Homer's cotton plantation, because his source of free labor might evaporate if a new President took it into his head to ban slavery and Farmer Homer's source of cheap labor. They might invest in what is now Tajikistan's burgeoning cotton industry, because the Russian Tzars have no pressing issues bringing uncertainty onto the industry.

This isn't just a scientific resource like natural gas we're talking about here. This is the earliest stages of development of a human being. It isn't some random glob of cells - its an embryo that if left to its own devices in a reasonable environment, will someday walk and talk and possibly vote. IF an embryo is a human (not from a legal standpoint, but from a factual standpoint), then I could give a rat's a$$ about whether or not it will be tough on investors to stop treating it as a resource.

If you believe in a soul, a spirit, a consciousness, then you need to ask yourself at what point that is embued into a human. At conception? At a certain point in fetal development? At birth? At self-awareness? At whatever point we begin to retain conscious memories?

Opinions on this vary wildly, and I know of one famous commentator, Peter Singer, who believes that "life" in any real sense, does not begin until after birth. He proposes that after birth, we wait a month or so to see if any defects are noticeable. If not, then we celebrate and welcome the new addition into the human family. If so, the infant is discarded. Peter Singer isn't some crackpot, by the way - he's a professor of Bioethincs and Human Values at Princeton University.

To me, any boundary drawn at any point other than conception is pretty arbitrary without some scientific discovery to to contrary. We do know that individuation - that is, a specific combination of DNA dictating exactly who this individual is or may someday be - occurs at conception. Individuation is not a bad surrogate for soul, spirit, or consciousness lacking any sort of alternative. We have no other developmental dividing line that is measurable.

What worries me most about this issue in particular is the same one that worries the left about a lot of scientific/moral issues. In this instance, politics pushed medicine. Prior to the late 1960's/early 1970's, medical texts were very clear that life began at conception (or sometimes "implantation," when the embryo attaches to the uterine wall, but this was a minority view). As the abortion debate crystallized, medical textbooks began to either remove this information or edit it. That worries me, and it should worry all of you. Science/Medicine should remain seperate from politics insofar as the specific information and results are concerned.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

No response after 3 days?

[bideau]

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer
No response after 3 days?

Just a little busy. Besides, I was waiting to see if anyone else had an opinion.

I agree with you first point that separating the money is a case of good accounting. The actual cash is not the issue. The problem is the labs and equipment within those labs. The rules state that there can be no indirect government money involved. My interpretation would include any equipment (medical, computers, supplies, etc) purchased with government assistance. Although that could be divided with good record keeping, I think a research institute would find that most of their infrastructure was purchased with government money. The only sure way of adhering to this regulation would be a separate lab, possibly even a separate building, with it's own equipment. The cost for this would require emormous capital. Very few research institutes are going to gamble on mixing of resources because the government oversight for stem cell research is going to be very high.

The issues that investors have are, in fact, the ethics questions. An investor who has an ethics issue will not consider investing in stem cell, so that investor is not a consideration. The question involves the others, those who don't really care about ethic issues, or don't believe its unethical, and are looking for a return on their investment. Those are the ones that will go overseas. It's difficult for U.S. researchers to see that money go to other countries that don't have the same ethical dilemmas. I would argue that's a direct result of the power of the religious fundamentalists and their influence on this administration. Many will argue that it's a good thing. Others, like myself, will argue it's not. Where one stands on this part of the question is essentially in lock step with how one stands on abortion. That's a question that is basically a black hole and one that I have always avoided getting involved in.

I can understand objections to using government money for stem cell research, I just don't agree with them. And it's very frustrating for me to see other governements pouring money into this field. This line of research may end up being a dead end with no useful results. But it holds a very promising potential to have huge benefits with enormous profits for those that are part of the discoveries, both investors and governments.

Here's a question for anyone who has moral objections to stem cell research. Let's suppose that a cure for Alzheimers Disease is developed through stem cells. Are you willing to use that cure to help yourself or a loved one? Is there a moral paradox if the US government allows this products to be sold in the US?

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by bideau
Here's a question for anyone who has moral objections to stem cell research. Let's suppose that a cure for Alzheimers Disease is developed through stem cells. Are you willing to use that cure to help yourself or a loved one? Is there a moral paradox if the US government allows this products to be sold in the US?
I have 2 sisters with diseases that are on the list of those with potential cures from stem cell research. One has Lupus. The other has MS. I've been very upfront with them about why I couldn't support an MS run, etc., because the foundation in question was utilizing stem cell research.

Why would there be a moral paradox if the government allows products resulting from such research to be sold? The government allows alcohol to be sold, but doesn't put government funds into it, and in fact actively campaigns to curtail its use. Ditto for tobacco.

I'm not sure that someone's position on this is necessarily in lockstep with one's position on abortion on one side of it. You can be a pro-lifer who is not fundamentally opposed to stem-cell research. Many lifers are not against RU-486, which takes effect at roughly the same point in pregnancy as harvesting embryos for stem cell research.

To me, the ENTIRE debate is: is this entity a human? If not, what is it? I can't find any rational point of development besides conception/fertilization that makes any sense as a dividing line.

[bideau]

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer
I have 2 sisters with diseases that are on the list of those with potential cures from stem cell research. One has Lupus. The other has MS. I've been very upfront with them about why I couldn't support an MS run, etc., because the foundation in question was utilizing stem cell research.

Honest answer, although I'll admit it's a little shocking to me.

Why would there be a moral paradox if the government allows products resulting from such research to be sold? The government allows alcohol to be sold, but doesn't put government funds into it, and in fact actively campaigns to curtail its use. Ditto for tobacco.

I don't think these are good analogies. The alcohol and tobacco industries never needed nor asked for government funds to create and produce their product. The government has placed advertising and usage restrictions based on the dangers that the finished product poses to the genral health of our population. Presumably, the products that are developed through stem cell research would be beneficial to Americans.

I'm not sure that someone's position on this is necessarily in lockstep with one's position on abortion on one side of it. You can be a pro-lifer who is not fundamentally opposed to stem-cell research. Many lifers are not against RU-486, which takes effect at roughly the same point in pregnancy as harvesting embryos for stem cell research.

I would be willing to wager that there's a very strong correlation between one's position on abortion and one's position on stem cell research. It certainly would not be a 100% correlation, but it would be very high.

To me, the ENTIRE debate is: is this entity a human? If not, what is it? I can't find any rational point of development besides conception/fertilization that makes any sense as a dividing line.

And this brings us back to the core issue in the debate on abortion. You and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum with the issue since I am solidly in the pro-choice camp. And on this point we'll have to just agree to disagree.

The starting point of this discussion was the Bush administration policy on stem cell research. It's my feeling that the potential benefits of the research far outweigh the debatable ethics. And its my position that the government should encourage this research rather than slow it down. Its clear that the religious conservatives have Bush's attention and I think that's harmful to our country in the long run.

I respect your position that you would refuse to use drugs derived from stem cells. But I would at least like to have that choice.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by bideau
I don't think these are good analogies. The alcohol and tobacco industries never needed nor asked for government funds to create and produce their product. The government has placed advertising and usage restrictions based on the dangers that the finished product poses to the genral health of our population. Presumably, the products that are developed through stem cell research would be beneficial to Americans.You're right, it's a lousy analogy, but it makes a similar point, I think. I should have explained better.

It's sort of on the opposite side of the coin: whereas if we presume that SCR will produce products that are beneficial to Americans, but the way we get there is controversial/morally questionable/social problem, the government intervenes to restrict the getting there. With alcohol/tobacco, the getting there is no problem, the controversial/morally questionable/social problem issue is in its use, so the government intervenes to restrict its use.

Now, I'm not for government intervention in general - I think marijuana should be legalized, in a lot of ways I'm a Libertarian - but the role of the government is similar here in placing some limited restrictions on something that is controversial or a social problem.

I would be willing to wager that there's a very strong correlation between one's position on abortion and one's position on stem cell research. It certainly would not be a 100% correlation, but it would be very high. I don't disagree, but suffice it to say that there a lot of pro-lifers who don't have a problem with SCR. In fact, *I* don't have a problem with SCR except insofar as it uses embryonic stem cells from elective abortion or fertility centers. There is a lot that can be done with umbilical blood stem cells, and there are plenty of miscarriages that, if they happen in a hospital, can be harvested and used with the consent of the parent/patient.

Even if I was more or less neutral on the abortion issue, abortion is certainly sub-optimal, correct? That is, it isn't the ideal solution in any case - no pregnancy in the first place is a better solution, as is an ideallic adoption or an intact family. So even if I were neutral on the abortion issue, I hesitate to have the federal government fund what would become a secondary flow of funds to private providers of a "service" which is, at best, a "necessary evil."

That doesn't even take into consideration the slippery slope argument, which I generally try to avoid. But let's assume that SCR is both permissable and federally funded. Shouldn't the mother (and possibly father?) be compensated for donating such a valuable resource? Should they be consulted? Or should the "byproduct" of an abortion simply become property of the abortion provider? If the woman gets compensation, would it be okay for a woman to intentionally get pregnant, and abort to sell the stem cells? What about for a father with Alzheimers because the DNA/blood type/whatever is more likely to be compatible?
If the provider gains possessory rights, could an abortion provider branch out and take on a client who needed certain qualities and recruit women to "donate?"

Or, if you're less cynical, would the Red Cross start having "Embryo Drives" when the supply of embryonic stem cells runs low? I can just picture the commercials: "Every day, scientists use 500 embryos in their treatment of Alzheimers, MS, Parkinsons, and Lupus. Currently, our supply is critically low. Please help - call your local fertility clinic to schedule an apointment for a multiple fertilization and donation. It's quick, painless, and it might be your embryo that saves a life."

And this brings us back to the core issue in the debate on abortion. You and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum with the issue since I am solidly in the pro-choice camp. And on this point we'll have to just agree to disagree.
Fair enough. I confess to being utterly unable to unpack anything resembling cohesive logic from the pro-choice position, either legally (I'm a lawyer) or simply from a common sense position. Maybe I'm dense, but I make my living seeing all sides of a question, and I simply don't see another way to view this one. I'd love to discuss this with you, but if you avoid it, you avoid it - I understand that position, too. It's emotional and very common.

The starting point of this discussion was the Bush administration policy on stem cell research. It's my feeling that the potential benefits of the research far outweigh the debatable ethics. And its my position that the government should encourage this research rather than slow it down. Its clear that the religious conservatives have Bush's attention and I think that's harmful to our country in the long run.As I stated in the other thread, religious conservatives were OUTRAGED at Bush's EO that barred federal funding. They viewed as a total betrayal and a compromise to the left. Believe me when I tell you that the religious right is not particularly enamored of Bush. Will they vote for him? In droves, because the alternative is much worse.

By the way, out of curiousity, what is it that you thing a national politician gains by selling out to the religious conservatives? Does it gain you positive press? The support of a majority or even plurality of people on the issues involved? What percentage of the population do you think oppose stem cell research? Hint: it's less than 50%.

I respect your position that you would refuse to use drugs derived from stem cells. But I would at least like to have that choice.
I hear you. But again - embryonic stem cells harvested from elective abortion or fertility clinics. Secondly, it's a matter of choice to me only insofar as it would be a matter of choice to you to accept or reject an organ from someone who was bred simply as an organ producer.

A bit of a tangent: When we went to Mexico to adopt my son, my eyes were opened a little bit to the organ transplant possibilities as it relates to global class division. My wife and I have a biological daughter, as well, and we ran into people all the time who were convinced that we were adopting my son simply to have his organs available in case my daughter needed them. The newspapers and programs in Mexico (the equivalent to 20/20 or Dateline, I guess) were reporting that Americans were importing Mexican children strictly for this purpose.

My first thought was: this is goofy. How could anyone believe that any civilized country would allow such a thing? And then I reflected for a little bit: what is it that we are doing? The only difference is the point of development.

[spiderman]

This is a little off topic, but this discussion reminds me of an argument that I had with a college professor. He was gay, and I only mention this because the Aids virus was an issue very close to his heart.

Basically, he began lecturing us about how much money the Government (or NIH) spends researching Cancer, as opposed to how little they spend researching Aids. He was trying to make a point of how wrong and ridiculous it was, by throwing out all these figures and blah, blah, blah.

Well, basically everyone in the class was just nodding their head in agreement....yes professor, everything you say is true...until finally I couldn't take it anymore, and I proceeded to argue with him.

My basic point (right or wrong) was that we really don't have any idea how a person contracts most types of cancer, whereas, most (if not all) Americans know how Aids is contracted. Therefore, I would rather the Government devote more energy (and money) towards finding a cure for cancer (which scares the crap out of me) as opposed to Aids (which I pretty much know how to avoid contracting).

Needless to say my viewpoint was seen as callous and cruel.

With regards to this discussion, at this time I am not comfortable with my tax dollars going towards this research, but if it meant a cure for cancer, maybe I would change my mind...:)

[O_P_T]

The whole issue concerning the federal restrictions has to do with the development of new cell lines.

Those cell lines established before the cutoff date are grown in petrie dishes and there is essentially an infite supply of individual cells.

I can understand that today's knowledge is insufficent to know if some sort of application may occur with a different cell line than what is presently available.

However, as I understand the applications of stem cells, their advantage is due to how unspecialized they are and that they could be used multiple ways for different people.

As such, it is quite possible that the existing cell lines are more than adequate for any breakthrough.

There is a moral aspect to this question. I can accept that reasonable people can disagree about the acceptability or unacceptability of harvesting embryo cells, and the details concerning the embryo can make a difference.

However, this is not the only political issue that has a moral component.

Opponents of the death penalty envoke a moral argument. Some advocates of various social programs envoke a moral argument.

Opponents and proponents of gay marrige envoke a moral argument.

Dismissing a POV simply because it is based on morality is not right IMHO.

[bideau]

Originally posted by O_P_T
The whole issue concerning the federal restrictions has to do with the development of new cell lines.

Those cell lines established before the cutoff date are grown in petrie dishes and there is essentially an infite supply of individual cells.

I can understand that today's knowledge is insufficent to know if some sort of application may occur with a different cell line than what is presently available.

However, as I understand the applications of stem cells, their advantage is due to how unspecialized they are and that they could be used multiple ways for different people.

As such, it is quite possible that the existing cell lines are more than adequate for any breakthrough.

Based on the policy of the current administration, U.S. researchers have little choice but to hope you're correct. But the general concensus among researchers is that the allowed lines are not enough for thorough research. The breakthroughs and answers will likely come from researchers in those countries where the restrictions don't exist.

There is a moral aspect to this question. I can accept that reasonable people can disagree about the acceptability or unacceptability of harvesting embryo cells, and the details concerning the embryo can make a difference.

However, this is not the only political issue that has a moral component.

Opponents of the death penalty envoke a moral argument. Some advocates of various social programs envoke a moral argument.

Opponents and proponents of gay marrige envoke a moral argument.

Dismissing a POV simply because it is based on morality is not right IMHO.

It's no surprise that a thread which originally discussed whether the administration policy was restricting stem cell research has morphed into the moral and ethic aspects of SCR.

My belief is grounded in the basis of the pro-Choice position, which is, don't push one's morality on someone else. By being pro-Choice, it means that everyone has the right to choose the path that fits their beliefs. Those who feel as Flagg do can choose not to use drugs derived from stem cells, but at least the choice is there. In my opinion, when there is no clear concensus on an issue, we must allow people to make their own choices based on their own belief systems.

I hope you don't think I've dismissed anyone's opinion based on morality. I readily acknowledge that there's moral questions in many aspects of our society. I generally respect everyone's right to have their own set of beliefs. But I lose that respect when I'm forced to conform to it.

[bideau]

Originally posted by spiderman
This is a little off topic, but this discussion reminds me of an argument that I had with a college professor. He was gay, and I only mention this because the Aids virus was an issue very close to his heart.

Basically, he began lecturing us about how much money the Government (or NIH) spends researching Cancer, as opposed to how little they spend researching Aids. He was trying to make a point of how wrong and ridiculous it was, by throwing out all these figures and blah, blah, blah.

Well, basically everyone in the class was just nodding their head in agreement....yes professor, everything you say is true...until finally I couldn't take it anymore, and I proceeded to argue with him.

My basic point (right or wrong) was that we really don't have any idea how a person contracts most types of cancer, whereas, most (if not all) Americans know how Aids is contracted. Therefore, I would rather the Government devote more energy (and money) towards finding a cure for cancer (which scares the crap out of me) as opposed to Aids (which I pretty much know how to avoid contracting).

Needless to say my viewpoint was seen as callous and cruel.

With regards to this discussion, at this time I am not comfortable with my tax dollars going towards this research, but if it meant a cure for cancer, maybe I would change my mind...:)

To say your POV is callous and cruel would be an understatement. I also think its shortsighted and simplistic.

By your statement, you essentially feels that contracting a disease because of "immoral" behavior means that the victim is not entitled to care.

If a person contracts lung cancer because of years of smoking, are they entitled to care? If a person contracts HIV through a blood transfusion or accidental blood-to-blood contact, are they entitled to care? If a woman contracts HIV because her husband visited an infected prostitute, is she entitled to care? If a baby is born with HIV, is the baby entitled to care? If your daughter is raped by an HIV infected man, is she entitled to care? How do you feel about the spreading epidemic in Africa and Asia, where lack of knowledge is a very real thing? How about the expense in caring for AIDS patients and the loss of productivity?

[spiderman]

Originally posted by bideau
To say your POV is callous and cruel would be an understatement. I also think its shortsighted and simplistic.

By your statement, you essentially feels that contracting a disease because of "immoral" behavior means that the victim is not entitled to care.

If a person contracts lung cancer because of years of smoking, are they entitled to care? If a person contracts HIV through a blood transfusion or accidental blood-to-blood contact, are they entitled to care? If a woman contracts HIV because her husband visited an infected prostitute, is she entitled to care? If a baby is born with HIV, is the baby entitled to care? If your daughter is raped by an HIV infected man, is she entitled to care? How do you feel about the spreading epidemic in Africa and Asia, where lack of knowledge is a very real thing? How about the expense in caring for AIDS patients and the loss of productivity?


Bideau, I implore you to read what I wrote again. I was talking about funding RESEARCH (to find a cure), not CARE.

And who mentioned anything about IMMORAL behavior. All I said was that I KNOW how people get AIDS, but I DON'T know how people get CANCER.

Therefore, with a finite amount of money to spend, I place a higher emphasis on finding a cure for cancer, then I do on finding a cure for AIDS.

You wrote a whole paragraph about people being entitled to care when that has nothing at all to do with what I was talking about.

But you basically proved another point of mine, which is that it has become "politically incorrect" to say anything against AIDS, as shown by your emotionally charged response.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by bideau
My belief is grounded in the basis of the pro-Choice position, which is, don't push one's morality on someone else.

But, if I think that from the moment of conception a human being has a right to life, and that a mother has an obligation not to do anything purposeful that would disrupt it's chance to live...and in fact I equate taking action to terminate this unborn child with murder....then I really don't feel like I'm "pushing my morality" on you. Actually, I feel that you are committing murder.

This is the problem with the Abortion issue. You think I'm "pushing my morality" on you, and I think that abortion is murder. You see, in my eyes "killing" an unborn child is no different then "killing" an infant...and I can't imagine feeling any other way.

[bideau]

Originally posted by spiderman
Bideau, I implore you to read what I wrote again. I was talking about funding RESEARCH (to find a cure), not CARE.

And who mentioned anything about IMMORAL behavior. All I said was that I KNOW how people get AIDS, but I DON'T know how people get CANCER.

Therefore, with a finite amount of money to spend, I place a higher emphasis on finding a cure for cancer, then I do on finding a cure for AIDS.

You wrote a whole paragraph about people being entitled to care when that has nothing at all to do with what I was talking about.

But you basically proved another point of mine, which is that it has become "politically incorrect" to say anything against AIDS, as shown by your emotionally charged response.

CURE and CARE are the same thing in my opinion. You can substitute the words if you'd like.

I never said you were politically incorrect. Am I supposed to withhold my opinion or not challenge yours? That's what debate is all about....challenging each other's opinions and statements. Am I supposed to concede the argument so that I won't imply that you're politically incorrect. I happen to get very annoyed at political correctness. And I think that prevention and education is an important aspect in the fight against AIDS. But not at the expense of finding a cure.

I don't see anything emotionally charged about my response. I'm asking you to state your opinion on these cases. What you've said is that because we know how AIDS is spread, we shouldn't bother to find a cure. Many reasonable people can reach some conclusions about that statement, whether that's fair or not. I was trying to get you to clarify your position. My questions to you are situations where the victim contracted the disease through no fault of their own. If we extend your logic, we can stop research on any type of viral infection, such as hepatitis, flu, common cold, because we know how they're spread.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by bideau
Based on the policy of the current administration, U.S. researchers have little choice but to hope you're correct. But the general concensus among researchers is that the allowed lines are not enough for thorough research. The breakthroughs and answers will likely come from researchers in those countries where the restrictions don't exist.I'll concede this point. Many of the original lines that were set aside and okayed for research have turned out to not be viable lines. The existing lines are certainly limited.

It's no surprise that a thread which originally discussed whether the administration policy was restricting stem cell research has morphed into the moral and ethic aspects of SCR.

My belief is grounded in the basis of the pro-Choice position, which is, don't push one's morality on someone else. By being pro-Choice, it means that everyone has the right to choose the path that fits their beliefs. Those who feel as Flagg do can choose not to use drugs derived from stem cells, but at least the choice is there. In my opinion, when there is no clear concensus on an issue, we must allow people to make their own choices based on their own belief systems.We've done this before, with slavery. There was no clear consensus on the issue, and the north forced their belief systems on the south, who claimed that their work and livelihood would be ruined if slavery was barred, just as the scientists you speak of are saying today. So the Civil War was unjust because it pushed one's morality on someone else?

I hope you don't think I've dismissed anyone's opinion based on morality. I readily acknowledge that there's moral questions in many aspects of our society. I generally respect everyone's right to have their own set of beliefs. But I lose that respect when I'm forced to conform to it. Again, I assert that this is the slaveholder's position. No, I'm not calling you a racist, or whatever. But the logic *is* absolutely the same: because of differing opinions on members of the species of homo sapiens deserve rights (whether to life, liberty, enfranchisement, what have you) each takes a position that defends a certain economic/production system and demands not to be made to conform to a morality with which he does not agree.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by bideau
What you've said is that because we know how AIDS is spread, we shouldn't bother to find a cure.

But this is NOT what I said, which is why I asked you to re-read what I wrote.

My professor was arguing that it was WRONG for NIH to provide more money towards finding a cure for Cancer, then it was for finding a cure for AIDS. I disagreed with him based upon the point I made before.

What I did not say was that we should not provide funds towards finding a cure, nor should we provide funds towards caring for the victims of the AIDS virus.

My argument was about how much should go to each.

My other point...

When you write this:

If your daughter is raped by an HIV infected man, is she entitled to care?

You are trying to evoke an EMOTIONAL response, and that is why I say you are being politically correct. Just because my daughter wouldn't contract cancer like that doesn't make it any less important. But in the politically correct world, I can't say anything against the AIDS virus without a barrage of responses like the one above.

To recap, I place a higher emphasis on finding a cure for cancer then I do on finding a cure for AIDS, for the reasons I've noted. I'm still in favor of finding a cure for AIDS, but we only have SO much money available towards the research.

That's all I'm saying.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by bideau
CURE and CARE are the same thing in my opinion. You can substitute the words if you'd like.

I hope you're not a doctor. :D

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by bideau
CURE and CARE are the same thing in my opinion. You can substitute the words if you'd like.

I never said you were politically incorrect. Am I supposed to withhold my opinion or not challenge yours? That's what debate is all about....challenging each other's opinions and statements. Am I supposed to concede the argument so that I won't imply that you're politically incorrect. I happen to get very annoyed at political correctness. And I think that prevention and education is an important aspect in the fight against AIDS. But not at the expense of finding a cure.

I don't see anything emotionally charged about my response. I'm asking you to state your opinion on these cases. What you've said is that because we know how AIDS is spread, we shouldn't bother to find a cure. Many reasonable people can reach some conclusions about that statement, whether that's fair or not. I was trying to get you to clarify your position. My questions to you are situations where the victim contracted the disease through no fault of their own. If we extend your logic, we can stop research on any type of viral infection, such as hepatitis, flu, common cold, because we know how they're spread.
This is interesting. Taking the morality completely out of the equation (in my mind, it isn't there anyway), there is something to both sides of this issue.

Keep in mind that this is all a matter of scale. The government is going to utilize resources to cure whatever it can cure - the question is simply one of distribution. With AIDS, there is one hugely predominant way to get it - sex. Notice I didn't say "unprotected sex." Research shows that a condom's failure rate may be as high as 40%, depending on brand. Now, that failure rate isn't realized nearly so often, because there's only about a 5/30 chance that a female is fertile, but that's irrelevant for the purposes of HIV infection.

As an aside, we should note that a woman is much more likely to contract HIV from an infected male partner than a man is to contract HIV from an infected female partner - simple physical reality about the nature of intercourse. The highest liklihood of spreading the disease is male to male (or male to anyone anal sex) - the flap A to slot B realities often mixed with chafing and bleeding. Thus endeth the public service message.

Anyway, there is something to the fact that we simply feel worse for people that have something happen to them that they don't have any reasonable control over. A guy who is bitten by a mosquito and dies of EEE, for example, is a simpathetic figure. Your typical Darwin Award winner is much less so. Similarly, many forms of cancer stem from either no real known cause or causes so broad and vague that it is difficult to really isolate a cause or even several causes. With AIDS, that is not so much the case. In fact, in modern society I'd equate contracting AIDS through sex (particularly sex outside of a manogamous relationship) to a Darwin Award. However, there's the blood transfusion issue. There's contraction from the cheating spouse, for instance. There's a ton of other stories.

I don't know...I guess just push hard towards whatever cure seems closest, then move on. If we're, say, $3Billion away from curing cancer, and $15Billion away from curing AIDS, and we have a $3Billion budget for disease curing, I'm fine leaving AIDS and every other disease with no funding for one year to cure Cancer 1 year sooner. Or vice-versa. Obviously this is very simplistic analysis for a number of reasons, but you get the point.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by spiderman
If your daughter is raped by an HIV infected man, is she entitled to care? How about this: he should be prosecuted for attempted murder on top of rape.

[bideau]

OK, I'm trying to keep up with two different branches of this thread and I'm not getting any work done (not that there's anything wrong with that).

First, Spidey, this is the statement I locked onto:

My basic point (right or wrong) was that we really don't have any idea how a person contracts most types of cancer, whereas, most (if not all) Americans know how Aids is contracted. Therefore, I would rather the Government devote more energy (and money) towards finding a cure for cancer (which scares the crap out of me) as opposed to Aids (which I pretty much know how to avoid contracting).

From my POV, that's a provocative statement, whether you realize it or not. Your last paragraph clarifies it a little, but there are still implications there. Why are you surprised or offended that I chose to respond? I don't agree with your opinion. You chose to put your's out there, so be prepared to defend it.

As far as the emotionally charged issue, sure that questions packs a wallop. That's part of debating. Sometimes we may want to pose a provocative question in order to make a point. If my daughter contract HIV through this scenario, the government couldn't throw enough money at finding a cure. The question was meant to test the limits of your convictions. Emotion and political correctness are not always tied together. To me, political correctness is finding offense where none was intended. I wasn't offended. I just disagree.

Flagg, your use of the slavery issue is interesting but flawed. Lincoln did not send the Union army into the south to abolish slavery but to prevent the South from seceding. In fact, he was very careful to ensure that it wasn't about slavery until he got desperate in 1863 and signed the Emmancipation Proclamation.

Your comparison of the pro-Life position to those who supported slavery is certainly provocative and somewhat offensive. I guess I'll just use my own analogy and compare the anti-Choice position with the leaders of the Spanish Inquisition, when they tried to force Jews into renouncing their beliefs.

I must say, we're certainly going around in circles here. As usual, we're very deeply rooted in our beliefs. I think I need to give my brain a rest and get back to the football threads.

[bideau]

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer
How about this: he should be prosecuted for attempted murder on top of rape.

As a lawyer, you may know the answer, but hasn't that already happened? I seem to recall a case where the accused was brought up on extra charges because he knew he was HIV infected.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by bideau
From my POV, that's a provocative statement, whether you realize it or not. Your last paragraph clarifies it a little, but there are still implications there. Why are you surprised or offended that I chose to respond? I don't agree with your opinion. You chose to put your's out there, so be prepared to defend it.

Okay, then...

Why should we spend more money finding a cure for Aids then we should finding a cure for cancer?

[Ballbustah]

Research is all part of the package. It is included with the care because it is the reason care advances.
Without research how would care get better?

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by bideau
Flagg, your use of the slavery issue is interesting but flawed. Lincoln did not send the Union army into the south to abolish slavery but to prevent the South from seceding. In fact, he was very careful to ensure that it wasn't about slavery until he got desperate in 1863 and signed the Emmancipation Proclamation.Naw, that's historical semantics, and a cheap dodge. Slavery is what divided the union. Was the civil war about slavery? No, it was about the Union. But over what issue was the Union divided? Slavery.

Now, there were a couple of slave states that stayed with the Union (notably Maryland, which is good considering that DC would have started out completely surrounded). And I'll add to your argument: the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the Confederacy. Still, it's a dodge. The root cause of the civil war was the simple definition of which members of species homo sapiens deserved rights and protection of law. This is the same definitional question in the abortion question today.

Your comparison of the pro-Life position to those who supported slavery is certainly provocative and somewhat offensive.I'm sorry if you're offended. I think I went carefully out of my way to state that it was simply the logic of the argument that I was comparing, not that I was stating that you would support slavery.

If you can refute my claim that both issues are, at heart, a simple question of the definition of which members of species homo sapiens are entitled to basic rights and protection of law, please do so. The fact that you are offended does not weaken my argument. It should, however, give you pause to realize that a valid comparison can be made between your line of thinking and a line of thinking that even an abstract comparison with you find offensive.

This isn't a rhetorical device, Bideau. It's a logical argument.

I guess I'll just use my own analogy and compare the anti-Choice position with the leaders of the Spanish Inquisition, when they tried to force Jews into renouncing their beliefs.This, however, is clearly bogus. A political minority fighting for the most basic rights of those with no one to speak for them compared to an auto- and theocratic absolutist government torturing confessions from those with whom they disagree on a strictly religious level are hardly comperable.

This is a rhetorical device, and a fantastically flawed one.

I must say, we're certainly going around in circles here. As usual, we're very deeply rooted in our beliefs. I think I need to give my brain a rest and get back to the football threads. The problem is, IMO, that the basic contradiction in the abortion position is not even one of logic, but of simple common sense.

What sense does it make for a choicer to get a sonogram and ooh and ahh over the picture? A choicer friend of mine has a FRAMED sonogram of his daughter. The only thing that makes the fetus a human, then, is the state of mind of its parents (or only the mother, I guess?)

Even Virginia Woolf admits that a fetus is a baby. She just believes that until the baby leaves her body, she has the right to abort it because it is within her body, and everyone should have complete autonomy over their own body.

Of course, we don't have complete autonomy over our own bodies, but that's neither here nor there.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by bideau
As a lawyer, you may know the answer, but hasn't that already happened? I seem to recall a case where the accused was brought up on extra charges because he knew he was HIV infected. I don't do criminal law. It sounds familiar, but I don't know if it was a hypothetical or an actual occurance.