Another example of Rep idiocy

[krenshala]

If we want better education, we need a voucher system, not paying teachers ever more for doing the same crappy job.

If your voucher system means paying teachers that get results (students that learn) then I'm all for it. The closer my son gets to school age (he's 4 right now) the more I wonder how much I'm going to have to teach him at home to ensure he is actually learning things. (And yes, I fully agree that parents are supposed to be paying attention to what their children are doing in school ... schools are meant for teaching, not to babysit kids during the week. )

[Jccarlton]

The fault in your thinking is that government programs = more scientists

ITER

The government program that is ITER employees scientists. It does not create them. Perhaps it stimulates demand for them in the future, but it does not in and of it self CAUSE scientists.


The government program being discussed is called "Compete" or something. It's supposedly an education funding program. This is what we were discussing.

Actually ITER funding was in the bill. Was I the only one to actually look at it?

[JLawson]

If we want better education, we need a voucher system, not paying teachers ever more for doing the same crappy job.

If your voucher system means paying teachers that get results (students that learn) then I'm all for it. The closer my son gets to school age (he's 4 right now) the more I wonder how much I'm going to have to teach him at home to ensure he is actually learning things. (And yes, I fully agree that parents are supposed to be paying attention to what their children are doing in school ... schools are meant for teaching, not to babysit kids during the week. :? )

I spent three years maintaining classroom computers in a local school district. Long before I met my wife I was determined that any kid I had wouldn't go to public school in this state. Our state rated 49th the year we started seriously looking at schools, and where we lived had an elementary school that tested in the bottom third for our state.

Bottom third, 49th state? Hell, I could teach him to say "Do you want fries with that?" and he'd be employable by age 5.

But no, we went the Montessori route, and moved to get closer to a decent private school and a better-ranked public school as a fallback.

The little guy's in private school, has been for 6 years. I'd LOVE to have had a voucher to cover even part of the cost. I can't apples-to-apples compare our school to the local publics - but on the tests he's been doing every other year to chart the school's performance he's been hitting about 95- 97% in all subjects. He wants to be a pilot when he grows up - civil aviation, not military - and knows good grades will help him in the long run. He's got, we think, good teachers - and there's no union at the school.

Sure would like to have vouchers, though...

[MirariNefas]

As I have mentioned before, China is uninhibited with any ethical concerns regarding humans and research.

Shallow excuse. You screwed it up, period.

Since you don't seem to understand about a stem cell line being theoretically infinite, i'm pretty sure your judgment about this is ill informed.

Theoretical is a key word there. They're a bitch to keep stable.

Abstract
Widespread provision of human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) for therapeutic use, drug screening and disease modelling will require cell lines sustainable over long periods in culture. Since the short-term, in vitro culture of mammalian embryos can result in DNA methylation changes, the epigenetic stability of hESCs warrants investigation. Existing hESC lines have been derived and cultured under diverse conditions, providing the potential for programming differential changes into the epigenome that may result in inter-line variability over and above that inherited from the embryo. By examining the DNA methylation profiles of > 2000 genomic loci by Restriction Landmark Genome Scanning, we identified substantial inter-line epigenetic distance between six independently derived hESC lines. Lines were found to inherit further epigenetic changes over time in culture, with most changes arising in the earliest stages post-derivation. The loci affected varied between lines. The majority of culture-induced changes (82.3-87.5%) were stably inherited both within the undifferentiated cells and post-differentiation. Adapting a line to a serum-free culture system resulted in additional epigenetic instability. Overall 80.5% of the unstable loci uncovered in hESCs have been associated previously with an adult tumour phenotype. Our study shows that current methods of hESC propagation can rapidly programme stable and unpredictable epigenetic changes in the stem cell genome. This highlights the need for (i) novel screening strategies to determine the experimental utility and biosafety of hESCs and (ii) optimization and standardization of procedures for the derivation and culture of hESC lines that minimize culture-induced instability.

The Bush restrictions were a problem due to the prohibitions on duel use funding, and the prime role that we've given public money in developing new branches of medical science. You know, the whole giant academic establishment, that thing which you hate so much because it's socialistic. And then the feeder cell issue, meaning that we could culture up infinite numbers of cells that would never be considered fit for human use. Real boon to medical practice, that.

If so, are you going to argue that there are experiments that cannot be done on existing lines, but that instead MUST REQUIRE new lines? If you believe this, then please explain why any conceivable experiment cannot be performed on the existing lines.

Any experiment that requires a line which wasn't started on murine feeder cells. And any experiment which doesn't want years of inherited epigenetic changes. So, any experiment that might actually be medically relevant.

I think it's an understatement to say that your judgement is "ill informed".

[MSimon]

The fault in your thinking is that government programs = more scientists

ITER

The government program that is ITER employees scientists. It does not create them. Perhaps it stimulates demand for them in the future, but it does not in and of it self CAUSE scientists.

It does cause a WASTE of scientists.

[Jccarlton]

ITER

The government program that is ITER employees scientists. It does not create them. Perhaps it stimulates demand for them in the future, but it does not in and of it self CAUSE scientists.

It does cause a WASTE of scientists.

All of the big empire building government run programs cause a waste of scientists. I've seen it first hand. It's very difficult to build a scientific program if you have to rejustify your existence every year. And in government science you never want to be too successful as the losers will drag you down. Been there done that.

[Diogenes]

Shallow excuse. You screwed it up, period.

Since you don't seem to understand about a stem cell line being theoretically infinite, i'm pretty sure your judgment about this is ill informed.

Theoretical is a key word there. They're a bitch to keep stable.

Grudgingly admitting that I am correct on this.

Abstract
Widespread provision of human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) for therapeutic use, drug screening and disease modelling will require cell lines sustainable over long periods in culture. Since the short-term, in vitro culture of mammalian embryos can result in DNA methylation changes, the epigenetic stability of hESCs warrants investigation. Existing hESC lines have been derived and cultured under diverse conditions, providing the potential for programming differential changes into the epigenome that may result in inter-line variability over and above that inherited from the embryo. By examining the DNA methylation profiles of > 2000 genomic loci by Restriction Landmark Genome Scanning, we identified substantial inter-line epigenetic distance between six independently derived hESC lines. Lines were found to inherit further epigenetic changes over time in culture, with most changes arising in the earliest stages post-derivation. The loci affected varied between lines. The majority of culture-induced changes (82.3-87.5%) were stably inherited both within the undifferentiated cells and post-differentiation. Adapting a line to a serum-free culture system resulted in additional epigenetic instability. Overall 80.5% of the unstable loci uncovered in hESCs have been associated previously with an adult tumour phenotype. Our study shows that current methods of hESC propagation can rapidly programme stable and unpredictable epigenetic changes in the stem cell genome. This highlights the need for (i) novel screening strategies to determine the experimental utility and biosafety of hESCs and (ii) optimization and standardization of procedures for the derivation and culture of hESC lines that minimize culture-induced instability.

The Bush restrictions were a problem due to the prohibitions on duel use funding, and the prime role that we've given public money in developing new branches of medical science.

Bush is no expert on stem cell research. What Bush did was consult with experts who were, and he incorporated their advice in his decision.

You know, the whole giant academic establishment, that thing which you hate so much because it's socialistic.

It is a problem, but "hate" isn't the correct word. "Disdain" is probably more accurate, but I think it lacks the punch you were looking for.

And then the feeder cell issue, meaning that we could culture up infinite numbers of cells that would never be considered fit for human use. Real boon to medical practice, that.

Contaminated with mouse goo, if I remember correctly. Sounds like some scientists found out they were screwing up, and so Bush is the bad guy for not letting them use Government money to go back to the source. Embryos.

From some people's perspective, it is like Mengele asking for another jew. Imagine the reaction if scientists were specifically asking for Black embryos? Like it or not, Genetic experiments on human beings is a highly emotionally charged issue, and Bush made the best compromise he could based on advice from experts in the field, balanced by the ethical and moral question of playing god with human life.


That being said, It is my understanding that some researchers have developed methods to eliminate the mouse cell contamination, and have stabilized the mutations of the stem cell lines they are working with.

Tell me this is not true.

Other researchers (in Japan I think. Not a subject I care greatly about, so I don't keep up with it as much as other subjects.) have learned to transform Adult cells into plurapotent stem cells, which are effectively the same thing as embryonic stem cells.

Tell me this is not true.

If so, are you going to argue that there are experiments that cannot be done on existing lines, but that instead MUST REQUIRE new lines? If you believe this, then please explain why any conceivable experiment cannot be performed on the existing lines.

Any experiment that requires a line which wasn't started on murine feeder cells. And any experiment which doesn't want years of inherited epigenetic changes. So, any experiment that might actually be medically relevant.

Silly me, I would have thought that the first order of business in stem cell research would be to avoid contamination and mutations. I had thought those problems were licked. Apparently I have given stem cell researchers more credit than they deserved.

I think it's an understatement to say that your judgement is "ill informed".

Absolutely. I thought Stem Cell researchers were more competent than they apparently are. I'm disappointed to find that they are not. (except perhaps in Japan.)


Apart from all of that, Why should bankrupt California want to fund any additional thing when they cannot even afford to pay their own basic bills?

[Diogenes]

ITER

The government program that is ITER employees scientists. It does not create them. Perhaps it stimulates demand for them in the future, but it does not in and of it self CAUSE scientists.

It does cause a WASTE of scientists.

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were getting at. Sometimes you're just too Subtle!

[Skipjack]

From some people's perspective, it is like Mengele asking for another jew.

A distorted view propagated by certain political factions, among those are the ultra right and funnily enough the ultra left (as is the case here).
It is a wrong idea of etics, to let an adult die, to preserve (or actually waste) an embryo that is barely beyond the stage of differenciation.

Also, the solutions you quoted are potential(!) solutions that are not even fully developed yet and that will take years to implement. The development of those also cost a lot of money that could have been spent on actual research. I have to admit though, that Austria and Germany are in no way better than you. Our regulations are at least as stupid as yours if not worse. However ours were instigated by the ultra left wingers. They hate genetics, stemcells and molecular biology for the same reason the US ultra right do: It conflicts with their twisted ideologies.

[MirariNefas]

Bush is no expert on stem cell research. What Bush did was consult with experts who were, and he incorporated their advice in his decision.

He picked and chose his consultants to fix the outcome ofthe advice. He wanted a compromise position he could point to (only fund some, not funding more) and didn't give a rat's ass about how actually practical his position was.

You know, the whole giant academic establishment, that thing which you hate so much because it's socialistic.

It is a problem, but "hate" isn't the correct word. "Disdain" is probably more accurate, but I think it lacks the punch you were looking for.

Disdain, whatever. I'm not interested in punch. I'm not interested in discussing the merits of the academic establishment either. I simply wanted to point out that this is part of a larger structural system which I think you take issue with. If you fix the stem cell issue by denying it public funds, it is only logical to fix the rest of the system as well, or your position isn't as balanced as you'd perhaps like it to appear.

And then the feeder cell issue, meaning that we could culture up infinite numbers of cells that would never be considered fit for human use. Real boon to medical practice, that.

Contaminated with mouse goo, if I remember correctly. Sounds like some scientists found out they were screwing up, and so Bush is the bad guy for not letting them use Government money to go back to the source. Embryos.

Yes. Techniques evolve. They knew it would be a problem when they started, but they didn't know any other way of advancing the research. But Bush looked at the early state of the research, and on the bad advice of his consultants said, "Well, it looks like they've finished that portion of things, they can stop right there and move on."

From some people's perspective, it is like Mengele asking for another jew. ... Like it or not, Genetic experiments on human beings is a highly emotionally charged issue, .

This is not genetic experiments on humans. That's a different thread. We're talking about human embryos used for cell therapies. But your factual inaccuracies and scientific illiteracy aside, I know your point. Yes, it is a thorny issue which pisses some people off due to how they define human life.

That being said, It is my understanding that some researchers have developed methods to eliminate the mouse cell contamination, and have stabilized the mutations of the stem cell lines they are working with.

Tell me this is not true.

Okay. This is not true. Eliminate is a poor word... they've developed an alternative which can (and is) applied to any new cell line, they have not developed a way to go back in time and remove murine contamination from previously derived lines. The Bush lines are crap. Thankfully that is now a mute point.

Other researchers (in Japan I think. Not a subject I care greatly about, so I don't keep up with it as much as other subjects.) have learned to transform Adult cells into plurapotent stem cells, which are effectively the same thing as embryonic stem cells.

Tell me this is not true.

Induced pluripotent stem cells have great promise, and I hope they will end this debate. The technology has developed both in Japan and the states, though the Japanese were the first to try it with human cells. The technique they were using for the first few years produced cells that were more useless than those contaminated with "mouse goo", but nobody was restricting funding to their research so they powered through and developed some better strategies. See how that works. This was not possible without years of research using human embryos.

I thought Stem Cell researchers were more competent than they apparently are. I'm disappointed to find that they are not.

Incompetent, or the problems they face aren't easy. Science is like that you know. It gets dumbed down for the masses, and then the masses get confused and angry when a complicated problem shows up. This is a serious problem, especially when things get dumbed down for our leadership.

[Diogenes]

From some people's perspective, it is like Mengele asking for another jew.

A distorted view propagated by certain political factions, among those are the ultra right and funnily enough the ultra left (as is the case here).
It is a wrong idea of etics, to let an adult die, to preserve (or actually waste) an embryo that is barely beyond the stage of differenciation.

Also, the solutions you quoted are potential(!) solutions that are not even fully developed yet and that will take years to implement. The development of those also cost a lot of money that could have been spent on actual research. I have to admit though, that Austria and Germany are in no way better than you. Our regulations are at least as stupid as yours if not worse. However ours were instigated by the ultra left wingers. They hate genetics, stemcells and molecular biology for the same reason the US ultra right do: It conflicts with their twisted ideologies.

Much of the social mindset of the right is based on religious teachings and the traditions of their upbringing. It isn't twisted, it's natural for the people who feel that way to feel that way. The same teachings that led us to outlaw slavery and show tolerance to our fellow man, likewise make people squeamish on this issue. A little tact and consideration for the beliefs of much of the populace is not out of line, and in any case, the science is moving forward anyway.

If you are going to complain about government interfering with potential cures for life threatening conditions, you would have more credibility if you were attacking the well known and long suffered condition of cancer patients who are not permitted to try experimental treatments for their cancers. There are KNOWN casualties and conditions, which is very different from something a lot of people consider to be evil mad scientist type experiments on the basis that they MIGHT lead to cures for stuff in the future.

[Diogenes]

Bush is no expert on stem cell research. What Bush did was consult with experts who were, and he incorporated their advice in his decision.

He picked and chose his consultants to fix the outcome ofthe advice. He wanted a compromise position he could point to (only fund some, not funding more) and didn't give a rat's ass about how actually practical his position was.

You know, the whole giant academic establishment, that thing which you hate so much because it's socialistic.

It is a problem, but "hate" isn't the correct word. "Disdain" is probably more accurate, but I think it lacks the punch you were looking for.

Disdain, whatever. I'm not interested in punch. I'm not interested in discussing the merits of the academic establishment either. I simply wanted to point out that this is part of a larger structural system which I think you take issue with. If you fix the stem cell issue by denying it public funds, it is only logical to fix the rest of the system as well, or your position isn't as balanced as you'd perhaps like it to appear.

I have not fully thought through my personal opinion regarding the use of Federal money to fund researchers. It has been the norm for all of my life, and it is possible to make the argument that it is essential to one of the legitimate purposes of the Federal Government. That of defending the Country and Administering the law. I think the salient point of the issue nowadays is whether or not we can afford it. It is certainly more beneficial to the nation than other things we spend money on.

Regarding stem cells, the issue is highly charged emotionally with an important part of our populace, and I have heard criticism from the other side that Bush sold out his principles in this decision. Based on my knowledge at the time, I actually thought it was a pretty good decision. Based on information that has come to light since, perhaps it wasn't. The problem is, we all have to make decisions based on what we knew when the decision comes due. As with the war in Iraq, the best information at the time is that Saddam was trying to acquire nuke weapons, and so the correct decision became obvious. (to me at least, but I'm from the Curtis LeMay school of thought on this issue. )

And then the feeder cell issue, meaning that we could culture up infinite numbers of cells that would never be considered fit for human use. Real boon to medical practice, that.

Contaminated with mouse goo, if I remember correctly. Sounds like some scientists found out they were screwing up, and so Bush is the bad guy for not letting them use Government money to go back to the source. Embryos.

Yes. Techniques evolve. They knew it would be a problem when they started, but they didn't know any other way of advancing the research. But Bush looked at the early state of the research, and on the bad advice of his consultants said, "Well, it looks like they've finished that portion of things, they can stop right there and move on."

So now we know, and the decision needed to be revisited. Didn't the current occupant of the Whitehouse address this issue? Doubtlessly the pro-lifers already hate him anyway, so he had nothing to lose by doing so.

From some people's perspective, it is like Mengele asking for another jew. ... Like it or not, Genetic experiments on human beings is a highly emotionally charged issue, .

This is not genetic experiments on humans. That's a different thread. We're talking about human embryos used for cell therapies.

As Rush Limbaugh used to say about Republicans trying to explain economics, "That's just green eyeshade talk." The public doesn't understand the subject well enough to appreciate the difference.

But your factual inaccuracies and scientific illiteracy aside, I know your point. Yes, it is a thorny issue which pisses some people off due to how they define human life.

I am not Catholic, and I never was, but I have lots of Catholic friends, and yes, they do indeed see this as tampering with human life and therefore they are utterly against it.

I do seem to recall that the suggestion was made that stem cells could be harvested from spontaneous abortions or miscarriages. I think the issue with that idea was that the cells are too badly degraded or something.

That being said, It is my understanding that some researchers have developed methods to eliminate the mouse cell contamination, and have stabilized the mutations of the stem cell lines they are working with.

Tell me this is not true.

Okay. This is not true. Eliminate is a poor word... they've developed an alternative which can (and is) applied to any new cell line, they have not developed a way to go back in time and remove murine contamination from previously derived lines. The Bush lines are crap. Thankfully that is now a mute point.

I'm thinking this whole tangent is a moot point. My only point of major interest concerning this issue is the manner in which the Governor of bankrupt California felt the need to get on Television and rebuke George Bush by proclaiming that California would take on the additional financial debt that it couldn't afford, to fund stem cell research itself.

Other researchers (in Japan I think. Not a subject I care greatly about, so I don't keep up with it as much as other subjects.) have learned to transform Adult cells into plurapotent stem cells, which are effectively the same thing as embryonic stem cells.

Tell me this is not true.

Induced pluripotent stem cells have great promise, and I hope they will end this debate. The technology has developed both in Japan and the states, though the Japanese were the first to try it with human cells. The technique they were using for the first few years produced cells that were more useless than those contaminated with "mouse goo", but nobody was restricting funding to their research so they powered through and developed some better strategies. See how that works. This was not possible without years of research using human embryos.

I thought Stem Cell researchers were more competent than they apparently are. I'm disappointed to find that they are not.

Incompetent, or the problems they face aren't easy. Science is like that you know. It gets dumbed down for the masses, and then the masses get confused and angry when a complicated problem shows up. This is a serious problem, especially when things get dumbed down for our leadership.

And it is the job of knowledgeable people to spread the knowledge. People cannot make reasonable decisions without having good data. Likewise, I don't think people should be held fully accountable for decisions which turned out wrong, but were based on bad information.

I don't call such occurrences mistakes, I call them bad luck.

[Skipjack]

Much of the social mindset of the right is based on religious teachings and the traditions of their upbringing. It isn't twisted, it's natural for the people who feel that way to feel that way.

Religion has no place in politics. It is a dangerous game. If you want to see what religion in politics does, look at Iran.
Religion should also not interfere with science. It was a bad decision by the Nazis (National Socialism is a religion, like any ideology) to outrule certain research because it was based on research by jewish scientists or reasearch that was considered otherwise "tainted". It lead to them falling behind in several important military develoments such as short wave radar. This one in particular may have very well cost them victory in WW2.

[Diogenes]

Much of the social mindset of the right is based on religious teachings and the traditions of their upbringing. It isn't twisted, it's natural for the people who feel that way to feel that way.

Religion has no place in politics. It is a dangerous game. If you want to see what religion in politics does, look at Iran.

Religion has been inseparable from men, it is inherent in their thinking and inherent in their acts. If you want to see what religion in politics does, look at the History of the United States. It is even in our founding documents.

Religion should also not interfere with science.

If you regard the objection of Citizens, to their Government's intention of spending money, which those same Citizens contributed, on a cause which they regard as evil, as interfering with science, then I have to disagree.

Years ago, the US government funded research in Tuskegee Alabama. This is what happens when religion DOESN'T interfere with science.

It was a bad decision by the Nazis (National Socialism is a religion, like any ideology)

I don't regard religion and ideology to be the same thing. They may be related, and they may overlap, but they are not equal.

to outrule certain research because it was based on research by jewish scientists or reasearch that was considered otherwise "tainted". It lead to them falling behind in several important military develoments such as short wave radar. This one in particular may have very well cost them victory in WW2.

Not only that, it drove away a lot of valuable talent. The US wouldn't have even tried to make the atomic bomb without the intervention of refugee Scientists. I personally feel Leó Szilárd deserves the most credit for creating the atomic bomb, though I doubt he would want to be remembered that way. (If I recall correctly, he became so disillusioned with what Atomic Physics became used for that he gave it up and became a professor of biology.)

Another political refugee helped the British scientist (I forget both their names) work out the math used to design the first magnetron, which became an awesome military advantage.

Had they been following the religious teachings that they grew up with, a lot of ugly stuff might not have happened. Hitler and his associates became obsessed with a pseudo-occult German Mythology sort of quasi religiousness, and it led him to grief.

[Skipjack]

Religion has been inseparable from men, it is inherent in their thinking and inherent in their acts.

I dont think that it is. It is, like any ideology a flawed attempt at explaining observations. What separates religions from other ideologies is they are also a flawed attempt at finding comfort over the mortality of beloved and of course ones own mortality.
In any other respect religions and ideologies are identical:
They all are based on "eternal truths" and dogmas. The followers will cling to them even if they have long been disproven, or made obsolete by new developments and discoveries of science.
They are all claiming to be THE ONE solution to all problems of mankind and to be the only true solution. The followers must denounce all other solutions and potential solutions. People that dare to contradict fase all sorts of threats. In some examples they burned at the stake, in others they ended up in concentration camps, the gulac, etc...
They all require their followers to bring the message, the evangelium, the "eternal truth", whatsoever to the rest of the world so the "one true" religion, world view, etc can bring salvation to the rest of the world.
They all come with a set of ethics that are limiting to development and progress.
They all are crap!
I have been having a good time the last few years, watching some of the major ideologies having a nose dive. The catholics most of all. They have been really good at killing their religion all by themselves. I found that hillarious.
The socialists are having a harder time too, though they keep coming back like a bad penny. The whole climate thingy is still working for them, unfortunately.
That does not say that it is not getting warmer, I just dont like the way things are handled and how the socialists are using this issue (true or not) as a means to "redistribute the wealth".