Shugart's Radical Center

Testify, brother!

Thus endeth the lesson. Good writing my friend.

Chris Shugart for President.

I have to say that I agree with Chris; the radical right and radical left are equally off-base. That said, I didn’t quite agree with his stance on stem-cell research. For a long while, I was undecided on this issue, but then I got to thinking about it from a logical (NOT ideological) standpoint.

If stem-cells are the “miracle cure” for everything from Alzhimer’s to cancer that proponents of stem-cell research say that they are, then why isn’t there billions and trillions of dollars of private capital pouring into the research? Can you imagine how much money a pharmeceutical company would make if it was able to come up with a drug or patent a medical process that could cure any single one of these diesases (Alzhimer’s, cancer, Parkinson’s, etc.)? If stem cells were truly such a promising area of medical research, we wouldn’t NEED government funding, because the researchers would have to be beating off the private venture capital investors (pharmaceutical companies, investment firms, medical for-profit research companies, etc.) with a stick!

That issue aside, again, I have to say, right on, Chris! I think our whole political system could use a lot less of the rhetoric and a lot more of the common sense.

[quote]Static wrote:

If stem-cells are the “miracle cure” for everything from Alzhimer’s to cancer that proponents of stem-cell research say that they are, then why isn’t there billions and trillions of dollars of private capital pouring into the research? Can you imagine how much money a pharmeceutical company would make if it was able to come up with a drug or patent a medical process that could cure any single one of these diesases (Alzhimer’s, cancer, Parkinson’s, etc.)? If stem cells were truly such a promising area of medical research, we wouldn’t NEED government funding, because the researchers would have to be beating off the private venture capital investors (pharmaceutical companies, investment firms, medical for-profit research companies, etc.) with a stick!
[/quote]

I don’t know. Why would a company invest millions studying something that the goverment makes illegal? A supplement company wouldn’t spend millions in R&D if the supplement was banned already.

I read another article stating that many bright young scientists won’t go into stem cell research because there may not be a financial future in it because of government regulations. Something to think about.

[quote]Dave2 wrote:
I don’t know. Why would a company invest millions studying something that the goverment makes illegal? A supplement company wouldn’t spend millions in R&D if the supplement was banned already. [/quote]

I admit to not being extremely well versed on this, but I don’t think the issue is whether or not stem cell research is legal. As far as I know, it is legal, and is going on as we speak. The issue of the “stem cell debate” is whether or not it will be funded by the federal government.

I guess Chris just got fed up reading the Politics and World Issues Forum. That’ll teach you guys!

Porkchop

Stem cell research is not illegal in the US just severely underfunded.

I was under the impression that medical procedures cannot be patented.

Apparently California is planning on taking the lead in US stem cell research.

http://www.iht.com/articles/539654.html

My dad has CMT and ET so I’m kind of hoping that the stem cell is going to be as miraculous as they say.

Well if America doesn’t increase funding I’m sure the Brits will
have it figured out in no time.

[quote]bandgeek wrote:
Dave2 wrote:
I don’t know. Why would a company invest millions studying something that the goverment makes illegal? A supplement company wouldn’t spend millions in R&D if the supplement was banned already.

I admit to not being extremely well versed on this, but I don’t think the issue is whether or not stem cell research is legal. As far as I know, it is legal, and is going on as we speak. The issue of the “stem cell debate” is whether or not it will be funded by the federal government. [/quote]

DING DING DING!

On the stem cell sideshow:

A big issue to consider, and I don’t have the answer, is whether or not the research dollars can result in patents. If not, the company investing the money cannot make back their investment.

In such a situtation, there is no financial incentive for investment, and it won’t happen just because it would be good for some people. It’s a classic situation where it can be appropriate for the government to step in and help propel research.

It’s not a clear cut issue. Dig in and find out the real issues… beyond the regular “talking points” coming from both sides. I think this is the point of the article in general, dig in and find out, don’t accept politically motivated propaganda at face value.

The stem-cell research issue is very overplayed and misunderstood. As mentioned previously, stem-cell research is not illegal. Simply put, it’s not receiving federal funding.

Personally, I agree with keeping the research in the private sector.

Nick

Unfortunately, the stem cell research issue goes much deeper than federal funding issues. Kansas senator Sam Brownback proposed a bill to send scientists engaged in embryonic-stem-cell research to prison. The same bill would outlaw treatments developed in other countries. The president, from what I understand, supports this bill although publicly talks about “compromise.” That’s chilling, folks.

[quote]Chris Shugart wrote:
Unfortunately, the stem cell research issue goes much deeper than federal funding issues. Kansas senator Sam Brownback proposed a bill to send scientists engaged in embryonic-stem-cell research to prison. The same bill would outlaw treatments developed in other countries. The president, from what I understand, supports this bill although publicly talks about “compromise.” That’s chilling, folks.

[/quote]

This is scary and bad on many levels. And I don’t know that there’s a Constitutional argument to overturn such laws. If a person is dying, and there’s a treatment that’s been developed in another country that’s been proven safe and effective, but the government is preventing that person from receiving the treatment in the U.S. and that person dies as a result, did the government just deprive that person of life without due process of law? That’s probably too big of a stretch, because the answer is always that the person could receive the treatment in the country that develop the treatment, even if it might be incredibly expensive and inconvenient to go there, or the person’s health insurance won’t pay since the treatment was not approved for use in the U.S. So, the person dies. Too bad, so sad, but we’re with the government and we know what’s best for you.

BostonBarrister - Chime in on this.

Let’s face it, there’s no way ANY research will be stopped or banned. Let’s finally get over it. They will research everything there is to and banning it is merely slowing it down.

I mean can you even imagine the whole scientific community of the planet agreeing on never researching a certain field? It’d be like this: “Ok, it’s settled!!! We’re never going to research stem cells! No siree. Let’s destroy all the labs and burn the evidence.” Anyone who thinks that’ll happen must be high or brain damaged.

Same thing with abortions and drugs and guns and gay marriage and all that shit. No matter how you ban or restrict it they’ll eventually get it one way or another. Just look around, drugs are illegal yet everyone inclined is doing them, prostitution is illegal yet there are hookers in just about any populated area. Look back, remember what happened when alchohol was banned? You think they can really ban abortion or pots or whores? Not a damn chance, and that’s the way it should be.

So the question is not whether we’re going there or not, but how soon do you want it to be? Do you want to be a part of a society that will accept and change willingly, or one that attempts to stop itself in time? A good example of the latter is the Middle East.

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Chris Shugart wrote:
Unfortunately, the stem cell research issue goes much deeper than federal funding issues. Kansas senator Sam Brownback proposed a bill to send scientists engaged in embryonic-stem-cell research to prison. The same bill would outlaw treatments developed in other countries. The president, from what I understand, supports this bill although publicly talks about “compromise.” That’s chilling, folks.

This is scary and bad on many levels. And I don’t know that there’s a Constitutional argument to overturn such laws. If a person is dying, and there’s a treatment that’s been developed in another country that’s been proven safe and effective, but the government is preventing that person from receiving the treatment in the U.S. and that person dies as a result, did the government just deprive that person of life without due process of law? That’s probably too big of a stretch, because the answer is always that the person could receive the treatment in the country that develop the treatment, even if it might be incredibly expensive and inconvenient to go there, or the person’s health insurance won’t pay since the treatment was not approved for use in the U.S. So, the person dies. Too bad, so sad, but we’re with the government and we know what’s best for you.

BostonBarrister - Chime in on this.[/quote]

Mike:

There’s no theory I know that would justify that argument, mostly because it has been accepted as constitutional that the government has the power to regulate medicine and medical devices, based on Congress’ Commerce Clause Power – the regulation is the due process, provided it was passed properly.

[ADDENDUM: Also, all of the “due process of law” cases that I studied were applicable only when the government took something particular away from an individual – property, benefits, etc – not from the passage of a law equally applicable to everyone]

As to the law Chris is referencing, I haven’t heard of it, which is surprising given the level of debate that was occurring on this issue.

Chris: Do you have a link to the text of the law?

[quote]Chris Shugart wrote:
Kansas senator Sam Brownback proposed a bill to send scientists engaged in embryonic-stem-cell research to prison. The same bill would outlaw treatments developed in other countries. The president, from what I understand, supports this bill although publicly talks about “compromise.” That’s chilling, folks.
[/quote]

Ok, now that is scary. What are they going to do next? Ban blood transfusions?

It seems to me that society is slowly walking backwards. Why is this happening? I thought The Inquisition was over. These lunatic politicians are making the same mistakes those in power commited during the dark ages.

What is worst, is that if you publicly speak against religious based laws, then you are immediately labeled as bad/immoral/sinner/unpatriotic. Too bad that in the land of the free you must follow religious ideas or suffer the consequences.