San Francisco Getting Stem Cell Agency HQ 222
karvind writes "San Francisco was chosen Friday as the headquarters for California's new stem cell agency, beating out San Diego, Sacramento and Emeryville. The stem cell institute was created in November after voters overwhelmingly approved a measure allowing the state to borrow $3 billion to fund human embryonic stem cell research. According to Yahoo, the plans call for a 17,000-square-foot office with a maximum of 50 employees who will help dole out nearly $300 million in research grants annually over 10 years."
"Ban" (Score:2, Informative)
Re:"Ban" (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a ban on federal funding for stem cell research. Most funding for scientific research comes from the federal government, so taking away funding for stem cell research is far more significant than you make it out to be. States rarely pass legislation funding specific areas of scientific research like California has now, and I doubt that many states will follow in their footsteps. Future advances in this area will come solely because the residents of the states who fund it chose to do so, and I'm sure people in other states won't have a problem with curing their Parkinson's when a cure comes along. It's easy for people to whine about destroying embryos when there's not a concrete benefit out there that has come from it yet. When it happens, it'll be fairly easy to spot the hypocrites.
Re:"Ban" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Ban" (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, that doesn't do anything for your first question. What is the difference between a few people in DC and even fewer people in some state capital?
Re:"Ban" (Score:2)
Re:"Ban" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Ban" (Score:2)
I'd like to note, that if most people agreed with you then we wouldn't have the government spending on research however it seems most people do agree (as California's vote has showed if you don't believe that the government really repr
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Ban" (Score:2)
Is that your only criterion?
YES.
All economic growth is a direct result of research. We are a wealthy nation because of our research. But, the amount of time and effort needed to find new technologies keeps increasing. So we need a system that dumps insane amounts of money into research. Yes we could use some of that money to say feed the poor but society gains more from tossing 1 billion to research than it does from spending that money on education or m
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Ban" (Score:2)
Why not? Let's look at Viagra well I am 24 and everything works fine so over the next 20 years I am unlikely to pay for it but in 40 years when I might want such a product it's going to be dirt cheep because the patent's will have expired. So your idea is even though it's going to help me out I have no responsibility to pay for it's research?
Research seems to work the same way as roads in that I am never going to donate money to build
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Ban" (Score:2)
O wait I forget you would be making less money now with out government funded research so umm, what do you gain?
Liberty? What liberty it's cash and not much cash at that. I like the libertarian ideals but in the real world private industry does not build highways systems and they don't do basic research. Take scram jet's they can bring the cost to orbit down by a factor
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Ban" (Score:2)
NO! I never said that I said that governments fund research that nobody else will. In the world nobody is investing in scramjets outside of governments. QED governments invest in areas that nobody else will.
Some things like H-bombs are less useful but this 'let the markets decide' idea is stupid as you are giving up anything that's not useful right now. Government spen
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Ban" (Score:2)
Re:"Ban" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Ban" (Score:2)
And research does not mean "market a device that does X" but usually more like "go find the basic principles so some company can make a device that does X".
And why do you say "commercial space flight", by saying "commercial" you are no longer talking about research so your point is useless. Now if you say "space-flight" then please explain how NASA fails to do that,
Re:"Ban" (Score:3, Insightful)
International funding of scientific research would be even better. This isn't about forcing anyone to do anything, it's about the government choosing to fund research. It's better when people from more places contribute, since everyone will benefit. What California is saying right now is, "Fine. You guys don't have to fund the research, but we're going to do it and create
Not about force? (Score:2)
Government == Force. They "choose to fund" with money taken at the point of a gun.
Re:Not about force? (Score:2)
If that's what you think, then you've got bigger problems than scientific research. Last time I checked, you vote for the people who choose how much money to take and choose what to use that money for. If you disagree, vote for someone else. If there's no one running who agrees with your views, run yourself.
Scientific research is probably the last place that I'd say government funding is being wielded irresponsibly.
Re:Not about force? (Score:2)
Re:Not about force? (Score:2)
Re:Not about force? (Score:5, Insightful)
Science has what is called "indivisible benefit", it will always benefit everyone, regardless of whether they pay or not. However if the payment was left up the those willing to pay regardless then they would there wouldn't be enough money to fund research. The idea in government funding is forcing everyone to pay becuase it helps them in ways people don't realize directly enough that they would give money without being forced.
The same idea applies to cleaning up the environment, building a complete road infrastructure, millitary and so on. They are all essential things to do which cannot be done without forcing everyone to chip in.
BTW, sorry if this double-posts.
Re:Not about force? (Score:2)
Part of the problem here is the fact that people don't realize when expensive research had been performed, and are unwilling to pay for it. For example, many people are saying that the government should claim imminent domain and claim the patents that certain drug companies hold. The problem is that for each successful drug a company develops, 10 fail.
This is why you see much more c
Re:Not about force? (Score:2)
The reason is universal service. In some parts of the country (cities) your method would work well, the cost is spread out over alot of people. However in rual area
Re:Not about force? (Score:2)
Re:"Ban" (Score:2, Insightful)
That's EXACTLY what this argument is about. It's about the federal government of the United States forcing people to pay for embryonic stem cell research even if they are morally opposed to the practice.
You talk about the government choosing to spend the money as if the government was the one who earned it. The people earned it, their representatives outlawed the use of federal funds for that purpose, and
Re:"Ban" (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you aware of how much research there is and do you think you can for every piece of research figure out what the potential effects are? The thing about research is that in numerous cases it DOESN'T have specific uses or its uses are not known at the time, for example no one envisioned what the laser could do when it was first invented. So you want to help the blind, eh? What about growing new eyes using stem cells? How about research in growing organs, developmental biology research
Re:"Ban" (Score:2)
Just specific enough to reach a general consensus among the people of my state. If our research priorities are very different from those of California or Texas, We can fund them accordingly.
It is a common mistake to assume that all of our rules have to come down from the Federal Government. We're not all playing the same game.
Re:"Ban" (Score:2)
And how do you plan to get a consensus? Vote for every single science initiative? Vote based on fields, general research categories? My previous post showed how childish it is to think one can say "I want to help the blind" and have any idea (without a lot of research, and I mean a lot) what research they should support. That is assuming anyone can even predict what effects certain research will have.
What about those who don't agree in your sta
Re:"Ban" (Score:2)
Because the city and county are just organs of the state government and do not enjoy independent authority.
And how do you plan to get a consensus? Vote for every single science initiative?
Why not, presently we vote on new taxation bills, and we frequently vote on any other topic that captures public interest. In fact, any law at all can be brought to a public vote with a minimum of effort. The same is not true in the federal column.
Wh
Re:"Ban" (Score:2)
When government funds research, it gets published. Everyone gets to use the knowledge that comes from it. In private research, that's not the case.
The reason research sponsored by individual states isn't ideal is because they have less money to work with. I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with it, especially because I'm a California resident studying biology. This legislation creates jobs for me, and
Re:"Ban" (Score:2, Informative)
Oh, it would be nice if it were the case. But alas I think you need to look more carefully at the epidemic of publicly funded research which winds up being "owned" lock stock and barrel by private companies. Ever hear of the Bayh-Dole act?
I want there to be public funding of the sciences. But we are in need of serious review of how our public research money i
Re:"Ban" (Score:2)
Re:"Ban" (Score:2)
It's worse than that. (Score:4, Informative)
It's worse than that. There's a ban on stem cell research if you've received federal funding. If you have in the past received federal money, if any of that federal money went to facilities, etc, you can't do stem cell research with anything that money's touched. Not facilities, buildings, desk chairs, whatever.
So, the government offers these groups money. They get pretty much every important research institution infected with having received this money. Then suddenly they bait and switch and announce they're banning anyone who's received this money from doing vital medical research because it offends their leaders' religious sensibilities. Then they get to shrug, do a "who me", and have their lackeys on slashdot claim they didn't ban anything. Neat trick.
Re:It's worse than that...... THIS IS BUNK! (Score:2, Informative)
And federal funding is not restricted on the current lines of EMBRIOS. It is restricted on *NEW* Embrios.
And it is *NOT* Backword looking. Geeze...
Moderators, please MODERATE!
Here is a link to the real story [whitehouse.gov]
And for thoes challenged:
Embryonic Stem Cell Research
August 9, 2001
"As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist" I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cel
you can do stem cell research with federal money (Score:5, Informative)
Here are the basic guidelines:
Federal funds will only be used for research on existing stem cell lines that were derived: (1) with the informed consent of the donors; (2) from excess embryos created solely for reproductive purposes; and (3) without any financial inducements to the donors. In order to ensure that federal funds are used to support only stem cell research that is scientifically sound, legal, and ethical, the NIH will examine the derivation of all existing stem cell lines and create a registry of those lines that satisfy this criteria. More than 60 existing stem cell lines from genetically diverse populations around the world are expected to be available for federally-funded research.
No federal funds will be used for: (1) the derivation or use of stem cell lines derived from newly destroyed embryos; (2) the creation of any human embryos for research purposes; or (3) the cloning of human embryos for any purpose. Today's decision relates only to the use of federal funds for research on existing stem cell lines derived in accordance with the criteria set forth above.
See:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/2
Re:you can do stem cell research with federal mone (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny (Score:2)
Re:"Ban" (Score:2)
There is a ban of federal funding for stem cell research that involves killing a human fetus. The government funds over 60 different stem cell resreach groups, they just all get their cells from other sources. (ambilical cords, bady teeth.)
Check out http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20 010809-1.html [whitehouse.gov]
Re:"Ban" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"Ban" --- Pleeeeze... Get it Right just once. (Score:4, Informative)
Here is an actual snippet from the prez:
"As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist" I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines " where the life and death decision has already been made", This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research" without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life."
-- George W. Bush
The Real Thing [whitehouse.gov]
And yes, that means that FEDERAL FUNDING *IS* ALLOWED for embrionic stem cells.
There is *NO* limitation on other types of stem cells.
And we already have created products from adult hair, skin, bone and blood stem cells. Most medical researchers insist that embrionic stem cells have less potential than other types of stem cells.
California has literally jumped the shark [wikipedia.org]. Any facility that would like to touch that money *MUST* do embrionic stem cell research exclusivily.
This is equilivent to Wyoming deciding that ARM processors may save lives and setting up a research fund. In order to touch the fund you must do verifiable research on the ARM processor.
And yes, it really *IS* as silly as that. And we are not talking about magical money.... It is strictly tax payer money. Remember that last pizza... well forget it...
Re:"Ban" --- Pleeeeze... Get it Right just once. (Score:2)
This simply is not true. Perhaps you heard this claim from someone else and accepted it, but please stop repeating this claim.
Unfortunately people who know better are lying about the usefulness of embryonic stem cells, because it serves their agenda. It's one thing to oppose embryonic stem cell research because one believes it is unethical, but it's deceptive and insulting to attempt to shape publi
Re:why not private industry? (Score:4, Insightful)
Libertarians often have this funny idea that just because something is a good thing, there is a financial incentive to make it happen. This is in reality rarely the case.
Re:why not private industry? (Score:2)
But oh, that really is quite often the case. If the government just decided to start funding businesses, any business really for that matter, then the business has less incentive to compete and improve their product.
Now the Libertarian idea is that the government has three responsibilities: 1. Protect the people. 2. Breakup harmful mon
Re:why not private industry? (Score:2)
Well, I think of myself as libertarian, and I think that if something is a good thing, there will be people who will do it despite financial disincentive.
Saving lives is one of those things.
Re:why not private industry? (Score:2)
Trials on patients with morbid conditions are very difficult. OK: The patient died. Was it related to the medication? They had an underlying condition (and that underlying condition can itself cause all sorts of problems).
If you go for medications that the patient can choose to use, well, the lawyers can still try to come after you for an imaginary problem, but they will have less raw material to dress up and twist around.
Re:Stem Cells and Medical Experiments (Score:2)
Also, google only reports one other link to this page, which suggests that this is your only venue. Do you think that much of slashdot?
Obligatory dead baby joke... (Score:3, Funny)
Flamebait. (Score:2)
Answer: obviously, embryonic stem cells are best harvested from dead babies.
That sucks the humor right out of a perfectly good genre.
Re:Obligatory dead baby joke... (Score:3, Funny)
What's the difference between a Ferrari and a dead baby?
I don't have a Ferrari in my garage.
Re:Obligatory dead baby joke... (Score:2, Funny)
How do you get a baby out of a blender?
With tortilla chips.
I Know (Score:3, Informative)
Bad pun... (Score:3, Funny)
I bet they can't STEM the tide of calls from reporters....
[thank's I'll be here all week]
Re:Bad pun... (Score:2)
That's unfortunate, considering it's only Sunday. Could you possibly be persuaded to leave early?
They gave up a lot of freebies to land this... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:They gave up a lot of freebies to land this... (Score:2)
Re:They gave up a lot of freebies to land this... (Score:3, Interesting)
All the finalists offer free rent and a wide range of incentives that include free office furniture, free parking and free gym memberships for agency employees.
I don't live in SF, nor have I been following the proposal, but this seems like a big waste of money. Since when do benefits such as free gym memberships for employees have to do with anything? This place isn't even doing any research, they a
Re:They gave up a lot of freebies to land this... (Score:2)
Almost nobody with a good job at any of those companies actually lives in South City - they either live in the 'burbs, in the Valley, or in the City.
And being a good corporate citizen in those parts means supporting things in SF proper. Genentech is a corporate sponsor of the SFMOMA, the opera and lots of other things.
In short, what's good for local (SSF) biotech is gener
Makes perfect sense... (Score:2)
2. use it to fund an office of people who won't actually work
3.
4. profit!
Your tax dollars at work in California (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't even want to know how much a new 17,000 ft office building is going to cost in San Fransisco - but that can't be cheap (assuming you can build it after the environmental impact).
All this and no real science being done yet.
Re:Your tax dollars at work in California (Score:2)
Yes. Considering the the federal government doesn't even fund certain types of stem cell research that have the potential to be extraordinarily useful, California is doing an awesome thing by providing a place (and motivation) to carry out this research.
I don't even want to know how much a new 17,000 ft office building is going to cost in San Fransisco - but that can't be cheap (assuming you can build it after the
Re:Your tax dollars at work in California (Score:2)
If the current federal mandates didn't place severe restrictions on what sorts of stem cell research could be done with federal funds, this wouldn't have been proposed, and certainly wouldn't have passed, given California's current significant financial issues.
I hope something useful comes from it, but don't kid yourself...this was and is primarily California postur
Re:Your tax dollars at work in California (Score:2)
No, voters approved state backing for a bond sale to raise funds for research. A big difference.
Re:That's why I voted against it... (Score:2)
Tell me why they need 50 people again ?
Re:That's why I voted against it... (Score:2)
why are we funding an industry rolling in dough? (Score:4, Insightful)
What do we get for all these tax dollars? Why, scandals like Vioxx...and drugs like Nexium, which don't work much better than the pill they replaced, but have some little bit patented so it can't be cloned by generic drug companies...and a new catchy name or color for the public to run to their doctors, demand these premium drugs, and rip off our health insurance companies.
Re:why are we funding an industry rolling in dough (Score:2)
It's much more of a scam than you'd expect (Score:3, Informative)
We're not... (Score:3, Insightful)
The anger and frustration you seem to have about the drug industry should not be directed at the (relatively scant) tax dollars for basic re
Re:why are we funding an industry rolling in dough (Score:2)
I'll say this... as a medical student, I believe that Vioxx, Celebrex and Bextra are 3 of the greatest medications created in the last 25 years. They have helped HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of arthritis, lupus, scleroderma, spondylitis and dozens of other disease-sufferers with their pain that was NOT helped by typical ibuprofen-like drugs.
The whole anti-Vioxx thing is, in my opinion, driven largely (not *entirely*, but largely) by the malpractice lawyers. I was visiting my grandmother
Oblig. (Score:5, Funny)
Stem Cell Agency Staffer: Well, yes, in the same way an infant may fight Muhammad Ali, but....
Professor Farnsworth: One pound of stem cells please!
Stem Cell Agency Staffer: (setting container labeled "Stem Cells" on the counter) Of course, any age-reversing effects will be purely temporary.
(Professor Farnsworth opens the container and starts slopping the stem cells on his face.)
Stem Cell Agency Staffer: Auugghh!!
Sigh...... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sigh...... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sigh...... (Score:2, Informative)
Emeryville will just sue (Score:2)
Re:Emeryville will just sue (Score:2)
Re:Emeryville will just sue (Score:2)
Go Arnold (Score:2)
As a biotechnological monster himself, he knows that we shouldn't be running away from technology. Also, he may be getting worried that the cancer chickens are going to come home to roost.
CA voters taxing themselves into debt (Score:2)
If companies want to make a profit on stem cell research, let them do it with their own wallet. These grants are simply going to make the state go further into debt.
Plans call for a 17,000-square-foot office with a maximum of 50 employees who will help dole out
Re:Biggest story of the day (Score:2)
Why won't /. cover this? What's going on here?!?!
God, he's so right.
Stewart, do you know what the aliens are doing to the soil?!?
I like you. You're not like the other kids. Here at the trailer park.
Um, Sorry, you were saying, about the stem cells, and San Francisco?
Re:Biggest story of the day (Score:3, Interesting)
erm. This Stem Cell Agency is going to have a fairly big impact on the SF economy. Google being hacked doesn't nearly have as big of an impact.
I could give two sh*ts about Googling being hacked... and I'm a web developer.
Re:Biggest story of the day (Score:2, Informative)
Open a terminal and run a whois on any major search site you can think of - google.com,
Re:Biggest story of the day (Score:3, Insightful)
Not Joking (Score:2, Funny)
Seriously man, get with the program.
Re:Not Joking (Score:2)
I'm an idiot. Mod me down. (Score:3, Informative)
I realized after I pressed enter that I was confusing this with stem cells harvested from the umbilical cord
Re:No ethical quandries (Score:3)
There are 3 places you can get stem cells --
adult cell, core blood cell (which is extra blood taken from the umbilical cord at birth) and embryonic cell.
The only ethical forms of stem cell research is adult cell and core blood cell.
Embryonic cells, come from embryos. Should companies be harvesting test tube embryos, then kill them before birth, to get stem cells? _embryonic_ stem cell research is NOT ethical.
Re:No ethical quandries (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No ethical quandries (Score:2)
Re:No ethical quandries (Score:2)
It's not really harvesting, as that implies they're ripping things off the vine and such. They're really just keeping embryos they would have discarded, the left-overs from fertility treatment. (It's more like recycling...)
It's not killing them before birth (the cells would be useless if dead), and they weren't going to be born anyway..
Re:President Ahnold (Score:2, Funny)
Surely not. Why, wouldn't that be a violation of the 6th Day Law [imdb.com]?
Re:other issues need money first (Score:2)
Wrong. California is a direct democracy. It's not 'the government' that voted for the measure it was the people directly. So vote/blame the californias(DISCLAIMER: I am one of them, but voted agains the measure).
Re:other issues need money first (Score:2)
I believe this measure was put on by the people. This in fact is how most of the 'measures' are put on the ballots each year.
Wikipedia says on the California government [wikipedia.org]:
"The constitution can be changed by initiatives passed by voters. Initiatives can be proposed by the governor, legislature, or by popular petition, giving California one of the most flexible legal systems in the world. The constitution makes the Califo
Re:No Big Surprise (Score:2)
That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Lea