Clark Withholds $60 Million Pledge to Stanford 469
vocaljess writes: "In an op-ed piece in Friday's New York Times (which you have to register to read, blah blah blah), Netscape creator Jim Clark has announced that he will withhold $60 million he had pledged to donate to Stanford University to build a center for biomedical engineering and science. He states "I believe our country risks being thrown into a dark age of medical research. Biologists are at the threshold of the most important set of discoveries in history, and rather than teach and lead, our politicians react and follow a conservative few. This legislative action will cause the United States to miss a revolution in biology.""
And this helps by doing what? (Score:4, Insightful)
F-bacher
Re:And this helps by doing what? (Score:3, Insightful)
If he's really concerned, he could spend that money on lobbying efforts and on educating the public. Because that's what the problem is; in a world of too much information, people only see the surface of the issues, and then talk about them as if they're experts. I'm as guilty of this as everyone else is. You'll find that just about everyone has an opinion on stem cell research, but very, very few know anything about it.
Withholding the money strikes me as the worst course of action he could possibly have taken, outside of buying advertising time on the Rush Limbaugh radio show. He should still give that money to Stanford; even if they aren't able to use it for stem cell research directly, they can use it to spearhead educational efforts to help correct popular misconceptions. I don't say that out of love for Stanford (I have none -- my two favorite football teams are UT-Austin and whoever is playing Stanford), but out of more idealistic concerns.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Someone should have told him that.
Re:And this helps by doing what? (Score:5, Insightful)
If he's really concerned, he could spend that money on lobbying efforts and on educating the public.
No, he's much smarter than that. By withholding (note that he hasn't canceled or revoked the grant) the money, he's created an incredible amount of press and discussion, probably far more than he could spend on fattening up congresscritters and their lobbyists.
Plus, he can renew the debate at any time by giving the grant money to a university in Europe instead of to Stanford, which would really pack a politcal punch. I think he's a pretty smart guy, he gets the lobbying and press relations for free and can still spend the money on the research he originally intended to support.
How would it help? (Score:2)
Why the heck should he donate money for research that can't be done here? His money could be used to make a lot more progress if he gave it to a university in Europe instead. Why should he blow his cash on a hobbled US university?
Re:And this helps by doing what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And this helps by doing what? (Score:3, Interesting)
And you're critisizing him?
Heck, I'm having second thoughts about donating $5 without being pretty damn sure that they will come to good use. Dunno about you, but I can't really be upset with anyone who doesn't want to part with $60 million without being pretty damn sure they will be used in a way s/he finds acceptable.
Re:And this helps by doing what? (Score:5, Informative)
even if they aren't able to use it for stem cell research directly
Sure they can. President Bush's decision was that federal money may not be used to generate new stem cell lines from fetuses. Private money, like Clark's, can be used for anything. Federal money can even be used for some research, including research on existing cell lines, and creating new lines that do not come from fetuses (i.e. cells coming from adults, or from umbilical cords). Bush's decision does not affect Stanford's use of Clark's money in any way; Clark is just throwing a hissy-fit.
Re:And this helps by doing what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really; if he spends money to build a lab to do cutting-edge research, but most of the researchers are federally funded, then most of them wouldn't be able to use it on the kinds of stem cell research that he wants to be done in those labs.
I think Clark should take the money and donate it towards creating new lines for research, if he feels so strongly about the issue...
Incidentally, does anyone know if the Bush decision stops the use of federally-funded equipment with new cell lines, or just purchase of cells?
Stem Cells don't come from Fetuses (Feti?) (Score:2, Interesting)
I spent a lot of time researching this when my wife and I pursued Invitro Fertilization. Fetuses don't come along until I bleieve 4th or 5th month. They are Embryo's for a while.
The problem with some conservatism is ignorance. You should really look into where Stem cells come from, sometimes they are 'fake' fertilized eggs that have no chance of ever becoming a human.
The last paragraph is my $0.02 and my opionon only. The rest is medical terminology.
In other words, ignorant (Score:3, Interesting)
Religous conservatives are ignorant of science, history, and usually even their own scripture. For example, in Exodus 21:22 it's explicitly stated that killing a fetus is in no way equivalent to killing a person. The penalty for the first is a fine, the penalty for the second is death.
Fundamentalists reject the accumulated knowledge of the human race because they think all questions are answered in a single book (pick one, any one) written thousands of years ago in our barbaric past. This, my friend, is the very definition of ignorance. Fundamentalists might not like being called on it, but it doesn't make the charge any less true.
They're the same group of people that have opposed every technological change throughout history. They'll have as much success with this crusade as they have with all their others. And they won't hesitate to enjoy the fruits of this research in their old age.
In another generation we'll be shocked that foolish people ever objected to regenerating new livers and such and be glad that we've moved beyond the ignorance of our ancestors.
The money is headed for Europe, you fsckheads! (Score:2, Interesting)
By not giving his $60 million to Stanford, Clarke can instead give it to a research facility that can do useful research with the money- without being hampered by illogical directives from a president who is openly hostile to scientific research. Bush has prohibited all potentially meaningful stem cell research in this country. But stem cell research (or cryptography research, or any scientific research for that matter) is not going to stop just because it's been prohibited in the U.S. by American zealotry and corruption.
Stanford is still getting money from Clarke- just $60 million less of it. They're still getting much more than that from him for other research (that the American government has not yet forbidden). Anybody who chooses to waste $60 million, by donating it to researchers who have been forbidden by the American government from making effective use of it, is a fool.
In related news, Russia is warning its programmers to avoid traveling to the U.S.A. I feel so proud to be an American.
Applause... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Jesus, he's one of us.
Finally, someone who stands up for science instead of politics.
Course, one has to consider he's MAKING politics by doing this. ^_~
Re:Applause... (Score:2)
He's not making politics. The politics was already there; sadly, that's the way things work. We should be glad that money found its way into the hands of someone more enlightened who is willing to make an important point with it.
Alternate coverage (Score:2, Informative)
which also forms part of one of their 'indepth' news anaylsis.
They also have a link to Stanford where their president has issued his responce [stanford.edu].
He is going about this the wrong way (Score:1)
Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, so if you are liberal, your thoughts are OK because you are OPEN. But if you are conservative, you're thinking is CLOSED? If you're open to diversity of opinion, then you must accept ALL types of thinking! Bush (not my favorite president to say the least) was struggling with some legitimate moral issues regarding stem cells from aborted fetus. Honestly, I'm sick of people doing things "in the name of science" and calling all moral discussions "ignorant". I don't stand on either side of the stem cell issue, as I have yet to fully understand the moral implications (if any). However, I would say that it's ignorant to scoff those who are attempting to excercise discernment.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Government is stepping in by not funding? Sorry, but that makes no sense.
Yes, there are legitimate moral issues surrounding stem cell research. No, government has no business taking those moral choices away from researchers, academics, and everyday joes.
Since government has no business taking the moral choice away from joe average then government should not be grabbing joe's wallet.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
No doubt, not because he didn't want to, or wouldn't, but because he couldn't. (at present, at least not by himself.)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Maybe it came from Microsoft?
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
We don't know what this research will result in. We can predict, but we don't know. Until we research, we don't know if any of it will work. When we know what stem cell research can give us, then we can decide if we as a society want it. Don't shy away from knowledge, though. Even Kansas is now allowing schools to teach "Things changing slowly over time." If those morons can try to cope with evolution, can't the rest of us find out what science has before we ban it?
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:this is bullshit (Score:2)
Well some people think that god created the world in seven days. Some people think that homosexuals should be executed (read the bible it says so). Some people think the world is flat. Some people think the universe is three thousand years old.
You can't run a country on what "some people think".
Re:this is bullshit (Score:2)
The difference, to me at least, is that there are societal reasons as well to prohibit murder - namely, that it removes useful members of society and makes people a lot more nervous about their wellbeing. Even in the absence of moral direction from on high, I would still say that murder should be prohibited. Heck, our society is already no longer strictly moral about murder, since we permit the state itself to kill certain convicts.
I don't know that this is the original argument that the poster above was aiming for, but in my mind at least it seems that society should have an adequate reason for banning something, independent from religious or moral reasons, before banning a particular behavior. On the basis of this belief, I do agree with the original poster that it's annoying when morality is used as the be-all and end-all argument on these sorts of issues. People are using morality as a crutch to avoid really thinking about the pros and cons of real life.
I think it comes down to how and from where you construct morality and ethics. If you view morality as imposed from on high by a deity, like a parent scolding a naughty child, then you probably would think that morality always has a place, and an important one at that, in public policy discussions. If you think, like me, that morality is constructed by humans in order to record and enforce individual behavior towards the overall benefit of society, then it will often seem like people just keep bringing up "morality", without even knowing what they're really saying, just to clog up the vital societal debate about biotechnology, etc.
Case in point: cloning. Everybody and their brother on the news was doing a hella handwaving about "troubling ethical issues" with cloning. As near as I could tell, these mostly boiled down to "well, some babies could be deformed". News flash: every day babies are born deformed or mentally handicapped due to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, yet our society does almost nothing to curb this widespread problem. Until people who think in terms of "morals" are as concerned about FAS (an entirely here-and-now and entirely preventable problem) as they are about cloning (which, in the absence of any real profit in it (remember, it's easier and probably faster to make a human the old fashioned way) will probably never become a widespread practice), then I will continue to wonder about the motives of those who wave the "morality" flag so fiercely.
Sorry to rant on, and that wasn't really aimed at you specifically, just at the general tone of the thread. Whew, are my fingers tired now :)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit. Bush was struggling with some political issues regarding stem cells from aborted fetuses. Now, the people who put him in a position of having to care may have real moral objections to stem cell research, but I wouldn't attribute such thoughts to Bush.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Note: The Oil industry is working on putting a trained mnkey in office, but their research is not very far allong and Bush was available. The chimp should be ready next time.
FYI> Average estimated IQ for last 6 democratic presidents 156. Average estimated IQ for last 6 republican presidents 116. Clinton, Carter, and Kennedy all topped the list with 182, 176, and 174, but Nixon weighed in at a respectable 155. (Note: the carter IQ is acurate and not just an estimate) Reagan, Bush, and Shrub brought up the tail with 105, 98, and 91.
Personally, I think Nixon's IQ was dragged down by his upbringing (not rich and ended up republican). If he was born to a rich liberal family like Clinton or JFK he might be the top of the lot.
References: IQ estimates were done by the Lovenstein Institute and were scored in the
Swanson/Crain system (scollarly achievments, unscripted pubic speaking, etc.) Shrub did not really have scollarly achievemnts, so they had less reliable data for him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What kind of an idiot believes in IQ tests? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Conversly, Carter was very smart and many historians feal he would have learned how to be a good politician if the economy had allowed him a second term. Also, Carter was *unquestionably* the most honest, most trustworthy, and most well intentioned president from recent history (perhaps ever). I think I heard that Carter was the only president to loose money in office and he is unique in his after office activities too.
Next, Nixon really was damn smart and made a good politician, but he was also corrupt and paranoid. Nixon could perhaps have been one of our greatest presedents if he had been a sane human being, but unfortunatly (for him and us) he was a loony bin.
Kennedy and Clinton were really far above average presidens, but they were basically deceptive people (maybe these go hand-in-hand). Thee good news about Clinton and Kennedy is that they had fewer importent scandals then Reagan (interns and movie stars don't count). Personally, I think Clinton will be remembered quite positivly in the long run (think gay rights).
Also, Bush was almost shurely smarter then Reagan at the time Reagan was in office, but that's beacuase Reagan was old and loosing his mind.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
His struggle with the moral issues is bullshit.
His decision was pure politics. He threw science a bone while appealing to his Taliban base.
If he was truly concerned about the poor embryos, and the sanctity of life, why not ban in vitro
fertilization and come out against abortion?
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Pretty much. If you're conservative, in the sense of being resistant to change, then your thoughts are more likely to get stuck somewhere bad just because you don't want to change them.
If you're open to diversity of opinion, then you must accept ALL types of thinking!
Do I *really* have to point out what's wrong with that statement? Valuing knowledge means "accepting" (whatever that means) thinking might lead you to some useful new knowledge. Usually this means being more open minded than the average Amoral Majority member, although if you want to put it that way, it doesn't mean you must accept anything you deem to be incorrect. (Keeping in mind that you could be wrong, of course.)
Bush (not my favorite president to say the least) was struggling with some legitimate moral issues regarding stem cells from aborted fetus. Honestly, I'm sick of people doing things "in the name of science" and calling all moral discussions "ignorant".
There are informed moral discussions and there are ignorant moral discussions. Bush is considering whether or not it's okay to destroy the magical invisible souls of these precious groups of cells. He's decided that it's not okay, but he does concede the benefit of utilizing the already existing stem cells.
I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine whether this is an informed moral discussion or not.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Can I assume that your soul is both practical and visible, or is your life also of no consequence or value?
Why is it that so many people are inclined to err on the side of caution in every area but this one? Demonstrated multiple murderers might reform someday. Let's give them a chance. We can't prove that nuclear power plants won't cause problems, so go slowly, or stop altogether. Global warming might be caused by CO2, so we'd better change how we do everything right now. But fetuses human? Obviously you're just a Christian fundamentalist who wants barefoot women in the kitchen -- there's no issue here.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
My point is that it is American liberal dogma that anybody who has doubts as to abortion or fetal research must be a fundamentalist Christian, and must have an agenda of the oppression of women. No other motive, and no other possibility, is considered.
Speaking for myself, I have some serious doubts, I'm an atheist, and I can't believe I'm completely alone in the American landscape.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure he was. In the same way that the pope must have felt about birth control pills or condoms and the witch hunters felt in the early 1400's...
One thing I'm trying to say is that, despite the definitions that you grow up believeing, "morality" is not a static force. It is mutable just like everything else. Someday we will use genetic engineering on a daily basis and not even think twice about it. It will be as moral as apple pie and baseball. In that future era we will think our current debates are silly in the same way that you and I think the debates on the morality of dancing and the reports of witchcraft are silly. By then we will be having new and intersting debates of "morality", still thinking that it is an unchanging imperative.
Half of our planet will think that using faster than light travel to seed the galaxy is a wonderful thing while the rest think that it goes against God's plan (A popular quote from that future time, "If God had meant humans to travel faster than the speed of light, he would have given us phaseo-transducers.") of humans living only on Earth.
And in some future weblog this exact same argument will be made again...
Pure science is the ultimate morality. Give it freedom.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe in the same way people felt about sterilizing retarded people a century ago. Or maybe they felt the same way about frontal lobotomies or experimenting on concentration camp inmates.
Yeah, right, we shouldn't have any other concerns besides the quest for knowledge.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
There is more evidence to support the existance of UFOs then there is to support the existance of God. Your basis in believing in God is purely irrational.
Maybe one day someone will point to a bit of hard evidence that proves God exists but till then he might as well be the easter bunny.
One more thing. Not only do you have to prove the existance of god but you also have to prove that he actually cares who you have sex with, whether or not you masturbate, what you think about your neighbors wife, and what the fabric makeup of your clothes are. In other words not only does God exists but that he also created the world, and actually wants humans to act in the manner as described in the Bible.
A divine or a supernatural entity by itself has no impact on morality unless you feel obliged (or coerced in this case) to follow it's wishes. I have no problem believing that there are creatures in the universe made of pure energy, that they may be extremely powerful, or that they may have come around this planet at one time or another. But I find it outregous that they disapprove of coveting of thy neighbors wife or accumulating wealth.
If you ask me that's a pretty big stretch. I would love to hear any evidence of that.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
I can't believe what a fool I have been! You are absolutly correct! What is "right" never changes. Well, come over here and help me gather some stones, I have to go kill the heathens. What? Do you mean that it is somehow wrong to kill those unmarried women with children or those men who say God's holy name as a curse, or those boys over there with lewd thoughts? Come on now, be consistant.
If morality never changes, then no two cultures would ever differ in thier beliefs. Is it moral to cut off the hands of a thief? It must be, since morality is a constant throught time and space. Have you ever stolen something? Or your sister, or best friend? Go ahead, cut off thier hands, society will thank you.
The point is, morality DOES change. There is no platinium-iridium moral kilogram that can be used to measure everyone's sins against. Nobody wants to believe it, but it is true.
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Interesting)
Alright. You start taking insulin shots in the stomach. 3-7 times a day. Oh, you also have to prick your fingers every time you want to eat. While you are at it, get Parkinson's disease and Multiple Sclerosis.
Then you can tell me that the moral grounds are wrong.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
P.S. Parkinson's has been a genetic disease in my family and I have a very high chance of getting it, and have lost family members to it. Don't start making trolling assumptions as if these serious diseases don't affect my life as well.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
There are lots of things we could do to prisoners that would not be cruel or unusual and would advance medical science greatly. Of course, all experiments should be voluntary, and they really ought to be compensated in some manner regardless of the outcome. If the compensation were great enough there would be lots of takers for any experiment, no matter how dangerous. Most people who are in jail are gamblers of some sort, and they always think they are going to beat the odds or they wouldn't have attempted the crime that put them in jail in the first place.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
And that's "your", not "you're". If they brought back literacy testing as a precondition to voting, we wouldn't be having these problems.
I don't have to accept any types of thinking other than my own. Ideas themselves are the only germane point of argument. Fact check: he just banned recovery from not just embryos, which is what you get just after the fertilized ovum divides and several weeks before a fetus, but waste embryos from such sources as redundancy for fertility treatments. I don't see that there are any morald to discuss: you either take what life you can from it and flush it, or you flush it. Which one is more pro-life, and why aren't they being consistent?Furthermore, most moral discussions are ignorant because the people involved are wailing and gnashing their teeth, usually to the exclusion of critically examining their own views, seeking out and examining evidence, and so on. If most Americans could be bothered to exercise any more discernment over their uninformed opinions besides "The guy in the black robe told me so", we wouldn't be having this battle.
Power makes old men drunk.
-jhp
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
This is pretty much it. I think it was one of his platform promises to prevent stem cells from being used. What's that? Stem cells may provide miracles of medical science? And the Baby boomers are getting older?
Ah well, politics is compromise.
What he is really saying. (Score:2, Insightful)
I personally like the ol G Dubya's stand. The big compainies only want the federal funding for research so they don't have to spend the money, yet they still get the patents.
If all these big companies think its sooooo important to have more than these 60 stem cells why don't they fork over the money for the research? Last I saw these companies weren't hurting for money, yet they had plenty of patents.
Clarifications (Score:2)
Umm... no. He was going to donate the money to Stanford, not fund a startup with it.
The big compainies only want the federal funding for research so they don't have to spend the money, yet they still get the patents.
Possibly (companies always want something for nothing), but consider it from Joe/Jill Citizen's point of view. If Federal money funds the research then the government / public sector gets guaranteed dibs (low-cost licenses) to any resulting technology. Whereas if the research is funded solely by private interests, guess who reaps the rewards.
If all these big companies think its sooooo important to have more than these 60 stem cells why don't they fork over the money for the research?
Oh don't worry - they will. And so will the UK and other more enlightened governments. It's just the US public sector / universities that are in danger of falling behind.
-Renard
Get a grip! (Score:3, Insightful)
In the end, we end up with perfectly legitimate means of aquiring stem cells being ignored, because both sides have gotten on their high horses and, instead of working with researchers and ethicists to find a way to achive the goals without destroying/killing embryos*.
This is what happens when a scientific and/or ethical issue (there doesn't seem to be too many scientific issues that aren't also wrapped up in ethical issues) enter the real of politics. All reasonableness and willingness to act for both the physical and ethical/moral well-being of others goes out the window. It becomes and issue of power and who will dominate who.
* And I don't buy the, "well, they were going to be gotten rid of anyway" argument. Just because someone else was going to kill your neighbor down the street if you didn't doesn't mean it's ok for you to go ahead and do it.
Re:Get a grip! (Score:3, Informative)
Not. It is quite clear from research to date that embyonic stem cells are the most useful type.
Re:Get a grip! (Score:2)
1. Adult stem cells generally have some sort of genetic damage.
2. Not all tissue types contain isolatable adult stem cells.
3. The quantities available are minute compared to embryonic stem cells.
4. Adult stem cells are much shorter lived.
5. Adult stem cells are not pluripotent. Only embryonic stem cells can make all tissue types.
It has nothing to do with publicity or air time. Adult stem cells just do not have the same potential, which is why you don't see anyone proposing or funding research in that area.
It's not going to be born anyway (Score:2)
Forced-birthers are too hung up on the quantity of potential life and demonstrate almost no concern about the quality of life for those who have developed nervous systems and can appreciate it. Their real concern is probably not life, but power. Religious extremists need to shut up and deal until such time as I can opt out of paying for oil wars in Saudi Arabia.
All in all, I think it's good that a leading technologist (who has done more for society than the sadistic oppressive whore [geocities.com] known as Mother Teresa) suggested that mysticism has no place in science.
-jhp
Re:Get a grip! (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, I'm glad you actually addressed this issue. George Bush somehow neglected to tell America what happens to the leftover IVF embryos not used for research, nor did he express his disgust at the number of "potential" human beings created simply to be tossed in the incinerator. It surprises me that we can so easily tolerate the "mass-murder" that is in-vitro while at the same time being so outraged over the small number of embryos that are used for research.
As far as your not buying the argument, well, what is there to say? Drawing analogies between living humans and a couple of cells in a test tube (cells that will never be allowed to come to term and aren't capable of suffering) is truly a futile intellectual exercise. The embryos are being created, they are being destroyed for IVF. All of this is tolerated even by the right-to-life crowd because it's part of the process of creating life. But embryo research could also have that potential. The potential to save lives that already exist, and are capable of suffering, should be more of a justification than the "artificial" creation of lives that nature wouldn't allow. I suppose it's also worth noting that embroys can be twinned and twinned... So if I destroy one embryo am I guilty of killing one person or all of the "potential" people that embryo might have produced?
Proponents of stem cell research instist that only embryonic stem cells will do, and don't want to be bothered with researching the viability of stems cells taken from adults or the placenta and/or umbilical cord of new-born babies
This is just a gross simplification. Many, many researchers are working in these areas. Believe me, as clever as they are, the media did not invent the notion of using the placenta or umbilical cord to gather stem cells. If you're reading about it, that means that somebody is out there doing the research. Even if non-embryo sources worked as well as embryo sources, halting all research in order to refocus on new ways to harvest stem cells could waste years. During that time, a lot of (real) people could die. Are those lives worth less than the "lives" of a few cells? And how much farther does this go? Should we worry about every reproductive cell our body loses, every sperm cell or egg?
The truth is, the American people are being taken for a ride by a few people with some very interesting ideas. Ask people on the street what they think about stem cell research and you'll get a lot of concern about the destruction of embryos. Ask the same people how they feel about IVF and they'll tell you that helping parents have babies is a good thing. Tell them that embryos get thrown away in the process too, it'll be the first time many of these people have heard about it. A lot of the remainder will justify it with the "creation of life" argument. Given the opportunity for some independent thought, most people won't equate the destruction of early embryos with murder. On the other hand, tell them that evil scientists are creating little babies for spare parts, and these people will freak-- provided the "right" people say it enough.
Re:Get a grip! (Score:2)
Excellent point, if you make the assumption that an embryo is a human life. And that's a hell of an assumption to make. It's a major flaw in the debate-- we've been talked into making this assumption without giving it five minutes worth of serious thought. And it doesn't take much more than that to see how quickly the notion falls apart.
An embryo certainly doesn't meet any of the common criteria for human life. It doesn't have a heart or a brain, it doesn't feel pain. I already mentioned the twinning problem. This wasn't some justification, it was simply a thought experiment. What if an embryo can be twinned into thirty-two different people, naturally or otherwise. If you destroy that embryo, are you killing thirty-two human lives? Are those thirty-two twins all individual human lives, and in that case, does that mean that a human life is more than a little package of DNA with potential?
What is this little thing, anyway? At one point it was one of a million sperm cells, most of which die "horrible" deaths, and one of a similar number of egg cells. Each of those cells had potential to create human life, if some extremely unlikely things had happened to them. Similarly, an embryo has the potential to become human life if a bunch of extremely unlikely things happen to it. When the egg and sperm met, why did they cease to be expendable at precisely this point? Similarly, after a few weeks an embryo ceases to be twinnable, and begins to differentiate and become more than a simple bearer of genetic information. Why do we pick discrete points and decide at one point it's nature and at another it's murder? Does that seem arbitrary? And I don't see much in the slippery-slope argument. Do you believe absolutism is the only thing standing between us and Nazi-style experimentation?
Potential is a weak argument. Any sex cell has potential, but we don't and can't protect every one. An embryo has almost unlimited potential, or none at all, and it cares just about as much as my fingernail. Suffering is no argument at all-- there is none. So how can you liken an embryo to a living human being when they have so many fundamental differences? How can you jump directly to a discussion of life/death ethics when you haven't even convincingly demonstrated that a human life is at stake?
Perhaps we should rephrase your statement as follows: "The creation or prolonging of one human life does not justify preventing the creation of another." Does that sound so godawful or unethical to you? We have to figure out which question to ask before we start making judgments.
Re:Get a grip! (Score:2, Interesting)
Researchers are not ignoring adult stem cell research; I'm afraid that your perception is misinformed, in this instance.
Researchers have repeatedly stated that while adult stem cell research shows promise, at this time it is no substitute for embryonic stem cell research. In fact, the progress made in adult stem cell research has relied upon research already done on embryonic stem cells.
Furthermore, researchers are on record as saying that we simply don't know yet if adult stem cells have the same abilities as embryonic stem cells.
Yale researcher Diane Krause testified before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee in July:
"Work on embryonic stem cells is invaluable and work on adult derived stem cells is just beginning... To close off one avenue because of premature assumptions about the other is to play the odds with people's lives."
Adult stem cells may be, in your opinion, a "perfectly legitimate means of acquiring stem cells," but it remains to be seen whether they can effectively replace embryonic stem cell research. One thing is clear, however; researchers acknowledge the research that has been done on adult cells, and have cautioned that research must go forward on both types of cells.
"A conservative few..." (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess those "a few" get around..
Pan
Re:"A conservative few..." (Score:2, Troll)
Re:worrying non voters (Score:2)
Re:"A conservative few..." (Score:2)
Liberals make up like 20%...
The rest of us are Moderates.
Re:"A conservative few..." (Score:2)
I made my numbers up, and even poll numbers can be
But clearly 28% is far less than 55% as the original poster said.
Not so (Score:2)
Don't buy it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh puhleez. There have been virtually NO federal funds spent on embryonic SCR, and that doesn't seem to have much hindered researchers so far. The TRUTH here is that these researchers saw easy, string-free government money, and now they're just pissed because it's been limited on them. Let's make the situation clear: scientists who DO NOT have the funds to continue their research have been given open funding by the government to work with the sixty specified lines as they see fit. Scientists who DO have funds can work on any cell lines they want, and do virtually anything with them. These people were thumbing it, we've offered them a free Cadillac, and now they're complaining that it's not a Mercedes...sheesh!
Could funds-free researchers do more with unlimited lines and no control? Sure they could, but when you're on the equivalent of scientific welfare you should be happy to get what you get. It is NOT the duty of the taxpayer to provide unregulated or unlimited funds to every scientist who think he can save the world...if only we'd give him a little money. Those sixty lines are as viable as any other embryonic lines currently available, and should provide a solid foundation for whatever projects those researchers may be pursuing.
Personally, I wish that Bush had added one more restriction to the pile. People like Clark are complaining because his visions of getting even wealthier were set back a bit by GW's decision. Clark, like many financial backers of SCR, were hoping to parlay early investments and later government money into huge financial gains for whatever breakthroughs they attained. MANY people in the field want to use government money to make a big breakthrough, so that they can then patent, control, and royalty-fee it to death. They want to use YOUR money to make THEM rich. Screw that. IMO, any government funding should come with the stipulation that discoveries MUST be passed into the public domain and remain royalty and patent-free. I have no interest in having MY tax dollars spent on projects designed to make people like Jim Clark richer.
Re:Don't buy it. (Score:2)
Never mind, of course, that the only way THAT can happen is if these evil capitalist pig-dogs actually succeed in HELPING sick people.
I guess your whole life is just one big zero-sum game, huh?
Cut Off Nose to Spite Face (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, Clark could distribute some of his billions to those groups to make up for money the government won't be giving them. But instead he's going to have a hissy fit and withhold that cash just to draw attention to himself (if he had given, we wouldn't have seen the story here). He's cutting off his nose to spite his face; shooting himself in the left foot because he's mad someone shot him in the right. It's totally counterproductive for him to do this.
And it could be worse for him - imagine a scenario where Jim Clark was taxed at 90% and had no free money of his own, and then the government decided who and what got the money taken from him. Jim Clark should thank God and George W. Bush (I'm not putting them on the same level) that he lives in a nation where he can choose who and what gets his money instead of having it chosen for him. Jim can send his Bush tax refund check and a whole lot more over to BioWhoever and let them use it for cell research instead of just bitching about Bush not sending the money straight to them. Bottom line: Jim, put your money where your mouth is or stop whining.
Re:Cut Off Nose to Spite Face (Score:2)
When I don't think of myself as a libertarian (small 'l'), I think of myself as a conservative. I typically think of Bush as a true opposite to a conservative. A rapacious lunatic. But he is generally for less government control. All this manages to prove is that any idea can be ruined if the wrong person is in charge of promoting it.
OTOH, a president doesn't (probably doesn't) have the ability to just implement any choice that he desires. So it may not all be his fault. Quite. But the order in which he is choosing to remove government control speaks to me more of an oligarch than of a libertarian. And a conservative would never dream of opening the national parks to more extensive mining/oil drilling. The root of the word is *conserve*. I believe it was coined to describe Teddy Rooseveldt during the creation of the national park system. If not, it was certainly popularized at that time and for that purpose.
Re:Cut Off Nose to Spite Face (Score:2)
Funny that you should bring God into this, since one of the items you don't have the option of withholding money from is faith based charities. If Bush really thinks we can rely on the private sector, why is he looking for more ways to spend money? It's time to admit that both parties are interested in taxing us highly (my $300 rebate pales in comparison to what I'm paying), and they just have different ways of throwing it away.
At least Clark has realized who controls the huge amounts of money, and is campaigning to change its flow. Private donations are small potatoes compared to what the government tosses around.
Re:Cut Off Nose to Spite Face (Score:2)
Self-fulfilling prophecies (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, well, that's sure of hell true when the private donors desert researchers in their very hour of need, breaking promises in the process. It seems likely to me that this has less to do with principle than with Mr. Clark feeling a little less rich than he used to.
Pinched for money (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to say that supporting scientists who persue research within the limits set by Mr. Bush is already a considerable step.
This is just stupid... (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, though, this piece seems absurd to me. Whatever your views about stem cell research (personally, I think Bush came up with a fair compromise, and I'm no fan of Bush), clearly the ethical implications of biological research are crucial and are going to become even more so. Does Clark really think that _not_ having guidelines is the way to a bright future?
By the way I agree that characterizing the voters who don't think precisely as Clark does as "a conservative few" is a contemptible bit of class bias. Those people may not rub elbows with Clark, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Is the U.S. creating a Research Ghetto? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now we are also having restrictions on research on stem cells and nonreproductive cloning. As is well known, there has already been one prominent scientist in this field who has left the U.S. to do his research in England, where the government isn't nearly so hostile towards this kind of research. If I remember correctly, his work was ENTIRELY privately funded. But then it turned out that in one of the buildings he did some work in, the lighting was paid for -- at least in part -- by federal funds. And so because of that, his entire laboratory counted as government-funded, making is research illegal. The only option would have been to build an entirely new building, using nothing but private funds, to do the research in.
Unfortunately, compared to government funding, Jim Clarks $150 million would only be a drop in the bucket. Scientific research often depends on government support as its lifeblood. Especially expensive research.
The United States has for so long been a great example to the rest of the world of how much progress can thrive in a friendly environment with government support and academic freedom. (And, incidentally, freedom of speech.) But now it seems that we are determined to relinquish our crown as the world's leader in new advances in science and technology.
Someday -- far too soon, I fear -- the brain-drain will no longer be from other countries losing their best and brightest to the United States, but rather the other way around.
Message to the Masses About the US Government (Score:2, Insightful)
People may not want to admit it, but the Constitution of the United States of America prohibits federal stem-cell research funding. I'm not saying that it prohibits the research altogether, but it does prohibit federal funding. If you don't believe me, just take a look at Article 1: Section 8 [cornell.edu] of the Constitution, which details the powers granted to Congress.
You won't see an "indiscriminate spending clause" or a "total jurisdiction clause" in there, because the federal government was never, ever granted those types of powers. The federal government is limited to some specific duties with very little wiggle room beyond that. The founders created a limited government purposefully, one that would serve to protect the nation militarily; one that would serve to preserve personal liberty. The founders did this because they hated the cesspool of European politics, and they knew the tendency for government to constantly expand and impose its will on its citizenry.
Federal funding for stem cell research is simply unconstitutional; a majority of the taxes imposed and duties executed by the federal government today are also unconstitutional. The legality of stem cell research must be left up to individual states, and the funding for that research must be left up to the private sector.
The checks on the federal government also arose from the realization that government can never match the private sector's performance. The simple economic principles of supply and demand and competition are at play here. When the government sets forth to complete an objective, it obviously has no competition and therefore no reason to work well. The government doesn't have to worry all that much about profits or losses - if it needs more money, it decides to tax the citizenry more. And the government can choose to embark on the wrong quest because it isn't constrained by supply and demand. The government is simply terrible at handling things that belong properly to the private sector.
The private sector, in contrast, will constantly improve products and services - making them better and cheaper - because if one company doesn't strike, its competition will surely do so. Capitalism is the only way to go, and the subversion of capitalism, like the subversion of the Constitution, will send us down a dark path.
A good recent example of the power of the private sector is the human genome project. The federal government provided funding to one group of scientists to do the work, while another group of scientists utilized the private sector. The government funded researchers had modest goals for completion of the product, when compared to the privately funded researchers. Long story short, the privately funded scientists finished much farther ahead of the government's scientists, simply because they had the incentive to succeed. The government's money was useless, because the private sector yielded completely superior results; the government didn't care about the money spent because they were only spending the people's money.
And if you still can't grasp my point about government entering into the private sphere, please think for yourself for a moment about the government programs you like or think are productive. Can you think of any? Tell me if you like any of these public sector programs:
The ever increasing cost of health care, courteous of government over regulation; subsidized government slums; the continued decline of American public education, despite the fact that the government spends a great deal more on it than it did 20 years ago; airline delays resulting from stone age technology employed by FAA air traffic control systems; being taxed half of your income; the sham of social security; privacy violations (carnivore, etc.); the IRS. . . Which of these features do you like?
If you like any of that, you must also want the government to encroach on the rest of the private sector. Would you like government fast food and government clothing? Would you like a government controlled Internet or government controlled computer corporations? Government control of the media? Should the government take over all property rights? I mean, since most of you believe that the government should have a role in funding everything, it's only logical that the government should have control over even more than it has now - it should, according to most of you, control everything. What a commie-fascist paradise that would be, huh? The really problematic thing is, though, this nation's concept of government would only have to mutate some additional steps before American totalitarianism would be realized.
Look, I'm not some kind of militia nut; I'm not preaching open rebellion against the sovereign. If what I've written has caused even one person to rethink his or her politics, then I would be a happy libertarian Republican. It is a real struggle to teach the truth, but it must be done. I will never back down when some challanges my principles, but no one ever said standing up for what's right is easy.
If you appreciate any of the points I've made, I encourage you to read your Constitution and live by it - don't just pay it lip service. Vote for those candidates who are truly committed to ending unconstitutional practices of government; vocally support those personalities who share a like opinion. We must make a choice, on this day, to either be committed to liberty and the true American way, or else choose automatically to submit to the inexorable march of this nation toward totalitarian rule.
Re:Message to the Masses About the US Government (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think the world is as black and white as you sketch here. For example, those terrible airline delays aren't only caused by aging FAA equipment, they're caused by the deregulated industry's capitalistic incentive to minimize costs by having fewer and larger hubs and maintaining fleets of the barest minimum possible size.
Being taxed half your income sucks and does seem unconstitutional, but it's better than the 90% brackets that used to exist (most ironically even through the 50's, when the nation was in a frenzy to rid itself of those damn communists), and still much lower than most other nations.
I don't see why you think government regulation is responsible for the high cost of health care. Don't you think the insurance industry has a whole lot more say in this? Ask a doctor.
The free market is difficult to apply to health care - you can't really comparison shop. Are you going to have the same operation done by three different surgeons to see who has the best price/performance ratio? Should you have no more qualifications on which to judge your doctors than the content of their advertisements? The unregulated free market solution to health care led to such great products as snake oil and heroin powder.
In principle (yeah, I know), the goverment funds research for things that will serve the public good. If all of this research were only done for a profit motive, then it would benefit only the highest bidder.
The driving force of capitalism is greed. You want your stuff. I don't know who I'm quoting here, but someone said "your property is only yours through the courtesy of those who don't take it from you." Who's protecting your property rights? The police - the government. Care to privatize the police force? That's great if you're the one with the most money to hire soldiers, and it will quickly lead to feudalism, the ultimate in freedom.
Part of government's function is to deal with the fact that we're living in a society and have to have a better way of getting along than just the law of the jungle. Centralized government clearly isn't the answer, but neither is a loose geographic agglomeration of 300,000,000 independent countries.
I've been ranting so long I forgot what I was saying. Well anyway, um, I disagree.
Re:Message to the Masses About the US Government (Score:2)
It seems most people missed the point. The federal government simply does not have the right to fund anything. I don't care what your pet projects are, they simply do not have the authority.
Part of government's function is to deal with the fact that we're living in a society and have to have a better way of getting along than just the law of the jungle. Centralized government clearly isn't the answer, but neither is a loose geographic agglomeration of 300,000,000 independent countries.
No, that is what the states are there for. Please read the tenth amendment to the Constitution. Then read it again.
actually, you kind of supported the parent post (Score:2)
Actually, the libertarian position is that this is precisely one of the very few appropriate roles for government: Protecting its citizens from the exercise of force. In other words, preserving the ability of individuals, who are presumed to have free will, to act in accordance with their own wishes -- so long as those actions do not impede the rights of others to do the same.
You make some good counterarguments regarding the FAA and taxation (though I might still argue that having even half of the fruits of my labors confiscated against my will and squandered on programs I don't necessarily support is an obscenity... nah, I'm not in the mood right now). I do want to dispute the way you conveniently shift the blame for health care costs onto insurance companies, though. The financing of health care is admittedly a mind-numbingly complex issue (trust me, I got a tiny but frightening glimpse of this writing billing software for doctors' offices in a past life)... but insurance companies are hardly the biggest culprit in the escalation of costs. (They may well be a culprit as far as quality of care goes, but that's largely a different issue.) Yikes, as I start to prepare my mental arguments I'm realizing I could spend all night on this, but a quick summary: Consider the costs of developing new treatments and drugs; the fact that employer-paid insurance protects most people from price signals and encourages overconsumption; the fact that government payments for procedures under e.g. Medicare typically come nowhere near covering the actual costs of those procedures, so that privately insured individuals end up paying more than they really should; the cost of litigation and insurance against litigation; and the fact that modern, Western medicine is simply a highly complex, labor-intensive, and technology-intensive business, one that people place great emotional reliance on. Oh, and don't forget those omnipresent symbiotic gremlins of supply (somewhat limited) and demand (effectively infinite -- can you ever be too healthy?). I'm sure there are the usual doses of fraud, poor business practices, and so on to top all this off. Anyway, this is getting way off on a tangent, so I'm gonna hit Submit now and be done with it...
Re:Message to the Masses About the US Government (Score:2, Funny)
You need to re-read the Constitution I'm afraid.
Regarding federal funding, this falls under the "general welfare" statement in Article I. I believe the Supreme Court has said something on this matter. You know, the Court that interprets the Consititution?
Concerning some of the offtopic points:
Amendment 16 allows for an income tax. Was ratified by the US States I believe.
Regarding state rights. They don't have any in reality. There was a little war concerning that idea. I think it was called the Civil War.
Oh, by the way, just a bit of sarcasm in these remarks!
Biology Revolution? (Score:2, Insightful)
The American Government knows that if biological research is allowed to grow widly without controls, the results will be disasterous. This is the same reason that human cloning is being banned outright. It would open doors to the use of human life without accountability or assurance of ethical conduct.
If fetal stem cell research went unregulated, then fetuses would become a commodity to be bought or sold. Imagine waking up tomorrow in a world where a woman can get pregnant, have an abortion, and sell her unborn child on the black market for.. lets say $100,000. Then she could go have another night at the bar scene, and a few months later she'd get another $100,000. Lather, rinse, repeat. If she does this a total of 10 times, then she's just made a million dollars, and 10 children are dead.
Then suppose she's not independent, suppose she's a prostitute. A pimp with a dozen girls could make $1,200,000 per year this way.
I know this sounds wild, and will probably never happen, but if we don't impose restrictions and safeguards on biological research then something similar - or worse - could happen.
Re:Biology Revolution? (Score:2)
Imagine waking up tomorrow in a world where a woman can get pregnant, have an abortion, and sell her unborn child on the black market for.. lets say $100,000
I'd be curious to know who would pay $100,000 for an aborted fetus. Perhaps you're assuming some kind of artificial womb technology that could sustain the aborted fetus to term? But if that's the case, then I don't see what's so morally reprehensible about the abortion/uteral transfer, since the fetus wasn't destroyed.
Federal funding restrictions (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with the decision to restrict federal funding of stem cell research is that the restriction also applies to indirect costs. Indirect costs expenses are charged by the universities to pay for building upkeep, electricity, janitorial services, and anything else that is necessary to maintain the research space for the researcher. At Stanford University, for example, for every dollar that a university researcher spends from his/her federal grant, the university charges an additional 60 cents to the grant. The number varies from place to place, but it is usually a surcharge of this magnitude. It's sort of like rent.
In order for new stem cell research to be done in a Stanford University building, no federal funding can be used, direct or indirect. So if a non-stem cell researcher down the hall receives a federal grant, then the stem cell researcher in the same building may not use any money, government or private, to perform research in that building. The restricted research must be done in a dedicated building for which all indirect costs are paid for through private funding. The building costs therefore may no longer be shared among researchers in several fields, but must be paid for by only researchers in the restricted field. A new research lab building costs of order $400 million to build. This amount of money plus the upkeep costs is too much for any single researcher or small group of researchers to raise through private grants. So the main effect of President Bush's executive order is to move new stem cell research out of university research labs altogether, in most cases.
Okay, so the research is moved to private labs run by private companies, so what? The main effect here is that private companies will be reluctant to share new discoveries with the scientific community, unless the research is sufficently advanced to get a patent. Otherwise, there's no way businesses are going to recover their investment. Even worse, new processes can be kept proprietary if it suits the business strategy. Also, there is the phenomenon of the 'strategic patent,' where company A discovers that company B is working on a certain process, and to block them, company A will patent a necessary step in the process to make it cost-ineffective for company B to continue the research. (Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that company A plans on using company B's process.) New discoveries will still be made but the discoveries will come at a slower rate because of the lack of knowledge-sharing and of corporate hijinks.
So the net effect is that people who need new treatments will have to wait longer for them. When they do come, most likely the patents will be awarded to academic researchers in the U.K. or elsewhere and those countries will see the benefits of the new economies formed by this technology.
I wonder if the people who oppose this research now are going to refuse the new treatments developed thereof when it is their kids who are dying. I predict that they will find themselves able to temporarily suspend their moral judgements.
Universities more affected than drug companies (Score:2, Insightful)
American universities are at a big disadvantage here, since:
- they are more reliant on federal funds
than drug companies
- they tend to have their research labs on campus
So the recent decision will make the possible progress using stem cells happen abroad and privately, at least moreso than other biomedical researchRe:I wish I were a billionaire... (Score:3, Redundant)
Why? Why just not use the 100 million for stem cell research? I think 90% of the people don't get the fact that they are only limited to 60 stem cells for Goverment Funding. You can use as many stem cells as you would like if you get funding from somewhere else.
Re:Why not private funding (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The USA is doomed anyways (Score:3, Funny)
Everything you've said about Europe being better basically has to do with the difference in the size of the US vs. Europe---both in people and in area. For example:
1) It's alot easier to be better in telecommunications when your country is the size of one of our states. We're still trying to get cell towers to every part of the US, because its so big.
2) Public transit only works if you have a large number of people in a small area (see New York). In the US, most people prefer to spread out and live in the suburbs---doing things like owning their own house.
3) Television. To upgrade us to HDTV you have to upgrade the facilities of each and every local network in every big and small town. That's not a small task
Frankly, I can't believe how quickly intelligent people want to go down this stem cell road. Come on, did you read Brave New World and think it was a *good* idea? Did you see Gattaca and say "I want a society like that!". Don't you want to take a small step back and look at the ethical ramifications of using stem cells, with their own distinct DNA, as fodder for whatever experiments we want to conduct? Don't you realize this is not an end, but a beginning of some huge ethical situations?
And not to mention that embryo stem cells have a big disadvantage over adult ones---namely the fact that they have different DNA and will be as prone to rejection as any other transplant. Adult stem cells, of course, don't have this problem.
Re:The USA is doomed anyways (Score:2)
That's because public infrastructure is much more socialized in Europe. But, since socialized spending does not produce innovation because only large private corporations can produce innovation, you must therefore be mistaken about the public transit being better over there.
Re:The USA is doomed anyways (Score:2, Insightful)
Just in case you are not being sarcastic (and there are quite a few people who believe this sort of thing), how do you figure? You don't think innovation happens at places like NIST, CERN, LANL, NASA, etc. as well as in research universities? Check out all the Nobel Laureates here:
http://www.nobel.se
I think you'll notice most of them are from universities and gov't labs. And I just got back from a trip from Germany/Switzerland/Austria. I can positively tell you the public transit in the US by and large blows donkey balls compared to that of any of those 3 countries.
Re:The USA is doomed anyways (Score:2)
Honestly, can you name any large corporations that have produced any innovation at all? I can only name a small handful: IBM (there seems to be a slashdot article about a new innovation from them every week), Bell Labs (which is now gone), perhaps Qualcomm (for CDMA). Oh yeah, the pharmaceutical companies too. Producing innovation requires supporting basic research, something that most companies just don't do anymore because it doesn't produce short-term profits. Most companies only copy other people's innovations, then implement them better or market them better.
Re:The USA is doomed anyways (Score:2)
The T [mbta.com] is way cleaner and more reliable than the Tube [thetube.com]. Still, that's not difficult.
Re:The USA is doomed anyways (Score:4, Informative)
As for the US's stone-age cellphone and television technologies, that is another example of how the distaste for government-imposed solutions has its downside - kind of like adoption of the metric system, in fact.
Re:The USA is doomed anyways (Score:2)
Couple of points:
- a number of folk seem to live under the perception that the UK is Europe. News for ya: it ain't. And most of Europe looks at 'em askance: it's an oddball little island country that's out of step with a lot of what's happening in the rest of Europe.
- Not PAL. HDTV.
- American cars are shite compared to the sweet stuff being done by... well, everyone else. Mercedes, Renault, Opel, Peugot, etc. And, please, just because some of those are major-pricey items in the USA, doesn't mean there are more affordable vehicles from those manufacturers: you just can get 'em in the US.
- If you haven't experienced the European advanced cellphone technology/culture, you really can't contribute intelligently to any discussion on it. What they're doing -- and the impact it has on how people interact -- is beyond your imagination.
- The big country, low population argument doesn't wash as an excuse. Canada is bigger, with one-tenth the population, and is far ahead of the USA on several fronts; Australia even more so; etc.
Ever notice that the pace of change is accelerating? Only the nimble companies -- and nimble nations -- are going to survive.
The USA is a dinosaur country these days. There are several factors at play here, and these have been identified by the people in this thread.
It's time to rethink corporate and cultural America, before it's too late.
Europe? (Score:2)
- Otto von Bismarck
I just got back from Europe
Europe is much more diverse than the US, and the regional variations of the culture are huge Compare London (western), Madrid (southern), Stockholm(northern), Vienna(central) and Bucharest(east) to get a view of this. The average GNP per person varies with about one order of magnitude between the rich and poor countries.
What part of Europe did you visit? That has very much to do with the quality of public tranport, and the telco stuff, etc. Scandinavia is extremely advanced in use of cellphones (Ericsson, Nokia) and other telco stuff. Central/Southern Europe is more conservative, but in US standard it would probably be not backward. However,you have probably not visited any former Soviet Satellites. In the Rumanian countryside horse-carts are just as common as cars. The public transport is quite good in Eastern Europe, as not that many people can afford any cars. I have seen a car where the windshield was replaced with wood, as the owner could not afford a new one. It was not considered peculiar. Cellphones are quite common in some ex-socialist countries, as the ordinary phone network is underdeveloped. The commie government could not listen to so many phones, so you could have a waiting-time of a decade before you got the phone.
In my experience, Scandinavia has excellent telco network, that is used in ways I think will take decades to implement in US. Checks are not used in Scandinavia. You have automates at malls that allow you to pay your rent and bills (if you don't use the net for paying them) and take out cash, if you are not using a credit card. In Finland, the police uses a cellphone to check your income from the tax register when you get a speeding ticket, as the fine depends on your income. Many younger Scandinavians do not have ordinary phones at all, and almost everyone (more than 90% of the population) has a cellphone.
The public transport varies a lot throughout. My exprience shows that it varies a lot. In Germany or Scandinavia the public transport is excellent. England is also pretty good, although I have not been there in a few years, and people say the railway systems is miserable these days. In Spain, Greece and Southern France, the public transport sucks. The Baltic states and Poland have a pretty good public transport, when you remember that their GNP per person is about 10% of that in US.
Could be a pretty damn fast trip to third-world status.
To become underdeveloped, USA would have to get into a long and steady decline. I think USA might stagnate into current situation, but more likely is a slower development when compared to European countries. Even so, it would take several decades before ex-socialist countries will have standards of living comparable to present USA.
US beer isn't as bad as generally believed (Score:2)
Re:The USA is doomed anyways (Score:2)
Re:The USA is doomed anyways (Score:2)
Re:The moderation here is nuts. (Score:2)
Moderation Totals: Flamebait=4, Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Overrated=1, Total=8.
Obviously, we're not all on the same page!
Re:The USA is doomed anyways (Score:2)
I live in British Columbia. We laugh at the piddling things you call "mountains," and we have snow and ice that would drive you to tears.
My small car ('91 Nissan NX 1600) does just fine. An SUV is entirely unnecessary. And judging by the accident statistics, is more dangerous in the winter than any front-wheel drive small car.
Re:The USA is doomed anyways (not quite yet) (Score:2)
Re:The USA is doomed anyways (not quite yet) (Score:2)
(OTOH, ain't it true? Stomping stem cell research is going to make the USA a laggard on this most-promising line of research...)
Re:Drawing the line... (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, if we had limited but unconditional funding, we might have new skin for burn victims, or new kidney cells for diabetes patients, or real treatment for spinal cord injuries so that patients could walk again. While a cure for Alzheimer's might not help us "live forever", everyone agrees that it would be a nice thing to have during the last 10-15 years of life. You are disingenuously reducing the issue at stake to simply making people live longer, which is not the promise of stem cell research at all and would be a dubious benifit at most.
It's wrong to take another human life to save another. I know many Slashdot readers don't consider embryos to be alive (and their all going to be destroyed anyways), but a lot of people do. A lot of people aren't willing to overlook the means because of the ends.
Then where is your outrage against the fertility clinics themselves, who are the source of all these embryos? There isn't a peep from you morons on this subject. Because if the purpose is to make a baby, you are willing to overlook the means because of the ends. You concentrate all your energies on who gets them after they're not needed anymore- stem cell researchers, or the garbage can? Now they'll all be thrown out, thanks to you. Meanwhile fertility clinics continue their operations without any interference or harassment, since you take it for granted that abortion clinics are the source of all these embryos anyway- which they are not.
What if someone decided that it was OK to harvest organs from orphans less then a year old?
We'd say they were nuts. (What are you singling out orphans for, anyway?) But if it was a kidney, and if it were, say, to save a twin's life, then maybe some of us would agree that the transplantation made sense. We'd have to weigh the situation and make a reasonable decision based on it, something which you seem to assume is impossible.
I mean, is a three month old baby alive? It can't talk, it can't sue anyone, it can't even feed it self. If no one put food in front of it, it would die.
This is a really strange definition of being "alive". I think we can all agree that if a live 3 year old baby fails your criteria for being alive, the baby is still alive- your definition is just stupid and needs more work.
So why can't we SAVE the lives of `wanted' children with `unwanted' children? Because it's wrong, it's murder. Some may accuse me of forcing my right-wing extremist conservative religious views on other people, but you have to draw the line somewhere.
So you have drawn your line in the craziest place imaginable, because of your hocus pocus religious beliefs, and now you demand that the world conform to your wishes and adopt your line as its own. Who gave you the impression that the line was yours and yours alone to draw anyway? The truth is that no line you draw will ever be in the correct place in all cases. You leave yourself no room to account for exceptions, special cases, and emergencies. Quit drawing silly lines for us.
I guess well all just have to spend our tax money on boring things like cancer research. Ugh. How many lives will THAT save?
Don't be so smug. Cancer and embryology are closely related fields. Bush has stuck a knife into the heart of U.S. cancer research with this ignorant and superstitious decision.
People always make fun of Stalin for declaring computer science to be a "false science" and squashing all research in it in his own country. Bush apparently thinks this is a mistake worth repeating.
Re:Mr. Clark's free to support research (Score:2)
A cell is a cell. There is no magic in a newly fertilized egg that cannot be reproduced with technology (altho it would be expensive and impractical). Or are the newly fertilized more worthy of life because they happen to be in the right environment with the right cellular membrane?
Go ahead, choose fertilization as the beginning of life for humans. But if a single cell is a human life, then man are you gonna have a problem with guilt.
thank you! (Score:2)
Incidentally, the data I've seen indicates that between 30 and 50 percent of ALL pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions, often before the woman even knows she's pregnant. If life really begins at conception, shouldn't we be worried about rescuing those billions and billions of unborn babies?