Apparently something from Reeve himself...

I'm not big on like-posting, but I came across this, and found it
interesting:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=40887

While it sounds legit and somewhat objective, I don't offer it as
accurate, true, or anything else - IMO, it should be taken, as anything
on the 'net, in at least a contextual view and even taken with a grain
of salt.

R

Actually, embryonic stem cell research shows very little positive promise.
Adult stem cell research, OTOH, could perhaps produce some positive results.
KE

Kerry Evans wrote:
Actually, embryonic stem cell research shows very little positive promise.
Adult stem cell research, OTOH, could perhaps produce some positive results.
KE

You obviously don't have a clue about the current scientific opinion.
The jury is still very much OUT regarding the usefulness of adult stem
cells vs. embryonic stem cells, and it doesn't look especially promising
for adult stem cells. Why don't you educate yourself instead of merely
parroting the party line?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:41:06 -0600, "Kerry Evans"
wrote:

Actually, embryonic stem cell research shows very little positive promise.
Adult stem cell research, OTOH, could perhaps produce some positive results.
KE


OK, but I'm not sure that's correct, and certainly not what I was trying
to convey. From what I know about it (which, admittedly, is pretty
limited), both types show promise for certain and differing things, but
the embryonic cells are, at least in theory, more versatile because they
are what would, in nature, develop into everything. Frankly, I think
the whole thing has become more political than scientific, including for
the scientists themselves, and none of the cells show short-term promise
as cure-alls, ala Edwards' campaigning.

But again, most importantly IMO, the only real question is should the
Fed fund embryonic cell research or not. Also IMO, given the complete
overview and current knowledge to this point, the Fed should stay
_completely_ out of it as far as funding or beyond anything other than a
limited control as to methodology.

TC,
R

wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:41:06 -0600, "Kerry Evans"
wrote:


Actually, embryonic stem cell research shows very little positive promise.
Adult stem cell research, OTOH, could perhaps produce some positive results.
KE



OK, but I'm not sure that's correct, and certainly not what I was trying
to convey. From what I know about it (which, admittedly, is pretty
limited),

.... and which, of course, doesn't stop you from stating an uninformed
opinion.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:07:14 -0600, rw
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:41:06 -0600, "Kerry Evans"
wrote:


Actually, embryonic stem cell research shows very little positive promise.
Adult stem cell research, OTOH, could perhaps produce some positive results.
KE



OK, but I'm not sure that's correct, and certainly not what I was trying
to convey. From what I know about it (which, admittedly, is pretty
limited),

... and which, of course, doesn't stop you from stating an uninformed
opinion.

Er, nope, wrong yet again...whatsamatter - have you been snorting
potatoes again or something - a _limited_ amount of knowledge is not
the same as "uninformed," and moreover, when you get down to it, by
definition, your knowledge is limited, as well and as such, your opinion
of my opinion would be based on your own limited knowledge...

HTH,
R
....and I bet I'll be able to smell the smoke from here...

wrote:

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:07:14 -0600, rw
wrote:


wrote:

OK, but I'm not sure that's correct, and certainly not what I was trying
to convey. From what I know about it (which, admittedly, is pretty
limited),

... and which, of course, doesn't stop you from stating an uninformed
opinion.


Er, nope, wrong yet again...whatsamatter - have you been snorting
potatoes again or something - a _limited_ amount of knowledge is not
the same as "uninformed," and moreover, when you get down to it, by
definition, your knowledge is limited, as well and as such, your opinion
of my opinion would be based on your own limited knowledge...

In this case, my knowledge is quite a bit less limited than yours.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:07:14 -0600, rw
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:41:06 -0600, "Kerry Evans"
wrote:


Actually, embryonic stem cell research shows very little positive promise.
Adult stem cell research, OTOH, could perhaps produce some positive results.
KE



OK, but I'm not sure that's correct, and certainly not what I was trying
to convey. From what I know about it (which, admittedly, is pretty
limited),

... and which, of course, doesn't stop you from stating an uninformed
opinion.

Er, nope, wrong yet again...whatsamatter - have you been snorting
potatoes again or something - a _limited_ amount of knowledge is not
the same as "uninformed," and moreover, when you get down to it, by
definition, your knowledge is limited, as well and as such, your opinion
of my opinion would be based on your own limited knowledge...

HTH,
R
....and I bet I'll be able to smell the smoke from here...

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:41:06 -0600, "Kerry Evans"
wrote:

Actually, embryonic stem cell research shows very little positive
promise.
Adult stem cell research, OTOH, could perhaps produce some positive
results.
KE


SNIP SNIP show short-term promise
as cure-alls, ala Edwards' campaigning.

But again, most importantly IMO, the only real question is should the
Fed fund embryonic cell research or not. Also IMO, given the complete
overview and current knowledge to this point, the Fed should stay
_completely_ out of it as far as funding or beyond anything other than a
limited control as to methodology.

TC,

Yep, just leave it to the corp sector, because they are just soooooo
responsible.
Fact is that most medical and basic bio research has been done by the public
sector, and ripped off via joke licensing fees by the private sector. And
now the Bushies have been quietly hollowing out the NIH research structure.

Dave

"David Snedeker" wrote in
:

Yep, just leave it to the corp sector, because they are just soooooo
responsible.

No, you can leave it to the corp sector because there's ****loads of
money going to whoever gets it right first. That's primo motivation for
that sector.


Fact is that most medical and basic bio research has been done by the
public
sector, and ripped off via joke licensing fees by the private sector.
And

That's only when the private sector can't get around paying anything at
all

now the Bushies have been quietly hollowing out the NIH research
structure.

NIH budgets have not been cut during Bush yet, but they haven't gone up
substantially, either. In fact, grant pay lines (the percentage of
submitted grants actually getting funded) are starting to go down
significantly.

There is a move on at NIH to promote what's known as "translational"
research, which means that impact on health considerations needs to be
demonstrated. In fact, the language for NIH review criteria was changed
earlier this week. This might dampen basic research, unless basic
researchers take a "find the application" mindset.

Now, so far as drug and gene therapy development, the public sector is
not the ivory tower it once was. Many investigators are incorporating,
forming various business relationships with drug companies and their
universities. While not many want to talk about it, the potential for
huge conflicts of interest are cropping up in academic circles, where
such concerns used to be least likely to arise. Issues can get complex.
For example, the government pays for the research that can make the
investigators and the university a fortune-- Where's the government's
cut? An investigator funded by a drug company for a class II study hits
a negative finding that will impact the financial state of the drug
company--the investigators bread and butter. What does the investigator
do?

Scott