I hate being in academia. Except for the summers off. And the respect. And the hot young chicks. Wait, did I say I hate academia? What was I thinking?

Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom deconstructs this article by The Stranger on why there are so few Republicans in academia and why this is a good thing. I'm sure Derrida would be rolling over in his grave if he learned that his little rhetorical trick which he called a methodology could be used to find the real meaning embedded in the structures of linguistic oppression by those on the Left as well as the Right. That is, unless death isn't just a social construct....

Goldstein:

In “Lessons Learned: Red States May Be Outbreeding Blue States, but Blue Cities—Particularly Blue College Towns—Can Help Turn the Tide,” Bill Savage, a lecturer in the Department of English and a college adviser at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, argues that indoctrination is not really indoctrination when it’s people like him doing the indoctrinating; instead, it’s remedying the horrific materialist upbringing foisted upon the rich womb droppings of wealthy Rethuglicans, and in so doing, helping to save a nation! Let us read together:

On a seriuos note, there is a reason I blog anonymously. And Professor Chaos. And Steve the Llama Butcher. Because in academia it's ok to joke around about George Bush f*cking Jeff Gannon, but it's not ok to joke around about Osama bin Laden f*cking camels. You know, because the former is edgy criticism and the latter is just racist.

Posted by: Rusty at 05:41 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

I will be attending the American Political Science Association's meeting in Washington, D.C., next Thursday to Sunday. If you will be at the meeting, please leave a comment or e-mail me so we can get together.

The rest of you will not see me there. If you see me, you will not remember me. These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:23 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

A regular commenter on The Jawa Report, Oyster, observes in response to an ersatz post on Cindy Sheehan:

What I find very irritating about this too is how the press keeps calling his stay at the ranch a "vacation" (or a "monthlong" vacation to make it sound like he's just fishing and taking naps for a whole month). They're trying to equate it with how we take vacations. How we go to some destination and are free of work and responsibility for a period of time. He is simply working from the ranch rather than the White House.

Most people know about Ike's golfing "vacations" and JFK's trips to Hyannisport to play touch football, but not many know that the concept and details of the Cold War strategy of "containment" were worked out by the Truman Administration during a long "vacation" in Key West. Truman and his advisors spend 175 days there during the course of his Presidency. Eisenhower established the Department of Defense while "vacationing" there, and Kennedy visited during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The location has been so seminal to the history of that half-century-long conflict with Empirialist Marxism that it has come to be known as the Little White House. But that was a different era.

(Cross-posted by Demosophist to Demosophia)

Posted by: Demosophist at 12:17 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 2 kb.

I've decided to not only touch the third rail, but to just take a stroll down it for a while. I'm sure my evolutionary detractors will be back to call me an idiot and continue to offer no proof of their lofty ideas. All I can say to them is "have at it."

Fetal Stem Cells - The New McCarthyism?

That may sound like an extraordinarily odd comparison until you stop and think about it a bit. Just as McCarthyism, fetal stem cell research started with a laudable goal. These fetal stem cells, being as-yet unformed, should be able to be coerced into any tissue in the human body. After all, thatÂ’s exactly what they do when the fetus develops. And if this is true, then we should be able to create cures for nearly anything from them.

Unfortunately, that is where the good comparisons end. As McCarthyism became a cause celebré, so has fetal stem cell research. People have jumped on the fetal stem cell research bandwagon without a hint of what’s going on behind the scenes. They’ve been told that the fetal stem cell research will be a cure-all, and they refuse to believe anything else. And again, just like with McCarthyism, detractors of this research are being labeled as fools and heretics and ostracized. If you attempt to tell the truth about this research, then you are made out as an uncaring ogre who wants to see people continue to suffer with paralysis and Parkinson’s and all manner of other ailments.

But the truth of the matter is quite simple. To date, scientists have not come up with one single cure for anything from fetal stem cells. WhatÂ’s more, some of their attempts have had disastrous results. The list of solutions created by adult stem cells continues to grow, from healing damage caused by heart disease to treating cancer victims, people who are paralyzed, arthritis sufferers and many others. And yet, the research is treated as second place by fetal stem cell proponents who insist that only by harvesting fetal stem cells can we cure anything.

The final comparison between fetal stem cell proponents and McCarthyists lies in the conclusion to the battle. During his infamous career, Joe McCarthy was not afraid to lie, slander and simply make up rumors about his opponents and detractors. There is no telling how many lives and careers he ruined by these actions. WhatÂ’s more, thereÂ’s no telling what sort of possibly permanent damage he could have done to our great nation had he been allowed to continue. Fetal stem cell proponents face the same choices today. If they continue on the same course they have, throwing money away on useless research and dismissing working solutions, they stand to bring problems every bit as bad as McCarthy to this nation and the world. ItÂ’s time that these stem cell researchers got serious about adult stem cell research so that we can really begin to cure some diseases.

Posted by: Drew at 07:57 AM | Comments (40) | Add Comment
Post contains 510 words, total size 3 kb.

1 good points, and important facts often glossed over by the generally one-sided coverage of the issue in the media. on other point i'd like to raise - if we envision a world where somehow fetal stem cells *do* become the "cure-all" for everything, what do you think that'll create? i don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to realize that it'll create a world of 2 classes of people - the wealthy who are users of fetal stem cells, striving (as all humanity always has) for immortality, and a class of poor people who are "farms" used for harvesting more fetal stem cell matter. think about that carefully and you can see that future. so that leaves me with 2 thoughts: 1. fetal stem cells have not cured anything, and even if US federal money wasn't going to the research, tons of private money and european government money WAS, IS and will CONTINUE to 2. if, somehow, fetal stem cells do end up curing a few things, are they things that might not have been cured with adult or placental stem cell matter? 3. wouldn't the cure be worse than the disease - a culture of death where poor people literally harvest their young for the distracted, disenchanged, post-modernistic, relativistic and depraved wealthy?

Posted by: BaldyTheEagle at August 15, 2005 08:09 AM (sU7ox)

2 Good commentary. I wish the debate was honest because at the core of it there are real things we need to hash out. Unfortunately, the debate centers on "Bush killed Christorpher Reeve" sorts of cheap and deceitful debate. Adult stem cell therapies are in the here and now. I know one woman whose cancer treatment was greatly helped by adult stem cell therapy. The doctors were able to use a much stronger chemotherapy because of this.

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at August 15, 2005 09:04 AM (ATby/)

3 If they continue on the same course they have, throwing money away on useless research and dismissing working solutions, they stand to bring problems every bit as bad as McCarthy to this nation and the world. Useless research eh? I'll be happy to know what qualifies you to call an entire field of research "useless." I remember back in 1899 or so, the leader of the patent office of the United States made a speech that said, "We should close the patent office because everything of importance has already been invented." [Of course, it's safe to say American invention was, in fact, in its infancy.] Developing cures for diseases in a brand-spankin'-new field of research stymied by controversy takes time. Many labs are simply trying to figure out the processes of stem cell division and how the stem cells eventually because Cell X or Cell Y because the pathways are complicated and, alone, require research before such research can be used in any sort of curative fashion. Don't be shocked and bewildered when a new field of research fails to immediately cure something. The fact that you think that alone shows your ignorance on the subject.

Posted by: Feisty at August 15, 2005 09:14 AM (EHXJh)

4 Aaaaarrgh!!! Drew, i would offer you a pithing, but it is obvious that you have already had one. check back on your "joining the debate" thread--your questions about theory of evolution were answered by points drawn from high-school curriculae. please allow me to cut you off at the knees. 1. ESCR is qualitatively different from ASCR. Embryonic stem cells are plastic and can differentiate into any sort of somatic or nervous tissue, and are relatively immortal. They are not the same. 2. The reason that there are more quantitative results from ASCR is that research is legal for federal funding. Federal funding is neccessary to develop basic research for new technology. Now, i have to go to work. Do please come up with more frivolous uninformed arguments that i can refute later.

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 15, 2005 09:30 AM (wxUTp)

5 The fact still reamins that there have been no diseases cured with "fetal" stem cells, when in fact, most of the research has produced cancerous cells. I'm not saying that they shouldn't pursue this line, so don't get me wrong. But any benefits dervived from any stem cell research has been from "adult" stem cells. I think the big controversy is that there are those who don't want their "tax" dollars to go to research of the fetal variety. They are not all saying that it should be outlawed and therein lies the problem. Proponents of the reasearch are being told that it is illegal because of the religious right when it is not illegal at all. They are woefully misinformed. And McCarthy was a zealot, but he was right about a lot of people. So it's not like the threat wasn't there. His downfall came mostly from other aspects of his campaign - unreliability and evasiveness, not to mention questionable finances. I would be more inclined to compare the anti-communism of the McCarthy era to the current anti-Islamism of today. The media is behaving in exactly the same fashion now as they did then as well.

Posted by: Oyster at August 15, 2005 09:49 AM (fl6E1)

6 "Federal funding is neccessary to develop basic research for new technology." Not in the United States it isn't. It's sometimes nice when we do fund it, but it sure isn't neccessary.

Posted by: Defense Guy at August 15, 2005 09:50 AM (jPCiN)

7 I would just like to point out that in retrospect, McCarthey was 100% right on the money, and his only fault was the he cast too broad a net in his hunt for stinking commie bastards, and thus derailed his mission.

Posted by: Imrpobulus Maximus at August 15, 2005 10:12 AM (0yYS2)

8 Ah, yes, matoko, I expected no less than the "you are an idiot" argument from you. If you actually refuted an argument, it would be a first. "Embryonic stem cells are plastic and can differentiate into any sort of somatic or nervous tissue, and are relatively immortal." And despite that, NOTHING has come from the research, except, as stated above, recreating cancer. "Federal funding is neccessary to develop basic research for new technology." Are you seriously going to tell me that private sector enterprise has NEVER developed anything? Not one single new invention without government funding? Even if we narrow it to the field of medicine, that statement is completly and totally ludicrous. The fact of the matter is that fetal stem cell researchers are clambering for federal money because they can't get private backers. And they can't get private backers because they can't produce results. "Don't be shocked and bewildered when a new field of research fails to immediately cure something." Of course when someone invented matches, people didn't continue to rub sticks together to start fires. When a field of research doesn't produce results, and another field of research alongside that (that could take the place of it) does, it doesn't make much sense to continue with the original.

Posted by: Drew at August 15, 2005 10:13 AM (Ml8z/)

9 Are we sure matoko kusanagi isn't the perfesser's twin? Sheesh. How much more pomposity can we take? Okay Mr. know-it-all-motoko, adult stem cells are plastic too. Though they may be harvested from certain tissues they are present in for the purpose of regeneration of that particular tissue, they are still plastic and may be used to regenerate cells for other tissues. Adult stem cells will even relocate themselves to sites of injury or damage, although they don't know why or how. Drew has already addressed your statement #2. Read this for Stem Cell Basics

Posted by: Oyster at August 15, 2005 12:03 PM (fl6E1)

10 "Federal funding is neccessary to develop basic research for new technology." Only because the free market has chosen to allow/demand the federal government subsidize their reasearch and is unwilling to take risks, spending their own money on research that has a lot of promise but could very well be "worthless". The fact that other countries have governments willing to subsidize such research only serves to reinforce this role of government in the minds of advocates of this research.

Posted by: h0mi at August 15, 2005 01:36 PM (zpJBl)

11 When a field of research doesn't produce results, and another field of research alongside that (that could take the place of it) does, it doesn't make much sense to continue with the original. And bravo! if adult stem cells produce more useable cures than embryonic. Let's let--get this--scientists figure out when something isn't worth researching anymore. Millions of dollars have been spent researching a cure for Alzheimers. I think since we have yet to discover a cure for Alzheimer's, it must be incurable and we should give up researching it because we'd put forth the college try for many decades and have come up with nothing useable. Sure, we've gained insight into the disease processes involved, but big whoop. Let's just call it quits ok? Why waste money on all this research that doesn't go anywhere? We should fund nursing homes instead so all the people with Alzheimer's can go there. Same with embryonic stem cells. We've been working on that for what...a decade now? A decade's a long time to be working on something and not come up with anything. Call it quits, people. Throw in the towel. It's been a whole DECADE after all! I think that AIDS is incurable too. Billions and billions of dollars spent. I think we should give up. Who's with me!?

Posted by: Feisty at August 15, 2005 02:01 PM (EHXJh)

12 You're kidding, right?

Posted by: Oyster at August 15, 2005 02:40 PM (fl6E1)

13 We haven't found something else that will cure Alzheimers or AIDS. We have found something else that will do everything that you want fetal stem cells to do. So your point on that is a little irrelevant. Sure, let scientists decide. Or more importantly, let the people who give the scientests their money decide. Just don't continue taking my money and throwing it at things that I don't agree with and aren't getting anywhere.

Posted by: Drew at August 15, 2005 03:06 PM (4jQYX)

14 Biology really really is the science of the future. The idea that we know 1% of what we will on another 100 years is misguided. Everyine thougt Jules Verne's voyage to the moon was a pipe dream until july 20 1969. Rocketry was about 100 years old at that time. Cloning wil be the same. We should not give up just because we are ignorant. Do we have a funeral every time a fertilized egg that does not attach itself to the uterine lining is flushed during menstration. No we are not even aware of it but nature knew something was wrong. This machinery is complicated it takes decades to unravel. We are arrogant to think we know even a smidgen of how this all works and fits together. Preventing polio was once thought to be impossible.

Posted by: Howie at August 15, 2005 04:01 PM (D3+20)

15 Thanks Howie. Of course, I was applying Drew's criteria for discontining of research in an entire field, that being, of course, not discovering cures for disease within a decade or so, to other research as well to show how ludicrous that criteria is. If medical research were to cease after a decade of not producing results, most if not all modern treatments wouldn't have been discovered. Properly carried-out research takes years and years to turn into treatments that can be shown to work on humans. We have no pills to cure Alzheimers after billions of dollars of research. Therefore, the pharmaceutical industry shouldn't spend money on pills anymore. No different than, "The infantile field [double entendre--get it?] of embryonic stem cell research hasn't cured anyone of anything yet; therefore, scientists should stop with embryonic stem cell research." Drew, you're simply someone that opposes it on moral grounds, which is fine and dandy. Just don't try to cloud it in some sort of "this is useless science" nonsense. You're more than welcome to oppose something on moral grounds (even though that argument is flimsy at best), and I'd appreciate your honesty in simply saying you think embryonic stem cell research is immoral and not hopeless.

Posted by: Feisty at August 15, 2005 04:43 PM (cdWsN)

16 Why you're welcome Feisty. I've got to go see what you're up to. Bummer though most of your coolest links get blocked here.

Posted by: Howie at August 15, 2005 04:52 PM (D3+20)

17 I figured the firewalls were working overtime to stop the wandering eyes of those who seek commentary that may or may not be laced with whimsical innuendo, but feel free to stop by and shower me with comments and/or compliments after you are able.

Posted by: Feisty at August 15, 2005 05:18 PM (cdWsN)

18 Wow, feisty, I'm glad to see that you know me so much better than I know myself. Let me give you a little advice. When I say something, it's because that's what I mean. Just like when I say you're a moronic little bitch, that's what I mean. Don't come up here and tell me what I mean because you'll never know unless you simply READ WHAT I SAY. Just because some scientist hand-feeds you some research doesn't mean that it's worth a shit. Why don't you try opening your eyes and thinking for yourself a bit. Heck, who knows, you might even find out something about the world around you. Since you're obviously too simple to get it the first two times, I'll say it once again. If there is competing technology that outpaces a certain technology, then there's absolutly no sense in throwing money into something that is not working. It would make just as much sense to throw more memory and a bigger hard drive into your 486. That is what I said and that is what I meant. We have no pills to cure Alzheimers after billions of dollars of research. Therefore, the pharmaceutical industry shouldn't spend money on pills anymore. No different than, "The infantile field [double entendre--get it?] of embryonic stem cell research hasn't cured anyone of anything yet; therefore, scientists should stop with embryonic stem cell research." THAT is not what I said. If that was what I meant, then I would have suggested just throwing all of the research away and not doing anything else. But if you'd bother to read any more than the parts you object to, you'd see that I'm simply advocating an alternate line of research that is producing FAR more results with FAR less money and time invensted.

Posted by: Drew at August 15, 2005 06:23 PM (HQiW4)

19 Oyster: If you keep calling Motoko Mr. I will start calling you sir. Wish I knew what all of you are talking about.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 15, 2005 07:39 PM (TBvsM)

20 oyster, you are an idiot too. Or perhaps, like drew, you simply cannot read. Okay Mr. know-it-all-motoko, adult stem cells are plastic too. Though they may be harvested from certain tissues they are present in for the purpose of regeneration of that particular tissue, they are still plastic and may be used to regenerate cells for other tissues. Adult stem cells will even relocate themselves to sites of injury or damage, although they don't know why or how. Somatic cell reprogramming, also known as dedifferentiation, is still in the research phase. There are absolutely no instances of ASCs performing as you describe. And even if science can solve dedifferentiation, the resulting lines will not be immortal. And i am a grrl, dammit!

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 15, 2005 08:16 PM (wxUTp)

21 Ah, Drew comes out with the "...you're a moronic little bitch, that's what I mean." Like I haven't heard that one before; I'm a prostitute, remember? It's gonna take a oratorical ass-whoopin' to offend me. I completely understood what you meant. You wanted us to forget about or poorly fund embryonic stem cell research because currently, as of August 15th, 2005, adult stem cell research shows more promise. You seem to think in terms of black and white, that if today research X looks the most promising, research Y shouldn't be done as if August 15th is somehow the magical day in which we decide which research is good and which isn't so good. This is, of course, as I said, ludicrous since research Y is in its infancy. Medical treatments and computers are in no ways similar, by the way. You don't have to alter a computer's DNA before it even becomes what you know as a computer in order to upgrade it. Are you really going to tell me that you don't have some sort of moral opposition to embryonic stem cell research? C'mon.

Posted by: Feisty at August 15, 2005 08:55 PM (LWLjH)

22 Future Pundit is tracking this subject. http://www.futurepundit.com/ My take on the subject is that too many people are yelling without finding out more on the subject. Bush is blocking _federal_funding_ for ONE, and ONLY ONE line of research. He is not blocking private funding, nor is he blocking federal funding for any of the many other possible lines of research. Stem cell research is in its infancy, and no one is in a position to say that Bush is blocking (part of) the funding for the most promising investigation path. If what Bush was blocking was worth getting worked up over, there would be no reason to get worked up over it because private investors would be lined up, money in hand.

Posted by: Pillep at August 15, 2005 09:15 PM (zNjIG)

23 Yes it's nice to see Drew following in the footsteps of great Americans like Anthony Comstock. Bring back the Comstock act!!!! Hey lets all get out our horse and buggy.

Posted by: Howie at August 15, 2005 09:16 PM (D3+20)

24 Drew is a frackin' Luddite.

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 15, 2005 11:02 PM (wxUTp)

25 Oh, ouch! Between Howie's rapier wit and matoko's biting commentary I just don't know how I'm going to survive. Yes, the two of them are shining examples of evoltion at work. Breed all the original thought out of people so that they can have plenty of brain space left over to echo popular opinion. Yes, I could stand here insulting them all day simply because they make it so easy. But that's not the point, is it? As the two of you and your friend feisty have nothing of value to add to the conversation and certainly no rebuttal for facts that I have presented, I shall now assume you are not worth answering and simply ignore any further spewings of rhetoric presented by you.

Posted by: Drew at August 16, 2005 05:24 AM (HQiW4)

26 Feisty: I certainly oppose embryonic stem cell research due to religious convictions. I'm not sure about Drew.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 16, 2005 08:29 AM (x+5JB)

27 drew, i have rebutted all your "facts", both on ESCR/ASCR and theory of evolution. Show me one fact that i have neglected to rebutt. Comparing ESCR to McCarthyism and proposing that theory of evolution not be taught in schools are just silly, riddickulous, outside the pale of thoughtful posting. You must be deliberately trying to provoke me.

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 16, 2005 08:31 AM (wxUTp)

28 All you've said is that adult stem cells are not "plastic" and aren't "immortal." Both of which seem to be in question. As I don't know one way or the other about that, I'd have to say that oyster has as much chance of being right about that as you. Actually, with some of your far-fetched ideas, he has much more of a chance of being right. Be that as it may, though, you've simply managed to prove my point. Just as "communist huners" of the McCarthy era used propaganda and simply shouting down their opponents, so do fetal stem cell research supporters. You have yet to answer the basic question of "If adult stem cells are working just fine, why not use them?" except that they aren't plastic and they aren't immortal. Which doesn't seem to amount to a hill of beans when the fact remains that they're doing what they're supposed to do.

Posted by: Drew at August 16, 2005 08:40 AM (Ml8z/)

29 My apologies for calling you a Mr. The difference between you and I is that I was called Mr., Sir, him, he, etc. for a while and I didn't get upset. Again, my apologies for assuming you were a man. However, I won't apologize for insuating you were pompous. Because you are. I'm not going to argue semantics with you over something we probably generally agree on. I personally have no opposition to either form of research. I'm not saying they should stop. I AM saying that the moral implications must be thought over when it comes to tax dollars. Why should those who oppose it so vehemently be forced to pay for it? I think that deserves some consideration. What I DO have opposition to is the implications of so many that embryonic stem cell research is more promising than the adult stem cell research when it in fact is not at this point. And the idea that throwing tax money at it to try to bring about that wish when there is no promise that it will be more viable is irresponsible. Even the medical journal, Lancet, that actually favors embryonic stem cell research, said there was too much sensationalism and hype. Embryonic stem cells have been, and continue to be, unwieldy. And they have been researching embryonic stem cells for twenty years, not ten. How many conditions have been successfully treated with either research? Adult stem cells - around 60 Embryonic stem cells - 0 I'll not say another word on the matter.

Posted by: Oyster at August 16, 2005 10:31 AM (fl6E1)

30 Drew I don't disgree with you that some adult stem cells have applications. The heart thing is a good example. But note that the cells used in that procedure have to be extracted from the bone marrow. So yes adult stem cells have applications when you can locate them and get to them. Also no chance of rejection. They are not even sure which cells extracted from the bone marrow are the ones that take up residence in the heart and become heart tissue to heal the scar from the heart attack. It's a shotgun approach. So even this approach has led to treatments. Fetal stem cells well I don't really like where they come from either. But Frist does have good idea. These eggs are going to be pitched anyway. The cancerous cells actually are caused by our poor knowlege of cloning and how the egg sets the DNA to be "young". South Korea is leading the field on this. I'd hate to have to see you go all the way over there for a new liver someday. So yes adult cells do have applications and more will be found. When they turn out to be useful they should be used rather than cloning. But it is also possible that cloned stem cells from donor eggs from the same female line as the patient and the patients own DNA may have applications that adult stem cells don't. One day my hope is that these cells can be extracted from the fetus before birth without damage to the fetus. Adult stem cells as well as placental stem cells have to be used for related tissues. While useful they are limited. You can't use marrow to make a liver at least not yet. Study of cloned or fetal stem cells from eggs marked for disposal might provide this answer as to how to make adult ones work in this manner. Or might prove the only possible way to produce some tissues. It's just too early. Or we can let South Korea become the next scientific leader. Jefferson had no idea why cowpox infection resulted in smallpox immunity. But maybe since we figured that out we should have left polio measels mumps rubella etc etc etc out of it. Oyster is a girl dude and yes I like Fiesty. Just because she disgrees with you is no reason to resort to name calling. Or are you talking down to the "whore". Your disrespect for the lady justifies the Comstock remark. Likewise I'm sure on the spewing. I don't see a single link for your argument just your opinion. So why are you asking for scientific rebuttal of an opinion while being intolerant of the opinions of others.

Posted by: Howie at August 16, 2005 10:57 AM (D3+20)

31 The old should protect the young and the weak. Not the other way around.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 16, 2005 11:06 AM (x+5JB)

32 Still wish I knew what all of you are talking about. YBP: I used to agree with you. Now that I'm getting old, I think the young should protect the old. Ha. Quit complaining about the name calling. We are getting better and better all the time. Anyone remember 6 months ago. Very good discussion going on here. However, I wouldn't know a stem cell if I seen one. BUT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE FRIGGIN JAWAS. What are the camel riding, goat humping raghead terrorists doing? Can we stem cell the bastard terrorists out of existence?

Posted by: greyrooster at August 16, 2005 10:46 PM (CBNGy)

33 from the instapundit: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8805408/ this is the state of the art in dedifferention. but don't get too excited yet--the fusion technique requires fusing ESCs with adult cells. And parthenogenis is essentially cloning, the oocyte is stimulated to start division mechanically without the addition of external genetic material--the resulting embryo will be an exact copy of the mother. Leon Kass is an idiot, he has obviously forgotten that we have solved the mammalian DNA imprinting problem. parthenogenis is certainly doable--turkeys sometimes reproduce that way naturally, and it is simple to do in frogs.

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 18, 2005 10:11 AM (nF0OH)

34 Oyster, good, we're both grrls--maybe Dr. Shackleford has a mud wrestling pit? By your argument tax dollars from the left should not go a war in Iraq that they do not support. and, don't ask media pundits like drew which research shows more promise--ask scientists. Real scientists want to do both. 10% of all homo sapiens over 65 express some degree of alzheimers. Half of those over 85 have it. Worldwide there are 12 million sufferers. by 2025 there will be 22 million. the US spends over 100 billion dollars per year on alzheimers now. (stats, Dr. Ramez Naam's book, More than Human pg.42) we should be working our butts off finding a cure, wherever the hell it comes from.

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 18, 2005 02:07 PM (nF0OH)

35 Oyster: add the human cost. Grandma is very ill with it. She has been "gone" for several years now. The toll on my Aunts and grandfather are well as bad or worse than the money.

Posted by: Howie at August 18, 2005 02:18 PM (D3+20)

36 oops can't forget me mum. I'm not around home much but still it sucks for me too but not to the extent it does for mum. I'tll be my turn in about 20 years if the current patter holds true great grandma went the same way, I worry about me mum. That is all I'm bummed now.

Posted by: Howie at August 18, 2005 02:22 PM (D3+20)

37 It's funny becuase I just so happen to be doing a research paper on this subject, to where I have injested much information on this topic, and I see that no matter what side most of the posters are arguing on, they really don't understand a lot of the issues with stem cell research. First you can talk about money. Money from the U.S. govt goes to assist not only business, but also colleges and universities, who are probably the biggest recipients of medical research funding when it comes to GENERAL research in a specific field. Universities often advance science, and not business. For those Universities that want to do research using fetal stem cells or embryonic stem cells from a new line other than the ones the govt. said they can use, not only is there no funding for that, but they get money removed from other research that they do. Next, adult stem cells are useful in certain ways and it others they aren't. HSCs are the stem cells that are responsible for giving a new chance to patients who have Leukemia, and it is done via a bone marrow transplant. Because these are adult stem cells, even when a good match is made for a doner, there are still issues with rejection, and many patients who receive mone marrow transplants have to take drugs the rest of their lives to deal with all of the complications caused by mone marrow transplants, and are never fully better. They are alive, and feel that is a better option that death. Adult stem cells are good when they can be harvested from a patient and reused in the same patient, but adult stems cells offer many problems. Adult stem cells are never a valid solution when the doner has a genetic defect, because the genetic defect is passed on to the new cells. Embryonic stem cells are the least differentiated stem cells, and the process of using them for medical therapy means to figure out how to trigger them through the various stages of precurser cells to arrive at a cell the body needs. The problem with using the existing lines of embryonic stem cells is that they have been deemed unsafe for medical usage, becuase of the way they were cultured. This doesn't make early scientists stupid for what they did; it simply means they figured out a way to reproduce stem cells in vitro and wanted to study them. For the person who posted who said they have been studied now for almost 20 years, I think you need to do your math again. The first time embryonic stem cells were successfully removed from a zygote was 1998. When I do the math, this comes out to 7 years. Scientists want to use adult, fetal and embryonic stem cells becuase they feel the more they learn about each, the better the chances of figuring out how to deal with the others, and this is a widely held view in the world of biology, and it is probably correct. Next, fetal stem cells, including those from cord and placenta blood HAVE been effectively used for treatment, and many biologists feel these have the greatest potential. These are more differentiated than embryonic stem cells, so it is easier to trigger them to create specific cells the body needs. They don't get rejected as easily as adult stem cells, and they HAVE been involved in producing some pretty amazing things, which have been published by Universities and scientists from around the world. It is fetal stem cells that have been used to regenerate parts of the brain and damaged heart tissue. It is also cord stem cells that cured a boy that had 5 years to live because of sickle cell. His whole blood system changed without rejection using stem cells from cord blood (60 Min II, The Holy Grail, June 5, 2002). Finally, to the person who made the idiotic comment about it being a WHOLE 10 years and still nothing! If science operated that way, we would still be in the dark ages, idiot! You know, man has been working on creating the sharpest blade for thousands of years. Do you think they have it yet?

Posted by: Spy at October 18, 2005 07:53 PM (9J5rl)

38 It's funny because I just so happen to be doing a research paper on this subject, to where I have ingested much information on this topic, and I see that no matter what side most of the posters are arguing on, they really don't understand a lot of the issues with stem cell research. First you can talk about money. Money from the U.S. govt goes to assist not only business, but also colleges and universities, who are probably the biggest recipients of medical research funding when it comes to GENERAL research in a specific field. Universities often advance science, and not business. For those Universities that want to do research using fetal stem cells or embryonic stem cells from a new line other than the ones the govt. said they can use, not only is there no funding for that, but they get money removed from other research that they do. Next, adult stem cells are useful in certain ways and it others they aren't. HSCs are the stem cells that are responsible for giving a new chance to patients who have Leukemia, and it is done via a bone marrow transplant. Because these are adult stem cells, even when a good match is made for a doner, there are still issues with rejection, and many patients who receive mone marrow transplants have to take drugs the rest of their lives to deal with all of the complications caused by mone marrow transplants, and are never fully better. They are alive, and feel that is a better option that death. Adult stem cells are good when they can be harvested from a patient and reused in the same patient, but adult stems cells offer many problems. Adult stem cells are never a valid solution when the doner has a genetic defect, because the genetic defect is passed on to the new cells. Embryonic stem cells are the least differentiated stem cells, and the process of using them for medical therapy means to figure out how to trigger them through the various stages of precurser cells to arrive at a cell the body needs. The problem with using the existing lines of embryonic stem cells is that they have been deemed unsafe for medical usage, becuase of the way they were cultured. This doesn't make early scientists stupid for what they did; it simply means they figured out a way to reproduce stem cells in vitro and wanted to study them. For the person who posted who said they have been studied now for almost 20 years, I think you need to do your math again. The first time embryonic stem cells were successfully removed from a zygote was 1998. When I do the math, this comes out to 7 years. Scientists want to use adult, fetal and embryonic stem cells becuase they feel the more they learn about each, the better the chances of figuring out how to deal with the others, and this is a widely held view in the world of biology, and it is probably correct. Next, fetal stem cells, including those from cord and placenta blood HAVE been effectively used for treatment, and many biologists feel these have the greatest potential. These are more differentiated than embryonic stem cells, so it is easier to trigger them to create specific cells the body needs. They don't get rejected as easily as adult stem cells, and they HAVE been involved in producing some pretty amazing things, which have been published by Universities and scientists from around the world. It is fetal stem cells that have been used to regenerate parts of the brain and damaged heart tissue. It is also cord stem cells that cured a boy that had 5 years to live because of sickle cell. His whole blood system changed without rejection using stem cells from cord blood (60 Min II, The Holy Grail, June 5, 2002). Finally, to the person who made the ridiculus comment about it being a WHOLE 10 years and still nothing! If science operated that way, we would still be in the dark ages! You know, man has been working on creating the sharpest blade for thousands of years. Do you think they have it yet?

Posted by: Spy at October 18, 2005 07:55 PM (9J5rl)

39 Oh, since some here have posted that stem cell research has yeilded nothing, here is an article posted on the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services website. This is another example of where this research is going. If you care to do any kind of research, you will see that there are many examples of treatments that are about to be either made available for humans, or are in the process of being tested for future treatment. http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.asp?docID=528378

Posted by: Spy at October 18, 2005 10:47 PM (9J5rl)

40 vs spy

Posted by: Howie at October 18, 2005 11:13 PM (D3+20)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

We all know Paul Krugman is a total freaking loon when talking about the economy. His complete and total lack of even the most fundamental understanding of how econmics works would keep him from getting any sort of job short of the one that he currently has, which is writing his flights of fancy for the New York Times. And if it weren't for the Slimes, I'm pretty sure no one else would allow him to babble on like he does.

However, Krugman has decided that showing his ignorance in the field of economics just hasn't been fulfilling lately. So, he decides to take on a whole new field. Now you might think that he would tackle something related to economics, or at the very least, politics. You'd be wrong. No, Krugman jumps ship and swims all the way out into the deep waters of creationism vs evolution. However, he laughingly attempts to relate the argument to both economics and politics, which simply makes for more entertaining reading.

Even though he is attempting to write an article on creationsim, Krugman just can't resist taking a poke at economics.

Mr. Kristol led by example, using The Public Interest to promote supply-side economics, a doctrine whose central claim - that tax cuts have such miraculous positive effects on the economy that they pay for themselves - has never been backed by evidence.

And not only does he take a poke at economics, he shows us all that he is not living in the real world where we have job growth, economic growth, unemployment dropping, economists raving about how good the economy is going, and TAX CUTS. But I guess it's just random chance that they all happened at the same time, because you know it's never been proven that tax cuts can do any good.

You might wonder how a discussion about supply side economics can work its way into a discussion about creationism. Believe it or not, Krugman makes the leap. He attempts to show how the "Evil Republicans" led by the "Corporate Gestapo" have paid off the economists and researchers so that they will produce reports in their favor. In this way, Krugman speculates, they intend to discredit scientific theory.

The most spectacular example is the campaign to discredit research on global warming. Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus, many people have the impression that the issue is still unresolved. This impression reflects the assiduous work of conservative think tanks, which produce and promote skeptical reports that look like peer-reviewed research, but aren't. And behind it all lies lavish financing from the energy industry, especially ExxonMobil.

So let me get this straight. Greenpeace and a few scientitsts say that the earth is steadily getting hotter based on evidence gathered over a few hundred years and this makes an "overwhelming scientific consensus?" What about the overwhelming number of realistic scientists who point to global weather trends that span over thousands, ten thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years? What about the fact that tons of the Greenpeace "evidence" has been debunked, and some of it found to be outright fradulant? How about the fact that no one has any real, hard, evidence of any one specific thing that we, the people of the workd, are doing to increase the temperature of the planet? But to Krugman, all the proof he needs is that some research was done by scientists funded by "Evil Corporations." That immediately makes the entire research fake and all its findings null and void.

Oddly enough, he then attempts to say the same thing about creationism v. evolution. Since the creationism argument has been brought up by a bunch of religious nutcases, then it is automatically null and void before any evidence is presented. He even admits this bias, if not in so many words.

Creationists failed when they pretended to be engaged in science, not religious indoctrination: "creation science" was too crude to fool anyone.

Since it comes from a creationist, it must have no scientific basis. Thus, it is invalid. What a convenient way of winning an argument. I think I'll try that next time. "Since I don't agree with you, you're an idiot. And since you're an idiot, I can't believe in or agree with anything you've said."

He then goes on to assume facts not in evidence.

The important thing to remember is that like supply-side economics or global-warming skepticism, intelligent design doesn't have to attract significant support from actual researchers to be effective. All it has to do is create confusion, to make it seem as if there really is a controversy about the validity of evolutionary theory.

Now, I have no idea what evolutionary theory Krugman is referring to. If he's referring to the micro-evolution that happens around us all the time and creates small changes within a species to allow adaptation, then he's right. It's a solid, proven, scientific theory. However, if he's referring to macro-evolution, which says that we all sprang up from slime, then he is completly and totally dead wrong about there being no controversy. There is plenty of controversy. What there is an alarming lack of is evidence and proof that any such thing ever has or ever will happen. Now, does lack of evidence for evolution prove creation science? No. Just as lack of evidence for creation science does not prove evolution.

But again, I'm not here to argue creationism vs. evolution. I'm simply here to point out how much of an idiot Krugman is. He starts with a flawed theory, that anyone who says anything he disagrees with is just a corporate shill and must be immediately disbelieved. He then uses this theory and his opinion to attempt to prove that evolution is the be-all and end-all of science. Proof or evidence be damned, he's going to stick up for what he thinks. My advice, Paul, is find something you're good at. Because it's not economics, and it's certainly not science.

Posted by: Drew at 08:44 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1045 words, total size 6 kb.

Many of us that teach at the University level belong to various forums or listserves that are set up to foster discussion and keep each other up to date with current research. The following is from The American Society for International Law's listserve. It was forwarded to me by a colleague who remarks that while the Society's discourse is the mundane kind of anti-Americanism generally found in academia, the level of discussion has reached new lows of moonbattery lately.

>>From: XXXXXXXXXX
To: ASIL Forum
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 1:40 AM
Subject: 9/11 - Pentagon

Dear All,

Please forgive me for re-generating a widely discussed topic. Since 2001, there had been numerous documentaries on different tele channels as to how the planes hit the Towers and the Pentagon. Innthis regard, the movie clips of the planes hitting the towers are very clear. But so far as the jet hitting the Pentagon is concerned, i have never seen a single picture or movie clip showing even a single piece of a plane found from the debris in Pentagon. Does anyone have any information regarding this ??

Regards.

Faisal.

From: Elias Davidsson
Date: August 1, 2005 2:13:20 PM PDT
To: ASIL Forum
Subject: Re: 9/11 - Pentagon
Reply-To: ASIL Forum

I fully empathize with the difficulty Rich Edwards has to believe that the official story on 9/11 may be untrue. It is certainly easier to believe that a bearded Muslim in an Afghan cave who, we are told, issued blood-curling threats against Americans and Jews, would mastermind 9/11 than slick American politicians with their slick assistances who speaking buddy-buddy with journalists. Nevertheless, those who have studied US foreign policy within the last century, cannot fail to perceive a long trail of deception, covert operations, attempts at assassinating foreign leaders, unwarrented and extremely bloody wars against other nations and incredible reckless of American
lives expended in those wars. This does not necessarily mean that the current administration enginerred 9/11, but it means that we cannot simply dismiss such a scenario out of hand because we find it difficult to stomach. There is much circumstancial evidence that suggests official complicity in 9/11.

Let us also remember than most mass murderers in dark suits were and are charming psychopaths (see my collection "Charming international "criminals" at www.xxxxxxxxx ), able to create a positive image of themselves and escape scrutiny.

Finally, I urge Rich Edwards to take more seriously those serious researchers who have unearthed hundreds of anomalies, misrepresentations, omissions and lies in the official account of 9/11. Their work deserves more than a sweeping dismissal. What if they are right ?

Respectfully,

Elias Davidsson

From: Elias Davidsson
Date: August 1, 2005 7:16:02 PM PDT
To: ASIL Forum
Subject: Re: 9/11 - Pentagon
Reply-To: ASIL Forum

Mr. Edwards refers, as it seems to statements made by the then Solicitor General Olson regarding alleged phone conversations between himself and his wife who was allegedly flying on AA77 and crashing on the Pentagon. Olson is a person who said in the Supreme Court that under some circustances, US officials are justified to lie. His statements including this statement are no proof that AA77 flew on the Pentagon. No court would accept his statement as positive proof of fact. The US government has not presented much more compelling evidence, such as photographs of wreckage and video recordings of the flying object, let alone did it produce any remains of the alleged hijackers of that flight. Yet it had almost four years to produce such evidence.

The US government had ample time and opportunity to produce positive proof that the named 19 Muslims actually boarded the aircraft which they allegedly hijacked. It had ample time and opportunity to explain why WTC nr. 7 collapsed at the speed of a free-falling stone. Yet instead of producing incriminating evidence, the US government thwarted investigations into this monumental crime, failed to convict a single person for complicity in that crime, failed to charge alleged Al Qaeda leaders under its custody, announced its disinterest in chasing Osama bin Laden and gagged people who have witnessed various aspects of the crime. Does any reader claim that I invent these facts? Aren't these facts sufficiently disturbing to cause pause forthought?

It is facile to knock down the strawman that "no Jews were killed in the 9/11 attack". Certainly this claim is wrong. Many Jews died in the attacks. This claim can, however, be traced back to its origin. The origin of the story was a report in Jerusalem Post of 12 September 2001, that the Israeli Foreign Embassy was concerned about the fate and whereabouts of 4,000 Israelis [that is Israeli citizens] believed to be in the area of the World Trade Center in New York. It was not explained in the report from where the figure 4,000 came, nor was the figure denied later. In the final count not a single Israeli employee of the World Trade Center died on 9/11. According to the New York Times, one Israeli, a casual visitor, died in the WTC on 9/11 and two Israeli died as passengers in the allegedly hijacked planes. We still are owed an explanation of the discrepancy between the figure 4,000 and 0.

Elias Davidsson

Posted by: Rusty at 01:04 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 1001 words, total size 6 kb.