The Next President?

Everyone loves a healthy debate. Post an idea or comment about a current event or issue. Let others post their ideas also. This area is for those who love to explore other points of view.

Moderator: Nicole Marie

Postby jamiebk » Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:47 pm

Selma in Sandy Eggo wrote:And there are some of us who registered Republican and support things like stem-cell research, health system reform, and oppose the right-to-life absolutists and the folks who want to sneak their religion into science and law by calling it other things.


Assuming that those are views you hold...we are of similar mind and I quite agree
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Postby OperaTenor » Thu Nov 16, 2006 4:37 pm

Haggis@wk wrote:
For something that is supposed to be the next coming in medical research don't you find it curious that not one major drug company is doing any research on stem cells? I'll get serious about stem cells when they do.


BBB to Piq! BBB to Piq!

Reply needed!

(My wife and I have have discussed this quite a bit, and she cites the fact that virtually ALL scientific research in this country is tied to Federal funding. Think chicken and egg.)
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby OperaTenor » Thu Nov 16, 2006 4:39 pm

Shapley wrote:
Sometimes I wish both parties could lose.


I mad a similar comment a while back. Why is it if we decide to throw one out, we have to put the other in?


Something we can all agree on, I think.

Hey, I voted for Ross Perot in '92.
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby Shapley » Thu Nov 16, 2006 4:47 pm

If that's true, then it is only because we've allowed it to be so. If you dangle enough money out there, the dancers will come to your end of the bar, keep sticking money in their garters, and they'll stay there.

Scientific American interview
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby barfle » Thu Nov 16, 2006 4:52 pm

Shapley wrote:The Republican Party votes on a party platform, which defines the party's position on the issues we believe most strongly about. That platform has not changed significantly since the days of Rondalus Maximus.

One cannot help but notice that the so-called "conservative" issue of reduced government spending was most nearly accomplished by a Democrat. The last time we had a balanced budget before Clinton was 1969. Since then, there have been Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, and Bush supposedly watching out for your tax dollars, with only Carter and Clinton borrowing and spending our way into prosperity. Republicans have abdicated their fiscal principles, which is one major reason I am no longer a Republican.
--I know what I like--
barfle
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6144
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Springfield, Vahjinyah, USA

Postby OperaTenor » Thu Nov 16, 2006 4:56 pm

I have the utmost respect for that fiscal conservatism, Barfle. I may have a differing view on aspects of it, but I think it's an honest perspective.
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby Shapley » Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:07 pm

I thought the funding issue didn't sound right. Here's an article from The Scientist that states that about half of research funding now comes from industry.

This shift is not because of reductions in government funding but rather due to increases in the amount industry spends on research. The rise in industry spending has far outpaced the increase in government-funded research. This can largely be attributed to two major reasons - first: industry has more money to invest due to the expanding economy and tax cuts, and second: there are tax incentives to investing in research.

V/R
Shapley
Last edited by Shapley on Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby audiogirl » Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:08 pm

OperaTenor wrote:
Shapley wrote:
Sometimes I wish both parties could lose.


I mad a similar comment a while back. Why is it if we decide to throw one out, we have to put the other in?


Something we can all agree on, I think.

Hey, I voted for Ross Perot in '92.


Conservocrats? Liberublicans? It's about time the middle was represented by someone. It's as if the left has been hijacked by Hollywood and the right by legalistic bible-beaters.
audiogirl
3rd Chair
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Middle of nowhere

Postby OperaTenor » Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:37 pm

Shapley wrote:I thought the funding issue didn't sound right. Here's an article from The Scientist that states that about half of research funding now comes from industry.


And the other half comes from the Tooth Fairy?

This is from the article you cite:

Image

Where is THE LARGEST PERCENTAGE of the money coming from, almost without exception?
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby Shapley » Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:45 pm

(My wife and I have have discussed this quite a bit, and she cites the fact that virtually ALL scientific research in this country is tied to Federal funding
emphasis yours

I'm merely pointing out that there is a BIG difference between virtually ALL and ~ 50%.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby jamiebk » Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:48 pm

Something does not look right with that graph.

This is not exact, but just looking at the top 2 sources for 2002...government and Industry...it seems to add up to over 100%. Government is about 60% and Industry appears to be over 40%...maybe 43% or 44%...that does not even count all the other contributors.

The caption on the axis is "Percentage with Funding" so maybe I am not reading this correctly
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Postby OperaTenor » Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:55 pm

Shapley wrote:
(My wife and I have have discussed this quite a bit, and she cites the fact that virtually ALL scientific research in this country is tied to Federal funding
emphasis yours

I'm merely pointing out that there is a BIG difference between virtually ALL and ~ 50%.


You score zero points for misreading my post.

"Tied to" does not mean " fully funded by". It means that virtually all research facilities rely on some level(percentage) of Federal funding to conduct their research.

If a lab loses ~50% of their research budget(that would be the government half), I can safely project that their research would be significantly negatively impacted. Prohibitively so, even.
Last edited by OperaTenor on Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:59 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby Shapley » Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:56 pm

Jamie,

I agree, but it was the best source I could find with a quick search. My main concern was to indicate that there are several sources of non-government funding for research. If I get a chance tomorrow, I'll try to look for a better source.

Wikipedia has some information on it, but I try not to use Wikipedia as a source if I can avoid it. I thought this one was significant in that it is pro-government funding, as is actually bemoaning industry's funding as a sort of 'tainted' money.

Another article I read indicates that the government is the primary source for 'basic' and 'pure' scientific research, while industry is the primary source for 'specific' research, which makes sense. The article provided no numbers on the level of funding, and was thus of no use for this discussion.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby Shapley » Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:59 pm

OT,

So what does 'tied to government funding' mean? Are you saying industry won't fund research that the government won't fund? That no research will be conducted with some sort of government-approved funding mechanism?

I need some enlightenment here.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby OperaTenor » Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:00 pm

See my edit. We're posting too fast and furiously here, and I didn't complete my thought the first time out.

But, to add to it, if a lab doesn't have enough money, they don't do the research. If they get as much as half of the money they need from the Feds, then the loss of that money effectively stops their research dead in the water.
Last edited by OperaTenor on Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby Selma in Sandy Eggo » Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:01 pm

I'm impressed by the amount of the funding that comes from private/foundation grants, and the amount funded by professional societies. And I'm depressed by the amount that's university-funded.

I suspect that a lot of projects are funded partially from one pocket, partially from another - if any of the pockets include Federal money, Federal rules apply, and it's "tied to federal funding". Calculated that way, the "tied" research could very easily approach "all" without exceeding that federal financial percentage.
>^..^<
Selma in Sandy Eggo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6273
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:01 am
Location: San Diego

Postby OperaTenor » Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:07 pm

Yes, what Selma said.

Also, if a given lab performs research in several different areas, and any one of those is not approved by the Feds, they get no Federal money for any of their research. That's a huge disincentive to conduct research on anything not approved for Federal funding.

Example:

"BioTamperAlterGene, Inc." does a wide variety of research that qualifies for Federal funding, and they get it. If they decide to start embryonic stem cell research, they lose all Federal funding they had been getting previously, even though it's not related to embryonic stem cell research.
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby Shapley » Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:50 am

The article from The Scientist that I posted included this bit:

[quote]THE NUMBERS - INDUSTRY FUNDING ON THE RISE
• Industry funding increased during the 1990s, and in 2001 rose above 50% of the total funding pie, according to a study earlier this year in the British Medical Journal (BMJ, 332:1061-4, May 6, 2006). This compares to the years between 1993 and 1997, when industry funding fluctuated between 20% and 30% of total funding.

• Industry funding in randomized controlled trials increased during the 1990s. Of 32 frequently cited trials published after 1999, 31 received some industry funding, 18 exclusively so, according to the BMJ study[/i]

This would seem to indicate, based on my reading, that about half of the "frequently cited" trials received their funding exclusively from industry. I would guess that there were a number of factors behind this - restrictions on government funding possibly being one of them. As the article notes, about 40% of applications are noted as being 'worthy of funding' while only about 10-20% receive such funding. I would expect this has as much to do with financian constraints to a much larger extent than it would to ideological ones. I would also expect that, having been rejected for government funding, those researchers would go 'shopping for funding'. It would be reasonable to assume that those that were deemed 'worthy of funding' would have a leg-up on the remaining 60%, but that doesn't meant the rest don't get funded, either.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby Haggis@wk » Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:11 am

I personally think all this funding talk is missing the point I tried to make.

If the big drug companies thought there was any money to be made from stem cell research then they'd make the money available to research it, full stop.

And on closer examination your "tainted by U.S. Govt restrictions" doesn’t bear up.

Not every big drug company is American. Roughly half of the largest drug companies are based in Europe. (The exact count shifts because of mergers.) In 2002, the top ten were the American companies Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Wyeth (formerly American Home Products); the British companies GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca; the Swiss companies Novartis and Roche; and the French company Aventis (which in 2004 merged with another French company, Sanafi Synthelabo, putting it in third place).

Those European companies definitely don’t rely on U.S. funds to research new way to gouge drug consumers. And some of those companies are privately held so they don't have to answer to anyone where they spend their research money.

My point was simply that they don't seem to regard stem cell as the pharmaceutical Holy Grail that the popular press is claiming.

Maybe the drug companies don’t know the science editor for the NYT is a college graduate?

Maybe I’m wrong, maybe the drug companies are afraid of being on the bleeding rather than leading edge.

Or maybe they’ve looked at the available information and their college graduates decided there’s no “there” there.

Just my opinion.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Postby Trumpetmaster » Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:20 am

I could not vote for Hillary......
I'm not opposed to a woman president....

I am opposed to having Mr. Can't Keep it In his Pants
back in the White House as "First Man"

:crazy:
Ability is what you're capable of doing. Motivation determines what you do. Attitude determines how well you do it.
Trumpetmaster
Patron
 
Posts: 11557
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Long Island, NY

PreviousNext

Return to The Debate Team

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]

cron