President Bush vetos Stem Cell Bill

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Pyrosama

What I don't agree with is the government endorsing research and making taxpayers contribute against their will. Research should be funded by those who promote the cause for it, whatever IT may be. I also wouldn't agree to the endorsement of a research in finding Jesus or any other research that I may be suspicious of and so it's no different. Taxpayers do not want to pay for "what ifs" and "how comes". If they find a cure for blindness, will I get a royalty check for my tax dollars?

So we should stop government funding for AIDS research then as well?

Cancer?

If you want to talk about politically motivated research dollars, AIDS is your biggest example. It gets an extraordinarily disproportionate share of government (and private) research dollars compared to the number of people actually affected by it. Not to mention the fact that most people can largely eliminate their chance of exposure through their own behavior.

But do I want AIDS research stopped? Nope.

Honestly, considering the worthless crap the government wastes money on, any of it that gets spent on hard science is probably preferable to what it would be spent on otherwise. At least we do benefit as a society from the research being done. Even if the specific thing being researched is not cured/solved/whatever, there are always ancillary gains in knowledge that benefit us.

This veto is a shame, and a bad decision imho, but I certainly do not think it is the disaster some members of the media are going to make it out to be.

[kestra]

If you want to talk about politically motivated research dollars, AIDS is your biggest example. It gets an extraordinarily disproportionate share of government (and private) research dollars compared to the number of people actually affected by it. Not to mention the fact that most people can largely eliminate their chance of exposure through their own behavior.

My sister is a well known and successful journalist, and she made this exact same point.
She was harassed mercilessly by gay communities and organizations.
As someone else pointed out, this decision seems to be based more on an opinion of morality,and spirituality and less on science. These cells don't suffer like a full grown person does with a debilitating disease.

[Vidare]

Originally posted by kestra
My sister ..... She was harassed mercilessly by gay communities and organizations.

What, exactly, is the relevance of this, besides a thinly veiled shot at the homosexual comunity for harassment of a family member?

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Vidare
What, exactly, is the relevance of this, besides a thinly veiled shot at the homosexual comunity for harassment of a family member?

It seemed relevant to me, and if it is true (and we have no real reason to doubt its veracity) then to any degree it is a "shot" it is a deserved one, no?

Further, this isn't the first time I have heard of (or experienced) the exact same thing. The whole issue of AIDS and AIDS research is so horrendously politicized that it is almost impossible to raise legitimate questions about AIDS or AIDS research.

Should AIDS really get more research dollars than other ailments that kill *more* people and cannot be avoided through one's own behavior? At the very least, is that not a legitimate question to raise and a legitimate discussion to have?

But if you even raise the issue in a public forum, you will be absolutely savaged by a variety of groups and organizations that feel AIDS research is an absolutely inviolate and unquestionable topic.

[Maelgrim]

Not to mention there are destructive communities akin to the more publicised pro-ana forums who actually SEEK OUT new ways to infect and be infected by HIV.

And people wonder why there's a hint of leper about the whole thing?

[kestra]

What, exactly, is the relevance of this, besides a thinly veiled shot at the homosexual comunity for harassment of a family member?

It's simply a statement of fact of what occurred. She was highlighting the fact that AIDS receives significantly more funding and research than other diseases.
She didn't say it was a good thing or a bad thing. But the gay community assumed she believed it was a bad thing.
They didn't bother to research themselves her involvement in their community.

It just proved the point, however that you cannot criticize AIDS research and expect to get away with it.

[Pyrosama]

Originally posted by Aristotle
So we should stop government funding for AIDS research then as well?

Cancer?

If you want to talk about politically motivated research dollars, AIDS is your biggest example. It gets an extraordinarily disproportionate share of government (and private) research dollars compared to the number of people actually affected by it. Not to mention the fact that most people can largely eliminate their chance of exposure through their own behavior.

But do I want AIDS research stopped? Nope.

Obviously finding cures for many things is ideal. I think we all would like this to happen. I wouldn't want to stop any current funding for research, but rather change people's behavior in looking to tax dollars for funding everything. I am a pro-choice person, but I don't believe the government should fund abortions. Likewise, I am pro-research but I just think funding should come from somewhere other than the federal government.

I've read that one of the reasons behind the efforts toward using government funds is to attract the best and brightest scientists in hopes for better chances in medical breakthroughs. I'm not an advocate against gambling, I just don't believe in gambling with our tax dollars.