Politicians smoking crack again

[Noodle Pirate!]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20041105/tc_usatoday/airforcereportcallsfor75mtostudypsychicteleportati on&e=3

How can they get funding for that?
Maybe I should introduce a bill asking for money to study my poo and its magical healing properties for the humble sum of 5 million. I swear it will be legit!

[GameDude]

It's only 7.5 million. That's not much money.

[Michaellvortega]

I could have used that money to find the Tri-Force....

[jmcc]

I wonder what it's actually paying for.

[dtcarson]

7.5 million of my dollars, that could be used elsewhere, or better yet, put back in my pocket so I could feed my family or invest in research I want to see succeed.
I believe in some sort of psychic abilities, but I don't think the government should be involved in it. Maybe they should offer rewards/bounties for specific results, say a million dollars and no taxes for a year or something, to help spur competition and private initiative.

[RBM]

Trying to teleport objects through telepathy doesn't strike a nerve with the pious people of America, so it's okay to dedicate several million dollars to that worthy goal. Trying to develop adaptable cell lineages from frozen embryonic cells so you can develop cures for a host of diseases is a direct affront to Jesus, however, so we can't spare any money for that. It'd be sinful. God Bless George W Bush and those hard-working Air Force imbeciles sponsoring this inspiring line of research. :notworth:

[Quackzilla]

Actually it's well within the realm of extreme possibility.

I wouldn't want to be the one testing it, though.

[GuilewasNK]

Gamedude what is going on in your avatar? :lol:

I think teleportation as a means of transmitting information would be reasonable as there have been experiments that show it is possible. Psychic teleportation of physical objects is WAY out there at this point.

[dtcarson]

Trying to teleport objects through telepathy doesn't strike a nerve with the pious people of America, so it's okay to dedicate several million dollars to that worthy goal. Trying to develop adaptable cell lineages from frozen embryonic cells so you can develop cures for a host of diseases is a direct affront to Jesus, however, so we can't spare any money for that. It'd be sinful. God Bless George W Bush and those hard-working Air Force imbeciles sponsoring this inspiring line of research. :notworth:

See, I'm an atheist, but I agree with GWB on this. YOU can spare money on that if you want, the Fed Govt won't. Especially when using infant stem cells offer no benefit overusing adult stem cells, and there have actually been *results* using adult stem cells, none using baby stem cells.

[RBM]

See, I'm an atheist, but I agree with GWB on this. YOU can spare money on that if you want, the Fed Govt won't. Especially when using infant stem cells offer no benefit overusing adult stem cells, and there have actually been *results* using adult stem cells, none using baby stem cells.

We are not newts, to regenerate a range of tissue types if lost. Naturally, we possess some limited means of restoring lost tissues if damaged, and so we have some cells which maintain versatility in cell lineage throughout our lives. If you believe that we possess the same ability to generate different cell types in adult-hood that we do during embryological development, then.....well, then, I guess you view the human body in a fundamentally different light than I do. If we were both in positions to dictate research in this field...well, we'd be pursuing very different lines of investigation. I'd be giving you a big, horsey grin and wishing you good luck in your ventures over the potato salad at yearly conventions.

[jbroush99]

It's only 7.5 million. That's not much money.

Very good point, it isn't much money. Just ask Latrell Sprewell. It costs around $12 million per year to just feed and clothe his family. He's probably got 7.5 million in change in the ashtrays of his 75 cars.

[jetblac]

I think teleportation as a means of transmitting information would be reasonable as there have been experiments that show it is possible...
Teleportation of information? You mean like E-Mail?

Anyway... these things will come to pass. I was just thinking about this the other day. After watching Contact. Whoever thought this up must have just watched it also. Or caught one - a contact that is.

[Cornfedwb]

I wonder what it's actually paying for.

Exactly what I was thinking.. amazes me people think we really spend $500 on a toilet seat.

[Alpha2]

I bet its going to redecorating the Roswell alien's condo.

[ZeroSupporT]

Reminds me of Psi-Ops the Mindgate Conspiracy, wonder where I sign up at. I'd be down with learning some telekinetic powers.

[dtcarson]

See, I'm an atheist, but I agree with GWB on this. YOU can spare money on that if you want, the Fed Govt won't. Especially when using infant stem cells offer no benefit overusing adult stem cells, and there have actually been *results* using adult stem cells, none using baby stem cells.

We are not newts, to regenerate a range of tissue types if lost. Naturally, we possess some limited means of restoring lost tissues if damaged, and so we have some cells which maintain versatility in cell lineage throughout our lives. If you believe that we possess the same ability to generate different cell types in adult-hood that we do during embryological development, then.....well, then, I guess you view the human body in a fundamentally different light than I do. If we were both in positions to dictate research in this field...well, we'd be pursuing very different lines of investigation. I'd be giving you a big, horsey grin and wishing you good luck in your ventures over the potato salad at yearly conventions.

I do view the human body in a different light. An 'embryo', as you imply, is still a human body and it's wrong to harvest that body for the use of others. What's next, cloning people so we can have replacement arms or lungs?

[dafoomie]

See, I'm an atheist, but I agree with GWB on this. YOU can spare money on that if you want, the Fed Govt won't. Especially when using infant stem cells offer no benefit overusing adult stem cells, and there have actually been *results* using adult stem cells, none using baby stem cells.
Why did you have to start this debate...

Embryonic stem cells are fundamentally different than adult stem cells, in that only embryonic stem cells can become any cell in the body, while adult stem cells are already committed to becoming a certain type of cell, and proliferate much slower. While there has been some limited success in making adult stem cells become more types of cells, they absolutely will never be as versatile or useful as embryonic stem cells.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2004/11/01/from_adult_stem_cells_comes_debate/
There have been ''a wealth of scientific papers published over the last few years" showing that adult stem cells, which can be obtained without destroying an embryo, have virtually the same qualities as embryonic stem cells, he testified. The important science can go forward, he said, but without the need for either embryonic stem cells or the controversy.

This has become a key assertion -- in editorials, in debates, on antiabortion websites -- of opponents of embryo research, but most stem cell specialists say it is simply wrong. A wave of recent experiments has cast grave doubts on the ability of adult stem cells to become a wide range of cells.

The most impressive and often-cited example is a set of adult stem cell experiments conducted in Minnesota that are surrounded by questions because, two years later, other scientists have not been able to replicate the work. The scientist who did that work, Dr. Catherine Verfaillie of the University of Minnesota, said she has not found a replacement for embryonic stem cells and is frustrated with the increasing politicization of the issue.

''My research is being misused depending on the point someone wants to get across," Verfaillie said. ''They have put words in my mouth."

In the very beginning, when a human embryo is just days old, the body begins its development as a formless mass of cells that are called pluripotent, because they have the potential to become any cell. When these cells are removed from an embyro and grown in a laboratory dish, they are referred to as embryonic stem cells.

Then, as the embryo develops, different cells start to travel down different branches in the family of cells, becoming more specialized, and less flexible, in a process called commitment. Stem cells that are partway down one of these branches are called adult stem cells, because they are destined to become specific types of tissue in the adult and are thought to have lost the full potential of embryonic stem cells.

Thus, there are many kinds of adult stem cells, each capable of repairing only the tissue they are destined to become. However, researchers have isolated only a limited number of types of adult stem cells, and some organs may lose all of their adult stem cells by the time they have finished developing, meaning that adult stem cells could not be used to treat those organs.

I do view the human body in a different light. An 'embryo', as you imply, is still a human body and it's wrong to harvest that body for the use of others. What's next, cloning people so we can have replacement arms or lungs?
You're probably anti-abortion then... Are you also against in vitro fertilization, because that destroys dozens of fertilized embryos for every attempt. I really don't see how people can believe that a formless mass of cells is a living human being.

[dafoomie]

Especially when using infant stem cells offer no benefit overusing adult stem cells, and there have actually been *results* using adult stem cells, none using baby stem cells.
None huh?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/28/stem_cells_grown_into_tissues/

[RandyTsai]

Smoking crack is not awesome

[RBM]

I do view the human body in a different light. An 'embryo', as you imply, is still a human body and it's wrong to harvest that body for the use of others. What's next, cloning people so we can have replacement arms or lungs?

As I implied? What exactly did I imply?

As for the rest...heeheeheehee! It's funny...my little sister made the same suggestion to me, which flabbergasted me while I was driving. Heh heh heh. It's such an outrageous suggestion, yet some people have no hesitation in expressing it. If the concept of organ transplantation were in the headlines today, and someone across the breakfast table asked me,"Surgically implanting someone else's organ into a patient's body?!? What's next? People murdering one another in the streets for the sake of their valuable organs?" ...well, first I'd probably snort orange juice up my nose, if I'd been caught offguard by such a crazy thought.

After that, I'd dismiss such an idea as ridiculous, which it clearly is. How people come up with these addled fears is quite beyond me. Why would you picture people growing clones of themselves for the purpose of organ farming? Does that strike you as an ethical, moral deed? Do you honestly perceive everyone else around you as a bloodthirsty nut with a surgical scalpel in each hand waiting to cut up passer-bys? Nobody is going to support the cloning of human beings for such a purpose. Obviously, the same ideals which govern organ transplants today would guide the rules for cloned tissue, in the future. Namely, one could not harm/maim/kill one patient for the sake of treating another. This technology is too far in the future for coherent discussion or realistic projections of its limitations or methods of use at this point in time. However, I don't need to foresee how it might work to dismiss childish fears based on nothing short of uninformed fantasy and paranoia.

[epobirs]

A very simple way to avoid controversy over research is to not involve tax payer funds. Those who support the research are free to invest as they see fit and potentially reap a huge profit as a result.

As for this air Force study, I'm more than a little suspicious. This isn't the first time the Pentagon has had something of this nature as the claimed application of funds. For instance, $20 million for a study on distance viewing. After some investigation it became clear that the documented work done could possibly have consumed more than a few tens of thousands of dollars and the bulk of the fund almost certainly went into something the Pentagon didn't want publicly describe even euphemistically in public. This new silliness is almost certainly the cover for a deep black R&D function.

During the Cold War silly cover explanations served another purpose. The opposition already had a wretched history of pursuing wildly unscientific ideas. The amount of control Stalin gave Trofim Lysenko in pursuit of his wacky Lamarckian theories led to the deaths by starvation of millions of soviet citizens. This was supported in place of the Darwinism accepted in the West because the Lamarckian ideas suited the essential human perfectability claims of Communism.

So whenever there was money being allocated for things not to be explained publicly it was often put under a label that would hopefully get the Soviets to waste some genuine effort on duplicating. In true Cold War fashion the Soviets often did the exact same thing while actually pursuing more practical programs.

[RBM]

A very simple way to avoid controversy over research is to not involve tax payer funds. Those who support the research are free to invest as they see fit and potentially reap a huge profit as a result.


As is often the case, it all comes down to money. What you say is true, of course, but it's actually a pretty harsh stance. Of course, it would simplify matters if the government had nothing to do with public health. Private enterprise could pursue whatever courses it wanted to and the winner takes all. The trouble is, when a significant portion of the general public suddenly finds itself dependent upon a private organization's product, it seldom turns out that "those who can afford it may live and those who can not are free to die." That may hold true (and does every day) if only a minor/insignificant portion of the population is effected, but if it's a sizable (politically noticeable) population that's effected then federal muscle suddenly comes to grips with the rights of private enterprise and things get ugly...fast.

We all know that most of us stand to benefit from a cure for cancer. We don't want to see that cure marketed so that only 60% of the effected population can afford treatment. So, we dedicate public dollars towards the discovery of such a cure. Collaborations between federal and private companies are encouraged, and a horde of well-paid lawyers crawl out of the woodwork to feed on the technicalities so that prices won't be solely in the hand of a few individuals some day. The same scenario applies for stem cell research.

As for your suspicions concerning the existence of black projects with misleading titles....I Want To Believe!

[FriskyTanuki]

Wrong Forum.