Back to the Future
 

YAWN

Science is so far ahead of this you actually do have to go back...The whole system has to be computerized for anyone to keep up with anything, do you see where this is going? oh well..here's today's event....

http://www.pharmalive.com/News/index...&categoryid=15

Anyone care to start a Back to the Future 5 ? I'll play.
paula

Not to detract in any way from someone's hard work.

paula

You know girl maybe the little dictator [remember that film] well the star of it [and you know who that could be] may well be so into his role that his worries of his future prominence may hinge on what he does with this bill.

Hell what does a good actor do when he is destined at this time to be a small time character actor for the rest of his time to be known or unknown as I prefer.

This may be his last starring role as a lead. Egos can sometimes work wonders.

Or am I reading the wrong script.

Never mind, I tried thinking about it and it became so immediately complicated that I don't have the strength. I'm going to watch the horse again.

paula

oh sorry Thelma...I think it's about survival, which still carries a spot, but you have to shed anxieties, accept things, and just try to win it so as to avoid becoming one of the frozen in the land of the living dead.

that doesn't mean I'm sad. Determined .

my guess is, this is how a few others you mentioned might look at it.

Thank you lady,
paula

oh boy laughing
 

Ha ha i just reread you and see I was completely on a different track and there are a few sheets short of a full script book in my answer, lol.

paula

Haven't They Been Here Before?
 

I think it's great that S.5 passed 247 to 176. But...., they knew Bush would veto it. Do they have the votes or the intestinal fortitude to override the veto? I doubt it. Why even bother until Bush is gone?:rolleyes:

GregD

Pelosi: With Stem Cell Legislation, We Have the Opportunity to Save Lives, Find Cures
 

Pelosi: With Stem Cell Legislation, We Have the Opportunity to Save Lives, Find Cures, and Give Hope

PharmaLive.com
http://www.pharmalive.com/News/index...&categoryid=15

WASHINGTON, June 07, 2007 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke this afternoon on the House floor in favor of S.5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. The bill passed the House with a strong bipartisan vote of 247 to 176, and will be sent to the President for his signature. Below are the Speaker's remarks:

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentle lady from Colorado for yielding time and her exceptional leadership. Every family in America who has concern about the health and well-being of moms, and dads, and grandparents, and children, brothers and sisters owe a deep depth of gratitude to Diana DeGette. With her stewardship of this bill, she has given us an opportunity to give hope to these many families across our country.

"Every one of those families, every one of us, is one telephone call, one diagnosis away, from needing the benefits of embryonic stem cell research.

"I can't help but think that even those who are against this legislation today would want their family members, their child with diabetes, their husband with Parkinson's, their father with Alzheimer's, their mother with breast cancer, to have the benefit of stem cell research.

"Science is a gift of God to all of us and science has taken us to a place that is biblical in its power to cure and that is the embryonic stem cell research.

"Congresswoman DeGette not only worked on this legislation on its substance, she was generous with her personal experience to demonstrate the need for the bill. She understood that this legislation had to be bipartisan, and I commend Congressman Mike Castle of Delaware for his exceptional and courageous leadership on this legislation as well.

"Today we continue a debate we have held before. In fact, bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress have passed similar legislation before.

"Yet, with his cruel veto pen, President Bush dashed the hopes of many for the healing potential of stem cell research. Today, we along with millions of Americans, are hoping for a different outcome.

"Mr. Speaker, this week I am observing 20 years in the Congress of the United States. I'm proud of that, but I mention it here because this is one of the most glorious days, in the top five, I'm sure, that I have experienced here. With the introduction of this legislation again, with its passage, which I think will be clear and bipartisan, we are doing something that is relevant to the lives of the American people. And we are doing something that gives people hope.

"With this legislation, we have the opportunity to save lives, find cures, and again, give hope to those suffering. It is an opportunity that neither we, nor the President, should miss.

"This legislation would allow America's scientists to pursue the science they believe has the most promise to cure. It would bring embryonic stem cell research under the strict controls and ethical guidelines of the National Institutes of Health. That doesn't exist now. Why would we reject that? And it would help ensure our nation remains pre-eminent in science.

"I'm so proud of my own state of California where we have taken action on the ballot to establish the research in our own state. But it should be available to the entire country.

"According to scientists, including many Nobel Laureates, embryonic stem cell research could unlock the doors to treatments and cures to cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's, Multiple Sclerosis, and many, many more diseases. If we have a scientific opportunity to treat and cure disease, we have a moral responsibility to support it.

"Through stem cell research, this bill has the potential to bring hope and health to millions. I hope the President will sign it.

"It has support in Congress and the country. Seventy-two percent of Americans support this bipartisan bill. That is a remarkable number for a remarkable bill. Our nation's scientists support this bill. Our finest research institutes support this bill. And religious organizations support this bill. In fact, many religious leaders endorsed this bill because of their respect for life, and their belief that science has the biblical power to cure.

"As the Episcopal Church writes in their letter in support of this legislation, 'As stewards of creation, we are called to help mend and renew the world in many ways ... Medical research expands our knowledge of God's creation and empowers us to bring potential healing to those who suffer ... '

"Thank you Congresswoman DeGette and Congressman Castle for giving us the opportunity to support that science and that moral responsibility."

no disrespect, Honorable Gentle Lady Pelosi, but these people are really on our side..GO...uh....Howard think of something catchy but not leud.

Google News Alert for: GDNF
Gene therapy reverses erectile dysfunction in mice
South Asian Women's Forum - New Delhi,India
During the study, the researchers inserted either the gene for the glial cell line derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) or the GDNF family ligand (neurturin) ...
See all stories on this topic

hee hee
paula

Don't be so Quick to trust (have faith) in the pharmaceutical Industry
 

Patents of Scientific Building Blocks and Processes.

The USPTO has issued various patents that could interfere with the work of basic scientists, social scientists, and engineers. These range from correlation patents, such as the one in the Metabolite case, to patents on certain ways of analyzing data. Patents can chill research if the patent holder forbids other researc hers from using the scientific fact or natural phenomenon (stem cells, DNA) or charges an excessive for access to that knowledge.

One patent claims the use of a computer to derive a solution to any optimization algorithm. Optimization problems have traditionally been expressed in terms of the hypothetical traveling salesman who has to travel his route with the minimum expenditure of time and money. Commentators expressed the opinion that no one would ever attempt to patent such an obivious and important method of problem-solving. But in 2005 a patent was issued for the process of solving the traaveling salesman problem with a computer program that used a standard statistical algorithm outputting a set of optimal data points given certain inputs and constants. Although the inventor includes superficial language referencing a machine, what is actually claimed is the first step to solving any optimization lor linear programming problem. The patent holder can, until the patent expires in 2021, demand a royaltyfromany industrial engineer, facilities planner, telecommunications analyst, or other researcher who uses this algorithm with computer assistance.

The patent entitled "[d]atabase and system for storing, comparing and displaying gebnomic information" encompasses the very manner in which a computer user may access genomic libraries for viewing. Included in the claims is the method of comparing genetic complements of different types of organisms" by means of electronic sequence libraries. Such a broad patent may restrict meaningful access to and analysis of genetic sequence information that would otherwise be freely available to researchers who wish to compare, for example, the genes of mice to the genes of humaans.

Also, doctors profit handsomely when they put their patents on experimental drugs. Pharmaceutical companies pay up to $30,000 per patient. Some doctors actually run ads offering their patients "for sale" to drug companies. The doctors who recruit the most patients into drug studies can make up as much as a million dollars a year. This has led to abuses, where doctors put patients on drugs outside of their area of expertise. Some asthma apecialists, for example, have given patients experimental psychiatric drugs.

One doctor expressed his frustration to the New York Times theat the ethics committee at his hospital refused to $500.00 to each patient for participation in researc h saying that the amount was coercive, yet allowied doctors to be paid $5000 for each patient recruited into the research study.

Before any further legislation is formed, it is time to address the non-implementation of the current legislation we have in place already. Biotechnology is moving forward so fast that the social implecations and ethical concerns are not being taken into consideration and hampering future research of scientific theories. The Supreme Court is upholding decisions made by the lower courts allowing patents on nature itself. As Jonas Salk said, "I could no more patent the polio vaccine than I could the sun!" Without this attitude thousands would be in nursing homes suffering from the effects of this life threatening illness and the side effects that remain once the intial disease has run its course. The patenting of human genetic lines is not a productive way to conduct science.

VIcky,

Thanks for the post, patents are one of the next areas that I'd like to learn more about. I think I already posted that I ran into a college friend at BIOS who worked in the Govt. Patent Office for twenty-five years or so and just recently moved to a private law firm specializing in intellectual property.

Those types of coincidental, freaky reinforcements can inspire one for months.

Greg - I know a lot of people have worked very hard to get to this point with stem cells and I don't want to offend them. But you are not alone in wondering about why we even bother.

Our congressional leaders are just playing volleyball. Taking credit where it's convenient and dishing out blame when it isn't.


paula