Fallacies being foisted on the public

Wise Young · 06-14-2004, 11:28 PM

I am listening to CNN where Wendy Wright (a representative of the Union of Concerned Woman) arguing for banning of embryonic stem cells and Art Kaplan the bioethicist from University of Pennsylvania. I was just appalled by the fallacies that were being stated by Wright:

1. Adult stem cell research is curing diseases. She cites the use of nasal mucosa research in Lima as an example of stem cell curing spinal cord injury. I was taken aback by this statement.

2. 20 years of embryonic stem cell research has not cured a single mouse. She is so ignorant (like Representative Weldon who had used the same line) that it is offensive. The mouse embryonic stem cell research that she is referring to is what has led to the establishment of transgenic mice, the most important tool that we have today for studying and curing genetic diseases, as well as understanding the role of genes. Without transgenic mice, no gene therapies would be developed. Does she really think that gene therapy has not cured any disease, including mice?

It is sad.

Wise.

Steven Edwards · 06-15-2004, 10:38 AM

Many opponents of ESC research use false arguments and don't offer compelling, realistic alternatives. How widespread among scientists -- pro- and anti- -- is the belief that adult stem cells will one day be just as versatile as ESCs?

-Steven
...an affluent suburb. 3:30 in the afternoon. 64 degrees and cloudy. the white house declined comment.

LJWebber · 06-15-2004, 08:11 PM

Personally I believe that the stem cell research is just another grant horse for researchers to ride for another 10 years until something elses comes along when that grant money wears out. It it just a vicious cycle and a way to keep the lights on in the lab and pay the mortage. I just looked up spinal cord cures on the web and found a really promising article about the big discovery of how scientists were able to get the cut spinal cord of rats to regrow by fusing back together with PEG. That was 1996, 8 years ago. You can go back in time and see hope after hope after hope for the past 35 years. So who's fooling who here ? I'm not bitter, but just saddened that the spinal cord injured as a whole is being used and teased with the cure carrot dangling in front of them, and reseachers saying more funds needed. Does anyone know what has been spent over the past 35 years on research ? Enough to make all of the spinal cord injured billionaires if the monies was directed into their pockets. Then maybe they all could at least buy some happiness or at least have something to show for the billions spent. Ya, maybe we are getting a little closer to a cure, the cure that will come like a thief in the night. NO ONE knows the time or day when it will come, Are stem cells the answer or is just the common polyethylene glycol the key ? My guess in 10 years we will still be guessing and funding research. We'll see who's right.

Wise Young · 06-15-2004, 11:20 PM

Steven, almost every responsible scientist that I know has said over and over again that both adult and embryonic stem cell studies are necessary. This includes people who are heavily invested in adult stem cell research, such as Irv Weissman and Catherine Verfaillie.

LJWebber, what you are suggesting makes no sense. The National Institute of Health invested an average of about $30 million per year in the 1970s, $39 million/year in the 1980's, $51 million/year in the 1990's, and $66 million/year in the 2000s into spinal cord injury research. Over the last 35 years (1970-2005), this adds up to about $1.5 billion (i.e. $300+$390+$550+$300 million). Let's assume that a million people with spinal cord injury had lived in the United States over the past 35 years. If our government put all the money that NIH invested in spinal cord injury research into the pockets of people with spinal cord injury, this comes to about $1,500 per person over the 35 years.

Please consider how much money the government has spent on the care of people with spinal cord injury. Even though you might not think of this expenditure as going into the pockets of people with spinal cord injury, it is money that is being spent on people with spinal cord injury. Care costs averaged $6 billion/year in the 1970's, $8 billion/year in the 1980's, $10 billion/year in the 1990's, and probably $13 billion/year in the 2000's. If so, the past 35 years of spinal cord injury care costed our country about $300 billion. Spread out over a million people with spinal cord injury, this comes to about $300,000 per person. This is not quite enough to make anybody a billionaire but much more money than on research.

Are you suggesting that investing into spinal cord injury research is a waste and that the money would be better spent by giving it to people with spinal cord injury? Let us consider another example besides polyethylene glycol. In the 1980's, NIH invested about $10 million into clinical trials to assess methylprednisolone. This treatment improved neurological recovery by an average of about 20%. If methylprednisolone saved even 1% of the costs of spinal cord injury care, this would have added to $100 million per decade. If the $10 million had given instead to people who were injured during the decade (about 100,000), each person would have received about $100. Which would you prefer?

Wise.

LJWebber · 06-16-2004, 10:03 AM

Steven, no I was not suggesting that monies go to the pockets of SCI people, I'm suggesting that there is something wrong with research and I know it is a business, like all sickness and injury where cures need to be found. I've been watching for 30 years myself and I just can't understand why in 1996 they could glue a spinal cord together and here it is 8 years down the road and still nothing applicable to humans. When these rat results are published it gets interest up and grant givers think well, they are making headway, then another 8 years passes and so on. What happened to the PEG studies? That is the real info I'm looking for, not how much has been spent or will be spent, but why with such promising results with PEG and the new discoveries made in between, why isn't there a cure now? Tell me what happened to the PEG studies. I just don't understand why there is not a cure already. It is amazing to me that we can make our voice travel across the world without a phone line, and how you can snap a camera and images appear on film. How did someone figure that out. It just seems to me after all the billions you were kind enough to figure out that has been spent on sci research the past 35 years, that we should be better off. Let's use the technology we should already have and not delay a cure fighting over embryonic stem cells.

Lindox · 06-16-2004, 02:10 PM

LJWebber,
You might want to contact Dr. Borgens about the PEG status.

You have some valid points.
Not much return for the money spent..a business operating in this manner would go under in a very short time.

But..I feel the reason for ESC and ASC research is..it has the most potential of really accomplishing return of function.

Of course in combination with other promising
therapies. And the work in genetics is just so amazing.

Some of the research will fail..that is to be expected. Before this century, that was pretty much the norm. Except for the MP.
Thank God for that.

The scientific research community does need to become a community though IMO.
Instead of snapping at each others heels..turn around and shake hands..embrace
each others ideas.
Share the successes and the failures as well.
Ultimately though they too are human.

Inside of every older person,
is a young person saying, "What the hell happened?"

Wise Young · 06-16-2004, 03:51 PM

I disagree with the assertion about there not being much return for the money spent on spinal cord injury research. I just detailed the amount that has been spent on spinal cord injury research by the federal government over the past 35 years. The amount is probably less than $1.5 billion. A major portion of this research has gone to rehabilitation and acute spinal cord injury research, urinary tract infections, prevention of decubiti, better wheelchairs, etc.

In my opinion, there has been tremendous return for the little money that has been spent on "cure" research for spinal cord injury. Would people be interested in a discussion on the return for the research investment or is this a discussion about the need for embryonic stem cell research?

The example of the PEG study is probably not the best choice for three reasons. First, the results are controversial and not believed by many scientists. Second, this is a treatment of acute spinal cord injury and not chronic spinal cord injury. Third, no company has picked up on this idea yet and funding for clinical trials from the government has been very limited. I doubt that the investment to date on PEG therapy have been more than $200,000 at Purdue. Finally, I am not sure why this example would be any reason not to do embryonic stem cell research. PEG is not a regenerative therapy whereas the potential for embryonic stem cells lies in the possibility of enhancing regeneration and neuronal replacement.

Wise.

[This message was edited by Wise Young on 06-16-04 at 07:49 PM.]

bigbob · 06-16-2004, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Please consider how much money the government has spent on the care of people with spinal cord injury. Even though you might not think of this expenditure as going into the pockets of people with spinal cord injury, it is money that is being spent on people with spinal cord injury. Care costs averaged $6 billion/year in the 1970's, $8 billion/year in the 1980's, $10 billion/year in the 1990's, and probably $13 billion/year in the 2000's. If so, the past 35 years of spinal cord injury care costed our country about $300 billion.

Wise

Does that 300 billion take into account all monies spent on care or just what the government has spent? Wouldn't some come from insurance and or from patient. Also do you consider some some of monies spent on care were unnecessary?
Would funds to keep someone on a vent be considered care? Would caregivers costs be considered care? Would cathing supplies and suppositories be considered care? Medications, Wheelchairs, Physical and occupational therapy? Mri's, checkups, Braces, Wheelchair accessible issues, Hand controls, Head mice,special computer software, etc. All these things are needed. It is not fair to look at how much is spent on care as opposed to cure, we need them both-And by the way when a treatment is here wouldn't that fall under care? Care is not a bad word. I think the statement by LJWEBBER could be fine tuned a little, as that the care industry has had some problems with medicaid and power scooters-millions were lost when some people where given presriptions for motorized scooters they didn't need and some never even recieved them. I think his point was that he might be concerned that things like this could happen in any industry. On the whole I have trust in the research community and I think the funds are being used wisely. With the limited funds that are available I feel confident that only the best and well meaning researchers receive grants.

[This message was edited by BigB on 06-16-04 at 11:26 PM.]

bigbob · 06-16-2004, 08:09 PM

Aside from wheelchair basketball are there any expenditures for care that you would like to see discontinued and used on the cure? BTW the U of arizona funds most of its disability related sports from the lame for a game proceeds- a game between the wildcats and the wildchairs, no burden to the cure.

Wise Young · 06-16-2004, 09:50 PM

Bob, please don't make this a care versus cure argument. This is not a zero sum game. At no time have I suggested that any funds should be taken from care and put into cure. LJWebber was claiming that billions was being spent on spinal cord injury research with no return. I disagreed and provided some numbers. By the way, the care costs that I cite do not include any of the other societal costs of ADA, such as access. If those were included, the costs would be much higher.

LJWebber, I agree with you that many promising therapies have not been adequately followed up and there is currently no path to clinical trials for therapies (some of which are much more promising than PEG). It is sad.

Wise.

06-14-2004, 11:28 PM	#1
Wise Young Administrator Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: New Brunswick, NJ, USA Posts: 37,988	Fallacies being foisted on the public I am listening to CNN where Wendy Wright (a representative of the Union of Concerned Woman) arguing for banning of embryonic stem cells and Art Kaplan the bioethicist from University of Pennsylvania. I was just appalled by the fallacies that were being stated by Wright: 1. Adult stem cell research is curing diseases. She cites the use of nasal mucosa research in Lima as an example of stem cell curing spinal cord injury. I was taken aback by this statement. 2. 20 years of embryonic stem cell research has not cured a single mouse. She is so ignorant (like Representative Weldon who had used the same line) that it is offensive. The mouse embryonic stem cell research that she is referring to is what has led to the establishment of transgenic mice, the most important tool that we have today for studying and curing genetic diseases, as well as understanding the role of genes. Without transgenic mice, no gene therapies would be developed. Does she really think that gene therapy has not cured any disease, including mice? It is sad. Wise.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-15-2004, 10:38 AM	#2
Steven Edwards Administrator Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Acme Labs Posts: 15,530	Many opponents of ESC research use false arguments and don't offer compelling, realistic alternatives. How widespread among scientists -- pro- and anti- -- is the belief that adult stem cells will one day be just as versatile as ESCs? -Steven ...an affluent suburb. 3:30 in the afternoon. 64 degrees and cloudy. the white house declined comment.

06-15-2004, 08:11 PM	#3
LJWebber Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 21	Personally I believe that the stem cell research is just another grant horse for researchers to ride for another 10 years until something elses comes along when that grant money wears out. It it just a vicious cycle and a way to keep the lights on in the lab and pay the mortage. I just looked up spinal cord cures on the web and found a really promising article about the big discovery of how scientists were able to get the cut spinal cord of rats to regrow by fusing back together with PEG. That was 1996, 8 years ago. You can go back in time and see hope after hope after hope for the past 35 years. So who's fooling who here ? I'm not bitter, but just saddened that the spinal cord injured as a whole is being used and teased with the cure carrot dangling in front of them, and reseachers saying more funds needed. Does anyone know what has been spent over the past 35 years on research ? Enough to make all of the spinal cord injured billionaires if the monies was directed into their pockets. Then maybe they all could at least buy some happiness or at least have something to show for the billions spent. Ya, maybe we are getting a little closer to a cure, the cure that will come like a thief in the night. NO ONE knows the time or day when it will come, Are stem cells the answer or is just the common polyethylene glycol the key ? My guess in 10 years we will still be guessing and funding research. We'll see who's right.

06-15-2004, 11:20 PM	#4
Wise Young Administrator Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: New Brunswick, NJ, USA Posts: 37,988	Steven, almost every responsible scientist that I know has said over and over again that both adult and embryonic stem cell studies are necessary. This includes people who are heavily invested in adult stem cell research, such as Irv Weissman and Catherine Verfaillie. LJWebber, what you are suggesting makes no sense. The National Institute of Health invested an average of about $30 million per year in the 1970s, $39 million/year in the 1980's, $51 million/year in the 1990's, and $66 million/year in the 2000s into spinal cord injury research. Over the last 35 years (1970-2005), this adds up to about $1.5 billion (i.e. $300+$390+$550+$300 million). Let's assume that a million people with spinal cord injury had lived in the United States over the past 35 years. If our government put all the money that NIH invested in spinal cord injury research into the pockets of people with spinal cord injury, this comes to about $1,500 per person over the 35 years. Please consider how much money the government has spent on the care of people with spinal cord injury. Even though you might not think of this expenditure as going into the pockets of people with spinal cord injury, it is money that is being spent on people with spinal cord injury. Care costs averaged $6 billion/year in the 1970's, $8 billion/year in the 1980's, $10 billion/year in the 1990's, and probably $13 billion/year in the 2000's. If so, the past 35 years of spinal cord injury care costed our country about $300 billion. Spread out over a million people with spinal cord injury, this comes to about $300,000 per person. This is not quite enough to make anybody a billionaire but much more money than on research. Are you suggesting that investing into spinal cord injury research is a waste and that the money would be better spent by giving it to people with spinal cord injury? Let us consider another example besides polyethylene glycol. In the 1980's, NIH invested about $10 million into clinical trials to assess methylprednisolone. This treatment improved neurological recovery by an average of about 20%. If methylprednisolone saved even 1% of the costs of spinal cord injury care, this would have added to $100 million per decade. If the $10 million had given instead to people who were injured during the decade (about 100,000), each person would have received about $100. Which would you prefer? Wise.

06-16-2004, 10:03 AM	#5
LJWebber Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 21	Steven, no I was not suggesting that monies go to the pockets of SCI people, I'm suggesting that there is something wrong with research and I know it is a business, like all sickness and injury where cures need to be found. I've been watching for 30 years myself and I just can't understand why in 1996 they could glue a spinal cord together and here it is 8 years down the road and still nothing applicable to humans. When these rat results are published it gets interest up and grant givers think well, they are making headway, then another 8 years passes and so on. What happened to the PEG studies? That is the real info I'm looking for, not how much has been spent or will be spent, but why with such promising results with PEG and the new discoveries made in between, why isn't there a cure now? Tell me what happened to the PEG studies. I just don't understand why there is not a cure already. It is amazing to me that we can make our voice travel across the world without a phone line, and how you can snap a camera and images appear on film. How did someone figure that out. It just seems to me after all the billions you were kind enough to figure out that has been spent on sci research the past 35 years, that we should be better off. Let's use the technology we should already have and not delay a cure fighting over embryonic stem cells.

06-16-2004, 02:10 PM	#6
Lindox Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: USA Posts: 9,025	LJWebber, You might want to contact Dr. Borgens about the PEG status. You have some valid points. Not much return for the money spent..a business operating in this manner would go under in a very short time. But..I feel the reason for ESC and ASC research is..it has the most potential of really accomplishing return of function. Of course in combination with other promising therapies. And the work in genetics is just so amazing. Some of the research will fail..that is to be expected. Before this century, that was pretty much the norm. Except for the MP. Thank God for that. The scientific research community does need to become a community though IMO. Instead of snapping at each others heels..turn around and shake hands..embrace each others ideas. Share the successes and the failures as well. Ultimately though they too are human. Inside of every older person, is a young person saying, "What the hell happened?"

06-16-2004, 03:51 PM	#7
Wise Young Administrator Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: New Brunswick, NJ, USA Posts: 37,988	I disagree with the assertion about there not being much return for the money spent on spinal cord injury research. I just detailed the amount that has been spent on spinal cord injury research by the federal government over the past 35 years. The amount is probably less than $1.5 billion. A major portion of this research has gone to rehabilitation and acute spinal cord injury research, urinary tract infections, prevention of decubiti, better wheelchairs, etc. In my opinion, there has been tremendous return for the little money that has been spent on "cure" research for spinal cord injury. Would people be interested in a discussion on the return for the research investment or is this a discussion about the need for embryonic stem cell research? The example of the PEG study is probably not the best choice for three reasons. First, the results are controversial and not believed by many scientists. Second, this is a treatment of acute spinal cord injury and not chronic spinal cord injury. Third, no company has picked up on this idea yet and funding for clinical trials from the government has been very limited. I doubt that the investment to date on PEG therapy have been more than $200,000 at Purdue. Finally, I am not sure why this example would be any reason not to do embryonic stem cell research. PEG is not a regenerative therapy whereas the potential for embryonic stem cells lies in the possibility of enhancing regeneration and neuronal replacement. Wise. [This message was edited by Wise Young on 06-16-04 at 07:49 PM.]

06-16-2004, 08:09 PM	#9
bigbob Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 4,005	Aside from wheelchair basketball are there any expenditures for care that you would like to see discontinued and used on the cure? BTW the U of arizona funds most of its disability related sports from the lame for a game proceeds- a game between the wildcats and the wildchairs, no burden to the cure.

06-16-2004, 09:50 PM	#10
Wise Young Administrator Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: New Brunswick, NJ, USA Posts: 37,988	Bob, please don't make this a care versus cure argument. This is not a zero sum game. At no time have I suggested that any funds should be taken from care and put into cure. LJWebber was claiming that billions was being spent on spinal cord injury research with no return. I disagreed and provided some numbers. By the way, the care costs that I cite do not include any of the other societal costs of ADA, such as access. If those were included, the costs would be much higher. LJWebber, I agree with you that many promising therapies have not been adequately followed up and there is currently no path to clinical trials for therapies (some of which are much more promising than PEG). It is sad. Wise.