1

Two words: Cord blood. Enough is a %$#@#*&*^%*&%$#@$# 'nough. Can we please finally quit trying to use fetal tissue?

2

I don't see what your objection actually is: Gates is giving a lot of money to support the research initiative, and he has already given huge amounts of money to directly support other projects, including health care projects, and, what? . . . he's doing wrong by not giving a lot more money to the initiative, or by not funding it himself directly?

I like your "soak the rich" scheme - I hope we'll see more of it. But you can hardly argue that Gates hasn't done a lot for this initiative already. As for why he and other wealthy technology-positive Californians support public funding for the reasearch, as opposed to just paying for it out of their own pockets, it's obviously more cost-effective, and arguably better public policy, to do it that way. By using their funds as a springboard for public funding, they have that much more money to fund other projects they also care about. (Those other projects may or may not be worthwhile, but the people giving the money will obviously want to get the most bang for the buck, and this way they are.) And it may be a good thing to get the public involved in supporting this research, by voting for and funding it, rather than treat it as something over their heads and out of their reach.

As an ex-Californian, I am leery of the too-easy citizen initiative process in that state. I've seen the damage it can do (Prop. 13; Arnold Schwartzenegger). And I don't think such issues often get debated on their merits (your "$6 billion scam" link being a case in point). But if we're going to have such a process in the first place, this seems to me a good use of it.

What the initiative is doing is giving the public a chance to repudiate - and back their opposition with money - the unpopular and unwise prohibition on funding dictated by Bush. The federal government won't fund stem cell research in most cases; the public largely wants it funded; the public will now vote on whether to fund it themselves. What could be more democratic? Bush imposed a stupid policy; the people will vote to go ahead without his help. Good for them.

3

As usual, KTK's post has a built-in contradiction. If the California initiative is indicative that the republic is functioning properly, why was Bush's policy stupid? If the people want to fund it themselves, they may. They can send in their money, like Bill Gates has been, or they can vote to have their taxes raised to fund it publicly at the state level.

And as to Bush's decision being unpopular and unwise, why not push for a federal constitutional amendment? If the decision is unpopular, you will have the votes to pass it. And if the decision is unwise, it is your moral imperative to do something about it.

Or, maybe it's what I think: the only people who really care about this issue are on this blog, or are ultra-wealthy "philanthropists" like Bill Gates. Everyone else is too busy watching the Lesbian Wrestling Channel to care about stem cell research.

4

Kevin,

I don't see what your objection actually is: Gates is giving a lot of money to support the research initiative, and he has already given huge amounts of money to directly support other projects, including health care projects, and, what? . . . he's doing wrong by not giving a lot more money to the initiative, or by not funding it himself directly?

First of all, 400K for a $3 billion project isn’t really a lot of money. Not for Gates. But my point – as I said – isn’t that he is doing anything wrong. I’m just curious why he doesn’t give more if it is really something he believes in. I don’t think he does.

As for why he and other wealthy technology-positive Californians support public funding for the reasearch, as opposed to just paying for it out of their own pockets, it's obviously more cost-effective, and arguably better public policy, to do it that way.

I realize that being a Democrat you think that it is always good for the government to participate in a boondoggle. But I still can’t follow your reasoning. Why is it better public policy to have the middle-class taxpayers foot the bill rather than have wealthy Californians pay for it out of their own pocket?

By using their funds as a springboard for public funding, they have that much more money to fund other projects they also care about.

I’m not buying that excuse. Gates could fund the entire thing out of his next dividend check and still have every cent left in his foundation’s endowment.

And it may be a good thing to get the public involved in supporting this research, by voting for and funding it, rather than treat it as something over their heads and out of their reach.

You really think adding a constitutional amendment to a state’s constitution is the best way to get the public involved?

As an ex-Californian, I am leery of the too-easy citizen initiative process in that state. I've seen the damage it can do (Prop. 13; Arnold Schwartzenegger). And I don't think such issues often get debated on their merits (your "$6 billion scam" link being a case in point). But if we're going to have such a process in the first place, this seems to me a good use of it.

But why should they use it in this case?

What the initiative is doing is giving the public a chance to repudiate - and back their opposition with money - the unpopular and unwise prohibition on funding dictated by Bush. The federal government won't fund stem cell research in most cases; the public largely wants it funded; the public will now vote on whether to fund it themselves. What could be more democratic?

I tell you what could be more democratic – telling people the truth so they can make an informed decision. The government already funds stem cell research (including ESC research). But let me ask you: (a) How much do you want the government to spend? (b) As far as funding, what diseases/conditions do you think it deserves priority over? (c) How much should the realistic expectations (which are pretty low) affect the amount that is allocated to this type of research?

Bush imposed a stupid policy; the people will vote to go ahead without his help. Good for them.

Do you even know what the “stupid policy” is? Care to give us a brief summary and explain what is so dumb about it?

5

I know that Bush is the one and only president to fund any research in this area. the policy that disallows this is ...... nothing research away! Just do it free from goverenment funding or restriction. have a nice day. and to David the vugarity isn't necesary but your point is fair. This is not about killing babies.

6

This is very sad indeed. The country has bought into the lie that is embryonic stem cell research. It's easy to do, the media does not know enough about it to know how slanted the reporting is on this issue. Researchers were and have been amking GREAT strides with adult cells for years and years. Recently, the Stem Cell Inst. at the U of M has discovered that adult bone marrow derived cells can differentiate into cells of all three embryonic germ layers: endoderm, ectoderm, and mesoderm, similar to embryo stem cells. We have already been helping people with adult cells. Why the fight for the ESC's? Money. The researchers working on the ESC's saw all of thier money dry up because the private funders of most of this work were giving to those working on ASC's and rightfully so as they are the ones making progress WITHOUT tampering with new life!!!

7

The real question is, why does California law allow Bill Gates, a Washington resident for nearly his entire life (discounting less than a year at Harvard and a couple of years starting Microsoft in Albuquerque), have *any* say whatsoever regarding an attempt to tax its residents? If Bill Gates likes the idea so much, he should move to California and pay the resulting tax; if he's not willing to do that he should pay for the initiative himself.

Out-of-state "do-gooders" meddling in things that won't end up affecting them isn't federalism.

8

The Gates foundation committed over 9 million dollars to the Discovery Institute (ID proponent) for a transporation study.
This looks like a token gesture.

This initiative is about economics. One of the benefits touted is for job creation.
They will be creating and destroying human embryos for economic benefit.
This is the new form of slavery.

Clonial slavery, based on the notion that the embryos being destroyed are not fully human.

Use of human life for economic benefit, based on biological discrimination.

The fact is, this discrimination is not based on science. Here is what embryologists think
about this:

Moore, Keith L. "This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being" Essentials of Human Embryology. p. 2

Larsen, William J. ".... gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual." Human Embryology. p. 1.

Carlson, Bruce M. "Human pregnancy begins with the fusion of an egg and a sperm ...." Human Embryology and Developmental Biology. p. 3

Patten, Bradley M. p. 13 "Fertilized ovum gives rise to new individual". Human Embryology, 3rd Ed. p. 13

Sadler, T.W. "The development of a human being begins with fertilization." Langman's Medical Embryology, 6th Ed. p 3

Moore, Keith L. and T.V.N. Persaud. "Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (spermatozoan) from a male." The Developing Human, 5th Ed. p. 1

Rahilly, Ronan and Fabiola Muller. "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed." Human Embryology and Teratology. p. 5.

If this proposal passes, a new slave trade will be created, where the university and medical laboratories will become home of the new plantation masters.

9

Joe:

400K for a $3 billion project isn’t really a lot of money. . . . I’m just curious why he doesn’t give more if it is really something he believes in. I don’t think he does.

If you're just trying to suss out his motives, it seems obvious that he does believe in the good of stem cell research: he gave $400,000 to promote it. As to why he didn't give even more, it may not be necessary, or, he may not believe in it more than "$400,000 worth." In the first place, it may only require a (relatively) small amount to finance the initiative campaign that will then trigger the spending of a much larger amount for the research, so it would be cost-ineffective to spend more. In the second, even Bill Gates has to set priorities - maybe (I don't really know) this is how far his interest in the issue extends. But I see no reason to assume he's not interested in it because he spent a lot of money on it - quite the opposite.

Why is it better public policy to have the middle-class taxpayers foot the bill rather than have wealthy Californians pay for it out of their own pocket?

As I said, I'm in favor of high taxes on high earners to support public programs. But funding important initiatives by letting wealthy people volunteer to give money if they happen to feel like it is no way to run a railroad. You can argue that stem cell research isn't worth doing, or isn't important enough to spend limited funds on - those are questions about the value of the policy itself. But if we are going to have such a program, it ought to be funded in a rational way. This isn't the Court of the Sun King, with savants toadying up to the nobles to offer obsequious praise in hope of support for their projects.

KTK: By using their funds as a springboard for public funding, they have that much more money to fund other projects they also care about.

Joe: I’m not buying that excuse. Gates could fund the entire thing out of his next dividend check and still have every cent left in his foundation’s endowment.

What do you mean "not buying it"? It's a simple fact that if he doesn't spend $3 billion funding this research, he'll have $3 billion to spend on other things. It's true (and mind-boggling) that he can afford it, but only at the cost of other things that he won't be able to afford if he spends his money this way. Even Bill Gates's funds are not unlimited. But if he can convince other people that it's worthwhile for them to fund the program themselves, then he will get what he wants (the research is funded), they will get what they want, and Gates will also be able to fund other things he might approve of.

You really think adding a constitutional amendment to a state’s constitution is the best way to get the public involved?

The "constitutional amendment" thing is overblown. Because of the nature of California's constitution and the public initiative process, virtually every law passed by referendum - and there are several on each ballot - is a "constitutional amendment". California's state Constitution is literally about 150 pages long. It includes separate sections for "Loans From the Public Transportation Account or Local Transportation Funds", "Motor Vehicle Fuel Sales Tax Revenues and Transportation Improvement Funding","Public Housing Project Law" and who knows what. It's basically just an extension of the State Code.

As for your objections to the research itself, that is separate from the question of whether there should be a referendum on funding more of it, or whether Bill Gates should give any, some, or all of his money to promote the referendum. You're certainly right that this issue - and most others - do not get well examined on the merits in public debate, though your apparent belief that the public would reject them if they were is, I think, too optimistic. I think that if there is a referendum on the issue it should get a reasonable and careful discussion and the voters should make well-founded decisions. But that can't happen at all unless there is something to vote on first. And, again, I think that the question of the actual merits of the issue is distinct from the question whether Bill Gates should have done more or less than he did in promoting it. Whether you approve or disapprove of funding more stem cell research, I think it's a perfectly reasonable issue for a voter initiative. If they approve of the research enough to tax themselves to pay for it, they'll do so, and if not, then not. Why shouldn't they do be allowed to make that choice?

10

A lot of rant with more emotion than depth. KTK seems to lack the intellectual honesty to own up that ASC research has been proven scientifically and financially successful and meaningful, and is booming, while ESC research has been found unproductive and problematic - essentially drying up private financial support.

But to prove out the first Grand National Lie (that abortion as practiced in America is OK) by creating what they think is a benefit from a sideline of the abortion process, the LLL's and MsM try to paint a perverted picture that: 1: ESC research is being thwarted by the nasty W and his cronies. 2: The "entire" scientific world really, really believes ESC research will solve all of the world's health problems, (and maybe even cure global warming). 3: That the only way to "prove" #2 and rub this proof in the nose of #1 is to pay for this at the public trough.

So for them the first lie isn't bad enough. Instead, they say to each other, let's build on it and tell an even bigger whopper. How scientifically currupt!

Unfortunately, it seems to be a recurring Democrat strategy. Throw some public money at it. And if it doesn't work after a short while, why, then, throw some more!

11

Melinda Gates is going to be REALLY pissed when she hears about this Bill and Melissa Gates foundation.

12

Lowell,

Oops. Thanks for the correction.