YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I agree, when I was in Washington, you knew which issues, some even created by Congress to continue the slush campaign fundraising. Happens on both sides, and I don't see how it changes. Nothing will unless both sides have some reasons to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I don't know that there are grounds for this much confidence. One aspect of cancer cells is that they're not subject to natural aging. The telomeres on cancer cells stay the same length. If your normal cells worked the same way, you wouldn't age either. I've heard of research involving telomeres--both to cure cancer by attacking telomeres, and to cure aging by improving the telomere situation on your normal cells. Will this research lead anywhere? I don't know. But I certainly don't want these types of projects to go unfunded simply because the government was too busy wasting money elsewhere to spend it usefully here. 828855[/snapback] Whatever it is, watching someone suffer from it is hell on its own. TBH I have no idea if there is some genetic predisposition to getting cancer, but if it is, I am unlucky since my father and grandfather both passed away from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I don't know that there are grounds for this much confidence. One aspect of cancer cells is that they're not subject to natural aging. The telomeres on cancer cells stay the same length. If your normal cells worked the same way, you wouldn't age either. I've heard of research involving telomeres--both to cure cancer by attacking telomeres, and to cure aging by improving the telomere situation on your normal cells. Will this research lead anywhere? I don't know. But I certainly don't want these types of projects to go unfunded simply because the government was too busy wasting money elsewhere to spend it usefully here. 828855[/snapback] A company was started to try to do this called Geron. I had two friends who worked there. They were working on it since the early 90s. Nothing came of it and the company basically went into stem cells. About 3 years ago, they laid off at least 50 % of their staff. Activating thete;pmeres wouldn't "cure" aging becaise mutations accumulate in all the other genes. The DNA polymerase (the protein that copies your DNA) has a natural error rate. There are also proofreading enzymes to help correct those mistakes. Those also have an error rate. If it wasn't for these error rates, there would be no evolution. Some people say that cancer is basically a bad side effect of evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarthur31 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Why don't you, instead, explain WHY the government's job is to take care of us. Start with a Constitutional basis... 825035[/snapback] Hate to join this fight, but you should read the Declaration of Independence. Something about "promoting the general welfare" or some such. There are things that the majority of Americans can't do alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Hate to join this fight, but you should read the Declaration of Independence. Something about "promoting the general welfare" or some such. There are things that the majority of Americans can't do alone. 829049[/snapback] Which is different from "taking care of us". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Which is different from "taking care of us". 829075[/snapback] I do see his point, "promoting the general welfare" could be talking about health in general, and thus disease research. I don't exactly agree with it, as I think its a different interpretation then what was intended (the protection of liberties and rights), but I do understand why he's saying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I do see his point, "promoting the general welfare" could be talking about health in general, and thus disease research. I don't exactly agree with it, as I think its a different interpretation then what was intended (the protection of liberties and rights), but I do understand why he's saying it. 829078[/snapback] I understand, too. I understood from the very beginning, when I called him an idiot. It's a common - and incredibly stupid - misconception that "general welfare" is identical to the sum of every individual's welfare, and that if you've taken care of every individual and protected them from harm, you've protected the general welfare. Any public health professional can tell you that the general welfare of the public is NOT the quantitative sum of the welfare of individuals. Ditto national defense. Ditto law enforcement. Ditto the economy. "Promoting the general welfare" and protecting people are two vastly different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I understand, too. I understood from the very beginning, when I called him an idiot. It's a common - and incredibly stupid - misconception that "general welfare" is identical to the sum of every individual's welfare, and that if you've taken care of every individual and protected them from harm, you've protected the general welfare. Any public health professional can tell you that the general welfare of the public is NOT the quantitative sum of the welfare of individuals. Ditto national defense. Ditto law enforcement. Ditto the economy. "Promoting the general welfare" and protecting people are two vastly different things. 829097[/snapback] I honestly expected that you understood. I dunno, I was more or less thinking about my own opinion on the subject out loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 A company was started to try to do this called Geron. I had two friends who worked there. They were working on it since the early 90s. Nothing came of it and the company basically went into stem cells. About 3 years ago, they laid off at least 50 % of their staff. Activating thete;pmeres wouldn't "cure" aging becaise mutations accumulate in all the other genes. The DNA polymerase (the protein that copies your DNA) has a natural error rate. There are also proofreading enzymes to help correct those mistakes. Those also have an error rate. If it wasn't for these error rates, there would be no evolution. Some people say that cancer is basically a bad side effect of evolution. 829031[/snapback] Thanks for the inside scoop. But even though those researchers ran into trouble, I'd hate to see others be unable to try something just because of a lack of funding. There are many cases where something was presumed impossible only to later be achieved--heavier than air flight, traveling faster than the speed of sound, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts