The Stem Cell Thing
I’ve been mulling the stem cell funding debate this past week, and here’s where I’ve come to on this:
- Bush’s veto to deny Federal funding to research on embryonic stem cell research doesn’t mean that the research can’t be performed at all; rather, Federal funds just won’t go towards it.
- Bush made a mistake in how he pitched this politically: going for the pandering to the right-to-life base [a group that I'm only peripherally part of---I personally don't believe in abortion, but I'm just not that chuffed on what the Federal government allows the citizenry to do, within reason] rather than saying, “My science advisors tell me that very little embryonic stem cell research has shown promise to date. Given the nature of the moral issues involved and the lack of progress on that front, I see no reason to change the Federal government’s stance on funding for this research, when we can choose instead to fund other research areas, such as adult stem cell research, that are producing results today.” Now, you can argue that, perhaps, Federal funding opens the door to embryonic stem cell research producing results, in the “throw enough money at the problem and it’ll work out” kind of way. I get that; I work in the NASA sphere, and that’s how we got to the moon. But Bush is working with a radically strained Federal budget, and he could have pitched this more as a fiscally conservative position rather than a moral stand. But that’s more nuanced than Bush tends to be, for better or worse. [Usually worse, especially as it regards to domestic policy.]
- Scientists looking for funds on this need to stop looking to the Feds and going after the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. With BillG’s money combined with Warren Buffet’s, they have nation-state level funding capabilities. They both have shown a willingness to fund promising technologies that will produce good returns on investment. If you can convince them, maybe you get results and you can kick at the Feds’ door down the line.
Okay, something here for most everyone to assail if they want. Thankfully, you have to have an account to comment. Mmmm … barriers to entry.
It also means something else: the funding is most likely to come from private for-profit companies, not from foundations, and thus any resulting treatments will be heavily-patent-encumbered and expensive.
July 24th, 2006 at 11:18I hadn’t thought about that, and that sucks. [But thanks for driving a Mack truck through that hole in my argument, Dr. Evil.] Given that adult stem cells have shown more promise early on, I’m wondering if this is one of those situations where things reverse field when embryonic work is a little further along and the therapeutic reasons for doing so can outweight the foofy bioethics of the extreme right-to-lifers.
[Or, we wait until 2009 and there'll be a new POTUS who will almost assuredly sign such a bill.]
July 24th, 2006 at 11:24(Hi! I got here through Live Granades.)
Seems like I’m on the other side of the fence from you on this issue, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I know exactly what to say. What Jon Stewart said a few Daily Shows ago, struck me as true, though: Bush made his announcement about the veto while surrounded by… what are they called? Snowflake children? Children, anyway, that wouldn’t have been there if not for stem cell research, both embryonic and adult.
In light of that, the argument that not much good has come of this research seems a bit spurious to me.
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:47Vika,
I’m not sure what side of the fence you are putting yourself on; I don’t think Geof came down with a huge position either way; it was more observation that position.
I also am wondering if you’re a biyt confused about the “Snowflake Children” – these aren’t children who are alive today because their health was saved due to embryonic research; they are children who were once frozen embryos but then given the opportunity to continue life and be born.
Or maybe I misunderstood your comment and reasoning?
August 2nd, 2006 at 16:44I believe, but am not 100% sure, that Chris is correct—those kids were embryos left over from IVF and given to adoptive parents who were unable to conceive on their own.
August 2nd, 2006 at 17:12Chris (and Geof),
Yeah, I know they’re ex-frozen embryos. I don’t think their lives were saved by stem cell research; they were enabled by it, as IVF procedures themselves were greatly improved by SCR.
As for Chris’ position, I think he implicitly stated it by writing out what he would rather have had Bush say, science advisors and all. If his science advisors had told Bush that “very little embryonic stem cell research has shown promise to date,” they should’ve been fired for incompetence.
August 2nd, 2006 at 17:40