In the summer of 2001, there was a dispute over federal funding for embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). Those in favor of it argued that ESCR held the promise to cure countless diseases and injuries from Alzheimer's to quadriplegia. Those opposed to it argued that it should be opposed as a matter of principle because it was (and is) necessary to destroy a human being to obtain the stem cells; that any cures from ESCR were years if not decades away; and that research into adult stem cells showed more promise. Indeed, treatments using adult stem cells are already being done.
Now comes news that regular adult cells can be reprogrammed from one type of cell into another. This means that the advantage supposedly inherent to working with embryonic stem cells, that they can become any type of cell in the body, is nullified. Indeed, this advantage was nullified when it was found that adult stem cells could be reprogrammed to behave like embryonic stem cells. These methods of reprogamming give adult stem cell research and cellular therapies using normal adult cells the same potential as embryonic stem cells without having to destroy human embryos and without the problem of controlling what sort of cell the embryonic stem cell will become (the latter problem being the major reason no potentially viable treatments have emerged through ESCR).
All of this goes to show both the wisdom of President Bush's decision to accept federal funding of ESCR for existing stem cell lines only.* The field of medical research operates in the market, and actors in the market respond to incentives. Cures utilizing ESCR were seen as being far off, and for them to be a worthwhile investment would have required large federal subsidies.** By limiting the scope of federal funding, President Bush created an incentive for investors to look into other forms of research that offered a better chance of short-to-medium run return on investment such as adult stem cell research (pushing lots of federal money that way as well). These forms of research also avoided the moral dilemma of destroying embryos. Now this research is bearing fruit, and the need for obtaining stem cells by destroying embryos and employing human cloning to obtain usable stem cells is on the verge of being obviated if it hasn't been already.
Can there be any doubt that, if the president had given in to the pressure and accepted unrestricted federal funding for ESCR, none of this would have happened? With massive federal subsidies going to the politically popular ESCR, would researchers have bothered to try anything else? Plenty of scientists back the popular line on global warming because it gets them government funding. Why take a chance on adult stem cells or this new cellular reprogramming method if ESCR gives you guaranteed money if you only promise that cures for all sorts of diseases are right around the corner?
Given the politics at the time, President Bush made as morally right a decision as he could, and the fruit of research in fields in competition with ESCR over the intervening years have born fruit. In short, Bush got this one right.
*In theory, it would have been best for him to deny federal funding altogether, but it was seen as being a politically untenable position.
**Otherwise, people scientists, companies, and universities engaged in ESCR would have been able to find private investors to fund their research.
Hat tip: The Corner
Now comes news that regular adult cells can be reprogrammed from one type of cell into another. This means that the advantage supposedly inherent to working with embryonic stem cells, that they can become any type of cell in the body, is nullified. Indeed, this advantage was nullified when it was found that adult stem cells could be reprogrammed to behave like embryonic stem cells. These methods of reprogamming give adult stem cell research and cellular therapies using normal adult cells the same potential as embryonic stem cells without having to destroy human embryos and without the problem of controlling what sort of cell the embryonic stem cell will become (the latter problem being the major reason no potentially viable treatments have emerged through ESCR).
All of this goes to show both the wisdom of President Bush's decision to accept federal funding of ESCR for existing stem cell lines only.* The field of medical research operates in the market, and actors in the market respond to incentives. Cures utilizing ESCR were seen as being far off, and for them to be a worthwhile investment would have required large federal subsidies.** By limiting the scope of federal funding, President Bush created an incentive for investors to look into other forms of research that offered a better chance of short-to-medium run return on investment such as adult stem cell research (pushing lots of federal money that way as well). These forms of research also avoided the moral dilemma of destroying embryos. Now this research is bearing fruit, and the need for obtaining stem cells by destroying embryos and employing human cloning to obtain usable stem cells is on the verge of being obviated if it hasn't been already.
Can there be any doubt that, if the president had given in to the pressure and accepted unrestricted federal funding for ESCR, none of this would have happened? With massive federal subsidies going to the politically popular ESCR, would researchers have bothered to try anything else? Plenty of scientists back the popular line on global warming because it gets them government funding. Why take a chance on adult stem cells or this new cellular reprogramming method if ESCR gives you guaranteed money if you only promise that cures for all sorts of diseases are right around the corner?
Given the politics at the time, President Bush made as morally right a decision as he could, and the fruit of research in fields in competition with ESCR over the intervening years have born fruit. In short, Bush got this one right.
*In theory, it would have been best for him to deny federal funding altogether, but it was seen as being a politically untenable position.
**Otherwise, people scientists, companies, and universities engaged in ESCR would have been able to find private investors to fund their research.
Hat tip: The Corner
No comments:
Post a Comment