The big story, which has gotten a fair amount of spin in the media, is the story about the young Israeli who developed a brain tumor due to a treatment involving embryonic stem cells. In general, this story is covered from the perspective that the doctors who treated the boy had not been responsible in their injection of aborted fetal tissue into the brain of this ill boy; however, there has been no actual evidence that any other effect would have been forthcoming. Scientists have yet to achieve any meaningful advance with therapies utilizing embryonic stem cells.
Interestingly, the much less popular adult stem cells (and umbilical cord blood stem cells) are generating useful treatments and therapies all the time. The Vatican* has even begun funding research with adult stem cells.
One needs to wonder why it is that there is so much less interest in adult stem cells (which have been utilized in successful therapies and treatments) than there is in embryonic stem cells (which have not produced much more than tumors). I think it has to do with money and with patents (adult stem cells have much less profit potential than do embryonic stem cells); part of this problem has to do with WARF and the patents that they hold on embryonic stem cell lines. There is also the question of therapies using embryonic stem cells being more profitable than those that utilize adult stem cells, because of the publically financed nature of most adult stem cell research at this point; interestingly, embryonic stem cell research (which is more expensive and less predictable that adult stem cell research) requires government subsidies to work (as most investors realize that embryonic stem cells are much less likely to result in failures).
So these corporations that want both government subsidies and freedom from government intervention in their profits and affairs, expect that they should be able to take tax-payer funding and utilize this research to reap profits from those same tax-payers.
For more information, check out Do No Harm.
*I also have to point out that I am irritated with the obfuscational coverage that this story has generated in the secular media. Journalists have made a concerted effort to blur the line between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells in their coverage of the stem cell debate (for example, any story that you come across that claims a treatment has been developed with the use of stem cells, always fails to prominently and clearly state that these therapies have all be performed using adult stem cells).
In the same vein, the media now boldly pronounces, with disingenuous surprise, that the Vatican has 'changed' its position and now embraces stem cell research. Just to be clear, the Vatican has NOT changed its position one iota; instead, the Vatican has simply 'put its money where its mouth is' and begun financially supporting the therapy that it has supported since this issue first arose.
No comments:
Post a Comment