24/7 customer support
Professional writers
No plagiarism
Privacy guarantee
Affordable prices
94% of return customers
Free title page
Free bibliography
Free formatting
Free of plagiarism
Free delivery
| Home |
| Order form |
| Contact us |
| Blog |
| Stem Cell Research Should Be More Than a Promise |
|
Stem Cell Research Should Be More Than a Promise. by David Magnus
Proposition 71, the California Stem Cells and Cures initiative will be controversial to anyone who believes that an ex vivo fertilized egg has the same moral status as an infant. But to the vast majority of people, including some who oppose abortion, these embryos, which in fact may lack the capacity ever to develop much beyond the blastocyst stage, do not have the status of infants, and the Potential benefits of engaging in research far outweigh its costs. Anyone who supports stem cell research should support Proposition 71. Stem cell research, and particularly embryonic stem cell research, though very promising, is still in its infancy. It is imperative that basic research be funded so that everyone can benefit in the long run. That is why we spend so much money on basic research through governmental entities like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. While the private sector also provides a great deal of research funding, usually research must be close to practical application in order to attract funding from, for example, large pharmaceutical companies. Since the current administration has virtually eliminated funding for embryonic stem cell research, small biotech companies have had to carry the load. This is undesirable for many reasons. It means that the research is underfunded and may not develop. It places the research in the hands of companies that have no products to sell and whose only assets are represented by the intellectual property they can claim, which may encourage those companies to hype spurious work to help attract needed venture capital. (1) It is likely to lead to the worst sorts of incentives with respect to intellectual property. (2) Private control and ownership of the cell lines available to research will likely restrict who has access to the tools necessary to do stem cell research (as will intellectual property in the basic techniques such as somatic nuclear transfer). Placing such early stage research into the IP system and the private sector will likely furthur slow development of the technology, in addition to creating limits on the clinical results of any future successes. These companies are far more likely to engage in exclusive licensing arrangements, which will inhibit both science and the practice of medicine. Finally, in many states, these start-up companies are doing the research outside of any regulatory oversight. Clearly it is important to provide public funding for stem cell research. The federal government has been unwilling or unable to do so. Now California is stepping in. This has several advantages. First, became this research would take place in California, it would fall under the state legislation that provides oversight, particularly to research cloning. (3) California law requires that all such research go through an IRB, insuring that there will be a regulatory oversight that is lacking in similar private sector research in other states. The initiative itself creates further review by creating a citizens oversight group that would largely be made up of representatives from specific disease patient advocacy groups and representatives from the state's major academic institutions. This should provide an ideal combination, as the focus coming from the academic community will be tempered by the advocacy groups' push for tangible results. Second, the initiative allows for direct public buy-in to the goals of biomedical science. One of the problems we face with public funding of scientific research is the way in which the scientific community makes priorities and decisions without input from the public. While that has many advantages, we run the risk of a backlash if the research is out of sync with public values. Many countries have consultative processes to bring the public into dialogue with science policymakers, but the United Stares does nor- Proposition 71 creates an opportunity for Californians publicly to decide whether to support this type of research. The fact that there are prescribed roles for elected officials in appointing the representatives of specific diseases further democratizes the process. There will also be open meetings, public hearings, and required public reporting on an annual basis. While some critics complain of the "political" nature of any public process, the role of the public in deriding on the initiative and in electing officials who will appoint the oversight committee (within narrowly circumscribed conditions) would make this one of the most transparent and democratic scientific processes in United States history. Some opponents have raised the very real problem of California's state budget mess as a further reason to oppose Proposition 71. Ironically, some of these opponents favor federal expenditures on the same research. If investment in embryonic stem cell research is a good idea for the federal government, it is hard to see why it is not a good idea for a state, especially California. Either way, taxpayer funds would go to support the research (as it does for all other basic research supported by NIH, NSF, the Department of Energy, and other federal institutions). The only difference is that the money would come through a bond funded by Californians instead of federal taxes paid by the entire country. But in return, the majority of the economic benefits of this research would accrue to California. The state already boasts a large and growing biotechnology sector, and Proposition 71 could make us leaders in an important industry for decades to come. Profits from any intellectual property that emerges from the research will be shared with the state, and in fact economic analyses have shown that Proposition 71 is a good investment for the state, which is one reason the state controller and chambers of commerce from throughout the state support it. (4) Stem cell research is promising, but it is also a long way from delivering on that promise. Californians have a unique opportunity to invest in the future of this research, and thereby to participate in an important step in the democratization of science. (1.) See "A Ready-Made Controversy," Scientific American (February 2002), available at http://www.sciam.com/ article.cfm?articleID=0000C641-DE01-1CC5-B4A8809EC588EEDF. (2.) G. McGee and E. Hamm, "Ethical Issues in the Patenting and Control of Stem Cell Research," in Who Owns Life? ed. D. Magnus, A. Caplan, and G. McGee (New York: Prometheus Press, 2002). (3.) SB 253 signed by then Governor Davis, September 22, 2002. (4.) See L. Baker and B. Deal, "Analysis of the Financial Impact on the California State Budget of the Proposed California Institute of Regenerative Medicine"; available at http://www.curesforcalifornia.com/ economic_study.php. David Magnus, "Stem Cell Research Should Be More Than a Promise," Hastings Center Report 34, no. 5 (2004): 35-36. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
24/7 customer support
Written from scratch papers only
Any citation style
Fully referenced
Never resold papers
275 words per page Courier New font