Pass the Soma and give me a shot of unfettered fear
The Power to Divide in the July issue of the National Geographic, authored by Rick Weiss and Photos by Max Aguilera- Hellweg M.D.; echo the logic behind stem cell economics (see Justices and Economics Blog July 1st 2005).
To begin, the medical and moral debate, in which a "dream to launch a medical revolution in which ailing organs and tissues might be repaired – not with crude mechanical devices like insulin pumps and titanium joints but with living, homegrown replacements.” (6) However the dream also is seen as a “brave new world of “embryo farms” and “cloning mills”. (7) Thus the debate centers on self-preservation. The science community views the potential of stem cells as a medical approach to prolong life and develop new cures for disease – self preservation. In turn, the religious community examines this issue through the same lens – self-preservation. In fact, the religious community wants to preserve the embryo as a viable life form.
However, economics is not normative. Capitalism, in particular, is unrelenting and unabashed in its drive for profit. That is the nature of the beast, and a beast which suits our natural inclinations. Capitalism is the preeminent economic archetype for it enables choice without moral significance. We do temper capitalism with regulations and anti-trust legislation however with capitalism dominating the world it is quite difficult to close the preverbal Pandora’s Box of stem cell research.
Thus the question is posed: “Can the nation (USA) in which embryonic stem cells were discovered maintain its initial research lead?” (17) Or is the USA in danger of being “left behind.” (17) The answer is yes and no. Yes, for other nations are making it easier to perform research and develop new stem cell lines. No, because even though the current administration limits federal funding for research this does not restrain private funding. So it turns on the economic dime. Will scientists and investors keep the science in America or will money and scientists move to more economic-friendly locations?
Currently, many scientists are moving to other countries to further their research in order to develop new strains of stem cells. The U.K., Australia, China and South Korea are making strides, however the preeminent power in this field is Singapore. “Academic grants, corporate development money, laws that ban reproductive cloning but allow therapeutic cloning and a science-savvy workforce are among the lures attracting stem cell researchers and entrepreneurs.”(23) The biotechnology industry “already owns six stem cell lines made from conventional, noncloned embryos … now it is perfecting methods of turning those cells into the kind of pancreatic islet cells that diabetics need, as well as into heart muscle cells that could help heart attack patients.” (23) On the other hand, a majority of the research is still produced by Americans. “The work of U.S. researchers still fills the pages of the best scientific journals.” (26) Additionally, many states are leading the charge to help finance stem cell research. In particular California (Menlo Park) “has been the center of the embryonic stem cell revolution from the beginning.” (26-27)
Finally, the success of stem cells rests with the scientific community. Federal funding is lacking, however private funds help. Moreover, the race to achieve groundbreaking medical techniques and solutions to health problems is an arduous one. America does have the upper hand in scientific man power but is this enough? Do we need federal funding? Or more to the point is science part of our national interest and economic security?
To begin, the medical and moral debate, in which a "dream to launch a medical revolution in which ailing organs and tissues might be repaired – not with crude mechanical devices like insulin pumps and titanium joints but with living, homegrown replacements.” (6) However the dream also is seen as a “brave new world of “embryo farms” and “cloning mills”. (7) Thus the debate centers on self-preservation. The science community views the potential of stem cells as a medical approach to prolong life and develop new cures for disease – self preservation. In turn, the religious community examines this issue through the same lens – self-preservation. In fact, the religious community wants to preserve the embryo as a viable life form.
However, economics is not normative. Capitalism, in particular, is unrelenting and unabashed in its drive for profit. That is the nature of the beast, and a beast which suits our natural inclinations. Capitalism is the preeminent economic archetype for it enables choice without moral significance. We do temper capitalism with regulations and anti-trust legislation however with capitalism dominating the world it is quite difficult to close the preverbal Pandora’s Box of stem cell research.
Thus the question is posed: “Can the nation (USA) in which embryonic stem cells were discovered maintain its initial research lead?” (17) Or is the USA in danger of being “left behind.” (17) The answer is yes and no. Yes, for other nations are making it easier to perform research and develop new stem cell lines. No, because even though the current administration limits federal funding for research this does not restrain private funding. So it turns on the economic dime. Will scientists and investors keep the science in America or will money and scientists move to more economic-friendly locations?
Currently, many scientists are moving to other countries to further their research in order to develop new strains of stem cells. The U.K., Australia, China and South Korea are making strides, however the preeminent power in this field is Singapore. “Academic grants, corporate development money, laws that ban reproductive cloning but allow therapeutic cloning and a science-savvy workforce are among the lures attracting stem cell researchers and entrepreneurs.”(23) The biotechnology industry “already owns six stem cell lines made from conventional, noncloned embryos … now it is perfecting methods of turning those cells into the kind of pancreatic islet cells that diabetics need, as well as into heart muscle cells that could help heart attack patients.” (23) On the other hand, a majority of the research is still produced by Americans. “The work of U.S. researchers still fills the pages of the best scientific journals.” (26) Additionally, many states are leading the charge to help finance stem cell research. In particular California (Menlo Park) “has been the center of the embryonic stem cell revolution from the beginning.” (26-27)
Finally, the success of stem cells rests with the scientific community. Federal funding is lacking, however private funds help. Moreover, the race to achieve groundbreaking medical techniques and solutions to health problems is an arduous one. America does have the upper hand in scientific man power but is this enough? Do we need federal funding? Or more to the point is science part of our national interest and economic security?
posted by JDAvignon at 11:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home