Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Stem cell research comatose as a political issue, or simply comatose?

californiastemcellreport carries text from Jesse Reynolds of the Center for Genetics and Society:

"...(T)he real message from this election cycle is the end of embryonic stem cell research as a relevant political issue. It was huge in 2004, present but marginal in 2006, and seemed comatose with the 2007's failure of New Jersey's stem cell funding initiative. In this cycle, the topic made barely a peep.

"Hopefully now work can proceed in concert with a level-headed conversation about the true potential of stem cell research and the real challenges posed by human reproductive and genetic biotechnologies."

Hmmm, does that mean when "stem cell research" is not a political issue, proponents will no longer misrepresent its potential for short term therapies? Or, does that mean that NJ voters figured out in 2007 that the economy wasn't looking too good, and now everybody has wised up? Except the California taxpayers, who are still dishing out the $3 billion, with little hope of a return.

The report also has text about Ed Penhoet:

Ed Penhoet, one of the co-founders of Chiron, has denied scuttlebutt in the California stem cell community that he is leaving the board of the $3 billion California stem cell agency and is stepping down as its vice chairman

In case you had forgotten about CIRM's IP lawyer who wasn't a registered patent attorney:

"Chiron's chief IP attorney, under whom she worked, was a strong and insightful patent portfolio strategist, so she probably has good experience from working with him."


Don Reed, who in earlier posts on IPBiz established an un-Iverson reputation as "not the answer," wrote on his blog:

But if we disqualified every board member who might indirectly benefit from the California stem cell program, we would have nobody left.

Stem cell research potentially benefits everybody on earth. People who pay medical would be glad if cure research reduced their expenses.

One could say that just about any scientific research POTENTIALLY benefits "everyone on earth." Also, new cures (not likely coming from stem cell research in the next 10 years) or new tests (more likely to come) will initially RAISE medical care expenses.

Reed gets money from Robert Klein's Americans for Cures advocacy group, and is not in a position to give lectures on what constitutes "conflict of interest." As California's economy tanks, someone ought to consider whether the 3 billion (truly 6 billion) is such a good bet for California taxpayers. Folks in New Jersey wised up last year and rejected the stem cell bond proposal.

Refer to http://stemcellbattles.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/join-us-in-sacramento-thursday-nov-20th-900-am/

**UPDATE. from a post about Nobel Laureates backing Obama.

The “treat disease” comment in the letter is undoubtedly aimed at the embryonic stem cell research controversy. But despite limitations in the U.S., the rest of the world was free to conduct such research. Has there been any progress? There’s been nothing to speak of except a lot of fraud -- remember South Korean researcher Hwang Woo-suk?


Post a Comment

<< Home