Calling Out Crab Helmet

[End Of The Abyss]

I'd like to call out Crab Helmet to a one on one debate on...

 

STEM CELL RESEARCH/TESTING

 

What does ya say, Crubby?

[Guest]

I expected a thread calling me out on all of my evils and how I just insult people and how I eat puppies. I was disappointed.

 

All right, let's start with the basic argument: why not? Since I have never seen a satisfactory counterargument to those two words on this topic, I'll just end this post here.

[End Of The Abyss]

Well, Californias Stem Cell Research and Cures Act, better known as Proposition 71, allows the state to bypass federal restrictions and fund stem cell research to the tune of $3 to 6 billion. Since it passed into law two years ago, other states have rushed to allocate funds and space to stem cell research, hoping for their slice of the therapeutic pie that could result. However, while the federal system is by no means perfect, I find the California model for funding research worrying.

 

Stem cells are fascinating because of their biological potency. Their role in development, and in cancer and other diseases, plus the sheer range of their potential therapeutic uses, means that they deserve substantial R&D investment. Unfortunately federal policy, fuelled by religious and abortion politics, has placed impediments in the path of that research. US labs can receive federal funding to study only those embryonic stem cell lines approved by the National Institutes of Health.

 

As a result of that policy, everybody is talking about stem cells - in legislatures, on talk shows. This is a healthy debate, as it has forced people to reflect on the role science plays in their lives. But it has also given rise to Proposition 71, and the consequences of that are more ambiguous.

 

The federal and private-sector system of research funding has its flaws - namely that it undervalues novelty, original thinking and young investigators - but replacing it by local schemes is not the answer. Investing in research is a risky business, and even sophisticated states like California may be disappointed by the returns they see; other states may be even less well prepared. There is also the issue of where the money goes. Of the billions of dollars Proposition 71 has allocated to research, the most visible outcome to date has been the creation of a new bureaucracy.

 

Of the billions of dollars that Proposition 71 has allocated, the most visible result has been bureaucracy

Proposition 71 is not the only piece of legislation that worries me. Arnold Schwarzenegger, California's governor, quietly signed a bill in September that could turn an obscure agency within the state Department of Health Services into the country's largest holder of blood samples available for research. The Maternal and Child Health Advancement Act authorises state officials to turn these genetic nuggets over to industry in a largely unseen and unregulated manner.

 

While this seems like a positive change for research, the implications could be unfortunate. Take prenatal screening. Two-thirds of American women undergo screening during the first months of pregnancy to determine their risk of having a child with a congenital disorder such as Down's syndrome. In California, this screening is mandatory, and follow-up care for women deemed at increased risk is paid for by the state.

 

The new act risks damaging this important public health activity. The screened blood of hundreds of thousands of Californian women can now be stored and used for a broad range of state-controlled research purposes. The research can be conducted by the state or by third parties - life science and biotechnology companies, universities, anyone. It is unclear how it will be regulated, or how donors or the state will be compensated for any commercial exploitation.

 

There is also an issue of consent. It is well known that the current screening programme does not involve truly informed consent; pregnant women rarely know what their blood is being tested for, or that the results may lead to painful dilemmas involving disability and abortion. What's more, the process by which providers obtain consent from donors looks set to become even more difficult and bureaucratic.

 

It would be a bad trade-off for overthrowing the imperfect federal system of research funding if public safety and health suffered, but this could happen. The federal government and private sector already invest several hundred billion dollars annually in both conducting research and disseminating the results. They have well-developed systems for prioritising and regulating projects, so that valuable work is usually done properly and safely. While the founders of our nation may have envisioned a "laboratory of the states", they did not intend states to be biological research labs. Yet the new laws make the State of California not only a huge funder of research, but also the provider of key components of the R&D enterprise - in other words, The Biotech State.

 

Improving public health is a legitimate function for California. Funding risky research projects and creating commercially valuable but poorly regulated databases of samples, while undermining an important public health programme, are not. If the new laws result in one woman shunning screening, or the avoidable birth of a severely disabled child, the state and its people will be the losers.

[Guest]

From the sound of it, we're both in favour of stem cell research, and your only criticisms are directed at implementation.

 

So... end of topic?

[End Of The Abyss]

I guess.

 

AWKWARD TURTLE.

[Guest]

Well, that was boring.