PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, JULY 29, 2007 (Zenit.org).- A prominent bioethicist says he hopes that the closure of ES Cell International, a leading embryonic stem cell research facility, is a sign of growing realism.
Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk commented on the closure of the biotechnology firm in Singapore, telling ZENIT, "We can only hope that a certain realism may finally be sinking in, as Wall Street types recognize that the timeline for clinical therapies is likely to be quite long."
The firm closed when investors concluded that "the likelihood of having products in the clinic in the short term was vanishingly small," Alan Colman, former chief executive of ES Cell International, told Science magazine…
|Jester Hat Tip:||A.M.D.G.|
As A.M.D.G. comments we hope this is a trend, but surely ESCR advocates will only put more pressure on state and federal governments here and the U.S. and governments throughout the world to fund this research. Too bad it was economics not ethics that lead to this. Unfortunately neither ethics or economics are deterrents to governments.
From what I understand, the reason why Wall Street funds embryonic stem cell research rather than adult stem cell therapies is that you can put a patent on “Cure for Spinal Damage from Embryo #405364” but not on “Cure for Spinal Damage from your own cells!”
Companies own patents on your genes, so I am sure they can patent therapies that make use of your own cells.
The reason companies are hesitant to invest in ECR is the large number of religious fanatics and mentally ill trying to make it illegal. The same thing happened during prohibition. Legit companies did not invest in the alcohol industry because of fears their investment would be seized.
ah hoodlum, you have deigned to once again to grace us from your gnostic heights to pronounce anyone who doesn’t have your oh-so-enlightened view as religious fanatics or-you ‘oh-so-kind-hearted-liberal’- mentally ill. Nice! I would comment about the vast amount of information from science that states ESCR has produced nothing and has no promise to produce anything. But it would be throwing pearls before swine. You won’t listen; you don’t care for knowing the truth. You just want to come in here with ad hominem attacks. OK. That’s your choice. It must be sad to filled with as much rage and hate and intolerance as you are. We do better to pray for you.
“The same thing happened during prohibition. Legit companies did not invest in the alcohol industry because of fears their investment would be seized.”
If ECR made money, it would not matter if it were made illegal. Your Prohibition example plays into my hands, Hoodlum.
During Prohibition, many investors put MORE money into the alcohol industry without regard to the illegality of distributing alcohol in the U.S. Many families in North America rose to wealth by putting money into the distilleries of Ontario (a legal investment) or financing rumrunners. You see, if there is money to be made, people will invest regardless of whether a product is illegal in just one market.
Incidentally, this is where your Prohibition example breaks down. There is no nationwide ban on ECR in the U.S. Individual states have the right to decide, hence Michigan’s Gov. Granholm tried to draw ECR research monies to her state by offering state-funded incentives.
More people should do it this way.