Color me pleasantly surprised, given the media's past treatment of the issue. The June 7 Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Washington Post, and USA Today all gave prominent play to news of a stem cell breakthrough that may make moot the embryonic stem cell ethical dilemma.
I don't have a hard copy of the LA Times, but I know the other papers featured the story on their front pages.
Of course, it appears that the New York Times couldn't let the good news go without a separate Debbie Downer article as counterbalance. Here's an excerpt, portion in bold is my emphasis:
While intriguing, a new approach for producing embryonic stem cells faces considerable hurdles before it can be used to develop medical treatments, executives from stem cell and other biotechnology companies said yesterday.
In particular, they said, the technique involves genetically altering cells, which could introduce new safety risks and make it harder to obtain regulatory approval.
“Once you muck around with the genome, all bets are off,” said Dr. Thomas B. Okarma, chief executive of Geron, a company trying to develop medical treatments from human embryonic stem cells. Dr. Okarma said getting approval from the Food and Drug Administration would become “enormously more complicated.”
In scientific papers published yesterday, scientists in the United States and Japan said that by inserting four genes into mouse skin cells, they could change those cells into what appear to be embryonic stem cells.
The method does not involve the destruction of embryos, thereby circumventing ethical issues that have led to restrictions on federal financing in the field. That controversy has also deterred some pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.
Joydeep Goswami, vice president for stem cells and regenerative medicine at Invitrogen, a company that sells tools for stem cell research, said the new technique could get more companies interested in stem cells.
Not only does it eliminate the ethical issues, he said, but it also might provide a way around stem cell patents held by the University of Wisconsin that some scientists and corporate executives say have hindered work in the field.
Still, an even bigger hurdle for investors has been the uncertainty of whether stem cells can be turned into lucrative medical treatments. Some experts say this might take a decade or more, too long for many investors to wait.
Of course, it's nice to see the New York Times worry about regulatory hurdles plaguing private business for once, but those regulatory challenges are not too far afield, I would imagine, from what the pharmaceutical industry at large faces.
In that vein, the "too long for many investors to wait" complaint seems odd given the 10+ years it takes from "molecule to medicine cabient" for major drug companies to develop pharmaceuticals. There's clearly lucrative private capital investment in those companies, and will be for some time.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Still, an even bigger hurdle
June 7, 2007 - 11:15 ET by dscottStill, an even bigger hurdle for investors has been the uncertainty of whether stem cells can be turned into lucrative medical treatments. Some experts say this might take a decade or more, too long for many investors to wait.
In other words, this is liberal code for saying the government is justified, i.e. removal of the barrier, in dumping billions of dollars into a deadend line of research which has yet to produce any viable treatment other than creating tumors. While this new method takes away the ethical dilemma, it also creates the avenue of continuing on the deadend.
Just wait, after spending billions of dollars to maybe one day find something to do with embryonic cells, they will then turn around to give Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortionists a new income stream of providing material for whatever they discover. The Pandora's box has been opened. No good can come of this.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Some experts say this might
June 7, 2007 - 13:05 ET by rmellerSome experts say this might take a decade or more, too long for many investors to wait. Still, an even bigger hurdle for investors has been the uncertainty
of whether stem cells can be turned into lucrative medical treatments.
Since when is the NYT worried about people making a profit? We will need an anti-gouging law!
While intriguing, a new appro
June 7, 2007 - 13:37 ET by taznarFind the blatent error.... ....
No, they did not devlop "a new approach for producing embryonic stem cells", they developed a method of developing adult stem cells that behave like embryonic stem cells! These are not "embryonic" stem cells.
Not to mention that embryonic stem cells face considerable hurdles too! Not the least of which are there tendency to be tumorogenic and the need for anyone treated with them to undergo immunosupression for the rest of their lives to avoid rejection.
Its rare that the road to a cure is ever easy or short. 10 years seems optimistic in my opinion. Seems only 10-15 years ago gene therapy was going to cure everything in 10 years. Like stem cell research, there's been great strides in very narrowly defined areas, but no "cure-all" is on the horizon.
Forget it, this is a one-hit
June 7, 2007 - 15:42 ET by CapitalismRulesForget it, this is a one-hit wonder. It is so much easier to see the salvation for all disease to be to kill your clone or a no-name embryo. And as long as we have a president who ethically keeps this from happening, they will continue to push this angle until they get what they want.