Good for the President! All I can say is, if embryonic stem cell research is the boon to medicine that some say, why is federal funding needed to conduct it? Don't Glaxo Smith-Kline and Pfizer and Bayer have their own R&D funds????
Because no company is going to invest money that won't produce returns for 40 years.
Why didn't we get private companies to take us into space?
"Good for the President! All I can say is, if embryonic stem cell research is the boon to medicine that some say, why is federal funding needed to conduct it? Don't Glaxo Smith-Kline and Pfizer and Bayer have their own R&D funds????
"
And so they are. Universities, too, are still working with embryonic stem cells. They're just not using federal funds to do it.
President Bush's veto really has no effect.
I couldn't put it any better myself. I would add that these private companies have much more incentive to do the research efficiently and effectively. Give me the profit motive over politics any day.
I understand venture capital is flowing freely to adult stem cell (includes umbilical cord blood) research because early results are so promising and there are many successful cures already. IIRC, embryonic stem cells research started two years before adult stem cells were discovered, and has yielded no results (except to cause tumors).
Ummm.. this is simple... because private funding rarely funds advanced research when there is no profitable product in the near (10-15 year) future...
Did you see any companies funding adult stem cell research some 40+ years ago when the field was founded? Embryonic stem cells were isolated only in 1998 - it is a very new field.
Last year, the federal government provided $38 million in embryonic stem cell research funds. The NIH ALONE provided $200 million for adult stem cell research.
Maybe, just maybe, there is a connection between how long the research has been going on, how much money it gets, and how useful it is.
If research is always expected to pay off quickly, we'd still be debating whether or not man could fly.
Face it - this is a moral argument ONLY. It is moral to prevent the purposeful creation and destruction of human life in the name of scientific research. That doesn't mean that research wouldn't lead anywhere.
bump
bump
Great point. They're rolling in funds now that Part D is rolling.