Stem Cells and the Truth About Medical Innovation

The Wall Street Journal ^ | March 13, 2009 | Scott Gottlieb

[Scanian]

Whatever one thinks of the ethics of using human embryos in medical research, the rhetoric around President Barack Obama's decision to expand federal funding for embryonic stem-cell science reveals a widespread misconception of how medical products are created.

Many of the same political leaders who are the strongest champions for federally funded research seek to impose myriad restrictions, regulations, and economic controls on the private companies that translate public science into practical medical innovations. As a result, while Mr. Obama's stem-cell decision only affects federal funding, and while more funding will mean more research, it's far from certain that this will hasten the realization of new medical products.

The achievements of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are monumental. But its efforts only translate into practical benefits for patients if its scientific research can be turned into new medicines, something that's not part of the agency's mandate. By its own recent count, the NIH cites only 84 examples over the last 60 years where the agency -- or academic institutions it supports -- discovered, let alone developed, a new drug or biologic.

Making new medicines is the work of a robust private life-science industry. In the case of stem cells, there are more than 150 private companies trying to turn stem cells into new treatments. But almost all of the companies pursuing this sort of chancy science are small biotechnology companies -- the kind that rely on private venture capital in order to fund their high-risk and expensive endeavors.

[DeaconRed]

Howard Hughes medical research has been doing stem cell research for years.
Howard was no lover of research. He started the lab to keep the IRS off his back. After he died the lab somehow wound up with a lot of his money.
They don't need any funds. They are 100% self sufficient. Unless they invested with Bernie. . . . . .

[Wonder Warthog]

"But almost all of the companies pursuing this sort of chancy science are small biotechnology companies -- the kind that rely on private venture capital in order to fund their high-risk and expensive endeavors."

Not really true. The true facts are that MANY very small startup technology companies get their initial funding from the feds (SBIR and similar programs), and get venture funding after the initial "proof of concept" work has been done. Probably the single most successful one I have heard about is Nanosolar (printed solar cells), who went from an SBIR grant to (today) half a billion dollars in private venture funding.

[Spok]

“the rhetoric around President Barack Obama’s decision to expand federal funding for embryonic stem-cell science reveals a widespread misconception of how medical products are created.”

Another prime example of the left’s ‘agenda over substance stance’, which applies to everything they do. Liberals don’t care about curing disease, any more than they care about womens’ rights, racial equality or the environment. The bottom line for them is the power to force their dogma down the throats of their perceived political enemies; it’s all about power, which we all know grows from the barrels of guns. Nothing else.