From the highly ethical Bush administration comes another veto threat. This time, the ironclad principles of the culture of life are prioritizing frozen zygotes (not embryos) over dying human beings. It's certainly a payback to a voting block. But are there other reasons for the veto?
I know this will shock readers, but there is potential profit involved! Moving beyond the ethical and wedge voter issues, readers might be interested in some of the monyy-related motives involved in some of the efforts to delay federal funding for stem cell research.
If federal funding were used for some or all ESC research, most or all of the information would become public. While many universities have created for profit subsidiaries to market the results of their research, the potential profits from such discoveries are somewhat limited. Not so if the breakthroughs come from totally private projects.
What's ultimately at stake is control of a potential billion-dollar industry that could make therapies to treat some of the world's most devastating diseases.
That quote is part of an analysis of University of Wisconsin's effort to secure an extremely broad patent on the methods used to create stem cell lines.
Who's doing stem cell research in the United States now? Stemnion in Pittsburgh, Geron of Menlo Park, California and (surprise?) Cellerant, a subsidiary of Novartis which contributes 27% to Democrats, 73% to Republicans
Again readers might be surprised that some stem cell companies might actually be fighting federal support--or at least, not jumping on the lobbying bandwagon. No support, of course, means no public scrutiny or regulation (except the standards agreed by the companies, themselves.)
"(Biotech) companies want to make sure that no legislation is passed that will hinder the sale of their products," said Sophia Kolehmainen, who directs the human genetics program at the Council for Responsible Genetics. The Council is a nonprofit group based in Cambridge, Mass., that advocates "socially responsible" use of new genetic technologies. Kolehmainen and other bioethicists say the lack of a legal mechanism to govern cloning prevents mainstream researchers from responsibly tapping into new technologies such as genetic engineering. The failure on the public-policy front to address cloning in any significant way has turned the field into a Wild West that cultists, romantic researchers and profit-minded businesspersons have threatened to exploit.
Republican lawmakers are walking a tightrope, trying to appease both their anti-abortion and pro-business constituents. "Republicans are also favoring the biotech industry,"
It's evident from their campaign contributions that CEOs like Chiron's William Rutter are leaning Republican. Why? If Federal Funding were so desireable, wouldn't these CEOs be backing only Democrats? The answer, of course, is that there's a schizophrenia in the marketplace--a desire for start-up money but not the scrutiny that would follow.
Meanwhile, we lose scientists to overseas efforts.
As a result, many U.S.-based scientists are looking for opportunities to take their work abroad. Two studies out of Princeton University show that U.S. stem cell scientists, compared to researchers in other fields, are disproportionately considering leaving the country. Patent concerns and access to the essential cells were among the reasons cited.
And then there are the photogenic snowflake babies. This is another area of profit--this time for "faith based" zygote adoption agencies. What does it cost to adopt a fertilized egg from these agencies?
- Program fee of $5000 to the faith-based agency
- Fees from the agency performing homestudy (making sure you are white, Christian, and straight), ranging from $1000-$2500
- The fertility clinic's fee for a frozen embryo transfer (FET), usually ranging from $2,000 and $7,500.
I'm well aware that for many this is a sincere issue of ethics. For others, it's pure fear--if science starts here, where will it end? But realize, that for others, there's money involved!