Stem-cell research is moving slowly in California. There are the issues of risk and funding. Government often funds what the private sector cannot, will not, or should not.
Sacramento Bee/David Lesher, 2/12/12. "In the future, scientists tell us, stem cells could make the blind see again, help the crippled to walk again and perhaps cure some of our most debilitating diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's and AIDS.
Neurospheres forming connections. |
The good news is that it's not science fiction. Just last month, the only human trial under way in the United States involving embryonic stem cells reported that eyesight was improved for two legally blind women. And in California, where voters approved a $3 billion bond to support stem cell science in 2004, the president of the state's stem cell agency said he is "optimistic" that at least a few California treatments will prove successful in humans in the next five years.
The bad news in the stem cell field is the growing uncertainty about money and the time it will take to complete a cautious and evolving regulatory process - even after "proof" in human trials is achieved. Those who speculate say that the most advanced stem cell treatments are still probably a decade away from becoming available to patients. And the cost to get them there will far exceed California's $3 billion investment. The hope was that California's bond would jump-start a biotech industry by building the laboratories and seeding early research to a point where private support would take over.
But that point of commercial viability is a moving target as private investors have grown more risk averse and the regulatory path for such radical new therapies is unpredictable. So the biggest question today in the stem cell field is not whether the science will work someday. The big questions are how will we pay for it, how will regulators know when it's ready and when will it happen? "We are at a time when venture capital doesn't invest as early as it used to," said Larry Goldstein, a leading stem cell scientist at UC San Diego. "So the public has to do it. You may not like the system, but that's the system." Read more.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
6 comments:
Irrelevant to Pacifica. Kathy is turning Fix Pacifica into a bore like Riptide and Patch.
Patch has a fascinating story on Chihuahuas.
"Irrelevant to Pacifica."
Gee no name Anonymous (211), did they exclude Pacifica from the $3 billion California vote? Guess you're having problems reading the bold print on the article, so here it is: ".. in California, where voters approved a $3 billion bond to support stem cell science in 2004.."
Also, for years our county and Santa Clara county have been moving toward becoming a biotech hub. And, actually this occurance is regional.
One of the persistent limitations in Pacifica seems to be that of not having a global perspective. And, clearly that broader view is needed. But, please feel welcome to post your "Pacifica only" articles, under your own name of course. Instructions on the upper left of the blog.
@Kathy, why not post something about Whitney Houston? Surely you can dream up some silly excuse about why she is relevant to Pacifica.
RIP Whitney.
Anon (2:47, 2:53), unfortunately the Chihuahuas article was already taken by Pacifica Patch, as Anon (2:34) pointed-out.
To improve your "attitude" you might meditate on the scenic Pacifica ocean pictures by Paul Donahue on Pacifica Riptide. That might help you.
Pacifica Patch, Pacifica Riptide, Pacifica Tribune, and Fix Pacifica should all be limited to Pacifica? They all have Pacifica in their name.
"Surely you can dream up some silly excuse" about why they should all be limited to "relevant" Pacifica. Meantime, what you're saying appears to be idiotic.
Post a Comment