I don't know if you guys know about this, but the field of stem cell research is in a period of rapid growth, what with the recent approvals of INDs to start Phase I clinical studies. The biggest news recently was ACTC with their treatment for Stargardt's syndrome. This is becoming more pertinent, as well, since the recent injunction purporting that Obama's executive order violates the Dickey-Wicker amendment that prevents funding of new cell lines. It is currently being battled in Washington, as summed in the first paragraph from the next issue of The Economist
Quote:
ON DECEMBER 6th an appeals court in Washington, DC, heard the latest
arguments in the case of Sherley v Sebelius, on the question of
whether American federal funds can be used for research on human
embryonic stem cells. The disburser of those funds, the National
Institutes of Health (NIH), is the largest source of medical-research
money in the world, so the outcome of this case—which could end up in
the Supreme Court—may determine the rate of progress in the field and
how much of it will happen in the United States.
|
The stem cell debate is certainly an interesting one, if not infuriating coming from the perspective of a basic researcher. This is especially true when you consider that iPS cells that draw so much excitement have been shown to be much less healthy (in general terms) than embryonic stem cells. Still further, what most people don't seem to know is that there is now technology designed to harvest stem cells without destroying embryos! It's based on techniques used to screen for genetic defects in IVF. Still, embryonic research is embattled by a huge amount of controversy.
I just am loving how close we really are to seeing some of the first promising treatments in the areas of sight using stem cells (in America, at least). Do you think the opponents of stem cell research will ease if these trials are successful?
What's your take on this whole field, oh great dispensers of Internet debate?
Jam it back in, in the dark.