Stem Cell Debate

Mitch Kapor just posted a blog on the stem cell research funding debate in California. Comments are closed, so it looks like I’ll have to use a trackback to respond.

It seems like there’s a lot of heat and not much light in the US “stem cell research” debate. What I can’t understand (apart from the general principle that any more than two sides is too complicated for the media to handle) is why people are not making more clearly the distinction between adult and embryonic stem cell research. Wikipedia explains the difference well. Adult stem cell research is more advanced, has had actual therapeutic successes, and allows one to obtain the consent of the donor, but it doesn’t seem to get much of a mention.

Can anyone name one of these purported miracle cures for every problem under the sun (Cancer, Alzheimers, Diabetes, Heart Disease, the Premiership being too one-sided) which cannot be researched using adult stem cells?

(Over here in the UK the debate is more nuanced, but stem cell research has been permitted by the HFEA.)

27 thoughts on “Stem Cell Debate

  1. The promise of embryonic stem cells is simply “totipotent properties”. Meaning much greater potential.

    Adult Stem cells have more advanced research, but they also have much more money and time already invested in them… and so far, the research is positive, but not exactly solving problems yet. Nor do we see any big breakthroughs at this time.

    Embryonic stem cells on the other hand, have all the properties researches miss in adult stem cells: totipotent properties.

    That’s really the difference from the research perspective… Embryonic stem cells have more potential.

    Of course how much good this ‘potential’ has can only be proven through doing the actual research. It’s impossible to say anything definitive until that happens.

  2. Oh, how wonderfully ironic. So the same people who are arguing that embryonic stem cell research is morally fine because “the embroyo isn’t an actual human, only a potential human” want to do the research precisely because of the greater potential of the cells?

    It would be funny if it wasn’t tragic.

  3. The argument being made is not that the embryo has more pontential to become a human, but that each individual embryonic stem cell has the potential to become any human cell. Adult stem cells are limited in that they can only become certain types of cells (I do not know which ones, though).

    The previous commenter was trying to explain that researchers do not know if this difference in potential will matter with respect to practical applications. Only reseach and time will tell.

  4. Note in the following I am not giving a view on whether I am for against the proposition or the research in general. Just giving a few bits of information gathered from recent UK news pieces on the stem cell debate.

    There seems to be a misconception about where the embryos for this research come from. In very few cases are embryos produced just for this research. In most cases the embryos are the byproduct of IVF treatment.

    In IVF it is common for several embryos are to be produced. Some of these are then implanted into the female patient. The rest are then chucked away as medical waste.

    The idea is instead of having these embryos chucked away that research of this type can instead be done. With proper work several stem cells can be taken from the embryo and then methods used to get these to reproduce many many times over.

  5. > The rest are then chucked away as medical waste.

    This is absolutely not correct.

    In most cases, the couple who had IVF get to choose what happens to the embryos, and this decision is NOT taken lightly.

    The embryos can be “adopted” (http://www.snowflakes.org)

    The embryos can be kept for later implantation.

    The embryos can be disposed of by the couple (in some cases having a ceremony of some sort)

    This is a VERY delicate situation and IVF clinics do not take it as lightly as you suggest.

    It is very difficult to balance ethical issues of extra frozen embryos against the potential to get pregnant. Believe me. I know.

  6. I think you’re slightly confusing research with treatment. Embryonic stem cells are generally not required to research diseases; in fact, if you want to study heart disease, it makes a lot more sense to study cells from an adult with a diseased heart, than cells from an embryo.

    People want to use embryonic stem cells directly as therapeutic agents, not in order to study the diseases. Obviously this would require research into how to set up such a treatment. The current consensus seems to be that adult stem cells are not in most cases suitable for treatment of various conditions. Embryonic stem cells may be, but the technology is in its infancy at least partly because of restrictions on the use of stem cells. And therefore we don’t yet know whether embryonic stem cells actually will be effective to cure whatever diseases.

    It’s absolutely true that the potential benefits of using stem cells have been over-hyped; at the moment, people just don’t know what can and can’t be done. It’s also possible that the current view of the limits of adult stem cells are too pessimistic; I know of one study where adult stem cells were successfully used in tissue regeneration (in rats). But the evidence so far seems to point towards embryonic stem cells being a better bet.

    Embryonic stem cells are definitely different from adult stem cells. No question about that. To use adult stem cells, you’d have to alter them quite a lot to make them more like embryonic stem cells.

    To answer your question with a concrete example: spinal cord regeneration is definitely impossible with adult stem cells (at least with current technology, who knows what might be discovered in the future). But there’s reasonable evidence that embryonic stem cells can be used for this purpose, though so far it’s never been tried in humans.

    I’m not against the use of adult stem cells; I mean, bone marrow transplants are a crude example of that, and they definitely do work. I think they’re not much mentioned for precisely the reason you allude to; there’s not really an ethical dilemma here because you can get donor consent. And using adult stem cells can’t be mistaken for abortion in the way that using embryonic stem cells can, so the pro-life movement who are so vocal, particularly in America, don’t care about this technology.

  7. Me:
    >The rest are then chucked away as medical waste.
    Michael Kaply:
    >This is absolutely not correct.

    My apologies that was badly written.
    My intention was to say that there was a reasonable source (as parental agreement is gained) that can (and I believe is) tapped for such cells and that it is not necessary to produce embryos solely for such research.

  8. Then again… if you go back to core christian teachings, killing any “potential” child is a sin.

    That is why it was considered sinful for a couple to not conceive in many christian countries for so many years.

    Any time a woman mensturates… to some ultra-orthodox christians, that’s a sin if her husband doesn’t try to impregnate her. Because that’s a child allowed to die.

    That’s also why some really ultra-orthodox christians arrange marriage so young… so that as soon as a woman starts mensturating, she can begin having sex wit her husband… to avoid killing babies.

    It shows how society has a slide rule for this debate….

    Is it ok to kill a potential child by not getting a married woman pregnant? It’s in every way a potential child. In the minds of some (still): this is a grave sin. A very serious one. No less than murder.

    Yet to more “liberal” christians, it’s only murder after conception…. although christianity still mostly (though not always) teaches that a couple should bare as many christian children as possible to continue Christs work…

    to others, a child is when a child is born. Until then it’s “potential life”.

    Now you have a new christian group forming:

    They believe that organ donation is a __must__. Not an option. Because it’s an intentional choice to give others the gift of life. The denial to give such organs is to deny life (kill). In the minds of these individuals, organ donation == giving birth. The ability to give life. A gift from God performed through a doctor blessed by God with a skill…. If you don’t… your a post-death murderer for not helping others.

    Again: where do you define life as starting? or ending?

    There’s an endless debate over where life ends? Is “brain dead” mean death? Or does the heart need to stop? What if the heart stops, but there is still brain activity? What if the brain is dead, but the heart/lungs are artificially going? Is that person still “alive”? Despite no self-functioning organs? Despite no ability to become self-reliant again?

    These are questions that have plagued man throughout time.

    Then all the way on *other* side:

    Some feel medical attention is a sin against God. If God wants you to heal, he will do it on his own. Some have even subjected their children to this practice. Subject to some legal issues here in the US regarding child abuse. Can a deathly ill child be forced by the state to recieve care against the parents will?

    Then, to take the life/death debate full circle, one must hit Euthanasia. Does showing compassion like Christ did by putting an eternally pain ridden person with no hope to sleep (willingly), count as murder? Or is it showing the one thing Christ wanted to portray during his life: Compassion and Love.

    One could easily make a very valid biblical argument that keeping someone awake and in pain goes against the teachings of Jesus on compassion. The bible isn’t quite cut/dry on “muder”. It does allow things like defense, and war in certain terms.

    Going back to ultra-orthodox christians, pain killers are a sin, because Jesus suffered painfully on a cross, and to share in pain is a blessing… to deny that blessing is a sin. In their minds, to take a pain killer, or to issue one, is to deny what Jesus went through on the cross.

    Ultimately, anyone who makes a steadfast decision one way or another, has denied some aspect of the Bible, and accepted another. Nobody can say they have followed the bible 100%, because the bible doesn’t clearly answer these questions. The Euthanasia debate would be the easiest to resolve. It ultimately comes down to if you believe in the commandment vs. Jesus’s Teachings.

    And that as we know… isn’t easy.

    I’m personally unresolved for this reason. Personally, I’m a bit partial to Simon’s answer: they are mostly due for disposal as medical waste. Very rarely is anything else done with them. Mainly for legal reasons (custody over embryo’s formed during a marriage turned divorse has happened many times now). This way, we at least can save some lives. I personally percieve this a bit more like Organ donation. Something most modern day christians believe is a good thing. To give the gift of life. It’s death vs. death if you want to view it that way. One way involves an incinerator. One way involves working to save lives.

    But there’s no way one can say the Bible clearly states 1 way… beacause it clearly says 2 things. It’s all about interpretation.

    That’s really the biggest problem with the bible: interpretation.

    People have interpreted it to justify killing millins and millions of people over the years. All “in the name of G*d”. Many with the concent, and even urging of religious figures such as pope’s.

    And others have read the exact same text, and interpreted as a reason to avoid all conflicts, and kiling.

    And others still… have done every possible combination between the two. All feel they are right. All feel that the other is morally wrong. All feel God is acting through them.

    I don’t think any other text has been as misinturpreted as the Bible. I can’t think of one that’s been read with that many meanings.

    And personally… I’m still debating what the true meaning is myself: again, I reserve judgement.

  9. If abortion is legal, why not embryonic stem cell research? The Genie is already out of the bottle.

  10. What’s your problem with it Gerv ? I suspect a personal position influenced by religion more than science (no offense), related to the status of the embryo and in fact a pro-life background. Am I right?

    Embryonic stem cells are just able to grow into any kind of cell, what adult stem cells can’t do. The differenciation process is not yet understood. But just the fact that embryonic stem cells have the ability to grow into a NEURON is incredible.

  11. The debate in America over stem cell research, at least as reported by the media, is some what confused.

    Embryonic stem cell research has not been outlawed in the U.S, it just is not being performed or funded by the government. The government is a large part of funding for various types of research but private companies can and still do stem cell research.

    I personally feel that the president/government making the decision to not support embryonic stem cell research is a grave mistake. There is to much to gain from this type of research. When President bush was asked if he supported stem cell research he said “No, it takes lives.” That could not be any further from the truth. Lives are not taken for the sake of research…research is performed on lives that have already been taken.

    Should everybody have to suffer because of the Christians…again? I do not think that is right.

  12. >”That’s really the biggest problem with the bible: interpretation.”

    Absolutley. There are people that think the Bible is “perfect” in a sense or that there is no “bad” in the Bible. Doesn’t the Bible condone slavery? I could go on but I won’t because it is all a matter of “interpretation”.

    This is why the Bible cannot really be used to make this type of a decision on important research.

  13. Gerv,

    Something I do not userstand is why the Christians are so proud they forget logic, force their beliefs on others and advertise.

    This debate could be settled with logic.

  14. I’m sure religion is involved in the process, but isn’t most science tempered by morality and religion or shouldn’t they be. This isn�t just a question about science or religion or logic. They are all involved, and they all should be.

  15. To answer your question with a concrete example: spinal cord regeneration is definitely impossible with adult stem cells (at least with current technology, who knows what might be discovered in the future).

    The referenced Wikipedia article disagrees with you, although it doesn’t give a source:

    Adult stem cells have been successfully used to treat paralysis due to spinal cord injuries, Parkinson’s disease and other illnesses.

    Robert: No offence, but your understanding of “core Christian teachings” is somewhat off-base. Christianity does not “mostly” teach that women should bear as many children as possible – in fact, I know of no Christian group which teaches that. Nor have I come across any group holding the views on organ donation or pain killers which you set out. And anyone who did hold one of those views would have a hard time providing Biblical backup.

    Euthanasia is for another blog post, but I would in passing say that this statement:

    Does showing compassion like Christ did by putting an eternally pain ridden person with no hope to sleep (willingly), count as murder?

    completely misses a Christian understanding of the word “hope”. Everyone either has a certain hope in Christ, or is certain to go to Hell – in which case, killing them to send them there quicker can’t be a good thing.

    I don’t think any other text has been as misinterpreted as the Bible. I can’t think of one that’s been read with that many meanings.

    The Second Amendment? Seriously, the fact that “different people think different things about [the Bible]” does not mean that it says nothing. I personally think that the reason that people have their own “interpretation” is that they know what it says, but they just don’t like it…

  16. Lives are not taken for the sake of research…research is performed on lives that have already been taken.

    It is certainly true that it’s inconsistent to be pro-IVF but anti-stem cell research.

    Should everybody have to suffer because of the Christians…again? I do not think that is right.

    If you turn that around and look at it from the other side, you get something like “Why should more lives be created and destroyed because of the pagans? I don’t think that is right.” What makes your view more correct than that one?

    What’s your problem with it Gerv ? I suspect a personal position influenced by religion more than science (no offense), related to the status of the embryo and in fact a pro-life background. Am I right?

    Daniel: I want to try and understand why people are jumping up and down about the US ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, when the potential of adult stem cells hasn’t been fully explored yet (as all sides would agree).

    Something I do not userstand is why the Christians are so proud they forget logic, force their beliefs on others and advertise.

    This debate could be settled with logic.

    Fred: it’s a moral question, not a logical one. Logically, it might be very sensible for me to kill you if you have cash on your person, and I need food, and there are no cops around. But morally, it’s wrong. You can’t remove the moral component from such decisions – otherwise you end up with total utilitarianism, like (yes, I know about Godwin’s law, but the comparison is fair in this case) the Nazis.

  17. And while I’m here, here’s another paradox.

    The proponents of embryonic stem cell research are arguing both that:

    1. People will suffer if federal funding is withheld, because private companies won’t stump up the cash, and research will be inhibited; and
    2. This research could lead to a cure for cancer, alzheimers, diabetes and every other major western disease.

    If the latter is true (leading to massive cash bonanzas for the companies concerned) how can the former be true?

  18. Robert: No offence, but your understanding of “core Christian teachings” is somewhat off-base. Christianity does not “mostly” teach that women should bear as many children as possible – in fact, I know of no Christian group which teaches that. Nor have I come across any group holding the views on organ donation or pain killers which you set out. And anyone who did hold one of those views would have a hard time providing Biblical backup.

    None taken… offense makes dicussions like this impossible.

    Actually, Christianity spent most of first millenium working on the principle of procreation. That’s still considered the *only* reason for marriage by many including Catholics. That’s why most Christians would never get a divorse for anything other than a disagreement over having children. Rarely does any christian church anull a marriage on other grounds than that. Simply because of this historic principle.

    It’s also the principle of polygamy, while not widely praciced now (though still done in some places, in particular it’s growing in popularity in parts of Christian Africa).

    Is it right? I’d say absolutely not. Is it in the bible? People feel it’s infered in many places. Personally, I don’t. Nor do I believe marriage is for the basis of children. I’m personally of the belief it’s for creating a mutual joint home. A social structure. In which a child might join and be brought up in.

    Regarding organ donation and medication… that’s not in particular a large group. Nor is it an entire church. Within any christian group (catholics, protestants, etc. etc.), there are subsets of them. From ultra-orthodox, to ultra liberal. Within them, you do see this.

    There have been debates here in the US about if a parent can deny a child the right to medical attention on the basis of religion. Simply because of this.

    Most christians accept organ donation (most even plead with members during mass to consider it). Most also believe in hospice care, and donate considerable resources to it…

    but it’s not the rule.

    They feel there’s rather sound evidence in the bible that supports their claim, and your interpretation is an express ticket to hell, no questions asked.

    Again, it’s more of a dimmer than a light switch.

    Euthanasia is for another blog post, but I would in passing say that this statement:

    Does showing compassion like Christ did by putting an eternally pain ridden person with no hope to sleep (willingly), count as murder?

    completely misses a Christian understanding of the word “hope”. Everyone either has a certain hope in Christ, or is certain to go to Hell – in which case, killing them to send them there quicker can’t be a good thing.
    But Jesus himself said the hope is in him, God, and being with them, and them being with you. Not in them performing medical favors for you.

    Just because a person is braindead, and no longer has breathing and pulse on their own… doesn’t mean “hope” is dead. Their body is clearly dead. There’s no chance for them in this life.

    But the hope in terms of a theological sense is more alive at that moment than ever. The fufillment of that promise is at hand.

    The Second Amendment? Seriously, the fact that “different people think different things about [the Bible]” does not mean that it says nothing. I personally think that the reason that people have their own “interpretation” is that they know what it says, but they just don’t like it…

    As Jed noted, the Bible and slavery. Among other things the Bible says. We could debate this one until the end of time.

    Regarding Adult stem cell research not being complete… we know there are limits. That’s definitive and known. We know don’t have totipotent properties. That’s a problem. The research we need to cure most illnesses requires cells with totipotent properties.

    We know Adult Stem cells have some promise… but we also know that research will hit a brick wall, and have limited uses.

    Embryonic stem cells on the other hand, right now is a glass ceiling. We know it goes much higher than adult stem cells (nobody to date has debated that, regardless of what side your on). Nor do we see an end… all we know is that science always has a wall, the technological limit… and that’s where your research continues with a new spin.

    Again, lots of debates were held on the ethics of organ transplant. In particular the heart, seen as the soul of a person in most cultures. It’s now accepted by most. The new debate is a facial transplant, for people who are grossly disfigured in accidents. Something considered to be only a year or two away. Bringing hope for some who live lives in fear of being seen… and bringing out lawmakers and religious figures already drafing proposals to ban such a practice.

    Ethics isn’t a light switch. There’s no clear right/wrong.

    Bible says “honor thy mother and father”….

    until recently, it was thought to be a moral wrong by a devout catholics (among most other christians) to confront a parent about an alcohol problem. That’s not honoring they felt.

    Now modern times, many churches even have support groups to prepare people to do just that…. it’s felt, while it’s not honoring, it’s doing what’s best for a parent… which is well above honoring.

    Ethics isn’t a light switch. There’s no clear right/wrong. Any attempt to simplify it to be so is naive and ignorant.

  19. > Everyone either has a certain hope in Christ, or is certain to go to Hell

    Oh, well, I just hope Hell has air conditioning…

  20. The proponents of embryonic stem cell research are arguing both that:

    People will suffer if federal funding is withheld, because private companies won’t stump up the cash, and research will be inhibited; and
    This research could lead to a cure for cancer, alzheimers, diabetes and every other major western disease.

    If the latter is true (leading to massive cash bonanzas for the companies concerned) how can the former be true?

    I can at least answer this ‘paradox’:

    It’s really expensive to do research. Really, really, expensive. And there’s no guarantee that it will pay off – the bookshelves of Universities are filled with Ph.D. theses for which the conclusion was “this idea didn’t work.” Mine sits proudly among their number.

    So, let’s say a company decides “let’s investigate a cure for Parkinson’s using stem cells.” You’re looking at years – years – of basic research before you get to a point where you could think about a clinical therapeutic. Then, once you have a candidate drug/therapy, more years doing clinical studies, designing and certifying a manufacturing process, etc etc etc. And processes for live cell treatments are at least order of magnitude more costly to test/design/certify than processes for organic molecules (things like penicillin, prozac, etc.)

    Just the 2nd step – the taking a product from clinical trials to market – costs in the hundreds of millions to billion dollar range. The first step – the basic research to get to the point when you have a clinical product – will likely cost billions+. How much? Who knows – it’s research. You may find something tomorrow. You may look for 20 years before you stumble across something useful. You might never find anything. You basically throw a bunch of stuff against the wall and see what sticks. The more smart people doing the throwing, the better your odds get. But they’re still not good.

    Small biotech companies can’t get the capital do that kind of work. There aren’t any VC’s around that I know of willing to front a couple billion without any guarantee of payoff.

    Big pharma could – barely, maybe – afford this kind of research. Maybe Merck. Maybe GSK. That’s about it. But it’s a bet-the-company kind of decision. I don’t think you’re ever going to find a CEO or Boards of Directors that will approve of a course of action that could (possibly) end up shutting down a company which employs ~ 100,000 people on the chance you might get a cure for Alzheimers. They’ll plod along selling antibiotics and erectile disfunction medication, reap in the bucks, and if a small company gets a breakthrough in fundamental research, they’ll partner up with them for the manufacturing phase. Or, they’ll throw a couple tens of millions at the problem – maybe 4-5 researchers, lab techs, etc. That’s good, and useful – but the odds of any one group coming up with something big are very long.

    So that’s the problem – the payoffs are huge, but no company beholden to stockholders can afford, or is willing to risk, the big bucks it will take to get to the point where a therapy is possible.
    They can only afford the small bucks – which (based on the odds) means it will be many, many years before you see treatments.

    Only the government can front this kind of cash up front – it doesn’t have to make a profit. And that’s the answer to your paradox.

  21. The government doesn’t have to make a profit?

    Oh, yeah — they can just tax the people more. Or have a ginormous national debt.

    (Ehhmmm, oops, wrong discussion. I’d still argue it’s not right for government to be so spendfree with its money, particularly on problems that will be solved by entities other than the government if the government doesn’t step in.)

  22. Just because corporations aren’t investing heavily in this area of basic research doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea. Corporations usually underinvest in basic research, through no fault of their own. Dave gave one reason: basic research is expensive and risky, sometimes even too expensive and risky for huge corporations. Another reason is that only a small percentage of the value to society will come back to the company in the form of patent revenues.

    This is true for any research: the company cannot price-discriminate perfectly once it has a patent, so its revenue from the patent is less than the potential benefit to society (through a combination of consumer surplus deadweight loss). But it is especially true for basic research, because the fundamental insights made in the course of the research are often not patentable at all.

    Governments don’t have this problem, because (as long as Jeff Walden isn’t running the government) they are concerned with value to society rather than profit for themselves.

  23. I misspoke. Replace “make a profit” in my last post with either “break even”, “stay in control of its finances”, or “balance its budget” and I think it says better what I really meant.

    Governments should be concerned with value to society, but only in those cases where those values cannot be fulfilled elsewhere — schools, health care, and perhaps national parks (I don’t know how cost-effective they are if not bankrolled by government) come to mind as a few of the current duties of government that should be handled by others (private industry, special-interest or activist groups, and concerned individuals who wish to spend money in these ways for whatever reasons). National defense, overall supervision of communal resources (such as the national utility systems like water pipes and the electric grid), and research into controlling and eradicating larger-scale diseases that could infect large portions of the public (smallpox, anthrax, the flu, etc.) are a few duties the government should perform.

    Back on topic: I read a while back that someone found out that there are stem cells inside baby teeth. What type of stem cells are they, and do they have the potential of embryonic stem cells? At least one site puts them in the same league as embryonic stem cells, and most suggest they definitely have more potential than adult stem cells. Anyone know what’s up with research into baby teeth stem cells?

  24. I’m not convinced by Dave’s argument, because it’s basically saying “The government should pay for the really expensive research, so that other companies can come in and make more profits later once it’s clear that there’s money to be made.” Businesses are about taking risks, aren’t they? Why should the taxpayer subsidise the pharmaceutical companies in this way?

    Of course, if the government got a cut of any profits made from tech. government-funded research had discovered, then that would be different…

  25. Robert: we seem to have several cases here of you saying something, me saying “that’s not Christian practice”, and then you saying “yes it is”, but quoting something else instead.

    For example, you said:

    christianity still mostly (though not always) teaches that a couple should bare as many christian children as possible

    I said “I don’t know of anyone who teaches that”, and then you talked about marriage being for the purpose producing children, and not getting divorced. I accept that many Christians believe these things, but they are not the same things as what you originally said!

    Similarly, you said:

    Now you have a new christian group forming: They believe that organ donation is a __must__. Not an option.

    I said “I don’t know of anyone who teaches that”, and then you said:

    There have been debates here in the US about if a parent can deny a child the right to medical attention on the basis of religion. Most christians accept organ donation…

    The first part of that is true about Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are not Christians, and so rather irrelevant to the debate. The second part is also true, but again it’s not what you said originally!

    Bible says “honor thy mother and father”….

    until recently, it was thought to be a moral wrong by a devout catholics (among most other christians) to confront a parent about an alcohol problem. That’s not honoring they felt.

    Don’t confuse the principle with the application. The principle is sound, but the application of it may well change over time – as it appears to have in this case. How one honours one’s father and mother in Brazil is probably different to how one does it in Saudi Arabia. That doesn’t say anything about the validity or not of the principle.

  26. Gerv said “The first part of that is true about Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are not Christians, and so rather irrelevant to the debate.”

    And Jehovah’s Witnesses would say that the ‘traditional Christian followers’ are not Christians at all. Since both groups follow the teachings of Christ in one way or another, by the generalizations already going on in this debate, both groups must be considered as Christians.

  27. Businesses are about taking risks, aren’t they? Why should the taxpayer subsidise the pharmaceutical companies in this way?

    Because business is about taking calculated risks. They won’t go on a multi-billion dollar crash program to develop new treatments. They’ll spend a little here and there and just plod along.

    So, big deal, right? Other business work the same way. Why are pharmas special?

    We, the public, benefits tremendously from new drugs/treatments. Most (if not all) of the drugs released over the past 40 years have been based on research done in public universities. An awful lot of people’s lives have been saved by high blood pressure pills. Do you think the taxpayers got a good deal out of funding that research? Or should we have saved our money and waited for Merck to do it entirely themselves – but 5/10/15 years later?

    PS – other businesses also benefit tremendously from publicly funded research – petrochemical and semiconductors to name two. But that’s not what we’re discussing today.