When it comes to some stem cell debates, perhaps looking through the lens of the east coast hip hop group Wu-Tang Clan provides the most clarity:
“Cash rules everything around me, C.R.E.A.M/ Get the money; dollar, dollar bill, y’all.”
As the debate over stem cell research rages on, our blog has addressed a host of ethical issues: is it morally permissible to kill a human embryo to save a life (Cece)? Might iPS stem cells that bypass that question be used the wrong way (Alex), and are they even effective enough to “do the job” (1)? Should we administer stem cell therapy when there are already proven alternative treatments (Greg)?
Now what happens when we throw money into the pot pourri of ethical conundrums? What issues arise when we start combining financial incentive with the overarching goal of scientific progress? The debate over stem cell research has spurred court rulings against federally funded experimentation. As a result, many researchers are now turning to private sector funding to bypass legal issues. The most recent trials at the Chicago Rehabilitation Institute, for example, were made possible by Geron’s financial investment in the research (2). Some, like Dr. David Chen, worry that bio-tech firms like Geron are looking to make profit, which only happens if the stem cell therapy works: “They’re a business. They’re accountable to their shareholders.” Furthermore, if the future of biomedical research is based on private sector funding, treatments for low-prevalence infections like orphan disease, wouldn’t be explored; they wouldn’t be as profitable as cures for the more common arteriosclerosis. In short, they contend that research is being confined to the chains of market forces.
Though these concerns are certainly valid at some level, they’re also exaggerated. Incentive-based research is not as dangerous as these doctors have made it out to be. In fact, private corporations have played a major role in research funding for the past ten years (3). Furthermore, the Geron Corporation already established an Ethics Advisory Board back in ’98; if fears arise regarding the lack of research in a particular field (4), perhaps some regulations can be enforced more stringently, and government subsidies can be provided for research in these “less profitable” fields. In that sense, a public-private sector mixed policy would be best.
As Inspektah Deck of the Clan would have it, after years of philosophical reflection in prison, the world is “no different from a cell” in that both societies are founded on capitalism and self-interest: C.R.E.A.M. Or as perhaps the more creditable Professor Laurie Zoloth says, “When researchers are constantly looking over their shoulders and are always worried about funding, that has a chilling effect on research.” Furthermore, the alternative public sector funding has its own ethical problems such as showing that researchers will likely get “good results,” impeding research in lesser known areas.
So as odd as it sounds, when it comes to stem cell investigation, perhaps we can use some jail cell introspection.
No comments:
Post a Comment