The LA Times Also Hates Puppies, Your Grandma

On November 20th, California state officials took the final steps in approving a $150 million dollar loan to the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. You might remember that in 2004, California voters approved Proposition 71, which provides funding to California-based researchers for human embryonic stem cell research, and created this institute. President Bush functionally outlawed federal funding for this type of research in 2001. I’ll understand if you’ve forgotten the particulars in light of the avalance of affronts to civil and human rights that have been foisted upon the American people in the interim. Prop 71 authorized the sale of $3 billion in bonds to pay for the research. Since the passage of the proposition, its constitutionality has been challenged and the bonds cannot be sold - hence, the Institute required a loan to stay in business. Fortunately, the good people of California have the LA Times to crap all over any potential optimism we might feel.

Even with the $150-million state loan approved recently to kick-start work stalled by legal challenges, there are no breakthroughs in sight. Gone are the allusions to healing such afflictions as spinal cord injuries and Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases that dominated the 2004 campaign for Proposition 71. In fact, scientists say, there is no guarantee of cures — certainly not any time soon — from the measure that was optimistically titled the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act.

Stupid, lazy scientists! You’ve had nearly two weeks! Haven’t you cured paralysis yet? The LA Times has also chosen to ignore the fact that the Institute’s primary goal since its creation has been to meet legal challenges to its very existence. Funding researchers is great, but I suspect that almost two years of court battles change your budget priorities somewhat. It shouldn’t be a shock, then, that the Institute has had to scale back its goals.

Set for final approval at UC Irvine this week, the draft plan is clear: “It is unlikely that [the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine] will be able to fully develop stem cell therapy for routine clinical use during the 10 years of the plan.”

Instead, the top goal is to establish, in principle, that a therapy developed from human embryonic stem cells can “restore function for at least one disease.”

Sayth the LA Times:

That would be only the first step toward persuading pharmaceutical or biotech companies to fund expanded clinical trials, a process that takes years and millions of dollars. Fewer than 20% of potential therapies that enter trials make it to market.

I think they’re implying that since the probability of a stem-cell based cure making it to market is so low, we should just abandon the whole thing. First, I’m not sure I consider 1-in-5 a long shot. Second, that’s the statistic for all trials, regardless of the type of treatment. Using their logic, why don’t we just abandon medical research all together? I mean, really, what has medical research ever done for you?*

Answers to your questions about stem cells can be found here. If the fact that I linked to the Alliance for Stem Cell Research causes you to question my neutrality on the issue, you’re very astute. You want fair and balanced? This ain’t Fox News. And in case you’re wondering, that stem cell research money? I won’t see a dime of it.

-superawesomestuff

*Besides the discovery of antibiotics, the use of insulin to treat diabetes, vaccination against polio, measles, mumps and rubella, the global eradication of smallpox, X-rays, ultrasound, MRIs and CT scans, the artifical heart, multi-organ transplants, in vitro ferilization, chemotherapy, anti-viral AIDS treatments, vitamin supplements, and antidepressants, to name just a few. Thanks, ASE!