The California Supreme Court swept away the last legal impediment to the state’s huge $3 billion stem-cell research program Wednesday when it declined to review two lawsuits that challenged its constitutionality.
The Bay Area’s stem-cell research community can breathe a sigh of relief. The rest of us may want to be vigilant, and make sure the money is put to good use. See David Hamilton’s write-up at VentureBeat Life Sciences.
7 Comments
-
Concerned in Atherton said:
Matt, It’s a sad day that California taxpayers are spending $3billion on a bunch of stem cell R+D which many residents (and even clever Silicon Valley people) regard as morally wrong. Here’s a summary for position against:
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0107.asp
Please don’t assume that we’re all excited about this… I know several VCs (and LPs) that would never invest in such a venture that involves stem cells. It’s a big issue to many — even on Sand Hill Road.
-
Todd said:
Concerned: Clearly not “many” enough. It wasn’t even a close vote. Welcome to democracy.
-
Zm said:
Yeah, it’ll be such a shame when more research is done and breakthroughs are made in medicine. I mean, all those people — who have heart disease, paralysis, missing limbs, neurological problems, physical and mental diseases, HIV/AIDS, cancer, are in critical need of organs, and have a slue of other medical problems right down to even superficial benefits like the growth of hair for baldness — really shouldn’t be clogging up the system.
It’s a disgrace when our society gets to the point where it would actually spend money on potentially life-changing and life-saving science that will affect and possibly help nearly every single human being, all 6.5+ billion, on Earth in his or her lifetime.
It’s a sad day, indeed.
-
Mark Wendman said:
Dear Concerned in Atherton…
Granted your values are important to you, and one should have respect for anothers opinion, and be polite about it when disagreeing. But largely the majority have spoken in favor of what you seem to disagree with, on a pragmatic values driven basis. I guess that is democracy in action, for better or as you seem to implicitly indicate ?worse.
I think in balance the merits of using stem cells and specifically the more advantageous embrionic stem cells far outweigh the disadvantages and with no living sentient being harmed in the process of helping the living who might otherwise continue suffering if untreated with cures likely to come from all kinds of stem cells’ treatments that will quickly be developed.
All for the greater good. And that is in balance what the effort is intended to accomplish - improve the greater good with no one hurt in the effort.
-
Gal Josefsberg said:
Todd, just because the majority votes for it, doesn’t mean it’s right, and I say this as a person who believes in stem cell research and thinks it should be funded. If you’re going by the “Democracy rules” idea, then you may wish to be aware of the fact that our democracy elected George Bush, a man who strongly opposes this research. So umm… what does that mean?
Anyway, glad to see this project finally moving forward.
-
Todd said:
Gal:
Agreed, it doesn’t mean it’s right. The point I was responding to was the concept that it’s a “shame” to spend money on something that doesn’t have a unanimous following.
It’s a very George Bush point of view. “I don’t agree with it, so it shouldn’t happen.”
-T
-
Bob said:
Hi All,
It’s not about opinions. It’s about life. I’m pro-life — real lives.
It’s a good day for California, a good day for science, a good day for humankind, and a bad day for ???
Remember these days when people first found out the Earth wasn’t the center of the universe — what were the reactions? There wasn’t a unanimous following. In fact, few initially agreed with the Almighty.
-B
