Our View - Tuesday

Biotech billions

Welfare not needed for stem cell research

Some say an embryo that provides stem cells has rights. It has the same rights, they argue, as any other human. Preposterous, say their opponents. They point to the paralyzed athlete in a wheelchair, asking how anyone could oppose science that might someday help him walk. They ask how anyone could impede such progress in deference to life that’s far less developed. The moral, ethical and religious issues involved in embryonic stem cell research are agonizing to Americans on both sides of the debate, and society won’t resolve them with ease.

Two related questions, however, shouldn’t be difficult at all. They are:

1. Should scientists who destroy fetal stem cells for research receive government grants? and 2. If not, should scientists receive grants if the embryos aren’t harmed in experiments?

The answer to both should be a resounding “no” — from the church, to the lab and to the hallowed hallways of Congress.

Back in 2001, President Bush signed into law guidelines that prevent the use of federal funds for research involving “newly destroyed” embryos; embryos created for research; and the cloning of embryos for any reason. Supporters argue that it’s unfair to make millions of taxpayers ante up for something they believe is wrong.

Unfortunately, the law allows tax funds to be used for research involving more than 60 existing stem cell lines that had already been derived and destroyed before the bill was signed, no longer possessing the possibility of further development as human beings.

Question No. 2 became a new and serious matter for public contemplation last week when scientists in Massachusetts revealed they had created several colonies of human stem cells without harming the embryos from which they were derived, as reported in a Washington Post story carried Friday by The Gazette. The story reported that study leader Robert Lanza, of Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Mass., believes his work should be eligible for federal funds because it doesn’t harm embryos.

Story Landis, who heads the stem cell task force of the National Institutes of Heath expressed doubts in the story that Lanza’s work, or other similar research, would qualify for federal funds. Landis said the government would need irrefutable proof that the embryos weren’t harmed, which could be obtained only by implanting the embryos into a womb and observing the developing child. Doing so, she said, would be unethical. Lanza countered, saying the government should have to prove that an embryo was harmed before denying funds.

Incredible. Lanza seems to view his work as something so righteous, and so valuable to the collective good, that he’s entitled to a fat government check. He’s so rightfully entitled, in fact, that government has a burden of proof to meet before denying him funds.

While the ethical debate involving stem cell research is complicated, the funding debate is silly. Shall government fund embryonic stem cell research that harms the embryo? Or shall it fund only that which causes no harm?

Simple answer: It should fund neither. The central government of the United States has no business funding radical medical experiments, whether or not the president deems them morally correct. It’s not the government’s duty. Furthermore, it’s completely unnecessary for the advancement of science. This country is a treasure trove of medical breakthroughs, not because of government grants, rather, it’s a bastion of breakthroughs because of privately funded research that has made investors and medical pioneers rich. People who cure diseases, and find ways to ease human misery, typically make extraordinary profits — as well they should.

Take, for example, the story of Marvin Caruthers — a biotechnology professor at the University of Colorado-Boulder. As a teacher, Caruthers studied drug development and the design of new research instruments. His knowledge led to the founding of several start-up biotechnology firms in the early 1980s. The start-ups were cash poor, so Caruthers was compensated for his private consultation services with stock. Today, Caruthers and the companies he helped inspire are doing well. Really, really well. Caruthers is so comfortable that he recently donated $20 million to his employer to help fund a new CU biotechnology center.

If Lanza’s work is so earth-shatteringly important that he can ask federal taxpayers to fund him, then certainly it’s something that will turn a mighty profit of biotech billions in the not-so-distant future. If his work cures Parkinson’s, or makes the paralyzed athlete run again, Lanza will be rich beyond his wildest dreams — just like Caruthers. Instead of selling his promise to Congress, he should be pitching it to investors. If he can’t sell the idea to private interests — people who stand to get rich — then why should he ask for tax dollars from people who won’t see a dime if he succeeds? If one program stands as a shining example of what doesn’t need welfare, it’s embryonic stem cell research — the new gold rush for future biotech billionaires.

Escape from realilty

It’s difficult to know whether to laugh or cry about Scott Anthony Gomez Jr.’s lawsuit against Pueblo County Sheriff Kirk Taylor. Gomez was injured during an escape attempt at the Pueblo County jail and is trying to hold Taylor responsible because it’s too easy to escape from the jail.

Gomez was injured in a fall while he was using bedsheets to climb down the side of the jail during his second escape attempt. The suit says the sheriff “did next to nothing to ensure that the jail was secure and the plaintiff could not escape.” Apparently the bars, locks and guards aren’t much of a deterrent in Gomez’s mind.