Reposted from NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/us/09stem.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
BOSTON, May 8 — Gov. Deval Patrick on Tuesday unveiled a $1.25 billion proposal intended to help the state maintain its status as a pre-eminent place for stem cell research and other life sciences.
The money would provide grants for university and hospital scientists, establish special research centers to make their work faster and more efficient, and train workers for biotechnology businesses.
It would also establish the first stem cell bank, a repository of all the stem cell lines created in Massachusetts laboratories, which would serve as a kind of stem cell lending library to scientists around the world.
"In many ways the health of this industry and the health of our society are very closely linked," Mr. Patrick said at an international biotechnology convention here, where he announced the plan. "That's why we will not rest on our laurels."
Mr. Patrick's plan involves $1 billion in state money over 10 years, some borrowed through bond issues, plus $250 million in matching money from private business.
Massachusetts is home to some of the most advanced research in stem cells and other life sciences, including the work of Craig C. Mello, a University of Massachusetts scientist who shared the 2006 Nobel Prize in Medicine for his work on silencing the effect of certain genes, which could lead to treatment of diabetes, AIDS and Alzheimer's disease. Scientists at Harvard and other Massachusetts research centers have created more than 30 new lines of embryonic stem cells, more than researchers in other states.
Other states have proposed committing money to the field. Among them are California, which approved a $3 billion program; New Jersey, which has proposed $270 million; and New York, where Gov. Eliot Spitzer has proposed $1 billion for stem cell research.
These states are all seeking ways to get around the Bush administration's restrictions on federal financing for embryonic stem cell research, which were imposed because President Bush objects to the necessity of destroying human embryos in order to create the stem cells.
Massachusetts in 2005 enacted a law authorizing embryonic stem cell research but did not authorize any financial incentives. Mitt Romney, who was then governor, was opposed to creating new stem cells because of the destruction of embryos involved.
"We've never lacked the brain power; we've never lacked raw scientific brilliance, but at times we've not had the resources," said Jack M. Wilson, the president of the University of Massachusetts, which will be the site of the new stem cell bank.
Dr. Wilson said that in the past, when scientists came to Massachusetts, they said "it felt like joining a team of great players, but there was no coach and no strategy."
"And those teams always lose," he said.
As if to continue the sports metaphor, Jonathan Kraft, the president and chief executive of the Kraft Group, owner of the New England Patriots and other businesses unrelated to biotechnology, also spoke at the governor's announcement. Mr. Kraft pledged to support life science research and described how Massachusetts had lost its competitive edge in computer technology to California because "the public sector in California embraced high tech and the public sector in Massachusetts disregarded it."
With biotechnology, Mr. Kraft said, "we're not going to let these other places pull our researchers out of here; we're going to get more aggressive."
The Patrick plan appears to have legislative support and not as much public opposition as plans in California and some other states.
Brock C. Reeve, executive director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, said the state's investment would help scientists who have had to delay research because of limited federal financing and would "attract the new junior faculty, the rising stars."
Dr. Leonard Zon, director of the stem cell program at Children's Hospital Boston, said the stem cell bank would be "a fantastic way of distributing the stem cell lines to the world," and would be cost-effective because it would provide one location where stem cell lines could be monitored to "make sure they have the correct number of chromosomes and that they're growing correctly."
Dr. Mello, whose research concerns a gene-blocking mechanism called RNA interference, or RNAi, called the proposal a "substantial investment," adding, "There's so much we can do; it's really critical to keep the funding coming."
1. Comment #38889 by devolved on May 9, 2007 at 12:07 pm
I've extracted the following extract as an example of someone opposed to stem cell research:The ESCR debate of the moral question is remarkable to me for two reasons. First, how could those who are pro-abortion feel the need to defend the act of cutting up a human embryo to farm it for its cells? Second, how could those who are pro-life countenance the thought? The answer to both is the same: To a large degree, neither side seems to understand the moral logic of its views.
An action is unethical when it violates a moral rule. Car theft is wrong because it violates a larger principle: It's wrong to steal another's property. That same rule has other applications, however. The moral principle covering car theft equally covers plagiarism. If someone objects to car theft, but condones her own theft of another's ideas, it's fair to question her commitment to the broader principle: Stealing is wrong. It begins to look like emotions and personal preferences are driving her choices, not moral thinking. The moral logic pertaining to any pre-born human life can be stated simply. It's wrong to kill innocent human beings. Both abortion and ESCR kill innocent human beings. Therefore, both abortion and ESCR are wrong. Pro-lifers, presumably, affirm this moral equation. Pro-choicers, by and large, deny it because of the second premise. To them, no bona fide human being is sacrificed, just a "clump of cells."
The full argument can be followed on the following web link
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6691
Other Comments by devolved