 |
 |
Here is another example of the fall out related to the honesty of research. Subject: Stem cell editorial Bernie: An editorial from the San Francisco Chronicle (today): ------------------------------------------------------------------- Stem-cell politics - Friday, January 13, 2006 THE TRAGIC RISE and fall of veterinarian Hwang Woo Suk, the South Korean stem-cell researcher who was found to have fabricated his purported breakthroughs in stem-cell science (except for the cloning of the Afghan hound puppy Snuppy), offers California a cautionary tale. If legal cases blocking Proposition 71 bond funds are resolved, California taxpayers will be funding embryonic stem-cell research where expectations of cures are high and a lucrative new life-science industry is promised. What is to prevent similar fraud and ethical lapses from happening here in California, where voters agreed to spend $3 billion on stem-cell research? "Scientists," responded Zach Hall, president of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the funding entity created by Prop. 71. Warning that every industry has the potential for an Enron, Hall touted the American system of peer review as the best way to expose rogue scientists and bad science and to keep research-funding decisions apart from undue political, religious or geographic influences. "What will not stop this from happening is government oversight," he said. In a world of "pure" science, maybe. But stem-cell research is, at this point, anything but pure. Scientists rail about the "political" interference in their work by the religious-right aligned Bush administration, but what was the campaign launched by the stem-cell research proponents to sell the stem-cell bonds, if not political? With business and political capital -- not to mention the state's image as a technological innovator -- on the line, the stem-cell institute needs oversight, both regulatory and scientific. A 19-member committee of the institute, which has been working on ethical standards and research safeguards since January 2005, will present its draft to the institute's governing body on Feb. 10. Even though the committee met four times and held three public hearings to craft these potential state regulations that will guide funding, caution is in order. Questions remain about the sourcing of the human eggs and about which avenues of research are best pursued with the taxpayers' money. Would voters embrace research that might require hundreds of human eggs to produce a therapy for a single person? If these rules are adopted, who enforces them? Are there punishments for infractions? These matters of great public concern should be subject to government regulation -- especially when taxpayers are picking up the multi-billion-dollar tab for this research. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- C2006 San Francisco Chronicle ======================================= ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn