Blog : Displaying 970-973 of 1283

Another November, Another Stem Cell Ballot Measure

Posted by Jesse Reynolds on October 28th, 2008

For the fourth time in five years, there's an embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) initiative on a state ballot. Michigan's proposal, unlike California's $3 billion and 13,000 word behemoth, is modest. "Proposal 2" would merely remove the state's ban on the derivation of embryonic stem cell lines. It would not commit any public funds and would maintain the state's prohibition on cloning-based stem cell research. Michigan's current policy is among the nation's most restrictive, and is out of line with its socially moderate-to-liberal population. Unlike past state measures, this one clearly warrants passage. But unfortunately, once again, both sides are engaging in dangerous hyperbole.

The backers of Proposal 2 include the typical coalition of biotech, patients and families, pro-choice, and economic development groups. They pull the heartstrings with personal stories of people with diseases that may be treated. (See, for example, the press release titled "Paralyzed 19-year-old asks voters to back Prop 2.") But the actual use of potential embryonic stem cell therapies is currently legal in the state, as is research using cell lines derived elsewhere. Thus, the claims that removing the state's restrictions via Proposal 2 would make treatments much closer and greatly reduce health care costs [PDF] - especially for residents of Michigan - is tenuous. Furthermore, Proposal 2 is unlikely to boost the state's beleaguered economy. It's unlikely to pave the way for a significant influx of biotechnology jobs, as human embryonic stem cell research remains a tiny fraction of the biotech sector, which in turn is concentrated on the coasts.

Proposal 2's opponents are limited to supporters of the moral status of embryo, and are largely religious. They start with a good argument, but citing a passage in the proposal Proposal 2 that would prevent future state policies from infringing upon beneficial ESCR. But its other clauses, particularly those which cite the primacy of federal law and the current prohibition on cloning, would prevent potential abuses.

But a recent move by these opponents, who oppose stem cell research that destroys human embryos, is unacceptable. A new advertisement compares ESCR to the notorious Tuskegee study, in which poor black men with syphilis were observed for years without treatment. Not only is this offensive, but it is unwise. Such extreme posturing will not win the undecided middle, and will likely alienate its members.

The most recent public opinion poll favors Proposal 2, but is within the margin of error.

Previously on Biopolitical Times:

More of the Same

Posted by Osagie K. Obasogie on October 24th, 2008

Last month, I posted on 23andme’s new low price for partial genome sequencing while fellow Biopolitical Times blogger Marcy Darnovsky commented on what she calls trickle down genomics: the use of celebrity spit parties and other marketing schemes featuring society’s elite that are designed to encourage the masses to take up recreational genetics.

While these developments seemed a bit quirky at the time, falling prices and celebrity endorsements are likely to be trends that are here to stay. Since these initial blog posts, Complete Genomics has announced that they will soon be able to map a person’s entire genome for $5,000 – a fraction of the current $350,000 price tag for full genome scanning.

Moreover, the trickle down approach has been taken up by the Personal Genomics Project (PGP), a new venture that the New York Times describes as “speed[ing] medical research by dispensing with the elaborate precautions traditionally taken to protect the privacy of human subjects.” The project hopes to have 100,000 volunteers make their genomes and other types of personal information publicly available – what the NYT describes as “from food preferences to television viewing habits” – to help genomic technologies become more accurate in linking genetic predispositions to social and health outcomes. Project organizers hope that by culling early volunteers from the well heeled – including commentator Esther Dyson and Harvard’s Steven Pinker – the privacy concerns connected with publicizing one’s genetic makeup will eventually seem frivolous.

Will this come to pass? And is this approach to privacy and genetics a good thing? 

Like this on FacebookTweet this link Digg link Newsvine link reddit link

Appleyard on H+

Posted by Pete Shanks on October 22nd, 2008

How to Live Forever or Die Trying by Brian Appleyard

Brian Appleyard has also blogged about the "new" transhumanism and H+:

"In the midst of the current crisis, the idea of humans engineering paradise seems more risible than ever. (Or perhaps we can simply engineer out the gene set that created credit default swaps.)"

Appleyard is a long-time reporter for, among others, the London Sunday Times and author of many books including Brave New Worlds and How to Live Forever or Die Trying.

Previously on Biopolitical Times:

H+ ≈ Humanity+ ≈ Humanity Plus ≈ WTA ≈ Extropy (etc.)

    New US Law Supports Parents of Children with Disabilities

    Posted by Jenna Burton on October 21st, 2008

    A bipartisan bill that both houses of Congress passed overwhelmingly and President Bush signed into law on October 8 will provide comprehensive information and support to pregnant women and new mothers whose fetus or newborn is diagnosed with a disability.

    The Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act was authored by Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS). Though he is a staunch opponent of abortion rights, there is no anti-choice language in the Act. One of the bill's co-sponsors is Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), a strong abortion rights supporter.

    An information sheet [PDF] on the Act has been released by CGS's sister organization Generations Ahead, together with World Institute on Disability, National Women's Health Network, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, and Reproductive Health Technologies Project.

    The information sheet:

    • outlines what the Act will do and how it can be implemented effectively
    • acknowledges the disability community's longstanding concern that "pregnant women receive negatively biased information about what it means to have a child with a disability, shaped by negative societal attitudes toward disability"
    • affirms the shared interest of disability advocacy groups and reproductive rights and justice organizations "in pregnant women receiving unbiased, nondirective information about prenatal genetic conditions" and
    • asserts that the Act will benefit the disability community while expanding women's reproductive options.
    Its conclusion: the hope that "with organizations from disability rights as well as reproductive rights and justice at the table, the Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Awareness Act has the potential to benefit all of our communities."

    Displaying 970-973 of 1283  
    < Prev  Next >> 
    « First Page Last Page » 
    « Show Complete List » 



    home | overview | blog | publications | about us | donate | newsletter | press room | privacy policy

    CGS • 1936 University Ave, Suite 350, Berkeley, CA 94704 USA • • (p) 1.510.625.0819 • (F) 1.510.665.8760