backtop


Print 25 comment(s) - last by Nyu.. on Oct 20 at 2:47 PM


  (Source: newsone.com)
European scientists worry that their research will instead flourish overseas

Embryonic stem cells have shown that they could eventually be very useful in the treatment of a range of currently incurable diseases such as diabetes, stroke and heart disease. But such research may be threatened, or even halted, in Europe due to a recent court decision.

Embryonic stem cells have the ability to transform into any human body tissue. For instance, earlier this year, the first eye was grown from embryonic stem cells in mice. But to grow these tissues, stem cells must be removed from a human embryo at the blastocyst stage, which destroys the embryo, and this has raised ethical questions regarding the process.

Greenpeace in Germany triggered a lawsuit saying that it is unethical to issue a patent based on stem cells from a human embryo that is destroyed afterward.

The Court of Justice, Europe's highest court, ruled in favor of the group. The ruling focused on a technique involving the conversion of human ambryonic stem cells into nerve cells.

"The use of human embryos for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes which are applied to the human embryo and are useful to it is patentable," said the European Court of Justice. "But their use for purposes of scientific research is not patentable. A process which involves removal of a stem cell from a human embryo at the blastocyst stage, entailing the destruction of that embryo, cannot be patented."

The decision has many European researchers outraged. This ruling could either halt stem cell research in Europe or send it overseas.

"This unfortunate decision by the court leaves scientists in a ridiculous position," said Professor Austin Smith of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Stem Cell Research at the University of Cambridge. "We are funded to do research for the public good, yet prevented from taking our discoveries to the marketplace where they could be developed into new medicines. One consequence is that the benefits of our research will be reaped in America and Asia."

Source: BBC



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Finally
By TSS on 10/19/2011 12:25:39 PM , Rating: 3
The problem here is explained perfectly by the researcher's own comment:

quote:
We are funded to do research for the public good, yet prevented from taking our discoveries to the marketplace


The marketplace does not equal the public good. Low cost techniques and better health for everybody is the public good. The marketplace does not create that. It helps creating it, but only in certain situations. The patent system isn't one of them.

If they are funded for private good, then their comment makes sense. But also, private good =/= public good, and this is definatly something we wanna keep for the public.


RE: Finally
By geddarkstorm on 10/19/2011 12:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
Hit the nail on the head. Our research is not -our- research. It belongs to whomever is funding us, usually the PUBLIC. This idea about "taking our discoveries to the marketplace" is odious. That's the job of corporations, universities, or the government--to apply and license our discoveries--not ourselves.


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki