Despite the recent setup back in some of the clinical trials for medical gene therapy, I am convinced that this technology will be an extreme medical advancement for diseases that have very little alternative. I believe that the greatest threat to this therapy unfortunately could be the governments that regulate them.

trook said:

Despite the recent setup back in some of the clinical trials for medical gene therapy, I am convinced that this technology will be an extreme medical advancement for diseases that have very little alternative. I believe that the greatest threat to this therapy unfortunately could be the governments that regulate them.

I strongly believe that in other advanced countries gene therapy will progress while we are set back by our government regulations and we will suffer the consequences later. We might need their help and technologies in the future and pay a lot of money to be able to use them.

omid said:

trook said: Despite the recent setup back in some of the clinical trials for medical gene therapy, I am convinced that this technology will be an extreme medical advancement for diseases that have very little alternative. I believe that the greatest threat to this therapy unfortunately could be the governments that regulate them. I strongly believe that in other advanced countries gene therapy will progress while we are set back by our government regulations and we will suffer the consequences later. We might need their help and technologies in the future and pay a lot of money to be able to use them.

The only "silver lining" that I am beginning to see regarding these setbacks is the court of public opinion. If the public begins to see the benefits, then the individual states can take matters into there own hands. This is evident in the move that California made by funding embyronic stem cell research through the state, thereby by-passing any negative federal regulations. Unfortunately, the downside to this is that in the United States if we move in that direction, then our greatest advantage is lost. That is, the cumulative assets of all state funding to support specific research is much larger than the majority of states can support (obviously there are exceptions, i.e. CA and NY).

I think you have to be careful not to confuse gene therapy and stem cell therapy. Gene therapy will probably be able to offer a very customized solution to a few very wealthy patients, whilst stem cell therapy should allow more general medical applications, hopefully at a more affordable price.

Unfortunately, in the US you have a situation in which the people with the most political power have the lowest comprehension potential. I don't know whether the saying "The fish begins stinking from the head" is used in the US or not but I think it could be.

And if ALL life is to be preserved / protected (ie embryonic stem cells) why doesn't the US government show more compasion for individuals who have progressed past the embryo stage (prisoners on DEATH ROW, US citizens that can not afford health care, Iraqi civilians, most of Africa)? How can you be pro-capital punishment, support the NRA and still be anti-stem cell research?

It seems to me you need to get more informed about the US people and Government--it sounds like the left leaning media have affected your objectivity.

jim