Was the hype about stem cells recognized before Prop. 71 passed?
Californiastemcellreport had posted: A recent paper by Tamra Lysaght of the University of Sydney, published in the Australian journal Bioethical Inquiry, examined 99 news stories from the Prop. 71 campaign. Among her conclusions: "Concerns regarding the hype surrounding the potential medical benefits of stem cell research and its implications for public expecations were notably absent from the public discourse prior to the passage of Prop. 71, though they were later noted by a number of scientific and institutional actors.
BUT FloridaBaptistWitness reported: "It's what we've been saying for all this time, and finally they admit the truth-that they're to go through billions of taxpayer dollars in California and still not treat a single patient," David Prentice, senior fellow for life sciences at the Family Research Council, told Baptist Press. "They sold this to the citizens of California primarily based on all of the cures that were going to come through embryo research and cloning.
AND, Lawrence B. Ebert wrote in JPTOS (published March 2006, available BEFORE the Lysagt article):
In this time period, there was a belief that commercializations of the technology lay far in the future. Michael Cook wrote: "The feeling among stem cell entrepreneurs and the venture capital managers who stump up funds for biotech start-up firms is that cures – for conditions such as Alzheimer's and diabetes -- arising from embryonic stem cell research are 10 to 15 years away -- if we are lucky."(68)
Footnote 68: Michael Cook, "Fickle fortunes of biotech biz," The Daily Australian, p. 26 (Aug. 17, 2002). Cook quoted Queensland Institute of Medical Research director Michael Good: "I believe the Australian public has been hoodwinked by the proponents of this research, from a scientific perspective."
**
Proposition 71 was voted upon on November 2, 2004, more than 2 years AFTER the Cook article. Who's kidding whom about "notably absent from the public discourse prior to the passage of Prop. 71"??
BUT FloridaBaptistWitness reported: "It's what we've been saying for all this time, and finally they admit the truth-that they're to go through billions of taxpayer dollars in California and still not treat a single patient," David Prentice, senior fellow for life sciences at the Family Research Council, told Baptist Press. "They sold this to the citizens of California primarily based on all of the cures that were going to come through embryo research and cloning.
AND, Lawrence B. Ebert wrote in JPTOS (published March 2006, available BEFORE the Lysagt article):
In this time period, there was a belief that commercializations of the technology lay far in the future. Michael Cook wrote: "The feeling among stem cell entrepreneurs and the venture capital managers who stump up funds for biotech start-up firms is that cures – for conditions such as Alzheimer's and diabetes -- arising from embryonic stem cell research are 10 to 15 years away -- if we are lucky."(68)
Footnote 68: Michael Cook, "Fickle fortunes of biotech biz," The Daily Australian, p. 26 (Aug. 17, 2002). Cook quoted Queensland Institute of Medical Research director Michael Good: "I believe the Australian public has been hoodwinked by the proponents of this research, from a scientific perspective."
**
Proposition 71 was voted upon on November 2, 2004, more than 2 years AFTER the Cook article. Who's kidding whom about "notably absent from the public discourse prior to the passage of Prop. 71"??
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 12:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home