We have a running series here on The Niche on the Republican candidates including Rick Perry for the GOP nomination for President for the 2012 Election.
I blogged about Romney here, Huntsman here, and talked about Tex Guv Perry’s own stem cell transplant here. I also discussed the Republican field more generally in my podcast which you can listen to here or on iTunes.
Perry just announced right now that he is running for President.
Now, what if Perry became President? What would happen to science in America and specifically stem cell research?
The Economist just ran a piece on this topic that was quite interesting.
Perry, a recipient of an autologous stem cell transplant during a recent spinal cord procedure, is a big proponent of adult stem cell research and just as passionately opposed to embryonic stem cell research.
If Rick Perry were elected President, I think that stem cell research would suffer in general because he would attempt to divide stem cell research into artificial categories and only fund what he thinks is “ethical” rather than what most American’s think is ethical and what scientists think is both ethical and the most promising.
Perry a strong proponent of the death penalty apparently believes that embryonic stem cell research is killing. See a paradox here? In fact, according to Mother Jones magazine, Guv Perry has a “death penalty problem” having presided over hundreds of executions, including some where there were legitimate questions about either how the legal case was handled or even the defendant’s innocence. conservative Liberal columnist Molly Ivins from Texas is no fan of Perry as you can see in this column in my local paper the Sac Bee.
Bottom line–if Perry were elected, American science and stem cell research specifically would decline big time. Count on it.
This is the wave of the future if patients are to get relief and it takes politics and religious pandering out of the equation.
U.S. Stem Cell Companies Find Partners and Revenues Beyond the Water’s Edge
Alex Philippidis
Firms find it easier to navigate regulatory requirements in Asia as well as Europe.
American companies focused on stem cell treatments and technology platforms have met with success in finding partnerships and revenues overseas in the past decade. And it’s not for the reason many people might think, namely the controversy over U.S. federal funding of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research.
Two other factors better explain why U.S. stem cell companies have been looking beyond their borders to Asia, according to Bernard Siegel, founder and full-time executive director of the nonprofit Genetics Policy Institute (GPI).
One is the attractiveness of Asian countries as markets for stem cell treatments. That reflects both high population concentrations as well as willingness by national governments to invest in stem cell research as well as companies commercializing such treatments and encourage additional research by outside parties. The other is Asia’s lower regulatory hurdles when compared to the U.S.
“It’s easier to move toward the translational process and get clinical trials cranked up in Asia than the United States,” Siegel pointed out. “I think that’s one aspect of it.”
http://www.genengnews.com/analysis-and-insight/u-s-stem-cell-companies-find-partners-and-revenues-beyond-the-water-s-edge/77899444/
GOP Candidates Unified in Opposition to Embryonic Stem Cell Research
The Globe noted that most of the candidates responded to the newspaper’s survey of their positions on federal funding of ES cell research “with vague statements and dodged questions about whether they would endorse Bush’s position of allowing funding for research on a limited number of existing stem cell lines to continue.” However, the article points out that the socially conservative Susan B. Anthony (SBA) List has suggested that Rep. Bachmann, Rep. Paul, former senator Rick Santorum, former House speaker Newt Gingrich, and Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (MI) would oppose further expansion of federal funding of ES cell research. (The SBA List also indicated that former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty would also oppose further expansion of federal funding of ES cell research, but after his third-place finish on Saturday, Mr. Pawlenty withdrew from the Republican presidential race on Sunday.) Mr. Romney told the Globe that he would not allow federal funding of ES cell research, but “would make an examination of the science and speak with experts in the field” before deciding whether to follow the Bush administration’s example by permitting research to be conducted on existing ES cell lines.
http://www.patentdocs.org/2011/08/gop-candidates-unified-in-opposition-to-embryonic-stem-cell-research.html
Oops, thanks for pointing out the error–now corrected.
Paul
Paul–
You really must be way out on the left if you think Molly Ivins was a conservative!
Those of us who read and enjoyed her writing knew that wasn’t the case.
“Writing from an unabashed liberal perspective, Ivins repeatedly described herself as a populist and, on some occasions, as a left-libertarian.”
(& other similar quotes at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Ivins )