Now, perhaps human medical treatments and experimentation are over-regulated in the U.S. But that has nothing to do with stem cells.
And so I suspect this article is complaining about the wrong thing. Whatever problems it is pointing out, are really unrelated to any issues surrounding stem cells.
...because it's not regulated like most other surgeries.
Veterinary care has been improving under the same forces, and at close to the same rate, as tech startups.
Human medical care has been hindered under the same regulation and oversight as public utilities and the DMV.
"This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years." (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28c...)
Because veterinary medicine is much, much less regulated it advances much faster.
Sad but true.
Since you're all about decreasing the cost of experiments and regulation for humans though, I take it you are going to be one of the first to sign up for the next generation of human experiments that have little to no regulatory standards?
All these people complaining about lack of progress in regulated human bio-sciences could probably be put to good use. I think it's pretty easy to examine that increasing the supply of humans willing to advance science in the name of unregulated testing would rapidly drop costs. So let's sign all these complainers up and get them what they want!
The ethics of messing with people are not the main barrier, they are no barrier. It's the legal restrictions - the government regulations which make any kind of messing with perfectly willing humans very costly and time intensive.
Since you're all about decreasing the cost of experiments and regulation for humans though, I take it you are going to be one of the first to sign up for the next generation of human experiments that have little to no regulatory standards?
Yep.
But willing volunteers are not in shortage and are also no barrier to the advancement of science. It is once again the regulations, their cost is to the cost of paying human drug testers as Everest is to an ant hill.
In other words: You can't give me what I want, because the government is protecting me from me. Only in recent years has the FDA been willing to soften its restriction if I happen to be dying, but even then only if I'm really close to the end. Then I can legally try the cutting edge drugs.
Maybe your parent post doesn't want to, but I'm sure lots of very sick people would be willing to try almost anything.
Why are we allowing these people who are anti-science to control our governments, there can't be that many of them out there, or maybe more of them vote than we do.
I want the option to have such a treatment, I want everyone to have that option. If you choose not to it's OK but don't decide for me.
Actually, I don't think anyone is. See my comment:
