Mar 1, 2007
Mass debate on stem cell research
Just £300,000 (about $600k) is being plugged into a national public debate by the UK government on stem cell research. According to Science and Innovation Minister Malcolm Wicks the UK’s two major public funders of stem cell research will use the cash to run a national public discussion about this cutting-edge area of science.
The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and the Medical Research Council (MRC) will receive the funding as part of the government’s ScienceWise initiative. The aim will be to find out what are the public’s concerns, views and attitudes to this face-most moving area of science. It will also provide a forum for revealing the challenges that researchers face and the potential benefits of stem cell science.
At today’s launch Wicks said: “The Government believes that stem cell research offers enormous potential to deliver new treatments for many devastating diseases where there is currently no effective cure. Huge numbers of people are affected by these diseases and Britain is a world-leader in stem cell research. But there must be a proper dialogue with the wider public on the future of stem cell research. We need to raise public awareness about the potential opportunities
and challenges in this area.”
One key element of the initiative is to raise awareness of the world-class stem cell
research being carried out in the UK, at centres such as Newcastle University, and the progress being made towards practical treatments.
BBSRC’s Julia Goodfellow added, “It is essential that scientists working in areas such as stem cell research engage in a real dialogue with the public. The new programme will give scientists, funders and the government up-to-date information on what the public really think about stem cell research while giving people the chance to voice their views and concerns.” So, basically repeating what Wicks said. The MRC’s chief Colin Blakemore, had a slightly different slant. “Scientists who work
on stem cells want to ensure they maintain the trust and support of the public for their research,” he said. “But to achieve this, we need to explain what work is being carried out and why it’s being done.”
So, is £300,000 enough to do the job? Compare this with the ludicrous amounts of money available to anti-science type lobby groups which amount to millions and it really does look like a pittance. Half of that amount could easily be eaten up by an independent designer putting together a corporate logo for the project and the other half will have gone on snacks and wine for the launch party buffet, or am I being far, far too cynical? You tell me.
Sciencebase FAQ
Contact me
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I agree that the funds for the stem-cell research projects are getting is pittance. I fail to understand what are the anti-science lobbies? and also how these lobbies affect the stem-cell research projects. Can we call the lobbies who objects the release of genetically manipulated food crops are anti-science lobbies?.I feel that public awareness is highly needed to educate the people regarding the benefits of the stem-cell research.
March 1st, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Although not necessarily ‘fighting’, I on the whole agree that scientists should trigger more public awareness of their work. In fact, it is public awareness that decides how many money a project can get. Therefore (perhaps) those anti-science groups can get funded formally.
March 1st, 2007 at 4:54 pm
The issues surrounding stem cell research are similar to the PR problems that several sci.tech domains are experiencing and IMHO are rooted in the same ground.
Those of us that work in these fields have brought the problems on ourselves by our reticence to roll in the mud right from the beginning when these questions come up. We have to learn that it is not caused by any latent anti-science mood in the general population but by the work of agents provocateurs that leverage these issues to collect funds or aggregate influence and power.
We have to be willing to fight these things, and if necessary fight dirty. We have to be willing to become politicians at every level of government, and not be afraid to gather and involve members of the public that are fans (for lack of a better term) in our work and in science in general even if they cannot contribute directly.
Say what you will about the opposition, they keep their followers involved and informed, ill- informed of course, but none the less they are made to feel that they are part of something. It’s no wonder that letter-writing and fundraising campaigns are successful given the level of commitment that this treatment evokes.
I cannot see any reason that we should not try something similar.