Comments on: Mass debate on stem cell research

By: Dr Sunil Kapoor

Dr Sunil Kapoor — Thu, 20 May 2010 05:40:57 +0000

Fools die. Those wanting to survive find novel ways to stay on the planet longer. And there is nothing like free lunch-specially in issues affecting life.Those sitting on the financial chests need to be convinced that it is not philanthropy that will supply money for research on stem cells. Though transparency is an issue, people have to be aware that it is like opening another window to life. Mental inertia and attitudinal lethargy prevent stem cells to get the credit they should, not unlike the days penicillin and streptomycin were first put to use.
Of course, wine and art have secured a place for themselves.It is the main issue which faces raised eyebrows and a squeeze of funds. The escape route seems to be research funding by pharmaceutical companies, but then, they will eat the cake and leave the crumbs for others.

By: Dr K A Narayana

Dr K A Narayana — Sat, 03 May 2008 16:00:27 +0000

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.

By: Andrew Sun

Andrew Sun — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 18:31:59 +0000

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.

By: DV82XL

DV82XL — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 15:54:29 +0000

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.