By ROBERT M. GOLDBERG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email Archives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Print Reprint
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 11, 2004 -- JOHN Kerry claims that President Bush, by re
stricting federal fund ing of research on stem cells from human embryos,
has attacked medical progress.
In America, says Kerry, "We don't sacrifice science for ideology. We
are a land of discovery — a place where innovators and optimists are
free to dream and explore. Where government encourages creativity and
entrepreneurship instead of stifling it."
Yet Kerry himself is far more hostile to medical progress on every other
front. His policies are far worse for patients who hope for new
medicines — even ones from stem cells — to prevent or end their
suffering.
First off, the public debate has focused exclusively on one narrow issue
— the president's "ban" on federal funding of research that uses "new"
lines of cells from human embryos. Yet Bush has increased federal
funding on research involving stem cells from placentas, adults and
animals.
And while Kerry would lift that restriction, he'd retain some strict
ethical limits — such as confining research to embryos that were going
to be destroyed in any event.
Second, all stem-cell research is only one promising possible road to
medical breakthroughs. The goal of such research is to learn how to
trigger the regeneration of specific types of tissues to treat specific
diseases. But even critics of the ban know any such payoff is a long
way off.
Many other scientific opportunities are more likely to help more people
sooner. Focusing on stem-cell research to the exclusion of every other
scientific opportunity, including those that are closer at hand, is
scientifically irresponsible.
Third, federal funding is only part of the picture. With $20 billion a
year in research funding, the National Institute of Health is important.
But so too is the nearly $60 billion in money invested by
pharmaceutical, biotech and venture-capital firms on cutting-edge
treatments for cancer, Alzheimer's, AIDS, mental illness and heart
disease.
If Kerry wins the White House, we will get more funding for stem-cell
research. But other money would come out of the R&D pipeline, because
his other policies could stifle the creativity and entrepreneurship that
he praises — and which are vital to actually producing real cures:
* Kerry wants Medicare to impose price controls on prescription drugs.
This would delay and ration the elderly's use of breakthrough drugs and
ultimately let the government control what drugs they can take. In
Europe over the past 10 years, similar restrictions have caused the
development of new drugs to stall. From 1993 to 1997, Europe launched
81 breakthrough drugs; from 1998 to 2002, just 44. Meanwhile, U.S.
launches jumped from 48 to 85.
* To control costs, Kerry would also have Medicare become a direct
purchaser of drugs. But we know this will shut down innovation. The
Clinton administration made the government the nation's biggest
purchaser of pediatric vaccines, and used that power to freeze prices.
The result: shortages of shots and plummeting investment in R&D for new
childhood vaccines.
* Kerry has also backed de facto price controls by favoring laws to
allow the "reimportation" of prescription drugs. In essence, this is an
effort to force every pharmaceutical and biotech company to sell drugs
here at the controlled prices imposed in Canada and Europe.
Yet these are the same price controls that shut down medical innovation
in those nations — companies sell their wares there for a small profit,
but they don't risk the money to develop new life-savers for those
markets. If reimportation worked to force down prices here, it would
also shut down the innovation Kerry claims to favor.
When Swiss-based Novartis shifted its worldwide research operations (and
all the high-paying jobs that go with it) to America, the company's
chairman said the draw was "the profitability of the U.S. market." If
Kerry imports Europe's price controls, he will crush a big part of
America's biomedical enterprise and outsource the rest to India, China
and Korea.
* Kerry has supported price controls for drugs developed with help from
the National Institute of Health. In the Clinton years, the NIH started
writing conditions into its grants and technology-licensing agreements:
If regulators decided that drugs developed with NIH help were
overpriced, the government would have the right to take over the patent.
The result? Researchers in universities and companies stopped working
with the government. When the patent and price threat was eliminated,
the cooperation came back.
* Kerry rightly is concerned about people suffering with rare diseases
waiting for cures. But he and his Democrat colleagues have opposed the
administration's effort to speed up the approval of drugs to treat
cancer, AIDS, infectious diseases and spinal-cord injury by having the
Food and Drug Administration encourage the use of 21st century science
to determine if new medicines work. The reason: The Dems score more
political points sticking it to drug and biotech companies than standing
shoulder to shoulder with dying patients.
The Bush restrictions on stem-cell funding must be viewed in the context
of Kerry's attack on private investment and his support for a go-slow
FDA approach, contrasted with Bush's willingness to sustain private
investment and speed up FDA approval of stem-cell-based therapies. Under
which president does medical progress and stem-cell research get the
bigger boost?
Robert M. Goldberg is director of the Manhattan Institute's Center for
Medical Progress
http://nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/26633.htm
art
At Tue, 10 Aug 2004, David Priver, MD wrote:
>
>I agree that the discussions have been interesting and, most thankfully,
>very courteous. I am pleased that we are able to agree to disagree and
>maintain respect for one another.
>As to returning to the subject of OB/GYN, no problem. Let's talk about
>embryonic stem cell research. Herein lies probably the most profound
>difference between Bush and Kerry. You know that the Bush position is
>extreme when the likes of the Reagan family, Senator Hatch, and loads of
>other so-called "pro-life" folks have stepped forward and asked the
>president to back off on these absurd restrictions. He won't, of
>course, do so, as we all know who controls the Republican party. My
>only hope is that the Democrats will not let a day go by between now and
>the election without pounding home this message: to keep Bush in power
>means at least another four years of scientific stagnation. Anyone who
>has a family member with diabetes, Parkinsonism, or any of a whole host
>of debilitating diseases should be furious and indignant that a tiny
>group of extremists should be able to stand in the way of valuable
>research.
>
>At Mon, 09 Aug 2004, Harrison Sheld wrote:
>>
>>It seems there are very divergent opinions on this thread, neither of
>>which is likely to be persuasive of the other. I am pleased that up to
>>this point we have had a rational discussion. It has not deteriorated
>>into a flame war.
>>
>>To be persuasive, argument ought to be based on fact and not echo
>>political rhetoric. When I read ad hominem verbiage, and labels such as
>>"fascist," "Hitler", "Nazi" that tells me I am being given a weak
>>argument or else I would be given verifiable facts.
>>
>>We live in a representative republic governed by consensus based on the
>>wishes of the majority, respecting rights we have agreed on are due the
>>minority. For example, if the majority of Americans, and I think there
>>is polling data to suggest that, do not want mid-trimester terminations,
>>the majority needs to be persuaded by fact, not ad hominem attack,
>>smears, or labels, that there is a place for midtrimester terminations.
>>The minority accepts but may disagree with majority decisions, but that
>>is a call to persuade their fellow citizens in a respectful, rational
>>manner.
>>
>>Maybe it is time to get back to OB/GYN on this site.
>>
>>Joanne Bulley, MD wrote:
>>
--
art fougner, md
ich bin ein New Yorker
