

Veterinary Stem Cells: Why Your Dog Is Getting Better Treatment Than You - bwd
http://singularityhub.com/2009/06/25/veterinary-stem-cells-why-your-dog-is-getting-better-treatment-than-you/

======
ggchappell
Something is missing from this article. It's talking about treatments
involving _adult_ stem cells. The controversy (and heavy regulation) in the
U.S. concern _embryonic_ stem cells. In particular, under GW Bush, federal
funding for experimentation involving embryonic stem cells that were not from
approved lines, was prohibited in the U.S. But there is nothing controversial
about adult stem cells, nor anything about them that is specially prohibited.

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.

------
tjic
The surgical procedure that has experienced the fastest increase in quality
and the fastest decrease in price EVER is Lasik.

...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.

~~~
bwhite
Hear, hear. There is no shortage of examples in which your dog's getting
better service and treatment than you because of government interference.

"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...](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html))

------
biohacker42
This is sadly true. I've ranted here about the very high cost of regulation in
_human_ biotech before.

Because veterinary medicine is much, much less regulated it advances much
faster.

Sad but true.

~~~
kirse
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would think that harvesting a batch of puppies
for organs/cells probably has far fewer ethical considerations than when
messing with people.

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!

~~~
biohacker42
If I may correct you.

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.

~~~
kirse
_The ethics of messing with people are not the main barrier, they are no
barrier. It's the legal restrictions_

But ethics and morality ARE the barrier. Sure, you have plenty of scientists
who wouldn't blink an eye before doing just about anything to a fellow human,
but ethics are most certainly the explanation for why these legal restrictions
and government regulations are put into place. Just about every core law and
regulation put into place has a basis in an ethical judgment.

 _because the government is protecting me from me._

You act as if this is a bad thing? Personally I prefer it that scientists far
more knowledgeable than myself are doing their best to ensure that I'm not
brushing my teeth with lead-laced toothpaste, drinking milk that hasn't been
properly prepared, helping to ensure that processes are standardized and
providing me with convenient ways to know that I'm not unknowingly poisoning
myself, etc. The FDA has done far, far more good than harm in this case.

I think if people want to do testing then they should leave the USA. Get out
of my country, _I don't want_ it to be legal for scientists to perform
borderline unethical treatment on my citizens. Go to China for that, it's
really that easy.

~~~
sho
_"I don't want it to be legal for scientists to perform borderline unethical
treatment on my citizens."_

Huh? You've got it completely backwards. What is _really_ unethical is
retarding process, and not allowing people to have the best possible medical
care. If there's a huge breakthrough in medical technology - and stem cells
appear to be such a breakthrough - by denying it to people without an
excellent reason you are causing untold, needless suffering.

 _"Go to China for that, it's really that easy."_

I never thought I'd see the day where an American told another to go to
_China_ to get the innovative medical care they need because the USA was too
bogged down in bureaucratic mire. Is it opposite day or something?

~~~
kirse
_What is really unethical is retarding process, and not allowing people to
have the best possible medical care._

Oh, give me a break here. Take your emotions out of the argument. Cutting edge
medical experimentation does not necessarily equal "best possible care".

And if by _innovative medical care_ you mean human guinea pig, then by all
means buy the ticket now and head over.

Is it really a problem to want to be on the "safe side" when dealing with
medical treatments on humans? You're the one who has it backwards. In your
convoluted sense of ethics you somehow equate "doing nothing" and "being
cautious" with "doing harm". What sort of stupidity is that?

Do you consider yourself an unethical greedy person each time you deny a
beggar money on the streets? Do you consider yourself doing harm if you deny
tackling a robber who has a gun pointed at a bank teller? How selfish of you
to eat three meals each day and deny food to the millions of starving children
in Africa. In each of these situations you had the capability to help, yet you
chose to deny it to those people and it resulted in needless suffering.

Am I correctly understanding your system of ethics where you are saying that
choosing to do nothing = doing harm?

Even if "doing nothing" did equal "doing harm", I would be willing to wager
that doing nothing and being cautious statistically does FAR LESS "harm" than
attempting a number of untested medical experiments on human guinea pigs for
the sake of trying to save one person's dying grandparent.

~~~
sho
_"Cutting edge medical experimentation does not necessarily equal "best
possible care"."_

Give _me_ a break. Didn't you read the article? Humans are waiting 2-3 years
for a hip replacement; dogs are waiting _one week_. We're way past
"experimentation".

I really don't know what you're imagining with all this talk of "human guinea
pigs" etc. We're not talking about some crazy experimentation with live
subjects, companies with _carte blanche_ to do what they will. We're talking
about new remedies, with high success rates in (genetically very similar)
animals, which really need to be investigated.

 _"Am I correctly understanding your system of ethics where you are saying
that choosing to do nothing = doing harm?"_

Your examples are all biased. If you really do have the ability to apprehend
an armed robber with no risk to yourself, then of course you should. The
Africa situation is complex and it's not a matter of money but if you could
really press a button and just fix it all, of course you'd be derelict in your
duty if you didn't press that button.

The problem is the government isn't doing "nothing", it's actively retarding
progress. I wish they _would_ do nothing.

You seem to have this image in your head of some kind of large scale Nazi
medical experimentation or something. I assure you that is not the case, and
not what I am talking about. It is illegal to even _research_ this shit, even
if it works fine in animals, even if the patient is desperate and willing to
take the risk.

The government is actively impeding this research and, by extension, medical
progress. This is abhorrent and needs to change. Luckily, other countries are
picking up the torch and soon you may indeed see sick Americans heading
overseas for the treatment they need as America slides further into a
complacent abyss of risk-averse stagnation.

------
dhughes
Your own stem cells from your own body which may (can?) regenerate damaged
parts of your body, and people are against this.

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.

~~~
ggchappell
> Your own stem cells from your own body which may (can?) regenerate damaged
> parts of your body, and people are against this.

Actually, I don't think anyone is. See my comment:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=679541>

~~~
dhughes
I mean people in general, not this specific post discussing it, and more often
than not the religious right in the USA.

~~~
ggchappell
I've never heard anyone, "religious right" or otherwise, complaining about the
use of _adult_ stem cells. The problem people have is with _embryonic_ stem
cells gotten by killing embryos, and thus not from your own body.

So, again, I don't think anyone has any problem with the procedure described
in this article. And certainly there are no unusual legal restrictions on it
in the U.S.

