Veterinary Stem Cells: Why Your Dog Is Getting Better Treatment Than You

http://singularityhub.com/2009/06/25/veterinary-stem-cells-why-your-dog-is-getting-better-treatment-than-you/

by bwd • 17 years ago

19 16 17 years ago

singularityhub.com

biohacker422• 17 years ago

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.

kirse3• 17 years ago

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!

biohacker422• 17 years ago

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.

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.

sgibat• 17 years ago

I'm not sure which fallacy you're committing, but I'm sure it is one. Someone can wish for others to have the ability to make certain choices while not necessarily wishing to make that choice themselves.

Maybe your parent post doesn't want to, but I'm sure lots of very sick people would be willing to try almost anything.

dhughes2• 17 years ago

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.

ggchappell3• 17 years ago

> 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

dhughes2• 17 years ago

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

tjic• 17 years ago

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• 17 years ago

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...)

ggchappell3• 17 years ago

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.

Veterinary Stem Cells: Why Your Dog Is Getting Better Treatment Than You

Related Stories