Returning to the Stem Cell debate - Robert Mitchell

Ask any pro-lifer and they will tell you that stem-cell research is a moral harm. But what about economic harms? At the turn of the century, federal funding restrictions devastated the human embryonic stem cell research field, resulting in a metaphorical ocean-sized gap between US scientific advances in hESC fields and non-US fields (DeRouen). As a result, US research has often relied on specific old lines of research, "many of which were made with outdated culture methods" (DeRouen). The ultimate impact is a lag effect in US competitive research models from two primary forms. First, the lasting fear of new bans or restrictions and the current restrictions on funding prevent adequate research into new fields of study, such as epigenetic research. Second, this uneasiness has resulted in scientists fleeing the field, either physically--as many scientists move overseas to complete their research (Medina)--or mentally--by shifting fields of study out of the hESC field (DeRouen). The result is a stagnation effect in the US based hESC research field. 

As countries around the globe such as China and the United Kingdom ramp up stem cell research, economists and policymakers alike must return to the question of stem cell research restrictions and the continued benefits thereof. The current restriction regime--which does not explicitly ban the use of stem cells but rather prevents funding and other benefits from federal grants based on NIH restrictions--has had many unintended consequences for the United States in the last decade as shown above. These brain drain like effects result in a failure of US biotech leadership (Cadden). As young new scientists move abroad, so do many companies, in order to maintain competitiveness with other international biotech companies (Medina). These firms view the benefits of finding new therapies and tech innovations as necessary for long-term survival. Because biotech is an increasingly global industry, not only does that mean companies must compete with one another, but there is a growing unwillingness to locate in a country that does not defend hESC research (Medina). The net result of stem cell funding for biotech companies is "lowers costs and higher ROI" (Cadden). Ultimately, we must decide whether or not morals can trump technological advances in medical treatment and the US industrial base. 

Bibliography

Cadden, Laura. "New Administration could mean profits for US stem cell companies", http://www.todaysfinancialnews.com/us-stocks-and-markets/new-administration-could-mean-profits-for-us-stem-cell-companies-5269.html, 11/5/2008

DeRouen, Mindy. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12015-012-9391-6/fulltext.html, 2012

Medina, Joanne. “Is Stem Cell Research a One-Way Ticket to the Island of Dr. Moreau? Singapore and the United States' Differing Paths” 21 Pac. McGeorge Global Bus. & Dev. L.J. 125. 2008