Something is missing from this article. It's talking about treatments involving <i>adult</i> stem cells. The controversy (and heavy regulation) in the U.S. concern <i>embryonic</i> 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.<p>Now, perhaps human medical treatments and experimentation are over-regulated in the U.S. But that has nothing to do with stem cells.<p>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.
The surgical procedure that has experienced the fastest increase in quality and the fastest decrease in price EVER is Lasik.<p>...because it's not regulated like most other surgeries.<p>Veterinary care has been improving under the same forces, and at close to the same rate, as tech startups.<p>Human medical care has been hindered under the same regulation and oversight as public utilities and the DMV.
This is sadly true. I've ranted here about the very high cost of regulation in <i>human</i> biotech before.<p>Because veterinary medicine is much, much less regulated it advances much faster.<p>Sad but true.
Your own stem cells from your own body which may (can?) regenerate damaged parts of your body, and people are against this.<p>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.<p>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.