11 ms·

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

19 points by bwd 17y ago

dhughes 17y 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.
- ggchappell 17y 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 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=679541
  - dhughes 17y ago
    I mean people in general, not this specific post discussing it, and more often than not the religious right in the USA.
    - ggchappell 17y ago
      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.
pwncat 17y ago
Sadly, this gem isn't mine, but... Social conservative: one whose concern for life begins at conception and ends at birth.
biohacker42 17y 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.
- kirse 17y 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!
  - biohacker42 17y 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. 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 17y ago
      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.
tjic 17y 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 17y 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/28canada.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28c...)
ggchappell 17y 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.

19 points by bwd 17y 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.

ggchappell 17y 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 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=679541
- dhughes 17y ago
  I mean people in general, not this specific post discussing it, and more often than not the religious right in the USA.
  - ggchappell 17y ago
    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.

pwncat 17y ago

Sadly, this gem isn't mine, but... Social conservative: one whose concern for life begins at conception and ends at birth.

biohacker42 17y 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.

kirse 17y 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!
- biohacker42 17y 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. 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 17y ago
    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.

tjic 17y 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 17y 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/28canada.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28c...)

ggchappell 17y 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.