I am trying to see if anyone has an ideas about a pro view on the pursuance of expanding medicine through biotechnology. I had one example in mind: cancer research.
Does anyone have any other examples with strong support as to why the advancements should not be limited? (I am thinking in terms of the benefit greatly surpassing the negative side effects).
Thank you all.
Biotechnology in medicine: Why should we not place limits on science?
one of the biggest is stem cell research, also reducing the time it takes to start human trials since the cure for animals won't always step over to cure a human. but you have to remember that if there are no restrictions, they may cure cancer but may kill everyone with cancer while doing it.
Reply:Damn lawyers hang on industries like leeches.
In the early twentieth century medicines and therapies were marketed or instituted months after discovery. Now it takes 10 years. And the only very bad examples are thalidomide and lobotomies. Which are pretty damn bad, but consider that while waiting 10 years for a life-saving drug to be so safe that only 1000 people will die from its use, 100,000 will die waiting for the chance. Thats 10,000 a year, killed by the FDA!
Have em put that in their pot and smoke it.
No comments:
Post a Comment