IT WAS one hell of a double act, if you鈥檒l pardon the phrase: a keynote address given by the vice president of the United States 鈥� followed by a speech from Pope Francis. Their remarks were addressed to a small crowd, by the standards of the Vatican鈥檚 audience chamber, but a distinguished one: pioneering researchers, visionary technologists, dignified patients 鈥� and deep-pocketed philanthropists.
They were assembled for a glitzy on regenerative medicine orchestrated by the New York-based Stem for Life Foundation and the , intended to catalyse funding and 鈥渞educe human suffering throughout the world鈥�. Its centrepiece, the papal audience, epitomised how the new wave of precision medicine sits at the nexus of science, society and money.
The science was cutting-edge. Delegates heard about bold advances in the use of stem cells to treat rare diseases. There was also time dedicated to new cancer treatments and to organ repair. It was difficult not to be moved by stirring accounts of miraculous cures, and talk of how the convergence of big data, gene editing and targeted therapies will create an 鈥渋nflection point鈥� for medicine.
Advertisement
But the programme didn鈥檛 touch all aspects of this unfolding revolution. There was little mention of the devastating failure of some early gene therapy trials, and certainly not of the repeated scandals that have dogged stem cell research 鈥� exacerbated by huge financial pressure to deliver results, in the view of some delegates I spoke to. That sort of bad publicity tends to spook funders.
Nor was there so much as a whisper about using stem cells from human embryos, which the Catholic church staunchly opposes. And the emphasis on curing children 鈥� the Vatican line being that it is unconscionable to turn away from 鈥渋nnocents鈥� pain鈥� 鈥� wasn鈥檛 mirrored by discussion of genetic screening, whose likely consequence, abortion, is also anathema. While there wasn鈥檛 much overt religiosity in evidence during the two days I attended, nor did there seem to me to be much deep engagement with ethical and social questions.
So is this just a well-heeled talking shop, or do deals get done? 鈥淵ou definitely want outcomes,鈥� was how one fundraiser put it bluntly to me. That鈥檚 why US vice president Joe Biden was there: to drum up support for his $1 billion Cancer Moonshot. His for a global coalition to address the 鈥渃onstant emergency鈥� of cancer, but his project is likely to be spurned by Republicans back home. That leaves Biden looking for private-sector support.
Fortunately for him, funds are pouring into this area. Sean Parker, who made his fortune from Facebook, was on hand to explain why he set up an eponymous Institute to encourage knowledge-sharing among cancer researchers, bankrolled with his own cash. 鈥淢any of us in Silicon Valley have got bored of making consumer-focused products, mostly for teenagers,鈥� he said. So he had looked for a way to use his skills in the services of a more profound effort.
鈥淧ope Francis addressed a distinguished crowd, including deep-pocketed philanthropists鈥�
The mix of boosterism, worthy causes and peerless bragging rights made for a well-crafted appeal to plump wallets, particularly those of Catholics. For those who are neither wealthy nor religious, it鈥檚 hard to argue with megabucks for medical research: it鈥檚 less nakedly self-aggrandising than many other pet projects of billionaires. But I was still left wondering how usefully the money raised would be spent 鈥� and about the prospects for research that might not tug at the heartstrings 鈥� and the wallets 鈥� of the rich and famous.
This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淎n audience with the rich and famous鈥�
