I tried to
respond to some of the counterarguments you've offered.
"I
forgot a point. Go to
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/
post-haste and educate yourself."
I did check
out that site and I found it to be a kind of propaganda. I'm not
saying that the catholics who make up the founding members don't have
a right to spout propaganda or that propaganda in itself is a bad
thing (In fact, that's what I like about the net is that I have a much
better sense of the biases of the authors.), but these are people who
will stick to their position no matter what the evidence says. And
again, and I hate to repeat this, we do the research to find out
things. There may be a way to do embyronic stem cell research without
violating the "sanctity" of the embyro. And if you were rational about
this your immediate response would be "great". But it wasn't, and so I
presume that you're not making your case based on reason and evidence
but religious sophistry, ever so circular and ever so arcane.
I feel that
the site is on a par with what tobacco companies say about the
cigarette/cancer link or how polluters feel about global warming.
I suppose I
choose to get my information here at the
Union of
Concerned Scientists,
or from the
Henry Waxman
website.
I might note that I have nothing against adult stem cells. In fact, I
probably have a lot more adult stem cells than I do embryonic stem
cells. I simply think that the research is very exciting. We could
cure many a disease, perhaps even figure out our genetic workings. I
think these things should be done.
"This
is neither relevant nor true. If I find the time I'll dig into my
archives and find a link to an excellent shredding of common myths
regarding Galileo. Besides, that's a guilt-by-association argument and
blatantly fallacious. It's also a red herring."
Actually, it's
both relevant and true. On the other hand, please invite me to your
dissertation talk when you tell all those perfessors about how well
Galileo was treated by the church. ( I know that the church burned
some scientists at the stake...is that your standard? "Welluh, at
least we didn't burn him at the stake...") More on relevancy later.
War
against science?!? I guess you haven't read my autobio. I'm a
scientist in training. I do a lot of work in computational aspects of
biophysics and proteomics. Going around calling people fundamentalist
theocrats might make you feel better, but it doesn't put you on the
moral high ground, nor does it advance serious discussions on the
ethical issues at hand. Also, not that it really matters, I'm not a
fundamentalist. Nor do I believe in premillenial theology. Get your
religious insults straight.
And later is
now. Keep in mind that I've been following this debate for about five
years. I was actually alerted to the
Leon Kass
problem
by
notorious
right winger Virginia Postrel
(who once
openly advocated, in my interpretation, beating up anti-war
protesters).
Here's how
Postrel characterized the pro death (or as I call them the Die on Time
crowd 'cause God wants it that way) Kass Crew:
After all, no respectable public figure is pro-death. Right?
Wrong. A pro-death coalition has been building for several years,
crossing the traditional left-right divide. Its advocates aren't
primarily interested in abortion or euthanasia, the traditional
life-and-death political issues. They don't focus on the gray areas of
personhood. They oppose the extension of healthy, active human life
beyond its current limits. They are, quite literally, pro-death. Their
viewpoint got some exposure recently, when the Center for Bioethics at
the University of Pennsylvania and the John F. Templeton Foundation
gathered scientists, bioethicists and theologians for a conference
called "Extended Life/Eternal Life."
Both Kass and Callahan have been arguing for years that open-ended
medical progress is an affront to nature and humanity. Both promote
static, closed definitions of medicine and health. Both find markets,
technology and scientific research far too subservient to the
individual desire for life, health and biological self-determination.
In his 1998 book False Hopes, Callahan laments that the spirit of
contemporary medicine "is that of unlimited horizons, of infinite
possibilities of ameliorating the human condition." He wants
"sustainable" medicine that has "embraced finite and steady-state
health goals and has limited aspirations for progress and
technological innovation."
Yeah, let's stop that horrible option of "unlimited horizons". Sounds
just awful.
The other
point here is that the Bush stem policy, the notorious 60 lines
policy, came from folks who do seem to look at their science in a
religious way. Most of the people who serve on the Kass bioethics
commission aren't scientists. So, while you yourself may not be a
fundie, the site that you quote and the policy you approve seems to be
driven by religious fundies, whom, I must contend, find a future of
controlled self evolution to be very threatening. And for good reason.
We do,
however, know that adult stem cells have shown promise. Isn't a sure
thing preferrable to a shot in the dark? Who's operating by faith now?
God has nothing to do with seeing that ESCR is all talk and no
substance. There is no logical reason for scientists to shun ASCR.
I actually
thought Chris Mooney, arguably the best online science writer out
there (He actually talks to real scientists and has a ton of them as
sources. I'm jealous.) sort of addressed not only the argument between
emybronic vs. adult, but the whole "framing" propaganda aspect to the
argument.
Boston, Mass.: It seems that adult stem cells have been more fruitful
in healing diseases. Why shouldn't billions of dollars be spent of
research that works rather than use it for research in embyroic work
that still remains immoral and fruitless.
Chris Mooney: Alas, the fact that I'm getting this question--and the
fact that John Kerry himself got a similar question in the second
presidential debate--attests to the vast amount of questionable
scientific information that's floating around out there on this issue.
The truth is that all the leading research scientists in this field
will tell you the same thing: 1) both "adult" and embryonic stem cells
have research promise; 2) at this point it's impossible to say which
is "better," and in fact, future cures may well draw upon both types
of cells; 3) given this, it would be foolish to cut off either line of
research. Don't just take my word for this. Here's a June 2004 letter
(PDF)
from the star studded International Society for Stem Cell Research to
President Bush. "Research on all types of stem cells warrants
increased federal funding," it reads. "These include stem cells found
in fetal and adult tissues and pluripotent stem cells isolated from
blastocysts or derived by nuclear transfer." Furthermore, scientists
have been studying human adult stem cells--and particularly
hematopoietic stem cells--far
longer than they've been studying embryonic ones. So it's no surprise
that in some respects, research in this area may be further along.
However, we need to be very cautious about claims for adult or
embryonic stem cell therapies that haven't been proven safe and
effective in clinical trials. Unfortunately there's a lot of this kind
of stuff out there.
What's
more important, profit or ethics? Even if ESCR could be done
ethically, there should be serious discussion before proceeding. Not
everyone shares your love of progress for its own sake. You accuse
those against ESCR as advocating a theocracy. Has it ever occured to
you that those supporting it are advocating a technocracy?
No to the last
question. I actually write for a site called Better Humans that's very
much concerned with making sure that everybody has access to these new
technologies. I've always thought, like William Gibson, that the open
anarchic structure of the Internet was just a lucky strike. I
personally want genetic research to go forward because I'm of the firm
belief that we'll have to reengineer ourselves in order to go into
space. (Anyone
remember the
Guardians of the Galaxy?
All the heroes
were genetically engineered...)
I also think
that the payoffs are beneficial to mankind. I think that the cures for
illness, organ engineering and expanded lifespans are worth the cost.
I don't define embryos as people with rights. Women throw 85 percent
of their own embryos...Is god or nature a "baby-killer"? Perhaps we
should firebomb a church to show our displeasure at these policies.
We do,
however, know that adult stem cells have shown promise. Isn't a sure
thing preferrable to a shot in the dark? Who's operating by faith now?
God has nothing to do with seeing that ESCR is all talk and no
substance. There is no logical reason for scientists to shun ASCR.
Please read
the aforestated Chris Mooney quotes. I never said anything about
shunning research. I support research into adult stem cells. I support
research into embyronic stem cells and I might note that the
president's directive doesn't stop private companies from doing
whatever they want. I support your research into AI. Please use
whatever tools to advance science. I won't tell you that you can't get
ideas from Wolfram because my savior Satan thinks it's a bad idea.
