| Name |
Views and Comments | Date |
| Tim |
I appreciate the thoughtful comment. However:
"While the argument can be made, as the author does, that these embryos are nothing but "a bunch of cells in a dish", is that not what we all are, more or less: a bunch of cells. "
We are a bunch of cells who are self-aware, can feel pain, make decisions, and think. A bunch of cells is no more a human being than a piece of iron ore is a BMW.
"If the criteria or justification for their use is that they are "going to be destroyed" anyway, why not use prisoners on death row or, along the same line, senile, demented elderly near death?"
All of the above are sentient beings, as opposed to a dish full of cells, which is a dish full of cells. People, however, can make decisions, of their own volition, to volunteer their bodies which are going to be destroyed, for medical science, or to donate organs to save lives. If an embryonic stem cell is a person, then so is the DNA that the government has on file from me. And if that' s the case, I'm going to start claiming it on my tax return.
"In fact, is that not the rationale that Joseph Mengele used to justify his experiments on the Jews in Auschwitz -- that they were going to be destroyed anyway? "
You just illustrated what is commonly referred to as "Godwin's Law." In any case, if you have a quote from Mengele where he said that, it would be interesting to see, irrelevant as it is. Mengele was an ardent Nazi, and any "research" he did was of questionable medical value to say the least. It seems far more likely he was simply a sadistic torturer than someone who had any interest in advancing medical science. Moreover, it seems an odd argument, since he was responsible for "destroying" the people in the first place. That and, they were people as opposed to lumps of cells sitting in a freezer.
"According to a 2003 Rand study, only 2.8% of the couples would sign a waiver to allow their embryos to be used for medical experimentation. That amounts to approximately 11,000 embryos from the alleged 400,000 frozen embryos available. "
And a 2007 study conducted by Duke University and Johns Hopkins found that 60% of couples who visited fertility clinics would donate their left-over embryos for stem cell research. A lot can change in 4 years.
"The reality is that this particular research area holds so little promise of success (none, to date) that money from the usual sources in the private sector has largely dried up. Embryonic cell research is significantly more expensive than cell research from other stem cell sources because storing frozen embryos is markedly more costly than storing umbilical cord blood which has the additional benefit of being virtually unlimited and has no moral overtones. "
This is a bit circular. The government has poured hundreds of millions of dollars (over 3 billion since 2001) into everything but embryonic stem cells, including grants to university researchers and private companies. It was, incidentally, a researcher at the University of Minnesota in 2002 that had the largest breakthrough with adult stem cells -- not a for-profit company. Naturally, fields that are being funded and encouraged by both the government and the private sector have grown. The government's restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, on the other hand, has scared away private companies who might want to conduct such research alongside research on other stem cell technologies. In other words, you end up going in circles: embryonic stem cell research has not advanced as far as other forms of research largely because the government hasn't funded it. And we shouldn't fund it because it hasn't advanced as far as other forms of research.
"If this research ever shows the promise that other stem cell research already has then the question of federal funding will be moot -- there will be a veritable explosion of funding from all those eager, greedy capitalists who already fund the bulk of medical research. "
Again, circular logic. Other forms of stem cell research already received billions of dollars in funding before they produced any results. That funding resulted in their research being more succesful, and resulted in far more private companies researching those technologies because they knew they could get funding for them.
"Until such a time, I prefer my tax dollars be spent more prudently and pragmatically than on pie-in-the-sky, politically correct research. Only those large bio-tech firms who are more than willing to profit by spending the government’s money rather than risk their own funds on this dubious research will benefit but not "real people, with arms legs, and brains" who "suffering" that the author rightly worries about."
Going to the moon was also "pie-in-the-sky" research (literally) and it seemed to work out pretty well in the end. The fact is, large bio-tech firms invested solely in other forms of stem cell research largely because the government's policy -- some, like two of the largest companies, Geron and Advanced Cell Technologies, moved their embryonic research overseas where they actually got support. Others simply avoid it altogether.
It's also worth pointing out that the bill Bush vetoed didn't even allocate any money to research -- it simply allowed governent agencies that oversee that research, like the National Institute of Health, to use their professional judgement in deciding what to research: in other words, to do what we pay them for. The bill removed a completely arbitrary restriction placed on them for non-scientific, non-professional reasons.
|
7/15/2007 |
| chuckn49 |
I disagree with the author's position regarding embryonic stem cell research and the President's veto of federal funding for it. While the argument can be made, as the author does, that these embryos are nothing but "a bunch of cells in a dish", is that not what we all are, more or less: a bunch of cells.
If the criteria or justification for their use is that they are "going to be destroyed" anyway, why not use prisoners on death row or, along the same line, senile, demented elderly near death? In fact, is that not the rationale that Joseph Mengele used to justify his experiments on the Jews in Auschwitz -- that they were going to be destroyed anyway?
According to a 2003 Rand study, only 2.8% of the couples would sign a waiver to allow their embryos to be used for medical experimentation. That amounts to approximately 11,000 embryos from the alleged 400,000 frozen embryos available.
The reality is that this particular research area holds so little promise of success (none, to date) that money from the usual sources in the private sector has largely dried up. Embryonic cell research is significantly more expensive than cell research from other stem cell sources because storing frozen embryos is markedly more costly than storing umbilical cord blood which has the additional benefit of being virtually unlimited and has no moral overtones.
People of good faith can and certainly do take exception to the President's moralistic or theological reasons for vetoing this bill. However, from a scientific and economic basis, this President is correct and justified. If this research ever shows the promise that other stem cell research already has then the question of federal funding will be moot -- there will be a veritable explosion of funding from all those eager, greedy capitalists who already fund the bulk of medical research.
Until such a time, I prefer my tax dollars be spent more prudently and pragmatically than on pie-in-the-sky, politically correct research. Only those large bio-tech firms who are more than willing to profit by spending the government’s money rather than risk their own funds on this dubious research will benefit but not "real people, with arms legs, and brains" who "suffering" that the author rightly worries about.
|
7/9/2007 | |
