Stem Cell Research

[Jae Onasi]

(Thread split from "Evolution: The discussion and the Theory")

 

There is no scientific evidence for the existence of anything resembling a soul. It is strictly a religious device.

Maybe just a device for you. Not for me.

Here's a question for your regarding souls and stem-cell research: Stem-cell research is considered immoral by religious people but not by scientists.

The moral dilemma is solved by developing a way to harvest stem cells in other ways that don't involve the destruction of a zygote. I heard there may be a technique that can obtain embryonic stem cells without destroying a zygote that may be an option, and umbilical cord blood has plenty of stem cells. I believe I heard a radio story about stem cells in amniotic fluid, but I could be wrong.

The argument put forth by the religious community is that the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception. Fine.

 

The rare (but not incredibly rare) case of identical twins....

Does the chimera have two souls? If not, where does the other one go?....

 

Now that we've potentially blown a big hole in the idea that this unproven thing called soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception, when would it enter the embryo?

Stay with me now. A God who can create an entire universe can take care of one tiny little cell just fine.

This is just one of many cases where science does not support the religious doctrine and religion turns its back on science.

And this is one situation where the media has way blown this entire subject out of proportion. Do you know where most of the stem cell treatment advances have come from? _Adult_ stem cell research, not embryonic. In fact, no treatments that I know of currently in use have been derived from embryonic stem cell research, despite all the effort going into it. We do, however, have treatments derived from adult stem-cell research. We should be putting research dollars into studying areas where we'll get the most benefit for the cost, and there's far, far more successful research going on with adult stem cells than anything in the embryonic realm.

 

Oh Lordy, time for an adult/embryonic stem cell debate. I'll see if there's a good spot to split the thread.

[Achilles]

Maybe just a device for you. Not for me.

...and you're a religious person. Case in point. Thanks. :xp:

 

The moral dilemma is solved by developing a way to harvest stem cells in other ways that don't involve the destruction of a zygote. I heard there may be a technique that can obtain embryonic stem cells without destroying a zygote that may be an option, and umbilical cord blood has plenty of stem cells. I believe I heard a radio story about stem cells in amniotic fluid, but I could be wrong.

Yep, if that works out, that would be great. Still irks me that nearly a decade of scientific progress (in the U.S., not overseas where such research isn't privvy to the same restrictions) will be lost because science had to cater to religion.

 

Stay with me now. A God who can create an entire universe can take care of one tiny little cell just fine.

Could you be more specific? I'm not sure that this response answers any of my questions.

 

And this is one situation where the media has way blown this entire subject out of proportion. Do you know where most of the stem cell treatment advances have come from? _Adult_ stem cell research, not embryonic. <snip>

And considering that embryonic stem cell research has not recieved any goverment funding, forcing U.S. researchers to use adult stem cells only, why does this surprise you?

 

That's like saying I didn't get wet because I didn't go in the water.

[Jae Onasi]

...and you're a religious person. Case in point. Thanks. :xp:

 

Yep, if that works out, that would be great. Still irks me that nearly a decade of scientific progress (in the U.S., not overseas where such research isn't privvy to the same restrictions) will be lost because science had to cater to religion.

Respect for life shouldn't be limited to religion. Respect for life keeps us from devolving back into barbarism.

Could you be more specific? I'm not sure that this response answers any of my questions.

Eh, that was one of those questions that got split out--you had asked how God adds souls to twins and what happens to the souls of chimerae. I was replying that if you believe that God created the universe, I'm pretty sure He can handle one individual soul with no problem. If you don't believe in God, there's no soul, so no big deal. If you do believe in God, and you believe there is a spiritual aspect to a person called a soul with which God imbues us, then God's got it under control. There's nothing in the Bible that addresses souls in twins, triplets, or chimerae, likely because a. those writers didn't know much about embryology other than what they observed after a miscarriage or birth, nor was such a miniscule issue relevant to developing a relationship with God and b. we can't do anything about it anyway--souls are God's purview, not ours. If He can weave together an entire universe, I don't think He's going to have a problem with taking care of one person's soul and handling the cases of twins, chimerae, etc. My guess, since I don't know for sure, is that at the point a twin becomes a separate embryo, s/he is given a soul, and when an embryo is absorbed, that soul goes to God. However, I'm not entirely sure how souls of an absorbed embryo work into the stem cell debate.

 

And considering that embryonic stem cell research has not recieved any goverment funding, forcing U.S. researchers to use adult stem cells only, why does this surprise you?

Actually, Bush authorized funding for research on stem cell lines that already existed at the time, you just couldn't create new stem cell lines from new embryos. It also doesn't prevent private funding for research. I have a problem with my tax dollars going to something that kills life, and if they can find a way to do this without killing embryos, then I'm all for it. I'm also not going to gripe if someone feels like donating to a university either monetarily or with their own embryos that they had frozen through fertility treatments but now were not going to use (for whatever reason). I may not like it, but that's their private choice.

That's like saying I didn't get wet because I didn't go in the water.

Well, we've done research, quite a bit actually, and the fact remains that adult stem cell research looks to have far more promise of significant medical advances than embryonic stem cell research.

I think part of all this overblown controversy is the implications of decisions on embryonic stem cell research have on abortion, and that is unpalatable to a number of pro-abortion groups.

[Achilles]

Respect for life shouldn't be limited to religion. Respect for life keeps us from devolving back into barbarism.

Blastocyst do not have a heartbeat (let alone a heart) nor do they have brainwaves (let alone a brain). If you consider a collection of 150 cells "life" then I would encourage you to begin repenting now for all the lives you smother every time you bathe or scratch an itch

 

I would argue that respect for life is the reason why scientists want to open up embryonic stem cell research. I'm not so altruistic to ignore the fact that a lot of money and prestige could also be factors, but that does not preclude the actual advances in medical science.

 

The question that keep popping up in my mind is how do religious opponents of embryonic stem cell research weigh value of life in a blastocyst against the life of young burn victim (old man with Parkison's, 30-something year old woman with a spinal cord injury, etc) and allow the blastocyst to win every time?

 

Eh, that was one of those questions that got split out--you had asked how God adds souls to twins and what happens to the souls of chimerae. I was replying that if you believe that God created the universe, I'm pretty sure He can handle one individual soul with no problem. If you don't believe in God, there's no soul, so no big deal.

Please help me to clarify this:

 

So it's not that the soul is real and non-believers have it wrong. Rather the soul is relative and scientists are being asked to cater to religious doctrine because of an opinion (as opposed to an absolute truth)?

 

Or to put it another way, because you are religious and believe in souls, you have one. But because I am not religious and don't believe is souls, I do not?

 

I don't think He's going to have a problem with taking care of one person's soul and handling the cases of twins, chimerae, etc. My guess, since I don't know for sure, is that at the point a twin becomes a separate embryo, s/he is given a soul, and when an embryo is absorbed, that soul goes to God. However, I'm not entirely sure how souls of an absorbed embryo work into the stem cell debate.

I introduced it because the argument of embryonic stem cell research and abortion opponents is that the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception, therefore anything that would kill the zygote would be to kill a human being.

 

Introducing twin zygosity raises some serious questions about that hypothesis. Since there are important questions left unanswered, I don't believe that it's reasonable to continue to operate under the assumption that the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception. Furthermore, I do think it is reasonable to go back and objectively determine what demarcation we are going to set for when a collection of cells ceases to be a collection of cells and should be considered a human life. One other poster in LF suggested the end of the first trimester. I would personally propose brain and heart activity which generally occurs in the 9th week of pregnancy.

 

Actually, Bush authorized funding for research on stem cell lines that already existed at the time, you just couldn't create new stem cell lines from new embryos.

He was still able to effectively stymie the research before it had a chance to get off the ground. 60 stem cell lines out of potential thousands. Scientists had been aware of embryonic stem cell for only about 3 years.

 

It also doesn't prevent private funding for research.

Agreed. But government funding accounts for about 36% of research spending. More comes from universities (which could put their government funding at risk if they openly went against another government policy). Corporate funding is in a similar boat because funding controversial research might put their ability to attract or retain government contracts at risk. Therefore, how much money do you really think is going to come from the private sector? I think it's commonly accepted that your best bet at being able to do real science comes from government funding.

 

Not arguing that you are wrong, Jae. Just that this out isn't a viable an option as you may think it is.

 

I have a problem with my tax dollars going to something that kills life

The United States military kills life. Do you object to your tax dollars that go towards it?

 

and if they can find a way to do this without killing embryos, then I'm all for it.

No embryos. Blastocysts.

 

Well, we've done research, quite a bit actually, and the fact remains that adult stem cell research looks to have far more promise of significant medical advances than embryonic stem cell research.

Source please?

 

I think part of all this overblown controversy is the implications of decisions on embryonic stem cell research have on abortion, and that is unpalatable to a number of pro-abortion groups.

I'm assuming you meant to say "anti-abortion" here? I think you hit the nail right on the head. Which goes back to my earlier point about science catering to religion.

[Emperor Devon]

The moral dilemma is solved by developing a way to harvest stem cells in other ways that don't involve the destruction of a zygote.

 

I fail to see the point in protecting a cluster of cells incapable of any form of thought, emotion, or pain, regardless of when it has a "soul". You might as well say rocks are entitled to rights too.

 

I heard there may be a technique that can obtain embryonic stem cells without destroying a zygote that may be an option, and umbilical cord blood has plenty of stem cells.

 

I heard about that as well. What an age where science and logic must bow down to the whims of people who can't even rationally justify their beliefs.

 

And this is one situation where the media has way blown this entire subject out of proportion. Do you know where most of the stem cell treatment advances have come from? _Adult_ stem cell research, not embryonic. {snip}

 

Source please?

 

QFE. I can't guess why scientists would want to use up cells that don't contribute at all to their research, and only use up funding and generate controversy in the process. But I'd trust their judgment to determine how many non-sentient masses of cells they need to use up.

 

In fact, no treatments that I know of currently in use have been derived from embryonic stem cell research, despite all the effort going into it. We do, however, have treatments derived from adult stem-cell research. We should be putting research dollars into studying areas where we'll get the most benefit for the cost, and there's far, far more successful research going on with adult stem cells than anything in the embryonic realm.

[SilentScope001]

I heard about that as well. What an age where science and logic must bow down to the whims of people who can't even rationally justify their beliefs.

 

Rational Justification For Stopping Stem Cell Research, No God Needed!:

(a summary of views gathered from Samuel Darvis, Marqius [the sane one], and SilentScope001)

 

Techincally, each cell has a potential for life.

 

You are taking away that potential when you test on that stem cell, extracting the embryos.

 

This means you are taking away ALL their happiness. That stem cell won't become a baby, won't experience the joy of eating food, won't have fun, won't grow up to be an adult, won't go to college, won't graduate, won't go and get a job, won't get married, won't...yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

You are taking away that potential. Without the consent of the Embryo. You have not offered the Embryo an incentive to give up that potential to life. You are getting rid of that potential, without consulting with what the Embryo wants.

 

As for the stone...the stone is not living. But the cells are living. And because they are living, and have the POTENTIAL to be a human being, then therefore, you cannot take that potentitality away.

 

You are causing beniefts to the human race, yes, but at the cost of hurting an embryo, hurting a potential human being. So, it's really a conflict between beniefence and nonmalfenence.

 

[bTW, I'm in full support of stem cell research. But there are atheistic objections to stem-cell research as well. I want to point that out, because not all atheists HAVE to support science. ]

 

Secondly: The testings are done with discarded embryos yes. But if cures are found, you'll need to massproduce them in LARGE volumes. And where can you can get these large volumes of embryos? Cloning these cells...or by asking women to sell off the embryos to be "processed" (illegal in the USA, btw...all they can ask for is women to donate embryos, with fees being paid for operations). Either of these things can be far, far more conterversial than the question over stem cells.

[Emperor Devon]

Techincally, each cell has a potential for life. {reasons why}

 

I would disagree. Even if one goes along with the idea that those embryos will become people, (doubtful if they were being given away in the first place) it's still a fairly obvious enough choice to me. Stem cell research would benefit real people, whereas doing away with it would only benefit potential people. Between the two, I'd consider the ones who are alive more important.

 

I would hesitate to call them potential people anyway. If the embryos were being given away, why on earth would people bother to be pregnant with them and raise them? Most people view having kids a more important priority than donating to stem cell research. The idea that all those embryos would become children if stem cell research was banned is an incorrect one. If a woman wanted kids she'd have them anyway, regardless of how many embryos she donates. Women have more eggs than they'll ever be able to use.

 

Now that we've put the idea that embryos are potential children aside, the anti-stem cell research position comes off to me as silly. Totally mindless and inhuman lumps of cells who will never become people shouldn't be used in stem cell research because... they have souls. Somehow they're more important than living people who, going along with the idea that there are souls, also possess them.

 

So the debate comes down to whether something that isn't even alive and possesses a soul is more important than living, feeling people who also possess souls.

 

The answer is glaringly apparent (even moreso if you don't believe in souls).

 

And where can you can get these large volumes of embryos? Cloning these cells...

 

Bingo, unless you have religious qualms against cloning.

[SilentScope001]

I would disagree. Even if one goes along with the idea that those embryos will become people, (doubtful if they were being given away in the first place) it's still a fairly obvious enough choice to me. Stem cell research would benefit real people, whereas doing away with it would only benefit potential people. Between the two, I'd consider the ones who are alive more important.

 

1) According to this position, giving away the embryo might be condemened. The women does not have the right to the potentiality of the Embryo. The Embyro has the right to the potentitality of the life of the Embryo.

 

If you are referring to embryos discarded after IV treatment, then I can understand, those embryos are to be thrown away. When massproduction occurs, though...you got problems.

 

2) You may want to discuss about helping out "real" people, but to be quite fair, you must recognize that you are still taking away the potentitality of that embryo. If you are an Act Utilitranist, then this is good. You are beniefting far more people by destroying the embryo, regardless if it is a potential human being or not.

 

If, however, you are a person who believe in some denotlogical belief like "sanctiy of life" (or something quite similar to Kantian thought, altough Achilles, to my knowledge, is Kantain and is in support of stem cell research), and you believe life MUST be protected, then this would not be okay. What's next? Is it okay to test on human beings, say, poor people in Africa, so that we can get more accurate results? Yes, I understand, stupid sliperry slope logical fallacy, but the fact remains that these people think that protecting life should be foremost, and that destroying life (even in the sake of perseving more life) is wrong, because you are destroying life.

 

Here, we got ourselves an ethical problem.

 

I would hesitate to call them potential people anyway. If the embryos were being given away, why on earth would people bother to be pregnant with them and raise them?

 

When you are doing Into-vito fertizalaiton, you have a ton of embryos that are created. Only one is implanted. The others are tossed away. They had to. You can't implant 5 eggs into one uterus, you can only place in one.

 

Most people view having kids a more important priority than donating to stem cell research. The idea that all those embryos would become children if stem cell research was banned is an incorrect one.

 

It's about 'implication' here. If experiments are succesful, and one develop a cure from stem cells...then we have to start mass-producing it.

 

If a woman wanted kids she'd have them anyway, regardless of how many embryos she donates. Women have more eggs than they'll ever be able to use.

 

..You know the reason WHY some females has to donate?

 

It's because she's using Into-Vitro Fertilization, to have a child. They inject her with drugs to go and produce some eggs, take them out and inject the eggs with sperm to create an embryo, and then they have to place one back into the body. She has no say in the matter...all she gets to choose is WHICG egg to place (meaning she can select traits, finding the "best child", which doesn't have certain genetic dieases)...

 

Still, it's more about the 'sancity of life' than anything else.

 

Now that we've put the idea that embryos are potential children aside,

 

You haven't. They are potential childeren, UNTIL the moment the humans who decide the fate of the potential childern fates for that embryo to go and be sent to testing, and to be "donated". Had the humans not intervened, and that embryo was implanted, then the embryo would indeed become an actual child, realizing his potential.

 

the anti-stem cell research position comes off to me as silly.

 

Only when you go and attack the argument of the religious person instead of my argument. Remember, I'm arguing from the postion of "an atheist"! One who doesn't believe in souls, but believes that embryos can become potential humans, and because of that, killing them would be immoral, because you are denying those potential humans the right to life.

 

Yes, the potentital humans, if discarded, won't be of use. However, there is a differnece between letting a potential human die naturally...and killing the potential human outright. In the first case, we did nothing. In the second case, we actually committed the crime.

 

So the debate comes down to whether something that isn't even alive and possesses a soul is more important than living, feeling people who also possess souls.

 

No it does not. It comes down to wheter something that MAY have the potentital to become like us...should be treated like us. That's it. Forget the problems with souls, the embryou can, if given the nutrients, become like us. Should we accord it the same rights...or not?

 

Bingo, unless you have religious qualms against cloning.

 

I actually don't see any religious objections to cloning, personally. I love it, anything that can cause us to evolve from this outdated system of "marriage" and "biological reproduction".

 

But, returning back to topic, defending the view of the Atheist Who Is Pro-Life:

 

1) You would be creating potential life only to destroy potential life. It's going to be a "embryo-killing" factroy, with the embryos being born to be 'harvested'. That would be an exploitiation of the embryos. If you don't see embryos as being potential persons or you find that the ends justify the means...fine, but others do not share your viewpoint, and will start freaking out at this factory when it is made.

 

2) Threaputic cloning can allow us to refine and perfect the technology of cloning...which can allow us to do Reproductive Cloning. While some (like me) may support it, others may dislike it for one reason: Eugenics. They aren't worried about playing God, they're worried that people might want to go and have clones of people with special talents...or clones of people that they miss or such. Either way, the people who do start cloning may put too much emphasis on the genes of that person, prehaps dehumanizing the person to be noting more than a "clone"...

 

EDIT: 3) Last thing. If embyros can be manufractured at will, then scientists could use these embryos to do more studies. Prehaps, for example, they may irradiate the embryo, to see how much cancer the radiation can cause. You could make a point that you are saving countless lives with the thearpy, but you miss the point that, sometimes, you may NOT save any life at all with a manufractured embryo. This technology doesn't just produce cures, it also produce ways for scientists to experiment. To gain knowledge. But, well, this research doesn't save lives at all, it's just the scientists being curious.

[Achilles]

ED,

 

It is my understanding that fertility clinics were on track to be one of the largest sources for the blastocysts necessary for embryonic stem cell research (women would sign release forms allowing extra fertilized eggs to be donated for research). Since fertility doctors aren't very good at fertilizing specific eggs, they tend to take a "shot gun" approach where they fertilize a lot of eggs and then implant two or three that look like they'll have a good chance of becoming embryos and then fetuses (you'll notice that a lot more news stories of women having 3, 4, 5, or more babies at a time started popping up after fertility clinics started gaining ground a decade ago). Instead, these fertilized eggs will simply be destroyed.

 

So it's ok to destroy unused blastocysts but not to use them for scientific research.

 

Any way you slice it, the arguments against embryonic stem cell research don't make much sense.

[JediMaster12]

I heard there may be a technique that can obtain embryonic stem cells without destroying a zygote that may be an option, and umbilical cord blood has plenty of stem cells.

Actually this is one technique that they have tried and I did read an article recently that they were looking at the ammiotic fluid stem cells. This is where they inject a needle and withdraw the fluid. the drawback is that there is a risk for both the mother and the baby.

 

There is also another technique that is being explored. I actually have a friend who did reasearch in this. They were using fat cells, regular body fat cells and they tried to stimulate the stem cells to different cell types. It was a two year research project and I think he and Dr. Thompson are still working on it. Still this brings to mind that doctors have used stem cells from the nose for patients who have been paralized. The result was that the stem cells rejuvenated into the cells that are in the spinal cord. The patients who have had this treatment still have a ways to go but they have gained some movement.

 

Personally I think embryonic stems cell research is crossing a line. A cell is life. Just because it doesn't think like us human beings doesn't mean that it is any less on the evolutionary scale. It has DNA, it has specific cell functions therefore it must be alive. I am not arguing from a religious standpoint but rather from one that respects life. Life is a miracle. Just being able to get up each morning and see the sun is a gift. True that a cell can't voice their happiness at being alive but it is still alive. If we can't show respect for tinniest of lives, what's to stop us from respecting bigger forms of life?

[Achilles]

Personally I think embryonic stems cell research is crossing a line. A cell is life. Just because it doesn't think like us human beings doesn't mean that it is any less on the evolutionary scale. It has DNA, it has specific cell functions therefore it must be alive.

I don't know if I accept your definition of "alive". Any cell with a nucleus has the potential for life. Your body jettisons thousands if not tens of thousands of skin cells every day. That same amount if not more are lost when you bathe. Or when you scratch an itch. Hair that falls out when you comb or brush it. The list goes on and on.

 

The brain of a fly contains 100,000 cells and is much more physiologically advanced than a blastocyst, but I don't hear many people protesting the destruction of innocent houseflies using these same arguments.

 

To summarize, I think that the argument for blastocysts as "potential humans" doesn't hold much water for the reasons that I raise here as well as elsewhere in this thread. I think if we were talking about destroying blastocysts for the sake of doing so, that would be one thing. However we are talking about advancing research that could save the lives of millions of people that have already gestated and are unequivocally alive.

 

If you had a blastocyst in one hand (here's a picture for you) and a person suffering from Parkinson's Disease in the other (choose either of these guys), you're telling me that the blastocyst should win every time. And that's just one disease that stem cell research has a strong potential to help cure. There are a lot of others.

 

I am not arguing from a religious standpoint but rather from one that respects life. Life is a miracle. Just being able to get up each morning and see the sun is a gift. True that a cell can't voice their happiness at being alive but it is still alive. If we can't show respect for tinniest of lives, what's to stop us from respecting bigger forms of life?

I appreciate the emotional nature of your argument. I'm not sure how much is helps to move the dialog forward and it seems to completely ignore the life and happiness (and suffering) of actual human beings, but it does allow me to see where you're coming from. The last part of your argument is a slippery slope fallacy. Allowing stem cell research is not a argument for allowing people to kill other people whenever they want.

[Emperor Devon]

The women does not have the right to the potentiality of the Embryo.

 

Now that's a topic we could argue for pages.

 

Is it okay to test on human beings, say, poor people in Africa, so that we can get more accurate results? {snip} Here, we got ourselves an ethical problem.

 

No. Treating living people as guinea pigs is unacceptable - treating cells less aware than guinea pigs is. But you're probably aware that that's an extremely jaded view of putting it.

 

When you are doing Into-vito fertizalaiton, you have a ton of embryos that are created. Only one is implanted. The others are tossed away.

 

Irrelevant to my point. Those embryos would not all have become people regardless of whether they were used for that, or the woman who had them simply chose not to get pregnant. She would still have more than eggs to have a child if she wished to; the rest would not become one whether she simply did not use them or chose to donate some for stem cell research. At least with the later it can accomplish something.

 

It's about 'implication' here. If experiments are succesful, and one develop a cure from stem cells...then we have to start mass-producing it.

 

My previous point. Those embryos/eggs would not have become children regardless of that.

 

..You know the reason WHY some females has to donate? {snip}

 

Yes. I still see no sin it. To repeat myself again, most of those eggs wouldn't have become children in any case.

 

They are potential childeren, UNTIL the moment the humans who decide the fate of the potential childern fates for that embryo to go and be sent to testing, and to be "donated".

 

Technically, yes. If what you're getting at is that some embryos might become children if they weren't donated, that only leaves the ones which would've as eggs. Either way you've "killed" just as many - only different ones.

 

The atheist pro-life arguments don't hold much weight IMO, given that they're using the same value as the pro-research ones. With the religious ones you're debating taboos over embryos over what benefits life the most - whereas with the atheist ones, both sides are arguing which one does the latter better. Not a very defendable position, as it comes down to whether the rights of potential people are more important than the lives of living ones.

 

So it's ok to destroy unused blastocysts but not to use them for scientific research.

 

Any way you slice it, the arguments against embryonic stem cell research don't make much sense.

 

The only argument in defense against that is how the embryos all had a chance of becoming fetuses, though IMO it's very shallow. All that argues is that the intent of of using a "shot gun" approach towards fertilizing eggs justifies the supposedly immoral results, which seems rather silly to me.

[SilentScope001]

Now that's a topic we could argue for pages.

 

/shrugs. (The Pro-Life Atheist would probraly be against abortion, but that is not the topic of discussion here.)

 

No. Treating living people as guinea pigs is unacceptable - treating cells less aware than guinea pigs is. But you're probably aware that that's an extremely jaded view of putting it.

 

While those cells feel no pain whatsoever, these cells do have the potentital to become human beings, to live the same life we are living, and purposely taking away that potential may be seen as wrong.

 

Listen, if life is "scared", if life is potentitally good, then the ethical prinicple of "nonmalfecne" comes into play. We must not harm anyone. There is good that comes of it, but that good is tainted with the evil of harming something, and it is better to not do evil than it is to do good.

 

Irrelevant to my point. Those embryos would not all have become people regardless of whether they were used for that, or the woman who had them simply chose not to get pregnant. She would still have more than eggs to have a child if she wished to; the rest would not become one whether she simply did not use them or chose to donate some for stem cell research. At least with the later it can accomplish something.

 

Well, let us assume that an embryo is a "potential person", in this example, so that you can understand the Pro-Life Atheist's belief.

 

Now, you know that a potential person is going to die, regardless. How it dies...is quite important. Will you let the potential person die? Or will you kill it?

 

I see a moral difference. If you let the potential person die, you let nature takes its toll. If, however, you kill the potential person, you taken away that potential person's life, and, well, it might not be right to call it murder, but you did take away a potentital person's property, that of his potentital to live. In the former, you did nothing, but in the latter, you did something.

 

And if embryonic stem cells work as a cure, you realize that argument won't help you. You will need a lot of stem cells, and fertilery clinics will not provide you with the embyros you need in order to manufractre the cures. You will need to find other methods, like cloning, or buying embryos from women, both of which will inflame the religious conservatives and the pro-life atheist. You could say, "Oh, those potentital people are going to die." But...later, we are going to need to manufracture potential persons, via cloning (which leads up to much screaming and kicking) or embryo "donations" (which will also leads to much screaming and kicking). Either way, had the embryo donation or cloning did not occur, then the potential person would not have lost his potentitality at all.

 

Technically, yes. If what you're getting at is that some embryos might become children if they weren't donated, that only leaves the ones which would've as eggs. Either way you've "killed" just as many - only different ones.

 

If we let nature takes it course, we did not purposely harm the embryos at all. We let nature handle the embryo. But if we experiment on the embryo, we kill that embryo, so we are morally responsible for the killing of the embryo.

 

It's the reason why the medical community says it is okay to go and take out life support and let people starve themselves to death (because you are letting nature takes it course)...and injecting them with a drug that kills them outright (because you are killing someone, and therefore, violating the purpose of a doctor: "Do no harm"). Only difference is that, in stem cell research, this potential person is unable to communicate his wishes on if he wants to live or die, and his body will be used for scientific research, and later, for producing cures.

 

 

The atheist pro-life arguments don't hold much weight IMO, given that they're using the same value as the pro-research ones. With the religious ones you're debating taboos over embryos over what benefits life the most - whereas with the atheist ones, both sides are arguing which one does the latter better. Not a very defendable position, as it comes down to whether the rights of potential people are more important than the lives of living ones.

 

We are not saying that the life of potential person are more important than the lives of the living ones. Not at all. We are merely stating that the potential person has the potential to be a person, and that therefore, we should go and treat him with respect and not go and use him in stem cell research.

 

If you are arguing that I am disrespecting the rights of living people, well, there are OTHER ways of treating dieases other than using embroynic stem cells research. You have adult stem cell research, first off, but there are other technologies that may come in the future. There is more than one way to stop cancer, or to get rid of bacterium. Nowhere am I saying, "Since the potential person is important, we will let 'real' humans live." I am saying that we should realize that this potential person must be respected, and that other forms of curing dieases should be taken up.

 

Let me take an example: Scientists want to create a chimera, that is, a combiniation of the genetic information between an animal and a human (say, an ape and a human). We will grow the new chimera, which combined of human and ape parts, allowing for them to reproduce, and then we harvest the chimeras for its organs.

 

Now, I, personally, am okay with this. The chimera is not a human, it is an ape/human hybrid, and therefore, do not have any rights. It is also pretty cool for us to do such a thing. But, I am not like most people. Most people would see this as totally immoral. The scientists doing the experiment may say, "But we are able to go and create new organs, save 'pure' Humans! We should treat 'pure' Humans with more respect than these savages that we made in a lab!"

 

We acknowledge that we need to have new organs...but we will simply shrug and say, "Nope." We will not do something that we consider immoral, even if it would solve the problem...even if it is the most effiecnt way of solving the problem. We'll find another source of new organs, to heal people, Science will find a way to cure our dieases. We just would not do it via building the Chimeras.

 

This, of course, presumes that embyronic stem cell research is immoral, a premise you do not agree with. But if one agrees with the premise, then I believe this conclusion logically follows. We can still save people's lives, without having to engage in research that could harm a potential person. We can cure Parkisons without needing to do stem cell research.

===

NOTE: I am not trying to convince you that my belief is right, ED. What I am trying to do is show you that there are valid points of the "potential human" argument. I am sure that some people share these arguments, and maybe, it is the same arguments that religious people are using, behind their breath. Many people do agree with them, showing that to these people, the arguments hold merit.

 

But, to be quite fair: You DON'T care about their argument. Neither do the scientists. If America suddenly bans stem cell research, scientists will pack their bags and move somewhere else. You cannot stop the progress of science. So, all the protests by the pro-life atheists and the religious conservatives, are in a sense, stupid. They have to persuade the scientists to abandon their research...but all we are doing is attacking the scientists doing the research. Attacking the scientists means the scientists will have to defend their viewpoint, and therefore, it cause a bit of conterversy. This debate is a non-starter, it is, in other words, useless. We are not the ones that decide if potential persons should be protected...it is the scientists. And they have sided with you ED. No amount of government regalation in America will stop them. You win. The End.

 

But, my arguments do make sense, even if the people that I am supposed to persuade don't believe in them. What I fear though...is that what if my arguments are right? If so, then the scientists are going down a path of great wrong, prehaps they always was on a path of great wrong.

[Achilles]

The only argument in defense against that is how the embryos all had a chance of becoming fetuses, though IMO it's very shallow. All that argues is that the intent of of using a "shot gun" approach towards fertilizing eggs justifies the supposedly immoral results, which seems rather silly to me.

If there was an argument based on reason, I would be more than willing to reconsider my stance. Up to this point however, one has not been presented. At the end of the day, it becomes apparent that embryonic stem cell has been (largely) pushed overseas due to legislation that was crafted and passed to cater to religious groups.

 

For those of you that haven't heard about this, here's what the National Institutes of Health has to say: link

[JediMaster12]

I don't know if I accept your definition of "alive". Any cell with a nucleus has the potential for life. Your body jettisons thousands if not tens of thousands of skin cells every day. That same amount if not more are lost when you bathe. Or when you scratch an itch. Hair that falls out when you comb or brush it. The list goes on and on.

This is probably one of those thing that you can't make heads nor tails of because of what I am. You are knowledgeable and obviously a student of science but because you can't understand why I think in a way that seems to reflect science and religion, you have a hard time understanding the meaning behind my argument. You are not the first who has been perplexed by me nor are you the last. I think a cell does have life because it exists in our world and it performs functions that are necessary to survive. Even though it has no feelings like humans, it still performs the functions that is programmed in its DNA.

 

I appreciate the emotional nature of your argument. I'm not sure how much is helps to move the dialog forward and it seems to completely ignore the life and happiness (and suffering) of actual human beings, but it does allow me to see where you're coming from. The last part of your argument is a slippery slope fallacy. Allowing stem cell research is not a argument for allowing people to kill other people whenever they want.

What I am saying is that people tend to pride themselves on their respect for life. The United States in particular has this idea that we are great humanitarians and the like. Since we have such great respect for life, how is it that we cannot acknowledge that it exists even on the tinniest of scales?

[CSI]

Personally I agree with Stem Cell research, and it can save people's life, why don't we do that esteem?

[Achilles]

This is probably one of those thing that you can't make heads nor tails of because of what I am. You are knowledgeable and obviously a student of science but because you can't understand why I think in a way that seems to reflect science and religion, you have a hard time understanding the meaning behind my argument.

I think you've expressed yourself adequately. I could be mistaken, but I don't think our seeming inability to see eye-to-eye is the result of a communications failure. Rather I think it's a difference in the nature of the rationale behind the arguments. You appear to favor subjectivity and limit your ethical considerations in a way that I cannot. As a personal opinion, I accept that but taken as a discourse for public policy, I find it reprehensible.

 

You are not the first who has been perplexed by me nor are you the last. I think a cell does have life because it exists in our world and it performs functions that are necessary to survive. Even though it has no feelings like humans, it still performs the functions that is programmed in its DNA.

A cell certainly has potential for life, but that does not make it "alive". I appreciate your taking the time to reframe your position. However I could still use some help understanding the rationale behind the argument which states that the consideration of a hundred cells should always trump the consideration of a fully formed human being.

 

Most people participating in an ethic thought exercise will readily allow one person to die if it will save one or more other people (circumstances depending), but yet our discourse on this subject says that we won't destroy 150 cells to cure millions of diseased people (this comparison is an exaggeration, but only a slight one).

 

What I am saying is that people tend to pride themselves on their respect for life. The United States in particular has this idea that we are great humanitarians and the like. Since we have such great respect for life, how is it that we cannot acknowledge that it exists even on the tinniest of scales?

I disagree with this assessment. Purposely blocking funding for research that is universally accepted to be the most promising potential source for life-saving medicine does not seem to be aligned with such a philosophy. I don't agree that it speaks to our humanitarianism at all.

 

I had considerably more here, but most of it had to do with Bush's inconsistent devotion to the "Culture of Life". If you would like to introduce it, I will happily include my thoughts, but I thought it might be something of a red herring to use it in my response (so I deleted it).

[PoiuyWired]

1) Science should not cater to religion, at least not legally.

2) Church and State are two different thing. And government funding is not from a church.

3) A technology that saves lives w/o the expanse of real humans should be supported.

 

Obviously there are some different views on (3). I mean, there are still some prehistorics around that thinks every sperm is sacred. But that is not the concern of the state. As we know it legally embryos are not humans. By that, shouldn't stem cell research be supported legally if it is a technology that would save lives?

 

PS: Not getting into the "when is there a soul" an the whole "pro life" argument here. Topic is stem cells, not that.

[Darth InSidious]

Stem cell research? Go ahead. Fine, get on with it. Saving lives, good.

 

But by the same token, don't kill of a person-in-9-months on a technicality. You cannot deny that if carried to term, that zygote/blastocyst/whatever-you-want-to-call-it would in all probability grow to become a living, breathing, thinking human being. By the same token, by killing it, you kill that person just 9 months away. So how is it any different to, hypothetically, going back in time, and killing someone as a child? Or any different to going back in time and pushing someone's mother into having an abortion?

 

I fail to see the point in protecting a cluster of cells incapable of any form of thought, emotion, or pain, regardless of when it has a "soul". You might as well say rocks are entitled to rights too.

Because barring accidents it will be a person, no different from you in most respects. You are just being temporally narrow-minded to suit your own purposes.

I heard about that as well. What an age where science and logic must bow down to the whims of people who can't even rationally justify their beliefs.

You can't prove atheism any more than I can prove theism or deism. And before you start the 'oh, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster', if one accepts the multiverse theory, it must exist. And even if not, the most that can scientifically be said, is that such a creature *seems* unlikely.

QFE. I can't guess why scientists would want to use up cells that don't contribute at all to their research, and only use up funding and generate controversy in the process. But I'd trust their judgment to determine how many non-sentient masses of cells they need to use up.

So...you'd place an irrational trust in scientists?

Marvellous. How logical of you.

In fact, no treatments that I know of currently in use have been derived from embryonic stem cell research, despite all the effort going into it. We do, however, have treatments derived from adult stem-cell research. We should be putting research dollars into studying areas where we'll get the most benefit for the cost, and there's far, far more successful research going on with adult stem cells than anything in the embryonic realm.

Quite.

 

I would agree so long as it does not contravene the right to life.

 

@PoiuyWired: As something of a 'prehistoric' in this regard, I'd suggest you watch your tongue. Just because a belief is not in fashion does not make it less valid. I do not appreciate having such labels applied to me, and neither, I would imagine, do others who hold this belief. I do not label you, show me the same courtesy at least.

[Jae Onasi]

Folks, be gentle. Please avoid labels like 'prehistoric' and 'irrational'.

 

Adult stem cell research has shown a number of medical benefits in treating 70+ diseases already. Despite world-wide research on embryonic stem cells, including the US because scientists can experiment on existing embryonic cell lines, no diseases have yet been treated with therapies derived from embryonic stem cell research according to the NIH. Since adult stem cells can differentiate into any tissue like embryonic cells can, and since we've already had successful treatment of a number of patients using therapies derived from adult stem cell research, why aren't we putting more research dollars into research that's showing tremendous promise and progress? I don't see the reasoning for pouring research dollars into something that's not nearly as effective as adult stem cell research. From a financial standpoint, we should be putting research dollars into something that's going to work.

I think part of all this overblown controversy is the implications of decisions on embryonic stem cell research have on abortion, and that is unpalatable to a number of pro-abortion groups.

I'm assuming you meant to say "anti-abortion" here? I think you hit the nail right on the head. Which goes back to my earlier point about science catering to religion.

I meant pro-abortion--if embryos are valued as the humans they are by one section of the government, it has implications on abortion rights. Abortion rights activists are concerned that if the government declares life begins at conception and that we shouldn't kill the unborn babies at any point, it could affect the legal side of the abortion debate.

[Achilles]

But by the same token, don't kill of a person-in-9-months on a technicality. You cannot deny that if carried to term, that zygote/blastocyst/whatever-you-want-to-call-it would in all probability grow to become a living, breathing, thinking human being. By the same token, by killing it, you kill that person just 9 months away.

This sounds very similar to the "soul" argument sans a direct invocation of souls. The fact is that it's not the same thing. Even if I were to completely concede your point, we're still left with the dilemma of how it is morally justifiable to put a "potential person" above the suffering of actual people.

 

So how is it any different to, hypothetically, going back in time, and killing someone as a child? Or any different to going back in time and pushing someone's mother into having an abortion?

It's different because it's not the same thing. These hypothetical situations have nothing to do with the actual argument at hand (strawman fallacy).

 

No one is advocating time travel for the express reason of killing children. Secondly, eggs used for research have to be donated so no force and no abortion are required.

 

Because barring accidents it will be a person, no different from you in most respects. You are just being temporally narrow-minded to suit your own purposes.

Here's a brief overview of the process:

 

A woman donates egg cells

Research scientists fertilize the egg cells

Research scientists wait 3-4 days until the fertilized egg becomes a collection of 50-150 cells called a blastocyst.

The stem cells are removed from the blastocyst and research is conducted upon them.

 

The entire process is in vitro. The egg is not fertilized in a natural process with the intention of bearing a child. In other words, the argument of "potential humans" doesn't really apply to the argument.

 

Scientist would be completely happy to work with cloned embryos, however the ban on government funding extends to opening new stem cell lines via cloned embryos as well.

 

Similarly, there are all the frozen embryos that women are willing to donate (a al fertility clinics), but the government would rather see them destroyed than given to science. Not much wringing of hands for them

 

You can't prove atheism any more than I can prove theism or deism. And before you start the 'oh, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster', if one accepts the multiverse theory, it must exist. And even if not, the most that can scientifically be said, is that such a creature *seems* unlikely.

Implying that atheism is something that can be or needs to be proven seems to miss the point of atheism entirely. Atheism isn't the antithesis to belief; it is a lack of belief. How does one "prove" that they don't believe in something for which there is no evidence? Which begs the question, how would one prove that there is no evidence? Conundrums such as these are the reason why the burden of proof always falls on the one making the claim.

 

Additionally, I'm pretty sure it's obvious to everyone that the FSM does not exist. That's the point of the FSM

 

The FSM is unlikely because there is no evidence for His existence. Such is the case for all deities or theistic religious figures.

 

So...you'd place an irrational trust in scientists?

Recognizing that "irrational" is an adjective (a word used to describe) rather than a label (something used to categorize), could you please help me understand why it would be irrational to trust in the scientific method?

 

Thanks!

[Achilles]

Adult stem cell research has shown a number of medical benefits in treating 70+ diseases already.

Is this the same source that you were referencing earlier? It's not an academic source. CitizenLink is clearly a conservative group, therefore the source is biased:

 

This Web site serves to bring timely, critical analysis to bear on the most important cultural and policy issues of the day. Written and edited by some of the country's most knowledgeable family advocates, the resources featured here are designed to educate and energize concerned citizens within religious, political, educational, and activist spheres working to apply Christian principles to the struggles that face our nation.

To be fair, we could go to the medical studies that it cited and check them for peer-review, analyze the methodologies used, etc, but I don't particularly care to and I assume that you don't either

 

Perhaps if you could provide an academic source we could save each other the trouble.

 

PS: the preface of this article contains several fallacies on top of being guilty of poor citation

 

Despite world-wide research on embryonic stem cells, including the US because scientists can experiment on existing embryonic cell lines,no diseases have yet been treated with therapies derived from embryonic stem cell research according to the NIH.

The NIH FAQs seem to focus entirely upon U.S. research. I think if we're going to read about breakthroughs, we're going to have to look at sources from other countries and/or industry journals (the ones with peer-reviewed articles of course )

 

Since adult stem cells can differentiate into any tissue like embryonic cells can

While research has recently shown that adult stem cells are more mailable than previously believed, there is no evidence to support the claim that they are equal or superior to embryonic stem cells, in this regard.

 

and since we've already had successful treatment of a number of patients using therapies derived from adult stem cell research, why aren't we putting more research dollars into research that's showing tremendous promise and progress?

I think we're starting to go in circles

 

Adult stem cell advances are what we hear about because that's where the money is already going. The evidence (and the logic) would seem to support the argument that if the money was going into embryonic stem cell research, that's what we'd be hearing about and we'd be hearing a lot more about it (i.e. more advances, more often).

 

This is like saying "See? That guy ran a mile in 45 minutes. Isn't that amazing!?" while all the guys that can do it 5 were tied up and tossed in their lockers. Adult stem cells aren't getting the limelight because they are better. They're getting it because of an unequal playing field.

 

I don't see the reasoning for pouring research dollars into something that's not nearly as effective as adult stem cell research. From a financial standpoint, we should be putting research dollars into something that's going to work.

A preponderance of experts don't seem to share your opinion that ESTs are ineffective.

 

When EU, Brazil, Japanese, and Australia (just to name a few) begin churning out medical advances based on stem cell research, I hope that we don't find ourselves hopelessly behind.

 

I meant pro-abortion--if embryos are valued as the humans they are by one section of the government, it has implications on abortion rights. Abortion rights activists are concerned that if the government declares life begins at conception and that we shouldn't kill the unborn babies at any point, it could affect the legal side of the abortion debate.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Darth InSidious]

You are overcomplicating the argument, and using these complications as strawmen.

 

The fact is that none of the embryonic stem cell research done so far has led to any benefit, despite *worldwide* research into the field. Only adult stem cell research has yielded results and benefits for these suffering people - you are advocating the destruction of potential people for a very unlikely gain, based on the evidence.

Scientist would be completely happy to work with cloned embryos, however the ban on government funding extends to opening new stem cell lines via cloned embryos as well.

 

Similarly, there are all the frozen embryos that women are willing to donate (a al fertility clinics), but the government would rather see them destroyed than given to science. Not much wringing of hands for them

Personally, I don't see any difference between any of these three options. They all seem to involve the same moral dilemma to me. If you accept the one you must accept the other two as well. Likewise if you reject the one you must reject the other two.

Implying that atheism is something that can be or needs to be proven seems to miss the point of atheism entirely. Atheism isn't the antithesis to belief; it is a lack of belief.

It is a belief- there is no evidence. We've been over this before. Phenomena and noumena cannot be proven to be equal - you cannot prove that only what you see is what is there. And only accepting the existence of the phenomenal is intellectual dishonesty.

How does one "prove" that they don't believe in something for which there is no evidence? Which begs the question, how would one prove that there is no evidence? Conundrums such as these are the reason why the burden of proof always falls on the one making the claim.

But you are also making a claim, and as always overcomplicating to confuse the issue. Which is the phenomenal and the noumenal.

Additionally, I'm pretty sure it's obvious to everyone that the FSM does not exist. That's the point of the FSM

How? We haven't even got a full understanding of our own ecology, let alone the entire multiverse. Prove to me that there isn't a Flying Spaghetti Monster anywhere in spacetime.

The FSM is unlikely because there is no evidence for His existence. Such is the case for all deities or theistic religious figures.

Wrong. The FSM is unlikely because it is biologically improbable. Deities fall (for the most part) outside the biological, and so this isn't a problem.

 

Recognizing that "irrational" is an adjective (a word used to describe) rather than a label (something used to categorize), could you please help me understand why it would be irrational to trust in the scientific method?

Re-read Devon's post.

[Achilles]

You are overcomplicating the argument, and using these complications as strawmen.

Ok. Please show me where I've done this.

 

The fact is that none of the embryonic stem cell research done so far has led to any benefit, despite *worldwide* research into the field.

Here's one example that I purposely spent no more than 20 seconds trying to find.

 

As for "worldwide", I guess you'll have to operationally define that for me. Based on the information that I've seen, only a handful of countries are conducting stem cell research. Only 8 of those appear to operate without restriction (i.e. they can manufacture blastocysts, rather than rely on donations from fertility clinics).

 

Only adult stem cell research has yielded results and benefits for these suffering people - you are advocating the destruction of potential people for a very unlikely gain, based on the evidence.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, adult stem cell research has an unfair advantage. ASC research progress is not evidence of it's superiority to other forms of stem cell research. The argument that states otherwise appears be be based on begging the question fallacies.

 

Furthermore, the argument that these are "potential people" is based on fallacy, as I have pointed out before. Thus far, no one appears to be interested in showing me how this conclusion is wrong. I'm completely willing to accept your point if you can walk me through the rationale or show me where there is flawed reasoning in mine.

 

Personally, I don't see any difference between any of these three options.

I'm ok with this so long as you aren't asserting that there is no difference.

 

They all seem to involve the same moral dilemma to me. If you accept the one you must accept the other two as well. Likewise if you reject the one you must reject the other two.

I accept that you see no difference. I have a problem if such thinking is used to dictate public policy, but as a personal opinion, it is what it is.

 

It is a belief- there is no evidence.

Huh?

 

We've been over this before. Phenomena and noumena cannot be proven to be equal - you cannot prove that only what you see is what is there. And only accepting the existence of the phenomenal is intellectual dishonesty.

Yes we have. IIRC you opted not to continue that discussion because "it wasn't worth your time", but I don't think anything was resolved. You argue here as though it was, however I believe my points have yet to be addressed.

 

PS: Phenomenon is not limited to what you can see, rather what you can observe. I can observe lots of things without seeing them and accept them as evidence for other things. If such observations are empirical, then they deserve to be the foundation for reasoned explanations. For the purposes of finding reasons, empirical study will always be superior to other forms. I fail to see how this is intellectually dishonest.

 

But you are also making a claim, and as always overcomplicating to confuse the issue. Which is the phenomenal and the noumenal.

You haven't answered my questions, sir.

 

How? We haven't even got a full understanding of our own ecology, let alone the entire multiverse. Prove to me that there isn't a Flying Spaghetti Monster anywhere in spacetime.

I repeat: How does one prove something doesn't exist? Since you've mentioned Bertrand Russell's work before, perhaps you are familiar with his teapot?

 

Wrong. The FSM is unlikely because it is biologically improbable. Deities fall (for the most part) outside the biological, and so this isn't a problem.

Doesn't it seem like a case for special pleading that lack of biological evidence is a case for no FSM, but not for other deities? If we can accept other deities with no evidence, then we have to accept FSM as well. The difference comes in what we choose to believe. Not in what we have evidence for. That's the point of FSM.

 

Re-read Devon's post.

I'm not sure how something posted by ED will answer a question that I posed to you. I've read all of Devon's posts in this thread, but I'm still not sure why you would think that it would be irrational to trust the scientific method.

 

Thanks in advance for your reply.

[Jae Onasi]

Is this the same source that you were referencing earlier? It's not an academic source. CitizenLink is clearly a conservative group, therefore the source is biased:

 

To be fair, we could go to the medical studies that it cited and check them for peer-review, analyze the methodologies used, etc, but I don't particularly care to and I assume that you don't either

 

Actually, I do care about those things, and if they'd quoted crap sources, I wouldn't have bothered with that link. All of those studies were published in highly regarded medical journals for those fields, such as the New England Journal of Medicine and Ophthalmology, both of which I've read (Ophthalmology on a pretty regular basis). Articles don't make it into those journals, or the others cited, without significant scholarly review. Ophthalmology is _the_ scholarly journal for the ophthalmology field, and the New England Journal of Medicine comes out of the Harvard Medical School. The other journals are likewise the scholarly journals for their particular specialties. If those are not acceptable sources, then nothing is.

Perhaps if you could provide an academic source we could save each other the trouble.

Look up any of the articles cited in that PDF on Medline.

The NIH FAQs seem to focus entirely upon U.S. research. I think if we're going to read about breakthroughs, we're going to have to look at sources from other countries and/or industry journals (the ones with peer-reviewed articles of course )

The NIH would not have said that if it was true outside the US, otherwise they'd have been guilty of misleading the public.

While research has recently shown that adult stem cells are more mailable than previously believed, there is no evidence to support the claim that they are equal or superior to embryonic stem cells, in this regard.

The fact remains that there are treatments using adult stem cells, but not embryonic stem cells. From both an ethical and financial standpoint, we should be putting the research dollars into something that's actually working. The malleability of embryonic stem cells is irrelevant if you can't do anything useful with that feature.

 

Adult stem cell advances are what we hear about because that's where the money is already going. The evidence (and the logic) would seem to support the argument that if the money was going into embryonic stem cell research, that's what we'd be hearing about and we'd be hearing a lot more about it (i.e. more advances, more often).

Then why aren't we hearing about such things from other countries that allow embryonic research?

 

A preponderance of experts don't seem to share your opinion that ESTs are ineffective.

Certainly there's potential, however, there appears to be far more potential with adult stem cell research, and it doesn't have the same ethical concerns.

When EU, Brazil, Japanese, and Australia (just to name a few) begin churning out medical advances based on stem cell research, I hope that we don't find ourselves hopelessly behind.

 

Thanks for clarifying.

And they can live with the fact that they're doing human experimentation, apparently.