The Stem Cell Paradox
The stem cell research debate is somewhat paradoxical. In most industries, it is the Left that demands government control and regulation, while the right is content for the government to let industry be. In the stem cell debate, the Left wants the world to launch forth on unbridled experimentation on human embryos with no debate about the ethics surrounding the creation and destruction of millions of human embryos for research purposes.
Yes. I did say millions of embryos. Most people arguing for unbridled stem cell research seem to imply that only one or two stem cells will go under the scalpel. Such pundits misrepresent the way science works.
Molecular biology works by repeating a large number of experiments on a large number of specimens a large number of times.
It is possible that we could see hundreds of millions of embryos being processed by an out of control industry if anyone were ever to invent a medicine based on cloning technologies.
My contention that an unbridled stem cell industry would process embryos by the millions seems to be supported by that the unbridled fertility industry has created the nightmare where there is over a half million embryos on ice. A case in point is the unbridled fertility industry that very quickly found itself with over 500,000 fertilized embryos in their freezer chest. My guess is that only a small percent of the embryos created by the fertility industry make into to the freezer.
I don't think there is anyone who wants a completely unbridled embryonic research. Such a monstrosity is neither good science, nor would it be all that good for mankind.
Science does not advance in a vacuum. In a healthy society, there is an ethical debate that accompanies the evolution of the technology. It is the ethical debate that keeps the science on track. It is the ethical debate that keeps science focused on human needs.
For example, the research on stem cells broadens our understanding of cancer. Many cancers are the result of stem cells gone wild. We can either use this stem cell knowledge to create cancer or cure cancer.
It is because of the ethical tradition in the medical community that doctors are more likely to use their knowledge to cure cancer rather than spread cancer.
It is possible for scientists to use knowledge gleaned from stem cells to harm others. Just as governments use biochemicals and atomic energy as weapons, I could envision a government weaponizing stem cells.
Science has a long history of bettering the situation of man because scientific development has traditionally occurred within a broader ethical framework.
The fact that the left seems intent on stopping the natural ethical debate that should accompany stem cell development is far more frightening than the technology itself.
The ethical debate is a necessary part of scientific advancement; So I find myself reluctantly applauding George Bush for trying to force the ethical debate with his presidential veto.
I used the adverb "reluctantly" in the sentence above because the presidential veto is not where the ethical debate about stem cell research should occur. If we were a healthy society, an ethical debate on this issue would be raging in the university, instead, the left has created such a climate of fear in the education system that we cannot engage in the debates that should take place.
The Utah Daily Chronical has an editorial by a Tiara Fuller who applauds Bush as well. I have a feeling that she will be shouted down.
The site Stem Cell Information site by the National Institute of Health has what looks to me like good information on Stem Cells. The primary goal of the Bush Administration seems to be to restrict research on stems cells that could be developed as a human being. That does not seem to me to be an unreasonable objective. The Bush initiative has all sorts of provisions for investigation and registering stem cell lines. If we had a healthy academic community, it would be possible to simply define objectives and rely on self policing efforts in the community. The calls for regulation and registration of stem cells seems a bit onerous.
In conclusion, the great stem cell paradox is that the desire to regulate is driven by conservatives, and not liberals. The actual burdens of the regulations don't seem to be out of line with regulatory efforts that come from the left.
On the reverse side of the paradox. If ever the left does decide that it is politically expedient to go after the stem cell or fertility industry, the industries will have a bear of a time. Of course, if the Left went after the industry, you would most likely see a paradigm shift where we fall back into the traditional pattern of the left attacking the industry and the right trying to argue for the industry's survival.
Yes. I did say millions of embryos. Most people arguing for unbridled stem cell research seem to imply that only one or two stem cells will go under the scalpel. Such pundits misrepresent the way science works.
Molecular biology works by repeating a large number of experiments on a large number of specimens a large number of times.
It is possible that we could see hundreds of millions of embryos being processed by an out of control industry if anyone were ever to invent a medicine based on cloning technologies.
My contention that an unbridled stem cell industry would process embryos by the millions seems to be supported by that the unbridled fertility industry has created the nightmare where there is over a half million embryos on ice. A case in point is the unbridled fertility industry that very quickly found itself with over 500,000 fertilized embryos in their freezer chest. My guess is that only a small percent of the embryos created by the fertility industry make into to the freezer.
I don't think there is anyone who wants a completely unbridled embryonic research. Such a monstrosity is neither good science, nor would it be all that good for mankind.
Science does not advance in a vacuum. In a healthy society, there is an ethical debate that accompanies the evolution of the technology. It is the ethical debate that keeps the science on track. It is the ethical debate that keeps science focused on human needs.
For example, the research on stem cells broadens our understanding of cancer. Many cancers are the result of stem cells gone wild. We can either use this stem cell knowledge to create cancer or cure cancer.
It is because of the ethical tradition in the medical community that doctors are more likely to use their knowledge to cure cancer rather than spread cancer.
It is possible for scientists to use knowledge gleaned from stem cells to harm others. Just as governments use biochemicals and atomic energy as weapons, I could envision a government weaponizing stem cells.
Science has a long history of bettering the situation of man because scientific development has traditionally occurred within a broader ethical framework.
The fact that the left seems intent on stopping the natural ethical debate that should accompany stem cell development is far more frightening than the technology itself.
The ethical debate is a necessary part of scientific advancement; So I find myself reluctantly applauding George Bush for trying to force the ethical debate with his presidential veto.
I used the adverb "reluctantly" in the sentence above because the presidential veto is not where the ethical debate about stem cell research should occur. If we were a healthy society, an ethical debate on this issue would be raging in the university, instead, the left has created such a climate of fear in the education system that we cannot engage in the debates that should take place.
The Utah Daily Chronical has an editorial by a Tiara Fuller who applauds Bush as well. I have a feeling that she will be shouted down.
The site Stem Cell Information site by the National Institute of Health has what looks to me like good information on Stem Cells. The primary goal of the Bush Administration seems to be to restrict research on stems cells that could be developed as a human being. That does not seem to me to be an unreasonable objective. The Bush initiative has all sorts of provisions for investigation and registering stem cell lines. If we had a healthy academic community, it would be possible to simply define objectives and rely on self policing efforts in the community. The calls for regulation and registration of stem cells seems a bit onerous.
In conclusion, the great stem cell paradox is that the desire to regulate is driven by conservatives, and not liberals. The actual burdens of the regulations don't seem to be out of line with regulatory efforts that come from the left.
On the reverse side of the paradox. If ever the left does decide that it is politically expedient to go after the stem cell or fertility industry, the industries will have a bear of a time. Of course, if the Left went after the industry, you would most likely see a paradigm shift where we fall back into the traditional pattern of the left attacking the industry and the right trying to argue for the industry's survival.
Labels: science
posted by y-intercept at 2:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home