OT: Stem Cell Research - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jul 21, 2006

RE: OT: Stem Cell Research

Date: Jul 21, 2006

Gosh, Tup, since your friend said so, I guess that's it. No more debate, eh?

Funny thing, though. When I worked at LSU-Med, one of my tasks was to be scribe for a scientific research group's meetings. They were working on the effects of NO on inflammation, so a lot of the material was 'way over my head; I did learn that there's little unanimity among scientists, and calling other people's work "B.S." is pretty much par for the course.

Friend, you called me ignorant and superstitious, and you attributed beliefs to me and other reasonable, intelligent people, which we do not hold. I have the right to object to that. And unless you're a scientist, your knowledge of and love of science are possibly no greater than my own.

Date: Jul 21, 2006

Here is some more information on stem cell research. I have not verified the facts, but I have reason to doubt its veracity.

• The stem cell debate. There are several examples of Platformate* reporting here. First, the notion that President Bush opposes all stem cell research — instead of just embryonic stem cell research — has been encouraged by shoddy reporting. Second, the fact that what is at stake is only public funding of embryonic stem cell research has also been obscured in the reporting of this issue. And third, the fact that Bush is the first president ever to have provided any federal funds for stem cell research goes unmentioned, or is buried, in most stories.

*Platformate is an additive used in gasoline and was the topic of a deceptive advertisement.

Jon Ham, Carolina Journal Online ( www.carolinajournal.com, July 21, 2006 )

Date: Jul 21, 2006

LVN wrote:

Tuppy Glossop, who assumes that all who disagree with him are ignorant unscientific yahoos.

LVN, you've gotta cut Tuppy some slack. After all, his/her opinions bear the imprimatur of an old classmate who teaches cell biology in Wisconsin. Clearly that trumps any opposing viewpoints that others may have the temerity to present.

Date: Jul 21, 2006

Many of the posters on this board are scientists. From this scientist's perspective, there are several issues that are of concern in the ESC "debate."

First, there seems to be a proclivity for those opposed to this methodology to say "show us the cures that have come about to date." Factoring in the problem that this research has been hindered by the feds (it must be privately funded AND there must be no overlap with federally funded infrastructure-meaning that you can't even share a beaker--a logistics nightmare), most scientists would agree that this sort of logic is the antithesis of the hypothetico-deductive scientific method. You just don't jettison new scientific tools and methods because they have not yet demonstrated applied utility. The scientific (not necessarily applied) utility and validity of cell (or other) models must be supported empirically--if one is using clinical data as a criterion for a cell model, this evidence usually comes relatively late in a program of research.

Second, research ethics (not religion or morality) are critically important to the debate. What are the human subjects issues involved? How does this research comport with the Belmont report and current biomedical ethical standards? What do state and federal statutes and case law say about the creation (in ways other than sexual intercourse), storage, and disposal of embryos? These are important and complex issues. I think that some of us who have watched funding priorities shift at the federal level due to the influence of a specific flavor of religious activists are saddened by GWB's trivialization of this issue--merely saying that "It is simple, I don't believe in murder," does not do justice to how hard biomedical ethicists and scientists have worked in this area.

Date: Jul 21, 2006

GL

I appreciate your post, it provides some clarity to the issue. You also verify that the crux of the argument is public funding. As in any effort to acquire public funds, there has to be a sufficient level of agreement about the costs and benefits, monetary and social, to gain public funding. Some of the hurdles to overcome are historic and some are due to an information deficit.

One of the historic hurdles is the close affiliation of stem cell research and abortion in the minds of many of those objecting. Once we hit the point where we allowed partial birth abortion, many people have said no to anything that abortion supporters advocate. While the scientific community is narrowly focused on this issue, the pubic is not. If abortion rights people are for it, much of the public is against it. As an aside, it does the cause no good to engage in derogatory castigation of those who oppose the issue.

The information deficit appears to be improving, but there is still much to do. The mainstream press is not very helpful since it sells papers if they frame it as a political battle rather than an information deficit. In addition, there is not much trust in the legislators who will ultimately write the laws surrounding this issue, a reputation well-earned. The opponents see this as a case of the nose of the camel under the tent. It will spiral out of control and become more and more outrageous to the average voter.

Date: Jul 21, 2006

Cossack wrote:

... One of the historic hurdles is the close affiliation of stem cell research and abortion in the minds of many of those objecting. Once we hit the point where we allowed partial birth abortion, many people have said no to anything that abortion supporters advocate. While the scientific community is narrowly focused on this issue, the pubic is not. If abortion rights people are for it, much of the public is against it. ....

Cossack points to the crux of the matter. The question I have for LVN, Cossack, GL and others is, "Why do you consider the destruction of a human embryo wrong"?

All the questions seem to be addressed to the scientist, but the theist have not defended their assertion that destruction of the embryo is immoral, no matter how early the stage of development. I know some theologians say this is so, but no one seems to demand their logical argument to support that position. I suspect that is because at the foundation of the logic is belief in an immortal soul. This is why some say the opposition to this research is based in superstition. I think this is also the link between this issue and abortion.

Date: Jul 21, 2006

Hey CoBers, why don't you take over this thread. No one is using it.

Date: Jul 21, 2006

Cossack points to the crux of the matter. The question I have for LVN, Cossack, GL and others is, "Why do you consider the destruction of a human embryo wrong"?

I did not mention anything about the destruction of a human embryo. I merely tried to frame what I see as the political and social scene. Since I am very much for the death penalty for certain crimes, I believe that some people just need killing for what they have done. A baby that has harmed no one does not. I have no opinion about embryo destruction.

Date: Jul 21, 2006

Atheist wrote:

The question I have for LVN, Cossack, GL and others is, "Why do you consider the destruction of a human embryo wrong"?

I don't, unless there is a legitimate research ethics issue or statutory reg to abide by. A better question, to get to the crux of the issue, is do I consider the destruction of an embryo "murder" as GWB does? I do not consider the destruction of an ovum that has been fertilized "murder." This perspective seems unique to some segments of Christianity, and there is even disagreement among Christians as to this position (the majority of US Senators, a body that is mostly Christian, do not seem to hold this opinion).

Date: Jul 21, 2006

Thanks to Cossack and GL for your replies. So now we need to have a response from those who do think human stem cell research is immortal because it kills a human embryo. What is the logic behind that position? Is it just based in belief in the supernatural, soul et al.?

Date: Jul 23, 2006

C.L. OPINION --Stem cells: Despite veto, science beckons

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060723/OPINION01/607230324/1008/OPINION

"But opponents link stem-cell research to abortion and cloning. While the scientific arguments by these opponents are indeed weak, the political arguments are powerful in states with anti-abortion majorities.

In Mississippi, a significant number of anti-abortion conservatives have stepped up in support of ethical stem-cell research."

Date: Jul 23, 2006

H.A. Letter--Nation should support science

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060723/OPINION03/607230304/1014/OPINION

Date: Jul 23, 2006

I'd like for this gentleman to explain how the belief that a human embryo might be a human being relates in any way to a belief about the age of the earth. This letter is as ignorant and demagogic as anything it protests. At the very least it shows that "fundamentalists" have no corner on irrational thought.

Date: Jul 23, 2006

LVN,

I agree with your analysis. I also wish that people would not keep using the misleading statement "separation of church and state". Both the wording and the historical context of the issue addressed in the constitution are quite different from this trite misstatement. The historical context stems from the problems in Europe (more specifically England) of a state supported religion where the government was not neutral about religion. The focus of the wording in the constitution is a ban on government support of a religion. Nowhere does it say that religious tenants or religious arguments cannot not be used in governing or in decision making. In addition, it did not say the the tenants and arguments of atheists cannot be used in governing or decision making. One can reject a religion based argument or an argument presented by atheists, but on the basis of its source.

Date: Jul 23, 2006

Cossack wrote:

...Nowhere does it say that religious tenants or religious arguments cannot not be used in governing or in decision making. In addition, it did not say the the tenants and arguments of atheists cannot be used in governing or decision making. One can reject a religion based argument or an argument presented by atheists, but on the basis of its source.

Cossack, I think I agree with your post, but I just want to clear up the wording so I won't be confused. The double negative I underlined is a typo, right? In the last sentence, do you mean one can't reject an argument just based on it's source? I would say atheists have arguments, but no tenants I know of.

Date: Jul 23, 2006

Atheist

You are right. I meant to say, "but on the basis of its source". A good idea is still a good idea even if you do not like the source.

Date: Jul 23, 2006

LVN wrote:

I'd like for this gentleman to explain how the belief that a human embryo might be a human being relates in any way to a belief about the age of the earth. This letter is as ignorant and demagogic as anything it protests. At the very least it shows that "fundamentalists" have no corner on irrational thought.

LVN, I thought I would agree with you on this. However, I also understand what the writer was trying to present. He says, "...catering to religious fundamentalists, the same people who have fought and killed scientists throughout history. They've declared that the earth is not 5 billion years old, but 5,000 and are trying to push the pseudoscience intelligent design in our schools."

I think he was trying to point out that at one time people believed these things about the earth and humans because they only had the Bible for their source. Science changed our knowledge. The current frontier of this battle between "beliefs" and science is, " Do the few cells that form a human embryo constitute a human being?" Do you know if science or the law defined what constitutes a "Human Being"? It seems to me that is the definition the struggle is about.

Date: Jul 23, 2006

Atheist

You are correst in that I mistated, not once, but twice. What I meant to say was,

One can reject a religion based argument or an argument presented by atheists, but on NOT the basis of its source.

Date: Jul 23, 2006

Cossack wrote:

Atheist You are correst in that I mistated, not once, but twice. What I meant to say was, One can reject a religion based argument or an argument presented by atheists, but on NOT the basis of its source.

Cossack, I know you are very logical so I figured that is what you meant. Of course after a few brews this afternoon, your former post seems logical now.

Date: Jul 24, 2006

C.L. Letter--Stem-cell bill veto damages science

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060724/OPINION02/607240306/1009/OPINION

C.L. Letter--Bush veto dashes hopes of millions

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060724/OPINION02/607240307/1009/OPINION