[Amilam]

Yeah I'm also of the opinion to investigate all forms of stem cell research and let scientists, not politicians, determine which has more validity. I would concede that the Left has over funded embryonic stem cells following their rise to power, but it's undeniable that it was Conservatives that radically polarized what should have been a purely scientific debate.


Psudo, I find your definition of "elitist" as having a good deal of merit, though heavily imbued with Marxist subtext. Personally, I think the largest fault of our current educational system is not that we aren't putting enough students in college, but rather that we're trying to shut off paths to sustainable blue collar professions. I think we would do people a lot more good by modernizing and improving our technical schools. It sounds nice to hear Obama lobby for 100% college attendance, but it's does not serve society's greater good in the long run.

[Psudo]

I respect the freedom of scientific inquiry, but I also like the protection of human life. Destructive tests performed on human tissue is a little disturbing, and some clear, rational line needs to be drawn between what is legally acceptable and what is not. I'm happy to hear other proposals for where the line should be, but I'm not willing to concede all scientific behavior as justified by definition. Call it the Mengele Rule.

Yeah, the Marxist rhetoric is to demonstrate that it's not just a right-wing view but wrong from the left as well. If I'd argued from Ayn Rand's view, the argument would likely have gotten even less attention.

[KrytenKoro]

Yeah, there's an oddly relevant article at http://www.cracked.com/article_17039_9- ... tists.html

It's kind of disappointing (Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov story) that someone tried to cross-breed chimpanzees with humans, and it was not the Society of Materialist Biologists that tried to stop him, and it definitely wasn't the French.

No, it was the extremist kooks at the KKK who actually put up any resistance to this plan.

What kind of natural filters does science have, if it took the KKK to put a stop on some of the worse atrocities?

(Yes, I realize that this is an EXTREME case, but seriously, WTH?)

[Murray_Smith]

Psudo wrote:

Murray_Smith: Why would science only investigate the one type of stem cells it is impossible to get federal funding for? It seems like there would be incentive to research adult, placental, umbilical stem cells, since funding is more readily available. Thus, it makes no sense that science would exclusively focus on embryonic stem cells for their medical research.

Of course it would be nonsensical for SCIENCE! to focus on only the types of research that get no federal funding. However, adult stem cells are still cells made from an adult. Most can only become a few different kinds of cells, and do not grow as quickly.

Quote:

You could dispel this perception if you could name a study (or studies) that belong in the embryonic stem cell treatments column. (Of course the site is biased. But is it wrong when it says "none"?)

I find that list analogous to one that compares the benefits of fossil-fuel power with those of nuclear power in 1938.

I do not think the argument of abandoning embryonic stem-cell research because it has produced insignificant results compared to other types of research is valid. If adult stem cells can do all that, one can only imagine what kind of diseases can be treated when the cells are not restricted by age.

I do not believe there is a valid moral argument that specifically disallows embryonic stem cell research, but allows adult stem cell research. If embryonic and adult stem cells are identical in structure, function, and utility, then what makes adult stem cells allowable to use, but not embryonic cells?

Psudo wrote:

I respect the freedom of scientific inquiry, but I also like the protection of human life. Destructive tests performed on human tissue is a little disturbing, and some clear, rational line needs to be drawn between what is legally acceptable and what is not. I'm happy to hear other proposals for where the line should be, but I'm not willing to concede all scientific behavior as justified by definition. Call it the Mengele Rule.

I agree that SCIENCE! does not justify itself morally. The Cracked.com article only illustrates that further.

[KrytenKoro]

Quote:

Of course it would be nonsensical for SCIENCE! to focus on only the types of research that get no federal funding. However, adult stem cells are still cells made from an adult. Most can only become a few different kinds of cells, and do not grow as quickly.

Last I heard, they found a way to "reset" adult stem cells. I don't have any idea which article I read that in, though, so I can't find the link, but it should be up on wikipedia by now.

[Kjorteo]

Psudo wrote:

I respect the freedom of scientific inquiry, but I also like the protection of human life. Destructive tests performed on human tissue is a little disturbing, and some clear, rational line needs to be drawn between what is legally acceptable and what is not. I'm happy to hear other proposals for where the line should be, but I'm not willing to concede all scientific behavior as justified by definition. Call it the Mengele Rule.

Well, now we're basically getting into the debate of whether frozen embryos that have a decent chance of just being discarded anyway count as life, which isn't really something one finds an objective agreeable answer to through logical debate, and is basically tripping off every "let's just not go there" sense I happen to have.

[Psudo]

Murray_Smith wrote:

If embryonic and adult stem cells are identical in structure, function, and utility, then what makes adult stem cells allowable to use, but not embryonic cells?

The adult is not destroyed by the extraction of stem cells, while the embryo is. The use of adult stem cells does not require an answer to the question "Is life destroyed?" because nothing is destroyed.

I've been told that adult stem cell treatments work better because there are not tissue rejection issues in treating a person with their own stem cells. I don't know enough of the science to know if that's true, though.

Kjorteo wrote:

Well, now we're basically getting into the debate of whether frozen embryos that have a decent chance of just being discarded anyway count as life, which isn't really something one finds an objective agreeable answer to through logical debate, and is basically tripping off every "let's just not go there" sense I happen to have.

I very much agree, except on one point: the frozen-and-soon-to-be-discarded embryos are only a subset of the embryos potentially used in research.

[Amilam]

[/quote]I very much agree, except on one point: the frozen-and-soon-to-be-discarded embryos are only a subset of the embryos potentially used in research.[/quote]

Okay so where do you stand then? You're okay with using so called "snow flake" babies, what about fetuses that are already aborted? To my knowledge those are the two practiced methods of obtaining embryonic stem cells.

[Psudo]

I'm not terribly sure. All else being equal, I prefer embryos become children. Also, I worry about embryonic medical research encouraging women to get pregnant and abort solely for the purpose of providing for medical research, which is a huge ethical violation from my view. It's the same opposition I have to human cloning and similar medical tricks - humans should never become commodities. I hadn't actually heard the term "snowflake baby" before your post, but based on my 5 minutes of research it seems like a good idea.

I don't have any ethical complaint about using leftover embryos from in vitro fertilization procedures for medical research provided it does not encourage people to intentionally create more embryos than necessary explicitly for that purpose.

I don't have any complete, conclusive answer, though. My views are still forming.

[Murray_Smith]

Psudo wrote:

Murray_Smith wrote:

If embryonic and adult stem cells are identical in structure, function, and utility, then what makes adult stem cells allowable to use, but not embryonic cells?

The adult is not destroyed by the extraction of stem cells, while the embryo is. The use of adult stem cells does not require an answer to the question "Is life destroyed?" because nothing is destroyed.

I now see the distinction.

Quote:

I've been told that adult stem cell treatments work better because there are not tissue rejection issues in treating a person with their own stem cells. I don't know enough of the science to know if that's true, though.

It's partly true. The DNA remains the same, through a process involving the replacement of nuclei. The reason embryonic stem cells are researched is because they can become more kinds of cells, and multiply more rapidly.

Quote:

I don't have any ethical complaint about using leftover embryos from in vitro fertilization procedures for medical research provided it does not encourage people to intentionally create more embryos than necessary explicitly for that purpose.

I agree with that statement 100%.

Quote:

I don't have any complete, conclusive answer, though. My views are still forming.

My own views are quite vague as well, with the moral distinctions still in the "I know it when I see it" phase. I blame the media for focusing on the controversy and not the SCIENCE!

[Psudo]

I'm not confident that I know it when I see it. I need an abstract rule, even an imperfect one, as a basis.

I like that you always write science as SCIENCE! like it's from the intro to Bill Nye The Science Guy.

[Murray_Smith]

My inspiration to write SCIENCE! like that is more from Invader Zim or Dresden Codak.

It's my way of injecting a minute amount of humor into what I think is a sensitive topic.

I agree that eggs should not be fertilized for the sole purpose of the product thereof to be destroyed. I believe that human life is only as precious as we make it, and creating it for the sole purpose of destruction with only abstract results just reeks of moral bankruptcy.

[Psudo]

Zim is great. I hadn't ever seen that comic before, but the line "God is powered by irony." had me laughing.

[Xenterex]

Personally, I'd much rather have a President who does connect to the people, but in a manner that still maintains a form of respect. Many admirable presidents had their own ways of communicating to the populace – down from radio broadcasts to horse rides. While politics are regrettably more of a business industry rather than civil service, those in the heads of our government should have a sense of responsibility to the people they govern if for nothing else, at least these two particular reasons: 1) Because the basis of our government was initiated from dissatisfied citizens and 2) Because it encourages trust and confidence in one's government. The high and mighty, talk-down-to-you, secrets and so on generally just encourage either direct doubt, or fester ignorant masses that sow the seeds of dissension and bloody revolution.

While my dictionary will cite the term economy to refer to 'wealth and resources of a country or region, esp in terms of production and consumption of goods and services," I've found through my interests in business and history for it to be more of a representation of how citizen's feel about their country. A "good economy' is one in which the people feel safe, and confident (to a certain degree) about their surroundings. If anything questions that safety or confidence, then the people shell up. Recessions are a display of fear and doubt in a people, or at least are brought on by it. Examples, 9-11 shattered the perspective of safety and security of the US (and in turn other nations) and the current recession, doubt and mistrust arose. Yes, there is a degree of material factors that are lost from the causes of these events, but the aftereffects, the shock waves if you will, aren't rapidly recovered from because of the emotional impacts on people.

That said, if Obama can spur the people to boost their confidence in this nation, then they will accordingly spend money/take risks, and that will have a far better impact on recovery than any 'stimulus plan' of investment. But, I also feel that he generally is cutting his feet out from under him with his reliance on the tele-prompters. I didn't catch this particular interview, so I don't know how relatable or spontaneous Obama was, but my overall feel for him is that he keeps himself too distant and these publics shows are just a means to an end for the parties long run goal of re-election.