face-off: cloning / stem cell research

[nelson]

Anyone been paying attention to the recent fiasco over stem cells and human cloning?

Michael J. Fox, who has written that he deliberately did not take medication in front of Congress in order to emphasize the effects of his Parkinson's disease, now appears in a television commercial (http://youtube.com/watch?v=QMliHkTDHaE) supporting Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill and her position on stem cell research.

Their basic position is: stem cell research and science may lead to cures for Parkinson's disease and other conditions. But the underlying theme is: vote for Democrats and people who are handicappted today will soon be walking again. To communicate this theme the Democrats tout handicapped individuals like Christopher Reeve, Michael J. Fox, and others with whom it is impossible not to emphathize, politicizing their conditions and goading us into believing that stem cells, which we know very little about, will lead to cures.

Rush Limbaugh has responded to the Michael J. Fox campaign advertisement, calling him shameless and saying that either he's off his medication or acting. Rush points out that Mr. Fox has appeared on television shows within the last couple of years without any effects of the disease being visible. He has a point.

But Rush's response of course has the left and the leftist media in a frenzy. From their perspective, certain people are simply beyond questioning - mothers who have lost their sons in Iraq, for instance, and as a result hate George Bush. Despite Cindy Sheehan and Michael J. Fox having willfully entered the political arena, where they know debate is not only expected it is also mandatory, liberals will squash anyone who dares question their darlings with the same old derogatory lables they love to fall back upon - hatemonger, racist, whatever they feel gets the most public traction at the moment.

It is clear to me the left seeks to utilize our natural sympathies for people who are suffering in order to goad all citizens into emotional submission.

Celebs Set to Air TV Ads in Response to Fox's Controversial Stem Cell Campaign
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,224738,00.html

[Freethinker]

Stem cell research has far reaching implications. The research can help many with uncurable diseases. The nature of Parkinsons is progressive. It isn't surprising that Michael J. Fox's condition is progressing and requiring increasing amounts of Levodopa. The short half life of this medicine is part of it's drawback.

The science is fundamentally sound, our morality and our political positioning over this issue is what needs to be resolved. The potential for cure is in stem cell manipulation. It can be done, but should it. Imagine, curing diabetes, parkinsons, potentially cancer. It is indeed a slippery topic.

[nelson]

Freethinker I have utmost respect for your opinion in this matter. My questions to you are, does science and scientific advancement outweigh morality? By resolved do you suggest our morality ought to be adjusted (some say progressed, others compromised) in order to accomodate our scientific efforts? Is not morality key to the survival of human civilization? And after making such an adjustment, which could not be undone, do we actually know the scope of the benefit we will reap? Do we actually know we will reap any true benefit at all in exchange for this great sacrifice? We are accustomed to having our emotions manipulated for entertainment, but do you think our votes ought to be similarly suceptible? Should any disease be politicized?

Maybe humanity can travel to other galaxies, but only with cloned human beings making the journey. Do we go? The science is sound. Among other things, we expect to find cures for diseases. But if we go, we change our world forever in exchange for the hope of temporarily quenching our thirst for knowledge. The pro- lobby ushers in the unmedicated Michael J. Fox, or better yet Christopher Reeve, and suggests your vote means he will walk again. Would that be an honest lobby, or a manipulative one?

I don't like being manipulated. But I fear after a generation of liberalized entertainment, our population expects it, even requires it.

Is the science just sound, or isn't it also sounding off?

Just thinking out loud, it's the only way I can digest this stuff. Everyone wants to help find cures for disease. I'm just afraid we have reached a threshold where what seems like it might help today on the surface actually hurts tomorrow underneath.

["shazbat"]

Nelson, as always you pose thoughtful responses.
In the same vein "does selective morality out weigh advancement in science?"
By "selective morality" I mean a society that will condone the death sentence yet deny the right to choose or the use of stem cells for research
What part of "Thou shalt not kill" allows that type of double standard.

Oh and "Does Fox allow himself to be used by politicians or causes"?
No more or less than Limbaugh.

[The G]

Nelson, as always you pose thoughtful responses.
In the same vein "does selective morality out weigh advancement in science?"
By "selective morality" I mean a society that will condone the death sentence yet deny the right to choose or the use of stem cells for research
What part of "Thou shalt not kill" allows that type of double standard.

Oh and "Does Fox allow himself to be used by politicians or causes"?
No more or less than Limbaugh.

your right on the money.

[nelson]

Nelson, as always you pose thoughtful responses.
In the same vein "does selective morality out weigh advancement in science?"
By "selective morality" I mean a society that will condone the death sentence yet deny the right to choose or the use of stem cells for research
What part of "Thou shalt not kill" allows that type of double standard.

Oh and "Does Fox allow himself to be used by politicians or causes"?
No more or less than Limbaugh.I thank you for posing a very fair question shazbat. Abortion, capital punishment, stem cell research, our society, and the Ten Commandments all warrant very lengthy discussions. So I am not sure if my answer will be satisfactory to everyone. But I'll try.

If the standard is protecting innocent human life, I do not think there is a double standard at all.

I should have been using the phrase embryonic stem cells. Because researchers are utilizing adult stem cells and I don't think anyone has a problem with that - I don't. I genuinely hope that as we learn more we will find stem cells very helpful. The current issue in Missouri and across the country is whether researchers may use government money (our tax revenues) to clone human embryos, kill them, and harvest their stem cells for scientific research. By the standard of protecting innocent life, this I believe would be crossing the threshold between beneficial and overzealous science.

As for the death penalty, first our society at large does not authorize it. Individual states make that determination. Today there is no death penalty in Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. So there really is no one entity to hold accountable for the double standard you observe. But on behalf of the remaining states I will say that capital punishment is an option only in the most serious crimes where the perpetrator is deemed a threat to society. Whether incarceration removes that threat is debatable, and so are many other particulars about the death penalty, but for those states that do authorize it I believe the motive is consistent with the standard of protecting innocent life.

Our society does authorize abortion; a progressive Supreme Court decided that the practice is protected by our consitutional right to privacy. Personally I disagree with their decision, and in comparing my view to the position against embryonic stem cell research I fail to see any double standard. I would define abortion as the termination of an innocent life; proponents might call it the termination of a lifeless fetus that later develops into human life. In either case I see the practice of abortion, though deemed protected by the Constitution, as either definitely or possibly inconsistent (depending on whether you believe it's already a life or will become a life) with the standard of protecting innocent human life.

So I think your strongest argument for a double standard involves capital punishment and Thou Shalt Not Kill. But the death penalty does not exist throughout the US; I think that isolates the argument a little. And if the standard is protecting innocent life, those convicted of heinous crimes and sentenced to death are not innocent but are a threat to other innocent life. Finally, the death penalty debate only loosely relates, if it relates at all, to embryonic stem cell research... and only in a very broad discussion of morality.

Is there a double standard? I don't think so. Others may be convinced there is. I think there are many thresholds, some we cross but shouldn't, others we don't but should. But thanks for asking it's definitely interesting to think about and I'm enjoying it.

I have a response for your Fox vs. Limbaugh take but getting a little tired and it will have to wait. :)

["shazbat"]

Nelson, I'm playing a bit of "Devil's Advocate" here as I support the death penalty as the conditions or crimes warrant.
However neither the 10 Commandments nor Jesus made any distinction as to the perceived "innocence" of a life or soul.
The fact that not all states in our nation (the minority) currently have or support the ultimate penalty is directly proportional to the sentiment in the nation concerning this issue, among others. Those numbers have ebbed and flowed since the courts determined that it wasn't "cruel or unusual punishment".
With all the conservative rhetoric about returning to "our christian values" the selective use of which part of convenient doctrine or morality is subscribed to is to me politically suspect.
As I recall it was a "liberal" ebb of the courts which declared the death sentence unconstitutional and a more conservative ebb that reversed it.
Alas there are many contradictions in our society.
I still believe that morality begins at home and need not be legislated.

["shazbat"]

I've noticed that in the title to this thread the terms "cloning/stem cell" were lumped together as though they are one-and-the-same. This was further reinforced in the first sentence of the initial comment.
I see them a two separate issues and am not aware of any group how ever liberal in support of outright human cloning.
Though of no particular religious persuation myself I too have strongly negative feelings related to direct cloning, genetic mixing of the species (ie. animal/human), genetic engineering of a "super race" and other potential abominations.

[nelson]

Alas there are many contradictions in our society.
I still believe that morality begins at home and need not be legislated.Thanks for an earnest response Shazbat. We both certainly agree on these important points.

We both may concur that less legislation is better in most cases. :) And like you I strongly believe morality begins at home. Ironically, I think we'll both also agree that many moralities common to a society must be legislated; murder, for instance, should be against the law.

If you agree, then we've just contradicted ourselves. Fortunately we're not alone; there is great contradiction in nature, science, and probably most things we might study. So I will surmise that a certain level of contradiction is required for society to function, and that it's for us to determine how much and where.

However neither the 10 Commandments nor Jesus made any distinction as to the perceived "innocence" of a life or soul.
You are exactly right, just as you are right to point out the direct contradiction between the Commandments and the death penalty. Your post gives me opportunity to think about things and I honestly appreciate it.

Could protecting innocent life, and taking away destructive life, be the compromise we make, the level of contradiction this society chooses to tolerate? If so, then maybe the entire abortion debate is finally testing one threshold of that compromise by forcing us to define exactly what is innocent life. Ditto for cloning and embryonic stem cell research.

I've noticed that in the title to this thread the terms "cloning/stem cell" were lumped together as though they are one-and-the-same. This was further reinforced in the first sentence of the initial comment.
I see them a two separate issues and am not aware of any group how ever liberal in support of outright human cloning.
Though of no particular religious persuation myself I too have strongly negative feelings related to direct cloning, genetic mixing of the species (ie. animal/human), genetic engineering of a "super race" and other potential abominations.I share your concerns about cloning. In my understanding, cloning and embryonic stem cell research are now running together because scientists seek to clone human fetuses in order to procure embryonic stem cells in quantity. I am against this altogether and especially against doing it with government money because from my perspective our society would then be sanctioning human cloning and the killing of innocent life. That's way past the threshold for me. I guess proponents see it differently - as not crossing the threshold at all - since I presume they believe we would be cloning and destroying lifeless embryos.

Shazbat your important points and intellectual manner help me gain a little more clarity and I sincerely thank you for that.

["shazbat"]

Nelson, I'm always happy to share ideas and debate fine points with an earnestly thoughtful opponent.
There are a lot of "greys" out there. It's not all black-and-white or red-and-blue.

[Teiwaz]

First let me say that the detailed thoughts put forward so far are great to read. I don't have time to be as thoughtful, so I will be brief.

On cloning, I have no problem with organ cloning. Lets not grow whole human clones though and harvest them. That is clearly way over the line, wherever you care to draw it. If in the process of organ cloning we can make the organ stronger or better by genetic "tuning" or recombinant processes, I see nothing wrong with that. It's just an organ. It's like manufacturing a better spark plug for an engine. Maybe after a while the whole engine has better parts. We're not talking about manufacturing the whole car, just bits to keep the one nature made running a little better, for a little longer. I don't see a moral minefield there. It's just pragmatic.

With embryonic stem cells, I am all for such research. I don't see a zygote of the maturity used in this research as human life though, and for a detailed discussion of my reasons, please read the thread on abortion. This type of "morality" is only selective depending on your view point. If I harvest a stem cell, who have I killed? The zygote was just a cellular cluster that was frozen. If it was life in the way religious groups would have you believe, what happened to the soul while it was frozen, and if it didn't have a soul, what is religion's concern with the zygote?

clone human embryos, kill them, and harvest their stem cells for scientific research. By the standard of protecting innocent life, this I believe would be crossing the threshold between beneficial and overzealous science.

Respectfully, a man made copy of a once frozen cellular cluster isn't life in my book.



Whether we like the way people try to sway opinion on this issue is a side issue really. Everything becomes politicised, so what.

[nelson]

Teiwaz, very glad to have your thoughts on this. I won't solicit your lengthy involvement but you have inspired a great many questions in my mind and I'll have to take a moment to write a couple down for my own sake, even in your absence.

It seems that applying morality in effort to prevent embryonic stem cell research would be discredited by some as employing selective morality. Which begs the question, how might any one human being deem another's morality as selective?

The scenario in which organs are parts of a motor is indeed pragmatic - I really like the analogy. Let's step back from the moment to envision the natural progression of mechanics, lubricants, fuels, even, as our proficiencies slowly increase (and sensitivities to such experimentation decrease), the next generation motor, and even future platforms needed to accommodate it. I agree that the earliest steps might sound very reasonable to us today - I too see no immediate moral minefield with regard to organ cloning, but might our present pragmatism be a matter of context? If so, shouldn't visionaries among us (and not the researchers) strive to check today's efforts against tomorrow's pitfalls?

Whether we like the way people try to sway opinion on this issue is a side issue really.On this we disagree. Many would not approve if some were to parade through the media with limbs, heads, torsos, and fluids from pulled apart fetuses in effort to sway opinion against abortion. By emphasizing the emotional, don't we remove rationale from our policy?

Teiwaz your honest contribution is always appreciated, helps me learn a lot, hope you'll forgive my incessant questioning. :)

[Freethinker]

Freethinker I have utmost respect for your opinion in this matter. My questions to you are, does science and scientific advancement outweigh morality?
No, I don't believe so. I think science and advancement must be tempered by morality. The problem there is that both are fluid, and changing. My personal morality is not accurately reflected by the collective morality of the society, but I believe that collective morality is like a giant balloon, floating in a sports stadium. Everyone can reach it, push it, move it to one direction. It is the sum of all our individual morality that moves that balloon along. We may like the direction, or not, but we all have influence into the direction of that moral balloon.

The problem arises, in that some of us have more influence than the rest of us. The entertainers, the politicians, the wealthy have longer reach, more pull on the direction of the balloon.
By resolved do you suggest our morality ought to be adjusted (some say progressed, others compromised) in order to accomodate our scientific efforts? Our collective morality is constantly adjusted. It is constantly in flux. We as a people must decide the best way to proceed. My greatest fear is that we are becoming myopic. Our founding fathers were wise, furnishing us with freedoms we hold as fundimental truth. When I see the weekly polls, and immediate feedback, and our-right-here-right-now-your-way-right-away-instant-gratification society, I worry for our future. We have no direction, no long term vision as a people. It is truly scary.

Is not morality key to the survival of human civilization?
I don't believe so. Civilizations have risen and fallen throughout the history of the world. The azetcs rose, and fell, the Romans rose and fell, the Egyptians rose and fell, the British rose and fell, America will rise and fall. It is the cycle of life. Civilization will continue, and it will be cyclical.

And after making such an adjustment, which could not be undone, do we actually know the scope of the benefit we will reap? Do we actually know we will reap any true benefit at all in exchange for this great sacrifice? We don't know for sure. We make the best decisions we can with the information we have. We have Faith that we are doing the best we can. We pay our money and take our chances. There are no guarantees.
We are accustomed to having our emotions manipulated for entertainment, but do you think our votes ought to be similarly suceptible? Weather you think they should or not, they are. They always have been. The stump speech is no more than entertainment applied to persuade. Now that it is on Television, it is no different, other than giving us our doses faster, and bigger, and in surround sound.
Should any disease be politicized? There is nothing new with this either. Have you heard any saber rattling about AIDS lately? It's still out there, it still kills, its just not the disease du jour anymore. Disease is easy to talk about. But it doesn't go away with the next pole. Disease sees no politics, has no bounderies. Disease effects everyone irrespective of religion, politics, or patriotism.

Maybe humanity can travel to other galaxies, but only with cloned human beings making the journey. Do we go? The science is sound. Among other things, we expect to find cures for diseases. But if we go, we change our world forever in exchange for the hope of temporarily quenching our thirst for knowledge. The pro- lobby ushers in the unmedicated Michael J. Fox, or better yet Christopher Reeve, and suggests your vote means he will walk again. Would that be an honest lobby, or a manipulative one?

I don't like being manipulated. But I fear after a generation of liberalized entertainment, our population expects it, even requires it.

Is the science just sound, or isn't it also sounding off?

Just thinking out loud, it's the only way I can digest this stuff. Everyone wants to help find cures for disease. I'm just afraid we have reached a threshold where what seems like it might help today on the surface actually hurts tomorrow underneath.

I don't have any answers. However, I have never heard an "HONEST LOBBY." They are all manipulative.

["shazbat"]

After reading the many threads in this subject I am amazed at the emotionalism and apparent lack of knowlege of this process and the science involved.
What I'm reading is more like reviews of a "Frankenstein" like sci-fi film than a knowlegeable discourse on the current state of scientific expertise.

No one anywhere is talking about growing human bodies for organ harvest. It is neither financially nor practically feasible. To date and for the long term forseeable future this practise is only possible through normal "organ donor" type programs.

Likewise it is not feasible to grow organs for human transplant. Again neither the science nor related costs make it possible or practical.

Stemcells are not derived from aborted fetuses. They have gone beyond the amorphous stem cell phase and are too badly damaged during the abortion process to be viable.

Stem cells are derived from 3-5 day old clumps of cells which are the result of in-vitro, ie. test tube, fertilization from donated sperm and egg.

Prospective parents having "infertility" problems utilize the "in-vitro" technique to increase their chances for having children. Many egg and sperm cultures are tried till one is deemed viable for implantation.

The remainder are discarded.

For you who believe that life begins at conception, even if "in-vitro", then this discarding process is tantamount to muder.

I've yet to see anyone bomb or protest a fertility clinic for discarding unused cell cultures, Hmmm.....selective implementation of morality.

Stem cells are derived from the discarded cultures as they can not be kept indefinitely.
They cannot be raised in test tubes to become full term infants. They cannot be frozen long term just as meat in your freezer cannot be kept longterm with out degeneration (freezer burn).

At the point at which they are either implanted or discarded they have neither sex nor any attributes which differentiate them from any other cluster of cells. No heart, lungs, brain, arms, legs, fingers............
They are merely clusters of cells.

It is just this type of blank canvas cell which has no predilection or markers to be any particular cell type that makes them valuable to utilize to repair damaged cells of other types.

The NIH has very informative information related to this issue on their web site.
I would suggest you all educate yourselves before making such emotional yet uninformed protestations.

There are no "Franken-creatures" in our future.

[nelson]

No, I don't believe so. I think science and advancement must be tempered by morality. The problem there is that both are fluid, and changing. My personal morality is not accurately reflected by the collective morality of the society, but I believe that collective morality is like a giant balloon, floating in a sports stadium. Everyone can reach it, push it, move it to one direction. It is the sum of all our individual morality that moves that balloon along. We may like the direction, or not, but we all have influence into the direction of that moral balloon.Fantastic! Freethinker thanks for a really interesting analogy. If longevity is a society's primary goal, should its morality be fluid and changing? I realize to an extent it is - you have stated things as they are today in the West - but should it be? Or, ideally, again if longevity is the priority, should the balloon of morality be tethered instead of free floating, so it is still free to sway with the breeze, but requiring whims to relocate it be carefully checked and deliberated before acted upon?

The problem arises, in that some of us have more influence than the rest of us. The entertainers, the politicians, the wealthy have longer reach, more pull on the direction of the balloon.Too true. I propose "popular culture" as spearheaded by the entertainment industry, broadcast by the media, and spoken in the language of marketing, has gained a foothold on this influence, leaving even most politicians and wealthy subject to it. On the scale of who should have influence over society, I would rank those currently in power near the bottom.

"The mob is fickle, brother."
- Lucilla in Gladiator

But what if one could choose who, or which group, has the most influence over this conceptual balloon of morality? Could any one or group do any better? In The Republic, Plato proposed philosopher-kings ought rule city-states, his real point being objective thinkers make the decisions that are best for a society. If there were a modern Plato, perhaps I would agree with him. :)

Our collective morality is constantly adjusted. It is constantly in flux. We as a people must decide the best way to proceed. My greatest fear is that we are becoming myopic. Our founding fathers were wise, furnishing us with freedoms we hold as fundimental truth. When I see the weekly polls, and immediate feedback, and our-right-here-right-now-your-way-right-away-instant-gratification society, I worry for our future. We have no direction, no long term vision as a people. It is truly scary.Yes it is. I think this is a wise perspective. Now allow me to make my own less impressive contribution. :) We the people may decide the best way to proceed is to ensure our collective morality is not constantly in flux amidst a fickle mob, but preserved, and carefully deliberated upon before any adjustment is made. In part I would fantasize that some very wise people - philosopher-kings, perhaps - intended exactly that when they created our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and system of government. Because what is a law if not a written moral?

Is not morality key to the survival of human civilization?

I don't believe so. Civilizations have risen and fallen throughout the history of the world. The azetcs rose, and fell, the Romans rose and fell, the Egyptians rose and fell, the British rose and fell, America will rise and fall. It is the cycle of life. Civilization will continue, and it will be cyclical.Indeed it is the cycle of life. But what differentiates those who survived longer from those who did not? Is it not stability? And can the stability of any civilization not be directly attributed to its code, its morality? If you say no, then we differ on this point. While there are many variables that feed the health of a civilization, not the least of which are the time and context within which they exist, I would argue that even more important is the establishment of, and adherence to, a sound foundation of moral codes.

And after making such an adjustment, which could not be undone, do we actually know the scope of the benefit we will reap? Do we actually know we will reap any true benefit at all in exchange for this great sacrifice?

We don't know for sure. We make the best decisions we can with the information we have. We have Faith that we are doing the best we can. We pay our money and take our chances. There are no guarantees.Agreed. With, as we have discussed, the very foundational code of our civilization being held in the balance... such issues collectively will determine whether Western Civilization is a flash in the pan, or surpasses the Egyptians. Which is why these decisions ought not to be evoked emotionally by entertainers like Michael J. Fox, nor forced greedily by a scientific community reliant upon government funding, but contemplated very carefully and rationally over time so that all repercussions may be brought to light.

There is no rush, except to our demise.

Weather you think they should or not, they are. They always have been. The stump speech is no more than entertainment applied to persuade. Now that it is on Television, it is no different, other than giving us our doses faster, and bigger, and in surround sound.There is nothing new with this either. Have you heard any saber rattling about AIDS lately? It's still out there, it still kills, its just not the disease du jour anymore. Disease is easy to talk about. But it doesn't go away with the next pole. Disease sees no politics, has no bounderies. Disease effects everyone irrespective of religion, politics, or patriotism.I don't have any answers. However, I have never heard an "HONEST LOBBY." They are all manipulative.Because something is done does not make it acceptable. We each decide how we are influenced, and we are smart enough to reject manipulation. In many cases changes may be for the better. But they always ought to be checked very carefully, deliberately, wisely, especially when straddling important codes like morality.

I think among our chief dangers is that as a culture we are presently operating at a pace which prohibits wisdom.

[nelson]

After reading the many threads in this subject I am amazed at the emotionalism and apparent lack of knowlege of this process and the science involved.
What I'm reading is more like reviews of a "Frankenstein" like sci-fi film than a knowlegeable discourse on the current state of scientific expertise.

No one anywhere is talking about growing human bodies for organ harvest. It is neither financially nor practically feasible. To date and for the long term forseeable future this practise is only possible through normal "organ donor" type programs.

Likewise it is not feasible to grow organs for human transplant. Again neither the science nor related costs make it possible or practical.

Stemcells are not derived from aborted fetuses. They have gone beyond the amorphous stem cell phase and are too badly damaged during the abortion process to be viable.

Stem cells are derived from 3-5 day old clumps of cells which are the result of in-vitro, ie. test tube, fertilization from donated sperm and egg.

Prospective parents having "infertility" problems utilize the "in-vitro" technique to increase their chances for having children. Many egg and sperm cultures are tried till one is deemed viable for implantation.

The remainder are discarded.

For you who believe that life begins at conception, even if "in-vitro", then this discarding process is tantamount to muder.

I've yet to see anyone bomb or protest a fertility clinic for discarding unused cell cultures, Hmmm.....selective implementation of morality.

Stem cells are derived from the discarded cultures as they can not be kept indefinitely.
They cannot be raised in test tubes to become full term infants. They cannot be frozen long term just as meat in your freezer cannot be kept longterm with out degeneration (freezer burn).

At the point at which they are either implanted or discarded they have neither sex nor any attributes which differentiate them from any other cluster of cells. No heart, lungs, brain, arms, legs, fingers............
They are merely clusters of cells.

It is just this type of blank canvas cell which has no predilection or markers to be any particular cell type that makes them valuable to utilize to repair damaged cells of other types.

The NIH has very informative information related to this issue on their web site.
I would suggest you all educate yourselves before making such emotional yet uninformed protestations.

There are no "Franken-creatures" in our future.shazbat I do not think there is an immediate fear of Franken-creatures in our future. :) Although it would make a great movie.

I have noted that the use of scientific terminology - words like cell culture and blastocyst - to a large extent dehumanizes what we are doing. "In-vitro fertilization" is not new, and if you listen to common consensus, does not seem so horribly Frankenstein-ish. Yet when I step back from the NIH, the national media, and even the disciplines of science and medicine, to take a less myopic (per Freethinker) view of our progression, I get a different perspective that I think is no less valid. Although we've renamed it, sterilized it, "clincized" it, we are actually intervening and relocating living human cells - fertilized eggs which may develop into a human being - from their native environment to a laboratory where researchers freely experiment, dissect, transplant, clone, etc. Do you debate that we are doing this? If not, why is the objective picture so different that the one painted at the NIH or in a text book? Terminology goes a long way toward obscuring the reality, but there seems to be more to this discrepancy than innocent language alone. Perhaps medical science is not so objective as we are led to believe, being agenda-driven itself like most other pursuits? Hmm...

And now researchers want more government funding (i.e. our money) in order to proceed and expand these operations. I think the issue warrants a very careful look... a careful examination that, given, necessitates a clearer understanding of the science itself than probably I or we are capable of, but one that in the end actually steps outside the bounds of medicine and medical science for the rendering of a decision. What do you think?

In my personal opinion as a society we are long past the threshold of wisdom and wise decisions; for guidance we have now been relying on instant gratification (in our pursuit of knowledge and elsewhere) for decades. I think this issue of cloning and embryonic stem cell research is only the latest and most recent in a long line of issues that approach or cross this threshold, such a long line that the threshold itself has been pushed very far from a healthy location.

["shazbat"]

"Cell cultures" dehumanizing...
Cell cultures while they are human cells are not humans just as but no more than cells taken from your big toe.
In-vitro fertilized cells if not implanted into a womb have no chance to become human as they will not exist long enough to ever be more than a gelatinous lump of cells.
It takes more than fertilization of egg and sperm to make a human being. Unlike some creatures (fish, amphibians, birds and insects as example) that are genetically and evolutionarily predisposed to reproduce using egg clusters outside of the body or womb, mammals and more specifically humans can not.
It takes a host mother to provide nourishing sustinence to progress from a cell culture to human being.
Cells spawned in an environment in which their existence is non viable is not life.

(Nelson- "In my personal opinion as a society we are long past the threshold of wisdom and wise decisions; for guidance we have now been relying on instant gratification (in our pursuit of knowledge and elsewhere) for decades.")

Opinion is fine, we all have them and we all express them here for all to view and comment.
As for knowlege from the time that man first became aware the pursuit of knowlege has always been based on instant gratification. Morality, fiscal responsibility, propriety etc. are now and have always been the tempering factors in decisions, wise or other-wise.
I think the least wise and more spontaneous generally derive from influences of our more base impulses. You only have to read the news to find examples.
Sex, greed, or bascially lust in all it's forms. But this is material for another thread.

The nature of science almost excludes the potential for decisions based on lust and instant gratification.
The time involved in hypothesizing, theorizing, testing, documenting and retesting etc. draw discoveries, techniques and processes out for years before there are proofs to present.
This doesn't even take into consideration funding. No science progrsses without money to support it and then generally not if there is no perceived product in the outcome.
And at that point you have the rest of the scientific world community ready to pounce and show any flaw in your work.

My comments on Franken-creatures was reference to the many posts in this thread that show obvious lack of knowlege of the subject, ie. growing humans for organ harvest etc.
Can't happen, won't happen.
Any one who has ever seen the costs to have a loved one in hospital for an extended stay understands why just the fiscal cost alone makes it impossible.

[nelson]

"Cell cultures" dehumanizing...
Cell cultures while they are human cells are not humans just as but no more than cells taken from your big toe.
In-vitro fertilized cells if not implanted into a womb have no chance to become human as they will not exist long enough to ever be more than a gelatinous lump of cells.
It takes more than fertilization of egg and sperm to make a human being. Unlike some creatures (fish, amphibians, birds and insects as example) that are genetically and evolutionarily predisposed to reproduce using egg clusters outside of the body or womb, mammals and more specifically humans can not.
It takes a host mother to provide nourishing sustinence to progress from a cell culture to human being.shazbat thanks for these rational challenges, you bring a couple more questions to my mind.

Today thanks to technology and advancement, younger and younger developing babies are "viable" and survive premature birth, where in past years they would have died. Does this mean human life now begins at an earlier stage of development? Technically they were not viable, but aren't these individuals human beings anyway? With medical advancement, if someday human eggs are fertilized and nourished entirely outside of the body to produce a living baby, what then will be the point of viability? Fertilization? Is this not outside the realm of future possibility? If we absolutely must have the human sperm and egg to create a zygote, is embryonic stem cell research really so far removed from human life, or isn't it very close? So close that we ought to take great caution before jumping in with zeal?

It's called a cell culture because it is harvested or produced and grown outside of the body in a laboratory environment. If not extracted or produced externally, if not implanted, the cells researchers want to experiment with will develop into a living human organism. shazbat, at one point in time in the very recent past I was a similar lump of cells, and so were you.

Religion is a very popular target these days, but FWIW, I'm not making any argument about souls, and have not mentioned religion at all. I'm simply advocating taking great caution before experimenting on the threshold of human life, absolutely not proceeding because a movie star who is diseased manipulates our feelings, and in all cases (to borrow a quote) that when uncertain as I believe we are collectively, that we "err on the side of life." Is there really anything threatening about this approach? I don't think there is. In the space of a few years it seems we have thrown caution to the wind in favor of knowledge, and I think that is a dangerous pursuit.

["shazbat"]

shazbat thanks for these rational challenges, you bring a couple more questions to my mind.

Today thanks to technology and advancement, younger and younger developing babies are "viable" and survive premature birth, where in past years they would have died. Does this mean human life now begins at an earlier stage of development? Technically they were not viable, but aren't these individuals human beings anyway?
Absolutely yes. They had long since made the transformation from "blastocyst" to something more. Though still not viable out of the womb at that time abortion is not legal after the first trimester because the subject is considered a fully developed fetus.

With medical advancement, if someday human eggs are fertilized and nourished entirely outside of the body to produce a living baby, what then will be the point of viability? Fertilization? Is this not outside the realm of future possibility? If we absolutely must have the human sperm and egg to create a zygote, is embryonic stem cell research really so far removed from human life, or isn't it very close? So close that we ought to take great caution before jumping in with zeal?
The cost to develope the necessary technology and to raise a fertilized egg to a viable "birth" is prohibitive. And we all know that money drives all. It's far cheaper to pay, clothe and house a surrogate for nine months.


It's called a cell culture because it is harvested or produced and grown outside of the body in a laboratory environment. If not extracted or produced externally, if not implanted, the cells researchers want to experiment with will develop into a living human organism.
"Huh?" "if not implanted" the cells will not develope, they will die.

shazbat, at one point in time in the very recent past I was a similar lump of cells, and so were you.
Yes we were. From the beginning fertilized, nourished within a womb and born to a loving parent.

Religion is a very popular target these days, but FWIW, I'm not making any argument about souls, and have not mentioned religion at all. I'm simply advocating taking great caution before experimenting on the threshold of human life, absolutely not proceeding because a movie star who is diseased manipulates our feelings, and in all cases (to borrow a quote) that when uncertain as I believe we are collectively, that we "err on the side of life." Is there really anything threatening about this approach? I don't think there is. In the space of a few years it seems we have thrown caution to the wind in favor of knowledge, and I think that is a dangerous pursuit.
Nelson, I have purposely avoided the mention of religion here. Faith and beliefs are very strong and emotional things and I have no wish to cast aspersions on anyones spirituality.
I don't however believe we are destroying human life.
I am in no way advocating ripping fetuses from mothers for the purpose of experimentation and niether I believe is anyone else.
I just do not hold an externally created non-viable cell culture to ba a human life.
To consider it so by "erring on the side of life" is to close ones mind to reality and to close ones society to advancement.
In my opinion.

[nelson]

Yesterday Claire McCaskill won in Missouri getting 49% of the vote; Jim Talent received 47%. Also amendment 2 in Missouri won - the amendment provides federal money to fund embryonic stem cell research.

Voters in Missouri were not determining whether such research would be permitted - it clearly is, whether individually we support it or not. Stem cell research would have continued under Jim Talent or any other elected rep. who does not like it, even if amendment 2 had not passed. It simply would not have been funded by federal tax revenues; like anything else, it would be subject to the rules of capitalism, having to exist in the private marketplace.

["shazbat"]

Just released study says that stem cells "may be" accquired from amneotic fluid without harm to mother or fetus.
Science marches on to discover methods which are more socially acceptable. Always a good thing.

[Moondog]

This is an incredibly insightful discussion/thread. Thanks for sharing your opinions and knowledge on the subject.