New Scientist continues to provide me with articles that make me happy. Stem cells. Extract 1 cell from an 8-celled bit and the thing can still survive. Overcome ethical objections. As previously stated: yay.
A dude at the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Bioethics feels the need to bring me down: "It is politically naive to talk about alternatives, and this terminology undermines the moral stance of scientists pursuing the other techniques," he says. "If you hint that it might solve the moral dispute, you're providing ammunition for opponents, so it’s essential to back the original stance."
He has a point, of course. I don't much like the idea of a bunch of scientists throwing up their hands and saying "okay, okay, sure, traditional stem-cell research is unethical." Because that's giving in; it's not helpful. It's important to hold to your convictions, important to keep up the argument.
But at the same time, what happens when these scientists hold their ground in the current climate? Well, considering how much research funding isn't going to the traditional lines of stem-cell research right now, they're sure as hell not doing research. So, they more or less stop being scientists and become politicians and lobbyists instead.
We already have enough of those. Better, I figure, to do the research you can do while the political climate shifts along its merry way back into something more normal.
Comments (5)
The fear being, of course, that the current political climate IS more or less normal.
Posted by Erik | October 17, 2005 2:04 PM
Posted on October 17, 2005 14:04
We already have -more- than enough of those. (Politicians.)
Posted by Bekah | October 17, 2005 3:54 PM
Posted on October 17, 2005 15:54
Kudos for trying to find alternatives.
Posted by gus | October 18, 2005 6:34 AM
Posted on October 18, 2005 06:34
Finding alternatives don't not mean giving away your stance. Science is problem solving, and there is usually more than one way to do something.
Posted by The Last Oni | October 18, 2005 9:25 PM
Posted on October 18, 2005 21:25
"Don't not?" Your command of the language is slipping, The Ogre...
That said, I see what you mean about problem solving, but how do you respond to the fellow at the U of P? Do you mean to say that claiming new techniques get around the moral dilemma isn't giving away the stance? Or do you mean that scientists should find other ways to phrase it? And if they find other ways to phrase it, how do they call attention to the fact that these new methods would seem morally acceptable to the folks giving out the money without raising the sticky moral issue?
I guess what I'm getting at here is that right now the Bush administration controls the terms of the debate to a greater or lesser extent. Your options are pretty much to debate within those terms, which means raising the moral issue (either to fight it on moral grounds or to work around it), or to change the terms of the debate. I'm a big fan of the middle path and finding common ground, but I really don't see a way that it doesn't come down to one or the other here.
Posted by Jason | October 19, 2005 12:40 AM
Posted on October 19, 2005 00:40