The NY Times, among others, has an article this morning discussing a possible new manner of gathering pluripotent stem cells for research purposes which doesn't involve the destruction of human embryos. I recall the announcement last year by the Japanese team of a method which worked in mice, and claims they saw no reason the approach would not work with human cells. Apparently they were correct.
This is a great step forward as, if the approach is ultimately found to be successful, it removes any real ethical concern to embryonic stem cell research.
Still, it unsurprisingly a spawn of ignorant posts and associated comments from certain parts of the blogosphere such as this one.
The author, who links to the same Time piece, is wrong in her very first sentence: "And once again, the news has nothing to do with embryonic stem cell research:"
I fact, the breakthrough has everything to do with embryonic stem cell research. The two groups are claiming to be able to create cells with the same properties as embryonic stem cells, just via a method which uses skin cells as the starting point rather than blastocysts.
The comment that really gets to me though, is the statement (oft-repeated by those opposed to embryonic stem cell research) "... to date, there have been no “cures” developed on the embryonic stem cell research front. Not a single one."
She's correct of course, but is intentionally obfuscating the matter by not discussing why there are no cures. It's a straw man claim. She knows that, she just doesn't care, which is generally true of most any pundit who makes a similar statement.
Cures or treatments don't just magically appear, they are developed over the span of years. It's been less than ten years (as a comparison, research in adult stem cells has been going on for decades, since the early 60's) since the seminal paper describing how embryonic stem cells could be isolated and developed (and thus viable for research purposes) was written (1998).
After that, you have to do the initial basic research and get it published and reviewed. Then you need to get approval for animal trials, get those results analyzed and published, then apply for permission for human trials, do those, analyze and publish again ... and only then, if the results seem promising, can you actually talk about developing a formal cure or treatment approach.
This is a 12-15 year process minimum. We're in year nine. It's like asking a 12-year-old why they haven't finished their college degree yet. Saying they haven't finished their degree may be factually true, but lies by inferring it's a failure on their part rather than just a function of the process.
In comments to that same post, some moron says: "Now we have one less reason to kill babies. Expect the leftards to get angry."
No baby has ever been killed to further embryonic stem cell research. Some number of embryos have been destroyed .... however, those embryos were going to be destroyed anyway, stem cell research or no. The embryos used for these purposes were among those headed for the incinerator. Even if one is among those who think a simple blastocyst is a human being, it doesn't change the fact those blastocysts were to be destroyed with or without stem cell research being involved. That being the case, what possible rational argument can be made against their destruction possibly being used to generate some good in the end?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Sirocco,
That being the case, what possible rational argument can be made against their destruction possibly being used to generate some good in the end?
We have discussed this before. Much of the money and research is not solely for generating a plentiful source of pluripotent cells, but for funding cloning research. My understanding from where we left off previously is that you recognized this, but were willing to overlook it a little for the possible good that could come from ESC research.
Now that pluripotent cell research can be divested entirely from cloning, that is a huge victory as cloning can be championed or vilified on its own terms without hiding behind Micheal J. Fox.
That is an honest debate, and I am glad we will finally be able to have it as a country.
Framer,
Hmmm ... I recall having a discussion on this, but I don't recall it leading down the road of cloning.
I agree that if some of the cells cultured from embryos were being used for human cloning research that would be a legitimate argument against (regardless of my views on the matter). Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean we need to prevent all use of blastocysts - it's entirely feasible to say "we will allowing them to be developed for ESC research, but not cloning research" ... so I see that as a different debate.
Having said that, while I am aware they are used for such purposes in other countries (South Korea being the leading example), I am not aware of their being used for cloning research here. Do you have an example or source you can provide?
Sirocco,
our previous discussion is here, back in January:
http://arizonaeighth.blogspot.com/2007/01/stem-cell-debate.html
Framer,
Thanks for the link. I went back and re-read the thread, and I see where you express concerns about the cloning issue, and I freely concede those are legitimate concerns, regardless of my views vis-a-vis cloning.
With some poking around I think I see your argument - if embryos which are destined for destruction are instead used for research purposes, and those embryos are, themselves, cloned, it's equivalent to cloning a human being.
Can you tell me if that is the general outline of your argument? If so, I have some further comments, but I want to make sure I understand your view first.
Post a Comment