Not by their standards
Something remarkable about the debates in the House and Senate last week over stem cells, was the divergence of what constituted a "fact." Claiming exactly opposite things, both sides argued their cases, pointing to the other side as simply using "false research" or "junk science." Without being partisan since both Republicans and Democrats stood firmly on both sides of the debate, and after having read the studies and done the research myself, it is sickening to me the level to which the one side sunk in their attempts to "win."
The supporters of embryonic stem cell research went out of their way to ignore peer-reviewed studies that supported the opposite arguments of their own, to the degree of even claiming they did not exist. The medical advances that have come from non-embryonic stem cells were also claimed to be of no medical or scientific value, that they were hyped, over-evaluated, or simply mis-recorded. What is simply astounding about this is that non-partisan, non-pro-life groups have documented the advances of umbilical cord blood, of adult stem cells, and the possibility of de-differentiating (re-programming, taking back to an early development stage) adult cells to become more embyronic-like. These are not simply made-up arguments to suit the interests of those with moral conscience who object to embryo-destructive research. These are documented and real - check out the New York Blood Center or the National Cord Blood Inventory. There are numerous peer-revieded articles of different therapies that are being tried right now - this is the real science like it or not.
In contrast, the "advances" of emryonic stem cells are somewhat less than "advances." There are currently NO clinical trials involving humans using embryonic stem cells. None whatsoever. No one is being helped, no one has been treated, no one has enjoyed the benefits of the wonderful "promise" of these embryonic cells. Why? Because the cells are unstable, they cannot be controlled, they form tumors, they don't develop correctly into the cell type desired. Their promise is more in promising that scientists can continue to do research in whatever manner they choose without anyone telling them - that's not OK, that's too far, for the sake of what is good and right, you must stop.
Ummm, in case you haven't noticed, scientists don't like being told this. In fact, they fight any sort of oversight tooth and nail. There seems to be a certain aura surrounding science, that the scientists themselves quietly help propogate by the way, that they are untouchable, of the highest moral order, and are exclusively researching for the good of humanity. One might even uncharitably suggest that they rather like the god-like status they're held in after being found "responsible" for the technological advances and conveniences of the 21st century. One might even wonder if science itself hasn't become a pseudo-religion of sorts.
Unfortunately for them to use John Adams famous words - "facts are stubborn things." Their moral high-horse is a little blemished when you consider the unregulated work of the scientists and researchers in Nazi prizon camps - where in the name of science they conducted all sorts of terrible experiments on primarily Jewish captives. The horrific "ethics" of the Tuskigee experiments are another example of the extent scientists are willing to go to in the name of "scientific advance" or more nobly still, "the good of humanity" regardless of the need to trample on the rights and dinity of others. In this case the health and lives of hundreds of african-american men who were intentionally allowed to die of Syphilis so that the researchers could see the effects of the disease in their autopsies. As summarized in the words of News anchor Harry Reasoner these were experiments that “used human beings as laboratory animals in a long and inefficient study of how long it takes syphilis to kill someone.” (For more information go to http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html)
Even more recently is the scandal of Korean scientist Woo-Suk Hwang who not only fabricated his research, lying to thousands of people and shaming his entire nation, he also found no ethical problem in embezzeling money from the government and exploiting dozens of Korean women including several of the junior scientists in his own lab to obtain their eggs for his research. Clearly this is the mark of a scrupulous field where no one should even consider laying out ethical guidelines as a framework within which their work should flourish.
So, while scientists continue to claim that any kind of serious ethical overview and permission would cramp their style, those politicians in support of them and in the pocket of large pharmaceutical companies continue to advance their blatantly false arguments while simultaneously claiming that it is the other side that is making up research for their own convenience. Nevermind that those on the side of ethics and moral limitations have opened their arms to the most promising medical advances of our day, nevermind that their claims are all backed up with documented research and that they offer to give anyone who is interested copies of the studies they are citing, nevermind that the same ethics that they are touting as necessary for scientists regulates themselves as well.
Nevermind all that, let's just go ahead and assume that they are using the same set of ethics as the pro-embryonic side and are making up facts for their own political and self-gaining reasons. After all, if the one side is doing it, why should they have any reason to think someone else may actually be holding themselves to a higher standard?
The supporters of embryonic stem cell research went out of their way to ignore peer-reviewed studies that supported the opposite arguments of their own, to the degree of even claiming they did not exist. The medical advances that have come from non-embryonic stem cells were also claimed to be of no medical or scientific value, that they were hyped, over-evaluated, or simply mis-recorded. What is simply astounding about this is that non-partisan, non-pro-life groups have documented the advances of umbilical cord blood, of adult stem cells, and the possibility of de-differentiating (re-programming, taking back to an early development stage) adult cells to become more embyronic-like. These are not simply made-up arguments to suit the interests of those with moral conscience who object to embryo-destructive research. These are documented and real - check out the New York Blood Center or the National Cord Blood Inventory. There are numerous peer-revieded articles of different therapies that are being tried right now - this is the real science like it or not.
In contrast, the "advances" of emryonic stem cells are somewhat less than "advances." There are currently NO clinical trials involving humans using embryonic stem cells. None whatsoever. No one is being helped, no one has been treated, no one has enjoyed the benefits of the wonderful "promise" of these embryonic cells. Why? Because the cells are unstable, they cannot be controlled, they form tumors, they don't develop correctly into the cell type desired. Their promise is more in promising that scientists can continue to do research in whatever manner they choose without anyone telling them - that's not OK, that's too far, for the sake of what is good and right, you must stop.
Ummm, in case you haven't noticed, scientists don't like being told this. In fact, they fight any sort of oversight tooth and nail. There seems to be a certain aura surrounding science, that the scientists themselves quietly help propogate by the way, that they are untouchable, of the highest moral order, and are exclusively researching for the good of humanity. One might even uncharitably suggest that they rather like the god-like status they're held in after being found "responsible" for the technological advances and conveniences of the 21st century. One might even wonder if science itself hasn't become a pseudo-religion of sorts.
Unfortunately for them to use John Adams famous words - "facts are stubborn things." Their moral high-horse is a little blemished when you consider the unregulated work of the scientists and researchers in Nazi prizon camps - where in the name of science they conducted all sorts of terrible experiments on primarily Jewish captives. The horrific "ethics" of the Tuskigee experiments are another example of the extent scientists are willing to go to in the name of "scientific advance" or more nobly still, "the good of humanity" regardless of the need to trample on the rights and dinity of others. In this case the health and lives of hundreds of african-american men who were intentionally allowed to die of Syphilis so that the researchers could see the effects of the disease in their autopsies. As summarized in the words of News anchor Harry Reasoner these were experiments that “used human beings as laboratory animals in a long and inefficient study of how long it takes syphilis to kill someone.” (For more information go to http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html)
Even more recently is the scandal of Korean scientist Woo-Suk Hwang who not only fabricated his research, lying to thousands of people and shaming his entire nation, he also found no ethical problem in embezzeling money from the government and exploiting dozens of Korean women including several of the junior scientists in his own lab to obtain their eggs for his research. Clearly this is the mark of a scrupulous field where no one should even consider laying out ethical guidelines as a framework within which their work should flourish.
So, while scientists continue to claim that any kind of serious ethical overview and permission would cramp their style, those politicians in support of them and in the pocket of large pharmaceutical companies continue to advance their blatantly false arguments while simultaneously claiming that it is the other side that is making up research for their own convenience. Nevermind that those on the side of ethics and moral limitations have opened their arms to the most promising medical advances of our day, nevermind that their claims are all backed up with documented research and that they offer to give anyone who is interested copies of the studies they are citing, nevermind that the same ethics that they are touting as necessary for scientists regulates themselves as well.
Nevermind all that, let's just go ahead and assume that they are using the same set of ethics as the pro-embryonic side and are making up facts for their own political and self-gaining reasons. After all, if the one side is doing it, why should they have any reason to think someone else may actually be holding themselves to a higher standard?
posted by Speaking of Life... at 12:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home