Possible Stem Cell Breakthrough

[paulinaaa]

National Geographic News Article
Scientists have turned an ordinary skin cell into what appears to be an embryonic stem cell. The process may eventually eliminate the controversial step of destroying human embryos for stem cell research.
Full story. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0823_050823_stemcells.html)

Seems that the whole morality problem may no longer be an issue soon.

I think stem cell research is something that should be focused on more, and I'm so miffed that people are letting morality get in the way of research. I mean, if a person is going to have an abortion anyway, why throw away perfectly good research material just because you get your panties in a wad?

I think that the stem cell research debate shows a terrible lack of seperation of church and state in the US goverment. I applaud countries who can look past their own myopic moral standards and embrace what's good for society as a whole.

Any thoughts?

[jnettie]

But why create an embryonic stem cell from something else when they already exist from IVF?

I keep on saying this: if you (general) are against stem cell research, then what you should be doing is working to make IVF illegal. IVF creates the extra embryos, embryos that are destroyed after a while anyway. All this junk about "alternatives" is all well and good - and has it's own merits as far as research goes - but does NOTHING to solve the root of the perceived problem, which is the destruction of "human life" which is a by product of IVF.

[BTB]

I think stem cell research is something that should be focused on more, and I'm so miffed that people are letting morality get in the way of research.

I think morality absolutely should set limits for what type of research is done. Nazi doctors didn't "let morality get in the way of research" but we have higher standards, thank goodness. Many medical mysteries could be solved if we were willing to kill a few people along the way, but we don't do that. Again, thank goodness.

I'm also really glad we're looking for "alternatives" because quite frankly, our current stem cell lines simply don't work that well for research purposes, so fighting to work with them more wouldn't be all that productive.

[karlatta]

Well said, BTB.

[HeatherFL]

I think morality absolutely should set limits for what type of research is done. Nazi doctors didn't "let morality get in the way of research" but we have higher standards, thank goodness. Many medical mysteries could be solved if we were willing to kill a few people along the way, but we don't do that. Again, thank goodness.

I'm also really glad we're looking for "alternatives" because quite frankly, our current stem cell lines simply don't work that well for research purposes, so fighting to work with them more wouldn't be all that productive.

Thank you, BTB. You put it beautifully.

~H.

[ejs]

Here we go again! There are many opinions on stem cell research in this thread: http://www.constantchatter.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22555

[jnettie]

While, yes, morality has a place in research, I think the point is that the idea that using an embryo in research=killing a child is a religiously held moral belief that not everyone shares. The same people who work in IVF to help infertile couples have children of their own - people who have a high regard for human life - are also doing research on unused embryos by permission of the couple. I would not put this on the same level as Nazis.

[BTB]

The same people who work in IVF to help infertile couples have children of their own - people who have a high regard for human life - are also doing research on unused embryos by permission of the couple.

That someone has children of their own is evidence they have a high regard for human life?

I would not put this on the same level as Nazis.

I'm sure we all could, and would, argue over what would be "worse" than this or that in terms of morality. The OP painted with a broad brush, stating she's "miffed that people are letting morality get in the way of research." I disagree with that general sentiment, and posted as such: I think morality ought to "get in the way of" research, that good science can be, and should be, ethical science.

[sue-bert]

I think stem cell research is something that should be focused on more, and I'm so miffed that people are letting morality get in the way of research. I mean, if a person is going to have an abortion anyway, why throw away perfectly good research material just because you get your panties in a wad?

I applaud countries who can look past their own myopic moral standards and embrace what's good for society as a whole.

Speaking of "myopic" and wadded up panties...

I think your post was extremely rude and totally disrespectful towards those who do not share your own viewpoint.

Furthermore, I find it disturbing that you would discard someone else's moral convictions as something so utterly meaningless. I certainly hope that pesky things like "morality" continue to "get in the way of" research. It would be horrific to live in a society that did not weigh moral and ethical considerations before embarking on such projects.

ETA: By the way, I am a supporter of stem cell research.

[BrownEyedGirl]

Maybe we should agree that someone's religious beliefs shouldn't dictate science.

This is a hot topic and panties will be wadded, no matter what.

[msnicolea]

I have no problem with ethics informing science--I sit on the IRB here at work and we take ethical considerations VERY seriously.

What I have a problem with is personal religious belief being used as a weapon against sound science. Despite what the Christian Right would have us believe, religion does not equal morality or ethical principles.

[SingleWhiteFemale]

Despite what the Christian Right would have us believe, religion does not equal morality or ethical principles.Here here!

I think I'm most tired of the selective "picking and choosing," that only certain moral values matter. You know, abortion and gay marriage matter, but screw the lying, cheating, adultery, and stealing that goes on... Always great when you can deflect the bad attention away from your actions and onto someone else's wrong doing!

[wendalah]

You know, abortion and gay marriage matter, but screw the lying, cheating, adultery, and stealing that goes on...

The majority of the Christian right are liars, cheaters, adulterers, and thieves? Hmm.

[PG-rated]

Well, I for one think this is terrific news. While I disagree with most of the objections to embryonic stem cell research, I also understand at least some of them, and I know how I would feel if I were on the other side of the argument. At the same time, I think the potential for this research is just too important not to find a way to do it. I'm happy to live with this compromise.

[dionysia]

Godwin's Law (or at least a corollary) in the 3rd post? I think that's a new record.

Di

[jnettie]

That someone has children of their own is evidence they have a high regard for human life?
No, I said that the people who work in IVF labs care about helping people have children and they are the same people that also do stem cell research.

I'm sure we all could, and would, argue over what would be "worse" than this or that in terms of morality. The OP painted with a broad brush, stating she's "miffed that people are letting morality get in the way of research." I disagree with that general sentiment, and posted as such: I think morality ought to "get in the way of" research, that good science can be, and should be, ethical science.
The OP used the phrase "myopic moral standards." Not all morality, I agree, there is a place for morality in science, just that all must bow to the specific moral beliefs of one group of people.

Maybe we should agree that someone's religious beliefs shouldn't dictate science.

This is a hot topic and panties will be wadded, no matter what.
Yes and yes!

I have no problem with ethics informing science--I sit on the IRB here at work and we take ethical considerations VERY seriously.

What I have a problem with is personal religious belief being used as a weapon against sound science. Despite what the Christian Right would have us believe, religion does not equal morality or ethical principles.
I think this is the crux of it for me. Stem cell research=murder might be a moral held by some Christians, but it is not a moral held by me, nor is it a moral held by a majority of Americans.

Godwin's Law (or at least a corollary) in the 3rd post? I think that's a new record.
Lol! No kidding.

[BTB]

Godwin's Law (or at least a corollary) in the 3rd post? I think that's a new record.

I do what I can. :)

jnettie - ah, I see I misread your sentence earlier. "people who help IVFers have children of their own", not "people who help IVFers.... have children of their own."

Do you know anyone in stem cell research who's also active in IF treatment? I mean, it could certainly happen, it would just be an interesting mix since usually each is its own full-time job. Certainly the people who pioneered IVF "also do stem cell research", but nowadays, I'd argue these are not the same people at all. Not sure why it matters, though, so I wouldn't argue it long. ;)

[Jazz]

I'm also really glad we're looking for "alternatives" because quite frankly, our current stem cell lines simply don't work that well for research purposes, so fighting to work with them more wouldn't be all that productive.

Well, yeah, but "current stem cell lines simply don't work" != embryonic stem cells don't work. Failures there are artificially imposed by the legal/politcal restrictions on creating new cell lines.

[BTB]

Well, yeah, but "current stem cell lines simply don't work" != embryonic stem cells don't work.

I agree with that statement, and don't think my comment that current lines are insufficient (hardly a point of controversy) in any way suggests otherwise.

[jnettie]

I do what I can. :)

jnettie - ah, I see I misread your sentence earlier. "people who help IVFers have children of their own", not "people who help IVFers.... have children of their own."

Do you know anyone in stem cell research who's also active in IF treatment? I mean, it could certainly happen, it would just be an interesting mix since usually each is its own full-time job. Certainly the people who pioneered IVF "also do stem cell research", but nowadays, I'd argue these are not the same people at all. Not sure why it matters, though, so I wouldn't argue it long. ;)

Now I need to be more clear!

At the institution that DH worked at, they were at once an IVF clinic and a research hospital, meaning that there was a team of scientists that continued to do research, be it into embryology or other types of research including stem cell research. I know that other institutions of a similar ilk also did such research. I went with DH to a few dinners about the research being done within the IVF field that was really unrelated to the birthing of babies but somehow dependent on embryology to further their studies.

I guess, my big ol' point here is that if the concern is the killing of lives, the real thing to be against is IVF, because without IVF there are no extra embryos, KWIM?

[sue-bert]

...Despite what the Christian Right would have us believe, religion does not equal morality or ethical principles.

It does for many Christians. While I do not think that Christian religious teachings (or any other religious teachings, for that matter) should be the law of the land, you cannot deny religious Christians their right to look toward their religion for moral guidance. (In fact, many people of other religions and denominations may have done just this when they decided that stem cell research does not constitute murder.)

And it would be totally unreasonable to expect those who believe that stem cell research constitutes murder to sit back quietly and fund such activities with their tax dollars, don't you think?

[ginadc]

And it would be totally unreasonable to expect those who believe that stem cell research constitutes murder to sit back quietly and fund such activities with their tax dollars, don't you think?

The war in Iraq has led to the deaths of thousands of innocent people--not eight-cell blastocysts, but actual living, breathing, walking, talking, thinking people with hopes and dreams and families and plans. And I strongly object to my tax dollars being used for that purpose. But I didn't get to dictate how those tax dollars were used.

People who oppose stem cell research are significantly in the minority, as poll after poll shows. So why should that minority position get to dictate how the rest of the country wants our tax dollars used?

msnicolea said:
religion does not equal morality or ethical principles.

sue-bert:
It does for many Christians.

Religion may be the arbiter of morality and ethical principles for those who follow that particular religion's teachings; but that doesn't mean that a) those of us who follow different religions, or no religion at all, do not have strong and valid moral and ethical codes of our own that are worthy of respect and consideration in public policy; nor that b) one religion's morality and ethical code should trump all others.

(Or even one segment of religion, because in this case, I think you will find many many thousands of Christians, and Christian churches, in support of embryonic stem cell research. Last I looked, Orrin Hatch and Nancy Reagan were both Christians. So even claiming that opposition to stem cell research is necessarily and always dictated by Christian morality is a false premise.)

[GeekGirl]

And it would be totally unreasonable to expect those who believe that stem cell research constitutes murder to sit back quietly and fund such activities with their tax dollars, don't you think?

No, I don't. ITA with ginadc, she summed up my feelings extremely well.

[sue-bert]

My point is simply that when public policy intersects ethical-philosophical issues (e.g., What constitutes murder? When does life begin?), religious people will often take direction from the teachings of their particular religion. And they have every right to do so.

For certain devout followers of certain religions, stem cell research, and abortion constitute murder. It is unreasonable to expect those who share this opinion to remain silent.

Religion may be the arbiter of morality and ethical principles for those who follow that particular religion's teachings; but that doesn't mean that a) those of us who follow different religions, or no religion at all, do not have strong and valid moral and ethical codes of our own that are worthy of respect and consideration in public policy; nor that b) one religion's morality and ethical code should trump all others.

I agree 100%.

Thankfully, in America, we have the right to voice our opinions on any matters we wish. This applies to every issue (the Iraq war, the abortion debate, stem cell research, etc.), and it applies to those who are motivated by religion as well as those who are not. That is precisely why I objected to the content and tone of the OP.

[msnicolea]

What ginadc said--as usual. ;)

[jnettie]

Full story. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0823_050823_stemcells.html)

Seems that the whole morality problem may no longer be an issue soon.

I think stem cell research is something that should be focused on more, and I'm so miffed that people are letting morality get in the way of research. I mean, if a person is going to have an abortion anyway, why throw away perfectly good research material just because you get your panties in a wad?

I think that the stem cell research debate shows a terrible lack of seperation of church and state in the US goverment. I applaud countries who can look past their own myopic moral standards and embrace what's good for society as a whole.

Any thoughts?

After a second reading, I see where you're coming from. Paulinaaa does come off as terse and antagonistic. However, it does get quite frustrating to be continually handed the morality excuse when one feels that she is a moral person yet does not see how this particular subject is amoral.

Personally, I don't think this new research will replace stem cell research, anyway. Besides, it seems to rely on it, no? I think is good to have another way to do the same type of research. There isn't one method that is *the only* way to discover new cures to genetic desiese.

In any event, I believe that it is possible to have a universal set of cultural moral standards that are also secular at it's core. When it comes to personal religious beliefs dictating your moral view, I think one has to consider the religious beliefs of others before casting your vote on a political issue. But when you get down to it, most religions share the same basic moral standards. It's the nitpicky stuff that causes the figths.

[Sarah]

The war in Iraq has led to the deaths of thousands of innocent people--not eight-cell blastocysts, but actual living, breathing, walking, talking, thinking people with hopes and dreams and families and plans. And I strongly object to my tax dollars being used for that purpose. But I didn't get to dictate how those tax dollars were used. Yes, but if there were a bill proposed to fund the war moreand you could try to help stop it, or a there was some way you could vote or support a candidate who opposes the war, then wouldn't you? I would. But you would then be letting your personal feelings dictate your politics. I don't understand why it's okay for your beliefs (whether they are based on common sense, secular humanism, buddhism, judaism, whateverm your system of belief is) to be the foundation of your politics, but not for my personal feelings about what is wrong and right to be the foundation of mine. It's not like I think ESCR is wrong because "Christianity/my church/the pope/whatever says it's wrong" it's because I truly believe it to be wrong.

So what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, is that it's okay for a person like HeatherFL (who IIRC is an atheist, but is firmly prolife) to vote against ESCR, but not for me, a firm Christian?

Also, hypothetically (i have no clue what your views are on capital punishment) would it be wrong for you to vote against the death penalty? Since you would be inflicting your views about it on everyone else, and they are not the majority view?

Would it be okay for me, a christian, to vote against the death penalty (which I do and have to the extent I can)? Even though I think it's wrong because of my faith?

Explain.

[Sarah]

In any event, I believe that it is possible to have a universal set of cultural moral standards that are also secular at it's core. When it comes to personal religious beliefs dictating your moral view, I think one has to consider the religious beliefs of others before casting your vote on a political issue. But when you get down to it, most religions share the same basic moral standards. It's the nitpicky stuff that causes the figths
Are you serious? I am not being snarky, I am just shocked you think this. I think this view (not your specific view, I hear this all the time) is such a bastardization of what the various world religions are about. I personally don't think the issues which really upset me and "cause the fights" are nitpicky at all. I am not going to get involved in a OT discussion about those issues, but to me they are huge and life changing and totally horrifying, not nitpicky or small.

[sue-bert]

Hi jnettie,

However, it does get quite frustrating to be continually handed the morality excuse when one feels that she is a moral person yet does not see how this particular subject is amoral.
I support stem cell research, but I don't feel personally insulted that others oppose it on religious grounds. I accept that different religions view some issues quite differently, and I honestly think that most people who oppose stem cell research do so because of deep-felt and sincere convictions, and not some nasty ulterior motives. (I would say the same for stem cell research supporters.)

Unlike some other issues which highlight state-religion tensions (prayer in schools, for example), this one is really tricky. In general, I bristle at the notion of anyone using the government to impose religious principles on the general population. But if I honestly and sincerely thought that stem cell research lead to *murder*, how could I not vote against it? Surely there are some totally secular people out there who may think that stem cell research constitutes murder, and we would expect them to vote against it as well, so we can't deny a religious person the same right.

And we certainly shouldn't ridicule them. That won't encourage productive dialogue at all.

In any event, I believe that it is possible to have a universal set of cultural moral standards that are also secular at it's core.
I'm somewhat skeptical about this -- at least the "universal" part. It's hard to get everyone to agree on all but the most high-level basics. Maybe someone will convince me that I'm being too pessimistic...
ETA: I cross-posted w/Sarah.

[Sarah]

After a second reading, I see where you're coming from. Paulinaaa does come off as terse and antagonistic. However, it does get quite frustrating to be continually handed the morality excuse when one feels that she is a moral person yet does not see how this particular subject is amoral.

But I don't think anyone is 'handing you the morality excuse" (which is pretty insulting, BTW) by saying they disagree with a practice because they find it to be morally wrong. I am not saying "Ew, you are horrible and bad! BAD! God is MAD AT YOU!" I am saying, "look, I find this to be wrong, and I need to not support it with my money, if I can." Yes, my feeling about why it's wrong is based on the way I feel the world works, and God's hand in that, but I don't see why that's any different than anyone else's concept about why various thigns are wrong or right.

Talking about 'panties being in a bunch" or whatever is just rude. I know it's frustrating to disagree so much, but it's not really constructive to take on this flippant, sarcastic, and smug tone all the time (not directed at the OP or PP, just in general it's something I see a lot.)

[jnettie]

Possibly I'm overly optimistic, but dead serious.

All the major religions DO have the same basic moral beliefs. Killing is wrong, helping the less fortunate, finding compassion for your fellow human, etc. How it is acheived and how the religion is practiced can be very different, but the ideas are almost always the same.

Re: the morality excuse. Morality is often used in a "I have morals because I am Christian and you don't be cause you are not" sort of way. Then, when something that is percieved as against Christianity, for whatever reason, Christian Morality is held up for why such and such thing should be made illegal, banned, or kept out of schools. It is presented in a way that says one who is for whatever that is must be amoral. Sorry if this insults you, but that's how I feel.

I support stem cell research, but I don't feel personally insulted that others oppose it on religious grounds. I accept that different religions view some issues quite differently, and I honestly think that most people who oppose stem cell research do so because of deep-felt and sincere convictions, and not some nasty ulterior motives. (I would say the same for stem cell research supporters.)
I don't feel insulted by people opposing stem cell research either. In fact, discussion is very important. It helps everyone understand the issues better. I'm frustrated by those who use religious reasons to stop something without better understanding what they are fighting (not that everyone does this). I wouldn't say I'm necessarily insulted except when it's implied that those who do stem cell research and those that support it have no morals. That's not true.

(And, hey, Paulinaaa, way to post a contraversial topic and let me catch the flames! :p A little help here!)

[ginadc]

So what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, is that it's okay for a person like HeatherFL (who IIRC is an atheist, but is firmly prolife) to vote against ESCR, but not for me, a firm Christian?

Huh? How in the world did you get that from what I posted? I've had my views pretty wildly misinterpreted at times, but I think this one might be the wildest yet.

No, that is not in any way, shape, or form what I am saying. Anyone, in this democracy, can and should vote and speak out for what they believe in based on whatever beliefs they hold, be they atheist, Christian, Muslim, FSM, whatever.

But I would point out that you haven't "voted" on ESCR, nor are you likely to be able to (unless you are in California or your state pursues a CA-like referendum). There has been no opportunity for voters to directly express their will on this issue at the ballot box--and no, Bush's re-election doesn't count. What tipped that election for him had absolutely nothing to do with stem cell research and everything to do with 9/11, terrorism, fear, etc.

The closest we have come is the vote in Congress on the ESCR bill, in which our duly elected representatives did indeed vote to support it, a vote that we all know Bush vetoed.

And that's my point--you have every right to argue against and vote against and fight against ESCR. We all have the right--and frankly, the duty, as citizens of a democracy--to speak out and advocate on issues that we care about. But then, shouldn't the results reflect what the people actually think? When the will of a large majority (polls show around 70%) of the people on an issue as important as ESCR is thwarted by the views of a minority, then how is that right or fair in a democracy?

On the "moral position" thing--I just get utterly sick and tired of the prevailing opinion in society that morals and ethics must necessarily flow from religion, and that if you don't have a religion/believe in god (or even if you believe in a very different religion than Christianity), then you must not have any morals or ethics. I'm not saying that that's what anyone here has said, but that is definitely something that is out there, very strongly: "morals" and "values" are code words for "Christianity" and "religion," as if those of us who are not Christian or religious cannot possibly have morals or values.

[Esq.]

I am electing Gina as my personal representative in all political matters. I have hard time believing that she could say anything I disagree with. :)

[ysolde]

And that's my point--you have every right to argue against and vote against and fight against ESCR. We all have the right--and frankly, the duty, as citizens of a democracy--to speak out and advocate on issues that we care about. But then, shouldn't the results reflect what the people actually think? When the will of a large majority (polls show around 70%) of the people on an issue as important as ESCR is thwarted by the views of a minority, then how is that right or fair in a democracy?



Of course, we have to be careful not to trample upon the rights of the minority in the process. Tocqueville cautioned against the dangers of tyranny of the majority, fearing that, in a "Democracy" (actually a representative Republic) like ours, we could easily have a majority rule where the rights of minorities were ignored.

The situation at hand is, in fact, an example of another danger of which the founding fathers warned fifty years ealier: tyranny of the minority, in which a small faction gains an inordinate amount of power through the political process, and forces its will on an unwilling majority.

See Federalist 10, in which Madison speaks of the dangers of faction:


[A] pure Democracy, by which I mean, a Society, consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

[sue-bert]

We all have the right--and frankly, the duty, as citizens of a democracy--to speak out and advocate on issues that we care about. But then, shouldn't the results reflect what the people actually think? When the will of a large majority (polls show around 70%) of the people on an issue as important as ESCR is thwarted by the views of a minority, then how is that right or fair in a democracy?
As you mentioned, unless one lives in CA and votes on this specific issue in a public referendum, one does not get to vote directly on laws pertaining to ESCR. But if a group of voters feels passionately enough about this issue, then they will track all proposed bills having to do with ESCR carefully, and pressure their legislative representatives to support measures limiting ESCR through perfectly legal measures such as letter-writing campaigns, lobbying, etc. This is done every day by groups on both sides of the political spectrum.

In the case of ESCR, there are quite a few groups who feel that ESCR constitutes murder, and who thus are highly motivated to lobby against it. They feel passionately enough about it to make it a litmus test when voting. I'd estimate that fewer groups support ESCR with the same fervor. It's just not an issue that the general populace rallies around.

On the "moral position" thing--I just get utterly sick and tired of the prevailing opinion in society that morals and ethics must necessarily flow from religion, and that if you don't have a religion/believe in god (or even if you believe in a very different religion than Christianity), then you must not have any morals or ethics. I'm not saying that that's what anyone here has said, but that is definitely something that is out there, very strongly: "morals" and "values" are code words for "Christianity" and "religion," as if those of us who are not Christian or religious cannot possibly have morals or values.
Since (as you pointed out) not one person posting in this thread has said anything remotely like this, I do not understand why so many posters here are so defensive about it.

[jnettie]

I am electing Gina as my personal representative in all political matters. I have hard time believing that she could say anything I disagree with. :)

Here here! And I'd personally like to add Ysolde as my respresentative, too!

[ginadc]

Kyrsten--thanks, and :o !!!

Since (as you pointed out) not one person posting in this thread has said anything remotely like this, I do not understand why so many posters here are so defensive about it.

Because this thread isn't the world. Because it gets exhausting, depressing and insulting to feel like the society you live in generally doesn't feel like you have morals. So when the words "morals," "values," and "ethics" are brought up in a discussion like this one, they have a broader context. I'm not saying that people who oppose stem cell research because of their own deeply held moral beliefs should change the way they express themselves--or that anyone else, for whatever reason, should stop using words like morals. I'm just trying to provide an additional context, so that you can maybe understand why some of us get a little prickly when those words enter the discussion.

[msnicolea]

Whenever morality is based on theology, whenever right is made dependent on divine authority, the most immoral, unjust, infamous things can be justified and established. -Ludwig Feuerbach, philosopher (1804-1872)

[kedzieb]

Let me be on record as a highly moral, Catholic ethicist who is for more stem cell research. I believe it is morally reprehensible to allow sick people to suffer needlessly.

And Gina, ITA with your point about people equating values/morals/ethics with Christianity. In some ways it might line up - like it's wrong ethically to steal and Christ agreed. But our standard of right and wrong, legal and illegal, comes from a whole lot more than one specific religion. And it's certainly broader than one particular sect of one religion.