Politicizing science

[TooFarTampa]

Then why didn't he just sign the order and move on? Why silence and demonize the opposition? Why not acknowledge that reasonable people can disagree on the ethics, but he is in favor of increasing federal funding? One of his critics wrote that "Bush's nationally televised stem cell speech was the most morally serious address on medical ethics ever given by an American president. It was so scrupulous in presenting the best case for both his view and the contrary view that until the last few minutes, the listener had no idea where Bush would come out."

On a somewhat related note, someone please remind him that he's not running again for another 3 and a half years.

Krauthammer, whom you quoted above, wrote a compelling column, particularly in light of his own physical challenges. In any substantive discussions of the matter it is also worth repeating the quote from James Thomson from your first post, which Krauthammer also made note of.

Bush may have been scrupulous to present both sides in his speech, but his decision was in no way equivocal. Scientists' hands have been tied in some crazy ways because of Bush's directive. Frankly those who study stem cells -- and have a lot of hope for their use in curing disease -- have been pleading and waiting for this for so long, that Obama's strong language may have just been a reflection of their huge amount of relief.

I think it is reasonable to say that most scientists believe embryos should be handled as ethically as possible. But it is also reasonable to say that their research could benefit from a more genetically varied group of cell lines than it has been able to use.

"We have to always remember that the largest source of embryonic stem cells are embryos in IVF clinics that are going to be discarded and end up in the Dumpster," said Amy Comstock Rick, CEO of the Parkinson's Action Network. "Personally, I have trouble with the ethical argument that it is inappropriate to use these embryos to save lives, but somehow it's appropriate to throw them in the Dumpster."

I agree with this and most Americans do too. It's fair to argue that Obama was too heavy-handed in his language, especially if you are one of those who don't agree with his lifting of the ban.

 

[6thGen]

It's going to be refreshing for the next four years to hear Obama use words like pluripotent that Bush wouldn't be able to pronounce.

True, but I wish he noted that there is nothing scientific that shows us that ESC is superior to iPS.

 

[scooterbug44]

It's not the scientists I'm worried about.

Well, since those are the people whose opinions ON SCIENCE matter the most, I could frankly give a damn about the others - especially those standing behind a pulpit.

 

[hnooe]

I think that the fact that there was very little or no response to this here in the Forums, or on the left and right across the country last week, is a pretty good gauge of where this issue is. Most of the other head decriers-- Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Ralph Reed are either dead, silent on the matter altogether, or up to their ears in their own legal troubles.

Germany, France, China and I understand even Iran are futher ahead on all phases of advancing this research -- it would be nice NOT to see America not fall behind on this.

 

[6thGen]

Well, since those are the people whose opinions ON SCIENCE matter the most, I could frankly give a damn about the others - especially those standing behind a pulpit.

As I cleared up above, it's not the science that I'm worried about, it is its application. If we are not to look to clergy and religious leaders to answer complicated moral and ethical questions, where should we look?

 

[6thGen]

Krauthammer, whom you quoted above, wrote a compelling column, particularly in light of his own physical challenges. In any substantive discussions of the matter it is also worth repeating the quote from James Thomson from your first post, which Krauthammer also made note of.

Bush may have been scrupulous to present both sides in his speech, but his decision was in no way equivocal. Scientists' hands have been tied in some crazy ways because of Bush's directive. Frankly those who study stem cells -- and have a lot of hope for their use in curing disease -- have been pleading and waiting for this for so long, that Obama's strong language may have just been a reflection of their huge amount of relief.

I think it is reasonable to say that most scientists believe embryos should be handled as ethically as possible. But it is also reasonable to say that their research could benefit from a more genetically varied group of cell lines than it has been able to use.

"We have to always remember that the largest source of embryonic stem cells are embryos in IVF clinics that are going to be discarded and end up in the Dumpster," said Amy Comstock Rick, CEO of the Parkinson's Action Network. "Personally, I have trouble with the ethical argument that it is inappropriate to use these embryos to save lives, but somehow it's appropriate to throw them in the Dumpster."

I agree with this and most Americans do too. It's fair to argue that Obama was too heavy-handed in his language, especially if you are one of those who don't agree with his lifting of the ban.

I don't agree with discarding the embryos in the dumpster either, and I don't want to incent scientists to discard of more of them. Good post though. As I noted above, as of 2007, there is no evidence that ESC are superior to iPS (a pluripotent stem cell artificially derived from a non-pluripotent cell).

 

[scooterbug44]

What is the ethical dilemma? All we are doing is providing another source of funding for something that is already going on and being regulated.

 

[LuciferSam]

Very well though out response. I guess I should have said that science is not political, but the application thereof is absolutely political. As for the moral controversy, the controversy arises from the practice of creating life for the sole purpose of destroying it. There is no scientific evidence for a soul at conception, or 30 years after conception, and from past discussions I did not think you believed in a soul period.

All I'm saying is that at conception, I can't imagine that the embryo has any sense of it's unique identity. I wasn't speaking so much for myself when I used the term soul. As far as later stages of development, it becomes more of a grey area for me. So I do think that ethics has to enter into the picture.

Obama is not a scientist. I'm sure others can express things better than him on these topics. I think much of what's happening is a reaction against Bush who stubbornly closed his mind off to many ideas without trying to understand or discuss them. I think almost everyone, Obama included, wants to consider the ethics involved.

 

[6thGen]

What is the ethical dilemma? All we are doing is providing another source of funding for something that is already going on and being regulated.

The ethical dilemma is asking me to fund it.

LS, hope you are right.

 

[scooterbug44]

Because you agree with everything else we spend taxpayer money on? :roll:

I would much rather have my tax dollars spent on scientific research whose purpose is to save lives and cure diseases than on MANY of the other things it is currently being used for.