Stem Cell Research

[jpark]

Geez guys - you seem to be mixing faith and science - and disagreeing - this cannot be realistically resolved.

The bottom line for me is if someone is against stem cell research for reasons pertaining to religion that is where it ends.  You can't argue against this - but you can try get around it.

As I posted before, the industry's best response to this is adult stem cell research.  It seems far less offensive to the religous beliefs of others - but does give us a different set of technical challenges to make this work as a therapeutic.

I personally have no problem with embryonic stem cell research - because a significant segment of our electorate do - this technology is not viable.  You can argue until you're blue in the face why these people are 'wrong" or you can get off your ass and find a solution in a less offensive technology.

[Nebu]

I just came across this in a pharmaceutical news service that I subscribe to.  Though I'd share.

Sept 29 - Ethicists of different religions took opposite views of the ethics of research on embryonic stem cells at a U.S. Senate hearing Wednesday, helping illustrate why politicians have had so much trouble finding a middle ground on the issue.

President Bush tried to fashion a compromise in August 2001, when he said federal funding could be conducted on cell lines already in existence at that point, but not on any new lines.

Embryonic stem cell lines are generally created by destroying 3-8 day-old embryos created, but not used, for in vitro fertilization. Scientists have said the cells hold promise for treating or curing a wide array of chronic and/or fatal ailments including Parkinson's disease and diabetes.

But the President's policy failed to satisfy either side in the debate. At one end are opponents of all embryonic stem cell research like Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., who chaired Wednesday's hearing at the Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space.

"A human embryo is, biologically speaking, a young human life," said Brownback, who added that federal research dollars should be going only to ethically uncontested areas such as stem cells from adults.

Brownback's position was backed by Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Catholic moral teaching, said Doerflinger, holds that "every living member of the human species, including the embryo, must be treated with the respect due a human person. To reject this position is to risk undermining the inherent and unalienable rights of human beings after birth as well, to turn these into mere privileges gained or lost depending on one's mental and physical abilities."

Continued Doerflinger, "The Nuremberg Code and other declarations have affirmed that human life and dignity must not be trampled on in the pursuit of medical knowledge. Yet American scientists and others dazzled by visions of technical progress are tempted to endorse a utilitarian ethic, and to treat helpless or unpopular members of the human race as mere means to their end."

But Laurie Zoloth, PhD, a professor of Medical Humanities and Bioethics and of Religion at Northwestern University's medical school, said other religions teach the opposite view.

"For nearly all Jews, most Muslims, many Buddhists, and many Protestants, it is not only permissible to use human blastocysts to create stem cell lines, it is morally imperative -- it must be done if it can lead to saving lives or healing," she said.

As an orthodox Jew, said Zoloth, she does not believe that a blastocyst, the early embryonic stage from which stem cells are derived, has the moral status of a human child. "It lacks a mother's womb, its existence is only theoretical without this, and even in the course of a normal pregnancy a blastocyst at 3 days is far before our tradition considers it a human person."

"While I respect that this is a difference in theology, and while I understand the passion and the conviction of those for whom the blastocyst is a person from the moment of fertilization, I do not believe this, and it is a matter of faith for me as well," Zoloth told the senators.

[personman]

"While I respect that this is a difference in theology, and while I understand the passion and the conviction of those for whom the blastocyst is a person from the moment of fertilization, I do not believe this, and it is a matter of faith for me as well," Zoloth told the senators.

Fundamentally I think this is where the question pivots.  We're all trying to dance around the elephant in the living room: theological doctrine.  We speak to it using code, "ethics" and "morality" as if a blob of dividing cells is intrinsically more human than any cultivated living tissue whose DNA map reads like a human baby.

In the referenced article the experts supporting the existing policy are a Republican senator and a conservative Catholic.  The one opposed is scientifically trained and certified in biology and ethics.  I think it framed the issue well and showed no amount of scientific definition of the beginning of "Humaness" will make headway with those nursing an inner acolyte.

I'm not dismissing the theological side - in fact just the opposite.  I don't see how we'll make any progress until we bring doctrine and science into the conversation.

[Roac]

Fundamentally I think this is where the question pivots. We're all trying to dance around the elephant in the living room: theological doctrine.

I disagree.  While it is true that many who are against the destruction of embryos have that view as a result of theology, and many who are for their scientific utilization do not share that theology, it's also the case that there are people who claim to be religious yet see no problem with the utilization of embryos, and there are secular people who find logical fault with arbitrary definitions of humanity.

I also feel that both the scientific and religious communities have agendas to push.  Scientists as a group (there are exceptions) are very liberal and tend to want to do things without regard for ethics if there is knowledge to be gained.  Scientists are paid for discovering things, not for holding back due to ethics issues.  Religious groups, on the other hand, have a conservative doctrine that is the foundation of their culture and structure that frequently puts them against motions such as this.  Since they commonly hold the spiritual more important than the physical, the motive for scientific gain is often not as strong.

In other words, "because a scientist wants to" isn't reason to do something, but neither is "because God said so" enough reason for a diverse society to not do something.  Better arguments from both sides need to be made.

[jpark]

Nebu -

I think this was at talked about early on in the Bush administration several years ago.

I have never been involved in stem cell research - but I have had some contact with Geron.  Anyway, I understood the concern to be that there were not many existing stem cell lines - and there were some "problems" with many of the existing lines (not just at Geron - but in general).

[personman]

(...) and there are secular people who find logical fault with arbitrary definitions of humanity.

And scratch them deep enough on what is NOT an arbitrary definition and suddenly the inner acolyte rears its head.

Living tissue with "human" DNA doesn't tell us a thing about "humanity".  We're left with squishy interpretations that at their root reflect our respective culture's religious heritage.

[Nebu]

Scientists as a group (there are exceptions) are very liberal and tend to want to do things without regard for ethics if there is knowledge to be gained.

 

You have got to be fucking kidding me.  You're being sarcastic and this is comedy... it's got to be.

Dr. Frankenstein is not the norm.

How many national conferences on science have you even attended? How many world class scientists do you even know... I don't mean had a class with, I mean KNOW? EACH AND EVERY scientist that I know well in this field or on the fringe of stem cell research is VERY aware of the potential ethical pitfalls.  The "exceptions" tend to be those that are closer to what you have described.  I'll add they they are a vast minority among scientists and certainly not the norm.  I partially blame the media for your observations. The exceptions often get the air time while the majority go about thier daily work.  As I've written before, most science you read about in newspapers or see on television is just plain overblown.

As for claiming that scientists are liberal, I'd like to see what your basis for this is.  I know quite a few scientists across many different scientific disciplines and we seem equally split in our political views.  Matter of fact, I'd say that the MD's that I know who are working in or around the stem cell area of research tend to be more on the conservative end of the political spectrum.  Granted, my sample set is only from a few major research universities and the Mayo Clinic. I still have some sample to draw from.  

Scientists are paid for discovering things, not for holding back due to ethics issues.

Most scientists I know make half of what they could in other fields or even in the private sector.  Science isn't about being paid to do something.  It's a life commitment to answer questions that you have burning inside of you.  Noone works 80-100h a week for as little as what I get paid to blindly discover things without concern for ethics and morality.  We do it precisely because of our strong ethics and morality.  

Second, let's use a little common sense here... if what you say were true, we wouldn't even be discussing stem cell research.  People would just be doing it.  It is partially because scientists have raised many of the same ethical concerns as other sectors of the population that the debate rages to the point that it has.  Scientists are self-policing to a greater degree than almost any other field.

My opinion is that the scientific community wants to do the right thing for the right reasons when it comes to this area of research.  You know, I can't honestly say the same for most politicians.  Bush and Kerry have chosen their sides of this issue, in part, because they want to maintain the support of their constituency.  Scientists aren't elected.  Tenured scientists have even less of a reason to speak out on such ethical issues yet remain some of the most active voices on the topic.  Science is published in peer-reviewed journals for the same reasons.  Left to the media, we'd all be investing in cold fusion.  Scientists shot that one down.  

In other words, "because a scientist wants to" isn't reason to do something, but neither is "because God said so" enough reason for a diverse society to not do something.  Better arguments from both sides need to be made.

You saved yourself with this one.  I agree.

[Roac]

Living tissue with "human" DNA doesn't tell us a thing about "humanity". We're left with squishy interpretations that at their root reflect our respective culture's religious heritage.

Religion doesn't need to enter into it when you're trying to define what's human.  I've asked several times for people to define humanity, and there have so far been some somewhat scary holes in their decision that if narrowly defined would exclude (based on their definition) certain handicapped individuals, or if broadly defined would include inanimate matter.

Part of the logical delima is the cause.  What is it that causes "humanity"?  If you define it as something very broad, such as overall complexity, then you run into the problem of causality.  One author on fuzzy logic defined the problem like this; if we define a baby who is born to be fully human, and the instant a sperm/egg are fused as non-human, then the time period between them will be some curve.  Every point along curve represents some value >0 and <1.  Part of the problem is not knowing at this stage what the curve looks like, but equally, fuzzy logic would say that it doesn't matter.  Even a liberal application of ethics would require one to say that it is somewhat immoral to destroy something that were partly human.  It would also argue that using embryos for research may be moral, but you'd have to go into more detail as to the weights of each side.  

However, logic also requires that the burden of proof be made on the one attempting to make change; that is, it's known at this stage that there is some degree of immorality in the destruction of an embryo, even though that degree may be all but trivial.  If the proposition is made to destroy that embryo, regardless of purpose (research, etc), the burden of proof is on that motion.  If a convincing case could not be made that the moral gains outweigh the loss, then the default action must be to not destroy an embryo for research.

There's one argument, which I paraphrased from one author who used similar tactics to discredit religion.  Or more correctly certain religious tenants held by, among other groups, western Christians.  

And scratch them deep enough on what is NOT an arbitrary definition and suddenly the inner acolyte rears its head.

I suppose instead of thinking about the issue, your retort would be that he's a closet Christian who attacks Christian fundamentals, and therefore must be wrong?

[Roac]

Dr. Frankenstein is not the norm.

I did not say it was.

How many world class scientists do you even know... I don't mean had a class with, I mean KNOW?

Not sure how you'd define world class or "know", but I'd guesstimate a dozen or two, depending on your criteria.  I don't do research professionally, so my only personal contact is socially.  And admittedly, aside from family members who are in the medical field, none of them with a biology background.  Include myself and most of my coworkers in that category if "computer science" fits your definition of scientist.  Either way, good job on ad hominum.

EACH AND EVERY scientist that I know well in this field or on the fringe of stem cell research is VERY aware of the potential ethical pitfalls.

I wasn't speaking to awareness.  I fully understand that there are national/international conventions on scientific ethics (held by and for scientists), not to mention inclusion of ethics as sidebars and so forth.  Perhaps I should have used a better word, but when I mean regard, I mean treat with respect, or as something held in regard.  Instead, my feeling is that ethics are often an issue that needs to be delt with; a problem to be identified, solved and gotten around.  This generates much awareness, but not neccessarily respect.  I'll note that my experience with people from "soft" sciences don't quite line up this way.

As for claiming that scientists are liberal, I'd like to see what your basis for this is.

Personal experience.  Also because the trend is that highly educated individuals are more liberal.

Most scientists I know make half of what they could in other fields or even in the private sector. Science isn't about being paid to do something. It's a life commitment to answer questions that you have burning inside of you.

Putting the image of starving scientists on hold for a moment, your argument still leaves open the point that most scientists aren't going to try to answer questions they feel are immoral to answer.  It also means that if a scientist has a burning question that many people have an objection to, he'll still do it.  You've only replaced one motive for another.

Noone works 80-100h a week for as little as what I get paid to blindly discover things without concern for ethics and morality. We do it precisely because of our strong ethics and morality.

Burning questions aren't moral or immoral.  In your view, scientists do what they do because they want to learn.  More often than not, people build a personal morality around what they want, and don't conform themselves to what they learn about morality.  

And you don't work 100h a week.  I know this, because you have time to post here.  

Second, let's use a little common sense here... if what you say were true, we wouldn't even be discussing stem cell research. People would just be doing it.

You should know, being a medical research scientists, that other scientists already have initiated stem cell research on human embryos.  I believe the first successful incident was Dr. Thompson at UW.  Aside from that, there is and has been research towards abortions, IVF, and so forth - all procedures, research, and technologies that would be highly immoral if embryos were considered human.  Either this is an indication that scientists as a body have already decided that it were morally acceptable, and the discussion by scientists is effectively over except as one of review, or scientists are unable to police their own research.  In either case they certainly are just doing it.

[Nebu]

Either way, good job on ad hominum.

It's ad hominem.

The rest isn't worth the time to respond to.  You call others out on their knee-jerk responses but fail to admit your own.  Your call partner.

[personman]

I've asked several times for people to define humanity...

And offered nothing in return.  If you're fishing to to clarify your own thoughts fine - say as much, take a swing at it yourself, and drop the condescension.  Otherwise layoff the sophistry.

[Roac]

If you're fishing to to clarify your own thoughts fine - say as much, take a swing at it yourself, and drop the condescension

I did say as much, page 2. Everything before and since in my arguments has been aimed at taking proposed clarifications and stating why there is issue with it.  I don't think there's an issue with a view having logical fault; I do think it's more than a little foolish to continue arguing down that line after it's been shown to be at fault.  Call it condescension if you like, but I think it's appropriate when the opposing side willingly puts itself into the role of idiot.  That's different from just making a mistake or being wrong and going "oh, I get it now".

Far as taking a swing at it myself, alright.  I have never before (the last few years) found fault with stem cell research, IVF procedures, "the morning after pill", etc.  I'm wavering now, and the reason is that I find the slippery slope and similar arguments compelling.  Pick any point that you feel someone is really a someOne, and ask - were they a person the day before?  Yes.  The day before that?  Yes.  If you define personhood as relating to the individual's mental ability, overall complexity, or some similar criteria, you'll hit a wall.  Continue back and you'll likely hit a point to where you say "maybe, not sure".  What you're looking at stops looking like what you'd define a person as, but you can't really draw a line and say "here it is, here it isn't."  Go back even further, and you'll certainly hit a point where you answer "no", and at worst that is the moment of conception.  But maybe it's a bit later.  If it's later, there is some difficulty in specifying exactly when it occurs, or where a particular zygote/embryo is along that timeline.  

One of the thoughts in the international scientific community for example (and it is certainly contested within that community), holds that 14 days is an appropriate marker.  Before that date, the zygote maintains the possibility of twinning, which means you cannot think of it as A person or something that has any identity.  The consequences of this line of thinking would be that stem cell research, IVF, and "morning after" pills are all acceptable, but abortions are not since women can't test as pregnant until after the 14 days are up.

Weighed against this issue is that, even if the zygote were considered a person, is the notion that to a point Human life is expendable.  For example, if I joined the military and fled the field of combat, I could be executed.  The rationale here is that if soldiers act in a way to save their own skin, they endanger the rest of the unit.  The only punnishment that is sufficient to combat the individual's motive of self preservation is to only give them one possible option of staying alive; to go through the enemy.  What it boils down to is a situation where individual rights are forcefully removed for the good of the society.  A similar argument (they are not equivalent) could be laid at the feet of zygotes, even if they were considered Human.