Reply #4: it isn't actually new [View All]

[iverglas]

What seems to be new is that someone is commercializing it.

http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/114/9/1184

Full article (2004) can be read there, and the bafflegab really must be read to be believed. It has to be one of the best examples of agenda-driven "science" I've ever seen.

J. Clin. Invest. 114:1184-1186 (2004). doi:10.1172/JCI200423065.
Copyright ©2004 by the American Society for Clinical Investigation

Abstract

The creation of human embryonic stem cells through the destruction of a human embryo pits the value of a potential therapeutic tool against that of an early human life. This contest of values has resulted in a polarized debate that neglects areas of common interest and perspective. We suggest that a common ground for pursuing research on human embryonic stem cells can be found by reconsidering the death of the human embryo and by applying to this research the ethical norms of essential organ donation.

What this is, is an non-solution to a non-problem.

From the article linked in the opening post:

Some stem cell researchers complain that the new approach, though it may hold future promise, simply isn't as efficient as their current method of creating stem cells. That procedure involves the destruction of embryos after about five days of development, when they consist of about 100 cells.

Meanwhile, hard-line opponents of stem cell science argue that the technique solves nothing, because even the single cell removed by the new approach could theoretically grow into a full-fledged human. Some also object over the possibility the procedure could harm the embryo in an unknown way.

This next article is available only by subscription, and I have not read it, but the abstract goes like this:

http://jme.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/extract/32/1/43
(my emphasis)

Journal of Medical Ethics 2006;32:43-48; doi:10.1136/jme.2005.012203

What’s in a name? Embryos, entities, and ANTities in the stem cell debate

K Devolder
... Centre for Environmental Philosophy and Bioethics, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium

This paper discusses two proposals to the US President’s Council on Bioethics that try to overcome the issue of killing embryos in embryonic stem (ES) cell research and argues that neither of them can hold good as a compromise solution. The author argues that

(1) the groups of people for which the compromises are intended neither need nor want the two compromises,

(2) the US government and other governments of countries with restrictive regulation on ES cell research have not provided a clear and sound justification to take into account minority views on the protection of human life to such a considerable extent as to constrain the freedom of research in the area of stem cell research, and

(3) the best way to deal with these issues is to accept that many people and most governments adopt a gradualist and variable viewpoint on the human embryo which implies that embryos can be sacrificed for good reasons and to try to find other, less constraining, ways to take into account minority views on the embryo.

We really should never forget what the anti-choice brigade means when it says "compromise". It means: we get what we want, and you get fucked.