A Layman's Guide to Recent Stem Cell Developments
By TomlinsonDouthat Posted in Adult Stem Cells | Embryonic Stem Cell Research | ethical alternatives | Life Issues | stem cells — Comments (113) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Promoted from Diaries by Mark I.
Embryonic stem cells are valuable because they are pluripotent. Pluripotency comes from Latin, roughly meaning "can do many things" (literally, "can do more things"), and in this matter it means that these cells can become almost any other kind of cell. They are basically blank disks: If you give the right information to a disk, it will become, in a way, a word processor or a game or a movie or whatever. In much the same way, if you feed an embryonic stem cell the right information (encoded in chemicals), it can become just about any other kind of cell. And cells like this might be used for all sorts of medical purposes for patients that are in need of a certain, very specific kind of cell.
There are two catches, though. The first is that, once you feed information to the embryonic stem cell "blank disks," you can't overwrite the information. (At least you haven't been able to, as we'll see below.) If you turn an embryonic stem cell into a red blood cell, it stays a red blood cell; and if you turn it into a skin cell, it stays a skin cell. Happily, before you do that, while embryonic stem cells are still embryonic stem cells, you can copy them as many times as you want. So you'll have enough to make whatever you need to make and still have enough left over for future projects.
Read on...
The second catch is that, in order to get an original embryonic stem cell from which you can make all these copies, you need to destroy the embryo. In order to get the blank disk, you have to break the computer. This is where the obvious ethical concerns come in.
Fortunately, however, these ethical concerns have not been a great obstacle to a lot of important research. Firstly, there are adult stem cells. Conveniently, these can be extracted without killing the adult. Adult stem cells are called multipotent, which is again from Latin, now literally meaning "can do many things." In practice, this means that they can do a lot of things, but not quite as many as pluripotent stem cells can. Different types of adult stem cells can be turned into different categories of "regular" cells: some only into skin cells, but any kind of skin cell, others only into nerve cells, but any kind of nerve cell, etc. We might think of these as partially-written blank disks, like a mostly-blank DVD that can be encoded with any movie—but only a movie, no games or word-processing programs. (But once you write Happy Gilmore onto this disk, you're still stuck with it and can't overwrite it with The Godfather.) This sort of cell is good enough for most purposes, but not quite everything—or at least not as efficiently as one might hope.
Secondly, these ethical concerns can (largely) be avoided by the Bush policy on stem cell research, announced back when the controversy was just beginning. This allowed for federal funding of research using embryonic stem cells, but only those from lines that already existed—that is, copies (and copies of copies, and copies of copies of copies, and so on) of embryonic stem cells from embryos that had already been killed. Research on stem cells from other embryos, that hadn't been destroyed by the date of the announcement of the policy, would not be funded with federal money, though it was still legal and could be funded by the states or private sources. Again, these lines were good enough for most purposes, but since these permitted stem cell lines had ever so slightly different chemical properties and might conceivably behave slightly differently, some scientists wanted to be able to destroy new embryos in order to do research on new lines, without having to fill out all the paperwork to get non-federal funding.
Finally getting to the present research, what these scientists have now developed is basically a way to format disks—to wipe all the information off of them so that they can be filled up with any other information. They have taken normal everyday skin cells and injected them with viruses that act sort of like erasers, erasing all the information in their DNA that says, "don't be anything but a skin cell," and leaving intact all the DNA that can be turned into anything else. (The "don't be anything but a skin cell" information isn't erased permanently: The new cell or its descendants can still be turned back into skin cells. It's really just that a "switch" has been turned off.) These new cells are almost the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells, except that no embryo was destroyed in the process—or even involved, except in the sense that the adult from whom the original skin cell was taken is nothing but an overgrown embryo. Federal funding for this type of research is entirely unproblematic and requires no new legislation, though things like the HOPE Act might grease some wheels.
There are still slight differences between these stem cells and embryonic stem cells, but it seems unlikely that these will be significant—not only from the fact that this is the way scientists are reported to be talking about it, but also from the fact that the same process can be used on an unlimited number of different base cells (from different people and possibly of different types), and from the fact that there are other, similar processes in the pipeline, which will use things besides the viruses that these scientists used in order to do about the same thing, possibly better.
This discovery has the potential to change the stem cell debate entirely, since it is now highly unlikely that there is any benefit to engaging in embryo-destructive research as opposed to the three currently fundable avenues (adult stem cells, pre-Bush stem cell lines, and the new method of creating stem cells, with other methods likely on the way). The burden of proof is now placed squarely on those who would want to destroy embryos in their research to establish that there is any identifiable scientific benefit to doing so. A great deal of credit for this must go to President Bush, since if he had not restricted funding in the first place, it's quite possible that the line of research that yielded the recent discovery would not have been pursued with such urgency, only yielding results at a far later date.
This was originally written as a response to a good, simple question asked by Mike Volpe in the comments to Mark I's Stem Cell Silence from Dem Presidentials. I appreciate the responses of Redstaters NT and lapert, which led to some minor corrections in this version. (Lapert also made some other objections that I believe I can answer, and I'd be happy to do so in the comments here.)
As I said originally, I am only a layman myself, and so cannot be as confident as I would like with every detail of this explanation. But I hope this is of some use to readers who are trying to wrap their minds around this difficult topic.
It's always gratifying be well-received in a forum with as much great content as Redstate has. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Bush was right to deny federal funding for ESCR back in 2001. This is great news.
they have taken normal everyday skin cells and injected them with viruses that act sort of like erasers, erasing all the information in their DNA that says "don't be anything but a skin cell," and leaving intact all the DNA that can be turned into anything else. (The "don't be anything but a skin cell" information isn't erased permanently: the new cell or its descendants can still be turned back into skin cells. It's really just that a "switch" has been turned off.)
Way off topic, but if you step back and think about it, this technology known as the "cell" is really amazing design on the small scale. A stroke of brilliant engineering. That's why Bruce Alberts, past president of NAS, wanted to incorporate design engineering into biology curriculum at the university level. I can't imagine how all this could have just happened by undirected stochastic Darwinian processes.
... had Bush caved on the issue way back when all the "smart people" were telling him he had to. Good for him - and good for all of us.
Aside from that, what you said.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
By recalling Ron Reagan Jr's speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004:
Now, there are those who would stand in the way of this remarkable future, who would deny the Federal funding so crucial to basic research. They argue that interfering with the development of even the earliest stage embryo, even one that will never be implanted in a womb and will never develop into an actual fetus, is tantamount to murder. A few of these folks, needless to say, are just grinding a political axe, and they should be ashamed of themselves. *!* But many... *!* But many are well-meaning and sincere. Their belief is just that, an article of faith, and they are entitled to it. But it does not follow that the "theology of a few" should be allowed to forestall "the health and well-being of the many." *!* And how can we affirm life if we abandon those whose own lives are so desperately at risk?
It is a hallmark of human intelligence that we are able to make distinctions. Yes, these cells could theoretically have the potential, under very different circumstances, to develop into human beings -- that potential is where their magic lies. But they are not, in and of themselves, human beings. They have no fingers and toes, no brain or spinal cord. They have no thoughts, no fears. They feel no pain. Surely we can distinguish between these undifferentiated cells multiplying in a tissue culture and a living, breathing person - a parent, a spouse, a child. *!*
One apple that fell far, far from a mighty oak of a tree.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
This breakthrough would have happened with or without Bush and federal debates on stem cells. The research was started before it became a political issue and the Japanese team that also reported (using a different method by te way) this week was under no influence of the U.S. Government policy.
I wish we could move beyond science as a political issue and allow us to have the legitimate ethical conversations without the baggage of politics.
Science moves forward becuase some people are by nature curious and constantly trying to outdo eachother. For society to influence it and slow it down when it encroaches on ethical boundaries it has to have honest dsicussions and our current politics just don't seem to allow for honesty.
Some things done in the name of "science" are patently unethical. Embryonic stem cell research done on embryos "bred" specifically for experimentation is unethical. This is the crux of the problem.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Embryonic stem cell research done on embryos "bred" specifically for experimentation is unethical. This is the crux of the problem.
I'm confused by what you mean when you say "bred." The only time embryos are "bred" in my understanding of the term is in an IVF clinic (and they aren't being bred for experimentation in that sense). Did you have that in mind, are you imagining an Orwellian future not yet come to pass, or is it something else?
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
that, if embryonic stem cell research was to proceed full bore, researchers would be satisfied with simply taking "leftovers" from IVF. No way.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
You answered my question (I was genuinely confused). Thanks much.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
Science is amoral in and of itself and it is up to the society in which it operates to influence its morals. But you can't do that through disingenious rhetoric. Personally, because I don't think embryo's are the equivalent of people I disagree with your ethical take - but if you want to convince society of your ethical view you need to ahve the argument around the value of an embryo (and yes that will imapct IVF as well) rather than vilify scientists who say that embryonic stem cells are more promising than adult stem cells from a research perspective. In other words, debate the ethical standing involved irrespective of the science.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
"This breakthrough would have happened with or without Bush and federal debates on stem cells."
Its impressive enough to be well versed about what has happened and is happening, but to be able state what would have happened given different circumstances, well thats truly remarkable.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Simply follow the research - it was underway in Japan before Bush had any policy. I suppose it is possible that had Bush not come around the Japanese researchers would have stopped trying but that seems to requrie a bigger stretch than the alternative. But as I am well aware - you aren't afraid to stretch any semblence of logic and reality to fit your worldview.
Why so defensive if you are so sure ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Not defensive - osrry if you divined that from my post. But it is typical that you wouldn't address the substance - tell me, do you think the Japanese research was motivated by Bush's policy and why?
"But as I am well aware - you aren't afraid to stretch any semblence of logic and reality to fit your worldview."
And even now
"But it is typical that you wouldn't address the substance - tell me, do you think the Japanese research was motivated by Bush's policy and why?"
Well if reading is divination these days. Then so be it.
Now I am challenged to explain statements that I never made.
I will go back to my original position, that to have such clarity of vision and depth of knowledge that you can say what would and would not happen in a field given changed circumstances is truly impressive. I have advanced degrees in my field of endeavor and have worked many years and I doubt I could do it.
My hats off to your ability. You must be profoundly knowledgeable of Biochemistry.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
You go back to to your orginal position - not shocking at all since you never learn (maybe you feel like your advanced degree in your field immunizes you from advancing in any other endeavor.
So since we are at another impasse I'll leve you with your post hoc fallacy. Of course Bush is responsible for Japanese research, hell he was president before september 11th so maybe his policies are responsible for that too...
If you want think through a logical connection between the Japanese research and Bush's policy I'll listen - otherwise till next time...
And wither this torrent of vitriol ?
I ask again, where did I say the President was responsible for the research ? Please point this out to me so I can properly correct myself. I would hate to promulgate unfounded facts on a topic I did not properly understand and could not informed statements on.
"If you want think through a logical connection between the Japanese research and Bush's policy I'll listen - otherwise till next time..."
I believe the criteria in this case is to demonstrate that changing research funding levels in a field would not change the work being done. There would have to be some effort to show the Japanese researchers did not derive benefit from the altered research landscape. All very much beyond my abilities I am afraid.
"You go back to to your original position - not shocking at all since you never learn (maybe you feel like your advanced degree in your field immunizes you from advancing in any other endeavor."
My apologies you misunderstand me. I was stating a knowledge of my limits and the fact I was impressed at your authoritative knowledge.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
"All very much beyond my abilities I am afraid."
I hope you last.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
to you around here. He never could have a civilized discussion about anything. And no matter how many links he threw in or how many quotes supporting his position he could dredge up, you just couldn't get past his abrasive and abusive attitude. I don't care what your position is or how much you think you know, lapert, your nastiness and vitriol drown out any intelligence that may be evidenced.
I try never to lead with vitriol but respond in kind - if I did lead with joliphant on this thread I apologize to him and to you; probably a residue of our previous discussion which was interrupted by the holiday weekend.
Sorry to come back late to this, but I've been away all weekened and, well, seeing as how this fantastic story is still on the recommended list...
I hate to be so uncharitible on a Sunday, but you're a fool and foolishly naive, lapert. Here's where you're a fool...
This breakthrough would have happened with or without Bush and federal debates on stem cells.
Follow the crowd - follow the money. It works in academic research just like anywhere else. Bush signs-on the ESCR, a couple thousand little humans get tossed in a blender for their cells, and everyone get's funded up the wazoo to find all those "cures" we've been told were "just around the corner - "cures" that, by the way, mean a whooooooooole lot of money and fame for the discoverer. Think university professors don't care about that sort of stuff?
So why keep up with this going-nowhere, unsexy research when there's big money to be had going the easy route?
It's foolish to think they would do otherwise. So here's where the naive comes in...
I wish we could move beyond science as a political issue and allow us to have the legitimate ethical conversations without the baggage of politics.
Well, given that student council races among middle-schoolers carries "the baggage of politics", I would suggest that you grow up - but that would probably be lost on you. Oh, and you're not thinking this "science as a political issue" isn't a 2-way street, I've got some carbon offsets I'm willing to sell you - cheap!
And what, pray tell, makes you think that the current ethical debates aren't "honest"?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
The breakthrough was published a year ago by a researcher in Japan. This news story is about two recently published papers that built on this breakthrough. One of those papers was published by a US research team, the other team was Japanese. The Bush administration's decisions about what research will receive funding by the US government and what research will not had absolutely no effect on the research of Yamanaka's group at Kyoto University. I would suggest you read up before you start calling other people fools.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
When did the funding of ESRC become an issue in the US? I'm pretty sure it came to a head well before last year and had been an issue long before then.
And if we'd already put a bunch of embroy's through the puree cycle and had a whole ton of stem cell lines harvested, whom precisely would care about this breakthrough in Japan?
Fool, indeed.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Thomson's first major research breakthrough in this area came in 1998, before this issue was on many people's radar. 5 of the 22 cell lines available for government funding came from his lab.
BTW Thomson thinks the ban on funding of other lines should be lifted.
The rest of the developed world does not have the same deadline on usable stem cell lines, yet this is huge news all over the world. It contributes to our understanding about how cells work and will be a benefit to stem cell research regardless of how many lines are available. Again you really should read a bit before making the snide comments.
"Follow the crowd - follow the money"
Follow the research you truly foolish fool. The Japanese made the initial breakthrough - and they aren't seeking any U.S. Federal money. Maybe someday you will understnad the world doesn't revolve around the U.S. and our federal government; until then you will have little to add to this discussion.
"I would suggest that you grow up - but that would probably be lost on you."
You remoind me of the tin man - if you only had a brain. Anyway, enough pointless ad hominem. I would suggest it is those that think politics is the end all and be all who need to grow up - the world is not a middle school student council (fitting you picked children as the sign of adulthood). The way politics in this country infects all pursuits is symbolic of our problems rather than our greatness.
"And what, pray tell, makes you think that the current ethical debates aren't "honest"?"
Easy, I listen to what both sides are saying and they are both divroced from the actual research and science - all to score political points with the public rather than provide them with a reasoned argument taht allows them to decide what the consensus ethics of our society are in this issue. As your first paragraph, and its total divorce from the research that was underway demonstrates - people are arguing with a set of facts that are derived from their politial presumptions rahter than reality.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
My embarrasing mistake - I guess I need to rewatch Wizard of Oz -
A mistake anyone could make.
Same questions to you as I put to your ethical soul-mate above. I'm too heartless to type them again.
Get over the fact that if you're talking about the blending of human embryos you're going to get political people involved. It's how many decision are made - has been since the dawn of time.
Aside - what part about "actual research and science" am I missing in the destruction of human embryos to make stem cell lines?
As for most of the rest, that "whoosh" you heard were my points sailing well over your head. Whatever.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
In stating that the breakthrough would not have happened. I said it - no doubt. Frankly, I didn't mean it that way, but I cannot expect anyone to read my mind in person, much less here.
So sure, it likely would have happened even if there were stem cell lines aplenty. What I was going for was more along the lines of "no one would care at this point", and that I will stick to.
I will aim for better precision going forward.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Glad to see someone admit the possiblity of misunderstanding - it happens far less on blogs then one would expect given the ample oppurtunity for miscommunication in the medium.
This opens a very different question to answer. There are several reasons why I would posit people, particularly scientists would care regardless of Bush's policy.
1. The ethical questions have not been narrowly discussed only in the U.S. government or only in governments anywhere. Scientists have raised and struggled with the ethical issue of embryo disucssion, including Yamanaka, such that I think many of them care greatly about an advance that may overcome those issues independent of government policy and funding.
2. The process for deriving the stem cells from embryos is not perfect, cheap or easy and their is hope out there that a more synthetic method will be cheaper and easier in the long run. So from a scientific stand point, many hope this is a better way to develop embryo-like stem cells - again independent of governemtn funding or policy.
3. Sciece for the sake of science is the norm among researchers. This breakthrough provides us better understanding of what makes embryo stem cells develop the way they do and ultimately helps us better understand our development in the womb - for many researchers that is its own reward.
I'm sure it would qualify to an error - and I think you'll find more than a few people here who will Cowboy-up if they've goofed. There's nothing wrong with the occasional mea cupla.
Perhaps its my cynicism based on what I saw in my engineering graduate program - a world-class program that was highly specialized on certain areas of mechanics - that leads me to a perhaps unhealthy level of skepticism when it comes to issues that have heavy academic and/or research involvement.
But I am still convinced that many of the same people who have been working feverishly to find alternatives to ESRC would have abandoned their efforts given the opportunity to play God (or Gates) on freshly harvested former-humans - given the (politically driven, I believe) promissed pay-off for any "breakthrough" that happened there.
This all has the eerie deja-vu of "fusion" to me - only at least with fusion, we weren't dealing with discarded humans.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I have always found people who choose to go into engineering differ from those who go down the hard science route - something about being more practical and looking for real applications of there work. The times I have seen my friends who are scientists the proudest has been not when they recieved grants, raises etc. but when they made some discovery, however small, that their colleagues had been unable to show. But of course, we can never know the true motivations of our fellow men.
I'm inclined to believe the Darwinian explanation, but you're quite right: Whatever its source, the mechanisms of life are amazing and beautiful technology. The more I learn about them, the more I'm impressed.
As for the politics of the situation, I think it's too soon to tell. We can never be quite sure that the facts of a situation will be transmitted to the electorate with complete accuracy, when those facts are convenient to the conservative cause. It's always better, though, to have the facts on your side than not to have them, no matter who knows about them. (Not to mention all the actual good that may come from this development, and all the actual evil avoided.)
I also believe evolution is correct. From what people can tell about the very earliest life forms, creating the modern cell took 2.5 billion years of evolution, while animals formed in only about 600 million years. This is one indication of how sophisticated the cell itself is.
It is believed that the modern cell is actually the fusion of several earlier simpler cells. The mitocondria and the nuclear and other organs within the cell were themselves once very cell-like organisms.
This is a nice take, well written, and relatively balanced. I don't agree with all of it, but I have no problem recommending it. But -- and this is to the commentators, not the author -- I wouldn't gloat. These results are interesting, but there have been a lot of interesting things in science that turn out to be dead ends.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
And let me second von's advice against gloating. We're conservatives around here, and a great part of conservatism is not getting ahead of ourselves. Optimism, however, is well within bounds.
and making it acceptable, that drives the left in insisting that embryos be available for research. The latest news will have ZERO effect on the left. The Left wants to make Americans see abortion as a positive good, as being a live SAVING act and not the killing that it is.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
My first reaction to this development was that the argument "for" ESCR was now effectively dead. One can hope. Positive feedback is the story here. Lifesaving tool negates a rush to an unsuccessful method. When the conservative cause is vindicated, as in this case, and helps drive more research funding for saving lives in a moral way -- Robust Hallelujahs!
On the intersection of science and theology, I remain silent. Either way, we win.
Well written, good analogy. Enjoyed reading it immensely!
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
have had so many successes, but embryonic have not?
I would guess that one argument would be that the funding ban has done that, but it really isn't a total ban and I am sure there is a significant enough funding source that SOMETHING should have been found.
making money or in getting the can of soup off the top cabinet shelf. Adults are smarter and stronger than children!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
great post!
and not only because I was referenced.
I think I finally understand the differences.
I will also point out that a liberal family friend tried to twist Bush's position saying he was against stem cell research. I was met with a flurry of opposition however I was one conservative against everyone. I will leave you with what I left them with. If embryonic stem cell research is so great, then why isn't George Soros pouring one of his several billions into it? That, they had no answer for.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
There are still slight differences between these stem cells and embryonic stem cells, but it seems unlikely that these will be significant
Pluripotent cells created via this method form tumors of seemingly random collections of different types of cells when injected. Cells created by means of this process will not likely ever be usable in therapies. The breakthrough here is identifying genes capable of causing a differentiated cell to revert to pluripotency and confirming that they do so. This was originally done in Japan by Shinya Yamanaka and published about a year ago. His pioneering work required use of embryonic stem cells. This work was built upon and recently published by Thomson's group at the Univ of Wisconsin in Science online and Yamanaka's group at Kyoto Univ in Cell. There is still quite a way to go before we can create truly pluripotent cells from differentiated cells. We may be a year away, we may be more than 10 years away. We don't know. This is indeed a big step, but not so large a step as some have been portraying it to be.
Secondly, these ethical concerns can (largely) be avoided by the Bush policy on stem cell research, announced back when the controversy was just beginning. This allowed for federal funding of research using embryonic stem cells, but only those from lines that already existed
Wouldn't those concerns have been equally well addressed if funding were limited to lines created by embryos that were already slated for destruction by IVF clinics in addition to the few lines extant at that time? The number of embryos destroyed would not have changed, but we would have many more lines to work from and research could progress at a more rapid pace in the US. With these additional cell lines, some of which would still be in the pipeline for development, ESCR would not be near the political issue it is today. That would be a benefit to both science and politics.
You cannot convince me that, if embryonic stem cell research was to proceed full bore, researchers would be satisfied with simply taking "leftovers" from IVF. No way.
There currently about half a million embryos being stored in IVF clinics in the US alone. Most of those will end up being destroyed. More are being created in IVF clinics every day. There is absolutely no need to create embryos specifically for research. Simply divert some the thousands of embryos currently being disposed of as medical waste to be used in medical research.
BTW again, If you are really concerned about the embryo destruction inherent in this procedure you should be far more concerned about IVF as this destroys orders of magnitude more embryos.
Wouldn't those concerns have been equally well addressed if funding were limited to lines created by embryos that were already slated for destruction by IVF clinics in addition to the few lines extant at that time? The number of embryos destroyed would not have changed, but we would have many more lines to work from and research could progress at a more rapid pace in the US.
The rapid creation of embryos is very troubling. Adoption is one way to save these embryos. I agree that there should be much more attention paid to this issue.
But just because many embryos are slated for destruction does not morally justify the usage of these embryos for stem cell research. This "nothing is lost" argument is not satisfactory. Everybody will eventually die someday, but that does not mean that society can randomly kill adults in order to harvest their organs or perform research on them. The same holds for embryos.
Adoption is one way to save these embryos.
You do realize that multiple embryos are used in each implantation attempt and the success rate for each attempt with a healthy young female is about 1 in 3 so every embryo successfully adopted generally results in a dozen or more destroyed embryos. If the implantation mother is 40 or over the success rate can drop below 1 in 20 leading to several dozens of embryos destroyed on average for every successful implantation and birth. Even if this were not the case there are over half a million embryos stored in IVF clinics and more being made every day. Even in the best case scenario for adoption only a very small fraction will ever be adopted. This is not a realistic solution for solving this problem, assuming of course you see this as a problem.
Everybody will eventually die someday, but that does not mean that society can randomly kill adults in order to harvest their organs or perform research on them. The same holds for embryos.
This is a false comparison. No one is suggesting that we randomly harvest embryos. What has been suggested is that embryos that are scheduled to be destroyed be used for research rather than being thrown away.
The more accurate analogy vis dead adults and organ harvesting would be:
A certain number of adults are slated to be executed. They will be executed regardless of what happens to their organs post mortem. Assuming they or their families do not object should their corpses or organs be used for scientific research or should their corpses be thrown into a dumpster.
Even if this were not the case there are over half a million embryos stored in IVF clinics and more being made every day. Even in the best case scenario for adoption only a very small fraction will ever be adopted. This is not a realistic solution for solving this problem, assuming of course you see this as a problem.
In order to eventually address this problem, the arrival rate of embryos must be no greater than the departure rate. If this issue comes to the forefront of pro-life efforts and people start to become aware of the problem, perhaps the rate of adoption would increase. But the arrival rate probably has to be curbed as well.
This is a false comparison. No one is suggesting that we randomly harvest embryos. What has been suggested is that embryos that are scheduled to be destroyed be used for research rather than being thrown away.
The more accurate analogy vis dead adults and organ harvesting would be:
A certain number of adults are slated to be executed. They will be executed regardless of what happens to their organs post mortem. Assuming they or their families do not object should their corpses or organs be used for scientific research or should their corpses be thrown into a dumpster.
First, whether or not embryos are destroyed randomly or via a schedule is orthogonal to the main issue. The problem with your analogy above is the assumption that the adults must be executed.
Furthermore, allowing embryonic stem cell research in this case will stimulate the creation of even more embryos for the sake of reseach. There is no good reason to go into this ethical black hole especially when there are alternatives that have not even been fully explored.
In order to eventually address this problem, the arrival rate of embryos must be no greater than the departure rate.
Actually given the enormous backlog the departure rate needs to be considerably higher than the arrival rate. At current departure rates it would take thousands of years to clear up the backlog with an arrival rate of zero.
There are less than a 100,000 unrelated adoptions in the US each year and IVF stored embryos will be competing for adoption with the already born. There is some ceiling on the rate that these embryos will be adopted and with its costs and failure rate is phenomenally unlikely to rise to a rate that would even meet a significant portion of embryos destroyed each year, much less address the enormous backlog. If you see this as a real problem the only way to address it is to impose draconian restrictions of embryo creation by IVF clinics. Meanwhile the issue of what to do with the embryos that are already being destroyed remains.
First, whether or not embryos are destroyed randomly or via a schedule is orthogonal to the main issue.
No, it is not. Random destruction of embryos opens up all embryos in the US to destruction regardless of the method of creation or the desires of the "parents." This is a non-trivial difference.
The problem with your analogy above is the assumption that the adults must be executed.
The thing is that thousands of embryos are being destroyed and then thrown in the garbage every year by IVF clinics. So to return to my analogy; the adults will be executed whether we think they should be or not. The question of what should be done with the corpses remains.
Furthermore, allowing embryonic stem cell research in this case will stimulate the creation of even more embryos for the sake of reseach.
There is no evidence for this. Current levels of embryo destruction are far more than sufficient for any likely levels of research demand. Look at other countries that do not place these limits (EU nations, Japan, etc) and you will not see embryo creation increasing to meet research demand. I see no reason that it would be different in the US. Why do you think it would happen here when it does not happen there? Is it because you think we are less ethical?
If you see this as a real problem the only way to address it is to impose draconian restrictions of embryo creation by IVF clinics.
Adoption + restrictions on IVF clinics is an ethical solution.
No, it is not. Random destruction of embryos opens up all embryos in the US to destruction regardless of the method of creation or the desires of the "parents." This is a non-trivial difference.
This is a small point that is trivial to the argument I was making.
The thing is that thousands of embryos are being destroyed and then thrown in the garbage every year by IVF clinics.
Prevent the IVF clinics from destroying these embryos.
Current levels of embryo destruction are far more than sufficient for any likely levels of research demand. Look at other countries that do not place these limits (EU nations, Japan, etc) and you will not see embryo creation increasing to meet research demand. I see no reason that it would be different in the US.
Embryonic stem cell research is a very new issue. Imagine what will happen when this becomes a very hot research area. Demand will skyrocket.
Let's approximate:
100 research universities * 50 bio grad students/faculty at each university * an allocation of 100 embryos per experiment = 1/2 a million embryos per iteration of experiments.
And once US leads the way in ESCR, other countries may likely ramp up research in this area too. We should not open this Pandora's box, especially when we have not even fully explored the utility of adult stem cells.
Adoption + restrictions on IVF clinics is an ethical solution.
What restrictions do you have in mind?
A typical successful IVF conception involves the destruction of a dozen or more embryos. If you feel that each embryo is imbued with personhood the only ethical solution is banning IVF altogether. It cannot be seen as ethical to create a dozen or more people only to destroy most of them so that a woman can give birth to a baby (or twins, triplets, etc). If on the other hand you do not think that embryos = people (obviously my view) the more problematic ethical concerns are taken care of.
Prevent the IVF clinics from destroying these embryos.
Who will be responsible (read who will pay) for storing these embryos at -80oC in perpetuity?
The parents and clinics responsible for creating the embryos without this requirement so it is all but impossible to legally require them to shoulder this expense. That leaves the government. Would you support tax dollars going to support cryo units for these embryos in perpetuity?
100 research universities * 50 bio grad students/faculty at each university * an allocation of 100 embryos per experiment = 1/2 a million embryos per iteration of experiments.
That is not how it works. Almost all research is conducted on stem cell lines not individual embryos. I cannot find the cite, but if memory serves the success rate for creating an embryonic stem cell line is in the neighborhood of 1%, but once the cell line is created it can continue to produce stem cells for research indefinitely. Currently there are 22 lines that may be used while receiving federal money. Not all lines are the same. The current legally fundable lines do not meet all of the research needs. If the path I mentioned above had been followed we could have several dozen more cell lines for use and there would be little controversy surrounding this issue.
BTW I do agree with some of the constraints Bush placed on stem cell lines usable in government funded research:
* The stem cells must have been derived from an embryo that was created for reproductive purposes;
* The embryo was no longer needed for these purposes;
* Informed consent must have been obtained for the donation of the embryo;
* No financial inducements were provided for donation of the embryo.
My dispute is with the artificial deadline on the date of creation.
It's old news that under the Bush Administration only 22 or so lines were allowed for research with federal funds.
Harvard long ago decided to circumvent federal funding and do the research with their own money, which they have a lot of.
The Bush Administration was seen as being intractably reactionary to the promise of using stem cells, and everyone knew when David Baltimore gave his interview to Charlie Rose that Harvard and other institutions were simply going to take their endowments and fund research institutions of their own, which frankly obviates the need for federal funding. Baltimore called Bush's decision "Solomonic" at the time, although the Democrats have latched on to it as proving what a fuddyduddy and a troglodyte Bush is/was.
In fact it just gave Harvard and other institutions a reason to spend their own money. They should be *happy* about that.
It's old news that under the Bush Administration only 22 or so lines were allowed for research with federal funds.
Harvard long ago decided to circumvent federal funding and do the research with their own money, which they have a lot of.
The Bush Administration was seen as being intractably reactionary to the promise of using stem cells, and everyone knew when David Baltimore gave his interview to Charlie Rose that Harvard and other institutions were simply going to take their endowments and fund research institutions of their own, which frankly obviates the need for federal funding. Baltimore called Bush's decision "Solomonic" at the time, although the Democrats have latched on to it as proving what a fuddyduddy and a troglodyte Bush is/was.
In fact it just gave Harvard and other institutions a reason to spend their own money. They should be *happy* about that.
You do have a point in that IVF has always and will always involve the destruction of otherwise viable embryos. They freeze them and some of them (in fact most of them) just don't make it, and get thrown in the medical-waste bin. No doubt a lot of people have sat in traffic behind a truck carrying dead IVF embryos whilst on the Cross-Bronx Expressway in New York.
It's a short hop, skip and jump from that fact to believing like Michael Kinsley does that they're just "clumps of cells".
Science and medical technology isn't going to make the religious happy. Never has, never will. That's why eventually one or the other has to win, and it's going to continue to be a very ugly battle.
Morally I don't know whether or not I would have allowed IVF to continue. Actually, speaking for myself right now, I probably would have stopped it in its tracks. IVF is a technology that allows infertile couples to have children, but only while killing other human beings while they are in the blastocyst stage.
Lots more human beings are killed than are created. And they *are* killed, as surely as if I put you in a room and poured liquid nitrogen all over you.
One of the least-appreciated and least-deserved epithets that Liberals use when they talk about their rights to the latest reproductive technologies is to artifically castigate Christians for not adopting children.
It is in fact the Christian community that is much more likely to adopt children than any atheists and agnostics I knew in Chicago. Somehow they've managed to project that onto the people who oppose them on moral grouds, but it's not true.
Even NPR knows that religious people are not just more likely to donate money, they're more likely to adopt children, and more likely to support organizations like Christian's Children Fund to help those already born.
Instead there is some cultural misperception. I can tell you firsthand that the most liberal people I've known not only do not want to adopt, they don't want to bear children themselves, and because of that they want access to full-term abortion.
Liberals support organizations that support their recently-bourgeois "choices" in terms of lifestyle, and generally speaking they're much more inclined to paint religious people as backward and reactionary, even though they create most of the problems that truly religious people try to respond to.
They're hip!
In fact it just gave Harvard and other institutions a reason to spend their own money. They should be *happy* about that.
MacArthur Fellowships, other private grants and federal grants are not mutually exclusive. That Harvard or any other institution provides research grants for a technique is not a real argument against federal funds being used for complimentary research. The reverse also holds.
Science and medical technology isn't going to make the religious happy. Never has, never will. That's why eventually one or the other has to win, and it's going to continue to be a very ugly battle.
Certainly some see it that way and because of that the vitriol is not likely to stop in the foreseeable future.
I don't think that conflict between mainstream religion and science is necessary.
Even NPR knows that religious people are not just more likely to donate money, they're more likely to adopt children, and more likely to support [charitable organizations]
Do you have any proof of this assertion?
I am curious how those numbers would shake out if giving used specifically for evangelism were not counted. That is how does giving solely for humanitarian aid compare between the religious and non-religious? Is anyone reading this aware of a study that addresses this entirely off topic question?
Back to the topic at hand.
Even if it were true that the religious are more likely to adopt, there are not enough of them adopting to address a substantial fraction of embryos created by IVF clinics. Nothing is preventing them from adopting many of these embryos now, yet there they sit and there they go into the medical waste bin. If you really believe this put your money where your mouth is.
This is even more true in the case of abortion. There over 3/4 of a million abortions in the US every year. Do you really think that the religious community in the US is prepared to adopt in these numbers? I very much doubt it.
Re: the rest
Bourgeois choices are not the province of the right or the left. They are more or less evenly split. Most of us enjoy our middle class lifestyles and the choices they provide us.
Religious people are painted as backwards and reactionary because a very loud minority of religious people are backwards and reactionary. This is quite similar to people painting a political group with a broad brush based on a loud minority in their midst. You would never do something like that would you?
...even though they create most of the problems that truly religious people try to respond to.
Can you support this or is it simply an attempt to blame all of societies ills on your political adversaries? I'm guessing the latter.
What restrictions do you have in mind?
The mad scientists who attempt to create humans (for IVF or research) probably need to be placed in mental institutions.
The whole donation process should be done away with; everyone involved including the donors should be punished or institutionalized.
What restrictions do you have in mind?
A typical successful IVF conception involves the destruction of a dozen or more embryos.
Does that have to be the case, or can we find ways to reduce the loss of embryos?
The parents and clinics responsible for creating the embryos without this requirement so it is all but impossible to legally require them to shoulder this expense.
They created it and so they should foot the bill.
That is not how it works. Almost all research is conducted on stem cell lines not individual embryos. I cannot find the cite, but if memory serves the success rate for creating an embryonic stem cell line is in the neighborhood of 1%, but once the cell line is created it can continue to produce stem cells for research indefinitely.
Wouldn't universities want to create their own stem cell lines? What if they found that working from the actual embryo yielded more benefits?
Even if ESCR provided all the benefits in the world, it is still unethical to open this Pandora's box.
Does that have to be the case, or can we find ways to reduce the loss of embryos?
It's the best we can do now. Federal research money is not available for IVF and there is little incentive for private funding as the research might reduce the numbers of embryos destroyed, but it wouldn't do much to effect the financial costs.
They created it and so they should foot the bill.
My understanding is that it would be legally problematic to impose these costs on entities that were not required to do so on creation. Perhaps a lawyer reading this knows. This could certainly be imposed going forward.
Wouldn't universities want to create their own stem cell lines?
That depends on the type of research they wanted to do. It is quite difficult to create a stem cell line. The first lines were created in 1998 and now there are somewhere between 100 and 500 lines. If it were easy we would have far more. For most research, institutions would much prefer to buy a proven cell line rather than open up another avenue for their research to fail. If they needed a particular type of cell line that was not available they might want to create their own or contract out to a more specialized lab to have one created. The latter would likely be more cost effective. (For the research I am doing now it is actually marginally cheaper to send our cleaned and amplified genetic samples to S. Korea for sequencing than it is to buy the reagents to do it ourselves.)
What if they found that working from the actual embryo yielded more benefits?
That is not at all likely for virtually all ESCR.
Even if ESCR provided all the benefits in the world, it is still unethical to open this Pandora's box.
There lies the heart of the disagreement. There is nothing I can say that will convince you that destroying an embryo is not killing a person and I have seen no evidence that convinces me that an embryo is a person. We can argue particulars outside this central issue and opinions on those may change, but the heart of our disagreement will almost certainly remain.
There lies the heart of the disagreement. There is nothing I can say that will convince you that destroying an embryo is not killing a person and I have seen no evidence that convinces me that an embryo is a person. We can argue particulars outside this central issue and opinions on those may change, but the heart of our disagreement will almost certainly remain.
We must agree to disagree. Thank you for the civil exchange. The only way for me to potentially sway you is to argue that actual (and not just "apparent") design is evident in biology. I briefly touched on this in this comment:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/tomlinsondouthat/2007/nov/21/a_laymans_gui...
I saw your response in the earlier thread, but I wasn't sure who you were addressing and so let my reaction get lost in the holiday shuffle. I'm glad you chimed back in, so that we have another opportunity to discuss these issues.
As I've said, this is not my field, so I can't make any independent assessment of the prospects of this research. I can only base my opinion upon the judgment of those more knowledgeable than I am about these matters, as transmitted through the media. In everything I have read on this subject, the optimism with regard to the prospects for this sort of research has been portrayed as unanimous, as well as its potential for defusing the current debate. I gather from your screen name that you have some expertise in this field, and that you dissent to a degree from this optimism. Duly noted. However, I must accept the judgment of the apparent majority on this, absent a convincing argument to the contrary. I am not swayed by the fact that the ethically uncontroversial approaches are probably years away from producing usable results, since the ethically controversial approaches have, as I understand things, about the same time frame.
In any case, the ethical concerns regarding embryo-destructive research are entirely independent of the effectiveness of this or any other line of research. The only thing that might now be changed is the necessity of ignoring those concerns in order to acquire certain desiderata.
On the subject of these ethical concerns, they are slightly more complicated than a simple opposition to the destruction of embryos. There is, for instance, concern in many quarters about the instrumentalization and commodification of human life. Concerns along these lines have brought some otherwise pro-choice thinkers and commentators into alignment with the pro-life side of the debate on stem cell research—I believe that Charles Krauthammer is in this category—but they also form part of the standard arsenal of pro-life arguments. These concerns might apply to IVF as well as ESCR, but they seem to apply more strongly to the latter than to the former.
More than this, however, there is the matter of complicity. IVF, to the best of my knowledge, is an entirely private affair, at least insofar as it is not funded by the government. One might oppose IVF and wish it were illegal as it is currently performed (or at all), but at least one does not have to fund it with one's taxes. However, this is precisely what pro-lifers and others with similar opinions are being asked to do with regard to ESCR—or rather they have been asked this: The present excitement is over the possibility that they will not be asked this any more.
I can only base my opinion upon the judgment of those more knowledgeable than I am about these matters, as transmitted through the media. In everything I have read on this subject, the optimism with regard to the prospects for this sort of research has been portrayed as unanimous, as well as its potential for defusing the current debate.
Certainly optimism is high and this is a significant advance, but no scientist I am aware of thinks that these cells will be able to be used in therapies.
A few articles that are accessible to the layperson follow:
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/1120/1
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071120095400.htm
I've lost the article reference (also published in Cell) but Yamanaka's group did this same procedure with mouse cells last year. The resultant cells were injected into mice and produced tumors consisting of a seemingly random collection of different cell types.
Again this is a big step forward, but the media is overhyping its immediate utility.
In any case, the ethical concerns regarding embryo-destructive research are entirely independent of the effectiveness of this or any other line of research.
True, but I am left confused by the argument against federal funding, but allowing private research. If you feel that each embryo is imbued with personhood I don't see how you could support any research of this type regardless of the funding stream and opposition to this and IVF should be as strong as opposition to abortion. (Then again I don't understand rape and incest exceptions for abortion. Either it is a person or it is not.) If on the other hand you do not think that these embryos are people (I do not) then the arguments against federal funding seem to me few and unconvincing.
There is, for instance, concern in many quarters about the instrumentalization and commodification of human life.
There are certainly ethical concerns here but they are not unique and do not preclude federal funding in other cases where they are present. Assuming you do not believe in the personhood of these embryos, how are these concerns different for adult stem cells or even skin cells engineered to return to pluripotency? The law as I understand it now does not allow for the sale of these embryos or indeed any human body part down to individual cells. Storage and processing fees are allowed, but actual sale is not. Would you enlighten me as to the specific ethical concerns that apply to ESCR that do not apply to adult stem cells and do not involve the debatable personhood of the embryos?
These concerns might apply to IVF as well as ESCR, but they seem to apply more strongly to the latter than to the former.
I do not see this. Could you explain why these concerns apply more to ESCR than to IVF? Is this simply because the donors are generally but not always the recipients or does it go beyond this?
More than this, however, there is the matter of complicity. IVF, to the best of my knowledge, is an entirely private affair, at least insofar as it is not funded by the government.
Currently the only potential federal funding stream that could go to IVF would be government paid insurance. I do not know whether federal employees insurance can be used for this. IVF is a fully mature procedure and no longer requires much in the way research funding. In its early phases of development (pre 1973) the federal government gave grants for research developing IVF. When the funding stream was cut off in 1973 the major breakthroughs all happened outside the US. This is what we are currently looking at for ESCR. The breakthroughs will come, but they will come more slowly and major breakthroughs will more likely be made outside the US unless and until this ruling is overturned.
Calls for funding ESCR will not cease until methods of returning differentiated cells to a true pluripotent state are perfected and perhaps not then as they will only ever approximate ESCs.
I can tell by a quick read of what you say that my next response will be pretty long. But it's getting to the point in the evening that I should start devoting myself to less serious pursuits, so I'll leave that response till tomorrow, if that's all right. In the meantime, I'd certainly be interested in what anyone else has to say on these matters, should the Muse strike.
if stem cell research is so great, then why isn't someone like George Soros providing private funds for it? While John Kerry was extoling its virtues and making it seem as though it was the key to the likes of Christopher Reeve walking I wonder if any of his wife's vast fortune was spent on its research.
No one is saying that scientists can't research on embryonic stem cells, however some of us have a serious problem with the morality of creating life for the sole purpose of killing it. We shouldn't be forced to fund this sort of thing. Since the arguement is for public funding of embryonic stem cell research, isn't that the ultimate question behind this debate.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
Invoking Soros or Clinton seems to be the refuge of people on the right who have no real argument and want to score easy emotional points. (Substitute Murdock and Bush/Cheney for the left)
There are foundations providing money for ESCR, but to make a real push government funds are what is needed. The way things stand now, if you are doing ESCR on a line that is not on the short list and others in your lab are doing federally funded research their grants are in danger if you use commonly held equipment (freezers, microscopes, pipettes, etc). The issue involves more than you appear to think it does.
however some of us have a serious problem with the morality of creating life for the sole purpose of killing it.
That is not happening in publicly or privately funded research nor is it likely to. The embryos have already been created for reproductive therapies and are already slated for destruction. We are not talking about creating more embryos to be destroyed. We are talking about diverting embryos from the garbage can to the laboratory.
Why don't we limit the conversation to what is actually under debate by rational people?
Since the arguement is for public funding of embryonic stem cell research, isn't that the ultimate question behind this debate.
The argument is indeed about funding. The artificial deadline on when the line was created does not make the use of those embryos any more or less moral/ethical. Making the deadline earlier would not serve to make his decision more ethical it would only serve to further limit cell lines available for use. Moving that deadline to the present would open up several dozen more cell lines for use and would not make the research conducted any more or less ethical. Ending the deadline altogether with restrictions like those already in place (listed above) would also not affect the morality of the research in any way. All the deadline does is limit the research possibilities available in the US and export medical breakthroughs to the EU and Asia.
If your beliefs are really what they appear to be (embryo = person) then you should be vehemently against all ESCR and IVF. Are you?
because he is really, really, really, really, rich and I know that he has no moral problem with embryonic stem cell research. My point is that embryonic stem cell research could be done with anyone's private philanthropic money. It need not be Soros he is just a symbol of it. You conveniently didn't say why if it is so great that private money wouldn't come flowing in. That is much like my liberal dinner mates at Thansgiving dinner.
This thread did inspire me. Here is how I wrote about it.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
I can think of many reasons why private funding is hard to come by even when the results of the research would have broad value. At its root of course is the general problem with non-profit fund raising - the people providing the funds are unlikely to recieve the direct benefits. So the job of fund raisers is to effectively market the value of the research and appeal to egos, sense of morality, religious evotion whatever it takes to demonstrate value to the individual giver for his donation; I've always seen it as a much harder job than marketing products in the for-profit world.
Anyway, in this case it is also moot - there has been lots of private funding for stem cell research (though a couple of years old this article gives some examples). The question of whether private funding is enough, to me, is no different than the annual argument over subsidies for farmers, oil producer, steel companies, manufacturers etc. - in other words everyone does their best to get as much from the government as they can whether they need it or whether it is best for the country.
In general, I'm a fan of federal funding for science (because it typcally does have positive externalities that lead it to be underfunded in a purely free market) but prefer the distribution of federal funds be driven by market-based mechanisms (there are interesting examples from the corporate world of how some companies set aside 'innovation pools' of investment fund and have competitive bids for those pools) rather than individual policy preferences and lobbying effectiveness.
but if stem cell research is as great as proponents say, then those problems can be overcome. You can't on the one hand claim the virtues of embryonic stem cell research and then in the next breath claim there would be problems getting it funded privately.
If it is great, then everyone involved should have no trouble getting private funds. You claim it is the second coming and then in your next breath claim that private funding would be difficult. If it is really all that, there are no problems that couldn't be overcome through private funds.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
"but if stem cell research is as great as proponents say, then those problems can be overcome."
The problems are not in the value of the research but the ability of the fundraisers. Its not the same as a market for cheese, as the quality increases the consumers get more value they buy more. With research funding, where the people providing the funding do not get the direct benefit, what has to be high is not the value of the research but the value (in prestige, good feelign whatever) to the funders. The two are independent and lack of one does not reflect lacking in the other (in both direcitons - pointless research can get plenty of private funding if it does a good sales job).
there is a market for philanthropists money and people like you extol the virtues of embryonic stem cell research on the one hand and then at the exact same time make excuses for why it can't compete in said marketplace. Your excuses are of no significance to me. I wonder how much money John Kerry's vast fortune dumped into embryonic stem cell research while he was claiming that Christopher Reeve would walk if only George Bush would provide federal funding for it. I find your whole entire argument at this point to be total nonsense.
On the one hand embryonic stem cell research is great and wonderful but it can't find any money in the private sector. Bolderdash. If it was really great and wonderful it find plenty of money there. The problem is that it isn't as great and as wonderful as you claim.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
"there is a market for philanthropists money "
Yes, there is a market for philanthropists money but it is not tied to the value of the research it funds. Basic econimics here, you have an agency problem where the funding comes from one party and the benefits acrue to another. So the market for philanthropists money are driven by factors separate from the value that money produces - more specifically the market is for the good feelings of the philanthropists. That can be raised in various way, be it naming rights on a new chair or appealing to religious convictions of helping poor people. But no matter how you slice it, it is not an indication of the external productive value of the charity.
That Paul Allen's doesn't ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
A dollar is a dollar - but government can use criteria that are differnet from what we would expect in the marketplace. In the case of science they can overcome the agency problem (where the people making the funding decisions are not the people benefiting from the research) by directing funds based on future promise alone. Of course there is no guarantee government will work that way and good reason to doubt it - but it doesn't mean we aren't obligated as a society to try.
Theres at least 10 multi billionaires afflicted by diseases that stem cell treatments are supposed to cure.
Drug companies have absolutely no trouble spending incredibly large sums on longshots of considerably less value. Look at the money spent on Seratonin uptake inhibitors.
So is the argument there isn't money available ?
That the patents on the treatments or the cell lines wouldn't provide sufficient return ?
I just don't grasp it. Just think what the insurance companies that are paying for long term treatment of patients would pay for cures.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
No one who is being honest thinks there will be any breakthrough cures from this to help those in their middle ages - that said some more altruistic types who suffer from the diseases do donate in the hope that future people won't have to; Michael J Fox for examples has donated millions through his foundation to embryonic stem cell research. The point is, it does not erase the agency problem but it certainly is powerful leverage that can and is being used.
"Drug companies have absolutely no trouble spending incredibly large sums on longshots of considerably less value. Look at the money spent on Seratonin uptake inhibitors."
Early research is very hard for drug companies to fund because of the uncertainty - I have no doubt that drug companies will end up pouring billions into this over time.
"So is the argument there isn't money available ?"
No, money is available as it is for anything. Its just not optimally allocated by a market when it comes to funding much scientific research.
1.) I appreciate your links to the articles above, and I would recommend them to anyone who is looking for a more detailed but still accessible account of the research in question. However, I don't see how these accounts differ substantially from others I have seen.
I think that we have been talking past each other a bit on this particular point. My initial comment was in reference to the likelihood that the differences between embryonic and induced pluripotent stem cells will be insignificant. You responded that these differences are significant. These two propositions are not at all contradictory. In fact, I don't recall having read any account that denied either one. You accuse the media of "overhyping its immediate utility," but I haven't seen a single source that even implied that any of this would be immediately useful, even if they may not have emphasized as much as you would have liked the rather widely accepted fact that the future holds uncertainties.
It might be worth mentioning more directly that the present developments have no obvious implications for either of the poles in this debate. Those who find the intentional destruction of human embryos unconscionable have no new reason to think otherwise, nor those who find this destruction entirely unproblematic. The only ones whose minds might be changed are those in the mushy middle, who feel affinity towards both sides of the debate and are looking for facts that might weigh the balance of their opinion in one direction of the other. If such people wish to give particular weight to this development while negotiating through their competing instincts, I do not see why they should not do so, nor why they should not insist on a higher level of proof from the advocates of ESCR, now that the universe of alternatives has been expanded substantially.
2.) Some light might be shed on the question of funding versus legality if we consider some analogous cases. In the 70's and 80's, Bob Jones University was denied a federal tax exemption because of their rules against interracial dating and other racially discriminatory policies. This was before my time, but in reading of it I have heard of no proposal to shut the university down entirely. Perhaps some advocates of the stripping of its tax exemption did want to shut it down, but obviously not enough to get the job done. The compromise position, if it is a compromise position, of merely stripping the tax exemption is not generally considered problematic, and in fact it was sufficient to impel the university to change its ways.
Similarly, we might look at the controversies in the 90's regarding the public funding of artworks, or the display thereof, that some found objectionable. There was, in fact, at least one effort to prosecute a Cincinnati museum for displaying some works of Robert Mapplethorpe, but this, to my fuzzy recollection, was considered by most a rather unserious effort. By far, the greater part of the rhetorical effort in the opposition to these works was against their funding. Very few of those so opposed wanted to repeal the First Amendment, whatever the rhetorical excesses of those who disagreed.
(This, by the way, speaks to the point that Mike Volpe raises above. It was often argued in this era that, if these works were so valuable, then they should be able to find adequate support in the private sector. Similar arguments are often heard regarding the funding of public broadcasting, sports stadiums, and all sorts of things. It's entirely reasonable to ask this question with regard to various forms of scientific research. It's not necessarily an unanswerable question, but it's a perfectly reasonable one to ask.)
Governments have all sorts of tools with which to encourage certain types of behavior and discourage others. In a democracy, which tools are used with respect to which behaviors is determined by calibrating both how important the people collectively determine a certain to be (no one proposes the death penalty for double parking) and also the diversity of the people's opinions on the subject (i.e., what is politically feasible). Both factors are very much at play in the debate over ESCR, as they are in most political debates. It seems to me that a willingness to compromise and to consider measured responses to political problems is something to be encouraged, rather than assailed as evidence of some sort of inconsistency.
3.) You seem particularly concerned in this and other comments about the "personhood" of embryos. It is important to note that this is not the only way to approach the relevant ethical and moral questions. In fact, any line of reasoning that relies on this concept will be received with a particular lack of sympathy by pro-lifers, since the very word "personhood" was popularized, if not coined, in an explicit effort to deny the usual protections that human beings enjoy both in law and in common moral sentiment to certain classes of human beings, what pro-lifers oppose by definition.
But the precise reasons that pro-lifers do oppose abortion and related acts vary so widely that any generalization is ill-advised. Some hold their position for entirely religious reasons, others for entirely secular ones, others for some mixture. Some adhere to deontological lines of reasoning, others tend more consequentialist, others embrace virtue ethics or something else or just a gut feeling.
In addition, these various approaches can lead individual pro-lifers to a wide variety of positions with respect both to the question of what forms of human life should be protected and to the question of what consequences there ought to be for those who violate this in some way, just as similar approaches might lead others who view things somewhat differently not to be pro-life at all. The pro-life position is capable of more subtlety and more variety than most pro-choicers seem to appreciate, perhaps due to the fact that the personhood standard with which they are accustomed to approach these questions tends to cast things in black and white, leaving no room for gray.
4.) So, as for your question about the specific ethical concerns about ESCR, few generalizations can be made except that personhood need not be invoked. I have never heard of anyone having any ethical problems with adult stem cells, and I can't imagine why anyone would, since adult stem cells are merely part of the adult and extracting them does not harm the adult in any way. Embryonic stem cells are only problematic because of the destruction of the embryo.
But with respect to why it is considered wrong to destroy an embryo, if that's what you're asking about, then to address this is to address the question of why it is wrong to kill innocent human beings in the first place, which is a book-length topic even if you ignore the diversity of possible approaches.
5.) By mentioning the greater possible applicability of concerns about instrumentalization to ESCR than to IVF, I meant that the intended end of IVF is a child, which is a good in itself, whereas the intended ends of ESCR are cures to diseases, which are goods only with respect to others. And by mentioning commodification I was referring to the common slippery-slope arguments that a present loosening of restrictions would invite the legalization of egg and embryo sales in the future, which would have necessary applicability to instances of ESCR, but only possible applicability to instances of IVF.
6.) The issue of whether American or foreign scientists will be the ones making any advances is entirely trivial unless they have some military applications, which seems rather unlikely here. The sugar industry, the auto industry, the steel industry, and just about every other industry argue that they, and they alone, are deserving of special favors from the government. They sometimes get their way, but they are never convincing. The industry of biomedical research is no different in this regard.
7.) You say that the calls for funding for ESCR might never cease. Neither will opposition to it, so long as it requires the destruction of embryos. If the pro-life movement were going to disappear, it would have already. Rather, they have displayed remarkable tenacity in the face of three decades of the Supreme Court declaring without basis that the vast majority of their policy preferences are unconstitutional.
These developments have seemed a promising ground for compromise. But if the pro-ESCR side will accept no compromise, then whatever funding they might someday get will never be secure.
1) Techniques to "activate" genes to return differentiated cells to a pluripotent state are likely to happen at some point in the future. That was the case a year ago when the initial breakthrough was made and it was the case years before that when research on this began. A major hurdle has been cleared, but other hurdles remain and it is entirely uncertain when the final hurdle will be cleared. If I had to wager I would put my money on it being closer to 10 years than to 1.
____Re: the hype
____I was primarily responding to headlines like: "Skin Cells Made Into Embryonic Identical Stem Cells", "New cell research may end need for embryo cloning", and "stem cell breakthrough is like 'turning lead into gold'" and blog posts with titles like "The Culture of Life, Vindicated"; others are more circumspect.
If such people wish to give particular weight to this development while negotiating through their competing instincts, I do not see why they should not do so
That is reasonable, but they should understand what the development actually means before letting it influence their decision making.
2) Some compromise is inevitable. The current state of the compromise is in my view, and if polls are any indication the opinion of most Americans, illogical and improperly placed. As stated above, I can agree with four of the five restrictions placed on federal funding of ESCR. It is the fifth, the deadline on cell line creation, that I find onerous and illogical.
3) You have a problem with the term personhood being used in reference to embryos yet later you characterize these same embryos as "innocent human being." If it helps replace the term "personhood" with "moral and legal standing as an individual human being" and "imbued" with "should be imbued." The argument still stands. For the sake of simplicity and readability I will continue to use the term with the above as the intended meaning. Apologies if this offends.
____You state that some oppose abortion for entirely secular reasons. I have not heard an entirely secular argument in opposition to abortion. I am curious to hear how it is laid out.
____You state that the personhood standard sets an argument with shades of grey in black and white. IMO characterizing one side as pro-life and one side as pro-choice casts a sliding scale of where people think or feel personhood begins or should begin in a simplistic dichotomy. Virtually all people believe that personhood should be conferred sometime between conception and birth though there is considerable disagreement as to when exactly this should be. Even the titles with which the groups are labeled are misleading. How many people on either side are truly anti-life or anti-choice? Can you support a "culture of life" and support the death penalty? There is certainly as much contradiction in this position as there is in viewing someone as not being "pro-life" because they think that human life begins at a later stage of development than does someone else.
4) There considerable ethical considerations surrounding adult stem cells and indeed all gene therapies as well as any other research or therapy that uses human cells, tissues, or organs. Other than the "personhood" I don't see what ethical arguments are specific to ESCR. Characterizing embryos as "innocent human beings" is the personhood argument with a slight change in vocabulary. If you disagree would you please let me know what the difference is between "personhood" and "status of being a human being" or "human being-hood" other than the awkwardness of the verbal construct.
5)
I meant that the intended end of IVF is a child, which is a good in itself, whereas the intended ends of ESCR are cures to diseases, which are goods only with respect to others.
Presumably the saving of lives by means of these cures is a good in itself so this seems to me a distinction without a difference.
____Re: commodification
____As previously mentioned sale of any human body part is illegal and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. A break has already been placed on that slope. Removing the date of creation restriction on cell lines usable in federally funded research moves us no further down that slope. Organ transplants had and have a far greater potential for pushing us further down that slope and in many developing nations that break has been all but entirely gone for years. Yet in the US, and indeed the entirety of the developed world, that break remains. The break is actually higher up the slope in France and some other EU nations. When you pose this slippery slope argument think about this and ask yourself how many reasonable people are still arguing against organ transplantation.
6) Here we disagree. Being the country at the forefront of most of the scientific development since the mid-40s has been of tremendous benefit to the US and is no small part of our strong position in the world today. By military application I take it you mean specifically weapons systems, because medicine has tremendous military application and medical advances are the reason so many are able to return to combat or at least alive, if not whole, from the conflicts in Iraq and elsewhere.
7)
You say that the calls for funding for ESCR might never cease. Neither will opposition to it, so long as it requires the destruction of embryos.
That is true. Opposition to it will not completely go away even when/if it no longer involves the destruction of embryos, it will simply shrink to a much smaller minority.
If the pro-life movement were going to disappear, it would have already. Rather, they have displayed remarkable tenacity in the face of three decades of the Supreme Court declaring without basis that the vast majority of their policy preferences are unconstitutional.
I agree that the "pro-life" movement will remain for the foreseeable future. I disagree that Roe is without basis.
These developments have seemed a promising ground for compromise. But if the pro-ESCR side will accept no compromise, then whatever funding they might someday get will never be secure.
What I said was that calls for more funding may not ever cease, not that supporters of ESCR are unwilling to compromise. There will always be some who are unhappy with compromise on either side, that is why it is compromise rather than accession. A compromise is certainly possible here. A majority of Americans, myself obviously included, do not like the current state of the compromise. As stated before I and most almost all who support increased funding for ESCR have no problem with 4 out of the 5 restrictions Bush placed on federal funding for ESCR. It is simply point 5 we need to work on. Fortunately for me, I think the winds of change are blowing in my direction.
8) Could you support changing the restriction on federal funding to allow all current stem cell lines?* That would bump us up from 22 to about 100. How about changing it to allow stem cell lines created from embryos that are currently being created?* How about allowing use of lines created from embryos that are currently slated for destruction?*
* by current I mean either now or at the time that policy was enacted and of course all lines would have to meet the other 4 restrictions previously outlined.
Naturally, I disagree with much of what you say, but since things are getting too long to conveniently follow, I'll limit myself to addressing the most important areas of disagreement.
3a.) Personhood: I am certainly not offended by the term, and you are welcome to use it in whatever way you wish, but this is not quite the sense with which it is usually used, and this is bound to lead to some confusion.
Most who find the term useful have something more specific in mind than "moral and legal standing as an individual human being." Rather, they speak of those qualities which, to their mind, demand that such status be accorded. For instance, I believe that Peter Singer gives high priority to the ability of a creature to create plans for its own future, according to which standard he denies the status of personhood, and hence the attendant legal and moral status, to individual human infants. Most other personhood theorists, I would hope, identify other qualities that would confer personhood and the attendant protections upon a wider class.
However, this manner of thinking makes no sense from the pro-life position, generally speaking. To most pro-life thinkers, that which confers moral and legal standing as an individual human being is the simple fact of being an individual human being. Introducing the term personhood can only bring meaningless tautologies to the discussion, and it has the considerable disadvantage of seeming to imply the very proposition they deny, that human rights are contingent.
3b.) Secular pro-life arguments: There are very few pro-life arguments in common currency that rely heavily upon any religious considerations. If you have heard any arguments more sophisticated than, "Abortion is bad because Jesus says it is," then you have likely heard a secular argument. If you have not (and that's fair enough: we all have gaps in our reading), then you might look at Ramesh Ponnuru's The Party of Death. It's an accessible explication of the various aspects of current pro-life arguments, and Ponnuru explicitly excludes any religious argumentation. But the topic is too large to get into here.
5.) Instrumentalization: A cure for a disease is indeed a good, as I said. But it is not a good in itself, because it is only a good if it is applied to other people who need it. If it just sits on a shelf never curing anybody, then it is not a good in this sense. This is what instrumentality means.
An individual human being, on the other hand, is, to most people and under most circumstances, a good whether or not he serves the needs of another human being. This is the distinction.
6.) Scientific research being vital to our national stature: Q.E.D.
8.) Possible compromises: Certainly there are conceivable political circumstances under which the compromises you propose might be acceptable, for a time. Happily, no such circumstance has yet come to pass. Even more happily, the recent developments seem to have changed present political circumstances in such a way as to render such a necessity unlikely in the near future. This was much of the point of my original post.
Now officially having come full circle, this is probably my last post in this exchange.
3a) This is the way in which I have seen it most commonly used. It is the classical definition and IMO the one with most utility in a general context. In any case it is best to agree up front on definitions prior to argument.
3b) I have seen arguments that claim to be secular, but all of them I have seen up to this point ultimately require religious support. I have not read Ponnuru's book but have seen him interviewed and found his arguments unconvincing. Maybe I'll give it a look next time I'm in the library.
5) In the world today if a therapy or cure is available it will certainly be used. That is why I see no real difference in this distinction.
____IMO an individual human being can be a good, but that is not necessarily so. Plenty of horrible people who have caused widespread suffering and death have been born. I do not consider their births a good.
8) Happily IMO those political circumstances are likely to come around soon (w/in a year or so) after the next election. I don't think Rudy would and certainly none of the Dems would veto an increase in the number of stem cell lines.
9) Another interesting article on this subject: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8303756
It seems we have indeed reached the brick wall on most points. But though it should not matter, I will mention, with reference to your imputation of an ultimate religious basis for all these pro-life arguments, the fact that I am an atheist myself, as are a number of pro-lifers. Religion, or any sort of supernatural belief, is only necessary to the opposition to abortion if the same is necessary to any sort of moral argument.
Also, I think that this statement
IMO an individual human being can be a good, but that is not necessarily so. Plenty of horrible people who have caused widespread suffering and death have been born. I do not consider their births a good.
probably points directly to the foundation of our disagreement, as well as the larger moral and political dispute. I certainly understand where you're coming from, but I couldn't disagree more. I think that most of our other disagreements likely proceed from this.
You're right. I've always thought the anti-life position required some sort of religious argument since science defines human life as beginning at fertilization. Any additional constraints one requires to value a living human would have to be based on religion, superstition, or some nonsensical random and arbitrary selection made up from the top of one's head. I suppose it is not too different from the ideas that caused people to believe blacks, Jews, or any other class were somehow less than.
Also worth noting is that Germany bans embryo-killing research on the basis that it is too reminiscent of the Holocaust where humans were experimented upon. I don't think one can really argue Germany has religious motives.
We should take a lesson from the Germans in this case. This is all part of the Holocaust on the unborn.
Also worth noting is that Germany bans embryo-killing research on the basis that it is too reminiscent of the Holocaust where humans were experimented upon
Thanks, I wasn't aware of this. Chilling isn't it?
A quick Google search into this leaves me with the impression that, while there seems to be some controversy within the country in this regard, the German government has been impressively serious about not crossing certain lines, and over a period that includes both the Schröder and the Merkel governments. For those who might be interested, some links that contribute to this impression follow:
http://www.ethikrat.org/_english/press/2007_08.html
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/22923/
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hXo22sAjDT-yVzXxFDgDZ1sorY7Q
Particularly heartening is the last of these links, which associates an increase in German funding into stem cell research with the recent advances into induced pluripotent stem cells. Of course, coming so quickly upon the announcement, there might well be more to the story than that. Still, I'm sure most of us hope that there are many similar stories to come. Good for Germany.
science defines human life as beginning at fertilization
Care to support that assertion with scientific references? It need not be a web linked. I have good access to the literature through my lab.
It's common knowledge from any textbook. Anyone who can't figure that out shouldn't pass the ninth grade, much less graduate high school. They meet all the criteria for a living organism as biology defines them (exchange of gases, intake of nutrients, etc). DNA idenifies the living organism as a distinct human. It's all just very basic common knowledge. Without it, there could be no such thing as biology.
Obviously before implantation, they are dormant; but just like the yeast used for baking, they are in biological terms alive. Only here we have a different species. There is by definition a living human.
much as schematics define the potential of a car or a computer.
The plans are in place and the machinery is in place to begin the formation of a human being but it is no more a human being than the raw materials delivered to a factory (complete with schematics, robots, and workers) are a car or a computer.
I think you will be quite disappointed with science and scientists on this issue.
If you have had the slightest bit of instruction in your claimed field, then you know perfectly well what Menlo meant, and you know exactly how disingenuous this response is.
An embryo is alive but not yet human. Being a human entails more than a genetic blueprint an the cellular machinery requisite to develop into one.
It is not nearly so simple as Menlo tries to make it seem. Poll biologists or even developmental biologists and you will find considerable disagreement as to what constitutes a living human being. One cannot simply say that biology states that human life begins at conception or "Anyone who can't figure that out shouldn't pass the ninth grade" while retaining any credibility.
BTW pre-implantation embryos or non-implanted embryos are not dormant in anything approaching the same way as yeast.
I can't believe you could possibly miss such a simple and plain biological fact. You obviously have no legitimate education in biology. This is not something about which reasonable and educated people could possibly disagree.
Every living organism is a member of a species. DNA, and the parent of course, identifies that species. For an unborn child, that species is homo sapiens, another word for human.
We're not dealing with religious or philosophical terms but scientific ones. Human is a species.
Thus one CAN simply say that biology defines human life beginning at fertilzation because it is a very basic scientific and biological fact. Anyone who does not know that should NOT be passing ninth grade. And any biologist who cannot see that should be laughed out of his or her profession.
I would add that embryos, while retaining their parents' humanity, are genetically distinct from both of their parents. Therefore, fertilization marks the beginning of an individual human life, whatever opinions one might hold of its moral status. MoBio knows this, of course, but he is arguing in bad faith. I think now might time to invoke the Hinz Rule.
"I would add that embryos, while retaining their parents' humanity, are genetically distinct from both of their parents. Therefore, fertilization marks the beginning of an individual human life"
If the mark of individuality is distinct DNA what do we do with identical twins?
An embryo at certain stages has the potential to develop into more than one individual creature, but it does not have the potential to develop into less than one. The point is that it is individuated from its parents.
Similarly, with developments in cloning, I might someday have the potential to twin myself into a younger human being, and this twin and I would share many if not most essential characteristics. However, Mini-Me's existence would in no way alter my moral standing as a human being, nor would my existence deny moral standing to him. A fortiori, then, the mere theoretical possibility that I might one day be cloned cannot deny me standing as a human being today, and therefore the mere possibility that an embryo might be twinned cannot deny it the status of its species. One might, if one is so inclined, deny this status to an embryo on other grounds, but not on this.
Regarding your point below, this discussion has covered topics both scientific and moral, and the point in question was explicitly scientific. Many questions might be pertinent, depending on one's perspective. There was no equivocation, only disagreement.
"An embryo at certain stages has the potential to develop into more than one individual creature, but it does not have the potential to develop into less than one."
Actually, two embryos can combine back into one (embryonic fusion). So you could have two distinct individuals end up as only a single individual.
"However, Mini-Me's existence would in no way alter my moral standing as a human being"
Exactly, which is why you comment above that distinct DNA makes them a distinct individual from the parents seems wanting. When we think of the attribute that makes one an individual, having distinct DNA doesn't even seem neccesary let alone sufficient.
I think any reduction to biology to identify what makes a indiviudal human being is doomed to failure.
Fair enough. Two human embryos might combine into one. If you want to call that one human embryo becoming 0.5 human beings, go ahead. The math works. But we're getting into hair-splitting territory here. The point stands that the resultant creature will be genetically distinct from its parents, giving it a separate existence or separate existences.
You are quite right that genetic distinctiveness on its own is not dispositive of individuality. But surely you are not implying that it is irrelevant? Perhaps we need to add a notion of physical separateness, or perhaps there are other hairs to be split.
"What makes an individual human being" and the like are unavoidably biological questions. What makes a human being valuable or rights-bearing or whatever are somewhat separate questions, but can be informed by the former class without being reductive or doomed.
"You are quite right that genetic distinctiveness on its own is not dispositive of individuality. But surely you are not implying that it is irrelevant? Perhaps we need to add a notion of physical separateness, or perhaps there are other hairs to be split."
Identical twins have identical DNA (in nearly all cases barring post-splitting mutation) and they are certainly distinct individuals. That being the case, what role does genetic distinciveness play? You acknowledge it is not sufficient but in what way is it even neccesary?
It is relevant in the fact that the embryo is not an organ of either of the parents and hence has a moral status different from a toenail clipping. While two individuals might share DNA, those who have different DNA are definitely separate human beings. (With the exception, of course, of your chimeras, and I saw that CSI episode. But DNA testing generally seems good enough for government work.)
As I said, genetic distinctiveness might need to be combined with a notion of physical separateness in order to get an airtight definition. Assuming you have no more quibbles to raise, it is that complex that would be both necessary and sufficient.
I'm sure you'll agree that this is getting a little tedious. Unless you have something important to raise in response, I'll take my leave.
I'm sorry you find it tedious - but law, philosophy and ethics is wrapped up in tedium. You are arguing about the very qualities that make a human being worthy of special treatment, so if you are going to expand from that point on what is right and wrong it makes sense to be able to precisely explain what you mean.
When you say:
"While two individuals might share DNA, those who have different DNA are definitely separate human beings"
You are saying that different DNA is a possible, though not neccesary, symptom of being a distinct individual. What are the neccesary qualities? It doesn't suffice to combine it with a notion of physical separeteness becasue you will still have people that have phyical separateness and not genetic separateness (identical twins) that you want to treat as distinct individuals. On the other hand, if people (conjoined twins) have neither physical nor genetic separateness are they not distinct individuals? This is not mere tedium - this is a necesary exercise for defining the essence of what makes indiviudals individuals.
You'd be better off saying "featherless bipeds" and be done with it. There are a lot of strong ways to argue for what you're trying to argue, but you haven't hit upon them here. I'd recommend you start from scratch elsewhere.
Saying chromosonal vessels - I don't know what you think I am arguinf ro here but youa re the one who has presented a way of defining individual humans that is inconsitent and certainly not all encompassing. I'd reccomend you start from scratch elsewhere as well - and maybe this time think ti through first.
Accusations of thoughtlessness, I find, are rather more biting when they come from people who can limit their spelling errors to less than one per sentence.
I always found people pointing out spelling errors more biting when it was in grade school - but to each their own.
One can say that biologically, the embryo is a living organism; and one can say that it exhibits the same DNA structure associated with the species homo sapien - therefore it is a living homo sapien (human). But to then apply that to the moral question of whether it is 'life' in a moral sense it to commit an equivocation fallacy.
Precision in terms in science, law, philosphy and religion is important and recognizing that is the cornerstone of honest debate here. The pertinent question is the moral definition of 'human being' not the scientific one.
Funny how liberals insist on letting science dictate law and public policy on every issue except this one.
I've never heard of "human being" being used as a "moral" term. It sounds like one of the numerous silly and ancient ideas that would seem ridiculous today like the earth being flat or the sun going around the earth. Unfortunately, this one is not as harmless. Those nutty ancient ideas allowed the killing of born infants as well. They also justified slavery.
There is now no need for a distinct "moral" definition except to justify killing or torturing others for one person's or group's own pleasure or gain. It's senseless to give any credibility to such definitions today.
Very different things
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Science describes the world, it is not prescriptive of what ought to be (in the moral sense). Anyone who suggests that science dictates law and policy is bought into some naturalistic fallacy.
"I've never heard of "human being" being used as a "moral" term."
Your right, they usually use the term 'person'. And if you've neer heard of that you just haven't been listening. Aquinas, Locke, Hume any of these names ring a bell? Are their ideas the nutty ancient ones you speak of? (calling ancient ideas nutty doesn't sound very conservative to me)
"There is now no need for a distinct "moral" definition except to justify killing or torturing others for one person's or group's own pleasure or gain."
Actually, its the other way around - without a moral definition we have no reason to treat them any differently than we treat the rest of nature. Our distinctiveness is not merely biological - it is metaphysical.
"Are their ideas the nutty ancient ones you speak of? (calling ancient ideas nutty doesn't sound very conservative to me)"
If they invented the "person" concept, such an idea is nutty and has no place whatsoever in a civilized society. Certainly any such notions would have justified the infanticide that was once commonplace and slavery. Their views on that point are outdated and sadistic. If that makes me less conservative, so be it.
"Actually, its the other way around - without a moral definition we have no reason to treat them any differently than we treat the rest of nature. Our distinctiveness is not merely biological - it is metaphysical."
The problem with that explanation is that there is no logically consistent reason to justify the protection of human life at one point but not another. As I said already, the ancient philosophers you speak of would have justified infanticide and slavery based on their arbitrary ideas that were not and could not be informed by today's biology. That people hold on to those old views represents nothing but an excuse to harm and kill others who may not look or behave as we do.
A civilized society cannot allow its members to choose which human life to value and not value based on their widely varying feelings, philosophies, reasoning, and beliefs. That is far too dangerous. The only fair method here is to use indisputable biological definitions and require all human life in general to be valued.
I know that your words about the ancient philosophers were written hypothetically, in a way, but I should point out that lapert's representation of the ancients and later philosophers on this matter is without basis. No ancient languages I know of had words to distinguish "person" from "human," and no pre-modern thinker that I can think of condoned infanticide. (I imagine there might be some, but the view was surely rare.) With regard to abortion, the ancient philosophers had a variety of opinions, but they held them mostly on the basis of the reasons we moderns tend to cite, according to the limits of their more primitive understanding of the biology. For instance, the Pythagoreans and Hippocrates were adamantly opposed, Aristotle had a very complicated position, Aquinas was opposed, and Locke and Hume were silent on the question to the best of my knowledge.
Slavery is another matter, but its status as inhumane in the ancient world is also another matter.
Knowing precisely little about ESCR personally I cannot stand in judgement on the technical content - but this is about as concise, readable, and balanced a presentation as I've seen anywhere.
Well done, sir.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.