Please understand, clskinner, I am
not, emphatically
not, arguing the ethical positions of researching ES cells. My comments are directed at very
specific claims of fact that you are making. The "facts" are not facts. This does
not mean your ethical argument is wrong. It does mean that you need to adjust your ethical argument so that it is factually accurate. I tried to do that in the format of the Rules of the Forum, which forbids me from "debating" but does permit me to ask questions. Unfortunately, that comes off as too challenging when the intent is to provide information without engaging in debating your ethical position. So, with the mods' permission, I'm going to abandon the question format for a bit and try to give information.
clskinner said:
I am not claiming that ESC will cure a bacterial infection.
Then your argument would be better served if you drop the claim that ES cells will cure
all diseases. That "all" will get you in trouble in advocating your position outside this forum.
I am saying that the assumption that ESC will treat and/or cure a range of human diseases is similar to the claims made early in the antibiotic revolution. It was thought that antibiotics, as their name denotes, would wipe out bacterial infections; we know this to be untrue.
Thank you for your answer. I would point out that this analogy will also get you into trouble when advocating outside this forum. The fact is that, when antibiotics were first used, they
did wipe out bacterial infections. They still do in most cases. I just finished a course of amoxicillin for an ear infection, and it wiped out the infection. The problem is not that antibiotics didn't fulfill their promise, but that resistant strains of bacteria evolved and that the antibiotics would no longer work if the patient has that strain.
So, when you argue that ES cell research will not fulfill its promise, you need a better analogy.
The scientific ethics that I am talking about has to do with "do no harm." So how does that relate to my earlier comment about "just because we can, doesn't mean we should"? A scientist, by virtue of his training, is entrusted with certain responsibilities. One is to do as much as he can with his knowledge. But another is to realize the ethical limits of where that knowledge can take humanity. This is the crux of the stem cell debate - what are these limits?
FYI, the "do no harm" is medical ethics; it is part of the Hippocratic Oath.
FYI, science itself has no ethics as you describe. Science describes what
is in nature. Deciding what you
ought to do with that knowledge is outside science. When a scientist makes a pronouncement about what
ought to be done -- such as ES cell research for the treatment of disease -- he/she is making that pronouncement from his/her ethical system, not science. And yes, you can, and should, discuss the ethics. What
ought to be done with what science discovers is not something that (pardon me) ought to be left soley to scientists. Since the consequences will fall on everyone, everyone should be part of the discussion. So, I would have you consider that the crux of the ES cell debate is not about limits, but about what people, from their several ethical backgrounds, think
ought to be done. Continue or not continue with ES cell research? That's an ethical question, not a scientific one.
1) I will ensure safety and humane treatment of human and animal subjects and
will prevent abuse of research resources entrusted to me.
http://www.iit.edu/departments/csep/PublicWWW/codes/coe/US_Government_USDA_Code_of_Scientific_Ethics.html
This doesn't seem to be the same as "if it can be done, it should be done". Would you please explain to me why you think it is? This is more in line with the "scientific ethics" I am familiar with.
What is a 5 day old blastocyst but a human baby?
What I wanted to let you know is that ES cell research will not lead to a demand for aborted fetuses. By the time the fetus is old enough that the woman knows she is pregnant so she could seek an abortion, the ES cells will have passed thru that phase and not be ES cells anymore. If the woman timed her pregnancy to have an abortion at Day 5-7, the blastocyst is only about 100 cells. It is far too small for anyone to find among all the other tissues -- discarded lining of the uterus.
I will not argue when life begins with you. I simply wanted to let you know that you need have no fear or concern that ES cell research would lead to a demand for aborted fetuses. Can't happen. So to use that argument will weaken your ethical case because you are invoking a situation that isn't going to happen. Any person disagreeing with you is going to (rightly I'm sad to say) say you are "fear mongering".
I really don't want you or anyone else to have bad information. The Science article states that Spain has produced ES cell lines. The relevant paragraph, which is confusing, is:
"The health ministry said it would investigate whether the research, led by Carlos Simón of the Regenerative Medicine Center in Valencia, had received government permission. The announcement comes in the midst of plans by health minister Elena Salgado to relax restrictions on research on human embryos as part of changes to a 1-year-old law on assisted reproduction."
That human embryos are mentioned in the same paragraph as the ES cell lines doesn't mean the ES cells were obtained from aborted fetuses. It simply means that there is a separate debate on research on human embryos and that Simon's research has complicated that debate.
The NCLS is not scientists but instead a political watchdog group looking at state legislatures. They have made a mistake. The relevant sentence is "There are four primary sources for embryonic stem cells: existing stem cell lines, aborted or miscarried fetuses/embryos, unused in vitro fertilized embryos, and cloned embryos." Altho
theoretically aborted fetuses at days 5-7 could be used, the practical limitations mean they haven't been used and could not be a practical source. The third website is Thompson's paper, the first to get human ES cells, and he obtained his from in vitro fertilized blastocysts.
This is simply untrue. ESCs are, and can be obtained from aborted babies - those laboratories who do not receive federal funding are not subject to the federal ban on ESC research, and can freely use them in experiments. ESCs can also be obtained from "leftover" embryos from in vitro fertilization procedures. Their origin in this manner is just as immoral.
All ES cell lines to date have been obtained from in vitro fertilization. None of your sources, and none of the papers I have read in the literature, have listed abortuses as the source of the blastocyst. For the reasons I gave, it is impossible in practice.
The length of time which ESCs remain ESCs after conception is not the issue.
In terms of getting ES cells from aborted fetuses, it is. If there are no ES cells past 7 days post conception, then there is no incentive for an increase in abortions to obtain them.
There are indeed stem cells in both fetuses and adults. The ones in fetuses are called "fetal stem cells". Some have been used for treatment of Parkinson's. ES cell people claim that fetal and adult stem cells are not as capable as ES cells. Whether or not that is true is a scientific debate.
The point is that there are still stem cells remaining - there are stem cells remaining in adults.
FYI, and I know this is confusing, but not all stem cells are alike. There are stem cells and stem cells. Satellite cells are stem cells but can
only make skeletal muscle. Hematopoietic stem cells are stem cells but can
only make blood cells. Neural stem cells can only make nerves and associated cells. ES cells can make, apparently (because I have my doubts after they have been in culture),
all the tissues of the body.
There are other culturing issues involved with stem cells (ESC or otherwise) as well - chromosomal abnormalities and such, but that is beyond this thread.
But it is pertinent to the claim that researchers are fibbing to you about being able to culture unlimited numbers. The presence of chromosomal abnormalities in some of the ES cell lines indicate that the culturing conditions would have to be refined. Again, that is separate from the issue of whether you think they ought to do that.
