I see the big problem with stem cells is that non-scientists lose the point almost immediately and veer off into discussing science fiction scenarios with wacky ethical 'gotchas!'.
Q: "What if I stick a cloned replacement brain in my sons accidentally de-brained body? - will God be ANGRY?!"
A: The Lord giveth and the Lord de-braineth but then the Lord provideth a new empty brain which surely proveth the Lord is a fucking crazy enigma and that's how HE roll-eth.
Dude, seriously?
Q: "What part is the part that makes us human?"
A: YOU = (your physical parts + your life experiences) * intelligence / (what you've learned +/- how much you've had to drink) * your 'top shelf' repertoire of habitual responses
...Or make your own equation - I tend to believe that without our memories(or our original factory installed brain) there really wouldn't be much of a 'self' present. If you open the case and start popping aftermarket brains in there - you've voided your self-hood warranty. They should have that disclaimer before each episode of 'PIMP MY BRAIN' on future television.
I love a good science fiction story with creepy visualizations of the protagonist discovering a warehouse full of brainless clone bodies floating in tanks of glowing liquid and then hitting the audience over the head with some sort of 'this is SO WRONG! (and its gross!)' moment. The problem is that THIS real life stem cell story is nowhere near that cinematic level of emotional payoff for the audience.
What this story seems to say is that some scientists have been able to flip a few genetic switches in mouse skin cells and they turned into Teratomas (read that wiki linked above - these teratomas are a FAR cry from cloned brains, organs, or a satisfying backdrop for heavy handed movie moralizing.). The scientists were able to flip the same switches in some human cells with the same result - so great, they can now induce freaky tumors at will - hooray.
The real story here is how any stem cell news becomes a political football for the religious right to jerk its anti-abortion knees violently. Some right wing hand waver will undoubtedly point to a press release about this story and start screeching about how they have been justified all along in equating stem cells with abortion and they don't have to feel the sting of any criticism for efforts to block promising stem cell research that might have helped actual living sick people sooner rather than later - you can be a tunnel visioned anti-abortion zealot voter without any moral qualms since non-fetal mouse tumors can be induced in a lab - yay! The real story here is that politicians will exploit it in order to kill funding for medical research into fetal stem cells, as they have already been doing for years, and use this 'GREAT NEWS: we have discovered a way to give people tumors with eyeballs and teeth!' advancement as a red herring.
"...when theft and high crime becomes obscenely obvious to even the blindest beer sucking idiot, it is always the Republicans who are in office." -- Joe Bageant
5
4
|
Re: What's human?
Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 11:22:59 AM EST
|
I see the big problem with stem cells is that non-scientists lose the point almost immediately and veer off into discussing science fiction scenarios with wacky ethical 'gotchas!'.
If you'll re-read my initial post, you'll note that I did not draw my points directly from this story. I agree with you that with current technology the points I raised are not pressing, and that a lot of the opposition to embryonic stem cell research has come from unthinking religious luddites. Nonetheless, thoughtful medical ethicists are also divided on the issue, and it's not fair to discount their objections by lumping embryonic research opponents together and then critiquing them based on the lowest common denominator.
Stories like this emphasize that biotech is moving along at a very rapid pace, and hence I think we do need to consider the moral and ethical ramifications now, rather than later. We already have some disturbing ethical dilemmas that we haven't fully worked out (like, is it okay for parents to conceive another child for the purpose of creating a bone marrow donor for a child that they've already had which is ill with cancer?) If these are already issues now, with the relatively limited technology that we have, it's not ridiculous to claim that we need to seriously start thinking about the future.