Name: Tess
Home: St. Louis
Stem-Cell Research
President Bush, vetoing a bill for the first time in his presidency, has continued his administration's restrictions on stem-cell research. Bush made the announcement today while surrounded by children who had been "adopted" as embryos. According to Cnn.com:
It infuriates me that many people in the pro-life movement ignore the thousands of embryos that are destroyed after fertility treatments--and will continue to be, even without widespread federal funding for stem-cell research. If life begins at conception, why don't the pro-life leaders picket outside fertility clinics just as they do outside of abortion clinics? I agree that destruction of embryos is less than ideal, but we as a society seem to have decided that it's an acceptable consequence of fertility treatments. If that is the case, I can't see how it's in society's best interest not to try to use the embryonic stem cells to try to cure serious illnesses.
One fertility doctor explained to CBS News how his clinic disposes of embryos that people no longer want: "We simply remove them from the liquid nitrogen. They thaw. And then we discard them in bio-hazard waste. They’re cells; they would be discarded the way any other cell that was removed from the body would be discarded." This is what pro-life people are advocating? That embryos should be thrown out instead of used for potentially life-saving research?
I certainly believe that couples should be able to donate their unused embryos to infertile couples. I also believe that consenting couples should be able to donate their embryos to federally-funded scientific research.
"These boys and girls are not spare parts," he said of the children in the audience. "They remind us of what is lost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research. They remind us that we all begin our lives as a small collection of cells."No one can argue that it isn't nice that those embryos were able to grow into babies. But even pro-life advocates admit that embryo donation will not end the destruction of the 400,000 extra embryos languishing in fertility clinics.
It infuriates me that many people in the pro-life movement ignore the thousands of embryos that are destroyed after fertility treatments--and will continue to be, even without widespread federal funding for stem-cell research. If life begins at conception, why don't the pro-life leaders picket outside fertility clinics just as they do outside of abortion clinics? I agree that destruction of embryos is less than ideal, but we as a society seem to have decided that it's an acceptable consequence of fertility treatments. If that is the case, I can't see how it's in society's best interest not to try to use the embryonic stem cells to try to cure serious illnesses.
One fertility doctor explained to CBS News how his clinic disposes of embryos that people no longer want: "We simply remove them from the liquid nitrogen. They thaw. And then we discard them in bio-hazard waste. They’re cells; they would be discarded the way any other cell that was removed from the body would be discarded." This is what pro-life people are advocating? That embryos should be thrown out instead of used for potentially life-saving research?
I certainly believe that couples should be able to donate their unused embryos to infertile couples. I also believe that consenting couples should be able to donate their embryos to federally-funded scientific research.
posted by Tess | 7:22 AM
8 Comments:
Thought-provoking post, as usual.
I would tend to agree that couples should be allowed to donate their embroyos, under educated consent. Where the alternative is destruction vs. a chance for the greater good, then it seems logical to choose the latter.
I like the clarity of thought here. I would agree with you in that pro-lifers really need to get their facts straight when it comes to the stuff they picket and oppose.
I'm not sure you and I agree about the end result of saying if it's happening anyway why not make some good come out of it, but you've earned my respect and I respect you for your view here. You and I agree on a lot of stuff Tess, it's kind of refreshing for me.
Bush makes me so damn mad. Thanks, Tess - yours is a calmer (or at least more articulate) response to the situation than mine had been.
You were once an embryo--so embryos are not simply a mass of cells but a living person.
We can say that we all are a mass of cells but we are living people.
Don't be fooled by scientists who have an agenda. They make profit off embryos so of course they don't want you to realize the humanity of the embryo.
Ben--Thanks very much for the compliment. Your comment made me think about liberals and ethics, and I might do a separate post about that later.
Lovelysalome--My posts are usually a bit calmer than the venting my husband has to listen to.
Cristo31--I am fully aware that I was once an embryo, but I don't believe that means an adult human is equivalent to an embryo. Besides, the main point of my post is that embryos are being destroyed regardless of whether stem-cell research is allowed.
Don't worry, I haven't been "fooled" by greedy, agenda-driven scientists. While the scientists I know are always happy to receive government funding for their research, they are primarily motivated by love of knowledge and the desire to help people.
I fully agree with your post, Tess. Given the current situation in the fertility industry, it seems absurd to forbid stem-cell research and just throw away all those embryos. So, like you, I firmly oppose Bush's ban on stem-cell research funding.
On the other hand, I also believe there is a kernel of truth in cristo31's point about the profit motive behind much biological research. We need to be vigilant about asserting our collective democratic decision-making over how biotech companies can tamper with life. Stem-cell research may do more good than harm given the current situation (given that these embryos are being destroyed anyway and there is no realistic way of "saving" them)...but we should not give up all our collective authority to set limits on what science and business can do. As you say, many scientists are motivated at least in part by a desire to help humanity; but it also true that science today (especially in molecular biology) is heavily influenced by the profit motive in the biotechnology business. Some of the stuff they are doing is great, other things they want to do are just plain awful from an ethical point of view, and most of the research they do is somewhere in the murky middle.
Another important point to consider is that excessive hype and wild speculation has almost always accompanied any attempt by scientists to promote a particular research agenda. ("Give us money with no restrictions on what we can do, and we will save the world!") And so many times it doesn't pan out. I'm not saying that scientists aren't sincere in believing that they can find a breakthrough. All I'm saying is that we should not assume that the payoff is certain. On balance, I would say that the potential benefits of stem-cell research are promising enough that we should allow (and fund) research on embryos that have already been created through the fertility clinic process anyway.
CL--Well, far be it from me to argue with an historian of science.... I'm not assuming, though, that payoff is certain. I just think the research should be pursued.
Because I know you're more educated about this than I am, I'm wondering whether you differentiate between biotechnology companies and scientists who receive government funding. It seems to me that government funding is a way of encouraging pure research, and taking away at least part of the profit motive. Yes, scientists who receive grants usually receive some of the money from them--and they definitely receive academic prestige--but I would imagine that their opportunity to make money is less than it would be in the private sector. (Or do you see the academic and private sectors as more and more overlapping?)
I am also curious--which kinds of current research would you deem "awful from an ethical point of view"?
For a good overview of the concerns regarding genetic technology from a progressive ethical point of view (see this is intersecting with your next day's blog posting!) you might check out the website of the Center for Genetics and Society:
http://genetics-and-society.org/index.asp
What I like about this organization is that they see a lot of "gray area" (your tomorrow's post theme again!) and do not condemn all new genetic technologies but try to articulate a more democratic, justice-oriented critical middle-way. We can't just give biotech companies carte blanche and government funding for basic research undergirding their future profits without at least thinking through what choices we would like to make as a society--what lines we will draw, in effect.
In a nutshell, the scary tampering with life that some biotechnology firms and scientists favor involves some kinds of cloning and gene-altering technologies that will to many critics amount to a "new eugenics." See the web-site for more details.
As for biotech companies, some examples are covered on the website as well. I'll try to give my short-short version of biotech and government funding issue here, being a little simplistic: Biotech companies (look on their websites if you want proof...try Genon, for example) eagerly form linkages with university reserch labs that have received federal government funding for basic research so that they can commercialize the new technologies in special proprietary deals (e.g., patents through university technology transfer offices) to generate monopoly profits for their investors. Many scientists themselves have become involved in these biotech firms and made a lot of money in the process. This has long been controversial, but scientific norms may be shifting more towards tolerance of muddying the waters of commerce and science. To some extent, there have historically always been ties of one kind or another between the two worlds, but right now there is arguably unprecedented dissolving of the boundary line.
Post a Comment
<< Home