Create an Account
username: password:
 
  MemeStreams Logo

Why Science Can't Save the GOP

search

noteworthy
Picture of noteworthy
My Blog
My Profile
My Audience
My Sources
Send Me a Message

sponsored links

noteworthy's topics
Arts
  Literature
   Fiction
   Non-Fiction
  Movies
   Documentary
   Drama
   Film Noir
   Sci-Fi/Fantasy Films
   War
  Music
  TV
   TV Documentary
Business
  Tech Industry
  Telecom Industry
  Management
Games
Health and Wellness
Home and Garden
Miscellaneous
  Humor
  MemeStreams
   Using MemeStreams
Current Events
  War on Terrorism
  Elections
  Israeli/Palestinian
Recreation
  Cars and Trucks
  Travel
   Asian Travel
Local Information
  Food
  SF Bay Area Events
Science
  History
  Math
  Nano Tech
  Physics
  Space
Society
  Economics
  Education
  Futurism
  International Relations
  History
  Politics and Law
   Civil Liberties
    Surveillance
   Intellectual Property
  Media
   Blogging
  Military
  Philosophy
Sports
Technology
  Biotechnology
  Computers
   Computer Security
    Cryptography
   Human Computer Interaction
   Knowledge Management
  Military Technology
  High Tech Developments

support us

Get MemeStreams Stuff!


 
Why Science Can't Save the GOP
Topic: Science 10:41 pm EST, Dec  4, 2007

Any Republicans who think the stem-cell breakthrough gets them off the hook are going to end up very unhappy. This issue will not go away.

First, even the scientists who achieved the latest success believe strongly that embryonic-stem-cell research should continue. No one knows for sure whether the new method of producing pluripotent cells will pan out or where the next big developments will come from. We are still many thresholds away from anything that can be of practical value to me and others. Scientifically, it makes no sense to abandon any promising avenue just because another has opened up.

Second, even if this were a true turning point in stem-cell research, people like me are not going to quickly forget those six lost years. I am 56. Last year I had a kind of brain surgery that dramatically reduces the symptoms of Parkinson's. It received government approval only five years ago. Every year that goes by, science opens new doors, and every year, as you get older and your symptoms perhaps get worse, doors get shut. Six years of delay in a field moving as fast as stem-cell research means a lot of people for whom doors may not open until it is time for them to shut.

Third, although the political dilemma that stem cells pose for politicians is real enough, the moral dilemma is not and never was. The embryos used in stem-cell research come from fertility clinics, which otherwise would discard them. This has been a powerful argument in favor of such research. Why let these embryos go to waste? But a more important point is, What about fertility clinics themselves? In vitro fertilization ("test-tube babies") involves the purposeful creation of multiple embryos, knowing and intending that most of them either will die after implantation in the womb or, if not implanted, will be discarded or frozen indefinitely. Even if all embryonic-stem-cell research stopped tomorrow, this far larger mass slaughter of embryos would continue. There is no political effort to stop it. Bush even praised in vitro fertilization in his 2001 speech about the horrors of stem-cell research. In vitro has become too popular for politicians to take on. But their failure to do so makes a mockery of their alleged agony over embryonic stem cells.

Why Science Can't Save the GOP



 
 
Powered By Industrial Memetics
RSS2.0