Speaking of neural degradation…
In a rare bout of “actual news” on CNN, I saw a clip stating that Bush has put a veto on stem cell research. Asshat. I’d like to see him reason his position without tripping all over that little “separation of church and state” inconvenience that someone ninja’d into the constitution. I’m sure he’d be displeased at watching us pay other countries once they’re done researching and have the technology for sale… but he won’t be in office then, so why worry?
No great loss I suppose. It’s not like it’s a particularly important branch of research. or some crap. sigh. I remember feeling the same fuzzy feelings towards “the powers that be” when we were dropped out of the international fusion research program some years back.
Some day they’ll get it right
stem cell research in Europe and Asia is years ahead of the US because the scientists of those countries are GODLESS HEATHENS!!! BABYKILLERS!@!
Actually, ethical arguments can be made with some merit against fetal stem cell harvesting. But I’ve rarely seen such arguments concede that if an abortion is ALREADY happening, why the stem cells should go to waste. I am open-eared to claims of bad incentives and so forth. But I also think that they need to be quite convincing in order to put a hold on research that could quickly likely yield significant medical breakthroughs. And slippery slope arguments really do get too much credence – so long as the culture allowing the borderline cases has the backbone to stop things when enough is enough (see China –> harvesting live organs of undesirables –> selling to wealthy)
On the other hand, one thing the media has done fairly poorly is delineate the differences and potential breakthroughs in the three major stem cell categories: fetal, umbilical, and adult.
I know there is a dark side to it. There are definitely ethical issues to be considered. The “slippery slope” arguement is very important and I agree it is overlooked. Just about every scientific advance in any field can and will be exploited by people for material or political ends.
Look at the price we have paid to have nuclear power. Even though the development of nuclear weapons has come alongside nuclear energy, I would argue it is worth it. Both things are direct results of nuclear science, as is nuclear medicine and other important beneficial fields. I know I’m simplifying things and making a sort of straw man. This issue is more current, arguably more complex, and the end of it all is still unknown… so I can’t claim it to be a particularly good paralell. But I think you know what I’m getting at.
The thing is that it is going to be researched and we will end up paying for it if we’re not in on it, or people will go overseas to get treated. As you’ve mentioned the media is largely to blame. They sensationalize both ends of the spectrum and make it out to be this Janus-like double edged sword of infinite salvation and infinite evil. or some crap like that. instead of educating people on what it is and what can come of it. but then, people don’t want to be educated… they want to be sensationalized.
so basically… I know what you’re saying. I agree there are issues but I’m still on the side of seeing it developed. we should chat about this next time we chill, I’d like to hear your opinions on it. for now just wrap my opinion in a healthy layer of misanthropy =P. which is ironic because I want to see this developed because it is helpful to people at larg