On Stem Cell Research
A fantastic clip about stem sell research that confronts the religiously based argument against it.
Via Sonny Parlin
23 Responses to “On Stem Cell Research”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
A fantastic clip about stem sell research that confronts the religiously based argument against it.
Via Sonny Parlin
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 5th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Interesting.
I feel bad but I laughed at the line
“Every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a holocaust of potential human beings.”
I do support Stem-cell Research, and this video only solidifies that belief even more for me.
November 5th, 2007 at 12:29 am
I haven’t even seen the video yet and I’m laughing at that line.
November 5th, 2007 at 12:29 am
Clearly a growth on a petry dish is equal to one soul. Obviously someone should have told Jack Sparrow that when he was looking for his 100
November 5th, 2007 at 12:55 am
Wow. Just wow.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:38 am
Great clip indeed….
Is that ben stiller? haha..
November 5th, 2007 at 5:31 am
How is this clip fantastic? The guy tries to shoot down the idea of a soul in a fetus and downplays a human life as a “potential” human life. It’s his opinion, but I wouldn’t say his talk is going to make any significant changes in the debate.
Btw, reminder that fetuses are not the only source of stem cells:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=F4BB3ACB-E7F2-99DF-349FD71C1164C66D
D
November 5th, 2007 at 7:56 am
darcyl i disagree, i think that his intention is to show the problems with this line of argument. It may be his opinion, but it’s also an argument that is completely valid, and I think he will make changes to the debate, and i don’t think that anyone has made any “significant” changes anyway. Believe it or not but science has morality, sure, there have been cases where science have been used to other ends but it has been applied in many cases to the health and longevity of human beings and animals. When you get right down to it, you cannot prove that a soul exists, and you cannot prove it does not exist, but what you can do, is take a tiny sample of cells and heal a fully grown human being, and that, to me, is moral.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:57 am
That’s an author named Sam Harris.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:57 am
I disagree, notably as he did not downplay human life as merely potential, he was describing it subjectively coming from a religious perspective and he is not discussing the morality of a soul in a fetus but in an embryo. This will most likely spark further discussions and releases regarding the the topic of stem cell research and its importance in modern society. I thought the comparison between day old embryos and the brain of a fly very interesting. As he says it, the “moral” rejection brought about by religion is holding back the potential benefits of ongoing stem cell research. Also if you would like to look at it from a spirtial pov, then the human body is merely a vessel for the soul. The body needs to develop and become a self-sustaining human being for the soul to be travelled. That early on in development I would think, if there is a soul or not, it is still much too early for it to be mature enough to have an impact on the world. This stem cell debate can also be stretched into the spectrum of abortion and the position we share regarding it as well.
Great, thought provoking clip.
>EV
November 5th, 2007 at 8:31 am
I especially like his point about a splitting embryo into identical twins. It really shows that embryo’s can’t be souls, because souls can’t divide. But that’s my atheist, engineering point of view.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Being affected by Parkinson disease, I am clearly in agreement with this explanation. What is difficult in my situation is that my Dad is the one suffering with this disease, and a scientist by profession, he knows the impact that funding Stem-cell research could have on others with the same disease. He also knows that there are so many others that could be helped and even cured. Maybe even his children, and grandchildren, since they also have a greater chance of having Parkinson’s.
If those who oppose Stem-cell research knew that it could save them or their loved ones from suffering and dying would they still oppose it?
November 5th, 2007 at 9:17 am
[quote comment="32003"]Great clip indeed….
Is that ben stiller? haha..[/quote]
Haha, that was my first thought too.
I thought the arguments raised by the guy were pretty good. Unfortunately, I don’t think its going to change anyone’s mind on the topic, but he brings forwards all the reasons why people SHOULD think along these lines, and he does it well.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:06 am
If biologists want funding for stem cell research they should tell the government that the cells are potential poor people. By my math there’s hundreds of billions of dollars available for destroying that potential.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:51 am
hmmm…I always wonder what would happen if, say, George Bush or Dick Cheney got Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease…would research then be acceptable? I figure that’s the thing right there…no one wants to fund stem cell research because they haven’t personally encountered any serious medical issue themselves…it would be different then…or not…what do you think?
November 5th, 2007 at 11:23 am
[quote comment="32056"]hmmm…I always wonder what would happen if, say, George Bush or Dick Cheney got Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease…would research then be acceptable? I figure that’s the thing right there…no one wants to fund stem cell research because they haven’t personally encountered any serious medical issue themselves…it would be different then…or not…what do you think?[/quote]
They would have a team secretly research/develop things to use for themselves, then lie and say they didn’t.
I am one who has never understood standing in the way of progress that will help so many.
This is a clear, concise, explanation of things and is hard to argue against. Although I don’t understand how there are some who would to begin with.
When it comes to “morality”, leaving someone suffering without hope when some could be offered is wrong. People who have contributed to society their entire lives and possibly done things to make this a better place - do we not owe THEM something?
I just lost my mother to an “incurable” illness this year and there’s nothing worse than helplessly sitting by a loved one’s bedside, “waiting” for them to die as you watch them suffer. For those who could benefit from this research, it’s a great injustice not to proceed with it.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:49 am
There’s some interesting discussion here, seems most on this site are in favour of stem cell research, or at least take the side of the video, which has presented a couple good arguments to that one moral aspect of the issue.
The problem though, it seems to me this argument is slightly myopic in that having addressed one issue, are we all to jump on the bandwagon supporting stem cell research? At this point I should say, I am in favour of stem cell research, as it pertains to disease treatment, a means to prevent human suffering.
Where it becomes problematic for me, is where do we draw the line? Where does treatment become modification? Rather than treating a disease, wouldn’t we be better off pre-emptively eliminating it? Give preschool children their parkinsons shot at the same time as their measles & rubella vaccinations? Even this sounds not entirely unreasonable, but what other traits shall we modify? Where is that line? Can we irradicate laziness or ugliness before it becomes a problem?
Another issue is how long should humans live, and does longer life improve quality of life? Unless the death is quick, there will be some aspect of suffering. Unfortunately, death is part of life, and thus suffering is natural, now we’ve got a much broader moral debate here…
Want to open it up even more? (maybe too much) Who will reap the rewards of this expensive research? Will it be affluent western society, or will it be available to everyone, regardless of their income or apparent “value” to the world? Will we treat the homeless in our own country, much less in a poor country on the other side of the planet?
At this point in the argument any medical or scientific progress has effectively been argued into quagmire, before even bringing up the carrying capacity of the earth, and what’s sustainable, so the argument is futile, and already past the point of being arguing for argument’s sake. The point here being, where do we even draw the line for discussion of the issue? At what point has the argument just become so abstract and academic it loses it’s point? (and yes, as I type, I wonder has my comment lost it’s point?)
If only it were as simple an issue as it seems on youtube…
November 5th, 2007 at 11:50 am
That is fantastic. He made some bold statements. No matter how logical the argument though, you can’t convince a religious person that an embryo has no soul. How a government can refuse to fund a type of research based on religious beliefs is retarded, in my opinion. Religion and politics should be separate. It’s been a couple decades now that religious education was removed from school curriculum and replaced by ‘moral education’ (in Quebec, anyway). Not everyone is Christian, so naturally, they should not be forced to read the bible in school. Is it too much to ask that a governement be objective?
November 5th, 2007 at 11:58 am
“Who will reap the rewards of this expensive research? Will it be affluent western society, or will it be available to everyone, regardless of their income or apparent “value” to the world? Will we treat the homeless in our own country, much less in a poor country on the other side of the planet?”
It is extremely unfortunate that we have to even think about these questions, but you bring up a very good point. The answers to these questions, at least in my opinion, are not very positive but maybe I’m just being pessimistic.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
[quote comment="32064"]Where it becomes problematic for me, is where do we draw the line? Where
does treatment become modification? Rather than treating a disease, wouldn’t we be better off
preemptively eliminating it? Give preschool children their parkinsons shot at the same time as their
measles & rubella vaccinations? Even this sounds not entirely unreasonable, but what other traits shall we modify? Where is that line? Can we eradicate laziness or ugliness before it becomes a problem?
Another issue is how long should humans live, and does longer life improve quality of life? Unless the death is quick, there will be some aspect of suffering. Unfortunately, death is part of life, and thus suffering is natural, now we’ve got a much broader moral debate here…
Want to open it up even more? (maybe too much) Who will reap the rewards of this expensive research?
Will it be affluent western society, or will it be available to everyone, regardless of their income or apparent “value” to the world?
Will we treat the homeless in our own country, much less in a poor country on the other side of the planet?
At this point in the argument any medical or scientific progress has effectively been argued into quagmire, before even bringing up the carrying capacity of the earth, and what’s sustainable, so the argument is futile, and already past the point of being arguing for argument’s sake. The point here being, where do we even draw the line for discussion of the issue? At what point has the argument just become so abstract and academic it loses it’s point? (and yes, as I type, I wonder has my comment lost it’s point?)
If only it were as simple an issue as it seems on youtube…[/quote]
I understand where you’re coming from, but my perspective is that of a big sister to an 11 yr old boy who had been diagnosed with juvenile diabetes at 6. However, I don’t believe that what researchers are doing at this time would cover such issues as vanity or be of use in eradicating less than desirable personality traits…on the brighter side of that we could see it possible that stem cell research leads to better management of mental disorders as well…point is: I’m pretty sure that they are strictly into conducting research of a medical and scientific nature. Believe it or not most of the medical research that is conducted is really of a benevolent nature.
As for increasing our longevity on this planet: Humans lived to be no more than 40 yrs old at one point in time; dying from simple infections, extreme cases of food poisoning, lack of hygiene. It is because of the
research of the past that we are now at a much much higher life expectancy…Of course, I’m sure that there would be a limit put on things so that there would be no abuse of the system, but I feel it inhumane to let someone die when there is a known cure for their ailment.
Now, I know that there are countries around the world where people are dying of curable diseases that may at times only require a regimen of penicillin, or careful monitoring, and thats a terrible shame that the resources and/or knowledge are not readily available to these people…and I think that you have raised a great question in regards to treating our own homeless in addition to those in places where even basic medical treatment is a dwindling service…but at the very least let’s get it started so that we may gain insight into the worldwide possibilities this has for possibly curing diseases in epidemic such as HIV etc, and god willing the research will be made useful for all mankind.
November 5th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
[quote comment="32107"]I understand where you’re coming from, but my perspective is that of a big sister to an 11 yr old boy who had been diagnosed with juvenile diabetes at 6. However, I don’t believe that what researchers are doing at this time would cover such issues as vanity or be of use in eradicating less than desirable personality traits…on the brighter side of that we could see it possible that stem cell research leads to better management of mental disorders as well…point is: I’m pretty sure that they are strictly into conducting research of a medical and scientific nature. Believe it or not most of the medical research that is conducted is really of a benevolent nature.
[/quote]
I am in favour of gene therapy, having watched my grandfather suffer from Parkinson’s and the side effects of the chemicals used to treat it, seeing the tremor in my mother’s hands, and other traits progress in a similar way as her father’s before her, wondering how much longer if at all it will be until I get the same symptoms… This is not the argument here, I do think that if there’s a possible cure for diseases, we should pursue them with as much effort as possible, and certainly more than we put into much more trivial issues.
What concerns me is the motives behind research. Having friends that do research, both for industry, and in the university setting, it is marketability & profitability that makes the wheels go around, whether it’s NRC grants, private grants, or marketing valuable patents, the big push in research is driven by big bucks. Last month Discover had an eye opening article about it discussing both validity & direction of research:
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/oct/sciences-worst-enemy-private-funding
With corporations holding the purse strings, and even going so far as to have research work withdrawn through political pressure, are we to believe research is truly benevolant at this time, and even if so, can we assure it will remain so in the future?
Trivial as it may seem philosophically when compared to disease & suffering, vanity is undeniably where some of the greatest profit margins can be realized. Perhaps the real issue should be are the positive outcomes, as there will undeniably be many, worth the questionable outcomes that are surely to also result?
November 5th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
[quote comment="32132"][quote comment="32107"]I understand where you’re coming from, but my perspective is that of a big sister to an 11 yr old boy who had been diagnosed with juvenile diabetes at 6. However, I don’t believe that what researchers are doing at this time would cover such issues as vanity or be of use in eradicating less than desirable personality traits…on the brighter side of that we could see it possible that stem cell research leads to better management of mental disorders as well…point is: I’m pretty sure that they are strictly into conducting research of a medical and scientific nature. Believe it or not most of the medical research that is conducted is really of a benevolent nature.
[/quote]
I am in favor of gene therapy, having watched my grandfather suffer from Parkinson’s and the side effects of the chemicals used to treat it, seeing the tremor in my mother’s hands, and other traits progress in a similar way as her father’s before her, wondering how much longer if at all it will be until I get the same symptoms… This is not the argument here, I do think that if there’s a possible cure for diseases, we should pursue them with as much effort as possible, and certainly more than we put into much more trivial issues.
What concerns me is the motives behind research. Having friends that do research, both for industry, and in the university setting, it is marketability & profitability that makes the wheels go around, whether it’s NRC grants, private grants, or marketing valuable patents, the big push in research is driven by big bucks.
Last month Discover had an eye opening article about it discussing both validity & direction of research:
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/oct/sciences-worst-enemy-private-funding
With corporations holding the purse strings, and even going so far as to have research work withdrawn through political pressure, are we to believe research is truly benevolent at this time, and even if so, can we assure it will remain so in the future?
Trivial as it may seem philosophically when compared to disease & suffering, vanity is undeniably where some of the greatest profit margins can be realized. Perhaps the real issue should be are the positive outcomes, as there will undeniably be many, worth the questionable outcomes that are surely to also result?[/quote]
I really enjoyed your response:)
I really hope I didn’t come across as insensitive to you, and your concerns…I don’t mean to sound like we don’t all have someone we know who could benefit from the treatments related to stem cell research…and I hope I didn’t appear to assume that you would not want positive aspects and applications of this research to succeed…I come off abrasive sometimes:P
I do understand where you are going with your response…money definitely makes the world go around in research scenarios (hell, any scenario for that matter), but the main idea is to at least make the progress required to see public funding made available for researchers. I did read the article you linked, and I do see where you’re headed…of course, we have no way of knowing that all of the research that is being funded by these private corporations is of a strictly pure nature…I’m sure there is vested interest, and hidden motives et al., but the the whole point is to get the gov’t to back research so that we can avoid those corporations’ less than noble ideas…
To ultimately declare my view on your last line (and I may sound gullible…) I think we need to give this area of research time to grow, and produce findings. I think with any scientific research there could be the potential for questionable outcomes, but we cannot let our fear of that be a hindrance to all of the good that can be done in the meantime. :)
November 6th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
[quote comment="32166"] I really enjoyed your response:)
I really hope I didn’t come across as insensitive to you, and your concerns…I don’t mean to sound like we don’t all have someone we know who could benefit from the treatments related to stem cell research…and I hope I didn’t appear to assume that you would not want positive aspects and applications of this research to succeed…I come off abrasive sometimes:P [/quote]
That’s no problem, I understand, and I kinda felt that I might have come off as a too abrasive and insensitive in my original posting, so that’s why I wanted to clarify.
[quote comment="32166"]To ultimately declare my view on your last line (and I may sound gullible…) I think we need to give this area of research time to grow, and produce findings. I think with any scientific research there could be the potential for questionable outcomes, but we cannot let our fear of that be a hindrance to all of the good that can be done in the meantime. :)[/quote]
I think ultimately, that’s what the point of my argument is, is at what cost can we justify progress, which is a rational conversation. After only 3 postings I was finally able to crystalize my point… not bad. Unfortunately that discussion will always be problematic when it encounters the emotion of relevance to loved ones or one’s self, or equally, defence of one’s beliefs.
The motivation for my comment on the other hand… I was getting the feeling that a lot of comments were accepting the video without due thought, in forming an opinion on a very complex issue. If we accept the argument provided without considering a variety of facets of the issue, are we not just as much followers as those we take an opposing viewpoint to?
Why I appreciate Matt’s site, and continue to come back is not that it presents ideas I can subscribe to (which it often does), but the thought, and sometimes discussions it provokes within the blog, and within myself.
November 6th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
for sure…it’s great to enjoy debate, and question things you must.