OK one of the issues on voting day that I have to come to some sort of a Yea/Nay on and which I find I can't make up my mind is California Proposition 71 Stem Cell Research.
I won't pretend to be a doctor here. I don't even play one on TV. But, at least for me, I don't see why anyone would be against furthering stem-cell research. Maybe it holds some real answers and cures. Maybe it's junk science. But until a lot more work is done in the field, who knows? I'm sure Pasteur, Lister, Salk, etc. didn't know what to expect at the beginning of their discoveries, but we've all surely benefitted from what they found out.
I'd vote "yes", David. Not telling you how to vote, really, just giving you some rationale behind my thoughts on it.
The most contraversial part is the source of the most promising stem cells - human embryos. The fact, however, is that these embryos are being created and discarded by fertility clinics already. Wouldn't it be good to put them to some use.
The cons -
The destruction of an embryo (which was to be destroyed anyway) is involved in the creation of an embryonic stem cell line. Although this proposition is not limitted to embryonic stem cells, I predict that it will be used mostly for them because federal funding for non-embryonic stem cells is easier to get.
The money has to come from somewhere. I didn't see whether it said the $295 million would be through rebablancing other government income and expenditures or specifically from other medical research.
complex-(not sure what to call these) -
other sources of stem cells (bone marrow, umbilical cords) show some promise (but not as much). This initiative specifically includes those other types of stem cells as well.
Some of the claims made by supporters (but rarely by the scientists themselves) are jumping ahead of the science. The scientists are generally uncomfortable with this.
The pros -
Although they will likely fall short of some of the more optomistic predictions, stem cells offer a new way to treat a different sort of disease - potentially with the impact that vaccines have had on viral diseases and antibiotics have had on bacterial diseases.
Embryonic stem cells research would benefit greatly form state level funding because federal-level funding is restricted.
Check the Scientific Resources forum for a recent post (by me) that deals with some of the more recent promising research in stem cells, both embryonic and otherwise.
Oh, and my opinion - The only thing stopping me from gving a wholehearted yes is the question of where the money comes from. I would probably vote yes, but I'd have to take a look at that, partly because I know your state already has budget problems and partly because I know how government agencies tend to get caught up in funding the latest scientific fad at the expense of just as important work.
quote:Originally posted by DvdGStwrt: OK one of the issues on voting day that I have to come to some sort of a Yea/Nay on and which I find I can't make up my mind is California Proposition 71 Stem Cell Research.
So I want you all to help me to pick my side by presenting me with arguments for and against this proposition.
I am dead serious here - I am seriously uncertain how to vote on this one and I am seriously looking for opinions to help me make up my mind.
David
Anti: Where's the money going to come from? The state is broke, and in hock up to it's ears.
Pro: California already holds a leadership position in the field of medical technology, with extensive establishments in the pharmaceutical and recombinant DNA fields. Stem cell research appears to be another very promising field, and it would be beneficial to the state as a whole to be at the forefront of this field, which the federal government has opted to leave to other nations.
I haven't yet decided how I'll vote on it. I'm uninterested in the ethical aspects, abortion has been legal here with only the most trivial restrictions ever since I can remember, and carries no moral stigma among locals, so there is no ethical downside in my view.
Alan Moore
Posts: 2012 | Location: USA | Registered: 10-05-03
So I don't have to fear the dark side of this research, such as cloning and human engineering for military applications?
I honestly can't find anything on the "other" potentials of this type of research. Lots of folk are focused on where the stem cells come from, many proclaim the wonders that will come of it, but I find nothing on the potentials of misuse.
That disturbs me. The "cons" surround the "where the cells comes from" but does not even attempt to explain what potential harms may come out of intentional misuse.
Take Small Pox. Mankind wiped it out of the human population, but now it hangs over our head as a potential weapon. The Same science that cured the world is now the same science that may unleash that horror upon an unsuspecting population again.
Words like "human cloning" fall nicely in there, painted to be a wonderful thing - which it is - much like nuclear power is a wonderful thing but we all know that the same science applied to power homes with nuclear energy is the same science which gave us the Bomb, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, Depleted Uranium, the threat of nuclear annihilation. All very real developments from a potentially wonderful thing.
Mankind advances at a staggering speed technologically speaking. We have done much, developed many "toys" but time and time we never stop to ask "Should we go there" Its always a matter of "can we do it?"
Our world our societies are still at each other's throats. We can not deny that our sciences are put in the hands of militaries, everything we have managed to discover and develop has its darker side which has been at least researched and the potential for war making explored if not developed.
So I wonder if Stem Cell research will be another D'Jinn to release which can never be put back once it has been.
David
Posts: 4000 | Location: Leaving land, heading for the ocean | Registered: 06-03-02
quote:Originally posted by DvdGStwrt: So I don't have to fear the dark side of this research, such as cloning and human engineering for military applications?
I honestly can't find anything on the "other" potentials of this type of research. Lots of folk are focused on where the stem cells come from, many proclaim the wonders that will come of it, but I find nothing on the potentials of misuse.
That disturbs me. The "cons" surround the "where the cells comes from" but does not even attempt to explain what potential harms may come out of intentional misuse.
- snip -
So I wonder if Stem Cell research will be another D'Jinn to release which can never be put back once it has been.
David
I'm a scientist. It's my business to find out how the world works, and to help the engineers do something useful with the knowledge. Who decides what's useful is the business of someone else. I'm busy finding out how the world works. Making you love your fellow man is not part of my job, and is not a job I would willingly undertake.
That said, I will go on and say that while knowledge is dangerous, ignorance is much, much worse. I know, I've tried both.
Alan Moore
Posts: 2012 | Location: USA | Registered: 10-05-03
Yes, there's always the possibility of unforseen conseqyences. While antibiotics have made some diseases that were once death sentences curable, they have also made bacteria tougher.
I do think we need to be on the lookout for the downside, but I believe the potential benefits outweight the chance of a negative.
But, at least for me, I don't see why anyone would be against furthering stem-cell research. Maybe it holds some real answers and cures. Maybe it's junk science. But until a lot more work is done in the field, who knows? I'm sure Pasteur, Lister, Salk, etc. didn't know what to expect at the beginning of their discoveries, but we've all surely benefitted from what they found out.
