Stem Cells An Unlikely Therapy for Alzheimer's Reagan-Inspired Zeal For Study Continues

Ronald Reagan's death from Alzheimer's disease Saturday has triggered an outpouring of support for human embryonic stem cell research. Building on comments made by Nancy Reagan last month, scores of senators on Monday called upon President Bush to loosen his restrictions on the controversial research, which requires the destruction of human embryos. Patient groups have also chimed in, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) on Tuesday added his support for a policy review.

It is the kind of advocacy that researchers have craved for years, and none wants to slow its momentum.

But the infrequently voiced reality, stem cell experts confess, is that, of all the diseases that may someday be cured by embryonic stem cell treatments, Alzheimer's is among the least likely to benefit.

"I think the chance of doing repairs to Alzheimer's brains by putting in stem cells is small," said stem cell researcher Michael Shelanski, co-director of the Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer's Disease and the Aging Brain at the Columbia University Medical Center in New York, echoing many other experts. "I personally think we're going to get other therapies for Alzheimer's a lot sooner."

The research in embryonic stem cells is all about cloning, and cloning is all about designer babies and living forever. But, the object of the whole thing is "production." Turning people into interchangeable units, made up of smaller interchangeable units available to those who have the power to take.
It's all about power, over ourselves and others, and - like the images of God that we are - to re-create ourselves and our children and our world.

The horrible thing is that, since we are not God, since we are fallible (and, some of us believe, fallen, as shown by the fact that there are always flaws and even booby traps in everything in the world and in everything we do), the way the re-creation is proposed is by turning those units into less than human. They are less than human if they can be killed at the whim of other humans for their usefulness as parts.

If the parts are interchangeable units and we are not inseparable beings, if we are not to be valued as whole, then we are no better than machines.

The whole is better than parts.

(Okay, I'm watching "I, Robot" on TV. It's a shame Dr. Assimov didn't really "get it.")

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.