Posted on 06/24/2004 6:13:22 AM PDT by nina0113
We are talking about SCIENCE here, not speculation. One does not base public policy on speculation, which is what the ESC proponents are asking for. The MORAL agrument against ESC is un-questioned, but by NOT pointing out the fact that ESC has thus far FAILED all SCIENTIFIC tests to date, we are leaving the field open to the proponents to make speculation-based arguments. Propaganda HAS to be answered, or "preception becomes reality".
OTOH, the article also notes that there are non-government-funded ESC efforts also underway, both here and abroad, which tells me that there's more to this than a bit of fraud. Kellmeyer's opinion about motivations is probably wrong The researchers involved are probably not "frauds," in the sense that they're sucking at the government teat for something they know to be unworkable. More likely, their motivation is to have steady money available for something they think they can make work.
In fact, the more I re-read Kellmeyer's article, the less I like it. He appears to be untruthful in some very important areas -- falsely accusing researchers (most of whom are earnest, even if morally on the wrong side); and undoubtedly misrepresenting the scientific case as well. Such slimy antics have the unfortunate side effect of making the underlying (and correct) point seem slimy as well.
bookmark bump
You are right.
But OTOH, one reaches reflexively for the pragmatic argument against ESC to counter the hype.
The pro-abortion media, in cahoots with the amoral 'research' industry, are successfully misleading the public into believing that enormous therapeutic successes using ESC are 'just around the corner' -- if only that mean evil Bush would lift his narrow-minded restrictions.
Some of us believe the public needs that facts on ESC -- namely that not only have implantations to date had disastrous and irreversible results, but that contrary to the loud claims being made, ESC will probably never hold promise for curing or ameliorating Alaheimer's, Parkinson's, etc.
That makes sense. I don't know enough about the science to make a judgement. But I don't have much sympathy for these scientists since they're either unethical or self-deluded.
Don't you think this devastating statement by a "stem cell researcher," quoted by Kellmeyer, does more than merely hint at "fraud" ?
“People need a fairy tale,” said Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, “Maybe that’s unfair, but they need a story line that’s relatively simple to understand.”
I hardly think that researcher is "earnest." If you have quotes from other ESC researchers that shows their "earnestness," I'd like to see them.
As to whether Kellmeyer is "undoubtedly misrepresenting the scientific case," please provide your evidence for that.
I suggest you first read the links in post #25, the second of which is a recent article published in the Washington Post -- a publication certainly not "biased" to the right.
Not true. Public policy -- at least in the funding of scientific research -- is based entirely on (informed) speculation. Informed speculation says "this might work, if you gave us time and money to work on it." We generally frown on the use of government money to tell us things we already knew.
In the case of ESCs, there's a faid chance that sufficient time and money would produce results (we already know that ESCs can create an entire human, after all). Certainly there are plenty of reputable scientists who've made a case for there being a reasonable chance of success.
The MORAL agrument against ESC is un-questioned, but by NOT pointing out the fact that ESC has thus far FAILED all SCIENTIFIC tests to date
First off, the MORAL argument against ESC is not un-questioned. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. The problem is that there are powerful interests who have rejected the moral argument entirely. If you look closely, you'll see that the MORAL argument is the only thing standing between ESC research and federal money, and that argument is beginning to crumble.
As for it having failed all scientific tests to date, I'd say that's a gross over-simplification. The scientists can no doubt point to a wide variety of basic advances necessary to achieve a workable ESC treatment. If they're getting "closer," then the "always fails" argument doesn't work.
Propaganda HAS to be answered, or "perception becomes reality".
You're right. And that counts for propaganda on our side, too. Kellmeyer's article looks like propaganda to me, and I think he's being dishonest. It does not help to mislead the people on your own side.
The false assertions that can be raised by the pro-dehumanization people must be dealt with in public forums. [The particular one raised here also applies to the abortion rhetoric, and the answer has weight based on the same lack of education of the people.] The assertion oft used that the embryo is an 'undifferentiated glob of cells' must be dealt with, to expose the false nature of the assertion (not that our FR friend meant to assert such). That's why I offer the manuscript linked in post #6 ... Americans will continue to talk past each other, unless the biological facts are understood. Citing one's faith in rejecting ESC research is admirable, but until those of faith can refute the false biological assertions, too many Americans will pass on the debate and the evil of cannibalizing fetal aged beings at their earliest manifestation will become an at first tacitly accepted methodology, then be embraced for the utilitarian applications ... and it does appear that cloning will be an integral part of future fetal stem cell applications. [I would really like it if we pro-life folks would use 'fetal stem cells' when referring to embryonic stem cell research, since it is precisely the stem cells tasked with builduing the fetal self that are the target of the research cannibals. BTW, I use the term 'cannibalism' because it is first, factual, and second, hopefully, behavior the American people will still reject, if we've not descended too far down the slippery funnel already!]
Kellmeyer misrepresents, and you seem to have missed, the proper context for the quote. McKay is not saying that the science itself is a "fairy tale." He thinks the science is valid and workable. What he's really saying is that the people with the money need something that will convince them to send money: the "fairy tale" in question is the description of some of the possible results of the research.
No, the fairy tale is the false assertion being hyped to the public that fetal stem cell research holds hope of curing Alzheimers disease. THAT fairy tale is purposeful manipulation and a likely lie, as the author of the piece rightly points out.
Thanks for the ping!
"In the case of ESCs, there's a faid chance that sufficient time and money would produce results (we already know that ESCs can create an entire human, after all)."
Thus far, the DATA says is does not, despite multiple trials and mega-dollars spent. This MUST be pointed out whenever they raise up the "it might cure XXXXX" issue.
"Kellmeyer's article looks like propaganda to me, and I think he's being dishonest. It does not help to mislead the people on your own side."
And I say again---SHOW ME WHERE HE HAS DONE SO. Everything in the article is correct and true to the best of my knowledge of the subject..
Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Men died in the developement of the technologies that allow us to leave the Earth and enter orbit in space as well. The difference was that these men knew that they could die from hanging onto the very edge of developing technology.
The difference is that unborn children can't make the personal decision to sacrifice themselves on the altar of medical technology. The difference is between a pile of broken lightbulbs and broken babies.
For you and me, that is indeed the difference. Problem is, the folks on the other side of the argument obviously think otherwise. That's one of the points I'm trying to make.
You're basically assuming that the other side shares your moral viewpoint on the matter, when in fact they do not. You've got to be clear on the grounds of the debate.
Finnly getting back to this - "the other side" are the people who believe morality is subjective, so there is no possibility of EVER winning a moral debate with them. Any time the final answer is "if it's wrong for you, don't do it, but I don't think it's wrong for me, so don't tell me not to do it" there's just nothing to debate, and the only arguments have to be pragmatic.
**
Excellent debate, thanks.
Just as there are a relatively few of us on this side of the debate, there are also relatively few who hold hard positions on the other side of the debate.
The only debate available is for the moral attention of those who do not have a strong position for or against the use of ESCs (they haven't really done much thinking about it), but who are strongly attracted by the pragmatic applications of the research.
In that sense, this issue is no different from the abortion debate. When asked to decide whether specific abortion procedures should be allowed, most people say "no." It's only when they are asked to decide on an undefined "right to choose" that a majority of people think abortion is OK.
What that tells me is that people are capable of doing the moral calculus if forced to do so, but aren't really willing to do it on their own. What has to change -- in the case of abortion, and in the case of ESC research -- is the tendency for people to avoid the moral questions.
When you reduce it to a matter of pragmatic "it will work" or "it won't work" arguments, our position collapses. All they have to do is wave the "life-saving treatment" flag, and we're left trying to say "but it won't work." We always lose those arguments.
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.