Embryonic Stem Cells
First Things Maureen L. Condic, January 2007
Back at the beginning of 2002, there was considerable optimism regarding the promise that embryonic stem cells were said to hold for millions of people suffering from fatal or debilitating medical conditions. Stem cells derived from human embryos, it was claimed, provided the best hope for relief of human suffering. Despite the profound ethical concerns regarding the use of human embryos for medical and scientific research, many Americans embraced this promise and the seemingly miraculous hope it offered.
The challenges facing embryonic stem cells were formidable. First, there was the concern that the cells and their derived tissue would be rejected by the patient’s immune system, requiring the patient to undergo lifelong immune suppression. The three proposed solutions to this incompatibility problem (generating large banks of stem cell lines, cloning human embryos to provide a source of cells that perfectly match the patient, or genetically engineering stem cells to reduce immune rejection) were either socially, scientifically, or morally problematic (or all three). Second, there was the serious problem that embryonic stem cells form tumors when transplanted to adult tissues, and the tumorogenic capability of these cells is difficult, if not impossible, to control. Finally, there was the disturbing fact that science had thus far provided essentially no convincing evidence that embryonic stem cells could be reliably differentiated into normal adult cell types, as well as the disturbing possibility that overcoming this barrier would prove a difficult scientific endeavor.
?
The above is the last paragraph of the article. It sums up nicely the arrogance and incompetence of the scientifc establishment to address serious issues and be trusted. Unfortunately, such wholesale abbrogation of ethics and responsibility hinders any genuine answers to important questions as we are all thrown back upon our own limited resoursces of knowledge. I have come to the conclusion that if any part of the recognized scientific establishment champions a cause or procedure, that cause or that procedure is exactly the wrong thing to do. That does not mean that I know what the right thing to do is, merely that I can eliminate at least one wrong course of action most of the time.