March 13, 2008
One of the enduring myths of the climate change deniers is that there was a consensus in the 1970s (when climate science and computer modeling were both in relative infancy) that there was a danger of global cooling, which claim then invariably leads to “why should we believe them now when they’re claiming that we’ve got global warming?”
As with many myths (see “nicotine’s not addictive” by the tobacco industry in the 1980s), this one doesn’t hold up under closer scrutiny:
December 11, 2007
November 27, 2007
See this article
September 20, 2006
from a blog discussion:
“Also, it seems to me, that there is a great ethical difference between life lost trying to produce life and life intentionally destroyed by experimentation. IMO, there are pragmatic reasons for favoring embryonic stem cell research, but there are ethical questions.”
I think we’ll all agree that there are ethical questions, but let’s not let people distort it into “they’re chopping up fetuses,” as some seem prone to to do.
What’s under discussion is an undifferentiated clump of cells that never will be implanted in a womb and which never will develop further than an undifferentiated clump of cells. The proposed law does not allow any to be created by fertilizing an ovum with a sperm — it allows only for the use of either a freely donated discarded blastocyst from a fertility clinic, or for cells produced by the combination of a freely donated ovum and DNA from a patient. Compensation for donation is prohibited under the law.
Furthermore, any research performed on these clumps of cells must be done within 14 days of creation, before they differentiate into specialized cells and start any development into anything more advanced than a clump of undifferentiated cells.
Stem cells produced from this research have the potential to cure a number of ailments, including but not limited to, Parkinson’s, spinal cord injuries, and deafness. (how much better than a hearing aid would it be to actually regrow the damaged nerve cells?)
I’m of the camp that believes that using material that is going to be discarded anyhow (discarded blastocysts from fertility labs) or donated ova and donated dna from patients, when used within the constraints of this proposed law, does not pose significant ethical barriers to research that poses such far-ranging potential to save existing lives and to ease the suffering of living, breathing humans. I admit that my position is colored by watching my grandfather slowly succumb to Lou Gehrig’s Disease, wasting away as his muscles betrayed him. The fact that we have hope for a cure for diseases like this inspires me to fight for this research.
I’m not opposed to the notion that there are definite ethical issues at stake here — but I am opposed to the distortion that some opponents are engaging in, conflating it with abortion, fetal harvesting, and cloning babies, when none of those are even close to the reality of what’s being considered, under the plain language of the law.
for more on the law under consideration in Missouri, go to http://www.missouricures.com/what_it_says.php
September 15, 2006
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/07/eveningnews/main1872163.shtml
Stem Cells May Be Key To Deafness Cure
PALO ALTO, Calif., Aug. 7, 2006
Heller and his entire team were recruited away from Harvard, and they’ve made a breakthrough discovery: They’ve found that stem cells have the capacity to regenerate in the inner ear.
The stem cells are especially good at growing into the microscopic hair cells that make hearing possible.
“It’s like a little microphone in your ear,” Heller says of the hair cells, “and when the microphones go bad, then you don’t hear anymore. We can grow these tiny microphones from these stem cells.”
Heller and his colleagues have figured out how to inject stem cells into the ears of mouse embryos and watch them grow. Their next step is to try it in live mice.
“I hope that in five years, we are at a point that we can say that it is possible to cure deafness, at least in an animal,” Heller says. “That will be the first step toward treating human patients.”
There are an estimated 28 million Americans who are deaf or hard of hearing. Many of them get by with hearing aids and surgically implanted cochlear implants. But Heller and his team believe that stem cells have the potential to eliminate even the best technology we have.
“So what you’re saying is if we can restore something to its natural state, why not?” asks Kaledin.
“Why not,” responds Heller. “Exactly.”
