The Integrity of James Thomson
James Thomson, who first derived human embryonic stem cells, is a man of integrity. I disagree with him on the ethics of the issue, but he always tells it like it is. For example, where some cloning advocates claim that a cloned human embryo is not really an embryo--a major argument of the pro Amendment 2 crowd--Thomson said otherwise in a 2005 MSNBC interview: "See, you're trying to define it away, and it doesn't work. If you create an embryo by nuclear transfer, and you give it to somebody who didn't know where it came from, there would be no test you could do on that embryo to say where it came from. It is what it is.
It's true that they have a much lower probability of giving rise to a child. But by any reasonable definition, at least at some frequency, you're creating an embryo. If you try to define it away, you're being disingenuous."
Indeed. And now he is clear that ESCR will likely be a long time coming up with "cures. From the AP story: "University of Wisconsin scientist James Thomson said obstacles include learning how to grow the cells into all types of organs and tissue and then making sure cancer and other defects are not introduced during the transplantation. 'I don't want to sound too pessimistic because this is all doable, but it's going to be very hard,' Thomson told the Wisconsin Newspaper Association's annual convention at the Kalahari Resort in this Wisconsin Dells town. 'Ultimately, those transplantation therapies should work but it's likely to take a long time.'"
And during that long time, I believe that adult/umbilical cord blood advances will transform medicine, making human cloning for therapies superfluous.
And here is an irony in the story. The reporter, Ryan J. Foley, writes:"One day, some believe the [embryonic stem] cells will become sources of brain tissue, muscle and bone marrow to replace diseased or injured body parts." But why do we need ES cells to get these kinds of cells when we have them either in our own bodies or adult stem cells are already producing them?
Labels: James Thomson. Stem Cells.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:18 AM
7 Comments
7 Comments:
Either people want to step up "theraputic" cloning because they want harvestable farms for organs, or they're trying to push hard enough that eventually cloning for reproductive reasons will be legalized. That's about all I can figure - I mean, what other reason would there be a stigma on adult stem cell research as opposed to ESCR? If someone can give me a more logical reason, then I'll withdraw my statement.
All of the above, Tabs. Plus, cloning is essential to learning how to genetically engineer our progeny.
So, we should be putting that out on the table then, right? Shouldn't we be pushing for a federal law to stop genetic engineering of progeny? Currently, they don't claim to be advocating that, they say they're only looking for cures etc. So, just like they felt they needed to put an egg and sperm anti-cloning clause in A2, we ought to be able to wrangle an egg and sperm law out of this Congress, especially if it is exchange for something, like federal recognition of civil unions. How could they argue, at this point, and wouldn't it be good to take away that purpose for ESC research as soon as possible?
I would love to see a ban on human enhancements and certainly non therapeutic genetic engineering. Good luck with that. The anything goes crowd and the Establishment that has $ signs in their eyes will not go for it.
What are you saying Wesley? GE'd people are inevitable? We won't be able to enact a simple man-woman natural conception law?
Election results suggest that people will go for it, Wesley! The egg and sperm part of A2 was supported by everyone. Did you see anyone saying that went too far? And marriage amendments win in every state they are on the ballot, except the Arizona one that went beyond defining marriage into prohibiting any legal status for unmarried couples. Why would anyone who voted for male-female marriage support same-sex couples having a right to have children? And wouldn't they all support every marriage having conception rights? We can harness those voters to enact an egg and sperm law that prohibits unnatural conception. It is our best shot at countering the anything goes crowd and the e$tablishment.
No. I am saying that at the current time, it won't pass. I am also saying that it is unlikley to be an issue that moves most voters. Hell, we can't even get a simple cloning ban, John.
This isn't to say we shouldn't try. It is to call it as I see it.
Isn't the reason we can't get a cloning ban because of the ESCR opposition? The anti-cloning legislators won't settle for a law unless it also bans ESCR, right? But in Missouri, they prohibited genetically engineering our progeny, or at least, they demonstrated that voter want to do that.
Tabs, cloning for reproductive purposes is currently legal, isn't it? It doesn't have to be "legalized," I don't think.
And I recognize that cloning is not an issue that moves voters, that is why I am suggesting tieing it to an issue that does move voters, marriage. Those voters would support an egg and sperm law if they saw it as a way to preserve marriage. And the candidates are all looking for a way to differentiate marriage from civil unions, so we (bioethicists) could suggest the right to conceive together, ie a ban on genetic engineering, aka, a natural conception law, be the difference. Piggyback on that issue to get the egg and sperm law passed.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home