Whining Scientists Always Get Their Way in Brave New Britain
I posted yesterday about how "the scientists" in the UK are whining because their human/cow embryo cloning scheme has not been funded by the government. I said that once their whining hit the papers, things would change quickly, because in the UK--what the scientists want, the scientists get. That process of, ironically, imposing politics onto science funding is now well under way. From the story:
The two research councils that have turned down requests to fund stem-cell studies using human-animal "hybrid" embryos are to be questioned by MPs on both sides of the House of Commons to explain why they have refused to issue the grants.Good grief! Mengele's infamous twin experiments could be justified on "the science grounds alone." They were moral atrocities. That means ethics, which means very little in this utilitarian age that will countenance anything but policy based on moral judgments about the intrinsic importance of human life.
As revealed by The Independent yesterday, the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) have declined to fund two separate teams of scientists who have been given licences by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to carry out the work. Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on science, said that he had written to the research councils to make sure that the funding decisions were made on scientific grounds alone, rather than being influenced by the personal moral position of anyone sitting on the expert funding panels.
Meanwhile, the BBC points out that just human/animal hybrid cloning is legal, doesn't mean it will be funded. (We'll see about that!) Moreover, it seems that the great IPSC breakthrough may be inhibiting coughing up the pounds to pay for nascent Isle of Dr. Moreau experiments, which could make the funding dearth a "science" rather than a moral decision after all. From the story:
Science has also continued to move on since last year's heated debate. Induced pluripotent stem cells (IPS) are adult stem cells which are made to act like embryonic ones with the ability to become any cell in the human body.Meanwhile the NHS is in full meltdown as "the scientists" huff and puff about wanting to clone. Prioritize Gentlemen and women. Prioritize.
They too have the potential to be used to treat a range of degenerative conditions and also circumvent the need to use human eggs or destroy embryos - although scientists involved admit therapies could still be many years away.
"There has been a lot of movement on this front and this probably has caused the scientific community to reflect a bit - technologies move on very rapidly," says Chris Mason, professor of Regenerative Medicine Bioprocessing at University College London and a member of the UK National Stem Cell Network. "But none of this is mutually exclusive and there is still definitely a role for hybrid research. I simply do not believe that moral reservations are at play - the right proposal will always find the money."
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:53 PM
5 Comments
5 Comments:
Animal experimentation that is moral atrocity often is held to be justified "on the science grounds alone" as well.
It seems to me that things have reached such a pass that nothing less than something radical is necessary to turn things around. I believe that everything generates energy of one kind or another, and that it would be effective to end animal experimentation, and thus change the energy in the scientific/medical sphere (of course there would be consternation and disruption; tough) by eliminating that generated by the suffering it causes in sentient beings. The equation in that sphere is a sick one at this point; we can all agree on that, regardless of views on animal experimentation; take out a major component and it would necessarily change; that component involving suffering and injustice, the rest of the equation would be comprised of, and generate, less suffering and injustice.
It's an insult to the animals, and to ethics, to refer to doing that as a mere experiment, something to do to see if it works, what happens, etc.; I am quite sure it would work; but regardless, we can't afford not to try it. The question is how to make it happen; there has to be a huge outcry on behalf of humanity. It can be done if people muster the strength to do it.
And -- if all those who are on the side of the animals, who buy "cruelty-free" products, won't eat veal, are vegetarian for ethical/humane reasons, oppose animal experimentation, etc. joined with all those fighting the death culture -- and SHS would have to convince me that the animalitarians are utilitarian, pull-the-plug, "living will," disregard-the-disabled types -- I think that that is the opposite of the case -- a lot of people could muster a lot of strength and make a lot of noise, strength which has to be mustered and shown, and noise which has to be made, to prevent the darkness overtaking everybody.
I know that I formed my views on life issues and on animal rights at the same time, and for the same reasons, and that they are not inconsistent. Animal rights people have disavowed Singer. I think it would be possible for SHS to remain opposed to the version of the animal rights movement it identifies with radical environmentalism but not focus on the danger of animal righs, which is something that drives people who otherwise would feel more welcome away from the life movement; their voices, which often agree on the issues important to SHS, would then join in SHS's message and help make more noise.
People read SHS's books, and come to SHS from all over the world, and more and more, but what have become prevalent mores (or rather lack thereof) and perceptions are on the other side, fed by the media and utilitarian "political science," and more people seem to be unaware of what is going on than to be aware of it. It would be nice if money could be raised to get the message out in the broader media, which, now on the ropes financially, might be willing to run ads at least once in a while even for that which the death culture regards as anathema. People have to have the danger put before their eyes, into their ears, and woken up, and that takes money, of which life advocates have only so much. Include those who would be on the same side if they felt welcome, and it would help quite a bit. If Obama could get grass-roots support and donations via the internet, it must be possible for a movement like this to do it somehow, with some thought and organization. Not that there seem to be as many people to do it as there were idiots to do it for Obama, but why not use the tactics that worked for him to stop the death agenda he's just proven he supports? That would be elegant. How can there be more in the animal rights movement than in the life movement? Just because the animal rights movement is fragmented, why does the life movement need to be? These are just some thoughts, but I'm quite sure I'm on to something, and again, things haven't gone well WITH animal experimentation; time to see what happens WITHOUT it. Otherwise things are going to keep going in a circle spiralling downwards.
Lanthe -
As the mother of two cats, you often pull my heartstrings because I find myself agreeing with a lot of what you say. At the same time, I acknowledge that I've got a bloody streak in me, as do my twin girls, and that while I try to rescue lizards and small garden snakes from them, sometimes I get a thrill watching the girls in action. (They're indoor babies, by the way, but we have some fast lizards and snakes around here).
Anyway, thanks for writing and you're right - people *need* to get the word out and work against cow/human hybrids, inhumane animal experimentation (though I do still take issue with you on whether there *is* such a thing as humane experimentation - I believe there is, you disagree), and disregard for human life in general. We shouldn't look to any kind of political leader to guide the way - they're all of them going to hedge, because whatever their beliefs, they want to get re-elected. The paychecks and perks are too good to give up.
T.E.: The scary thing is that the scientists have become political leaders.
T.E.: The paychecks and perks are too cushy for the scientists to give up, either.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home