Robert Meyer
Whose afraid of the big bad adult stem cells?
By Robert Meyer
In my hometown newspaper, our perpetually disgruntled resident atheist proved with his most recent call-in editorial piece, that his perspective on Christianity in general, and stem cell research in particular, is at least as narrow as the purported position he condemns.
Again, as often is the case, this individual, as well as most others of his ilk, would have us believe this issue is a battle between reactionary Luddites and progressive "angels of science." Unfortunately, this is the way the stem cell debate is often depicted. Reason, progress and pragmatism versus superstition, fundamentalism and dogmatism.
And yet we see embryonic stem cell advocates push forward with all the wild-eyed enthusiasm of the gold rush 49'ers of old crying; "there's gold in them ther' hills." We are left with the bitter taste in our mouths that if it weren't for obstructionists like Bush and his minions, folks like Christopher Reeve would be dancing before the next full moon. Such euphoria is completely misleading, and I suspect is just another tacit attack on faith-a la religious faith hinders progress toward a humanist utopia of utilitarian ethics.
Interestingly enough, we never hear any discussion about adult stem cell research-no pros and cons, no explanation, no mention, no nothing. People who survey history, often remind us that when the Nazi's burned books in massive bonfires, you knew by default what idea was being shunned. Simply ignoring the issue completely, is the sort of treatment that is far more effective at keeping the masses in the dark. I find it unsettling that a whole vista of approach to the issue, which is virtually uncontroversial, is completely suppressed from public discussion. And this is important because people of faith generally have no problem with this approach to stem cell research-you just never hear much about it. Adult stem cells are harvested from various body tissues and even umbilical cords.
In a past issue of 21st Century Technology and Science Magazine, Wolfgang Lillge, M.D. offers an explanation of this issue. With this extended quote from his article The Case for Stem Cell Research, it is clear that he confirms my suspicions.
"It is remarkable that in the debate — often carried on with little competence — the potential of embryonic stem cells is exaggerated in a one-sided way, while important moral questions and issues of research strategy are passed over in silence. Generally, advocates of research with embryonic stem cells use as their main argument that such research will enable us to cure all of the diseases that are incurable today — cancer, AIDS, Alzheimers, multiple sclerosis, and so forth. Faced with such a prospect, it is supposed to be "acceptable" to "overlook" a few moral problems.
On closer inspection, however, the much extolled vision of the future turns out to be a case of completely empty promises: Given the elementary state of research today, it is by no means yet foreseeable, whether even one of the hoped-for treatments can be realized. Basically, such promised cures are a deliberate deception, for behind the mirage of a coming medical wonderland, promoted by interested parties, completely other research objectives will be pursued that are to be kept out of public discussion as much as possible.
Perfect candor should rule in stem cell research. This requires that the scientist himself clearly establish the moral limits of his activity and declare what the consequences of research with embryonic stem cells really are."
And what about the possible drawbacks to using embryonic cells, such as the tumors and mutations? We never hear about the downside.
I have to wonder how long it will be before the cynics of skeptical enlightenment will inform us ignorant yokels, that this whole adult stem cell "cult" is just another manifestation of pseudo-science. It's just a ruse by the same quacks who believe in creation science. And one can only suppose that this perpetual syndrome of ignoring an entire approach to the stem cell controversy, is based on the fact that it is so heavily supported by Christians. That is the "fear factor" in this equation.
Let's also remember that the Bush administration never "banned" embryonic stem cell research, but limited government funding to developing preexisting embryonic lines. Neither did any other president fund such research, so the argument that Bush is reactionary is bogus. The limitations never stopped the funding or activities of private organizations either. In fact, many readers out there in editorial land, will give this rationale as one of numerous reasons for believing president Bush is a phony conservative. But of course for liberals, it is not nearly enough.
What the person of faith brings to the argument, is the "ought" factor, which is so obviously missing from this blind pursuit of the golden goose on the slippery slope. We are asking not what can be done, but what ought to be done. Bioethical principle must reign over biotechnological license. None of us are God.
© Robert Meyer
In my hometown newspaper, our perpetually disgruntled resident atheist proved with his most recent call-in editorial piece, that his perspective on Christianity in general, and stem cell research in particular, is at least as narrow as the purported position he condemns.
Again, as often is the case, this individual, as well as most others of his ilk, would have us believe this issue is a battle between reactionary Luddites and progressive "angels of science." Unfortunately, this is the way the stem cell debate is often depicted. Reason, progress and pragmatism versus superstition, fundamentalism and dogmatism.
And yet we see embryonic stem cell advocates push forward with all the wild-eyed enthusiasm of the gold rush 49'ers of old crying; "there's gold in them ther' hills." We are left with the bitter taste in our mouths that if it weren't for obstructionists like Bush and his minions, folks like Christopher Reeve would be dancing before the next full moon. Such euphoria is completely misleading, and I suspect is just another tacit attack on faith-a la religious faith hinders progress toward a humanist utopia of utilitarian ethics.
Interestingly enough, we never hear any discussion about adult stem cell research-no pros and cons, no explanation, no mention, no nothing. People who survey history, often remind us that when the Nazi's burned books in massive bonfires, you knew by default what idea was being shunned. Simply ignoring the issue completely, is the sort of treatment that is far more effective at keeping the masses in the dark. I find it unsettling that a whole vista of approach to the issue, which is virtually uncontroversial, is completely suppressed from public discussion. And this is important because people of faith generally have no problem with this approach to stem cell research-you just never hear much about it. Adult stem cells are harvested from various body tissues and even umbilical cords.
In a past issue of 21st Century Technology and Science Magazine, Wolfgang Lillge, M.D. offers an explanation of this issue. With this extended quote from his article The Case for Stem Cell Research, it is clear that he confirms my suspicions.
"It is remarkable that in the debate — often carried on with little competence — the potential of embryonic stem cells is exaggerated in a one-sided way, while important moral questions and issues of research strategy are passed over in silence. Generally, advocates of research with embryonic stem cells use as their main argument that such research will enable us to cure all of the diseases that are incurable today — cancer, AIDS, Alzheimers, multiple sclerosis, and so forth. Faced with such a prospect, it is supposed to be "acceptable" to "overlook" a few moral problems.
On closer inspection, however, the much extolled vision of the future turns out to be a case of completely empty promises: Given the elementary state of research today, it is by no means yet foreseeable, whether even one of the hoped-for treatments can be realized. Basically, such promised cures are a deliberate deception, for behind the mirage of a coming medical wonderland, promoted by interested parties, completely other research objectives will be pursued that are to be kept out of public discussion as much as possible.
Perfect candor should rule in stem cell research. This requires that the scientist himself clearly establish the moral limits of his activity and declare what the consequences of research with embryonic stem cells really are."
And what about the possible drawbacks to using embryonic cells, such as the tumors and mutations? We never hear about the downside.
I have to wonder how long it will be before the cynics of skeptical enlightenment will inform us ignorant yokels, that this whole adult stem cell "cult" is just another manifestation of pseudo-science. It's just a ruse by the same quacks who believe in creation science. And one can only suppose that this perpetual syndrome of ignoring an entire approach to the stem cell controversy, is based on the fact that it is so heavily supported by Christians. That is the "fear factor" in this equation.
Let's also remember that the Bush administration never "banned" embryonic stem cell research, but limited government funding to developing preexisting embryonic lines. Neither did any other president fund such research, so the argument that Bush is reactionary is bogus. The limitations never stopped the funding or activities of private organizations either. In fact, many readers out there in editorial land, will give this rationale as one of numerous reasons for believing president Bush is a phony conservative. But of course for liberals, it is not nearly enough.
What the person of faith brings to the argument, is the "ought" factor, which is so obviously missing from this blind pursuit of the golden goose on the slippery slope. We are asking not what can be done, but what ought to be done. Bioethical principle must reign over biotechnological license. None of us are God.
© Robert Meyer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
