hmm just curious on this topic as i was reading it up on it. And i’m not sure where i stand, i mean i kinda think it’s wrong as you’re in a sense killing a “potential” person but then again it helps to save others. And many people may take the utilitarian view but what could happen when people start going into clonning? I mean is that morally justified? i’m not sure about this… what do you guys think?
The idea that we might be able to clone from the nucleus of a human cell will completely shake the current ethical thinking with regards to potentiality.
When they succeed in doing this, which in principle is almost inevitable, you’ll be ‘killing a potential person’ every time you sneeze.
Hear hear! Potentiality does not equal actuality. Are abortions wrong? What about in vitro fertilization? If stem cells are murder, then in vitro is a holocaust.
They are going to throw away the embryo, and so much good can come of it. Heck, if they want to grow cells for it, that’s OK by me.
But then again . . . I’m biased. They’re my job . . .
I suppose it depends how quickly Woo Suk can get his act together…
This is a particularily interesting subject for me. You see, I am a Christian, which places me at the forefront of conflict on this issue.
The Bible obviously does not speak on this issue. So, I am left to deduce with what I know of what the Bible says on other issues, in combination with my intellect.
I am honestly not sure what I think of this issue yet. If stem cell research ultimately led man towards the practice of eugenics, I’d be strongly against it. You cannot condition a human-being as you can a lower species. Man is unique in the sense that he posseses the ability to reason.
On the otherhand, I could easily see stem cell research curing cancers and currently un-curable diseases in the world today. If this was as far as stell cel research ever went, I’d be just fine with it.
But it seems rather unlikely that stem cell research would stop there. It could continue to create unspeakable evils.
So, my point: can one really even take a true position either way on this issue? Perhaps this question is something to addressed as soon as humanity is already underway with such research (at least more than they are now)…
…just my humble opinions anyways… 
Slippery slop argument? Not strong enough. Eugenics? Where?
The molecular genetic movement and gene therapy can lead to eugenics, but stem cells are much less likely to. Indeed, stem cells might be able to cut off the eugenics movement by curing the very diseases that eugenicists seek to eliminate by slightly more . . . direct means.
Therapies from stem cells promise so much, and there is much less danger than you think.
hmm well thnx guys, i agree with BMW guy though, as it could help cure all these “horrible” diseases, but i wonder, as it has been shown many times in the past, couldn’t the “cure” of these diseases cause even more dangerous and harder problems. I mean everytime we answer a question, we have a harder question that we find. I’m not sayign that we should stop advancing in technology or anything, but are these great “cures” as good as they seem? or are they relatively small compared to the new breed of evil that it brings? Could this solution be worse then the problem?
heh, sorry if I was sounding like a dooms-day prophet for a minute there. I guess I got carried away.
This almost reminds me of H.G. Wells book entitled, Time Machine. In it, Wells describes a time traveler who travels several-thousand years into the future to discover how humanity has advanced. The time-traveler is shocked, however, when he discovers that humanity has ultimately simplified itself to the point where man has become a numb, shy, almost-irrational creature because every single trouble & inconvience has been taken care of for them by technology. Man has not advanced, but recessed.
While this is incredibly unlikely, it should make one stop in think before disregarding the possibility of eugenics. I hope I do not live to see the day that eugenics would be unecessary. For by that point, man would be nearing the point of making philosophy obsolete.
…just my humble opinions, anywhoo…
Support you argument using examples? Antibiotics lead to antibiotic resistant bacteria. Uh-oh, assuming that all bacteria become resistant to all antibiotics (not happening anytime soon), we break even. We’re right back where we were when we discovered antibiotics. But, we’ve prevented suffering for a brief period, which is a good thing (from my perspective) and we’ve gained a great deal more knowledge (also a good thing from my perspective).
Farming and soil erosion? Again, we’ve had such a massive increase in world population, ended hunger in so many areas and gained so much knowledge. It’s a new challenge, but there are a great deal more people to deal with it.
Longer life? Sure, now we have cancer and heart disease rather than childhood diseases and poxes. New challenges, but better challenges. Would you rather die at 80 of cancer, or 25 from some disease?
Obesity? Living standards more than science cause these. Too much of a good thing (see farming). We’ll balance it out.
The beauty of humanity’s history is that we never seem to be “too late” in our scientific advances.
By this, I mean that humanity has been able to come up vacines and antibotics to cure diseaeses before they over-took humanity. We have been able to sustain life and micro-evolution for a very long period of time. But for how long will this continue?
As much as I’d like to think that it will continue on indefintely, I have to admitt that it seems unlikely that it will continue forever. I mean if you really want to be anal-retentive about this, eventually, the sun will explode and bring the earth’s demise. Yes, we may develop technology by that point to prevent that, but as it stands now, we are helpless.
My point is: Will humanity’s technological developments stay with in the limits of reason, or will whitelotus unite the North-Koreans against the rest of the world? If the latter happens, we will all be nuked before too long, if you catch my drift… 
just my opinions, anyways…
Stem cell research is not immoral, Science has no morality it is a cold practice.
I am for whatever they can learn to help humanity be it good or evil, either way we learn. Cloning is not immoral. A cloned human does not necessarily need to be cloned with a functioning brain. It can remain a shell. Changing the human body from this research can be good too, Live longer and end to hereditary illness etc. A child that might have been born blind would not have to be. Stronger bodies, stronger minds, it sounds fantastic Evolution takes many paths this is but one.
It will happen somewhere, then it will happen everywhere. Few care about morality in the face of death.
As a scientist, I’m gonna go ahead and disagree with you there. There is a great deal of morality involved in science. Here is an example: A bacterium related to B. thurengensis (where we get Bt toxin from) was found to be very helpful in growing plants. Indeed, it was shown to have a synergistic effect when combined with B. thurengensis. The cool part? They only differed by two genes. Everything seemed to be going fine, but there was one tiny little snag . . . the other bacterium was a human pathogen. Nothing lethal mind you, but it’ll give you a nasty case of the runs.
When asked if we should push forward to field trials, all but one member of the audience raised their hand (to my shame, I was not that person). The lecturer then went on to say that this is why science needs more ethics. The rest of the talk was on scientific ethics. Treating science as the pure pursuit of knowledge with no thought of the concequences is pretty dangerous. What would have happened if Hwang had moved forward to human trials with his ‘stem cells’?
Also, I’ve gotta say, cloning people without brains. That kinda freaks me out. I’m all for genetic modification of people, and fully-human clones . . . but a shell for organ replacements seems a little too much like comodification of humanity. Particularly since it is going to be very expensive to clone, grow, and maintain the shell until its organs are developed enough for transplant. Kinda scary.
Science may, in fact, be a cold-practice, but it’s affects upon the world are not. It’s like guns: it’s not the gun itself that kills, but rather the person who pulls the trigger.
just my humble thoughts, anyways…
Although I understand the inherent “possible” good that can come from stem research/use, I think it is prudent to look at this objectively, especially from the perspective of historicity of human behavior.
For every technological advancement created by the human animal, most of which come from warfare initially, (think about that), name a technological advance that has not been turned for less than ethical/moral purposes?
I honestly can’t think of one, the internet included. The human animal bastardizes everything into some form of power control device, and stem cell use/research will be no different in the end.
Whether or not I believe it can happen, stem cell use will end up being used wrongly, it is summarily a foregone conclusion.
an argument of morality for a stem cell…
Sure we could say that the cells that make it up our precious… but … the flies brain has far more cells, and far more function. Do we treat it with the same “morality”?
Stem Cell research has the capability to provide countless cures and other treatments for diseases… imagine if you become paraplegic and they are able to grow you a new spinal cord (not from a cloned person, just the spinal cord would grow.) If you were faced with the option to walk or not walk and the issue came down to a few cells what would be your moral choice?
You might be interested in hearing what Bush has said on this subject, incase you haven’t already:
He said this in 2001 while explaining why the US is not going to help fund new stem cell lines research.
God knows…I heard that he had admitted to letting the lines be tampered with and that two of the eggs came from women who worked for him. This obviously isn’t scientifically relevant. Do you know, Xunzian, why he later asked Science to withold publishing his paper?
i think the first question to ask would be Whose morality?
Nearly everything can be morally/ethically justified, and i would suggest not equating morality with ethics as the two are founded differently: morality normally comes from some religious conviction whereas ethics come from one’s social community (or the lack thereof). One can be ethical (e.g. pro-life*) without being moral (e.g. pro-life because of the “sanctity of life”).
After deciding whose morality, then we may have a basis to judge whether or not something is morally acceptable.
From there, we must then define what is life and whether or not it includes “potential life.” A word of caution here: Nearly anything can be labelled “potential life” including the eggs one eats for breakfast and the egg a woman loses every month when not pregnant (yet more “potential life”). Of course, even my spit may be “potential life” if we ever get to cloning as my spit will have enough DNA to make a whole new me.
Finally, we could then discuss whether or not stem cell research is morally or ethically justified.
My response to all of that (in a nutshell): Yes. While stem cell research is based on very young living matter, it is only a potentiality. “Potential” amounts to a pile of beans. Morally speaking, we are to be focused on actual living creatures, not potential ones. We have the authority/right/privilege to “kill” “lesser” animals (e.g. cows for beef, etc) without being charged for wrongdoing (by either religious or secular authorities, except for the Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains) with regards to “destroying potential life.” So, morally, stem cell research should be regarded the same as malignant tumor research or geology as the embryo (note: very few people call it a “human being” or even more so a “person” as it has not developed into either). Unless one believes in ensoulment (i.e. God places a human soul into an embryo the moment it becomes one), which is hard to prove Biblically, let alone physically, one has no grounds for counting a fertilized egg as a human being.
Additionally, there is no legal ramification for “killing” anything unborn (i.e. this includes abortion) because legally speaking, life begins at birth (this is why the current anti-abortion laws…even partial-birth abortion…are unconstitutional). Because our society has defined life as such, the “killing” of an embryo is a misnomer because it is not yet “alive” (in the sense that we humans are living, not in the sense that those rocks and trees are “living”). When one chops down a tree, it is not “killing a tree” because the tree is not considered “alive” in the common definition of the word. The same applies to an embryo.
*Note: i am not suggesting here that pro-choice is unethical or immoral.
you do realize that it is perfectly legal to do stem cell research?
do all the stem cell research you want…
just don’t expect a government check for it.
-Imp