• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

SCIENCE DELIVERS: Is the stem cell debate over?

FreeChile

Graduate Poster
F
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,039
Will this finally end the stem cell debate?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/23/AR2006082300936.html

New Method Makes Embryo-Safe Stem Cells

By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 24, 2006; Page A03

Scientists have for the first time grown colonies of prized human embryonic stem cells using a technique that does not require the destruction of embryos, an advance that could significantly reshape the ethical and political debates that have long entangled the research.
Click to expand...
 
From the linked article:
Others expressed concern that the single cell removed from an eight-cell embryo might, under certain conditions, itself be capable of becoming an embryo and eventually a baby. If so, the destruction of the cell might violate the president's insistence that scientists not take what some consider a life to save a life.
Click to expand...
Emphases mine.

Slipshod mixing of terms. For starts, "some consider a life..." Not "some consider." It is a life. It may be no more sentient than a carrot cell, but anyone who thinks it isn't alive needs to have a talk with his biology teacher. It may not be a baby, or a person, or even a fetus, but it is most certainly a life, unless someone can point to some kind of non-living cell that spontaneously divides into more cells.

But if it is not a baby yet, or even an embryo, then where's the ethical problem? What makes that single cell worthy of any particular protection?
 
BPSCG said:
From the linked article:
Emphases mine.

Slipshod mixing of terms. For starts, "some consider a life..." Not "some consider." It is a life. It may be no more sentient than a carrot cell, but anyone who thinks it isn't alive needs to have a talk with his biology teacher. It may not be a baby, or a person, or even a fetus, but it is most certainly a life, unless someone can point to some kind of non-living cell that spontaneously divides into more cells.
Click to expand...
But I think the author was assuming the reader understood the proper context here. It was just an easier way to phrase it, albeit not technically accurate.

But if it is not a baby yet, or even an embryo, then where's the ethical problem? What makes that single cell worthy of any particular protection?
Click to expand...
Agreed. It will be interesting to see the reaction this gets. And let's not forget the key issue in the controversy is whether to federally fund the research.
 
Snide said:
But I think the author was assuming the reader understood the proper context here. It was just an easier way to phrase it, albeit not technically accurate.
Click to expand...
I don't see it that way. Look how much clearer, how much more forthright, the sentence is without the extraneous three words:

"If so, the destruction of the cell might violate the president's insistence that scientists not take a life to save a life."

Now, pair that clear, accurate sentence with the previous one, and the nonsense becomes apparent:

"Others expressed concern that the single cell removed from an eight-cell embryo might, under certain conditions, itself be capable of becoming an embryo and eventually a baby. If so, the destruction of the cell might violate the president's insistence that scientists not take a life to save a life."

The second sentence essentially is a non-sequitur. It's taking a life to save a life whether it would ever become a baby or not.

The MSM likes this "what some..." construct; they've been using it for some time in the partial-birth abortion debate. They don't call it "partial-birth abortion," but rather, "the medical procedure some opponents refer to as 'partial-birth abortion,'" without saying what its defenders call it (and honestly, I've never heard it called anything else, even by ardently pro-choice friends of mine). I don't know if this is intended as some kind of misguided attempt to be even-handed or deliberate obfuscation, but it's bad writing and bad reporting.
 
BPSCG said:
I don't see it that way. Look how much clearer, how much more forthright, the sentence is without the extraneous three words:

"If so, the destruction of the cell might violate the president's insistence that scientists not take a life to save a life."

Now, pair that clear, accurate sentence with the previous one, and the nonsense becomes apparent:

"Others expressed concern that the single cell removed from an eight-cell embryo might, under certain conditions, itself be capable of becoming an embryo and eventually a baby. If so, the destruction of the cell might violate the president's insistence that scientists not take a life to save a life."

The second sentence essentially is a non-sequitur. It's taking a life to save a life whether it would ever become a baby or not.
Click to expand...
I get that, but my point is just that the author's context of saying "what some consider" is meant as "a life that some consider as valuable as a full human life." This is an accurate statement, and relevant in considering what the controversy is. Maybe you didn't take it that way. I'm not sure who is correct.

The MSM likes this "what some..." construct; they've been using it for some time in the partial-birth abortion debate.
Click to expand...
All media likes it, and other tricks as well. Fox, for example, especially likes to put a question mark after a statement and keep it on the screen. So when the thousands of employees at my company go to lunch, as they walk by the cafeteria TV and look at it for 10 seconds, they get to see important-looking people talking, with the graphics showing:"Bush: Best president ever on the Mideast?"

They don't call it "partial-birth abortion," but rather, "the medical procedure some opponents refer to as 'partial-birth abortion,'" without saying what its defenders call it (and honestly, I've never heard it called anything else, even by ardently pro-choice friends of mine).
Click to expand...
Well I don't like the over-use of "some say" reporting, but could it be that in this case they are trying to simply be accurate and impartial? I mean, scientifically, it's not really a "partial birth," is it? (I'm ready to be wrong on this.) That sounds like spin from the opponents to make it sound like a worse procedure... But it's not real difficult to find instances of the MSM doing this type of reporting that might favor the Right as well.

I don't know if this is intended as some kind of misguided attempt to be even-handed or deliberate obfuscation, but it's bad writing and bad reporting.
Click to expand...
I agree in general. I'm just not sure it's exactly what was happening here.

edited for clarity
 
They're just trying to be all things to all people without offending or getting anyone's ire up. That's a losing game to be sure. As Lucy from the Peanuts cartoon strip once said, "If you go around watching every little thing you say, your never going to get much said." This is what the MSM is up against these days. Everybody is easily offended and live by the rule "the squeeky wheel gets the grease". Just be the squeekiest wheel - that's the challenge now.

I'm going to solve this though for the good of science. We just start the rumor that they're only going to extract cells that contain the gay gene. That'll pretty much solve the objections from the fundamentalists. All you eggheads just need to keep your skeptic-whistle blowing-big mouths shut for a while.
 
I think now the debate will center around the ethical aspects of cloning. (I realize this is not cloning, just predicting the spin)
 
BPSCG said:
From the linked article:
Emphases mine.

Slipshod mixing of terms. For starts, "some consider a life..." Not "some consider." It is a life. It may be no more sentient than a carrot cell, but anyone who thinks it isn't alive needs to have a talk with his biology teacher. It may not be a baby, or a person, or even a fetus, but it is most certainly a life, unless someone can point to some kind of non-living cell that spontaneously divides into more cells.

But if it is not a baby yet, or even an embryo, then where's the ethical problem? What makes that single cell worthy of any particular protection?
Click to expand...

Eh, it's sort of fuzzy. The question is not whether it is life, but whether it is a life. For example, sperm is alive (probably) but I don't think anyone could call sperm life unless they were intentionally being pedantic. To be a life implies a certain amount of... distinct individuality, and I think that is something that is a part of the debate over embryos.

It's sloppy writing, in any case. It's an intensely common usage to use "life" when you mean "morally signifigant human life," but newspapers should try to be more precise.
 
UserGoogol said:
To be a life implies a certain amount of... distinct individuality, and I think that is something that is a part of the debate over embryos.
Click to expand...

That's not particularly helpful measure either, since a blastocyst has the same amount of individuality as an adult.
 
I don't know. Wikipedia says that chimeras can form during the blastosphere stage, (multiple embryos fusing together) and doesn't mention when identical twin fission happens. Embryology is complicated.

But at any rate, I still think that it is true that regardless as to whether they are or not, people do debate whether embryos have distinct individuality, so the article is not strictly speaking wrong.
 
Last edited:
BPSCG said:
The MSM likes this "what some..." construct; they've been using it for some time in the partial-birth abortion debate. They don't call it "partial-birth abortion," but rather, "the medical procedure some opponents refer to as 'partial-birth abortion,'" without saying what its defenders call it (and honestly, I've never heard it called anything else, even by ardently pro-choice friends of mine).
Click to expand...

It's medically called a Dilation and Extraction. The abortion industry refers to it as a D&X.

Aaron
 
HeavyAaron said:
It's medically called a Dilation and Extraction. The abortion industry refers to it as a D&X.
Click to expand...
Hm. I thought dilation and extraction was a term that refereed to all, or at least most abortions, not just the late-term ones. Wikipedia says I was wrong and you're right.

...goddam wikipedia...
 
TragicMonkey said:
I would say the single cell in question has life, but not that it is a life.
Click to expand...

I don't follow your distinction. Could you provide another example of an object which has a life but isn't a life? That sounds like a serious misuse of language.

We are talking about a living organism. An organism of the species homosapian. This is not in question. What is in question is if this living human is a person. That seems to be a more philosophical question hinging on the definition of person.

Aaron
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom