If you think the NIH is the end all to end all, then you are a good lil Democrap...fall lockstep in line with whatever the guvmint tells you too.
The development of stem cell lines, both pluripotent and multipotent, that may produce many tissues of the human body is an important scientific breakthrough.
The most misleading term which continues to be used is "pluripotent." Literally, this means able to form most (but not all) tissues. This term continues to be used incorrectly, primarily to imply that human embryonic stem cells can form all human tissues except "trophoblast" tissue — this is an essential outer layer of cells in the early embryo which allows it to implant into the uterine wall and nourishes early development. The trophoblast is also the part of the embryo removed in its destruction to harvest the inner embryonic stem cells. The phrase "human pluripotent stem cells" has been used to counter the question of whether human embryonic stem cells in culture could actually reform a human embryo, implying that this is not possible. Yet in testimony before the Senate, then-Director of the NIH, Harold Varmus, said that this possibility was uncertain, and that in fact it would be unethical to attempt such an experiment to determine whether this was possible. Enter the term pluripotent — if the embryonic stem cells cannot form trophoblast, they cannot form an embryo. Mouse embryonic stem cells cannot form trophoblast tissue. BUT, as stated in Thomson's original paper in 1998, human embryonic stem cells CAN form trophoblast in culture.
Of course coltuphisown needs control BUT:
Memories of Nazi Past Stirred by Debates Over Embryo Research and Euthanasia
By Dave Andrusko
The German government is in the midst of a remarkable ongoing public debate over proposals to eliminate prohibitions against lethal research on human embryonic stem cells. A monumentally important debate in any context, the fierce discussion is made even more intense in Germany because "the memory of horrific human experiments practiced by the Third Reich remains etched in the public conscience," according to the Wall Street Journal.
The parliamentary debate in late May came only a few weeks after a wave of public revulsion in Germany at news that the Netherlands was about to formally legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide. President Johannes Rau brought the two strands together when he said in a speech, "Eugenics, euthanasia and selection - - these are terms that, in Germany, are bound up with bad memories."
Proponents alternately wave the flag of compassion - - lethally extracting stem cells from human embryos may someday "cure" a disease, they say - - and issue ominous warnings that Germany will lose out in the fast-growing biotechnology industry.
Their target is a 1990 law that bans experiments on embryonic stem cells and preimplantation diagnosis - - analyzing embryos created from in vitro fertilization procedures for possible " defects" before implanting the human embryo into a woman's womb.
While German Chancellor Gerhardt Schroeder, described as a " pragmatist," says in one breath the law should remain unchanged " for now," in the next he says such research could be positive "if it helped scientific progress and led to lives being saved," according to the New York Times. "Our moral responsibility," Schroder said, "is also to take care of our jobs and well being."
But Schroeder must tread carefully for, as the Times put it, such debates "are particularly sensitive in Germany because of the extensive euthanasia program and other Nazi medical experiments aimed at fashioning an unblemished master Aryan race."
A nationwide poll conducted for the newspaper Die Welt in late May found that 70% felt ethical concerns outweighed the benefits of new jobs and higher living standards.
On May 1, the government established a 24-member National Ethics Council to address "areas of tension between great medical hopes, economic expectations and people's understandable fears of reproduction and selection." According to press reports, the panel will consist of leading scientists, philosophers, ecologists, social and legal experts, and business, church, and labor leaders.
No sooner had the National Ethics Council been established than another flap ensued. In a turnabout the German Research Council, the country's main public funding group for academic research, said that embryo stem cell research was needed to help fight illness.
This prompted an immediate response from Edelgard Bulmahn, minister for education, science, research, and technology, "A change as fundamental as that proposed by the Research Council must be widely discussed and debated by scientists and society,'' she said. "One cannot in an abrupt 180-degree turn set new guidelines that overstep previously established ethical boundaries.''
Nazi abuses of science, Bulmahn said, oblige Germany to be especially wary.
In its statement the German Research Council said, "We favor at first using existing possibilities such as importing stem cells.'' The group said that Germany should also consider changing its 1990 law that protects human embryos.
Bulmahn questioned whether current law allows importation and, in any event, said, "[W]e fundamentally favor alternative methods to research on embryo stem cells, in particular research on adult stem cells that are ethically unproblematic.''
Schroeder is credited with initiating debate over various "taboo" subjects - - areas previously off limits due to Germany's past. He quite frankly talks of Germany's power, interests, and ambitions "in a way that was unthinkable even a decade ago."
Schroeder turns the charges hurled by Rau and others on their head by linking "human dignity" to "access to gainful employment," an appealing argument in a time when unemployment in Germany is over 9%. However, Rau refuses to back down.
While the presidency is largely symbolic in Germany, the occupant assumes the role of "a sort of moral arbiter," according to the New York Times. Although a member of the same Social Democrat Party as Schroeder, Rau is unafraid to publicly disagree with the chancellor.
"Those who begin to instrumentalize human life," Rau said, "to differentiate between worthy of life and unworthy of life, are on a runaway train." In what was universally construed as a rebuff to Schroeder, Rau added, "Where human dignity is affected, economic arguments do not count."
One important question is why the debate has taken off at this particular time, an issue investigated by the Times's Roger Cohen. Cohen interviewed Dietmar Mieth, a professor of theological ethics, who spoke of the confluence of two factors.
The first is the sheer technological ability to manipulate the human embryo, making it "no longer fanciful to think in terms of the selection of certain characteristics for a child."
The second, according to Mieth, was the emergence of a class of ever-more ambitious German parents determined to have children who would succeed in an increasingly competitive society where notions of solidarity have been eroded. "'Individual wishes are driving the possible emergence of eugenics, not the state, because people want children for whom they can be ambitious,' he told Cohen. 'People in the future may demonstrate their love for their children by telling them not only that they wanted them but also that they wanted them a certain way.'"
"For Mr. Schröder, all these developments are a matter of management," Prof. Mieth added. "For Mr. Rau, they are a matter of ethics." |
