I don't know if "animal testing" comes within the category of "Bioethics" which is now again been subject of lively debate.
When I was doing research (more than 40 yeras ago.<g>) I alway enjoyed working with rats or just plain human blood.<g> ( working with radiolabeled materials to determine some hormonal binding to albumin, like TBG)and didn't like so much the work being done at the time on pancreatectomized dogs.<g>
Today on CNBC "Power Lunch" a journalist from the WSJ was discussing again the ethics of Stem cell harvesting and human cloning.
I was reading an article on the last issue of American Medical News about the President's Council on Bioethics, which has recently opened for deliberations under the Chairmanship of Leon Kass, M.D.,Ph.D.
Some critics of the Council claim that it is made of like-minded individuals who will simply give President Bush "the advice he wants to hear".
Arthur Caplan, Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics, described many of the Council members as "pretty much clones of Professor Kass".
Janet Davidson Rowley, M.D., who is a professor of molecular genetics and cell biology at the University of Chicago, feels that whatever advise the panel will give the president has not been preordained and is not going to be unanimous.
She thinks that too many questions remain open on the issues of embryonic stem cells and the viability of adult stem cells and it will be unwise to make a binding decision at this point.
Dr. Rowley wisely stated:" We are being asked to give advise , but as scientists, we are giving advise from a standpoint of ignorance, and that is not a good idea".
On the other hand, China and England have apparently given the green light for stem cell research. It seems to me that the United States will need to do some catching-up on this important research in the future.
Bernard |
