Slashdot Mirror
Scientist Pushing for Early Use of Stem Cells
hzs202 writes "BBC News is reporting that Professor Ian Wilmut is pushing for stem cell treatment to be offered to people with terminal illnesses. Professor Wilmut told journalists that the treatment could save lives or at least speed up the pace of research, however it is yet to be fully tested." From the article: "If we wait until things are totally tested and analyzed in animals, it will deny some people treatment"
And would starting to treat terminally ill patients right now provide as much scientific value? Or would it divert funding from possibly cheaper or at least more informative on a dollar by dollar basis animal testing, so that in the long run we might save X people but not develop effective stem cell therapies for Y years longer, thereby losing another X+N people who might have been saved had we gone a more orthodox route?
(Seriously, I'm asking. I have no idea what the answer is.)
Here's a stronger argument, the Fable of the Dragon Tyrant.
It argues that it is immoral and lethal for us to delay our work into longevity reasearch.
I need fifty healthy volunteers immediately. You'll have your kidney's chronically instrumented, then will be fed a variety of drugs that will raise or lower your blood pressure. When we're done you will be sacrificed and your kidneys will be inspected.
There is research that cannot be done on terminally ill volunteers. Not all medical research is simply new-drug-to-treat-terminal-illness testing.
Research animals are treated better than the grad students who work with them, and are euthanized in much more humane ways than the US uses to execute prisoners. Chances are you, or someone you love is alive today because of animal testing, whether you like or realize it or not.
They've got a great poster down by the animal resource centre -- it's a bunch of people protesting animal research and the line at the bottom says "Animal research has given these people 20 extra years of life to protest."
Adding to your this case, I think that some political reality needs to be taken into consideration also.
This is Scotland, not the US we are talking about. To give a few (hopefully relevant) examples:
Abortion: no debate on the issue. Pro choice.
Religion: Church of Scotland and "no religion" make up over 2/3 of the population. Not exactly southern baptist country.
Politics: Has voted left wing for the last 50 years. "right wing" parties currently make up 15% of the Scottish parliament, the rest are left wing and very left wing by US standards.
Basically the point I'm trying to make is there is very little moral debate on the wither the use of any form of stem cells is right or not. I would the argue that the mood is more of a matter of when can we use them than if.
The second point to take into account in this area is this: This is Professor Ian "Dolly the Sheep" Wilmut talking. In general Scotland as a whole is very proud of this achievement and in a nation that prides itself on the discoveries and inventors it has produced over the years. What sane thinking politician is going to say no to these measures when half the political debate is focused around the "Smart Successful Scotland" iniative that the Scottish Executive has been presuing. Who could really get away with saying "Yes we want to have a knowledge based economy, but we have just forced the man who cloned dolly the sheep to carry out his work elsewhere."
So to summarise, expect the go ahead to be given in Scotland in a year or two, for it would be political suicide not too do so.
Yeah, there would be a hell of a lot of money in it for whoever came up with such a drug. But the things that would save the most lives right now are very well known (education, condoms, clean needles) and don't have to wait on miraculous research. What's the problem? They don't make anyone very much money (except maybe condom manufacturers). A second problem is that effective AIDS education requires telling the truth about sex (and/or intravenous drug use), something a large number of powerful people are committed to avoiding for their supposedly moral or religious reasons. Needle-exchange programs, realistic safer-sex education, and easy access to condoms have made big changes wherever they have been implemented. Unfortunately, the US only funds "abstinence-only" education programs that wag imperious fingers at people for doing something as "bad" as having sex. This is an f*ing epidemic claiming 10s of millions of lives, and we'd rather be dicks about it.
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
Let's remove the words 'stem cell' and 'terminally ill' for a while. What he is advocating is relaxing the rules on human research for certain classes of people. His suggestion is morally reprehensible- expirimenting on humans without extensive research proving benefit and safety is just sick and isn't really good science. Regardless of the technology being tested or the body of people being tested on.
Common objections:
O: But it could save lives!
A: Breeding babies to full term and harvesting full grown organs for sale is possible now, could save lives, and is morally wrong. The ends do not justify the means.
O: You have no right to tell someone what to do with their body.
A: Actually I have a 'right' to tell people just about anything, and make my case. And they have a 'right' not to listen, or to listen objectively and change their mind.
O: If they consent to be expirimented on, who are you to object?
A: First, 'consent' is difficult to prove. How does one determine their consent wasn't coerced? Second, there is plenty of historical basis for prohibiting someone from doing everything they want- it's called the legal system. Again, a person may consent to have a child for the express purpose of killing it and giving it's heart to another child. Fortunately, this is illegal.
My wife and I had considered this--if it wasn't for the $2000 down payment and the $100/year fee beyond that, we probably would have signed up yesterday. It actually involves harvesting stem cells from the umbilical cord blood.
http://www.cordpartners.com/
http://www.cordblood.com/
http://www.corcell.com/