Tuesday, October 5, 2010
A promising stem-cell development?
The Washington Post is reporting:
Scientists have invented an efficient way to produce apparently safe alternatives to human embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos, a long-sought step toward bypassing the moral morass surrounding one of the most promising fields in medicine. . . .
"All I can say is 'wow' - this is a game changer," said Robert Lanza, a stem cell researcher at Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Mass. "It would solve some of the most important problems in the field." . . .
Opponents of human embryonic stem cell research seized on the development as the most convincing evidence yet that the morally questionable cells are unnecessary.
"With each new study it becomes more and more implausible to claim that scientists must rely on destruction of human embryos to achieve rapid progress in regenerative medicine," said Richard M. Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. . . .
Rossi and other researchers, however, said that embryonic stem cells are still crucial because, among other things, they remain irreplaceable for evaluating alternatives. . . .
Thoughts?
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/10/a-promising-stem-cell-development.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
It is perfectly credible that in seeking to perfect induced pluripotent stem cells, you have to compare them to the real thing. Also, surely it was based on knowledge gained through the study of embryonic stem cells that this breakthrough was achieved.
Doerflinger is at best making a scientific statement he is unqualified to make, or he is trying to disguise a moral statement as a statement about science. The USCCB does not want any embryonic stem cell research done at all. They would be opposed to it if there were guaranteed cures for diabetes, Parkinsons', Alzheimer's, and cancer right around the corner. So why should anyone believe their spokesman when he claims it is really not necessary? Of course he's going to argue it's not necessary. Does anyone expect him to say, "Of course, we know there are all kinds of breakthroughs that could come from this research, but it's just immoral, and so it must not be pursued not matter what good would come of it"?