Hello list:

I came across this article and it resonated for me.

This is a very perceptive and broad take on
the situation with stem cell funding.

Science has incredble potential
to out strip our limited views of ethics and morality
slippery slope slides began 20 years ago in some areas.
Repression slows some specific issues down,
but, the inquisitive mind of humanity moves on
through, or around.

The question is not "should we outlaw stem cell research?"

but, in a broader sense, "can we do this and respect human life?"

or, "will we find a way to do this, AND respect human life?"

or ultimately, "how do we respect all life?"

many issues will arise
  genomics
  proteonomics
  cloning
  genetic engineeering
 see below
are we ready?

Read on.

................................................................

--------------------
No Steam Over Stem Cell
--------------------

John Balzar

July 27 2001

I've tried for a couple of weeks now to get worked up. I mean, don't we
have a crisis of conscience on our hands: the sick versus the
unborn?

Some folks are thinking we've arrived at another of those big moral forks
in the road that will shape our society. Even the pope is in the
thick of it, lobbying. But I look into the mirror. My face isn't turning
red. I check my pulse. Almost normal. Yawn.

When I hear voices raised about "embryonic stem cell research," I think of
two guys without the spare change for dinner, fistfighting
about how to split their lottery millions if they win. In other words,
shouldn't we be talking about a larger question here? Our president
has tied himself up in knots over embryo cell research. Godlike, he has
assumed the burden of deciding whether taxpayers back science
or back away.

But a key fact remains. Research will continue, with or without U.S.
government involvement. Also a fact: The mounting ethical
quandaries of the New Biology are way too big and important to yield to the
favor of a single man, even so preeminent a man as the
president.

Bush's verdict from on high will, in the short run, influence the pace and
scale of medical research using cells from human embryos. It
may also determine the extent to which the United States leads or follows
the rest of the world for the next few years.

But that's about all, because Bush has engaged a large subject on the
narrowest of terms. He's accepted this as just another round in the
tiresome fight over abortion.

This is the wrong arena to conduct the conversation. I could tell you that
I think stem cell research is, on balance, a sensible idea. I think
we should devote the $400 million in tax money for the chance to ease human
suffering. You can tell me why it's a slippery slope. We all
await the president, and then we'll quarrel furiously about his wisdom.
Losers will bide their time, hoping the next president will undo
what this one has done.

Chiefly, this diverts our attention from a deeper concern on which most of
us agree, or should: Modern biology is taking us into scary
places. Science, by Einstein's old definition, was the search for the truth
of natural processes. Today, science has become the application
of these truths to alter natural processes. Cloning is happening around us.
Scientists are mixing witches' brews of DNA, creating
organisms with characteristics from other organisms, such as mice that glow
in the dark with the addition of genes from bioluminescent
organisms, or potatoes that are supposed to resist disease with the
addition of a gene from a toad. At the Scripps Research Institute,
scientists are trying to create life from the ground up, organisms that are
entirely new to the planet.

I think back. Not so long ago when our first spaceship returned from the
moon, NASA employed an air-lock quarantine for the sensible
purpose of making sure that we would not introduce an alien organism into
our environment. Today, organisms with alien properties are
flying out of laboratories left and right.

Without serious ethical reflection, we have entrusted the free market to
make decisions about the creation and manipulation of life. I'm
waiting for the next gee-whiz futurist to tell me about DNA improvements in
cattle so hamburgers will clean the grill while they cook.

I don't think I'm alone when I say I'm torn between hope that biology will
make the world better and fear that a Frankenstein slip-up will
make it far worse. In opinion polls, a majority of us vacillate, depending
on how the questions are phrased. I interpret this to mean that
we have more to learn than to teach about the direction, or bounds, of our
brave new world.

For instance, is it even possible to restrain human inquiry? If we look at
the question through a theological prism, can we believe we
were endowed with good hearts, curious minds and scientific capacity only
as another temptation? Or should we be secular and ask, isn't
it true that if something can go wrong it will?

Our regulatory systems have not kept pace with the New Biology. Unapproved
genetically altered corn has already shown up in our
food. So how do we update our systems? Surely we cannot argue each
development, like stem cell research, all the way to the White
House, without overlooking 10,000 others. And don't we have to seek
agreement beyond our borders, beyond all borders?

George W. Bush could take this moment to enlarge our thinking about the
promises and perils of science in a new millennium. Then I
could get myself worked up good. Then we would be at a fork in the road.

Copyright 2001, Los Angeles Times
...............................................................

                                 Ray Strand
                             Prairie Sky Design
 -----------------(   on  the Edge of the Prairie Abyss  )---------------
                          when  the  sky  is  clear
                            the ground is visible

                         49/dx PD 2 yrs/40? onset

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn