 |
 |
Dr. Fink, Your presence on this list as a moderating influence is important. Although I may disagree with you at times, I am happy that you spend your precious time and energy to add your opinion. In this case, I believe that the issue has become a PRAGMATIC one, not just a moral or scientific one. 1. Who will do the research? 2. When? 3. And to whose benefit? 1. If the United States does not participate through government funding in embryonic stem cell research, the research will still be done. It will be done in countries where the government recognizes its great potential and by private companies which invest in it 2. It will be done now. 3. And the immediate benefit will be to the people in the countries where the research is performed. Were the research to be performed in the U.S., the citizens of the United States would most likely reap the benefits far earlier, both because the protocols would have been developed there and because of the preponderance of resources that the U.S. government could apply to the research. Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Its time has come. We can do it now - or do it later. But aren't we so much better off it we do it now? Art At 02:07 PM 9/5/2004, Dr. Fink wrote: >On 4 Sep 2004 at 15:29, Rayilyn Brown wrote: > > > The big argument is a moral, not a scientific, one. The question is > > whether these undifferentiated cells are people or not Morality is > > being used to trump the pragmatism of science. > >For once, I agree with Rayilyn (at least partially). It IS a moral issue. I >would, however, go on to say that morality is not being used to "trump" >science, but rather to "control" science. > >Many things have been done in the name of "science" which are not moral, >and ultimately, it is morality which makes us civilized beings. > > >Best, > >Bob ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn