Stem Cell hullabaloo

Yesterday’s New York Times ran an article by Peter Steinfels titled, “In Stem Cell Debate, Moral Suasion Comes Up Short”. In this thought provoking article Peter points out that the issue isn’t as cut-and-dried as either side would have you believe.

First it offers no panacea though there have been many statements made by proponents suggesting so. Some have stated that not supporting stem cell research is tantamount to “taking away the cure for cancer”. This is a bit more than a bit of an overreach but as Ronald D. G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, told the New York Times, “People need a fairy tale”.

Second the opponents frequently use as the foundation of their argument the notion that an embryo is actually a human; it should be valued as highly as a human life. I won’t argue this – at least not in this post – save to say that this foundational statement doesn’t take viability into account. What I will say is that those making this statement as a justification for opposition to stem cell research don’t make the same noise over the fact that the blastocysts, which is a laboratory-fertilized human egg, in question are going to be destroyed. It’s not as if scientists are suggesting that we take blastocysts destined for a waiting mother’s womb and use them for research. The blastocysts in question are slated for destruction. Why only rail against the use of these embryos in research?

I’m not making an argument for or against stem cell research. To be quite honest I haven’t taken the time to do enough research to form an educated opinion. What I am arguing for – and I argue for this no matter the subject – is that both sides of the issue try to be a bit more truthful and blanaced with their claims and try to stir up less over-the-top emotion. I know, I ask too much sometimes.