This is the information age. Technology is advancing much faster than morals and ethics. Most people don't know where to stand on the capabilities that humanity has at our disposal. I for one think that the human race should not be reserved when it comes to advancement, making life for all people on Earth better through technology. If there is no other greater purpose for our existence than why not try to better our species, isn't that the essential goal of evolution?
On to the topic I was reading articles on wired.com when I came across an interesting one which I did not know about pertaining to stem cell research. It seems our most esteemed president bush has made yet another folly. On Friday February 27th, apparently White House personel made a phone call to Elizabeth Blackburn, a professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics at the University of California and to William May, a former Bioethics professor at Southern Methodist University, and informed them that they were no longer needed. They both are on the president's Bioethics panel that looks into Stem Cell research the science and the ethics behind it. Both were advocates for stem cell research and the therapies that it could provide. William May is a scholar of Religion and Christian ethics. They both agreed that stem cell research should not be in remission due to ethics or morals. With obvious reasoning behind their replacements the actual people to take over their positions are Benjamin Carson director of Pediatic Neurosurgery at John Hopkins University, Peter Lawler, professor of government at Berry College and Diana Schaub, a political-science professor at Loyola College in Maryland. They are all for the most part actively against stem cell research and cloning. Benjamin Carson one of the replacements most notable quotes is his reference to stem cell research as "the evil of the willful destruction of innocent human life," which is a definite indicator for someone who doesn't care for the advancement of Stem Cell research. Now with all this taken into mind what struck me as peculiar is, how is this a clear and balance representation of ethics on both sides of the spectrum to aid in the presidents decisions on cloning and stem cell research?
To me it makes complete sense. The president has been criticized for molding his advisors to fit what he wants to do with his administration, this is just another obvious representation of how he distorts facts to get everything and anything he wants. For the most part this move of replacing the two advisors will make the panel unanimously oppose stem cell research and cloning. I like to know both sides of an argument before I make a decision that's what's known as unbiased.
"Last week, a group of about 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, accused the Bush administration of distorting scientific fact leading to policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry.
The Union of Concerned Scientists simultaneously issued a 37-page report, "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking," detailing the accusations. They said the Bush administration distorted and suppressed findings that contradicted administration policies, stacked panels with like-minded and underqualified scientists with ties to industry, and eliminated some advisory committees altogether."
That was a quote from the website because It is obviously ridiculous (the replacement not the quote) and I couldn't think of a better way of saying it.
There are numerous positive applications that we could use stem cell research for. The U.S. is really the only remaining superpower as of right now, if the United States wants to remain a superpower why not strive to be the most technologically advanced nation in the world. Ok clearly technology and science is advancing a lot quicker than morals and laws but as a species we have to understand that our advancement is not a negative thing. These morals are based from beliefs that are hundreds ,and some beliefs, thousands of years old how could they apply to the current era of technological advancement. Why place limits on what positive things we as a people can do. It is a terrible shame to see this president slowly destroy this country and to think that him and Kerry are what have to choose from. I won't go into politics I just completely disagree with placing any ban on stem cell research when it clearly has the potential to let us live longer, healthier and happier. They say it is killing a person. So when we do it anyways in wars we can justify it by saying it is for the overall good of the world. I think of it into it's realistic context. Even if we were killing humans with stem cell research (the stem cells have no chance of growing into a baby) why pretend that we don't already have blood on our hands as a people. I post this for information so people can know.
http://wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62494,00.html?tw=wn_techhead_16