According to the Daily Telegraph, The U.S. Surgeon General has announced a program for growing new body parts for injured troops. The program is funded with $250M to assist hospitals and universities find a way to use the individual troop's own adult stem cells to regenerate body parts from skin to limbs.
The Surgeon General notes that the use of stem cells from the adult makes for a "very low risk" of converting into cancers.
Interestingly, the article does not call them adult stem cells although they obviously are, and refers to embryonic stem cells as "more primitive stem cells". The "more primitive" stem cells produce cancer at high rates, while the adult stem cells march on down the development road into real solutions.
Advocates of embryonic stem cell research led a blitz on the voters of my state last year, redefining terms such as "death" in the small print of the lengthy amendment to the constitution. Advocacy was highly funded and opposition was smashed by the weight of celebrities from out of state, such as Michael J. Fox, who were bleating constantly for "stem cell research", for "the victims". Of course adult stem cell research has always been legal and productive. What these people advocated, dishonestly, was embryonic stem cell killing and research.
What motivated these people to advocate a loser technology while ignoring a winning technology that was already starting to do that which they claimed they wanted? I have written frequently about the inversion of atheist logic, and rebellion against all things previously thought to be logical. There it is. By standard logic there was no rational reason to do what they did. I suspect that there is a high correlation between advocates of embryonic death and abortion. The value of life is adjusted to fit the current "cause celebre".
But one more thing about adult stem cells. How does the biology of adult stem cells rely on the theory of evolution? It does not. It relies on actual science. In fact, it falsifies the concept that "evolution is a required fact underlying all biology". The natural selection on mutations of DNA is not involved in this technology.
Adult stem cell technology might be the most interesting thing to come out of biology... ever.
2 comments:
Samuel Skinner
Maybe they now something you don't? I think that there are benefits to using embryonic stem cells- for example you can study genetic diseases on the cellular level.
Are you saying that genetic diseases cannot be studied any other way? There is only one way to accomplish this?
There have always been ethical limits to techniques which can be used for studying humans and thier properties. Outside of the death camps, one cannot study twins by killing one of them. Even the information, if any, obtained in by Mengele and cohorts is considered unethical to use, because of the manner in which it was obtained.
Terminating a human life at any stage is not ethically justifiable by the argument that others will benefit from the information obtained. It is not logically defensible to argue that we all, every one of us, went through each necessary stage from fertilized egg to adult human, yet certain stages are not human. This is the argument of eugenists.
Post a Comment