quote:

---

The leader of the Catholic church in Scotland has urged Gordon Brown to rethink "monstrous" plans to allow hybrid human-animal embryos. ...

He will also call on the prime minister to allow Labour MPs a free vote on the issue at Westminster. ...

[...] Cardinal O'Brien claims that the Bill would lead to the endorsement of experiments of "Frankenstein proportion". ...

Mr Brown has said a decision on whether a free vote will be held would be taken "in due course".

---

[ 22 March 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

Labour MPs may rebel over embryos

quote:

---

The government faces a rebellion over embryo laws unless Gordon Brown allows a free vote, a Labour MP has warned.

Joe Benton, who is Catholic, said a "substantial number" of fellow Labour MPs were ready to defy the government. ...

... [A]t least one member of the cabinet, Welsh Secretary Paul Murphy, is preparing to quit the Cabinet rather than back the bill.

The BBC's political correspondent Reeta Chakrabarti said Mr Murphy's spokesman responded to the report by saying there were "big scientific and conscience issues involved" and Mr Murphy's Catholic faith was very important to him. ...

Other Catholics within the cabinet are Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly and Defence Secretary Des Browne. ...

Although he did not wish to name them, Mr Benton, who is MP for Bootle, said: "I know for a fact there would be ministers who would resign over this issue. ...

Labour backbencher Geraldine Smith, also a Catholic, shares the cardinal's concerns about the Bill and believes the issue is a matter of conscience. ...

---

It is essential to understand that this fresh religious attack on science comes only days after the Vatican announced seven new sins for modern times:

quote:

---

A Vatican official has listed a set of “social sins” to draw attention to sinful acts that have social ramifications in an interview with the Vatican daily L’Osservatore Romano. ...

The list which includes drug abuse, pollution, and human embryo experimentation spawned sensationalist titles from the secular press such as “Recycle or go to Hell, warns Vatican” or “Seven More Sins, Thanks to Vatican”. ...

The seven social sins are:
1. "Bioethical” violations such as birth control
2. "Morally dubious" experiments such as stem cell research
3. Drug abuse
4. Polluting the environment
5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor
6. Excessive wealth
7. Creating poverty

---

While in the short term, such announcements may do some damage by emboldening the most hateful bigots to step up their attacks on women, youth, and science, the long-term effect will be beneficial. The Church has lost a great deal of influence by continuing to maintain barbaric social norms prohibiting divorce, birth control, abortion, equal marriage, and equality for women even within the Church structures. This fresh attack will only hasten its long overdue death.

Meanwhile, how shameful that elected politicians of any party - let alone a party that still cynically calls itself "Labour" - would bow down to the dictates of some Catholic crackpots in Scotland and Rome.

quote:

---

The government faces mounting dissent over controversial embryo laws after the Archbishop of Cardiff joined calls for a free vote on the legislation.

The Most Reverend Peter Smith has advised MPs to vote against a bill which allows the creation of hybrid human-animal embryos for research. ...

The archbishop told BBC Radio 4: "Those MPs who have approached me over recent weeks have said: 'Look, I don't think this is right. I accept the teachings of the Church, yet I am a Government minister, or I am a Labour MP. Can I discuss with you the moral dilemma I have got?'. ...

"I have written to the prime minister myself asking him that, in view of these very important issues which touch on the sacredness of human life, its meaning and purpose, would he please grant a free vote, because that is what is really required."

---

What is the stand of the Anglican Church on this issue? Does anyone know?

[ 22 March 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
Why?

---

They say they are not going to, and are not allowed to, mix human gametes with the gametes of an animal, not true. They are just not allowed to do it without a license to do so, and are supposed to get rid of it at the first signs of a central nervous system, or 14 days after combining interspecies gametes.

I simply do not agree with any inter species mixing of gametes, for any duration of time, for any reason.

quote:

---

34. Regulation-making powers have been provided under new section 4A(5)(e) and 4A(7) to enable the Secretary of State to include within the definition of inter-species embryos other types of embryos or to amend the definitions in section 4A(5)(a) to (e) respectively.

35. Section 4A(2) prohibits mixing human gametes with the gametes of an animal and creating, keeping or using an inter-species embryo without a licence.

36. Section 4A(3) provides that any inter-species embryo created under licence cannot be kept after the earliest of either:

the appearance of the primitive streak (an indicator for the start of a process by which the cells of the embryo begin to separate into three distinct cells types which will go on to form different types of tissue); or

14 days from the day on which the process of creating the inter-species embryo began.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
I simply do not agree with any inter species mixing of gametes, for any duration of time, for any reason.

---

You aren't suggesting the embryo is more sacred than the foetus, are you?

ETA: Breaking news:

Gay scientists believe they have isolated the cause of Christianity

[ 22 March 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Sorry, remind. If you want to ban certain areas of scientific research, the ball is in your court to justify such a dubious stand. I don't have to prove to you the future benefits of research that hasn't even begun yet.

---

Nonsense! Stem cell research is one thing, mixing of other species with human gametes, goes well beyond stem cell research for human benefit.

And how about we fix problems science has already created before we make more?

quote:

---

You aren't suggesting the embryo is more sacred than the foetus, are you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Remind, I don't understand your opposition to this, but let me just point out that all the opposition reported in the U.K. media to date comes from people who say it conflicts with their religious beliefs. There may be non-theological opposition from the scientific community, but I haven't seen it reported.

---

Not to mention that in the US the "Human Chimera Prohibition Act" was introduced by Sen Sam Brownback (R-Kan) and was cosponsered by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev), Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla) and Sen. Richard Santorum (R-Penn).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

Not to mention that in the US the "Human Chimera Prohibition Act" was introduced by Sen Sam Brownback (R-Kan) and was cosponsered by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev), Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla) and Sen. Richard Santorum (R-Penn).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Remind, I don't understand your opposition to this

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Just cells, an incremental start, is what I see, as I know full well, that science will not want to, and most likely will not, stop at 14 day old cells.

---

And what if "science" went further? Explain why that would be bad, please.

quote:

---

And those who deny this are being disengenuous at best.

---

quote:

---

And what if "science" went further? Explain why that would be bad, please.

---

If they created a fully fledged human clone, is that a free human being or property?

What if they perfect the technology to produce blue-eyed, blonde children?

Science is less often conducted in the interests of humanity than in the interests of profit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
I don't agree with the Church but I am fearful of science in the employ of global corporate interests.

---

So am I, but almost all science today is in such employ, is it not? Look to the funding.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
If they create life forms, do they own them?

If they created a fully fledged human clone, is that a free human being or property?

Science is less often conducted in the interests of humanity than in the interests of profit.

I don't agree with the Church but I am fearful of science in the employ of global corporate interests.

---

Exactly, FM, and society, at large, needs to have discussions and set laws and policies about this, long before action begins on this type of technological advancement.

Moreover, there are a good deal more questions, that require answers, other than what you illuminated.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

And science is never interested in humanity, per se, science exists FOR science.

---

Thank goodness for that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

This is developing into one of the more backward discussions I have ever seen.

---

Had to wander away for a minute over that, come to grips with the instant repulsion I felt, and think about it, and how to respond.

When I was younger, okay young, there was a movie out about scientists using primates to study the potential effect of radiation on fighter pilots, to see how long they could remain functional, under x, y, and z amounts of radiation.

I kinda shrugged it off, as being; "all for the good of humanity" and let slide by.

Then, later on in life, when I read accounts of what Drs and scientists did, in the name of science, under a xenophobic government dictates, I had to take a serious look at my "science for the sake of science", and "all for the good of humanity", beliefs, as they are inhumane.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

If they create life forms, do they own them?

---

I believe so.

quote:

---

If they created a fully fledged human clone, is that a free human being or property?

---

The legislation states that they can't clone a fully fledged human.

quote:

---

What if they perfect the technology to produce blue-eyed, blonde children?

---

This will come and I don't have a problem with it. I think that if the technology is available parents have the right to use it. Those people who fear the potential loss of human diversity are free to not use the technology, or even to use the technology to create more diversity.

quote:

---

Science is less often conducted in the interests of humanity than in the interests of profit.

---

I disagree. I can think of far more scientific study which was done in the pursuit of knowledge than profit. Just look at any issue of Science or Nature. The level of uproar in the scientific community caused over Venter entering the human genome project in the search of profits was because most research is actually not motivated by profits. That is changing, but it is not because scientists want to change - they generally abhor such an idea - it is because they are slowly being forced to by governments, and funding cuts.

Specificially referring to issues of genetic modification, you may be right, but that is more due to government's and educational institutions being scared away by relgious and environmental conspiracy theorists.

quote:

---

I don't agree with the Church but I am fearful of science in the employ of global corporate interests.

---

Pain and suffering, and other inhumane treatment of "created" species, under the guise of testing and analysis, which could be extreme as they would be something "new" and "owned". And that brings us to ownership of created species and is something which is completely unacceptable to me.

Beyond that is the inevitable exploitation of an "owned" species.

What consideration is being given to what the impact of a new species would be upon the world? There are multitudes of considerations here.

We do not know how to look after ourselves and the species that are here, I think we need to do better in those areas, before we delve any further.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
I have nothing against stem cell research, just against the creation of a human and other species hybrid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
You can't be serious about opposing "other species hybrid". You have something against mules? Or grapefruit?

---

quote:

---

4. Polluting the environment
5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor
6. Excessive wealth
7. Creating poverty

---

It's like lip service and just never gets picked up by the christian folk. Wouldn't it be sweet to see them daily picketing the stock market, banks, big corporations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Issues, aside from creating more problems, than have been fixed, because of science, which are in fact more significant, would be in the areas that I briefly detailed above.

---

I would argue that science has fixed far more problems than it has created.

quote:

---

Pain and suffering, and other inhumane treatment of "created" species, under the guise of testing and analysis, which could be extreme as they would be something "new" and "owned". And that brings us to ownership of created species and is something which is completely unacceptable to me.

---

For the most part we are talking about clumps of cells.

But sometimes we are talking about species, for instance several years ago they modified mice so that some of their brain cells would be human brain cells. It doesn't appear as though it made any difference to the mice (although who really knows) but it allowed scientists to investigate human brain cells at a far quicker rate than they could have on actual humans. It also allowed them to evaluate if and how drugs react differently on human brain cells vs mice brain cells. The case can be made that any animal experimentation is immoral (I won't make that case, but I can understand that viewpoint), but I have difficulty understanding how this animal experiment was less moral or ethical then other animal experimentation.

Chickens, cows pigs etc that are consumed are owned.

quote:

---

Beyond that is the inevitable exploitation of an "owned" species.

---

I don't understand how an "owned" species would be any more exploited than our current "owned" species. Lets not forget that 99.9% of these new creatures will be a couple cells which are destroyed within 14 days, vs the billions of sentinent animals which are currently in the food system.

quote:

---

What consideration is being given to what the impact of a new species would be upon the world? There are multitudes of considerations here.

---

What considerations would you like to be taken for a human stem cell created in the cell of another species because it is easier, cheaper and faster?

quote:

---

We do not know how to look after ourselves and the species that are here, I think we need to do better in those areas, before we delve any further.

---

Almost all of this research will be towards understanding ourselves, other species and the world better.

quote:

---

I have nothing against stem cell research, just against the creation of a human and other species hybrid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

I guess I did not word it succinctly enough, I meant a human and animal/reptile/bird/insect, hybrid. Where there is human DNA used to form another species, in conjunction with another species DNA.

---

I don't see such a thing ever happening, but for instance they have replaced the genetic code for fruit fly eyes with the very different genetic code for mice eyes and found that the resulting fruit flies had normal fruit fly eyes (which are astronomically different form mice eyes). The results were considered pretty shocking and advanced scientific knowledge significantly as it was realized that for the most part transfer of genetic code between two species doesn't generally lead to a animal which is a combination of the two.

[ 22 March 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
And I simply do not concur, that science has fixed more than it has broken.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
I do see it coming trevor

---

No sense arguing this point as it would just be speculation for both of us.

quote:

---

And I simply do not concur, that science has fixed more than it has broken.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

No sense arguing this point either as we would get no where.

---

quote:

---

And I simply do not concur, that science has fixed more than it has broken.

---

I gather from your response that you are not opposed to vaccinations.

[ 22 March 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

The Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales sent a letter to parishes which was read in churches on Sunday 20 January, saying the bill raised "key concerns". The leading concern was about hybrid embryos: "for example, from the egg of a woman and sperm from an animal. To do this would be a radical violation of human dignity."

It is "a radical violation of the truth", says Chris Shaw of King's College London. He says experiments currently planned call for implanting an adult human cell into an animal egg, from which all the animal DNA is removed. The resulting embryo contains only human genes, and should produce embryonic stem cells genetically matching the donor.

Such "cybrids" are "devoid of an animal genetic identity", says Stephen Minger, head of the stem cell lab at KCL, one of two UK labs that has applied to conduct such experiments.

"We are very disturbed that the Catholic bishops claim the bill will allow us to create half-human, half-animal embryos," says Lyle Armstrong of the second lab at Newcastle University."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Does anyone have anything, other than the rantings of some Catholic bishops, to contradict the above?

---

See here.

Very scarey stuff.

Edit: and don't forget aboutthis either

[ 22 March 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

---------------------------------------

Unionist, yes, I agree with some vaccinations, while others I do not.

eta the (a)

[ 22 March 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

See here.

Very scarey stuff.

Edit: and don't forget aboutthis either

---

Holy Christ almighty, it's worse than I thought. What's next?

[ 22 March 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

Catholic leader urges free vote

quote:

---

The Roman Catholic leader in England and Wales has urged a free vote on the government's controversial embryo bill.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor said Catholic MPs would want to vote according to their conscience [sic]. ...

"I think Catholics in politics have got to act according to their Catholic convictions, so have other Christians, so have other politicians."

---

Plastics were supposed to improve our quality of life. They did not, in a huge number of areas.

Pesticides and herbicides were supposed to help our food production, they did not.

Allegedly, science can put people on the moon, but we can't achieve a sustainable standard of living for all the world's peoples.

Genetically modifed foods are poison to our bodies and the environment.

The world has more cancers and auto-immune diseases than ever before recorded, in history, because of enviromental conditions created by science.

Then there is the whole field of medical science and pharmacology human testing that has had as many disasterous results, as good ones. Far too many to list on either side even.

Many of the negative outcomes of science have occured because of lack of judicious thought, combinmed with greed and glory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Read Section 4(a)2, as it is the pertinent one.

---

You seem to think it says the opposite.

Since the 1990 Act was passed, novel processes of embryo creation have been developed which, in theory, could be used to create embryos combining human and animal material. The extent to which the 1990 law and the regulatory powers therein would apply to embryos created in these circumstances was thought not to be sufficiently clear, and that is the reason for the amendment. The amendment makes it clear that "chimera embryos" do fall under the regulatory powers of the Act, and they cannot legally be created without a licence granted by the Minister.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Both science and religion are very patriarchial and perhaps equally as dogmatic. For myself, I would rather see actual equality gained for all, instead of a patriarchial science attempting to create more possessions, of the living kind, in this instance, and call it "looking for medical improvements".

---

Explain how science is patriarchial?

quote:

---

Pesticides and herbicides were supposed to help our food production, they did not.

---

Actually they did.

quote:

---

Allegedly, science can put people on the moon, but we can't achieve a sustainable standard of living for all the world's peoples.

---

That is not problem of science, but politics.

quote:

---

Genetically modifed foods are poison to our bodies and the environment.

---

Any evidence of this poison? (edit: likewise I am still waiting for the Green Party to supply evidence for the same claims - so far nadda thing.)

quote:

---

The world has more cancers and auto-immune diseases than ever before recorded, in history, because of enviromental conditions created by science.

---

Can't speak for auto-immune diseases, but incidences of cancer adjusted for age is about the same compared to 100 years ago. If you remove lung cancer caused by smoking then age adjusted cancer rates are down significantly. (that isn't my own opinion but the stated facts found in cancer biology textbooks such as The Biology of Cancer and Cancer Biology and well as medical journals)
Most of that is because of better food preservation and canning (science) which has reduced stomach cancer (which was responsible for almost half of all cancers 100 years ago) to about 10% of its incidence a century ago. Another factor in the reduction of cancer levels is the availability of cheap fruits and vegetables year round thanks to synthetic fertilizers and pesticides (science). Contrary to popular belief, while it is true that synthetic pesticides are often carcinogens at very high doses (as found by Ames in the 70s), it has since been found (also by Ames in the 80s) that almost everything else is. In fact Ames work estimated that natural chemicals within the food we eat makes up about 99% of the carcinogens we ingest, but that our bodies can easily deal with the carcinogens we consume in the form of pesticides or food. If you want to reduce your carcinogen load by about half, give up coffee. You will ingest more carcinogens in a single cup then the average person does from pesticides in a year.

Edit:
Here is a report by Ames in the Proceding of the National Academy of Sciences:

Dietary pesticides (99.99% all natural)

Remember that this is not a report by a right wing wack job, but by the person who developed the Ames test and argued for the banning of many pesticides in the 70s after his test showed that many of them were carcinogens. Strangely, many environmentalists still quote his early work, but they all ignore his later work.

[ 22 March 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Then there is the whole field of medical science and pharmacology human testing that has had as many disasterous results, as good ones. Far too many to list on either side even.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
"Section 4A(2) prohibits mixing human gametes with the gametes of an animal and creating, keeping or using an inter-species embryo without a licence," according to the material you quoted above.

You seem to think it says the opposite.

---

No, I think it says what it does, the key words are in that Bill are: "without a license", it prohibits it only when someone does not have a license to do so. If you have a license then it is a go.

quote:

---

To oppose this amendment is to support the continued existence of possible loopholes that would allow unregulated research on chimera embryos, because such research was not contemplated by the legislators back in 1990.

---

quote:

---

The question in this thread relates to the banning, through legislation, of a particular type of research. What's your view on that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

I think some areas of research are too important to leave to the whims of the profit motive. What do you think?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

I think some areas of research are too important to leave to the whims of the profit motive. What do you think?

---

I think it's important to separate research and its applications.

In the case we're talking about, private commercial use of the products of this research should be prohibited by law.

Are science and religion the only two possible viewpoints? Are they mutually exclusive?

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:
Is science value-neutral?

---

Science is, yes. Of course it is. But the motivations that choose which scientific research to pursue, and in which directions, certainly are not.

quote:

---

Are science and religion the only two possible viewpoints? Are they mutually exclusive?

---

No, there may be other anti-scientific beliefs - such as non-religious superstition, ignorance, "folk" and other explanations and disciplines not based on the scientific method but not necessarily religious in nature (e.g. homeopathy). But science is the only universally recognized, verifiable and reproducible system and method for explaining the real world.

quote:

---

Substituting metaphysics for religion, is either perspective adequate on its own to account for all of the factors that people are interesting in discussing about this issue?

---

Not sure what "metaphysics" means in your context, but it is extremely clear that there are a variety of factors "people are interesting in discussing".

quote:

---

Science is, yes. Of course it is. But the motivations that choose which scientific research to pursue, and in which directions, certainly are not.

---

You might say science is value-neutral, whereas technology is not.

This case has the complication though that we are talking about the regulation of technology that is needed for medical science.

If we are concerned about specific applications, it makes sense to legislate what applications are permitted, with a prohibition on all other applications. In that case I don't see why you need to prevent for-profit research. If the specific use has been deemed acceptable, why does it matter who pays for it?

quote:

---

Does anyone truly believe that its concern about human embryos is disconnected with its concern for human foetuses?

---

Clearly the opposition is mainly by those who want to see a bunch of cells as something more than a bunch of cells. Abortion, stem cell research, and embryo projects such as this, all have that common thread.

[ 23 March 2008: Message edited by: Proaxiom ]

Bishop condemns embryo study plan

quote:

---

The Bishop of Durham has attacked government plans which could allow scientists to create embryos combining human DNA and animal cells.

In his Easter Sunday message, given at Durham Cathedral, Rt Rev Tom Wright issued a rallying call to all faiths to object to the "1984-style" proposals.

He accused ministers of pushing through legislation from "a militantly atheist and secularist lobby." ...

"The irony is that this secular utopianism is based on a belief in an unstoppable human ability to make a better world, while at the same time it believes that we have the right to kill unborn children and surplus old people, and to play games with the humanity of those in between. ...

"It shouldn't just be Roman Catholics who are objecting. It ought to be Anglicans and Presbyterians and Baptists and Russian Orthodox and Pentecostals and all other Christians, and Jews and Muslims as well."

---

The good Bishop is right to fear us "militant atheists and secularists".

That's pretty funny.

More than 200 charities write to every MP urging them to support bill

quote:

---

Leading charities have written to every MP urging them to support the controversial embryo research bill, the BBC has learned.

Cancer Research and the British Heart Foundation are among more than 200 charities in favour of the creation of human-animal hybrids for research. ...

The letter, written by the Association of Medical Research Charities, says although there are ethical issues in allowing scientists to create embryos that combine human DNA and animal cells for research, the move offers "considerable benefits" to future patients.

The letter goes on to say the charities believe there is considerable public support for the move.

The letter states: "... public understanding of the importance of the use of early-stage embryos and ensuing stem cell research remains robust; there is a real acknowledgement of its potential for those who are ill."

---

quote:

---

Is science value-neutral?

Science is, yes. Of course it is. But the motivations that choose which scientific research to pursue, and in which directions, certainly are not.

---

To philosophers the question is not so clear. There are many ways of understanding the world, including, for example, the various social sciences, feminist scholarship, and traditional FN perspectives. So the decision to apply a scientific process is, arguably, itself value-laden. There is a further whole area of discourse about the relationship between "hard" science and values, including questions about the nature of truth, objectivity, evidence and the scientific method. I have talked to practicing scientists who very much support the necessity of that kind of discussion.

[ 23 March 2008: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:
There is a further whole area of discussion about the relationship between "hard" science and values, including questions about the nature of truth, objectivity, evidence and the scientific method.

---

I was referring to the physical sciences, obviously, not the social ones, where of course values and politics play a huge role.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
For no one is greater than God - and we worship no one!!

---

Beyond that comment, I have been contemplating this subject over the last 2 or so days. Looking at the varied parameters and dynamics at play in both the topic and the ensuing discussion.

Those who have stated similarly that the opposition is mainly by those who want to see a bunch of cells as something more than a bunch of cells. Abortion, stem cell research, and embryo projects such as this, all have that common thread are for the most part correct, in my view.

The over-arching factors spurring the Christian religions negative stance are basic, the devoutly religious, and perhaps not so devoutly even, believe, whether they realize it, or not, that a woman's uterous is not her own. Some have held onto historic myths/explanations of how humans are conceived, and are failing to see that factor at play in their conscious decision making factors, IMV. It is basically, to some; 'God's womb to bring forth His children, at His will in'.

Also, contained in this conceptual framework is God's ownership of the ovum and sperm, to do His will with. Some, who hold this to be a truth, cannot see the further aspects to this position, and would like to implement what they believe is God's will, but in truth, it is their own willfullness at play.

IMV, if humans commence creating species, the cognative dissonance would be too profound, for any continued deep seated belief in "God's womb", and the "He created me" syndrome would have to fall away. For this reason alone, I sway towards supporting the mixing of species gametes. As I believe the off shoot would be that women would finally own our wombs, instead of a mythical being having that ownership entitlement, which is controlled by 'His' designate on earth.

Having said that, I still have deep reservations, as detailed by me, above.

[ 23 March 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Thankfully we're still building bridges and growing crops and manufacturing trains and conducting surgery with at least some consensus among humanity as to what is "real" science and what is tomfoolery or quackery.

---

Bridges fall. Trains derail, unexpectedly. Crops fail, or damage other systems. Surgery success rates neglect to take into account the dramatic increase in negative outcomes, such as cardiopulmonary events, in the months following a major procedure, as these are considered unrelated to the surgery itself.

Eventually, justification catches up with discovery, and then it is said that the science has improved. Until then, the naysayers are called quacks.

None of this evolving process of understanding is prescribed under the scientific method.

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:
None of this evolving process of understanding is prescribed under the scientific method.

---

The scientific method is precisely an evolving process of understanding.

In it, you gather evidence, form a theory to explain it, gather more evidence, revise your theory if it doesn't fit (or else scrap it and form a new one to fit the evidence), gather more evidence, and on ad infinitum. Over time the theory converges on the truth.

Naysayers are called quacks if they insist on something being true without any evidence to support it. Such insistence is often in human nature -- we draw conclusions from speculation -- but it is irrational, and we can demonstrate that people are wrong far more often than they are right when they start making assertions outside of what evidence and reason can justify.

The decision to apply a scientific process is 'value-laden' only insofar as insistence on the use of reason to solve problems is a value.

To review:

[ 23 March 2008: Message edited by: Proaxiom ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:

Eventually, justification catches up with discovery, and then it is said that the science has improved. Until then, the naysayers are called quacks.

---

No, the quacks are the ones whose theories don't stand up to the slightest experimental verification or peer replication - but they want to sell stuff to the gullible anyway. The Newtons and Galileos and Copernicuses and Einsteins were never called "quacks", although they challenged the prevailing paradigms, because science inherently embraces those challenges.

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:

Bridges fall.

---

That's true it does happen - albeit very rarely. But are you saying that you would feel just as confident driving over a bridge that has been designed and guided by science, versus one that has been say designed and guided by astrology or guessing?

quote:

---

Trains derail, unexpectedly.

---

Yes, but in almost every case of a train derailing or a plane crashing the scientific method is used to figure out exactly how and why it happened. That new understanding is used to prevent - or at least reduce the chances of - the same thing from happening again.

quote:

---

Crops fail, or damage other systems.

---

Are you blaming science for crop failure? Do you believe that the crop failure rate was lower when farmers made sacrifices to gods?

quote:

---

Surgery success rates neglect to take into account the dramatic increase in negative outcomes, such as cardiopulmonary events, in the months following a major procedure, as these are considered unrelated to the surgery itself.

---

Actually study after study shows the rate of adverse events for patients following surgeries, procedures, new drug routines etc and compares those results to control groups. I have personally sat in on lectures at hospitals where they discussed for instance the adverse events of all patients who had received certain types of stents following PCIs (percutaneous coronary intervention), compared the likelyhood of adverse events depending on the type of stent. It was incredibly detailed. The system isn't perfect and as the healthcare field becomes more interconnected when it comes to their computer systems it will get better. But, I far more often see conspiracy theorists blaming every adverse event that occurs on a previous medical procedure or drug, than I see the medical field hiding or ignoring future events. For instance recently when a nutter in the US said that the HPV vaccine resulted in a catalouge of horrors, by claiming that every adverse event that happened in the three years after the study group received the vaccination was CAUSED by the vaccination and by ignoring that the control group had the exact same number and type of adverse events as the study group. If you get a transplant and go to any hospital any time in the future it is my understanding that you will be interviewed by someone from the...can't remember the name of the group... but they follow up even the most minor ailments.

Maybe you are being confused by alternative medicine which has no studies to verify that they work and adverse events are not recorded or even acknowledged.

quote:

---

Eventually, justification catches up with discovery, and then it is said that the science has improved. Until then, the naysayers are called quacks.

None of this evolving process of understanding is prescribed under the scientific method.

For example.

---

Baloney. Almost everyone who is called a quack today will still be considered a quack in the future, for the obvious reason that almost all of them are not doing science, and most of them are praying on and profitting from the most vulnerable in society, without providing anything of value (and often harm) in return.

[ 23 March 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

In your example, stent implantation is a surgical procedure performed to treat a heart condition. It is no surprise that negative coronary outcomes are included in the data for that type of procedure. However, major surgery for ostensibly unrelated causes also produces a significant increase in the mortality rate due to cardiopulmonary events, and this is often not looked for in the data.

Random example: in the below study tracking mortality after surgery for early GI cancer, the incidence of heart attack is double the expected rate, and death caused by pneumonia occurs at six times the anticipated frequency for the controlled population.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9143577

Why does the surgeon not warn you about this? Because this information is not usually captured in the data, and the reason for that is because on the western medical (or medicolegal) model, treatment of the GI tract does not have a causal relationship with remote illness involving the heart or lungs.

This is just one example of what some philosophers of science refer to in saying that the context of scientific discovery is not, as alleged, distinct from the context of justification, in the scientific method. Cultural factors do play a role.

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:
In your example, stent implantation is a surgical procedure performed to treat a heart condition. It is no surprise that negative coronary outcomes are included in the data for that type of procedure. However, major surgery for ostensibly unrelated causes also produces a significant increase in the mortality rate due to cardiopulmonary events, and this is often not looked for in the data.

---

This is not a criticism of science: it can't be, because it is applying scientific method. It's just in this case the topic under study is methodology for assessing risks associated with medical procedures.

quote:

---

This is just one example of what some philosophers of science refer to in saying that the context of scientific discovery is not, as alleged, distinct from the context of justification, in the scientific method. Cultural factors do play a role.

---

This is a point about how science is applied, not science itself. Humans have a tendency to make mistakes, and it's not always easy to override our inherent biases, though when we find them we try to design methodologies with the goal of minimizing them. None of this changes the fact that science is the only means we have for separating truth from fiction. If there is a problem with how science is being applied, the only way to challenge it is by using science.

quote:

---

This is one reason why I don't agree with leaving such an important issue as manipulation of the human genetic code in the hands of scientists alone. There are many other perspectives that need to be respectfully heard and understood before we go down that path.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:
My point is that science is limited in scope, and within that scope it is fallible.

---

I always thought it was scientists who were limited in scope and fallible.

quote:

---

... the western medical (or medicolegal) model ...

---

Uh oh. As opposed to what other model?

quote:

---

Cultural factors do play a role.

---

I never noticed that there are separate medicine, chemistry, physics, biology, and math journals for different cultures. Not respectable journals, I mean. Say, you're not a fan of homeopathy and acupuncture, are you?

quote:

---

This is one reason why I don't agree with leaving such an important issue as manipulation of the human genetic code in the hands of scientists alone.

---

1. The law in the U.K. regulates these matters, and there is no proposal to leave it in the hands of "scientists alone" that I am aware of.

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:
Nice try unionist, but you got nothing! I am not religious -- the opposite -- and neither am I a fan of any particular alternative health remedies.

---

Where did I say - or even hint - that you are religious? And what's your answer to my question about why you specified "western" medical model?

Are you suggesting that science and religion are sort of on the same plane - optional and fallible ways of looking at the world?

If so, I really have no interest in pursuing that discussion. No offence, but I find it sophomoric and neither very useful nor progressive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
There may be perfectly good reasons to oppose certain kinds of research but, like unionist, I won't count conflict with religion among them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:

Who else is doing it, in this instance?

---

I think Proaxiom's point is that only various religious elements have spoken out against this legislation, as far as we know, and that's a pretty poor reason to censor research.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Are you suggesting that science and religion are sort of on the same plane - optional and fallible ways of looking at the world? If so, I really have no interest in pursuing that discussion. No offence, but I find it sophomoric and neither very useful nor progressive.

---

No, actually, it's more of a graduate thesis.

You are not on solid ground in dismissing others' beliefs about human life out of hand, on the basis that they cannot be accounted for in the realm of science.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Holy Christ almighty, it's worse than I thought. What's next?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:
You are not on solid ground in dismissing others' beliefs about human life out of hand, on the basis that they cannot be accounted for in the realm of science.

---

Hasn't been accounted - or "cannot be accounted"? "Cannot be accounted for in the realm of science" is the refuge of everyone who doesn't want to be accountable for their theories.

quote:

---

Science has its place. The other disciplines help it find it.

---

I believe in this world. Call it my religion if you like.

quote:

---

Gordon Brown says Labour MPs will get a free vote on the most controversial parts of the new embryology Bill.

The MPs will be able to follow their consciences in three areas - including allowing scientists to create embryos with human DNA and animal cells.

But the prime minister expects all Labour MPs to back the whole bill when it comes to the final Commons vote.

---

I find it interesting that Brown would bother offering a free vote on this. That would be normal in Canada when a PM/Leader is challenged by the MPs of the party.

But in the UK it isn't unusual for large blocks of dissidents to vote even against a sitting PM. [Never happen here.]

quote:

---

The Government's Commons majority has been slashed to just 28 as it fought off a Tory motion calling for an immediate inquiry into the Iraq war.

The Government survived the Commons vote by 299 to 271 as 12 Labour rebels joined the Opposition parties to back an inquiry.

The result saw Labour's usual Commons majority of 67 cut by more than half, and represented an even tighter margin than a similar vote last June which the Government won with a majority of 35. ...

Labour rebel Robert Marshall-Andrews (Lab, Medway) said the need for an inquiry was now "urgent, necessary and immediate".

"This isn't a war which is anywhere near its termination or end and that is why we cannot possibly wait until such time as that occurs," he said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
No, I think it says what it does, the key words are in that Bill are: "without a license", it prohibits it only when someone does not have a license to do so. If you have a license then it is a go.

---

At least the amendment would introduce an element of government accountability for the research it allows.

quote:

---

I oppose both unregulated and regulated chimera embryos. And I seee this Bill as only trying to regulate it, not stop it.

---

And what would be your grounds for a blanket ban on such research, as opposed to, say, the severe limitations in the proposed amendment, which provide, in Section 4A(3) that any inter-species embryo created under licence cannot be kept after the earliest of either:

• the appearance of the primitive streak (an indicator for the start of a process by which the cells of the embryo begin to separate into three distinct cells types which will go on to form different types of tissue); or

• 14 days from the day on which the process of creating the inter-species embryo began.

quote:

---

Preventing fertility clinics from refusing treatment to single women and lesbians -under current legislation clinics must take account of the welfare of the unborn child including "the need for a father". This will be replaced by the "need for supportive parenting".

Creating a child with the correct tissue match to save a sick brother or sister.

Creating so-called hybrid animal/human embryos to aid stem cell research.

---

If these segments fail to get passed, does this mean they will not be part of the final Bill, as the article is not really clear about that?

quote:

---

Labour MPs have been given free votes on three proposals in the bill, which will be debated and voted on over two days in the House of Commons.

These are the creation of hybrid embryos, "saviour siblings" - creating a child with a tissue match to save a sick brother or sister - and giving lesbian couples equal rights to IVF treatment.

In addition, they will have a free vote on amendments tightening abortion laws, which will reduce the upper limit from 24 weeks to 22 or even 20 weeks.

The prime minister offered the free-vote deal after warnings that some Catholic Labour MPs and cabinet ministers were ready to rebel.

---