In 2002, when George W. Bush announced the names of his appointees to the President's Council on Bioethics, there were liberal bioethicists who complained that the President had «stacked» the council with «religious conservatives» who shared his views on
questions of embryonic stem cell research and «therapeutic cloning.»
Not exact matches
But just how close adult and reprogrammed
stem cells can come to matching the capabilities
of embryonic stem cells has become a contentious
question in the debate over whether the federal government should continue funding
research on
embryonic lines.
We should not only
question the construct
of the «ethics
of curing,» as I will show, but we also need to look critically at reservations toward
research on
embryonic stem cells as they are expressed in our society.
Prescinding from the ethical
questions, my own view is that there are scientifically interesting things that can come
of embryonic stem -
cell research, but that even without regulation, it wouldn't be central.
Almost 40 %
of those who claimed some knowledge about the
research in the earlier
question believed, incorrectly, that
embryonic stem cells had yielded therapeutic results, compared to only 23 %
of those who said they were unfamiliar with the
research.
I think a lot
of people were led to believe — and to what extent scientists were responsible for this is an interesting
question — that if only the regulations were relaxed,
embryonic stem -
cell science would be central to our medical
research and practice going into the future, and that it would massively alleviate suffering and produce cures for dreaded diseases.