When the Homily is about Immunology

"Scientists plan stem cell cure for blindness"

Ummm...interesting title for this article, eh?

I've worked on finding "cures" for over ten years now and let me be the first to tell you that no scientist would label his or her clinical trials like this. You'll note there is little or no mention in the article that this trial might fail?

Why? Because this isn't an article about the science, it's about the issue of embryonic stem cell research...an issue, coincidently, that much of the current US congress is itching to address. Therefore we have this convenient story which is designed to make those of us against killing babies in order to eat their flesh look like we have no sympathy for the blind. That's a harsh way to put it, isn't it James? Yep, but think about it: if we believe human life begins at conception, then what are we to make of harvesting those human lives and using their cells - their flesh - to benefit us.

Another step on the road toward utilitarian morality. If you can't hear it complain, it isn't human.

Addendum: This afternoon this story is released. "Teams mimic stem cells using skin cells"

A couple of things I noted: "-a big if-" Interesting wording...not a quote from an "expert" or "scientist", but from the reporter. Curing blindness with human embryos was apparently a less bigger if? In general I sense a lot more caution and refrain in how this article is written and the quotes used. Maybe it's just me?

Now, check this out: "At a press conference Wednesday, Hochedlinger and a member of a second team said their work was not an attempt to evade the ethical objections to embryo destruction."

Why on earth not? Why would it be a problem, for crying out loud, that our scientists would be seeking a middle ground...a better way? Must science be absolutely devoid of moral judgments? Wow, how scary is that? Think about why this even needed to be mentioned...think very seriously about it.

The issue has the potential to turn into the Global Warming debate. Researchers who start showing data that says the use of embryos isn't necessary can suddenly find their funding dried up? Or we start seeing pro-life groups funding research and suddenly the data generated is tainted. Researchers who actually DO dare to voice their moral opinion of embryonic research are stigmatized. Etc Etc. Watch and see if it doesn't start to happen. THIS is precisely why the Hochedlinger needed to mention this!