Judge Halts Human-Embryonic Stem Cell Research

[Thor]

Why do you assume 'the people' who argue against you aren't fully aware of ethics involved and how these things affect human values.

Assumptions? or did I miss someone stating what you presume.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thor

Why do you assume 'the people' who argue against you aren't fully aware of ethics involved and how these things affect human values.

Assumptions? or did I miss someone stating what you presume.

I am drawing generalities for the sake of argument and trying to stay away from pointing fingers or making ad hominem like so many on Calgarypuck.

It's true though that many or most people in the technical fields are completely lacking in self-awareness or proper ethical/political context.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Thor

Why do you assume 'the people' who argue against you aren't fully aware of ethics involved and how these things affect human values.

Assumptions? or did I miss someone stating what you presume.

Yes its really annoying. I'm not in the bio field (but still in science) and I know I had to take 3 courses strictly on engineering ethics (2 in my BSc, 1 in my MSc). Although I haven't/not going to take the APEGGA test, I did take the American PE test which included a portion of ethics as well. And also while not in bio, I had to take various ethics seminars and tests as a part of my employment as well.

So to presume that we are completely ignorant of them is just annoying.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Yes its really annoying. I'm not in the bio field (but still in science) and I know I had to take 3 courses strictly on engineering ethics (2 in my BSc, 1 in my MSc). Although I haven't/not going to take the APEGGA test, I did take the American PE test which included a portion of ethics as well.

And also while not in bio, I had to take various ethics seminars and tests as a part of my employment as well.

Well, this is a problem too. Do you consider a ethics course in a technical field to be a good grounding in ethics? Perhaps it's something that we learn culturally. We live in a status quo where these arguments are either polemicized or marginalized and very few people have the ability to recognize that anymore.

[Cain]

So...very....high and mighty.

I find it hilarious that you speak of many in the scientific field not having a proper knowledge regarding the ethics pertaining to what they are doing, while you have no proper knowledge of the actual science that they are currently engaged in.

Truly, the world is going down the gutter if we don't all have the same moral/ethical/political awareness that you do. That is truly what pushes society forward.

A still more glorious dawn awaits, not a sun rise, but a galaxy rise.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cain

So...very....high and mighty.

I find it hilarious that you speak of many in the scientific field not having a proper knowledge regarding the ethics pertaining to what they are doing, while you have no proper knowledge of the actual science that they are currently engaged in.

Truly, the world is going down the gutter if we don't all have the same moral/ethical/political awareness that you do. That is truly what pushes society forward.

A still more glorious dawn awaits, not a sun rise, but a galaxy rise.

Do you understand that they are separate things?

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Cain

So...very....high and mighty.

I find it hilarious that you speak of many in the scientific field not having a proper knowledge regarding the ethics pertaining to what they are doing, while you have no proper knowledge of the actual science that they are currently engaged in.

Truly, the world is going down the gutter if we don't all have the same moral/ethical/political awareness that you do. That is truly what pushes society forward.

A still more glorious dawn awaits, not a sun rise, but a galaxy rise.

Exactly. I tried responding but then I gave up half way through my post. This is way too much bureaucracy. Ignorant people just get in the way.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by peter12

Do you understand that they are separate things?

Do you understand that you are making a pretty huge blanket statement regarding the lack of ethical awareness present in the scientific community? What is that based on? Arrogance? Especially since you seem to have a tough time grasping the concepts that they are even working on.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Exactly. I tried responding but then I gave up half way through my post. This is way too much bureaucracy. Ignorant people just get in the way.

So you can't respond. That's pretty obvious to me, anyway. It's not about ignorance and it's not about "everyone" in the scientific community. It's about cultural attitudes towards science. I just don't think you have any idea what that means.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cain

Do you understand that you are making a pretty huge blanket statement regarding the lack of ethical awareness present in the scientific community? What is that based on? Arrogance? Especially since you seem to have a tough time grasping the concepts that they are even working on.

A respectful and intelligent post would have responded to my post in detail and explained what you think current views of science are. You clearly lack the ability to do so and would prefer to engage in personal attacks. What are the concepts in science that I have a tough time grasping? I have reasonable doubts about the long-term validity of some scientific research as currently viewed in our culture.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by peter12

So you can't respond. That's pretty obvious to me, anyway. It's not about ignorance and it's not about "everyone" in the scientific community. It's about cultural attitudes towards science. I just don't think you have any idea what that means.

Ok I'll play ball with you. A recent conference I was at, one the panal discussions was on the ethics of microfluedics. The idea behind this nanotechnology was the implementation Moore's Law'ing down medical devices so that end customer could do in vivo testing at the palm of their hand for a penny a pop. This varies from the precision of low noise, high linearity signal precision circuits, to their I/O interface, sensors, their performance over temperature and how well process variations would be over a streamlined performance such as TSMC. Typically, it can be associated that low noise circuits are low power, sans the biasing circuitry which may depend on how you much you want to mitigate the low frequency noise (i.e. flickr noise) or offset. Off coarse, to get these precisions, you may need mixed-signal circuits such as PLL's and so forth. This could have huge environmental issues involved. The primary research, as I said, is Moore's Law'ing down these into a streamlined process such as one offered by TSMC. For 45 minutes, the ethics were discussed in great detail.

You go. What are your thoughts? (yes I could have said that in english, it was pretentious on purpose)

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Ok I'll play ball with you. A recent conference I was at, one the panal discussions was on the ethics of microfluedics. The idea behind this nanotechnology was the implementation Moore's Law'ing down medical devices so that end customer could do in vivo testing at the palm of their hand for a penny a pop. This varies from the precision of low noise, high linearity signal precision circuits, to their I/O interface, sensors, their performance over temperature and how well process variations would be over a streamlined performance such as TSMC. Typically, it can be associated that low noise circuits are low power, sans the biasing circuitry which may depend on how you much you want to mitigate the low frequency noise (i.e. flickr noise) or offset. Off coarse, to get these precisions, you may need mixed-signal circuits such as PLL's and so forth. This could have huge environmental issues involved. The primary research, as I said, is Moore's Law'ing down these into a streamlined process such as one offered by TSMC. For 45 minutes, the ethics were discussed in great detail.

You go. What are your thoughts?

Well, let's take this to a healthy level. I am not a computer or software engineer although I am vaguely familiar with Moore's Law as a perpetual problem in computer circuitry.

In fact, this is an interesting case study for what I was saying. The parlay and discussion of ethics in science is almost exclusively now the domain of scientists. Look at your post, you used industry and field specific language with no indication of what the ethics might be to an average person or a specialist in a different field. It's just indicated that we should trust the experts instead of appealing to the empiricism of the greater polity.

So my thoughts would be... so what? Maybe I am totally anachronistic and science/technology is simply too complicated for the average person to understand. Maybe what Aristotle said about science being only what we can know with our senses is out of date? Judging from what little I know about quantum physics, that's probably entirely true, but instead of accepting that these questions are only for the domain of scientific ethics, we either need to broaden the definition of science ethics to include contribution from the humanities (mainly philosophy and literature) or we need to start educating people on scientific issues so they are better able to answer these questions for themselves without relying on elite opinion.

Is that a fair response?

[Cain]

Originally Posted by peter12

A respectful and intelligent post would have responded to my post in detail and explained what you think current views of science are. You clearly lack the ability to do so and would prefer to engage in personal attacks. What are the concepts in science that I have a tough time grasping? I have reasonable doubts about the long-term validity of some scientific research as currently viewed in our culture.

I love to play the victim too, but I know that this debate isn't going anywhere. Nobody will convince you, and you will convince nobody.

I "attacked" you by asking if your beliefs regarding the lack of ethics in the world of science were based on arrogance. A fair question in my eyes as you are not a part of that world, nor have the technical expertise to always fully understand the work that they are undertaking and therefore if you make moral judgments, they are judgments that are colored by a lesser understanding.

I also said you were being high and mighty. Again, not a personal attack. I am not calling you a name, I am stating how you come off. If you want to deflect by focusing on these, that is fine.

Do you care to explain your reasonable doubts about the long term validity of some scientific research as currently viewed in our culture, because I don't understand what you are talking about. It is such a vague ambiguous statement.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, let's take this to a healthy level. I am not a computer or software engineer although I am vaguely familiar with Moore's Law as a perpetual problem in computer circuitry.

It was on purpose, i.e. pot/kettle. In English, its lab-on-a-chip for medical diagnostics.

Originally Posted by peter12

In fact, this is an interesting case study for what I was saying. The parlay and discussion of ethics in science is almost exclusively now the domain of scientists.

Exactly

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cain

I love to play the victim too, but I know that this debate isn't going anywhere. Nobody will convince you, and you will convince nobody.

I "attacked" you by asking if your beliefs regarding the lack of ethics in the world of science were based on arrogance. A fair question in my eyes as you are not a part of that world, nor have the technical expertise to always fully understand the work that they are undertaking and therefore if you make moral judgments, they are judgments that are colored by a lesser understanding.

I also said you were being high and mighty. Again, not a personal attack. I am not calling you a name, I am stating how you come off. If you want to deflect by focusing on these, that is fine.

Do you care to explain your reasonable doubts about the long term validity of some scientific research as currently viewed in our culture, because I don't understand what you are talking about. It is such a vague ambiguous statement.

I'm not playing the victim at all, I am expressing frustration at how poorly you responded to my post.

My skepticism in science (why is it that we can be skeptical about everything but science) is introduced by post #139 and by the post above.

I would say that I have a fairly good background in the moral sciences, see philosophy and literature. I feel that just because we call something "ethical" doesn't necessarily mean that it is necessarily so.

[Textcritic]

I think that a huge part of the problem for many (perhaps most!) participants who read your posts is that you seem to have a very difficult time presnting your ideas in simple language that everyone can understand...or is that like the pot calling the kettle black?

Anyways, I think that you are probably being misunderstood on several points in this discussion, but for the sake of the rest of us, it would be of great benefit if you could attempt to provide some clarity, and to simplify your responses.

Originally Posted by peter12

...I am uncomfortable with stem cell research, IVF and other reproductive technologies because they represent a separation of the public realm and the private realm. All of these technologies promise to reap enormous benefits for the individual, such as long-lasting and healthy life, but because they are kept separate from the moral and political world, as many posters have insisted they should be, they separate humans from the human life.

Is the bolded part what you mean by "separation of the public realm from the private realm"? When I hear these terms I think about government and the market place. While these two important spheres certainly come into play in the present discussion, I think that most would argue that they are quite secondary to the larger issue: that is, what about embryonic stem cells specifically renders them sacred? On what grounds are "reproductive tissue" technologies immoral? Furthermore, you will need to elaborate upon why you believe that the "separation" of technologies from the "moral and political world" ultimately separates "humans from human life". I don't see how one precludes the other.

Originally Posted by peter12

...a moral, political and cultural life dedicated to a single end, technological supremacy over the human body. Human life loses its meaning unless it serves some utilitarian purpose. This is a complicated argument that I am making and I feel personally quite tired even trying to make it as the status quo arguments are so apparently self-evident to so many people lacking in the proper context to make sound moral decisions.

If this is the argument that you are making, then might I suggest that you need to do a much better job in making it? Up to this point, I have not understood this as an integral part of any of your responses, and I read quite a few of them. If this is what you wish to communicate and if this is the argument you are seeking to make, then please, for the rest of us, walk us through whatever it is you are trying to say. As it stands now—and I am reasonably confident that I am not alone in this—I don't get it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

It was on purpose, i.e. pot/kettle. In English, its lab-on-a-chip for medical diagnostics.


Exactly

And this is precisely the problem that I was talking about. See post #139. I can't prove to you that I am right because we are both basically acting from perspectives of faith.

[Phanuthier]

I would wager science does more to protect society from science, then bureaucrats protect society from science.

Does science protect the society from relgion? Probably not.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'm not playing the victim at all, I am expressing frustration at how poorly you responded to my post.

My skepticism in science (why is it that we can be skeptical about everything but science) is introduced by post #139 and by the post above.

I would say that I have a fairly good background in the moral sciences, see philosophy and literature. I feel that just because we call something "ethical" doesn't necessarily mean that it is necessarily so.

My apologies.

I would ask why you think that everyone needs to make a judgment call on the ethics of scientific study? You expressed discontent about the fact that only those in the cutting edge of research are those that are able to make ethical judgments, which implies that you think that it should be a broader field able to make those judgments...am I correct in this?

If so, I would agree with you. I do think that moral/ethical decisions should be made by as large a group as possible. It is easier to monitor things that have a large group of eyes focused on them, and easier to make sure that they do not stray down the wrong paths. This however, is also a pipe dream. We do not always have an educated audience as large as we would like, and honestly, probably could not support such a large one. There are many avenues of science to be explored in this world, and many require quite a bit of specialization which rules out the majority of people ever being involved.

I guess that I agree with you to a point (if I understand you correctly anyway). However, in my mind this ideal is unattainable, so yes, I do place my trust in the various experts found across various domains because the alternative is abhorrent in my mind (the average person directing our research aims and areas). I would trust a small community that is well versed in their area to be ethical and moral in their work over a huge community that for the most part is clueless about what is even taking place to make those judgments.

[peter12]

Is the bolded part what you mean by "separation of the public realm from the private realm"? When I hear these terms I think about government and the market place. While these two important spheres certainly come into play in the present discussion, I think that most would argue that they are quite secondary to the larger issue: that is, what about embryonic stem cells specifically renders them sacred? On what grounds are "reproductive tissue" technologies immoral? Furthermore, you will need to elaborate upon why you believe that the "separation" of technologies from the "moral and political world" ultimately separates "humans from human life". I don't see how one precludes the other.

No, I'm speaking in philosophical terms. So let's start with public v. private. When I say private I am talking about the subjective Kantian private. That is, our thoughts. The private life where our worlds are entirely unique. The public sphere is the place where these thoughts may be expressed and judged by a set of peers. This is where meaning takes place and perhaps, where objective reality is created. Philosophically, we would call this politics.

Following my argument above, politics is human life or at least one of the fundamental ways of creating and validating it.

If this is the argument that you are making, then might I suggest that you need to do a much better job in making it? Up to this point, I have not understood this as an integral part of any of your responses, and I read quite a few of them. If this is what you wish to communicate and if this is the argument you are seeking to make, then please, for the rest of us, walk us through whatever it is you are trying to say. As it stands now—and I am reasonably confident that I am not alone in this—I don't get it.

Now, first of all, I want to make this very clear because I think most people on this board do not know how to have a good discussion. I very much follow the Socratic means of finding truth. That is, following the question. I have always kept utilitarianism in mind, but I thought that polemic interjections and terms like "harvesting" etc... might give some hint as to what I thought on the issue. Let's be honest, most of my views are not the status quo and thus, I am not spared the difficulty of summing up everything in one post, ie. boy, I love science, and having everyone agree with me. I have to interject contrarian views and expect, perhaps incorrectly, that people will follow up.

I shoudn't be so naive, perhaps, but I was educated in a sort of esoteric way of having discussions where one doesn't just necessarily come right and say what he is thinking.

So yes, utilitarianism is part of my point. Although, as I stated earlier, only a part of it. One greater part would be the destruction and degradation of the public realm where the ability to find some form of reality through a discussion between peers is completely missing from the culture.