"I just heard Michael J. Fox on television and he was saying how desperately we need ESCR and cloning if we're ever going to cure diseases like the terrible one he has. He sure sounded like he knew what he was talking about and, gosh, he is as sincere as can be!"It's a fair question to ask -- Do we still need embryos and cloning? Some politicians and scientists are telling us that the many treatments using adult stem cells (impressive and numerous as they are) are just not the full answer. And neither is the recent breakthrough in the use of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) which many ethicists point to as an ethical way out of the controversy.
Well, the "best" science is that which respects both technical and ethical standards; that is, science which acknowledges the moral and humane principles on which the discipline is founded as well as pragmatic considerations. This dual dedication makes iPSC research particularly notable. It meets every mark of rational, persistent science plus it includes the following ethical advantages: it does not destroy human embryos; it does not use human oocytes; and it does not alienate a large part of the country’s citizens by engaging in research that they find deeply immoral.
Answering Common Claims about Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells is a very practical, easily understood article provided by the Bioethics Defense Fund and the Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person. It is illuminating, hopeful, and an excellent resource for anyone who is looking for ways to more thoroughly understand (and explain to others) the crucial issues involved.
You'll find it right here.
