|
Abstract: . . . do it." SOURCES: Tauer, C.A. The Lancet , July 10, 2004; vol 364: pp 209-214. Carol Tauer, PhD, emeritus professor of philosophy, The College of St. Catherine; visiting professor, Center for Bioethics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Arthur Caplan, PhD, director, Center for Bioethics, University of Pennsylvania, . . . . . . Indeed, California is about to vote on Proposition 71, which would generate $3 billion for stem cell research. Why? Money, say Caplan and Charo. With an eye to the future, states see the opportunity to attract biotechnology companies. "States are beginning to recognize there is a tremendous economic opportunity in terms . . . . . . animals? If it has to be done with human embryos, can it be done with discarded embryos? You can make sure people do not leap to the most controversial method of using stem cells without exploring other issues. This does offer the public reassurance that scientists aren't doing something because it is fashionable, that science is . . . . . . it has to be done with human embryos, can it be done with discarded embryos? You can make sure people do not leap to the most controversial method of using stem cells without exploring other issues. This does offer the public reassurance that scientists aren't doing something because it is fashionable, that science is . . . . . . will be a small number of experiments that cannot be done with discarded embryos. Those are the experiments that look at the genetic mechanisms of the causes of disease." If that seems vague, Charo has a specific example: breast cancer. Two genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, give a woman a very, very high risk of breast and ovarian . . . . . . for stem cell research. The prestige of these institutions is such that their recommendations are very likely to influence the review boards that oversee medical research. "These guidelines will go beyond the issue of [where stem cells come from] and go into what experiments you should do and not do," Charo says. "This . . . --2004,6,167,2447,10021
|