US Scientist: OK with Killing Embryos, Not OK with Personal Profit from Research
Next article: The Orthodox Way Blog Reviews Rice
Previous article: Converting Text Files
Share with your friends and followers:
US scientist quits top stem-cell team over ethics – Yahoo! News
The facts can’t lie.
Share with your friends and followers:
The URL to trackback this post is:
http://kevinbasil.com/2005/11/14/us-scientist-ok-with-killing-embryos-not-ok-with-personal-profit-from-research/trackback/
6 Responses to “US Scientist: OK with Killing Embryos, Not OK with Personal Profit from Research”
Copyright © 2002–2011 Kevin Robert (Basil) Fritts, all rights reserved.
November 17th, 2005 at 3:51 pm
Basil, what facts are you talking about that cannot lie what lie?
November 18th, 2005 at 12:51 am
Victoria, the facts that boggle me (as presented by the article) are:
1. Schatten is a scientist working with embryonic stem cells.
2. He is leaving over ethical questions related to whose oocytes were used to establish the line of cloned, embryonic stem cells.
That who donated the original eggs would be such an overriding ethical question, when a more basic ethical question is being ignored to do the research in the first place…. I can’t even find the words.
November 21st, 2005 at 5:12 pm
It’s called Conflict of Interest in the bureaucratic scientific world.
November 22nd, 2005 at 12:35 pm
Indeed. Conflict of interest is unethical in many fields. Some things are unethical universally.
November 22nd, 2005 at 3:49 pm
Yes. But is stem cell research one of the universally unethical things? You believe so and you have your reasons based on your worldview. He believes not and he has his reasons based on his worldview.
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:22 pm
Stem cell research, no. Embryonic stem cell research, yes. “Universally” here does not mean, “held by all.” In such a case, nothing would be universal, as there is always an exception: some group or individual with an eccentric perspective. In this case, something may be held to be “universally unethical” when it is a foundational, self-evident principle — despite a plurality of opinions on the matter. In this case, “human persons should not be treated as commodities” is the universal ethical norm in question. That there is an objective reality to which our ethical opinions must conform is also a suppositional question in these discussions. Also, the question of what constitutes a human person arises.