Comments on Secondhand Smoke: Your 24/7 Seminar on Bioethics and the Importance of Being Human: Mitt Romney's Stem Cell Politics

Yes, greenhouse gasses. Sure, most researchers wo...

2007-06-16T19:25:00.000-07:00

Yes, greenhouse gasses. Sure, most researchers would find some other job, but many would not, and perhaps they'd take a closer job. And one that doesn't use so much lab equipment. I'd love to see the electric bill at Novartis. It's a legitimate reason, you can say it's not a good enough reason, but you can't say it isn't isn't a reason.

I dont know what ANT is precisely, but the term "Altered Nuclear Transfer" sounds like it could mean "Altered Nuclear Transfer", aka, engineering changes in genes and putting them in an egg and developing an embryo. How is that ever a good thing?

Romney has never said he isn't a Transhumanist, and all we know is that he's gung ho for strange weird research, loves science fiction, and is a Mormon, which is described by the Mormon Transhumanist Association as being a natural fit for beliefs about Transhumanism. The way they describe it, you almost can't be a Mormon without desiring bioengineered humans as part of some prophesized destiny for mankind. I'd like to hear him say he's for the Egg and Sperm law, as I've prodded him to say, but he's never written me back or said anything publicly about it, so what should we believe?

The money is finite, what is spent on genetic research is not spent on, no matter how democratic the process is of dividing the pot. I vote zero for GE, all for basic care.

I haven't heard a single good argument for spending money and resources on genetic engineering at all, and the reasons to oppose it far outweigh the bad arguments I've heard.

Quite a stretch, John: Green house gases? The rese...

2007-06-15T17:52:00.000-07:00

Quite a stretch, John: Green house gases? The research in labs hardly consumes tons of energy and people are going to drive to work any way. ANT is not genetic engineering and the research would be done in animals now. I stay out of partisan politics and religion, but Romney hardly seems a transhumanist. One huge point would be to find ways to treat people, although as I said in the post, I am coming to the conclusion as a non scientist that pluripotency may be overrated as a matter of great urgency for therapies.

As to the $: I think we should have a democratic debate across the board on how we can triage government to keep spending in line--particularly if we move in the direction of some form of universal coverage. But that is a discussion for another day.

there is no reason not to back research into alter...

2007-06-15T17:41:00.000-07:00

there is no reason not to back research into alternatives.

I can think of some:

1. The money should be spent on basic health care. There is a finite amount of money, and there are people right now that can't afford to get a tooth pulled or see a doctor or get medicine.

2. The research consumes tons of energy and contributes tons of greenhouse gasses. Too many researchers drive 20 miles to work everyday. We don't need to strain our environment by maximizing that number, perhaps greater good would come from minimizing it.

3. The research could lead to genetic engineering of people. Altered Nuclear Transfer sounds a lot like genetic engineering to me. I know the idea is to mess up the genes enough so that it cannot become a viable embryo, but to hear Mitt Romney all gung ho for it makes me wonder it he sees it more grandly. His favorite book is Battlefield Earth, he's never stated if he is a Mormon Transhumanist or not, and he ignored all my letters telling him not to allow same-sex conception.

4. This sort of research trivializes health, making us seem like robots that only need proper programming, instead of living beings that need care.