Deborah Blum, Pulitzer Prize-winning and science writer, has recently
published on NYT an article about stem cells research. She would
optimistically encourage people about unavoidable positive effects of this
research, despite objections of the Catholic Church, religious people, even of a large
group of scientists.
She underlines also that even in the past centuries, scientists have discovered cures and drugs for life treatening and unknown diseases, despite the opposition of Catholic Church and sometimes of Government too.
"An illuminating case study" she says, "is the late 18th-century controversy
over inoculation against
smallpox.
Condemned by clerics as both immoral and blasphemous, smallpox inoculation
offers some surprising parallels to our current impasse over research using
embryonic stem cells."
And she follows, comparing Edward Jenner to today's researchers and scientists,
involved in embrionic stem cells experimentation.
If you're curious about it, you can read full article on NYT, at this link,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/opinion/01blum.htmland you can too follow the debate on NYT, at link
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/opinion/l06stem.htmlI'd just want to express a simple point of view, that reflects also some opinions expressed in the debate.
- There are not absolute evidences of near and surely positive effects of stem cells research.
It needs time, like for every other experimentation, to obtain these results and to be, more, absolutely confident about them.
- We can't compare a vaccine with embryonic stem cells, part of another human being.
- There are too many other interests, and too many money, around embryonic stem cells today research.
- The opposition to Jenner was due to a lack of knowledge. People didn't know and didn't understand his "technology". Today opposition to embryonic stem cells research, is due for ethical reasons.
We know this technology, we understand how it works, we don't accept it.
"Who's the Man of the Shroud ?"
