Aug 7, 2013
Dr. Mark Post Has Created/Cooked/Consumed a Burger From Stem-Cells
This is why scientists should not choose research on an empty stomach.
Loading...
seen from Uruguay
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Armenia
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Japan
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Austria
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
Dr. Mark Post Has Created/Cooked/Consumed a Burger From Stem-Cells
This is why scientists should not choose research on an empty stomach.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Organic Arsenal
Driving an iconic early 90s professorial volvo up an onramp, my mom probably prayed for the day my sister and I wouldn't be screaming in the back seat. Â It is hard to believe my fetal stem cells are still roaming her body during after second decade.
According to recent research at Tufts University, baby cells slip from the placenta into the mother's system. Â While one would presume these cells would be instantly attacked and removed, fetal cells remain within the mother up to four or five decades after the last pregnancy. Â But, what do they do? Dr. Kirby Johnson sees two possible explanations. Â The cells either protect or destroy. Â Luckily, momentum is building behind the positive hypothesis. Â The cells are just a small gift to replace the blood, sweat, and tears.
The Ownership of Cells
My Management professor was talking about ethics today, and we got on the subject of stem-cell research. She mentioned that people are in great debate right now over whether or not someone would belong to the owner of the cure. What she means is, someone owns a cure when they find it. So if someone finds a cure (or even a vaccine) for cancer, for example, that alters a person's genes, they have ownership of that cure and thus have ownership of those cells; thus, they would still own those cells when they are transferred to someone else's body. So the debate is whether or not the recipient of the cells would then, in turn, belong to the developer and thus be required to devote themselves to the developer in order for him/her to continue using the cure/vaccine on other people.
Honestly, I feel as though the answer is obvious. The recipient of the stem-cells does not belong to the developer, just as the recipients of the Jarvik-7 artificial heart don't belong to Robert Jarvik. Now this doesn't mean that it isn't morally right to further contribute to the cause, of their own volition. But that's the point; it's of their own volition. They have the choice, and no one should hold ownership over anyone else's decisions.
There may be valuable scientific knowledge which it is morally impossible to obtain. There may be truths which would be of great and lasting benefit to mankind if they could be discovered, but which cannot be discovered without systematic and sustained violations of legitimate moral imperatives.
Paul Ramsey, The Patient as Person (1973), as quoted in Stem Cells and Torture.