Government give in to Relgious pressure over Chimera...

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Agent_Smith, Jan 5, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. And there was me thinking that we were a step in front of the spams in terms of science and religion's power over it, but it seems not :roll:

    Sorry for the long cut and pastes, but i feel extremely strongly on this issue, and would appreciate input from the collective.

    The times

    The report below was featured on radio 4 earlier, but the online version seems to have omitted any objection/pressure from the religious lobby.

    BBC news
  2. Another case of religion fucking things up for us. religion should be outlawed.
  3. Here is an even better critique of the govt's questionable judgement over this issue.

  4. Why is this religion's "fault"?

    If scientists weren't p1ssing around with human and animal cells, then this ethical issue wouldn't have arisen! The trouble is, you give some geek like Richard Dawkins a BSc and he automatically thuinks he's fecking Prometheus.
  5. I don't think thats a very informed comment old chap, its a bit more complex than that. Stem cell research is the future of medicine, I know thats a very strong statement but I personally believe it to be true. How can there be a "groundswell of public concern", when the a large proportion of people are probably unaware of the implications of stem cell research and the benefits that it will yield. Im completely against "f*cking with nature" as it were, I dont want to see a Koala-Bird-Mutant-Fish in the back garden, but these stories are being sensationalised, as usual. These are my personal opinions.

    Cheers Easy!
  6. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    Beacause if we weren't running around with a bunch of folk that still believe that creationism is right, God exists and that Darwinism is wrong, we wouldn't have this complete fudge.

    I don't have a problem with this ethically. None what so ever. If we want scientific progess then we need to be a less squemish about things.
  7. With Cuddles on this one and I am not in the slightest bit religous.

    I don't carry donor cards as a matter of principle either.
  8. There are no ethics to this issue... its just an embryo... never to be allowed to divide into any kind of animal.

    These issues will always be lent on by the religious who don't want man acting as god, perhaps because its a further step in the realisation of how utterly unnecessary gods are, and how utterly deluded they are.

    Edited also to add that Richard Dawkins is a Professor and therefore has a PhD... and was a successful scientist before "taking on religon". If you can't respect his ideas you should at least respect his achievements. Personal slurs are the last refuge of someone with no logical argument.


    [edited for spelling]
  9. Eh? What principle is that? You know of course, that there are over 100 parts of your body that could be used to help other people, and even save a life? What if it would save your 'bezzer' who was shot next to you?
    It's your choice of course, but IMHO, shame on you.

    More on topic, I don't see what the problem is. It's not like people are mating with chimps or anything. (Which could probably work, although the off-spring would probably be sterile). We're talking about a couple of hundred blobs of proteins and amino acids, that gets destroyed within 2 weeks, that could potentially help a lot of people. It's just a tool. It's not 'alive'.
  10. I wondered why RMP's didn't have kids.
  11. I would like to know which religious groups are being refered to here. I am a Christian and like so many was only aware of this on the periphery. I have no objection to this scientific process and do not want my faith being flaunted as an argument for or against it. Some religious groups have a loud voice but may be very small in numbers, but for some reason the government feels that they have to bow to minority pressure groups. Even the Archbishop of Cantebury doesn't speak for all of us.
    I agree with milsum it's not alive so whats the problem.
  12. SF and others.

    The reason, just maybe, why many people (and not just religious bodies) protest against these 'developments' is that this is a 'means to an end' and not the 'end' itself.

    What do I mean? It is not being done to reduce or eradicate disease. It is being done to eliminate genetic medical defects. Once this has been achieved, we then start to move into areas such as the elimination of cosmetic 'defects' and other life-style type choices.

    Hitler tried this a few years ago with his Aryan Programme, the only difference simply being that his start point to address the problem was not the foetus, but the living person. Happy days.


  13. It's religion's fault (Or those who represent them), because the government have published a white paper looking to ban this research based on a percieved public objection to this research, when the public consultation upon which this white paper has been compiled, is inherently flawed and over represents the views and wishes of the religous lobby.

    A_S Takes a breath...

    I'm sorry cuddles but you're argument is facetious at best. It's like saying it the Isrealis fault that their neighbours attack them because they choose to be jewish.

    Or to put a more American spin on it, it's like telling the gay lobby to stop being gay if they don't like being attacked by the religious right.

    That's not really a valid argument now is it?
  14. Unless I have my facts on the subject mistaken, you are an example of why 'the public's view' should not be taken into consideration unless they are properly briefed on the subject.

    Killing people with genetic defects before they have a chance to produce offspring will 'eliminate' the defect. Using knowledge gained from stem-cell research to treat and possibly cure, say Parkinson's in a patient, is giving that person a better life. They will still have the genes for the disease in them and may well pass them on.

    However, you could in fact have meant that in which case, following your reasoning; History of heart defects in the family? No, sorry we can't treat it, that would be eliminating a genetic defect. Breast cancer run in your family? No, sorry that would be eliminating a genetic defect.....
  15. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    To your bold, which in turn allows for the reduction/eradication of susceptibility to "normal" medical complaints that overwhelm the medical services of the day. Such as some perhaps all forms of cancer. Who knows? We haven't researched it yet but it looks hopeful.

    Stop being short sighted and without getting too personal, a little naive. All research is a "means to an end" and not "the end" itself, whatever field you are in. You must do it to progress.

    Or do you think that the treatment required to medical problems have always been found by someone getting down on their knees and asking the Lord for guidance? :roll: