unless I missed something with the Adult and Cancer Stem Cell Researches, I fail to see what possible harm could come from either.
Maybe you missed, for example, the threat to public health screening of pregnant women in California? Or the risk of infection or cancer from expensive supposed stem cell 'cures'?
Obviously, you aren't a science fiction reader - or if you are, you missed a key theme in a lot of them: The worry of the abuse of technology. The person who wrote the first article strikes me as one of those: Yes, the government can take our DNA samples and such and do research on it - and it probably wouldn't surprise me if they did - but he clearly has no proof of it, and his article has nothing beyond embryonic stem cell research - in fact, there's no mention as to the type of stem cell research done. (The only reasons why I guessed that is that much of the debate centers on that particular kind, and the reference of samples taken comes specifically from the screening of the health of unborn babies.)
As for the latter article, there is a good reason why to caution people: we are still researching it. I see no reason taking a part of the baby and pregnancy - the cord, the type specifically referenced in that article - and putting that to use. As for the risk of infection, you get a risk of infection or disease just for going to the doctors office - until they get doctors made from robots that can be disinfected immediately after being used and can see the patient immediately when the patient gets there, you're always going to have to deal with at least one human who could potentially have something on their hands or feet, or could have a disease and not know it for another couple of days, etc.
Do I buy into the crap that Stem Cell Research is the be-all, end-all fix-em-upper that everyone claims it will be? Sorry, can't do that yet - anyone can speculate on what something can do, just as anyone can speculate on the problems that will have. While I can have a reason to be against a particular methodology, I understand that there will be risks involved when something is being researched, and have no problem being a guinea pig if something it can do may help me - even if it doesn't, I may have helped the next person down the line get something that does work. It's called research for a reason.
Furthermore, I have no problem with someone using what my body is done with - The kid is not going to need those cells once it is born and the cord is cut, so why should either the kid or mother care if it gets put to good use? What about the person who just gave a blood or stool sample to find impurities in their blood, why not use that stuff once they have their answer and - if it is ok to use- put it to use? From what it sounds like from the stuff I've read, you have all of the same risks as you had doing any other alternatives, and you had all of those risks without the research, so the research itself will not add any new risk, as it sounds like people might be afraid of.
One thing I did learn that would probably help is the differences between the different types of Stem Cells they are researching and where they get the samples from - It took a debate to see where I was right and where I was wrong, and I found things to be for and to be against in this as a result. Yes, the stuff is on Wikipedia, on many news articles and blogs (and forums such as this one), but many people are getting a condensed version that only tells a small part about what we should be debating about - which is what makes this debate senseless now. (To put it roughly, because most of what I have seen has been through this debate, I'd say I'm just barely scratching the surface - both on the accurate information, as well as speculation, debate, and serious nutbags out there.) This is a debate best left to those who best understand it, and not to a bunch of Mac fanboys (and fangirls) on an internet forum.
the government can take our DNA samples and such and do research on it - and it probably wouldn't surprise me if they did - but he clearly has no proof of it
Proof is not required. What makes it objectionable is the potential for harm not the actuality thereof which by definition comes too late. Presumably, you think the thousands of thalidomide victims born with crippling deformities should stop moaning about their disabilities because there was no proof that the drug was going to cause them harm?
As for the risk of infection, you get a risk of infection or disease just for going to the doctors office
You can't get cancer going to doctor's office. In any case I wouldn't think that opening up new ways of becoming infected is a very good idea.... the idea is to prevent infection not to have the widest possible choice of how to achieve it.
This is a debate best left to those who best understand it, and not to a bunch of Mac fanboys (and fangirls) on an internet forum.
Arnold Schwarzenegger? I think I'd rather go with Billings at the New Scientist... and rely on my own judgment for the moral dimension.
"If it turns out that President Barack Obama can make a deal with the most intransigent, hard-line, unreasonable, totalitarian mullahs in the world but not with Republicans? Maybe he’s not the problem."
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.