UCLA Invites “One-Sided” Ethics Panel

Unfortunately promoting human embryo killing & human cloning is all that matters to UCLA anymore. A true and open discussion or debate of the issue is over…at least that’s what the school administrators are hoping for… Enter a rubber-stamp approval by a group of sympathetic pro-choice ethicists…
Feb. 5, 2006
11:10am Stem Cells and Ethics
What’s in the Dish?
Glenn McGee, Alden March Bioethics Institute
From Stem Cells to Jail Cells: Ethics, Politics and Policy Options
R. Alta Charo, University of Wisconsin School of Law
What’s In It for Egg Donors?
Mildred Cho, Stanford University Center for Biomedical Ethics
Embryo Ethics: A Religious Perspective
Kevin FitzGerald, SJ, Ph.D., Georgetown University
Moderator: Edward McCabe
My brief Google research yields…

Edward McCabe (Not an ethicist, but a scientist/doctor mesmerized by the possibilities)
http://www.societyandgenetics.ucla.edu/directors.htm
http://www.research.ucla.edu/som/progress/
“This is a unique chance to hear some of the world’s most distinguished scientists and ethicists speak not about some PR scam like cloning, but about the real developments that will soon shape our lives.”

Glenn McGee (Apparently “scratching his head” at the arguments against human embryo killing…he just doesn’t GET IT.)
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0212/28/smn.18.html
MILES O’BRIEN (CNN): All right, one final thought here, we are pretty much of time, but I got to ask you this. Is any harm done through all of this [negative reaction to cloning, embryonic stem cell research]?

GLENNMCGEE: Oh, yes, absolutely. I mean, yesterday I heard again and again, and I’ll repeat, because I think it’s true, those of us who are in favor of human embryonic stem cell research are scratching our heads yet again at where these stories come from.

I mean, if anything will motivate the Senate to take action on something like a ban on all things related to cloning, it’s going to be action like this that’s irresponsible, scares people half to death, and confuses them about the difference between making a baby and trying to do something like cure Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s using cells that may or may not come from embryos.

We want to be very, very clear that what we’re talking about today is an offshore, not so credible attempt to make a human baby, and that is not the same thing as stem cell research.

But I can say it until I’m blue in the face, and a lot of people will still be confused this afternoon.

R. Alta Charo
http://www.law.wisc.edu/facstaff/biog.php?ID=246
Professor Charo is a member of the board of the Alan Guttmacher Institute [Planned Parenthood] and the Foundation for Genetic Medicine, a member of the National Medical Advisory Committee of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and has been on the board of the Society for the Advancement of Women’s Health and the board of the former American Association of Bioethics.

Mildred Cho
http://prolifetraining.com/pro-life_blog/?p=46
Meanwhile other scientists say that a “construct” could never become a human being, by which they mean a born baby. David Magnus and Mildred Cho of the Stanford University Center for Biomedical Ethics in California stated, “There is no reason ever to believe one of these things could ever become a human being.” Right, and Dolly was not really a sheep.

Kevin FitzGerald
“He has published extensively on stem cell research, human cloning, the Human Genome Project, and health care ethics. To the fascinating subject of the new genetics he brings the professional perspective of a research scientist and the spiritual values of a Christian ethicist.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61643-2004Jan29?language=printer
The Rev. Kevin T. FitzGerald, a university bioethicist, said he reasoned that the scientists did not know the cells had come from aborted fetuses when they began their work and should not be forced to abandon potentially lifesaving studies or risk forfeiting grants. The benefits to society, he said, far outweigh the harm done by using the cells, because the abortions were not performed for the purpose of providing the cells to scientists.

“The ideal would be not to be involved with [aborted fetal cells] at all,” said FitzGerald, a Jesuit priest who holds a doctorate in molecular genetics. “Obviously, we don’t live in an ideal world. We do the best we can.”

Church officials concluded that the benefits of widespread immunization significantly outweighed the drawbacks of using aborted fetal cells, said FitzGerald.

“The connection to the abortion was distant and remote enough to say that this in no way encouraged or facilitated further abortions,” he said. “The good was a proportionately strong enough argument to say, ‘Do this.’ “

Georgetown applied the same rationale to the new dilemma, reasoning that the work its scientists had been doing was too important “to throw all this good stuff out,” FitzGerald said.

But FitzGerald acknowledged the practical challenge of avoiding the cell lines in future research projects. Investigators often must use a particular line of aborted fetal cells to qualify for a grant because the National Institutes of Health or other research funding agencies want to compare the results with other studies performed using the same source material. Using cells with different traits would make comparisons invalid, he said.

FitzGerald said Georgetown scientists should not feel threatened by the university’s actions. “We’re not trying to roll back anybody’s freedoms or disrupt anybody’s research,” he said.

~ by Barron on February 5, 2006.