All too many people in the world see the boundaries of the possible end at what they can conceive. I noticed an op-ed piece on the tremendous benefits of embryonic stem cell research by one such character today. The digest version would be "it sounds hard, I don't like change, so let's stop people from doing it." The normal flaws of logic, leaps of faith, ignorance of economic realities, and callous disregard for human suffering and death - dolled up as concern - are in evidence. See for yourself:

One tribe of Native Americans had a saying that the old must die so the young could have their chance to live on the land. We seem about to implement a technology that will have exactly the opposite effect. For the sake of our posterity, once considered sacred but now apparently considered disposable or at least available to be saddled with the financial and emotional care of an ever-expanding geriatric population, let's give this "better living through embryos" mentality a really thorough once over before there's no turning back.

How easily some folk dispose of humanity as soon at it becomes remotely incovenient for their worldview! I have real trouble identifying with a mindset that would sacrifice billions to suffering and death in the name of a poorly defined abstract concept. There are no abstract concepts. There are only individuals - individuals, including us, including this callous writer, who will suffer and die unless progress is made.

The sole merit in this piece is that it correctly identifies the main issue with fixating all resources on one line of medical technology.

It's a fact that all of us eventually will wear out, but we generally do so at a different rate for each organ system. A 70-year-old may have a really good set of kidneys but a ticker that has seen better days, or a superb bony framework and a set of lungs that barely oxygenates him when he is at rest, and a sensory system that doesn't allow him to see or hear. Restoration of one or a couple of parts would not necessarily guarantee a prolonged period of independent, healthy living.

Not to mention the immune system, the brain, miscellaneous tissues that are hard to replace, biochemical changes in mitochondria, genes and telomeres, and so forth. Stem cell based regenerative medicine is not a single solution for aging; it cannot be. Much, much more must be done - but that is no excuse to shy away from moving forward with any area. Partial benefits are far better than no benefits, no matter what some few callous people say. The same arguments in this op-ed can be applied to all cancer research, all advances in surgery, all new medicine in fact. "It's hard, it's a partial solution, I can throw together a few objections, better not move forward."

Sadly, the author has an "M.D." after their name. With the attitude towards human suffering and death on display there, I'll be damned if I can see how that happened.

Technorati tags: aging, life extension, regenerative medicine

Posted by Reason at August 30, 2006 5:53 PM | TrackBack (1)