Stem Cells Might Cause Tumors

| | Comments (4)

Scientists have been using embryos from destroyed human organisms to investigate treatments for Parkinson's disease. The hope was to get these undifferentiated cells to take on the characteristics of the cells in the brain so that damaged brain cells could be replaced by the stem cells. Except from explicitly social conservative news outlets, all the press this kind of research has been getting has been nothing but favorable. Hardly anyone in the mainstream news mentions the obstacles in getting embryonic stem cells to work in this way, as opposed to the successes already achieved in using adult stem cells. Even if there is more potential good that might be accomplished by embryonic stem cells, it strikes me as a little dishonest to report only that and to ignore that actual success of adult stem cells and the difficulties with embryonic stem cells that have yet to be overcome. So there is already reason to suspect dishonesty in the news media on hiding some facts related to this research.

Even so, I have nowhere seen any mention of actual harm that this technique might cause (apart from the harm caused to the embryos themselves, of course), even among socially conservatives. Yet apparently there's long been a worry among scientists that this kind of stem cell technique would cause a different effect once the cells were at work in the brain. Undifferentiated cells have a real danger. They do not have the instructions regular brain cells have, and they need to absorb those. The hope was that they would. But what happens when cells in a part of the body do things they're not supposed to do? They become tumors. There are now indications that this may very well happen if this research goes forward with human beings. According to the article, this is something "scientists have long feared". Why, then, has hardly anyone been reporting that this kind of problem might occur? I would have expected at least those who are more conservative on this issue to mention it now and then, but I've never heard it from anyone. Are the scientists themselves hiding it so as not to decrease even further their chances of getting funding?

[hat tip: Cold Hearted Truth]


Would a cancer caused by a stem cell be the sort of thing God might well allow to happen to bring about a greater good?

Of course it might. That doesn't mean we, who don't know what greater good might follow from it, should pursue something when we know there's a strong indication of serious harm coming from it.

Well, we don't know that do we?

The whole defense aganst the argument from evil is that we cannot judge what actions lead to a greater good and which do not.

All we know is that if we allow an evil to occur, a greater good will come from it.

Steven, the word 'might' in my comment is an indication of the very ignorance that you're saying is not there.

All we know is that if we allow an evil to occur, a greater good will come from it.

Assuming the only reason God has to allow evil is the utilitarian idea that it must have a greater good, then maybe every time God allows us to allow evil it's because God has a greater good in mind. Of course, why would that justify us in doing such a thing?

But this post is not about the problem of evil or about ethical theory, and I'm not going to turn its comment section into a discussion of the problem of evil or a discussion of ethical theory.

Leave a comment


    The Parablemen are: , , and .



Books I'm Reading

Fiction I've Finished Recently

Non-Fiction I've Finished Recently

Books I've Been Referring To

I've Been Listening To

Games I've Been Playing

Other Stuff


    thinking blogger
    thinking blogger

    Dr. Seuss Pro

    Search or read the Bible

    Example: John 1 or love one another (ESV)

  • Link Policy
Powered by Movable Type 5.04