Discussions
Answer 2 questions separately with different sources on each. answer as two separate questions.
QUESTION 1:
Are stem cells an area where there is more controversy than actual scientific potential?
Discussion Points:
The ground is fertile for moral arguments that heighten the perceived value of the science. Were there no moral issues, hESC research would be merely another highly technical field of little general interest. For instance, there is no significant restriction or controversy on the emergent qualities of synthetic genomics on issues like the pursuit of inheritable genetic modifications. Must moral issues be linked to established national interest groups, like the right to life groups, to become controversial?
Of course there is public controversy about hESC research, but that comes from the complex moral arguments and the lack of understanding of the science. However, the controversy obscures the truly dramatic potential for stem cells. How might stem cell researchers assist policymakers wishing to understand and engage with them?
Discuss the viewpoint that it is all a matter of education. Many new areas of traditional science threaten those not accustomed to thinking about rapidly emerging scientific discoveries. With time, the hESC controversy may dissipate; people will overcome their skepticism and realize the great potential flowing from stem cell research.
QUESTION 2:
Who should decide which genes should be kept and which altered in reprogenetics—Congress, state legislatures, or the medical community—and what role should science play in this decision process?
a. Should science play the primary role because only science understands the facts?
b. On the other hand, should science strive for dispassionate analysis and have the makers of public policy in the government set research policy guidelines?
c. Should the decision be left to the arbitrators of ethics and morality: the theologians and philosophers?
