Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
THE SUPREME VICTORY OF HYPE OVER RATIONALITY
- DR MATTHEW THALANANY (25 May 2008)
-
The Triumph of Bad Arguments over Rationality
- Bonnie Steinbock (28 May 2008)
-
True Hybrids
- David A Jones (28 May 2008)
|
|
|||
|
DR MATTHEW THALANANY, Doctor of Medicine ESSEX, UK
Send response to journal:
|
Sir, The outcome of voting on the HFE Bill 2008 on Monday 19th May gives a clear indication of how scientific hype can so bedazzle and stupefy some people to the extent that it over rides rationality. Where is the scientific evidence that embryo stem cells have yielded anything worthwhile by way of therapeutic benefit, compared to adult stem cells and cord stem cells? Or that hybrid embryos can yield better knowledge to do so? How can the permissions to be accorded be truly justified as 'necessary', let alone 'desirable'? The litany of diseases regularly trotted out by supporters of the Bill are in fact already being addressed quietly, and in an ethically acceptable manner, by other scientists using adult stem cells and cord stem cells to find clinically effective solutions for the betterment of mankind. Reference:Braude P et al. Stem cell therapy: hope or hype?. BMJ 2005;330:1159–60. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Bonnie Steinbock, professor of philosophy University at Albany, Albany, NY 12222
Send response to journal:
|
In a Rapid Response to the vote to allow the creation of hybrid embryos, dated 25 May, Dr. Matthew Thalanany maintains that "scientific hype can bedazzle and stupefy" some people so as to override rationality. The hype to which he refers is the claim that stem cell research is the new medical panacea, and he cites as supporting evidence an editorial from BMJ by Peter Braude, Stephen L Minger, and Ruth M Warwick, "Stem cell therapy: hope or hype?" However, Braude et al do not maintain that embryonic stem cell research itself is hype. The hype is using the promise of cures to subvert careful oversight of the research. This is essential, they maintain, precisely because, done properly, embryonic stem cell research has enormous medical potential. Could Dr. Thalanany have read only the title of their editorial, and not the piece itself? And what has the need for oversight to do with the question Dr. Thalanany is supposed to be addressing, the creation of hybrid embryos? He maintains that there is no need to create hybrid embryos (and, one suspects, any embryos, hybrid or not) because diseases are already addressed "quietly and in an ethically acceptable manner" by adult stem cells and cord stem cells. However, to say this is simply to beg the question, since the ethical acceptability or unacceptability of using and creating embryos is precisely the issue. Dr. Thalanany gives no reason why the creation of hybrid embryos is ethically unacceptable. Furthermore, to argue that such research is unnecessary because it has not yet been proven to work is a solecism. Human embryonic stem cell research is in its infancy. To expect it to have produced treatments, let alone cures, is absurd and certainly no reason not to proceed with the research. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
David A Jones, Professor of Bioethics St Marys Univeristy College, twickenham, TW11 8SZ
Send response to journal:
|
Whatever the strengths and weaknesses of the medical case for somatic cell nuclear transfer with bivine ova - 'cybrids' - at least there was a clear proposal and a rationale for this research which could be evaluated. This contrasts with the legalising of the creation of 'true hybrids', which was previously illegal, without any idea of medical or other benefits. As a result Parliament has given away to the HFEA the power to decide the issue of true hybrids, with no idea how this power will be used. I cannot see how such blind transfers of power away from democratic institutions to a quango that has never in its history refused a research licence can increase the confidence of the public in UK research culture. Competing interests: None declared |
|||