Stem cells from a SCIENTIST's perspective

[Guest guest]

People - I do human research at UCSF, and am part of the scientific community, so you're not going to get any better info than this:

 

THIS PROP IS ABOUT HUMAN STEM CELLS! The controversy is about HUMAN stem cells, because they come from HUMAN embryos (which some people claim are already alive - and hence taking cells from an embryo to them is killing). IT IS ALREADY ALLOWED TO USE ANIMAL STEM CELLS!!!!!

 

The money would go entirely to HUMAN STEM CELLS RESEARCH, THAT is what scientists are eager to do. This is about helping HUMANS with HUMAN cells!!! (And thus, moving AWAY from animal stem cells). They may be phrasing it carefully, but that's what it's about.

 

So vote "YES" on it, if you want to help BOTH animals AND humans!

 

Tal

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I think this is not a concern any authority as such can address. I, too,

am a scientist, a social scientist, and I can say that the social science

evidence indicates that voters are wise to be wary of anything that is not

crystal clear in a proposition. Often propositions are written in ways

that inhibit revision, requiring, for example, a return to the ballot box

to change its language. I believe this proposition uses similar

techniques, and I am voting NO in part for that reason, under the

following logic. If the proposal is so good, why inhibit our ability to

revise it? Are (some) authors concerned that once it starts working, the

public will be unhappy with how it works in practice? I don't know, but

inhibitory language raises my suspicions.

 

I am not an authority, just a concerned citizen saying to others--if you

have any doubts, be careful, because we will be stuck with how it is

interpreted based on its language, not the intentions of the writers.

 

The 3-strikes law is a perfect example. Allegedly, people " thought " they

were voting to put violent criminals away. Yet, prosecutors have tossed

people in prison for life for a third strike of stealing bread (yes, this

has *really* happened). So, now, we have another proposition on the

ballot attempting to correct the abuses that have gone on for a decade.

Wouldn't it have been better to vote NO back in 1994 and write a

proposition that did not have that problem? Wouldn't the thousands of

person-years wasted in prison have been easily averted by voters saying NO

to a proposition that is only partially right.

 

Just some non-authoritative observations.

 

One other thing--humans are animals, too. It is not clear the proposition

has any protections for human subjects, for the proposition exempts the

researchers from normal IRB review, review university natural and social

scientists must routinely pass for their research. This raises serious

ethical questions.

 

Sadly, I support human stem cell research. But, the details matter, and

this proposition is too fuzzy on some, and too scary on others. I'll

leave Halloween to the kids, and vote NO on this monstrous proposition.

 

Take care.

Sam

 

 

 

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Tal wrote:

 

> People - I do human research at UCSF, and am part of the scientific

> community, so you're not going to get any better info than this:

 

> THIS PROP IS ABOUT HUMAN STEM CELLS! The controversy is about HUMAN

> stem cells, because they come from HUMAN embryos (which some people

> claim are already alive - and hence taking cells from an embryo to them

> is killing). IT IS ALREADY ALLOWED TO USE ANIMAL STEM CELLS!!!!!

 

> The money would go entirely to HUMAN STEM CELLS RESEARCH, THAT is what

> scientists are eager to do. This is about helping HUMANS with HUMAN

> cells!!! (And thus, moving AWAY from animal stem cells). They may be

> phrasing it carefully, but that's what it's about.

 

> So vote " YES " on it, if you want to help BOTH animals AND humans!

>

> Tal

>

>

>

>

>

>