>Hair follicles, ethical neural stem cells, and a couple of silly tangents

>Encouraging news about nerve stem cells found in the hair follicles in this abstract.

I would like to say that this is one of the clearest, best written abstracts that I’ve seen. Usually, the statistics, jargon and incredibly convoluted writing makes abstracts difficult to read or less informative than I’d like. This abstract tells us what the scientists did, why they did it and clearly outlines the results.

There’s a lot of the “yuk” factor in this report. We forget that the test animals go through this sort of procedure, just as we forget the actual source of our hamburgers. I’m sorry and grateful for all the animals who suffer for human benefit. I still won’t kill humans who are unable to suffer to save the animals. But I’m grateful.

I’m reminded of a night when I ate at a Italian restaurant with a bunch of friends. A couple were vegetarians, which I thought ridiculous. Then I realized that I was slightly ill at the thought of those who were eating veal. (I ordered chicken.)

We all have our limits as to what sort of pain and suffering and harm to other beings that we can and will tolerate. I’m an organic gardener, except for wasp nests on doors and web worms in the trees. I will go out of my way to avoid using poisons for these and am very cautious with even the “organic” methods, such as Bacillus thurengis, a bacteria that attacks larval forms of insects.

However, we cannot tolerate crossing of the limit that is the intentional killing of humans at all stages of life unless those humans are a threat to the life of another human. Even in these cases, if a non-deadly remedy can be found, we are bound to refrain from killing.

About bnuckols

Conservative Christian Family Doctor, promoting conservative news and views. (Hot Air under the right wing!)


2 thoughts on “>Hair follicles, ethical neural stem cells, and a couple of silly tangents

  1. >I wish that Christopher Reeve could have lived long enough to see a cure. I thought it was a real possibility. I still think it could have been. He ticked me off griping about pro-lifers, because under different circumstances (Nazi Germany, for instance) pro-lifers would have been the best friends he had. But he did push really hard to get spinal cord injuries into the spotlight. I wonder if we would be seeing all this research if it hadn't been for that.

    Posted by Laura(southernxyl) | January 30, 2006, 2:48 am
  2. >He did some good – but he also increased the division between the "pro-life" and those who discriminate against some humans. As you note, it's ironic that most of the points he and others use against embryos could and would have been used against him in earlier years or if he hadn't had the power of money and celebrity.

    Posted by LifeEthics.org | January 30, 2006, 8:37 am

Leave a Reply to Laura(southernxyl) Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

If the post is missing: take the “www.” out of the url

@bnuckols Twitter




%d bloggers like this: