Absolute vs relative age dating
The argument wasn't that we "President Bush’s stem cell policy may have been restrictive and misguided, but it wasn’t anti-science.In the wake of Obama’s decision to lift Bush’s funding ban, many scientists are celebrating the freedom of science from ideology.Rossi of the Children's Hospital Boston, who led the research published in the journal Cell Stem Cell."We now have an experimental paradigm for generating patient-specific cells highly efficiently and safely and also taking those cells to clinically useful cell types."Scientists hope stem cells will lead to cures for diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, spinal cord injuries, heart attacks and many other ailments because they can turn into almost any tissue in the body, potentially providing an invaluable source of cells to replace those damaged by disease or injury.These represent, he said, 'two solid issues in which there is a real difference between a strong consensus in the science community and the response of the administration to that consensus.'" There's a world of difference between Kennedy's two examples.For climate change, he's alleging that the Bush administration ignored or misrepresented the data in order to advance their political agenda. But for stem-cell, the Bush administration didn't deny that stem cell had medical promise.For example, i PS cells could enable scientists to take an easily obtainable skin cell from any patient and use it to create perfectly matched cells, tissue and potentially even entire organs for transplants that would be immune to rejection.
But there will be plenty of cases in the future when the aims of science — or, to be more precise, certain scientists — conflict with widely held values.
Moreover, the same strategy can then turn those cells into ones that could be used for transplants.
"This is going to be very exciting to the research community," said Derrick J.
They represented a moral objection to the destruction of embryos by people who believe that life begins when sperm meets egg. But characterizing conscientious objectors as anti-scientific is dangerous.
'No thinking person should promote a science that claims to be value-free,' said Murray.