Scott Prather, over at swords to plowshares: Major bio-medical breakthrough highlights the recent news of researchers developing techniques that look useful for creating stem cells for therapies from a non-embryonic source. (More details at: Researchers Turn Skin Cells Into Stem Cells — Vogel 2007 (1120): 1 — ScienceNOW).
Scott notes that Lutheran bioethicist, Ted Peters, thinks that even if the controversial nature of using embryonic material as a source of stem cells is eliminated by this process the public controversy won’t die down. Indeed, the discussions over what exactly defines personhood, and possibly the ‘sacred’ nature of DNA will continue, I think.
This is the simply the case of different views of what being human and what nature is are played out in the public arena. For example,
It seems conceivable that the intensity of current controversies around genetically modified crops and foods arises in part from the fact that, in their regulation in the public domain, conflicting ontologies of the person are making themselves felt in the politics of everyday life.[1]
[1] Celia Deane-Drummond, Robin Grove-White, and Bronislaw Szerszynski, “Genetically Modified Theology: The Religious Dimensions of Public Concerns About Agricultural Biotechnology,” Studies in Christian Ethics 14, no. 2 (2001): 27.
Related links:
- Greenflame · Is our DNA Sacred?
- Greenflame · DNA, Stem Cells and Faith
- Hansen, Bart, and Paul Schotsmans. “Cloning: The Human as Created Co-Creator?” Ethical Perspectives 8, no. 2 (2001): 75-89. (Abstract)
