"There is NO evidence of possible cures-not even after years of experiments on animal eggs."
I'm not so sure that is true. But assuming it is, it makes absolutely no difference to you being a fool for a four reasons (as are the stupid politicians of Australia who are against it).

Number 1. Science has never had an obligation nor has there ever been a precedent for proof before research and discovery of a new science. Ever.

Whether it was Einstein or Newton, there was no proof these ideas would ever have a tangible benefit for mankind. In fact religious groups actively sought to censor and intimidate science in some cases. This is science that is thoroughly a part of our everyday lives.

The ignorance and irrational debate lacks recognition of this fundamental (and obvious) principle. This alone should crush any argument as to it's veracity.

2. This is an amazing time in history. Biotechnology is the way of the future, the next big science technology. If idiots and luddites such as the Coalition government (or rather, those who voted against stem cell research, anywhere in the world), determined that nuclear research was irresponsible back in the early 20th century, where would we be today? Where would we be if any science we depend on today had been legislated into criminality, like is happening today?

3. This last is about hypocrisy. In our everyday lives, conservatives (especially them as their politics is against it) in the USA and Australia abort their children. Here they are aborting children who have *actually* developed beyond a single cell. They also abort late term. This is often despite their political belief that abortion should not happen at all. That is clear hypocrisy as they attempt to rationalize that with enforcing their political beliefs on others through their voting habits.

At the same time, these people and politicians, these luddites, are trying to take the moral high-ground on stem cell research even as their partners abort their own children. It's obscene.

*Note: Stem cell research takes cells **extremely** early on. With abortion on the other hand, full on developed fetuses and babies are murdered by these hypocrites.

4. Finally when it comes to pass in the future when this biotechnology has become advanced enough and stem cell research yields some benefits, are these same people and politicians (and their decendents) going to hypocritically utilize the service that these scientists have provided for them? Hell yes! They will use it all they can with nary a second thought about it's moral reasoning. These people SHOULD sign a binding legal document that prevents them and their descendents from EVER receiving future stem cell based treatments...but they won't.

These people are doing a disservice to humanity by opposing stem cell research. They are doing a disservice to Australia by opposing something that will happen inevitably, yet will absolutely cripple Australian science and send Australias best minds overseas. I have never seen these fundamental points debated or raised in the media, which is a true shame, but sadly expected (quality of journalism is on the decline...).

Steel, I think the quality of journalism wasn't ever very high to start with. Nor for that matter, were public or scientific morals.

But that doesn't bother me much. Yeah, I've got my own set of moral values, hence my own standards of ethics. Cannold's got her's, which of course, I'd suggest were ethically challenged. That's what happens in a free society, people are free to disagree.

Whatever, this entire argument is nothing but a waste of time even in the short term. We won't need egg or sperm donors within about 10 years from now because both can be manufactured from just about any old body, man or woman. In fact, once artificial wombs become reality - guess about 15 years - we won't even need men or women to reproduce humans. Anybody can be a biological mum or biological dad irrespective of sex.

Read -

Washington Post, 2nd May 2003
In Laboratory, Ordinary Cells Are Turned Into Eggs
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A2931-2003May1&notFound=true

Since then, not only farming eggs has been further developed, but they've cracked it with sperm production too. Soon, there will be billions upon billions of human eggs overflowing out of laboratories and no one will care less. The mad scientists can have a field day creating any hybrid creation that their curious little minds could ever dream of.

Women won't be needed to create babies and any man will be able to order up a baby on the Internet - blue eyes or green, your choice, depending on stock available - and have it home delivered along with the groceries.

Cannold's arguments have about as much relevance as discussions pertaining to the Sun or Earth being the centre of the Universe. Naturally, both arguments are complete rubbish and time dishonored.

Unfortunately, people like her and our politicians continue to live in the past. The argument is futile. The Genie won't go back in the bottle. One might even be tempted to suggest that we have now over eaten from the tree of knowledge. Lookout folks. Who knows what's going to happen next? And it probably will.

Steve,
I agree with you about informed consent: women would need ALL the facts and even be told that there are no facts about possible long-term health issues such as cancer or infertility.

About blood donations: Today, a sterile, new needle is used for every patient. There is no long-term health risk. The only risks are temporary risks such as dizziness, fainting at the worst. I am not aware that donors have died from just donating some blood.
Besides, before one donates blood, one does not have to go through more than a week of daily hormone injections.

Do you have a link to that article about these motor neurons derived from embryonic stem cells? Perhaps I was mistaken about that there is no evidence that this science will benefit patients.
I’d find it interesting and this will possibly change my perspective; at least the egg donations will have a specific purpose.
I had the impression that the stem cells you are talking about were transplants derived from the spinal cord, not from actual embryos. Perhaps I have seen a different study- was this one derived from human embryo or from rat’s embryo?

Steel,
I agree with you on most of your points, including the hypocrisy.
There’s one thing I see differently though:

“Science has never had an obligation nor has there ever been a precedent for proof before research and discovery of a new science.”
True for general science, but there is an obligation when it comes to medical science.

Look at the website of the WMA (World Medical Association): http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm
I agree with the following statement: “In medical research on human subjects, considerations related to the well-being of the human subject should take precedence over the interests of science and society.”

Currently, donating eggs is still a risk to women and risking women’s health in the name of science is unethical.
I keep to my opinion: use excess eggs from IVF treatments as long as there are serious risks to women’s (long-term) health.

Continued

Celivia

This is the article on motor neurones.

Stem Cell Division, Diabetes Transplant Unit, Prince of Wales Hospital and University of New South Wale, Australia.

Human embryonic stem cells (hESC) demonstrate a remarkable proliferative and developmental potential and thus have huge therapeutic potential. To direct the differentiation of hESC to a specific lineage of high purity for cell transplantation is highly desirable. Here we describe a modified in vitro procedure to direct differentiation of three clonal hESC lines, hES 3.1, hES 3.2 and hES 3.3 efficiently to spinal motor neurons by using various differentiation factors namely retinoic acid (RA), sonic hedgehog (Shh), bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) and Wnt3A. The highest number of motor neurons (58.0 +/- 7.6%) were obtained by an early treatment of embryoid bodies with a combination of RA + Shh from all the clonal hESC lines combined. The hES 3.1 line, however, produced relatively more motor neurons (69.5 +/- 11.8%) compared to other two hES clones, 3.2 (52.4 +/- 13.1%) and 3.3 (52.3 +/- 15.5%). Immunolocalisation studies revealed the expression of neuronal specific marker, beta omega-tubulin and motor neuron specific marker, HB9/HLXB9 in all the three hESC clones after 45 days of differentiation. The RT-PCR analyses showed the presence of the neuron-specific genes. This modified differentiation protocol provides a mean of obtaining an enriched population of motor neurons from hESC for possible use in studies of lineage development, drug discovery and also as a potential cell therapy for motor neuron disease.

PMID: 17109623 [PubMed - in process]

It's a bit rich for Leslie Cannold to cast aspersions on the intellectual integrity of women academics opposed to cloning. Cannold quips that ”defining ‘independent’ is tricky”, and she should know…

On March 30 this year, Cannold wrote a 'review' of the documentary “Abortion, Corruption & Cops” in The Age. She was described innocuously as "a Melbourne bioethicist” and apparently felt no need to disclose to readers that she was on the Board of Family Planning Victoria and the spokesperson for Reproductive Choice Australia. Nor did she disclose her associations with Jo Wainer, wife of the subject of that film, who is now Cannold’s boss at the Centre for Gender and Medicine.

Similarly on August 28, she wrote an opinion piece bagging the Health Minister without disclosing her significant positions in the special interest groups relevant to that piece.

As for the "factual sloppiness" of which she accuses women’s groups opposed to cloning, Cannold again has some personal experience in the field. She reassures us that disadvantaged women could not be given financial inducements to 'donate' eggs by citing legislative proscriptions against such payments. Yet Cannold would be aware (or should be) that similar legislative safeguards in the UK were overturned as soon as scientists realised they could not secure the volume of ova they wanted through altruistic donations.

Nor should we be reassured by Cannold's reference to IVF figures showing that 'in 2003, 196 Victorian women gave their eggs to women they knew' since she fails to explain that unlike creating babies through IVF, attempting to create a single human clone for experimentation requires hundreds of women’s eggs.

Unlike IVF practitioners who are seeking to limit the number of eggs extracted in order to minimize the risks and discomfort to women, biotech businesses interested in cloning will need as many eggs as they can get from as many women as they can induce to ‘donate’ them.

Leslie Cannold may not regard this as a valid feminist issue but hundreds of well informed women on both sides of the pro-life / pro-choice divide do