How should socialists approach stem cell research?

[Emperor Ronald Reagan]

How should those sympathetic to socialism approach this issue? Is it a perversion of human life by capitalism? Can any good come from modern science when it develops within the framework of capitalism? Doesn't it largely benefit only the wealthy and affluent, when Earth's biggest health problems are poverty related (with readily available cures) or shouldn't we make available to all mankind the achievements of science and technology? Discuss.

[LSD]

How should those sympathetic to socialism approach this issue?

We should fully support the development of the technlogoy, but be on guard to oppose any corporate abuse of it, should it occur, just like we are with all technologies.

Science is apolitical, but scientists are not. They have to pay the bills just like anyone else and they quite easily bend to their employer's wishes.

Regardless, though, the development of additional medical techniques is ultimately in our interest. Although, for the moment, its application will probably be restricted to the well-off, it is better that the process be perfected now.

After all, the more that is available to a post-revolutionary society the better. We cannot oppose progress because we don't like the status quo. Remember, being defines conciousness, not the other way around and the defeat of capitalism will almost certainly be precipitated by material changes.


Is it a perversion of human life by capitalism?

No.

"Perversion of life" is a meaningless petty-bourgois superstition. Life is not "sacred" and there is no "God" for us to play at.

Our duty is to maximize the bennefit to societal members. That's the sole reason that society exists, after all. It is because of this obligation that we support communism, and it is because of this obligation that we should support any an all medical innovations.


Can any good come from modern science when it develops within the framework of capitalism?

Yes, although obviously not as much good as it could under an egalitarian system.

The fact is that, unlike many other technologies, there is really limited opportunity here for corporate abuse.

Sure, in the current environment, the rich will bennefit more than that poor, but then that's true of everything in capitalism. That doesn't mean that we should opose technology and go live in the woods!

Primativism is ultimately self-defeating as is conservatism in any form. Human progress is not going to be stopped by worriers and politicians. Utlimately, preventing stem cell research from being publically done will only make it worse for the poor and the middle-class. When you push medicine into the alleyways and black-markets you also make it that much more expensive.

So even if, say, the US were to make such research illegal. Wealthy Americans would be able to fly to South Korea or Japan and get whatever procedure they need there.

Not to mention that if the technology exists, we can fight for its equal distribution; if it doesn't, we can't even do that.

[TomRK1089]

When it comes to improving the standard of living I don't see how anyone can pull the old "Playing God" argument, but the fundies surprise me sometimes.

As LSD has stated, we should work towards perfecting the technology even if it's within a cappie framework. When you deny a technology from being perfected, you hurt the lower class more than the rich. The rich can develop it on their own; the poor can't.

[Emperor Ronald Reagan]

Originally posted by LSD+--> (LSD)"Perversion of life" is a meaningless petty-bourgois superstition. Life is not "sacred" and there is no "God" for us to play at.[/b]

It is clear you fight against figments of your own feverish imagination. Nobody said anything about any deities. One can hold the view that stem cell research is a perversion of life by capitalism in the sense that all human activity within the framework of capitalism is exploited for profit.


TomRK1089
When you deny a technology from being perfected, you hurt the lower class more than the rich. The rich can develop it on their own; the poor can't.

Earth's biggest health problems are related to poverty and social injustice, not inadequate scientific technology or knowledge. We have had the cures for the biggest health problems facing mankind today for decades. The reason why they exist despite this fact is the economic system. Why waste our time and resources with bourgeois culture and bourgeois science which largely only improves the lives of the affluent and wealthy when Earth's biggest health problems right now are poverty related? It would subsume more humanitarian goals.

It is also sheer naivete to think all science is concerned with the good of mankind. Corporate laboratories pursue profit, not the development of the human condition. Look, scientific knowledge is just a tool. Yes, it requires investment. Under socialist control it could be utilized to benefit all of mankind. That's not happening now. So why support the status quo?

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Emperor Ronald [email protected] 7 2006, 09:24 PM
It is also sheer naivete to think all science is concerned with the good of mankind. Corporate laboratories pursue profit, not the development of the human condition. Look, scientific knowledge is just a tool. Yes, it requires investment. Under socialist control it could be utilized to benefit all of mankind. That's not happening now. So why support the status quo?
To block a scientific breakthrough because it was conceived in the capitalist system is absurd, it is purely reactionary. Stem cell research has the ability to cure and save a lot of people from life changing or fatal diseases, and im sure you wouldn’t be *****ing about it if stem cell research could help you live a normal life or even save your life. <_<

[LSD]

It is clear you fight against figments of your own feverish imagination. Nobody said anything about any deities.

Typically after one is done condemning "perverions of life", one begins to accuse ones enemies of "playing God".

I was merely attempting to head off any diversions in that direction.

It&#39;s your use of the word "perversion" that catches me, you see. It&#39;s a tad too moralistic for my tastes. It seems to imply that there&#39;s a "natural order" and that we shouldn&#39;t "tamper with it".

As a communist I, of course, reject such superstitious nonsense.


One can hold the view that stem cell research is a perversion of life by capitalism in the sense that all human activity within the framework of capitalism is exploited for profit.

By that logic we should oppose everything&#33; :lol:

And, realistically, if "all human activity" is "exploited" and "a perversion of life", what makes this particular topic different?

After all, that capitalism is ubiquitous is hardly in dispute. It is its omnipresence, after all, that largely motivates us to fight it. Accordingly, it goes without saying that, under capitalism, production is capitalistic.

And, yeah, that includes the medical field but, again, so what?

Antibiotics were developed under capitalism, so were antidepressents. That doesn&#39;t make either of them any less useful in treating illness.


Why waste our time and resources with bourgeois culture and bourgeois science which largely only improves the lives of the affluent and wealthy when Earth&#39;s biggest health problems right now are poverty related?

Why waste who&#39;s time and who&#39;s resources?

I mean, it&#39;s not like any of us here are funding stem cell research. The only question we have is whether or not we should oppose it. And imagining that if the money didn&#39;t go into stem cells it would go into humanitarian aid is simply naive.

The companies that are funding, or attempting to fund, medical research are not in the business of charity, nor do we have any means of changing that.

The choice is not between developing new cures and feeding Africa, it&#39;s between developing new cures and rebranding Viagra.

Obviously, the former is the more progressive choice and we must do all that we can to ensure that scientific progress is not hampered or diverted by reactionary and traditionalist forces on the right.

Remember, the solution to third-world poverty is not hand-outs, it&#39;s an end to imperialism. An issue to which has nothing to do with medical research&#33;


It is also sheer naivete to think all science is concerned with the good of mankind. Corporate laboratories pursue profit, not the development of the human condition.

No kidding&#33;

But, again, that doesn&#39;t mean that we should reject science.

So far, you have claimed that stem cell research constitute a "perversion of life", but have failed to indicate how it is more "perverse" than other aspects of bourgeois medical research.

Are insulin injections "perverions of life"? Is chemotherapy?

All medical procedures developed under capitalism were created in an environment of profit and greed. That didn&#39;t make them any less important. The fact is that, despite the presence of capitalism, thanks to medical science, smallpox and polio have been completely eliminated as threats to the world.

And, remember, while a procedure is typically restricted only to the rich at first, once it has been perfected, we can lobby for equal access. After all, there was a time when organ transplants were only available to the super-rich; now anyone in a developed country can have one.

Is that "enough"? Certainly not.

But it&#39;s a hell of a lot better than if we hadn&#39;t developed the technique at all&#33;

[Emperor Ronald Reagan]

Look, I am just playing devil&#39;s advocate. I agree with you. I assume we all share your views on this subject. I am just trying to facilitate a discussion.


Originally posted by Skinz
To block a scientific breakthrough because it was conceived in the capitalist system is absurd, it is purely reactionary.

I did not advocate blocking it, I simply raised the concern that it might subsume more humanitarian goals (for which cures are readily available for).

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Emperor Ronald [email protected] 8 2006, 11:43 AM
Look, I am just playing devil&#39;s advocate. I agree with you. I assume we all share your views on this subject. I am just trying to facilitate a discussion.
Im glad to hear that.


I did not advocate blocking it, I simply raised the concern that it might subsume more humanitarian goals (for which cures are readily available for).

As LSD has already sayed i dont think that if they stop funding stem cell research that they will shift that money to handing out charity.

[Janus]

US states are now stepping in to underwrite stem cell science.


Originally posted by USA TODAY
A growing number of states are creating programs to aid human embryonic stem cell research in the absence of congressional support for the promising but controversial work.

Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich, a Republican, signed a bill Thursday to spend &#036;15 million for stem cell research. Maryland is the fifth state since 2004 to approve spending taxpayer money on such research.


California, Connecticut, Illinois and New Jersey also have approved state-funded research programs. At least four other states are debating bills or ballot initiatives to promote stem cell research, says Alissa Johnson of the National Conference of State Legislatures.


The use of stem cells to create replacement tissues for potential treatments of diseases such as diabetes is championed by patients&#39; groups and high-profile advocates such as former first lady Nancy Reagan. Opponents, including anti-abortion groups, call the research immoral because it involves destroying human embryos.


The efforts aim to get around President Bush&#39;s policy that allows federal funding for research only on stem cell lines that existed on Aug. 9, 2001.


On a separate front, at least 10 states are considering bills to ban creation of new stem cell lines by cloning human cells, which some groups oppose because they believe it could lead to cloning of humans. Nevertheless, research opponents say they&#39;re losing momentum, citing defeats in Mississippi and Wisconsin. "This is not a good year for our side," says David Christensen of the conservative Family Research Council.


It&#39;s unclear how many proposals to expand stem cell research will become law. Democratic-backed bills in Florida, Michigan and New York to expand research have stalled in Republican-controlled legislatures. For now, all eyes are on Missouri, where voters in November will decide on a constitutional amendment that would guarantee the right of scientists to conduct stem cell research.


States have acted because Congress hasn&#39;t, says Rep. Michael Castle (news, bio, voting record), a Delaware Republican and co-sponsor of a stem cell research bill that passed the House last May and is awaiting Senate action. "We&#39;re merely seeing a pent-up demand" for action, he says.


Also, says Susan O&#39;Brien of Maryland Families for Stem Cell Research, states are afraid they&#39;ll lose out economically to states that support stem cell research.

[Tickin&#39; TimebOmb John]

The science behind it is good.
How it will be exploited by big business is bad, but that dosnt mean that it should be dismissed altogether, its like the GM crops debate, jus because the science will be exploited by business, does not render it bad science.

[piet11111]

yes we need to support this technology.

also i once read about scientists wanting to grow meat in containers for consumption.
to me this is obviously a step towards growing human organs for transplantations.
and im all for that one aswell.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

This topic brings up a question I&#39;ve been wondering aout for a while, what is the plank position of marxists on abortion?

[LSD]

This topic brings up a question I&#39;ve been wondering aout for a while, what is the plank position of marxists on abortion?

We support a woman&#39;s right to individual sovereignty unequivocably.

In fact, "pro-lifers" are restricted on this forum and prevented from posting in any forum save OI. Their kind of reactionary bullshit has absolutely no place within the revolutionary left.

[Janus]

"pro-lifers"
I think that is somewhat of a confusing and misleading term. Anti-choice probably does better as most people want to save lives generally.

Anyways, it seems that the state of California has set a precedent by allowing stem cell research institutions to acquite money for research.

Calif. judge OKs state&#39;s &#036;3 bln stem-cell effort (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060422/pl_nm/stemcells_california_dc;_ylt=AmtAvStvzCjRvCe3RSti9 ewPLBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--)

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 02:54 AM

"pro-lifers"
I think that is somewhat of a confusing and misleading term. Anti-choice probably does better as most people want to save lives generally.
I use "anti-abortion". All this "life" and "choice" stuff clouds the issue in my opinion.

That&#39;s why I identify myself as "pro-abortion".

[rouchambeau]

However you want to, dude.