9 ms·

It's interesting that this article is months old (from September 2016) and is only now on the front page of HN. I suspect that it has something to do with our

It's interesting that this article is months old (from September 2016) and is only now on the front page of HN. I suspect that it has something to do with our desire to argue the benefits of stem cell research to the new administration. I certainly hope they listen, but I fear they won't. People opposed to embryonic stem cell research based upon religious beliefs aren't going to suddenly ignore what they believe to be instructions from their particular God, even if it has enormous benefits for society. I hope that Trump is more reasonable than that, but the hard-line pro-life stance he recently took through executive order doesn't make me optimistic that this kind of research will continue in the US during the next four years.

husgfdsr3y 10y ago
As you noted, this story was posted months ago. According to STAT in a report published just a week ago, funding for stem cell research in California has essentially been squandered.[1] The issue isn't whether stem cell research can be done (it can)[2]. It's whether we should fund the research through taxes. [1] https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/19/california-stem-cell-agency-cirm/ https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/19/california-stem-cell-age... [2] http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/07/justice/stem-cell-appeal/ http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/07/justice/stem-cell-appeal/
- Brakenshire 10y ago
  If basic research is needed, better to push that forward than to squander the money shooting for the moon. They are shifting to clinical trials now, so we'll see how that works out.
grzm 10y ago
It's interesting that this article is months old (from September 2016) and is only now on the front page of HN. I suspect that it has something to do with our desire to argue the benefits of stem cell research to the new administration. I continually find it depressing, distracting, and unuseful how quick some are to immediately attribute everything to overt politics. Why some submissions catch on when has so many variables. We're quick to see patterns, amplified by our own biases. Other than skywriting, I'm pretty confident that clouds aren't shaped to be animals or faces. The data for submissions is available via a couple APIs. If you want to ascribe politics as playing a role in this post making the top page now, you can try to back it up with some actual evidence and make your claim substantial.
- downandout 10y ago
  An issue like embryonic stem cell research is inherently political in the US, both because it often requires government funding, and it contradicts the religious beliefs of many people. I don't think it is a stretch to assert that attention is being called to these kinds of advances right now at least in part because people are concerned about the future of such a politically controversial area of research under a new, somewhat unpredictable administration. So this was not an attempt to "atttibute everything to overt politics". Embryonic stem cells, however, are an overtly political issue in the US.
  - grzm 10y ago
    If it's not a stretch, why mention it at all other than to muddy the waters by injecting additional politicization to the HN community? If it's worth mentioning in this case, it's worth backing up that it's substantially different from other posts on HN, which requires more than an opinion.
    - downandout 10y ago
      I was replying to a comment in which the author was pondering how the new administration will handle the political side of stem cell research. Look at the parent comment. Why did you not criticize that one for being political?
      - grzm 10y ago
        I read the parent comment prior to my first. 'neuronexmachina is discussing the topic at hand. Yes, it adds politics. That's going to happen on HN regardless. What their comment doesn't do is imply unfounded intentions upon HN community members. That's unhelpful. Some are all too quick to attribute agenda to particular behavior on HN, particularly submission ranking. Without evidence, it leads to bad faith in discussions, and with political topics to be discussed well and civilly, we need an abundance of good faith.
        10y ago
humanrebar 10y ago
> People opposed to embryonic stem cell research based upon religious beliefs aren't going to suddenly ignore what they believe to be instructions from their particular God OK. It may not go over well, but I'll make an appeal for tolerance and better characterization of the issues here. Hypocrites and monsters aside, people don't just make up the god they want to have, at least not consciously. It's not like people say, "Hey, this guy has a cool beard and I like embryos, too! How do I get baptized? Now I win all my stem cell arguments, right?" That is, religious people don't go shopping for their God any more than LGBTQ people go shopping for their orientations. Thinking that people take their prejudices and work backwards from there is, at a minimum, misunderstanding another philosophy and culture. I think it's rational to understand other ways of thinking, even if I disagree.
- alphonsegaston 10y ago
  Except in America, people do shop around for religions. Something like half of people convert from one religion to another in their lifetime here [0]. It's also not uncommon for conservative politicians to adopt a more evangelical form of Christianity as a gesture to constituents. Someone as obviously atheistic as Trump even put on a meager show of doing this during the campaign. And please don't conflate the basic humanity of LGBTQ people with the ideologies of people who consistently try to rob it from them. I grew up in a conservative Christian part of the Midwest and was routinely beaten and threatened by your run of the mill Christians for "seeming gay." What they did to actual gay people was even worse. Of course people use religion to justify their prejudices - there's almost no reading of human history that would suggest otherwise. You can toss around some No True Scottsman nonsense about how that doesn't reflect the true values of Christianity, but until mainstream American Christianity walks away from all its hypocrisy and monstrosity, it's a distinction without a difference. [0]https://www.amazon.com/Strange-Gods-Secular-History-Conversion/dp/0375423753 https://www.amazon.com/Strange-Gods-Secular-History-Conversi...
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    There's too much to unpack and critique in here, but No True Scotsman applies when people move categorical goalposts (to mix metaphors), it doesn't apply when talking about people who don't meet the basic tenets of their professed beliefs (hatred is evil). I haven't been beaten for seeming effeminate, but I have been ridiculed and bullied for the same reasons. I don't decide to find which demographics about the bullies are salient (some were latino, some were athletes, are either of those fair game?) to form prejudices around. More importantly, you misunderstood my core point: > Except in America, people do shop around for religions. I agree, but whether people shop or not, the existence of God is a factual question. It's either true or not. Same goes for a particular moral framework. Either it's true or not. We are all making our best bets on those dimensions. It's important not to judge, hate, outgroup, closet, ostracize, or despise because we happened to weigh available evidence and experiences differently. In this specific case (to stay on topic), it's fair to criticize the science of whether embryos count as people. It's fair to discuss, philosophically, the benefits and drawbacks of using embryos in research. It's fair, again, to discuss whether we want corporate industries involved in embryo production to improve health outcomes. I think we need better empathy and reasoning if we're going to act like bringing God into existence was a choice people made some day and could just as easily unmake. That's where there are very strong parallels with other justice issues like the treatment of people based on sexual orientation, immigration status, marital status, or mental health conditions.
19guid 10y ago
You don't have to believe in God to make the argument that an embryo is a developing human being who is therefore worthy of legal protection. There are plenty of secular pro-lifers. [1] [1] http://www.secularprolife.org/ http://www.secularprolife.org/
- ghurtado 10y ago
  I suppose if your definition of "plenty" is different than mine, that you could be right. Having said that, I have a hard time taking any anti-abortion group seriously (whether religious or not) which does not actually have an official position on rape. What possible non-religious argument could there be made to force a woman to carry to term (and care for) the child of their rapist?
  - komali2 10y ago
    Dunno, lemme give it a shot: First off, if a compromise can be found, that could solve the problem instantly - for example, if instead of abortion, a fetus could be removed and implanted safely in another woman, or in a laboratory, and brought to term, and there was a legal apparatus in place to ensure the child received care, that could eliminate the "killing" aspect of an abortion while preventing a woman from being forced to keep a rape-induced pregnancy to term. That doesn't exist yet though, so, lemme try this, though I feel very dirty doing so: If abortion is murder, then there's no legal justification in carrying it out because one is a victim of a crime, even if the abortion is a "solution" to one of the long-term effects of that crime (the rape). Just as one is not allowed to steal to replace stolen goods, one should not be allowed to "murder" an unborn child in response to a rape. Well, you're not wrong, it's a pretty hard argument to make without bringing religion in.
    - rhizome 10y ago
      Religion is the only place where you'll find people arguing that a zygote is a human, so I'll say it's impossible to make the argument without religion.

husgfdsr3y 10y ago

As you noted, this story was posted months ago. According to STAT in a report published just a week ago, funding for stem cell research in California has essentially been squandered.[1] The issue isn't whether stem cell research can be done (it can)[2]. It's whether we should fund the research through taxes. [1] https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/19/california-stem-cell-agency-cirm/ https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/19/california-stem-cell-age... [2] http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/07/justice/stem-cell-appeal/ http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/07/justice/stem-cell-appeal/

Brakenshire 10y ago
If basic research is needed, better to push that forward than to squander the money shooting for the moon. They are shifting to clinical trials now, so we'll see how that works out.

grzm 10y ago

It's interesting that this article is months old (from September 2016) and is only now on the front page of HN. I suspect that it has something to do with our desire to argue the benefits of stem cell research to the new administration. I continually find it depressing, distracting, and unuseful how quick some are to immediately attribute everything to overt politics. Why some submissions catch on when has so many variables. We're quick to see patterns, amplified by our own biases. Other than skywriting, I'm pretty confident that clouds aren't shaped to be animals or faces. The data for submissions is available via a couple APIs. If you want to ascribe politics as playing a role in this post making the top page now, you can try to back it up with some actual evidence and make your claim substantial.

downandout 10y ago
An issue like embryonic stem cell research is inherently political in the US, both because it often requires government funding, and it contradicts the religious beliefs of many people. I don't think it is a stretch to assert that attention is being called to these kinds of advances right now at least in part because people are concerned about the future of such a politically controversial area of research under a new, somewhat unpredictable administration. So this was not an attempt to "atttibute everything to overt politics". Embryonic stem cells, however, are an overtly political issue in the US.
- grzm 10y ago
  If it's not a stretch, why mention it at all other than to muddy the waters by injecting additional politicization to the HN community? If it's worth mentioning in this case, it's worth backing up that it's substantially different from other posts on HN, which requires more than an opinion.
  - downandout 10y ago
    I was replying to a comment in which the author was pondering how the new administration will handle the political side of stem cell research. Look at the parent comment. Why did you not criticize that one for being political?
    - grzm 10y ago
      I read the parent comment prior to my first. 'neuronexmachina is discussing the topic at hand. Yes, it adds politics. That's going to happen on HN regardless. What their comment doesn't do is imply unfounded intentions upon HN community members. That's unhelpful. Some are all too quick to attribute agenda to particular behavior on HN, particularly submission ranking. Without evidence, it leads to bad faith in discussions, and with political topics to be discussed well and civilly, we need an abundance of good faith.
      - 10y ago

humanrebar 10y ago

> People opposed to embryonic stem cell research based upon religious beliefs aren't going to suddenly ignore what they believe to be instructions from their particular God OK. It may not go over well, but I'll make an appeal for tolerance and better characterization of the issues here. Hypocrites and monsters aside, people don't just make up the god they want to have, at least not consciously. It's not like people say, "Hey, this guy has a cool beard and I like embryos, too! How do I get baptized? Now I win all my stem cell arguments, right?" That is, religious people don't go shopping for their God any more than LGBTQ people go shopping for their orientations. Thinking that people take their prejudices and work backwards from there is, at a minimum, misunderstanding another philosophy and culture. I think it's rational to understand other ways of thinking, even if I disagree.

alphonsegaston 10y ago
Except in America, people do shop around for religions. Something like half of people convert from one religion to another in their lifetime here [0]. It's also not uncommon for conservative politicians to adopt a more evangelical form of Christianity as a gesture to constituents. Someone as obviously atheistic as Trump even put on a meager show of doing this during the campaign. And please don't conflate the basic humanity of LGBTQ people with the ideologies of people who consistently try to rob it from them. I grew up in a conservative Christian part of the Midwest and was routinely beaten and threatened by your run of the mill Christians for "seeming gay." What they did to actual gay people was even worse. Of course people use religion to justify their prejudices - there's almost no reading of human history that would suggest otherwise. You can toss around some No True Scottsman nonsense about how that doesn't reflect the true values of Christianity, but until mainstream American Christianity walks away from all its hypocrisy and monstrosity, it's a distinction without a difference. [0]https://www.amazon.com/Strange-Gods-Secular-History-Conversion/dp/0375423753 https://www.amazon.com/Strange-Gods-Secular-History-Conversi...
- humanrebar 10y ago
  There's too much to unpack and critique in here, but No True Scotsman applies when people move categorical goalposts (to mix metaphors), it doesn't apply when talking about people who don't meet the basic tenets of their professed beliefs (hatred is evil). I haven't been beaten for seeming effeminate, but I have been ridiculed and bullied for the same reasons. I don't decide to find which demographics about the bullies are salient (some were latino, some were athletes, are either of those fair game?) to form prejudices around. More importantly, you misunderstood my core point: > Except in America, people do shop around for religions. I agree, but whether people shop or not, the existence of God is a factual question. It's either true or not. Same goes for a particular moral framework. Either it's true or not. We are all making our best bets on those dimensions. It's important not to judge, hate, outgroup, closet, ostracize, or despise because we happened to weigh available evidence and experiences differently. In this specific case (to stay on topic), it's fair to criticize the science of whether embryos count as people. It's fair to discuss, philosophically, the benefits and drawbacks of using embryos in research. It's fair, again, to discuss whether we want corporate industries involved in embryo production to improve health outcomes. I think we need better empathy and reasoning if we're going to act like bringing God into existence was a choice people made some day and could just as easily unmake. That's where there are very strong parallels with other justice issues like the treatment of people based on sexual orientation, immigration status, marital status, or mental health conditions.

19guid 10y ago

You don't have to believe in God to make the argument that an embryo is a developing human being who is therefore worthy of legal protection. There are plenty of secular pro-lifers. [1] [1] http://www.secularprolife.org/ http://www.secularprolife.org/

ghurtado 10y ago
I suppose if your definition of "plenty" is different than mine, that you could be right. Having said that, I have a hard time taking any anti-abortion group seriously (whether religious or not) which does not actually have an official position on rape. What possible non-religious argument could there be made to force a woman to carry to term (and care for) the child of their rapist?
- komali2 10y ago
  Dunno, lemme give it a shot: First off, if a compromise can be found, that could solve the problem instantly - for example, if instead of abortion, a fetus could be removed and implanted safely in another woman, or in a laboratory, and brought to term, and there was a legal apparatus in place to ensure the child received care, that could eliminate the "killing" aspect of an abortion while preventing a woman from being forced to keep a rape-induced pregnancy to term. That doesn't exist yet though, so, lemme try this, though I feel very dirty doing so: If abortion is murder, then there's no legal justification in carrying it out because one is a victim of a crime, even if the abortion is a "solution" to one of the long-term effects of that crime (the rape). Just as one is not allowed to steal to replace stolen goods, one should not be allowed to "murder" an unborn child in response to a rape. Well, you're not wrong, it's a pretty hard argument to make without bringing religion in.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    Religion is the only place where you'll find people arguing that a zygote is a human, so I'll say it's impossible to make the argument without religion.