45 ms·

> ...where the starting point was only stem cells. According to the article, the starting point was embryos. "Now a team of scientists has repurposed living c

• Dylan16807 7y ago
  Because they didn't take "pieces" a la Frankenstein. Just single cells. If the stem cells had been harmlessly extracted from living frogs would you still use the same terms? The experiment itself would be 99% the same in that case, it would just have a more complicated resource gathering step.
  • 1e-9 7y ago
    The parts were skin cells and heart cells. I concede that they were very tiny parts. > If the stem cells had been harmlessly extracted from living frogs would you still use the same terms? That would be perfectly fine in my view. I have no qualms about using living tissue. It's the unnecessary sacrifice of intelligent life that I find objectionable.
    • Dylan16807 7y ago
      I specifically want to know if you would still use the terms "cut up", "stitched pieces back together" and "Frankenstein". Not just whether it's fine. Because those steps remain basically the same across both versions.
      • 1e-9 7y ago
        No, I would not use those terms in that case. The construction steps may be the same, but the lack of a lost life is a key distinction that invalidates the analogy for me.
        • Dylan16807 7y ago
          So if they took a frog that died of natural causes and did the same thing, which actually makes it more like Frankenstein, you wouldn't use those terms because no life was lost as part of the experiment?
          • 1e-9 7y ago
            Correct. That's not objectionable to me, so it would make no sense to compare it to something objectionable. It's similar to the difference between organ donation and organ theft. Although the transplant operation is identical for the two, the analogies we might draw for each are entirely different because the life costs are different.