PubMed · 16265805
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Patrick Yeung. 2005. When does human life begin?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16265805/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Although few ethical concerns exist regarding the use of adult stem cells, the field of embryonic stem cell research is fraught with moral qualms. Several alternative sources of pluripotent stem cells have recently been presented that try to sidestep the destruction of human embryos. The goal of these new proposals is to avoid embryo destruction, the main objection to embryonic stem cell research and thus introduce a type of stem cell research that would gain widespread approval and support. This article suggests that most embryo-saving alternatives fail to reach this goal given the concessions they require with regard to the speed of progress, technical complexity, safety and security of applications, degree of dependence on limited resources and extent of the field of application. The second part of the article identifies and analyses the two main strategies that alternative sources of pluripotent stem cells are based on and points out their shortcomings.
It is commonly assumed that persons who hold abortions to be generally impermissible must, for the same reasons, be opposed to embryonic stem cell research [ESR]. Yet a settled position against abortion does not necessarily direct one to reject that research. The difference in potentiality between the embryos used in ESR and embryos discussed in the abortion debate can make ESR acceptable even if one holds that abortion is impermissible. With regard to their potentiality, in vitro embryos are here argued to be more morally similar to clonable somatic cells than they are to in vivo embryos. This creates an important moral distinction between embryos in vivo and in vitro. Attempts to refute this moral distinction, raised in the recent debate in this journal between Alfonso Gómez-Lobo and Mary Mahowald, are also addressed.
The mid-20th century saw the rise of the boy-genius, probably because a personality type characterized by prolonged youthfulness is advantageous both in science and modern life generally. This is the evolution of 'psychological neoteny', in which ever-more people retain for ever-longer the characteristic behaviours and attitudes of earlier developmental stages. Whereas traditional societies are characterized by initiation ceremonies marking the advent of adulthood, these have now dwindled and disappeared. In a psychological sense, some contemporary individuals never actually become adults. A child-like flexibility of attitudes, behaviours and knowledge is probably adaptive in modern society because people need repeatedly to change jobs, learn new skills, move to new places and make new friends. It seems that this adaptation is achieved by the expedient of postponing cognitive maturation - a process that could be termed psychological neoteny. ('Neoteny' refers to the biological phenomenon whereby development is delayed such that juvenile characteristics are retained into maturity.) Psychological neoteny is probably caused by the prolonged average duration of formal education, since students' minds are in a significant sense 'unfinished'. Since modern cultures favour cognitive flexibility, 'immature' people tend to thrive and succeed, and have set the tone of contemporary life: the greatest praise of an elderly person is to state that they retain the characteristics of youth. But the faults of youth are retained with well as its virtues: short attention span, sensation- and novelty-seeking, short cycles of arbitrary fashion and a sense of cultural shallowness. Nonetheless, as health gets better and cosmetic technologies improve, future humans may become somewhat like an axolotl - the cave-dwelling salamander which retains its larval form until death.