Aggregated News
For years, the debate over embryonic stem cell research in the United States was stuck on one question. Some ethicists call it the "what's-in- the-(Petri)-dish" problem: Is an embryo a life, just a mass of cells or perhaps something in between?
Where you come down on that question largely dictates how you feel about stem cell research, which requires that embryos be destroyed. The political battle lines were drawn years ago, and despite efforts at finding some middle ground, the issue remains deadlocked, at least in Washington.
But with the passage of California's stem cell initiative, and with similar but less ambitious proposals headed toward approval in a half-dozen statehouses from Connecticut to Wisconsin, the stem cell debate is shifting focus. It's no longer about whether to do it, but how to do it in an ethically appropriate way.
"Let the Capitol have its debate. It's irrelevant," said David Magnus, director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics. "It's only the Washington-centric nature of our country that anyone should care about what Congress' policy is on this. Clearly, it's going...
Where you come down on that question largely dictates how you feel about stem cell research, which requires that embryos be destroyed. The political battle lines were drawn years ago, and despite efforts at finding some middle ground, the issue remains deadlocked, at least in Washington.
But with the passage of California's stem cell initiative, and with similar but less ambitious proposals headed toward approval in a half-dozen statehouses from Connecticut to Wisconsin, the stem cell debate is shifting focus. It's no longer about whether to do it, but how to do it in an ethically appropriate way.
"Let the Capitol have its debate. It's irrelevant," said David Magnus, director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics. "It's only the Washington-centric nature of our country that anyone should care about what Congress' policy is on this. Clearly, it's going...