|
  
- 积分
- 1216
- 威望
- 1216
- 包包
- 1952
|
The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy (Basic Bioethics)
+ D: ~3 q* Y" j) p, s' M" s$ K& S. j* Y
Publisher: The MIT Press 9 V0 n3 H% I6 w$ X
Number Of Pages: 288
1 {* i9 J2 s5 O% a0 Q5 XPublication Date: 2001-09-01 3 [- X' u) I+ E4 Q, P/ q3 R
ISBN-10 / ASIN: 0262582082 $ F; f9 `1 {. W7 l$ M* f
ISBN-13 / EAN: 9780262582087 9 y7 U( y3 d$ Y. P) e$ k
0 m, I, D% ^9 g" Y& z* J: V; t: m5 ~( v" [3 Q
Product Description:
6 q7 J% w" j6 ~) z& K! O# `
: h: }: Q! D3 ^' J: W8 b1 P; gHuman embryonic stem cells can divide indefinitely and have the potential to develop into many types of tissue. Research on these cells is essential to one of the most intriguing medical frontiers, regenerative medicine. It also raises a host of difficult ethical issues and has sparked great public interest and controversy. This book offers a foundation for thinking about the many issues involved in human embryonic stem cell research. It considers questions about the nature of human life, the limits of intervention into human cells and tissues, and the meaning of our corporeal existence. The fact that stem cells may be derived from living embryos that are destroyed in the process or from aborted fetuses ties the discussion of stem cell research to the ongoing debates on abortion. In addition to these issues, the essays in the book touch on broader questions such as who should approve controversial research and what constitutes human dignity, respect, and justice. The book contains contributions from the Ethics Advisory Board of the Geron Coroporation; excerpts from expert testimony given before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, which helped shape recent National Institutes of Health policy; and original analytical essays on the implications of this research.
% X( v) Y# s9 I5 e
0 V/ O7 M. v1 O* f4 S. R2 s
5 i/ p: m% ]* l% q, M3 B5 c# y _3 u5 r9 l5 v
7 |1 C0 }( V) B* k0 D! xSummary: Bought for a class, but pretty interesting1 b, G* X5 d! b0 C( Q
Rating: 4; x3 D+ e; m9 s2 x7 ]7 J5 L/ P
- ?. Z6 y# e4 z, C }' hI bought this book for a class, but it's pretty interesting anyway. The Catholic viewpoints in here are a bit... unrepresentative, though. The Jewish viewpoints were very enlightening.& i+ h; x& R: H/ N* S% _& K
* ?6 l6 N; J. J/ T, N
) `5 q u7 a& a( B; t! p/ G1 w8 E8 }
Summary: It's a start, but where's the debate?, Z0 h" D2 C" v- J; k6 Z( Q! G
Rating: 3
$ ~. t' u; N0 T5 ^! p* Q" i) i$ P$ p1 b% P* s' i3 ^+ R& n
Holland et al. created a good introduction to the public policy and science behind the current embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) debate, but while this book has "debate" in its title, there was little material disagreement between most of the contributors. A more robust, representative exchange of ideas would have made this book 5-star material.7 u: R- t/ q! j- `* {
6 c1 r& e$ N- [+ N; w3 C3 n6 }
The book is divided into several themes.The first three chapters are on the basic science and history of stem cell research, and the editors' choice of contributors is impeccable: they include James Thomson, who first isolated human embryonic stem cells, and Thomas Okarma, president and CEO of Geron Corp., which is the private firm that has spearheaded the development of Thomson's discoveries.
J Y1 e9 o9 a+ ]8 c+ ^ g
! X# { I6 j- l8 D# bThe second section segues from history to public policy and ethics, including analyses of the National Bioethics Advisory Committee's report on stem cells in 1999. This by and large was a good introduction to how the government, and specifically the Clinton administration, began to respond to stem cells. Erik Parens has a good article on how people tried to differentiate between the morality of experimenting on embryos from IVF clinics and embryos made specifically for research, and a few other dilemmas stemming from current human embryonic stem cell (hES) sources and protocols.$ B: \' N1 Y6 G5 J$ i$ }
9 W7 I g! }# Q) H; v( VWe then go into the third section, which contains religious perspectives on ESCR. This is where I found the term "debate" a misnomer, as for the exception of Gilbert Meilaender, a Protestant thelogian, all the religious commentators tried to show how their traditions could tolerate, if not actively approve of, ESCR. Now I know that many religious people approve of ESCR, but the deafening silence on the opposition's part (excepting Dr. Meilaender's rather short piece) concerns me. Ironically, in the following section, sociologists Paul Root Wolpe and Glenn McGee note that the majority of the ESCR dialogue has been within a scientific community with an active interest in promoting ESCR. This seems to be just the case in this book.
" a; L1 R6 h7 B% H2 E, Y0 |# F$ ]8 Q. J( W
The fourth chapter is a public policy section, with the aforementioned good essay by Wolpe and McGee on the nature of the ESCR debate. The essays treat issues like whether pressure will be exerted on women in fertility clinics to donate unused embryos to labs, whether the poor will get stem cell therapy, government oversight, and several other practical concerns that must be addressed if one promotes ESCR and any future applications it may bring. A few essays bear particular note: throughout the debates on ESCR in past three years 1999, I didn't hear much of the minority or feminist viewpoint on ESCR, so the opinions of Suzanne Holland (who appears earlier in Section II), Margaret McLean, and Cynthia Cohen were particularly handy. Thomas Shannon had some good points about whether the ESCR funding would deprive people of more basi public health programs.
7 y- |& {) J* { d% E( W
2 B; }) Q: k9 NOn the whole, this is a useful book, but I suggest that in addition to reading the thoughts in this volume, you should check out Richard Doerflinger, the research ethics group Do No Harm or some of the others who oppose embryonic research. If this book were to do justice to both sides, it would be a truly first-class resource.
6 a0 A) t) l+ j* ?) q8 x- F% f# B, I5 c5 W+ ]; A+ z
1 r6 y2 U' X$ a0 `7 p ^
1 d( J# O3 B8 Y) ?
Summary: It's a start, but where's the debate?" c" J* S6 g' h4 h; j
Rating: 3( K9 Z9 r5 V6 K0 R3 O$ A
. F! U1 X3 P- s
Holland et al. created a good introduction to the public policy and science behind the current embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) debate, but while this book has "debate" in its title, there was little material disagreement between most of the contributors. A more robust, representative exchange of ideas would have made this book 5-star material.
8 O( e5 w+ c) l! \6 B; }) l: B0 Y( P4 d% ^. O- e0 h
The book is divided into several themes.The first three chapters are on the basic science and history of stem cell research, and the editors' choice of contributors is impeccable: they include James Thomson, who first isolated human embryonic stem cells, and Thomas Okarma, president and CEO of Geron Corp., which is the private firm that has spearheaded the development of Thomson's discoveries.& U5 A" F: Q6 b: p$ R' J1 N+ n) J
' Z$ a; y6 V9 A9 Q, zThe second section segues from history to public policy and ethics, including analyses of the National Bioethics Advisory Committee's report on stem cells in 1999. This by and large was a good introduction to how the government, and specifically the Clinton administration, began to respond to stem cells. Erik Parens has a good article on how people tried to differentiate between the morality of experimenting on embryos from IVF clinics and embryos made specifically for research, and a few other dilemmas stemming from current human embryonic stem cell (hES) sources and protocols.5 h$ k" z" k8 M
3 C# e0 [( r. t) T U+ JWe then go into the third section, which contains religious perspectives on ESCR. This is where I found the term "debate" a misnomer, as for the exception of Gilbert Meilaender, a Protestant thelogian, all the religious commentators tried to show how their traditions could tolerate, if not actively approve of, ESCR. Now I know that many religious people approve of ESCR, but the deafening silence on the opposition's part (excepting Dr. Meilaender's rather short piece) concerns me. Ironically, in the following section, sociologists Paul Root Wolpe and Glenn McGee note that the majority of the ESCR dialogue has been within a community with an active interest in promoting ESCR. This seems to be just the case in this book.
) @' u: l3 L J6 X9 t* X, J! K0 K% r7 E& {9 ?3 F7 M" w. |
The fourth chapter is a public policy section, with the aforementioned good essay by Wolpe and McGee on the nature of the ESCR debate. The essays treat issues like whether pressure will be exerted on women in fertility clinics to donate unused embryos to labs, whether the poor will get stem cell therapy, government oversight, and several other practical concerns that must be addressed if one promotes ESCR and any future applications it may bring. During the height of the ESCR debate, I didn't hear much of the minority or feminist viewpoint on ESCR, so the opinions of Suzanne Holland (who appears earlier in Section II), Margaret McLean, and Cynthia Cohen were particularly handy.3 s2 N4 T, |, b6 p1 {
0 M# N6 G! ]) D
On the whole, this is a useful book, but I suggest that in addition to reading the thoughts in this volume, you should check out Richard Doerflinger, the research ethics group Do No Harm or some of the others who oppose embryonic research. If this book were to do justice to both sides, it would be a much better resource.+ s. q6 O" `3 E) Q
$ l* ?& n/ }. J* O" F! m
* s/ | z4 @! M
" l, c3 {6 C9 J% v- bSummary: Must read on timely issue8 r) D1 \5 o% |: P
Rating: 5
E0 T D J# V" ~+ v. ^" g( c/ W. q
Stem cells- the leading newspaper topic before the September 11 horrors and a topic to which we are of necessity returning. This book is an amazingly readable compilation of information on the science, the positions. the impact of the research (or failure to do the research),and the pros and cons of regulation. In a time when not only the government's but also the public's views on this issue are in a constant state of review, these editors have managed to pull together a collection that will not become a stale item, even though addressing a "hot" topic. The selections are ones that someone without medical or research scientist training can readily understand, yet not simplistic to the extent of ever bordering on boring. Truly a must read.3 v$ n& U" ?& Z) [
5 P5 @. q' T" c8 _; e( I. _9 w) t+ ^* X( F5 b9 W
http://ifile.it/thjqx3f/0262582082.zip |
|
发表于 2009-4-27 20:33
发表于 2015-5-26 18:10
