A few weeks ago the UK granted its first license for human cloning for stem cell research.
Contrary to the claims of many, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that embryonic stem cell research has more potential to lead to viable treatments for various diseases than research with non-embryonic stem cells.
There is, however, strong evidence to suggest that the opposite is true.
Leading stem cell researchers Robert Lanza and Nadia Rosenthal have concluded that embryonic stem cells pose the problem of spontaneously differentiating into a hodgepodge of tissue types. They need "coaxing" to differentiate into the desired cell types.
In addition, embryonic stem cells carry the likelihood of immune rejection in humans, which makes embryonic stem cell research an extremely dangerous -- if not impossible -- prospect.
It is little wonder that no therapies for humans using embryonic stem cells have ever been successfully carried out. It is also becoming clear that cloning is the only viable method of overcoming these restrictions.
However, efforts to produce live animals through cloning have also met with an unusually high rate of deformities and mortality.
Tests using human adult stem cells, however, have produced significant and encouraging results in the areas of Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injury, cardiovascular disease, sickle-cell anemia and dozens of other conditions -- without posing any moral problem.
On a biological level, the pre-natal being is unlike any other tissue: it is human, with its own DNA. As such it has all the same fundamental rights as any other human being.
In light of these facts the cry should be not for an increase in federal funding for embryonic stem cells, but rather an aggressive expansion of adult stem cell research.
Paul Kokoski
Ontario, Canada
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS