The paper leaves no room for ambiguity.
Note that there’s nothing at all wrong with this — the use of fetal tissue in these kinds of experiments, and many more, is ubiquitous, and it is not obtained by magic, but by the ethical donation of fetal material from abortions and miscarriages and stillbirths. I don’t object at all to Carson having participated in this kind of research.
I do object to him now declaring that it is unethical in all circumstances.
Oh, wait. Except he’s suddenly backpedaling in all kinds of directions.
The Washington Post picked up Gunter’s story and contacted Carson for comment. He told the newspaper that his
intentmade his research acceptable, and that his opposition is tokilling babies and taking the tissue, that’s a very different thing than taking a dead specimen and keeping a record of it.Carson told the Post that pathologists and researchers were not responsible for the origin of the tissue they worked with, and according to the newspaper, Carson said that he did not believe fetal tissue research was immoral or that it should be illegal. He also said research like his had medical and scientific value:
It’s one of the reasons why at the turn of the last century, the average age of death was 47. Now, the average age of death is 80. Using the information that you have is a smart thing, not a dumb thing.
So now he’s coming out and admitting that this research with fetal tissue has had an important and positive effect on medical progress, and that his intent
made his use of fetal tissue ethical.
OK, then, let’s accept that. Then what he’s saying is that we should allow research on fetal tissue, because it works, and because the hands of the scientists doing the work are clean.
I look forward to his change of tune on fetal tissue research in the immediate future.
I predict it will happen shortly after he drops out of the race for the Republican nomination.
IOKIYAR
Where’d you find the pic of Herbert West?
So using fetal tissue is moral, but providing it is totally immoral.
If Mengele had just stuck to corpses, he’d be a hero…
+++
I think we need very clear labels on medical products and information sheets (and cosmetics*):
“The research for this treatment was completed using fetal tissue”
“This surgery technique has been developed and practiced on dogs”
“This vaccine was derived from the kidneys of aborted fetuses”
And then you either accept ther eality of this or simply die.
*Because all those who say “not tested on animals” are usually liars as they’re simply using ingredients that have been declared safe after others tested them on animals.
It’s also an incoherent position to take: the people who provide the raw materials are criminals, but the people who use it are not? I suppose it makes sense if your underlying motivation is to criminalize women while leaving men unaffected.
Well, in that case washing money obtained through criminal activity should be legal as well, right?
Oh, damn, that’s called banking, right?
In other words: “I’ll take it from you. I just don’t wanna know how you got it.”
Or, “I know full well how you got it, but please don’t talk about it because elections!”
Leave me alone. The elephant was already dead when I bought my ivory trinkets. I’m buying lots more as Christmas presents too. Only from already dead elephants though. I’m not a monster.
Marvelous, it gives the racists in the Republican party an excuse not to vote for him without appearing racist! They must be so happy!
PZ #5:
Oh PZ, that is SO unfair! Rightwingers aren’t out to criminalize ALL women – just those women who have sex and enjoy it. Or, those women who failed to fight off their rapists. Or, those women whose contraception failed. Or, those women who couldn’t get contraception. Or those women who believed the guy when he said he loved her and intended to marry her.
See, it’s really a very narrow band of women they want to criminalize. AND they leave the guys unaffected, so that’s even fewer people they want to criminalize.
So stop being so hyperbolic!
Of course!
We’d really rather you didn’t have an abortion, but now that you’ve gone and killed the baby, it’d be a Sin™ not to let the little life help medical research. Or else his death will have been entirely in vain, you monster.
According to ICMJE* recommendations, one of the four criteria for authorship is
If Dr. Carson does not agree to be accountable for all aspects of his research, including the origin of the research tissue and the (in his mind) apparent ethical conflict in using said material, then he should ask the journal to publish an erratum removing his name as a co-author.
*International Committee of Medical Journal Editors