A future student of anthropology does not let up the chance to put in his thesis on human stupidity (I said human, not only Italian, not specifically for journalists) in the case of the Nobel Prize for Medicine 2010.
First of all the facts. That group of Rimba that every year who decide to give a little 'money was left here by Mr. Nobel (you will already have turned so many times in his grave to dig a tunnel to the center of the Earth), again failed to to reward an awkward sensation. The Nobel is mine and I decide, this is the slogan and if not should be. The fact is that the fans go wild, slaughtering between those who think we deserved it and who thinks it's a beeeep * * ata.
This year it is an extraordinary inventor, found that if do a sperm unite with an egg becomes an embryo. Overtime, does not serve cabbage and storks. But he did not stop there, he played the miracle of procreation in a test tube. We ended up with a handful of embryos for the hands and has seen fit to choose one - the strongest? healthier? better looking? - And put into a woman, to find out what would happen. Toh, the embryo is attached to the walls of the uterus and fetus has become. Applause. This man is a genius, more a god pocket.
Thanks to this man now you can do many things interesting and fun in the lab. Get the egg from a woman, fertile sperm with your favorite you put it in any uterus, including that of your grandmother if you want, and wait nine months or so, when the timer sounds the child is ready and you have only to call the person who ordered, deliver the product and you sign the receipt. Now would also like to clone and other Robette for anything extravagant type embryos put in fridge for advancing stem tissues and in the future if the child has had the good fortune to have been chosen to be born in need of transplants. Without
number two: it seems incredible, but there's still people in the world of ethical issues that arise: if something is technically possible means that it is right? Philosophical questions of this kind certainly does not supplant threads the bar on the game of football. Some of these teachers even concerned with bioethics. Discuss market of embryos, the right to life, wombs for rent, sale of eggs, meaning of human procreation, things like that, much more boring, journalistically speaking, the story of a couple that finally, at the tender age of 80, he finally to have seven twins.
We come to newspapers, television, media in general. This scientist who won the 2010 Nobel call him the father of 4 million children, is here already know that the media should change the therapy, this makes him * beeeep *- ate. Portray him with beautiful children, sitting in a meadow under the sun, and everyone is happy and smiling, you do not see the photographer but he is happy for sure. They talk about one of its products, a former baby who is now twenty years and it shows, with its stay alive, that the scientist necessarily have to be an absolute genius.
So far so good, no one hurt one hair of the new Nobel laureate, all he has done is legal, at least it is where he did. Let the other side, we see how the media treat the professors of bioethics. What!?! Work in the Vatican?!?! Catholics are Christians and maybe ?!?!? We feel the suit sniffing dogs to drool and attack?
Here are the titles on the criticism from professors of bioethics to responsible for the Nobel Prize, not a scientist, mind you. The Vatican attacks, thunders, he rails, launch anathemas. Vatican against the medicine. Vatican accuses the father of the baby in vitro. Vatican angry. The wrath of the Vatican. The Vatican excommunicated. I am reminded of the burning of witches, exorcists splashing holy water around, inquisitors that make you kiss the crucifix. But no, talk about scientists in philosophy, which is a science also tells me the director, who criticize the award of the prize for a technique (did not discover anything, did not discover a cure for infertility, did not invent anything except, of course, a technique for joining egg and sperm cells without the need to put the thing Father's mother's in the thing), a technique that raises important and unresolved ethical issues.
We understand that this year there was no one who has eradicated a disease, discovered a cure for the many wounds that plague our species. They could choose the Japanese found a way to obtain stem cells from skin tissue, Canadians who first identified stem cells Handyman defined then, but perhaps have preferred something that will trigger controversy, turn on the media interest, as has already happened in the past with prizes awarded, to want to be intriguing, just for the sake of political slam in someone's face.
0 comments:
Post a Comment