'Professional' and other interests

A low-profile discussion has recently taken place on the Letters page of the TIMES newspaper in the UK. Initially a number of top-flight scientists, including Nobel Laureates, argued that the current draft of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is flawed in that it prevents 'the generation of embryos (up to 14 days) in such research by the use of cells for which the donors did not, or could not, give specific consent.' Their point is that such research is of vital importance if we wish to 'increas[e] knowledge about the causes and potential treatment of serious, incurable degenerative conditions, including Parkinson’s disease, diabetes and motor neurone disease.' The trouble is that 'many existing cell and tissue samples and cell lines were donated, for any research purpose, by patients (now untraceable) with particular diseases, before this sort of research was even imagined. These cells have been well characterised over many years, or have unique properties and may therefore be the best samples to use for the derivation of embryonic stem cells. Such stem cell lines would be of great value in understanding how diseases develop, as well in the search for therapies.'

One can be persuaded by such arguments or not, this isn't actually the point that I am concerned about. The scientists who signed this letter pretty much constitute the international leaders in stem cell research. Still, people might think that there are good ethical reasons for not utilising genetic material donated by people for any kind of research purposes for this sort of research without the explicit consent of the donors. I don't see any serious ethical issues if someone gives an open-ended type of consent, agreeing at some point that his or her genetic materials may be used for any kind of research.

A day later, also in the TIMES, another letter appeared. The letter was critical of the scientists views. Read it yourself to decide whether or not you find it convincing. As I said, this is not really of concern to me for the purpose of this commentary. What bothers me about this letter is its writers desperate attempt to add authority to their (otherwise probably weak) arguments. The writers are actually driven by strong Christian beliefs, beliefs that they fail to mention in their letter. So, they're not saying, 'as a Christian, it is my view that'. No, they're describing themselves as 'individuals with a professional interest' in bioethics. So, unlike the scientists who clearly are professionals providing a professional opinion, here we have a bunch of folks who try to make us think that they are professionals, while really they have a 'professional interest'. Well, what's a professional interest, I wonder? They certainly don't have this interest as professionals, as most of them are philosophers, and in any case, they claim a professional interest in bioethics. So, what's that? Are they saying that they have no professional competence in bioethics but that they are otherwise professionals who are interested in bioethics? If that was the case, surely the 'respect for authority' demanding introductory line would have been pointless. If, on the other hand, they're suggesting that they have a kind of bioethical professional authority, akin to the professional competence the scientists have, they would be plain wrong. Bioethicists, much like philosophers and politicians are not professionals by any sensible interpretation of this term. They don't meet the most basic criteria of what constitutes a professional. One of the writers even refers to himself as Director of Research at some Scottish Bioethics Council. You might want to look for his 'professional' or other qualifications in bioethics (say a doctorate), or peer reviewed publications in academic journals (as opposed to in-house publications of his 'Council'). I think the Council is just another tool in the armament of our 'authority' demanding writers' group. It has not published a single research report that would have made it into the academic literature. For all intent and purposes it is non-existent. Another of the contributors directs a Christian bioethics think tank (conveniently forgetting to add the descriptor Christian to its name). Main main point is this: The 'professional interest in bioethics' crowd is very much an emperor who happens to be naked...

Scottish Nationalist (aka Bigotry) Party ...

You may or may not recall this item on this blog. I posted it awhile ago, arguing that the Scottish Nationalist Party is essentially lowering itself to a gutter driven political party. One of its MSP's proposed at the time that religious adoption agencies ought to be allowed to discriminate against same-sex potential adoptive parents. This was a clear attempt by the Catholic Church and its minions in parliament to undermine legislation designed to prevent unjust discrimination based (among other things) on sexual orientation. Despite public demands that the party take a stance on this issue, there was silence from the organisation's leadership.

I am 'pleased' to say that the party's efforts have finally paid off. It received a 500,000 GBP cheque in support of its election campaign from Brian Souter, a fundamentalist Christian and owner of transport company Stagecoach. Not a big surprise then that the party refuses to reply to queries from civil rights organisations demanding to find out what its stance is on equality related matters. This (very local, I know - apologies to readers slightly further afield...) is not completely insignificant as the SNP is set (according to virtually all opinion polls) to become the biggest party in the next Scottish parliament. So, a win for bigotry is quite possibly on the books. As the Romans said: Let the Buyer Beware.

My little letter to the editor of Scottish daily newspapers

The background of the letter (ie the story) can be found here.

And this is my letter:

Perth SNP MSP Roseanna Cunningham's views on adoption of children by same sex couples are remarkable. They are remarkable because they are not even tainted by any attempt to provide sound reasons (harm to children, that sort of stuff) for her prejudices against gay people. Rather, according to her, adoption of children by same sex couples is 'against nature's design'. Feel free to substitute 'God', 'the Almighty' etc etc for 'nature' if you wish, it's the same type of 'reasoning'. Scottish and other philosophers will be deeply grateful to Ms Cunningham as this little piece of 'wisdom' makes for a nice hook to begin a Philosophy 101 module: 'How not to make your case' might be a good heading for that class. The types of ideologues peddling such 'wisdom' tried to convince us a few hundred years back that the earth is flat, among other things. Big surprise then that they have also discovered further moral guidance in nature, telling us that gay adoption is bad. We all know that some people hold prejudices against gay people, ethnic minorities, single parents and other easy targets. What is remarkable is that the Scottish parliament is abused as a venue to propagate such prejudices. I call on the SNP to tell us prior to the next elections what its considered stance on this issue is. Scotland is the most secular part of the UK, surely Scots will want to know whether they can expect from a potential future SNP government gutter driven policies such as those propagated by its MSP Roseanna Cunningham.