The Scientist

I can hardly see how compensating an adult woman for her eggs, whether she is poor or not, will lead to her exploitation. On the contrary, a well-regulated program that controls the number of times a donor can give, assures proper compensation, and provides medical monitoring throughout the process seems much more along the lines of other responsibly run medical trials that people submit themselves to for compensation.\n\nAnd while I appreciate Jennifer Lahl's point of view, the fact is that ovarian stimulation is not illegal, is completed in a safe fashion and is a legitimate source of money for women means it is not going to stop happening. So, if a woman is going to give up her eggs legally, she should be compensated for them, no matter to what end those eggs come.

I truly appreciate the sentence, "The ESSCB said it has 'intensively' deliberated on the issue 'over the past year' and is confident in the decision it has reached." Governmental boards as well as institutional ones, such as IACUC's and IRB's, are invariably made up of intelligent, well-meaning individuals who take their responsibilities extremely seriously.\n\nThe ESSBC came to a very thoughtful decision. Hence, everyone else, please go away - which means that, at best, these bioethicists' opinions are unnecessary, or, at worst, to simply justify their existence, these individuals are looking for attention to force their personal agendas. \n

Mr Stein,\n\nI find your condescending comment interesting as you neglect to acknowledge that by commenting these folks are indeed minding their own business if the research or any methods for obtaining research materials are conducted using taxpayer dollars. It is interesting that you give so much credence to folks that sit on committees (usually by appointment or as part of job duties, and certainly not thru a procedure that would ascertain if they might also be likely to allow their personal bias, i.e.,for using embryonic stem cells, to effect their decision), but you are very willing to malign those who have been willingly quoted as having an agenda-it seems that one could hide behind the auspices of a committee or organization with greater facility and thereby not be held accountable for their decisions (safety and annonimity in numbers). \n\nAlso shouldn't any procedure that has garnered such varying views from confirmed ethicists perhaps be revisited? At the very least the valid arguments presented in the article should be addressed (as there was no fanatical fervor detected in the article as there was in your comment).\n\nFinally, to bring up an old issue, there is no data to date demonstrating the promise of these cells (just hopes of scientists looking for the newest discovery hanging their hopes on the tired backs of the sick and hopeful), while there is current research and data forwarding the use of human skin cells transformed into embryonic stem cells without the use of toxic viruses (like CMV). In that same light, isn't using embryonic stem cells for research as an industry almost antiquated? As these newer technologies that actually demonstrate success of some kind are emerging, isn't this discussion becoming a bit taboo? A hold out used in order to be called progressive and to label those who feel differently regarding the value of these cells as fanatical? \n\nOops, I guess you would also prefer if anyone that doesn't share your shut up or get out sentiment to mind their own? Luckily, for both sides of the argument we live in the USA, in 2009, on planet Earth-perhaps you should check us out in reality? Your diatribe isn't doing anything for either side of the argument-perhaps it is you who should "mind your own"?