Stem Cell Tenure Battle
A professor at MIT has been denied tenure and he claims that the reason is his opposition to embyonic stem cell research (his specialty is adult stem cell research). It is always impossible to know exactly what the motives are in these tenure battles unless one is personally involved, but it would not be surprising if his claim were accurate, given the high stakes (e.g., funding) inherent in this field. In any case, for many professors, “ideology” and “scholarship” are linked—their protestations notwithstanding—so efforts to determine whether decisions are made purely on the basis of scholarship or are influenced by worldview differences are often futile.
Anecdotally, I recently had a conversation with a seminary professor of moral theology who is collaborating with researchers at a first-rate scientific institution. The scientists are curious about the theologian’s moral arguments against embryonic stem cell research—but they are already focused on adult stem cell research, because they have concluded that that avenue shows much more promise for actual therapeutic results.
For a look at the morality of embryo treatment from a Reformed perspective, see this commentary by Acton’s Stephen Grabill.
For a basic but helpful summary of the Catholic Church’s view, see this Q&A from the USCCB.
Anecdotally, I recently had a conversation with a seminary professor of moral theology who is collaborating with researchers at a first-rate scientific institution. The scientists are curious about the theologian’s moral arguments against embryonic stem cell research—but they are already focused on adult stem cell research, because they have concluded that that avenue shows much more promise for actual therapeutic results.
For a look at the morality of embryo treatment from a Reformed perspective, see this commentary by Acton’s Stephen Grabill.
For a basic but helpful summary of the Catholic Church’s view, see this Q&A from the USCCB.
Comments