Saturday, September 06, 2008

The trellis gate is locked

As I stated in the previous blog, on Thursday night we returned to the porch we have been sleeping in since 3 November 2006 to find an unlocked trellis gate (the blog also contains Declan's letter to the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights). Last night the gate was locked, leaving us on a Friday night with nowhere to sleep; it turned out that the local train station closes from 12.00pm to 6.00am on a Friday, so that ruled it out. Our morale was high but nonetheless by 11.00pm we were still walking, having found nothing – oh, and it was raining. In the end we got five hours sleep: we were quite happy really considering we were supposed to get none. Until we find something that is relatively safe and conveniently situated, we will just sleep here and there.

There was a main reason why my morale was high. I kept thinking about a recent commentary from Professor of philosophy AC Grayling (see previous blog): that despite appearances, the world is not seeing a resurgence of religion, only a big turning-up of the volume of religious voices; that this is itself a response to increasing secularism among people tired of the disruptions, obstructions and conflicts religion so often causes; and that the public acknowledgement of atheism by a senior politician who might soon lead Britain is just one indicator of the fact that the tide is actually running in the opposite direction: and that is a welcome and hopeful sign.

US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ ad on stem cell research US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ ad on stem cell research

US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s announcement that if elected president he will lift the current administration's ban on federal funding of research on embryonic stem cell lines created after 9 August 2001 through executive order (see blog of 4 September “Obama: Yes to stem cells, funding”) has received a ringing endorsement from the National Academies, advisers to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine. Yesterday, the National Academies released amended guidelines for research involving human embryonic stem cells, revising those that were issued in 2005 and updated in 2007 (see press release here). "It is far from clear at this point which cell types will prove to be the most useful for regenerative medicine, and it is likely that each will have some utility," the panel, chaired by Richard Hynes of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (and an early signatory of Declan’s petition to the UN on research cloning of embryos and stem cells) wrote.

The report was sponsored by the Ellison Medical Foundation, the Greenwall Foundation, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under a congressional charter. The Research Council is the principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering.

Opponents of embryo research include the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has released two new print ads addressing stem cell research. The ads were distributed at the Democratic Convention in Denver and at the Republican Convention in Minneapolis/St Paul by pro-life groups, reported LifeSiteNews.com. One highlights scientific advances that are making the use of human embryonic stem cells obsolete and calls attention to the development of "Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells" (iPSCs). Picturing a commuter running for a train, the ad asks: "Science is moving on. Isn't it time for public policy to get on board?" The second ad features advances already being made to treat patients with adult stem cells and directs readers to www.stemcellresearch.org for more information. Its tagline is: "Adult Stem Cell Research. Let's Find Cures We Can All Live With." Clearly, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops doesn’t agree that “it is far from clear at this point which cell types will prove to be the most useful for regenerative medicine,” nor that “it is likely that each will have some utility".