Iranian Poetry

When we think of Iran we imagine as we do with most countries, that the people are like their political leaders, in this case possibly close minded. Poetic expression for the west is for the intelligent, or thought of as 'sissy' and generally for women. Iranians however, as the podcast I just listened to and got from BBC documentary podcast (available on itunes) called Nightingales and Rose informed me on the poetic nature of Iranians. In Iran;"Poetry permits all levels of society, its not thought of as a elite thing, or a sissy thing, or a kind of girly thing, as in many ways it is thought of in the west, its just thought of as a human thing... so to be in touch with poetry is to be in touch with being human in the best sense."For the Iranians their poets are like their profits, they are the "the saints that (we) turn to... (we) turn to them to look for words of advice... and to go on and deal with the predicaments of our everyday life." Iran has a 'enthralling literary landscape', where poetry is a part of all areas of Iranian life, extending from scolding children, to political protests. "Persian literature has both bored from and influenced great literary cultures of the world and Iranians may not claim to love their poetry more or less then anyone else but (I think) if there is such a thing as a soul of a nation or people then Iran's perhaps more than most is a poetic soul." Its interesting to hear of such a beautiful connection between people and poetry, especially in a country, where I as a american would other wise not see this beautiful side of the culture. Poetry in Iran is often accompanied by moving music. A 10 day event is described in which thousands of people and poets came together for 10 nights to recite poetry and make a statement for freedom of speech, during which the people were surrounded by Iranian special forces as if they were a "enemy".

Resources on Youtube:

Rosario&Eliah

"Te extraño mas que nunca y no se que hacer

despierto y de recuerdo mal amanecer

espera otro dia por vivir sin ti

el espejo no miente me veo tan diferente

me haces falta tu 

La gente pasa y pasa siempre van y van

el ritmo de la vida me parece mal

era tan diferente cuando estabas tu 

si que era diferente cuando estabas tu

No hay nada mas dificil que vivir sin ti

sufriendo en la espera de verte llegar

el frio de mi cuerpo pregunta por ti 

y no se donde estas

si no te hubieras ido seria tan feliz"

Nuestra Canción 

Te quiero Rosario 

Si No Te Hubieras Ido-Mana

♥

"Piglet sidled up to Pooh from behind. 

"Pooh?" he whispered.
"Yes, Piglet?"
"Nothing," said Piglet, taking Pooh's hand. 

"I just wanted to be sure of you."
— A.A. Milne (Winnie-the-Pooh)

Looking through old photos- 

What an amazing day.

Great Wall of China with my best friend. 

Nastassja - Thankyou 

友谊

The Ethics of Stem Cell Research

Introduction:

Research on Stem Cells is one of the most interesting areas of modern biology- but as we see in all expanding fields, the more we discover the more there is to question. To consider the question of the Ethics of Stem Cell Research we must first have a clear understanding of what are Stem Cell Research and its potential and what is ethics.

I have decided to present this discussion in the form of a multi-media blog post as it will allow me to use different resources that i have found on the internet to illustrate the question and controversy at hand.   

Stem Cell Research:

We all have developed through growth and differentiation.  Growth is very rapid during the embryonic stages, as the embryo divides cells are ‘set aside’ that will transform into different parts of the body.  After fertilization the embryo moves down the fallopian tubes and into the stage of the Blastocyst (the 3-5 day old embryo). At this stage the inner cells begin to form the entire body of the organism. These transformations come out of the Germ Layers. These layers are like the ‘primary colours’. The Ectoderm will become the brain, the nervous system, the skin. The Mesoderm will become the muscles, the kidneys, and the heart. The Endoderm will become the whole gut tube. These are stem cells as they have the ability to continually divide and differentiate (develop) into various other kind(s) of cells/tissues. They have the potential to remain a stem cell or to transform into a cell with a more specialized function.


From Fertilization to Embryo: 

Stem Cells have two main characteristics, firstly that they are ‘unspecialized’[1] cells and even after a long time of inactivity can renew themselves. Under specific conditions they can become specific cells with specific functions, as they do when they become tissue or organ specific cells. Also in the gut and bone marrow these stem cells divide and repair regularly replacing the damaged and worn out tissues. It is because of the unique qualities and characteristics of stem cells that they have so much potential for treating dieses.

Studding stem cells continually advance our knowledge and understanding of how our entire self develops from a single meeting. This expanded knowledge allows us to further understand how we can use this knowledge to better people suffering from conditions that were previously thought to be ‘incurable’. For example scientist now compare cells that do and don’t have birth defects to try to understand what might have causes them.

The Stem Cells with the greatest potential is the ‘Totipotent’ (‘capable of forming a new fetus and its associated membranes’[2]), this stem cell is created at the earliest stages of development, soon after the union of the sperm and the egg, or the ‘pluripotent’ because they can make new tissues thou not a full organism. However scientists can also use stem cells that occur in the adult organism in tissues. Understanding stem cells and studying stem cells allows for the possibility of cell therapy, where scientists can grow stem-cells in a laboratory and use them to replace and repair tissues that have been destroyed. For example ‘Pluripotent stem cells stimulated to produce a myriad of different specialized cell types could, in theory, be used to replace tissues destroyed by diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, retinal degeneration, muscular dystrophy, spinal cord injury, and so on, without the need for transplanted organs. Successful cell therapy could revolutionize the treatment of a wide range of injuries and degenerative diseases.’[3]

 

           Adult Stem cell research has already shown its successes, however embryonic stem cell research, although there is much hope, has not. This could be possibly caused by a lack of funding, as it appears that the ethical divided on the question mainly comes when we consider stem cell research on embryonic or germ cell-derived cells. Leading us to question our ethics and how they apply to this question.

Ethics:

French philosopher, Andre Comte-Sponvilles defines ethics as applying not only to the ‘first person singular’ but applying universally as we are all human beings and in such all ‘I’s’.  He states that it is clear that in ‘practice ethics may differ depending on ones education’ and in such there is ‘no absolute ethics, or at least one that anyone can fully know.’  I agree fully with him when he says that ethics is what we do to survive as a race.

‘But when I abstain from cruelty, racism or murder, it is not simply a question of personal preference; something with depends on individual tastes. It is, essentially, a question of the survival of- and the dignity of- society as a whole, in other words of humanity, of civilization.’[4]

It is a very controversial issue because there are many different standpoints. For example in first cartoon below we see that Stem Cell research did not cure the old man, but the embryo died because of it, the following cartoons highlights the different opinions on the topic.  

 In Obama’s video listed below he speaks of an old man who to was waiting for a cure that might be found in Embryonic stem cell research and why his government decided to support Embryonic Stem Cell Research.  However the video directly after it shows another point of view which argues that embryonic research is destruction of life. 

            It is also a question of the value of different stages of life and whether life at that scale is more important then life of a ‘conscious’ human being. An interpretation of the perspective of this question is posed in the cartoon below which shows the point of view from The Bush administration.  (Image: http://www.esoterically.net/weblog/2007/12/04/the-stem-cell-spin-part-deux)

 This video also highlights why theses ideas held by the Bush administration seem absurd.  

This very long video includes professors and ministers from all over America who speak on the issue from both stand points- they all make extremely intellectual points and it is a very valid ethical debate that is extremely interesting and comprehensive if you have the time to watch. 

          The ethical debate seems to be over the ‘destruction’ of human embryos and in the question of when does the life of a human being begin. People are divided on their beliefs on the ethical stance of this research, so i will refer us back to our definition: ‘ethics may differ depending on ones education’ and in such there is ‘no absolute ethics, or at least one that anyone can fully know.’ Which leads us to his further point ‘It is, essentially, a question of the survival of- and the dignity of- society as a whole, in other words of humanity, of civilization.’ This here leaves us divided, as some believe that from the moment of fertilization an embryo has the full moral status of a human being and therefore any research on theses embryos is ethically wrong.

            Robert P. George writes in his paper A Distinct Human Organism for NPR (MLA Source 2) “The human embryo is not something different in kind from a human being, nor is it merely a 'potential human being,' whatever that might mean. Rather the human embryo is a human being in the embryonic stage.” We should believe that “The adult that is you is the same human being who, at an earlier stage of your life, was an adolescent, and before that a child, an infant, a fetus and an embryo. Even in the embryonic stage, you were a whole, living member of the species Homo sapiens. You were then, as you are now, a distinct and complete — though, of course, immature — human organism.” He justifies his argument by saying that we must resort back to the texts of when life beings and “In these texts, we find little or nothing in the way of scientific uncertainty: "…human development begins at fertilization…" write embryologists Keith Moore and T.V. N. Persaud in The Developing Human (7th edition, 2003), the most widely used textbook on human embryology.”  To this argument we must question, as Laurie Zoloth does: “Beyond the question of life's biological beginning, we need also to decide when our moral obligations to others begin — in this case, to others who suffer and whose own lives are at stake.”[5]

            People of faith also argue against research as it taking the life of a ‘baby’ a human being.  

However looking at religions we see that historically in the ‘texts and laws’ of the some of the most popular religions i.e Christian, Jewish and Muslim, life came to be when the pregnancy became visible to the outside world ‘For them, the soul — God's participation in human beings — needed a form.’[6] Before the mid-1800s, and before microscopes and science showed that life began at conception, Roman Catholic tradition, like that as well of Muslim and Jewish law followed ‘the science of Aristotle—that the first 40 days after conception was ‘formless’ or ‘like water’. It was only in 1917 that the Vatican changed its laws. 


The following video 'slams on religion' arguing that religion is suppressing reaserch which has the potenital to allow many people who could be cured. 

Some groups consider that in the early stages of the embryo it has no more worth than any other cell. It is then a middle ground that seems to offer the most grounds for governments and scientists to move forward on whilst still respecting the differences in public opinion. This middle ground view seems to believe that a embryo does not have the whole moral status of a person, though it has more worth than any other cell because of its potential to develop into a human being, but does not have the ‘absolute right to life’ or rather that this right can be superseded by the potential it has to help society in general. It is here that we see clearly the link back to our definition of ethics: ‘It is, essentially, a question of the survival of- and the dignity of- society as a whole, in other words of humanity, of civilization.’ Allowing this allows for the better survival of our society as a whole. It is for this reason that most research is allowed up to 14 days after formation of the zygote.

New developments however have allow for there to be less controversy as Scientists from the Medical Research Council Centre for Regenerative Medicine at the University of Edinburgh, have found a way of  “a way of delivering foreign genes to reprogrammed the cells without using viruses in mouse and human cells.” Josephine Quintavalle, of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: "This is ethical stem cell research at its best, with embryonic-type stem cells derived successfully from adult tissue without involving human embryos." There is still of course a lot to learn about the human embryonic stem cell in order for scientists to be sure whether or not stem cells that are ‘reprogrammed from adult cells’ can be successful or not, but for the time being theses developments provided ‘ethical stem cell creation hope.’ [7]

Conclusion:

            Personally I support embryonic and adult stem cell research. We allow in our society for the treatment of our infertility, creating blastocysts in our labs, and knowing that there is a high likelihood that none of theses will make it to term. We leave them or depose of them. It seems wrong to me to question what is at stake.The possibility, yes acknowledging experimentation, trial and error; that theses blastocysts have the possibility to treat diseases like spinal cord injury, Parkinson’s, diabetes- diseases thought to be incurable. Through stem cell research there is possibility to end ‘conscious’ human suffering - how can we not move forward, not try to succeed? 


            As Dr. Laurie Zoloth writes ‘We have our duties toward all of life, to be certain. We have duties toward the uncertain microscopic world, duties toward the blastocysts we create. But we have duties as well toward the millions of patients who might be cured by regenerative medicine, just as we did toward infertile women. It is the strong belief in many religious and philosophic traditions that the ethical appeal for healing the suffering neighbor is far more important than the appeal for the blastocyst.’[8]

            Would we not be going against our ethical responsibilities to the survival of our society, humanity and civilization if we abstained from researching in a possible key to curing some of the greatest physical sufferings and diseases faced by our society?  The answer of this controversial debate, to me, seems quite clear:  to move forward ethically, we must do just that, move forward, allow for research and hope that with time, and support for the scientific discovery stem cell research will offer a cure and potential we hope for, to do this however we must take the first stem of support. 

---

[1] 1

[2] 1

[3] 1

[4] 5

[5] 3

[6] 3

[7] 4

[8] 3




Bibliography:

MLA:

1.

Dr. Janet Rossant, Dr. Janet Rossant. "Canadian Institutes of Health Research / Instituts De Recherche En Santé Du Canada - Stem_cell_e.pdf." Canadian Institutes of Health Research | Instituts De Recherche En Santé Du Canada. Web. 22 Nov. 2010. <http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/pdf_14370.htm>.

2. George, Robert P. "A Distinct Human Organism : NPR." NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR. National Public Radio. Web. 22 Nov. 2010. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4857703>.

3. Zoloth, Laurie. "What Does It Mean to Be Human? : NPR." NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR. Web. 22 Nov. 2010. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4867060>.

4. "BBC NEWS | Health | 'Ethical' Stem Cell Creation Hope." BBC News - Home. Web. 22 Nov. 2010. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7914976.stm>.

5. Andre Comte-Sponville, Andre. The Little Book of Philosophy. Vintage. Print.

YouTube Videos:

Against:

This group supports Adult Stem Cell Research, but is against embryonic Stem Cell Research as it is “destruction of life.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhzSrRR0QSU

Pro:

This group argues that ‘Embryonic Stem-Cell research is one of the most promising areas or research to generate medical therapies for conditions suffered by millions of people’ but because or religion we are not investing in it- highlighting its point by comparing an Embryo to a fly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYgw9eHYGhc

The Bush administration did not support embryonic cell research. This video highlights why this seems absurd. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuHnjDM-tys&feature=related

President Obama sings legislation that will financially support Stem Cell Research and he explains why the American government is supporting this research. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gs39k0IxZ0&feature=fvw

The Great Bear

Simon Pateson

The Great Bear

“The Great Bear is a 1992 lithograph by Simon Patterson. At first glance the work looks like the London Underground Tube map, but Patterson uses each line to represent groups of people, from scientists, saints and philosophers to comedians, explorers and footballers. He subverts the concept of maps and diagrams as authoritative sources, and challenges our assumption that they can be utilised without question by taking this iconic information source and adding his own idiosyncratic data to it.”

Recently encountered some discussions of economic status and who then we befriend. For me its all rubbish- I believe it has no relevance in our relationships especially at this age, where we are all still growing and have not yet had the chance to win our own life and social status and instead are categorized by the status of our parents rather then our own gains. It seems then irrelevant to judge, and to diverge from each other on this basis. People should be judged by who they are as a person, in the inside, their actions, there hopes, dreams and aspirations- and above all their sincerity and honesty. 

Eliah&Donai

Te amo Donai.  

Indian Camp- Time and Mortality

(I was reading Andre Comte-Sponvilles essay on ‘Time’ in his book The Little Book of Philosophy. His considerations on the concept of time made me further consider the main character Nick, from Ernest Hemingway’s Indian Camp.)

Understanding comes from experience-- exposure. As we see in Ernest Hemingway’s Indian Camp, as it is acceptable for the child, Nick, to think ‘he could never die,’ as his age induces the acceptance of his innocence and in such his naivety to mortality.  But it seems not only to be based on innocence, but rather on experience. In our life the sensation of the ‘present’ will never cease to be, for nothing can cease to be ‘unless the present continues...it has always continued, endured, persisted.” A child more sensitive to this seeming eternity, this continuity that is the present would not relate it to another, “Thinking about it; the present is the only thing I have always had in abundance. “ (The need for more time would be different because it is almost always a desire to pull or put more into the future and not in the exact moment)  “How is it possible to observe the present cease to be when the present is the prerequisite to sight, to cessation and to being?”  And as this is true how then is it possible to ask a child to disregard the eternal sensation of present, the only place in which they can experience, and the only thing they have known to understand the concept of mortality. Instead we just allow the concept to grow, it is a perquisite that it will come with experience and sufficient exposure.  Sufficient because we can not undermined the strength of innocence, as we see in Indian Camp, as the tragic events were still not enough to over come innocence, which is why it is not just innocence, but time and experience.

Experience busies our minds with thoughts, through experience we grow more conscious of our world, it is the maturity of our demands that requires this, our mind that allows this.

Without the mind there would be nothing but a continues present, without past or future... the mind plays a role because memory exists, because the body exists and it remembers the past, the present and even (think of your appointments, your plans, your promises) the future... It is no longer movement, but consciousness.

A child lacks experience, and such the consciousness of our world that a more mature mine would have. Children are allowed to live in the present, without planning or promising for the future and remembering the past as truths, and therefore an eternal and constantly present truth.

A child will see simply the truth, and the truth regardless of weather it took place in the past does not cease to be true:

The past exists for us only in the present, as a part of the present: it exists- and this is the paradox of memory- only in that it is not the past. Does this mean that a past, which no one remembers, would be absolutely nothing? It is not that simple. For even though something is no longer it remains true-eternally true that is was. A little girl cries; she’s in Auschwitz, crying because she is cold because she is hungry; a little girl who will be led o the gas chambers in a few days later- let us say in December 1942. No one remembers her name, or her face. It was too long ago; all of those who knew her are dead. Her body has disappeared; how could anyone remember her tears? True. But that which took place nevertheless remains true, and will always remain true, even if, today or tomorrow there is on no to remember it. Each of her tears is an eternal truth, as Spinoza would put it, and without it there could be no truth. Does this mean that past exists after all? No, because this truth, too, is present, it always presents: to the mind, eternity is nothing more than the ever-presence of the truth. It is not to say that the past remains; it is that the truth does not pass away.

As a child becomes more conscious he becomes more aware of danger and subsequently of death, which is not a bad thing, as for without this awareness life would have a ‘different savour’, and as discussed before, then comes the discovery of the past, the eternal present, and the future. “Death is something both necessary and impossible. Necessary, since every moment of life is marked by it, like a shadow from another realm...it appears to us like a vanishing point for everything”.  To understand mortality you must first wait for innocence to subside, which will naturally happen through experience, for conciseness to build, and essentially for the concept of time to develop.  It is therefore acceptable for us to accept innocence and the lack of understanding in children of mortality. As it is even more acceptable that Nick, an innocent young boy, yet to experience much, and with little concept of time, believes that “he could never die”.