Random thoughts on a chilly December Saturday...
Had a GREAT run again this morning; yes, it was chilly, a nip in the air, frosty even, but it was one of those mornings where it just felt
GOOD! Got in my 7 miles (and at 6:30am...what were
you doing at 6:30 am?! I know, probably something better than going for a run!)
I'll be the first to admit- when it comes to science-y stuff, I'm pretty much a dolt. But I read a fascinating article earlier this week re. embryonic stem cell research. (And BTW- stem cell research has NOT been banned in the US, it goes on as we speak, using adult stem cells, and this research has already resulted in many treatment breakthroughs.) The major concern over embryonic stem cell research is that, too often, these cells are most easily attained only by creating, then destroying, a human embryo. This practice does create an ethical dilemma; do we create nascent human life solely for the purpose of destroying it, no matter the reason? It is this conundrum that has caused the Bush administration- and many religious, and some non-religious, organizations and scientists- to currently oppose this form of stem cell research. Well, one scientist seems to have come up with what may prove to be a breakthrough solution, one that will satisfy the scientific community that believes research using these cells will prove beneficial as well as ethicists opposed to the wanton taking of nascent, innocent, otherwise healthy human life. Again, I'm a dolt when it comes to explaining the nuts and bolts of it all, but bascially it involves creating an organism that, due to the way it is fertilized, could never grow into a human even if left to it's own devices, one that survives for a relatively short period, yet one that in that period creates the cells neccessary for this form of research. According to the article, it is an idea that could very well work, and the ethics behind it are similar to others that are already endorsed by institutions such as the Catholic Church, and should pass muster with the Administration, ethicists, and theologians who are currently opposed to this form of stem cell research. Stay tuned, it could be one of those great meetings of ethics and science!
I was listening to one of the local sports talk shows the other morning, and they were all over the BALCO thing, how the- apparently- fairly rampant use of "performance enhancing substances" by many major league baseball players (such as Barry Bonds...duh!) is a threat to the integrity of the game and such. I have to disagree. First, I've never taken any muscle-enhancement supplements, but really, if these players wish to play Russian roulette with their health in order to achieve succe$$ (and yes ultimately, it's ALL about the money!) in their chosen endeavor, hey, that's their choice. People talking about how the use of these substances somehow makes marks set by Bonds and others less meaningful compared to those set in the "Golden Age" of sport; I don't see it. First, many players apparently have, and are, taking these products. Yet VERY few of them are setting the records, etc...Despite the added strength, speed, etc...it still comes down to the inate, natrual talent of these guys to do what they do, the hand-to-eye coordination, the synapse response, and on and on. But more...um, performance enhancing substances are nothing new in sports, be it baseball, football, whatever. Back in the 50's and the 60's, locker rooms across America, professional and college, were stocked with perhaps the ultimate "supplement" to give an athlete that extra edge, and were doling it out like candy; amphetamines, anyone? We'll never know how many players took how much speed to go out and perform back then; should all records from that era be marked with an * ? And does anyone truly believe that, if these substances were available back in the 20's, or the 40's, or the 50's, folks such as Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, or take your pick of any NFL running back or lineman of that era, might not have indulged? Players today have better foods and nutritional advice available to them than their forebears; should that make today's records, stats, etc...tainted, too? I don't condone their usage because the health issues are unclear. But if others, considering the risks and the benefits, choose to do so, and as long as fans still pay their $$$, go to the ballparks and stadiums, buy the merchandise, and more, well, that's their choice to make. Some will say, "oh, it's not about the money, its' about the integrity of the game." Whatever truth there is to that, it is more than countered by the truism: "When they say, 'it's not about the money,' it's
always about the money." Unless the professional leagues are going to truly crackdown on their usage (and currently, MLB's penalties are a joke) why not be honest, or at least adult, about it, admit their usage exists, and chalk it up to better baseball (or football, or whatever) thru chemistry.
"She blinded me with science..."