The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. General Science
  3. General Science
  4. How public opinion holds back scientific progress?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

How public opinion holds back scientific progress?

  • 20 Replies
  • 1513 Views
  • 5 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wolfekeeper

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1622
  • Activity:
    3%
  • Thanked: 75 times
    • View Profile
Re: How public opinion holds back scientific progress?
« Reply #20 on: 26/01/2022 17:55:19 »
One of the hot button issues is the 'use of fetal tissue' because of possible association with abortions.

What this means in practice is that people get very upset about cell lines like HEK 293 cells, which are immortalized fetal tissue. Where the fetus came from exactly isn't known, but it was back in 1973, either an abortion or a miscarriage. 50 years ago! Even the woman involved may have died by now.

Sounds theoretical to most people, but if you had an AstraZeneca vaccine, that's a chimp virus that was grown on that cell line substrate, which has saved vast numbers of people.

But it goes far, far beyond that, pretty much every medicine is tested on these immortalized cell lines, including almost certainly all the other vaccines.

In America, Republican governments ban all government funding for experiments and tests involving these cell lines.  They end up having to have two sets of refrigerators one where they store fetal-related tissues. And every democratic government promptly reverses it again, because it's stupid. Even the Pope who is very anti-abortion thinks it's pretty stupid at least for things like Covid vaccines.
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags: science  / public  / technology  / general  / experiment 
 

Similar topics (5)

Are you aware that a scientific fact can decay? (Fact Decay?)

Started by Alan McDougallBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 2
Views: 3138
Last post 10/06/2016 11:41:24
by evan_au
Why would you burn coal, then turn the carbon dioxide back into "coal"?

Started by evan_auBoard Chemistry

Replies: 9
Views: 4627
Last post 08/03/2019 08:44:55
by chris
Is there a scientific definition of "wet"?

Started by DoctorBeaverBoard General Science

Replies: 11
Views: 23606
Last post 14/01/2018 21:06:57
by Bored chemist
What does "the oil will settle back into the ground" mean?

Started by CliffordKBoard The Environment

Replies: 1
Views: 5240
Last post 21/06/2012 12:18:51
by evan_au
Is it possible to convert electric energy into light energy then back?

Started by skoorbBoard General Science

Replies: 5
Views: 10745
Last post 27/09/2017 20:15:08
by alancalverd
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.074 seconds with 33 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.