Can scientific advancements survive in today's limelight?

Read this, and call me a liberal. Fine. I can deal with that.

The recent flak about the South Korean doctor who paid for some of the egg donations using in his cloning experiments is being picked up more in the MSM. Not only did he pay for some eggs, but women in his lab agreed to donate as well. These revelations have forced him to resign his position.

Now there's uproars in France (no, they're not burning cars again). It was reported in the New York Times (registeration required, so no link) that the recipient of the partial face transplant had been depressed and may have been attempting suicide when she was attacked by a dog. It was revealed that she was a divorced mother of two and unemployed and using sleeping pills. After a fight with her daughter, she took more than the prescribed dose (the article said 2-3 times a regular dose, but I seriously think it was more). In a sleep stupor, her dog began to chew at her face, thus causing the injuries.

Plus there are reports that the donor herself tried to hang herself (unsuccessfully). What's known for sure is that she died after four days in a coma.

Returning to the South Korean cloning issue. I will consider donating my eggs for stem cell research, but not for free. I'm already on emotional roller coasters just being on birth control, the hormones used for harvesting eggs is much worse. Then you have to have a minor surgery done to get them. I would want compensation for the time, effort on my part to adminster the hormones, and pain from surgery (not to mention no sex during that time). I think it's perfectly acceptable to pay for such a demanding piece of yourself.

I can understand the potential conflicts that donating your eggs to your boss can seem. However, I would probably do it if I worked in that lab. Most scientists are committed to their projects, and will do what they can to help it succeed, and if there was something I could offer to help the research, I would offer it.

Now the face transplant. As someone who's used sleeping pills before, they start to lose their effect after time. So you need to take more and more to get the same effect. I have never taken so many that I wouldn't know that something was chewing on my face, but can only try and imagine. If she kept this pattern up, she might have died in her sleep from this someday (wether it's intentional or not only she can answer). Despite her reckless behavior, I don't see why this would immediately disqualify her as a candidate. If she turly meant to kill herself, being so disfigured you had to wear a mask would be a good enough reason to end it once and for all.

I agree with the doctors that someone who attempted a hanging would not be a good face donor because of the increased pressue might rupture critical blood vessels needed for the transplant. Until I see more evidence that the donor attempted suicide, I'm willing to let it go.

But I seriously wonder if other progress in scientific advancements would have been accepted under the harsh glare of the limelight. For example, check out Bob's take on the first nuclear chain reaction test called Fail Safe Chicago. If the reaction got out of control, "volunteer" students were ready to douse the pile with special water to in theory quench the reaction and prevent Chicago from becoming a nuclear wasteland. Did those students completely understand that if called upon their lives would end that day? I'm sure the MSM could have raised all sorts of issues on why conduct the test in a major city and not a New Mexico desert too. Fortunately for Dr. Fermi, MSM was censored for the war, and the test was successfully conducted without incident.

There's a lot of scientific advancements that if you look at them closely enough can raise ethical or safety concerns. That's what in part makes them so revolutionary. I think the media should stay out of it, let the scientists debate the issues. It was scientists that raised the question about the true source of the South Korean donor eggs, then the MSM picked up on it.

Most people cannot easily make an informed decision. What they learn about the issue comes mostly from the media. I don't want scientists to become a closed society (a bit like doctors in their reluctance to admit mistakes), but peer reviews are obviously doing their job if the issue of the donor eggs was raised. It's good to have a scientific consultant for the media is a good thing to try and explain these issues, but I don't think they're helpful overall (perhaps someone can tell me otherwise).