The president of the Pontifical Academy for Life is acknowledging that the winner of the Nobel Prize in medicine is a scientist to be recognized, but he says he would have voted for other candidates.I note with interest the way in which the other candidates for whom Bishop de Paula would have voted are scientists whose work follows the approach I suggested at the end of my previous post on this subject, referring to the work of Professor Jerome Lejeune.
Bishop Ignacio Carrasco de Paula released a statement in response to Robert Edwards, the doctor who invented in vitro fertilization, winning today the 2010 Nobel for medicine.
The bishop observed that giving the Nobel to Edwards caused "a lot of support and not a little perplexity, as was to be expected."
"Personally," the prelate added, "I would have voted for other candidates, such as [Earnest] McCulloch and [James] Till, who discovered stem cells, or [Shinya] Yamanaka, who was the first to create an induced pluripotent cell (iPS)."
At the moment I can't find the full text of this statement, but I will link to it when I have found it.
Bridges and Tangents makes an interesting comment on the leader article in today's Times: The power of language in ethical argument.