It sounds like a good idea to me, not necessarily because it is his best chance of survival but because participating in this kind of research is likely to benefit others down the line. (Admittedly, that's the kind of thing I can more easily say about a random stranger than I would be able to say about a close friend or family member.)

I would encourage him to try and get a cryonics plan in place if at all possible, but the act of participating in stem cell research itself seems like a net positive.

In this case I'm beyond sceptical. Stem cells are often given to medical tourists as the very words conjure up the idea of miracle cures in peoples minds, when there really is no evidence to think it will be of any clinical benefit (and in fact there is often evidence that it will be harmful).

If we were at the stage in medical science where we could cure chronic renal failure by using stem cells we would have done so in rats, or some other model animal, already - and we haven't yet to my knowledge.

It is likely that the theam that is going to administer the stem cells has no idea of how proper research is conducted, no idea of the basic science of stem cell therapy and no concept of ethics.

For instance, I heard of a case some time ago in which a young child was taken to South America for stem cell treatment after many years of being in a near vegetative state following some sort of damage to his brain. The "scientists" and "doctors", at the clinical promised massive improvement, and every time they flew over to go to the clinic a brain scan would be done - and improvement would be proclaimed. Back in their native USA, however, one of the doctors that had been involved in the childs long term care convinced the family to have a scan done at home - and it was painfully obvious to anyone with any medical knowledge that the therapy had in fact caused massive irrepairable brain damage.

Stem cells aren't a valid experimental treatment for most conditions (if they were, they would actually be offered in first world patients) they are simply a scam.

I'll attend, cool :)

More, actually. I'm not sure what they go through before selling GMO food for human consumption, but I'm pretty certain peanuts wouldn't have passed the test.

One of the big problems (frequently raised by objectors, pretty much ignored by supporters) is that the purpose of GMOs is so Monsanto can have a plant they own, rather than because the plant is a good idea per se. This may not be a great idea.

Potatoes already produce cyanide compounds. Don't eat them raw if they aren't ripe.

Nutritional Science keeps finding out new effects and necessities, where micronutrients are concerned. Unless you're satisfied at the state of nutritional science, you should feel no safer eating foods genetically modified to remove unknown impurities and replace them with known vitamins than you would eating an isocaloric mixture of ghee, bleached flour, egg white, and a multivitamin supplement.

edit: It seems I was unclear. What I'm saying is that, in addition to the 13 essential vitamins identified by the NIH, normal food contains thousands upon thousands of chemical compounds with as-yet unknown effects and threshhold doses. Moreover, it is unlikely that a gene insertion or deletion intended only to increase round-up resistance has no effect on its physical makeup.

Thus, a belief that the only nutrition which contributes to health is the 13 essential vitamins, plus a good macronutrient ratio, is equivalent to the belief that the only reason to eat more than pure fat, carbohydrate, and protein plus a multivitamin is a taste for variety.

The risks that GMOs pose to us are more likely to come from the companies that grow them. The corn they grow here in the states is used for everything from plastics to soda and new uses are undoubtedly being uncovered all the time. Personally, I don't like corn THAT much. A corn takeover is not much of a doomsday scenario.

There are some environmental issues that arise from supporting corn crops. Some crops 'give back' to the soil. Corn is not one of them.

[WARNING: UNINFORMED OPINION FOLLOWS]

Another, keener health risk concerns something I heard about The Omnivore's Dilemma. The problem with some GM foods I hear is that they are far lower in nutritional value than other foods.

GMOs can be safe, they can be unsafe. For instance, if you inserted a gene into a potato to produce poisonous cyanide compounds that would be unsafe. Engineering a rice variety to produce Vitamin A precursors, however, is not likely to be unsafe on a basic scientific level and once the crop has been tested and retested for toxicity and other concerns it is simply not plausible that it would be dangerous.

Other intentions of GMOs can be, for instance, to produce an organism which is naturally resistant to pests or which is better able to grow in a variety of climates. With regards to pest resistance the toxicity of the compound would, of course, have to be tested first - but artificial pesticides are regularly sprayed on crops anyway so I do not see how it is different.

With regards to increased proliferation or better adaptation to more climates, the fear that they will somehow destroy the ecosystem is quite unfounded - if a plant which was slightly better adapted could do this evolution would have assured mutual destruction by know already. Remember that modern varieties of crop plants are probably not well suited to growth outside of human cultivation, being bread to human needs which may be maladaptive in the wild. GMOs are no more capable of taking over the world than their wild type counterparts I assure you - we are years and years away from being able to design something so effectively!

Look at what the basic science of genetic modification is - inserting a known gene or known series of genes into an organisms code under the control of specific gene switches in order to get a desired phenotype. Its not that scary really, an additional gene or an additional few genes added to what is no doubt already thousands. It is merely an accelerated and highly specific form of artificial selection which has been going on for centuries. The exact function of the genes being inserted will no doubt have been ascertained precisely before getting anywhere near the stage of producing a GMO. The only potential risk I can think of is unexpected interactions between metabolites in other biochemical pathways - but this would be picked up on pre release testing and possibly even in silico modelling, and thus can be easily managed.

The fear over GMOs is quite out of control, for instance I have in the past worked with GMOs in a lab setting. This were genetically modified fruit flies (which had the reporter gene Lac-Z added next to genes of interest in order to permit visualisation of gene expression) and Chinese hamster ovary cells which had the cannabinoid receptor artificially added to their repertoire. With both the control were laughably excessive, the fruit flies are no different than their wild type counterparts in terms of any threat of danger and the CHO cells like to die even when good care is taken of them in highly controlled conditions (trust me, they wouldn't last a day if they got out of the lab). Yet still, we had to put up with the highest level restrictions and procedures when working with these in order to absolutely rule out environmental contamination - including intrusive inspections by government staff.

A doctor faces a patient whose problem has resisted decision-tree diagnosis -- decision trees augmented by intangibles of experience and judgement, sure. The patient wants some creative debugging, which might at least fail differently. Will they get their wish? Not likely: what's in it for the doctor? The patient has some power of exit, not much help against a cartel. To this patient, to first order, Phil Goetz is right, and your points partly elaborate why he's right and partly list higher-order corrections.

(I did my best to put it dispassionately, but I'm rather angry about this.)