The Adjective Before Stem Cells
The face of an adopted embryo.
It perpetually annoys me when journalists purposefully confuse W’s position on stem cells.
You see, they often don’t use the adjective embyronic unless it fits the party line, nor are you likely to see adult stem cells discussed at all since their importance certainly does not fit the party line (nor do the benefits of cord-blood).
Here is a classic case of either slipshod writing or purposeful obfuscation (both are rampant when it comes to this topic).
After discussing embryonic stem cell research, Carl Zimmer sighs:
Reading about this advance, I felt a grim sense of irony. As I wrote in my original post, President Bush stopped federal funding for research on stem cells using new lines derived from embryos, despite the fact that most of the already existing lines were contaminated by this lost sugar. American scientists have been making some progress with stem cells with private money and state initiatives, but guess where scientists finally figured out how to solve this evolutionary problem with cell sugars? South Korea.
He lost me with this double non-sequitur.
First, W is the cause of South Korea beating us to the create-life-to-destroy-life punch?
Second, evolutionary problem?
Where is the discussion on what can embryonic stem cells do that adult stem cell lines cannot?
As the embryonic stem cell drumbeat increases, it is important to note it is not well informed by the history of destroying life under the cover of saving or improving life.
Curiously, Zimmer does not address this selfish issue (can it be called anything else?), but Judy Woodruff did today and made a classic mistake: She assumed what a Congressman said was factual:
WOODRUFF: Let me quickly cite to you what Congressman Castle of Delaware, co-sponsor of the bill, says. He says these embryos would be discarded. In other words, we’re not talking about using any substance that has or had the potential to be a human being.
ALLEN: Well, actually, Judy, that’s incorrect, and in fact, the president had an event today to show that there are alternative uses for the very embryos that you’re talking about, and those alternatives are to provide families that cannot conceive children naturally, to allow them to adopt these embryos for developing of children, so that they, too, can enjoy a family with young children.
The president had 21 kids and 21 families represented here today that were products of frozen embryos. The president’s policy though is very clear. It’s simply, because an embryo may be unwanted does not mean it’s not worth protecting, and therefore, it not an inappropriate use of federal funds for the destruction of that human life.
More from Claude Allen in a moment.
For another broader perspective, please see Kathryn Lopez’s Q&A with Wesley J. Smith.
Snippets:
National Review Online: With the news out of South Korea last week, are we all one step closer to “designer babies”?
Wesley J. Smith: Absolutely. Apparently the South Korean researcher Wu Suk Hwang has learned how to reliably create human cloned embryos. Human cloning is the essential step toward biotechnologists learning how to genetically engineer progeny, a new eugenics project that enjoys great support among futurists, bioethicists, and some within the science establishment. For example, James Watson, the co-discoverer of the DNA double helix, is a big booster of creating designer babies who have been enhanced for intelligence, health, looks, etc. There is even a nascent social movement that has formed around creating a “post human species” known as “transhumanism.” Princeton biologist Lee Silver put it this way in his book Remaking Eden: “Without cloning, genetic engineering is simply science fiction. But with cloning, genetic engineering moves into the realm of reality. . . .
NRO: What are the worst fallacies in the stem-cell/cloning debate?
Smith: There are so many from which to choose: I think the most egregious problem for the average person has been the over-the-top hyping by biotech advocates of the potential of therapeutic cloning and ESCR and the swiftness by which these supposed miracle treatments will become available — to the point that sick people and their families have come to believe that these approaches may be their only hope for a cure. I was in Texas recently testifying in favor of legislation that would ban all cloning. During the hearing, I witnessed just how desperately some sick people and their families attach their dreams of health — to the point of near irrationality — in these highly speculative and morally problematic approaches to regenerative medicine.
During the hearing, a very famous cardiologist testified that in early human trials in Brazil and the USA, he had been able to effectively treat patients who needed heart transplants with their own adult stem cells. He reported that the therapies had been so successful that many of the treated people no longer needed transplants. I had heard of these experiments, of course, and was touched by this physician’s passion to help heal.
Almost the very next witness was a man with heart disease. Yet, it was as if this famous cardiologist had never even spoken. Near tears, the man told the legislators that cloning was his “only hope,” when of course the committee had just heart from a world renowned expert that this was nowhere near true. But it really brought home to me how deeply ingrained the pro-cloning propaganda has drilled the mantra of therapeutic cloning into the consciousnesses of so many sick people and their families. Yet even if it proves workable — a big if — therapies from human cloning are many years if not decades away. Such oversell is not only wrong ethically but is also cruel. . . .
Smith’s Consumer’s Guide to A Brave New World looks like a great read.
White House Domestic Policy Advisor Claude Allen continued to educate Judy Woodruff today:
WOODRUFF: What about the argument, Claude Allen, though, that the other side makes, that you can’t do as much research with the umbilical cord tissue, umbilical cord blood, that is an alternative piece of legislation?
ALLEN: Well, actually, there’s not sufficient science to demonstrate that. The umbilical cord blood has the same potential, we believe and are exploring, aggressively, research in this area to demonstrate that you can get stem cells from umbilical cord blood to try to accomplish much of the same.
What is very clear, though, is that there has been no application derived from the destruction of an embryo in this case and so it’s important to recognize that the hope that there’s research or that there’s applications or therapies available by the destruction of human embryos, that’s absolutely not correct.
WOODRUFF: There is a new CNN/”USA Today”/Gallup poll. You may have seen it, showing 53 percent of those asked — Americans — say they favor fewer restrictions on government funding of stem cell research. Is the president out of sync with the majority of Americans on this?
ALLEN: Well, absolutely not, Judy. In fact, I want to correct an earlier piece in your program. I watched it with great interest and it’s important to know what the president’s policy does and what it does not do.
What it does is that this president is the first president to actually support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to the tune of $50 million since 2001. What his policy does not do is it says that government funds should not be used for the destruction of nascent life, but it also does not prohibit the use of private funds or anything. But it’s a very narrow restriction on the use of federal funds, but we also provide opportunities for using embryos that had already been destroyed and to explore in this area, and we’re seeing research go on in this area already under the president’s program.
More pictures of those who were allowed to live and not thrown in the trash.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. Good afternoon, and welcome to the White House. I have just met with 21 remarkable families. Each of them has answered the call to ensure that our society’s most vulnerable members are protected and defended at every stage of life.
The families here today have either adopted or given up for adoption frozen embryos that remained after fertility treatments. Rather than discard these embryos created during in vitro fertilization, or turn them over for research that destroys them, these families have chosen a life-affirming alternative. Twenty-one children here today found a chance for life with loving parents.
I believe America must pursue the tremendous possibilities of science, and I believe we can do so while still fostering and encouraging respect for human life in all its stages. In the complex debate over embryonic stem cell research, we must remember that real human lives are involved –both the lives of those with diseases that might find cures from this research, and the lives of the embryos that will be destroyed in the process. The children here today are reminders that every human life is a precious gift of matchless value.
Many thanks to Kathryn Lopez for outstanding coverage of this and all issues regarding the sanctity of life.
Many in this age worship the mind, the rational.
When we forget the heart, and more importantly, our Creator, we do so at our own peril and the peril of many little ones.
UPDATE:
[Richard Cohen's] only argument is a version of the naturalistic fallacy: A lot of human embryos die because they fail to implant, therefore they weren’t alive in the first place. In other words: because they die naturally, it’s okay for us to kill them deliberately. Because tsunamis happen, is it okay to slaughter Asians?
Gotta love the logic of the self-labeled rational Left.
May 25th, 2005 at 5:05 pm
Christian Carnival 71
I spent last night in an airport, reading the posts submitted this week and realized I have a problem. We have over 50 posts this week and while I disagree with some, am lukewarm to others, and would love to argue others over a beer with the author,…
May 26th, 2005 at 11:52 am
Greg,
Great work on this post. You did a great job of research and putting it all together. I could not agree more.
I have a minor comment on your blog. How can I put this very gently. I find it difficult to read your blog with the black background and the grey lettering. I don’t know if you have heard this before, but It was difficult for me and I just wanted to help to make your blog the absoulte best It can be.
May 26th, 2005 at 12:10 pm
Wayne,
Many thanks for the comments — especially the constructive criticism on format/style.
I like the black background — long story, but you’re absolutely right on the darker text.
What I’m working on is to darken the neon white and boost the gloomy gray.
Probably early next week, and until then, thanks for the patience!
Peace,
Greg
May 29th, 2005 at 8:13 am
Well, we disagree on this issue, and that’s the way it goes. I would like to mention one thing, however. What’s up with “evolutionary problem?” - that is, why the question mark? I thought Zimmer did a good job explaining that particular issue - embryos nurtured by cells from other mammals, as researchers had been doing, pick up a certain kind of sugar from these cells. Our cells no longer produce this sugar, since our ancestors lost the gene to do so, research seems to say, roughly 2 million years ago. As a result, when our immune systems gets a look at the sugary stem cells, they treat them as foreign invaders.
He goes into greater depth on this issue in his earlier post here, which talks about a nifty bit of scientific detective work - sort of like CSI with a very, very cold case.
If the question mark has to do with evolutionary theory - well, as Zimmer points out, this example has to do with losing genes, something many creationists seem to view as both proven and permissible.
May 29th, 2005 at 9:36 am
Dan,
Thanks for the comments.
My puzzlement involves bringing up the Kansas debate.
As much as I can tell, both Carl and Leonard Krishtalka, director of the Kansas University Natural History Museum, have stolen a base here.
What Krishtalka outburst does Carl repeat?
Then we read in the first sentence of the next paragraph of this Lawrence Journal-World article:
I cannot reconcile an unbiased news reporter’s piece stating that the Kansas Board of Eduction is not rubbing their hands together in ignorant glee at the thought of banning evolution theory teaching up against a hyperventilating natural history museum director’s statement that the Board intends to do just that.
Only someone who is hyperventilating would say something as silly as “remove and water down” (emphasis added). I would think removal would be more than sufficient. Perhpas in his fit of irrationality he meant to say only “water down,” which is still a debatable point — a debate that would be fun.
Many other scientists are encouraging a vigorous exploration as well.
NAS member Professor Skell notes the excellent work of Professor Shapiro at the University of Chicago.
Shapiro also has this to say:
As a Christian, I do not fear science. In fact science has done a great deal in confirming the historical veracity of the Bible (and continues to do so).
I’m disappointed, but not surprised at all that many scientists have come to fear science. They simply want to remain frozen in the incomplete knowledge of the late 19th and 20th centuries.
Fortunately, there are others who are making progress, and their work will be known — even if it takes the passing of a generation of scientific dinosaurs (as these things usually do).
May 29th, 2005 at 10:09 pm
That’s a good point about the “remove and water down” comment. “Water down” would have been better, although it is my view that “water down and then eventually attempt (once again!) to remove” would be more accurate. I mean, I get downright hysterical about intelligent design creationism, I’ll admit it, , but in this case, it does stand out that these are some of the same people who *did* remove evolution from Kansas schools a few years back . . .
” a debate that would be fun.”
No. Not for me, anyway, and I’ll debate anything; I’m most likely going to die arguing. This nonsense, on the other hand, is just making me very, very tired. All this casual disregard for lifetimes of hard work by real scientists is depressing, of course, but what really weighs on my mind lately is good ol’ Lysenko. That sort of thing is what Zimmer was talking about.
“But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry.”
As the saying more or less goes, it’s good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out!
Somewhere on the web I’m sure there’s someone who still believes that lightning is caused by supernatural forces and lightning rods are against God’s plan. The only open spirit of inquiry he’s going to get will probably involve the question “What is he smoking?!” and frankly, that’s all that he deserves.
This isn’t a good analogy, so let me bring up a better one: the theory of plate tectonics. Science itself is extremely pragmatic (even when individual scientists, being human, sometimes fall short). In plate tectonics (nee’ continental drift) we see a real theory that actually did face a doubting Establishment (in part because it lacked a workable mechanism, in part because scientists were reacting against various very silly claims about land bridges, in part because of the limited understanding of Earth’s structure, and etc . . .) Advocates of the theory spent years digging up evidence (often literally) and finally won a glorious victory when advances in geophysics, paleomagnetism, seafloor exploration, and etc all came together in the 1960s - about half a century after Wagener first claimed that South America and Africa really did once fit together, and some three decades after he died.
So far, like the story of Lysenko, this is something that could be used by either side - indeed, Dembski has done so in both cases! But I would point out that there’s something missing. There was (to the best of my knowledge) nobody running around in the 1920s insisting that continental drift be taught in high school geology courses. No Wedge Documents explaining that “Contraction Theory” and other horrible ideas had undermined the nation’s morals, and presenting a detailed plan to overthrow it - no insistance that geology itself - nay, all of science - was completely, unfairly flawed and had to be changed to fit the theory.
Now, this soft of thing (as well as the unfortunate tendency for some ID advocates to mimic their scientific-creationist ancestors in the quote-mining, expertise-shifting, and laughably-discredited-argument-citing domains) doesn’t *actually* have any impact on whether an idea fits reality or not. Nevertheless, it still might tell you something.
“As a Christian, I do not fear science.”
Great! Could you talk to certain of your co-religionists, though? Cause they surely seem to - to the degree that they mock their own religion by clinging to one supposed branch of science that tells them the terrible dragon of evolution has been slain,and they don’t have to worry about being soulless apes wandering around a meaningless world until their quick, pointless and very final death (their take on it, not anything the science says!!) . . . instead of actually relying on faith.
Not to mention, is anyone keeping count of the number of times major ID proponents, sticking to their clever legal/media strategy of being coyly vague on the nature of the designer, deny God?*
I think we passed three a long, long time ago
*Because we _know_ that’s who they think did it (and presumably you agree, if you indeed take this view of the issue. I do keep underestimating how many young-earthers haven’t memorized the new script - although there is that ID big-tent approach, and really, they are at least being truly sincere!)