As science moves on, the knuckle-draggers will have to come up with a new objection:
Scientists have for the first time grown colonies of prized human embryonic stem cells using a technique that does not require the destruction of embryos, an advance that could significantly reshape the ethical and political debates that have long entangled the research.
The new work, described in today’s issue of the journal Nature, shows that even a single cell plucked from an early human embryo can be coaxed to divide repeatedly in a laboratory dish and grow into a colony of stem cells, coveted for their potential to mend failing organs.
It is already common for fertility doctors to remove a single cell from a days-old embryo before transferring that embryo into a woman’s womb — part of a test to screen out embryos bearing genetic defects. Although the safety of the cell-removal process is still under study, there is no evidence that the procedure puts embryos at significant risk or that babies born from such “biopsied” embryos are abnormal in any way.
If scientists were to grow stem cell colonies from some of the single cells already being removed for genetic testing, scientists said, they could vastly increase the number of colonies for research without putting any embryos at added risk. Until now, researchers have isolated stem cells only from older embryos, which are inevitably destroyed in the process.
While I fully support the idea of an expedient dodge so that science can continue onward, I doubt this will have any real impact on the ‘concerns’ of our self-annointed ethical and moral stewards. In fact, this new method may be more dangerous, because it treats the concerns of the loudmouths as if they were serious, and worthy of a compromise. Let’s review.
Embryonic stem cell research is not murder. Embryonic stem cell research is not on the same moral plane as abortion. Embryonic stem cells are not people. And pretending they are, and w0rking to find a ‘compromise’ will, in my opinion, simply validate the complaints lodged by the loudest and shrillest of the morality police.
Remember who we are dealing with- these are the same folks who think that gays are the root of all evil, and that a couple sessions in church can make you ‘ungay.’ These are the same folks who really do think or pretend to think that Terri Schiavo was just a few prayers away from playing volleyball before she was ‘murdered by the courts.’ These are the same people who think that the world was created in six days a few thousand years ago. These are the same people who think that NASA should be run by teenage religionists or that decisions about the morning after-pill are little more than political decisions to appease a segment of the base.
Do we really want to concede one inch to these folks, to give their fantasies and fears one shred of legitimacy? I sure don’t. I understand why the researchers may be doing this- so they can get the loudmouths to shut up, and then let the scientists get back to doing what they do best. But this isn’t about actual science to the critics- it is about political manipulation and the application of brute political force. And I doubt it will even appease the hardliners- witness Mona Charen:
Cautiously optimistic on this stem cell news. If news reports turn out to be correct, the procedure they’re describing takes one cell from an embryo (a biopsy if you will) and then coaxes that cell into making stem cells. The embryo from which the cell was extracted continues to develop normally.
Fertility clinics already do this to test for inherited disorders.
Again, if this procedure is really what it seems to be, then it passes a key moral test – it does not destroy life.
We’ll have to wait and see whether it actually does no harm to the developing embryo.
We- you, me, science, and the rest of the world, have to wait until Mona Charen, from her seat at the National Review, decides if this ‘destroys life.’ You can’t make this shit up.
And even if they decide this doesn’t destroy life, they will come up with something else, probably with scary words delivered with furrowed brows and all sorts of shows of concerns- “This may be close to cloning, which creates a whole new ethical dilemma.” I can already hear it.
I used to think the appropriate course of action was to listen to their concerns. No longer. This is not about science, ethics, or concerns for human life for these people. It is about their political relevance. And if you ask me, they should have none. As far as I am concerned, they should be ignored, and if we can’t find a way to do that, we can point at them and laugh at them if they still find it necessary to demand our attention and waste our time.
*** Update ***
And yet again, the Carpetbagger and I see eye to eye.
Pb
I agree in principle, but if it gets us more stem cell lines in the meantime, I’m all for it.
Um. No we won’t? Those embryos are going to be discarded, remember? Talk about moving the goalposts.
EL
Actually, I already saw some of those “scary words” on a right wing board. The objection was that since the single cell removed was capable of growing into an embryo and “becoming a life,” harvesting it was still “destroying life.”
I can only imagine what happens if science gets to the point where it could persuade ordinary cells to unspecialize and start reproducing. When any cell is capable of reproducing the entire organism, throwing away toenail clippings would be a sin!
Pb
Every sperm is sacred! No surgery for embryos! I love these inane arguments. Would that logically imply that we have an obligation to divide that embryo into as many clones as possible? That is the optimal potential outcome for maximizing life, so anything else would be “destroying life”! Apparently the goal of the Religious Right is to create an army of clones. Wait, why does that not sound surprisingly different to me.
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
I’m withholding judgment on this debate until scs weighs in on it.
But if you don’t throw them out, an enemy could get ahold of them and put a hex on you. So it’s really a complicated ethical issue, isn’t it? After all, your toenail clippings represent millions of potential lives; on the other hand, not throwing them away endangers your immortal soul. If scs would care to proffer an opinion on that one as well, I’m listening. If not, we’ll have to wait for Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell to get to it.
ThymeZone
I have but one overriding concern here:
I need for Darrell to know that I can be cloned. That he can be surrounded by twenty of me at the drop of a hat.
If that means longer or shorter life for a stem cell somewhere in a petri dish, so be it. First things first.
Paul L.
I know this will shock you all. I find this workaround helps alleviate my
ethicalmoral concerns.I am a rightwinger so I can’t have ethical concerns. Just moral concerns. At least according to this list.
I have no problem with Embryonic stem cell research that uses this technique.
Of course you know someone will create a baby (possibly twins) by implanting one of the spawned off embryos and make this issue even more thorny.
John S.
Paul L.-
That political spectrum chart (which you clearly are incapable of reading) doesn’t say you can’t have ethical concerns. It merely states that for those on the right-wing, morality trumps ethics. I would welcome you to challenge the truth of that statement.
I look forward to seeing you continue to flaunt your stupidity.
Bombadil
Saw the article on this in the Boston Globe this morning. Haven’t finished the article, but from what I’ve read it is, indeed, good news. I had no problems with the use of embryonic stem cells for research before, but anything that provides the same stem cells while removing the currently stated objections to how they’re obtained is to be applauded.
That said, John, what do you think the next “serious” objection will be? I don’t imagine the knuckle draggers will let this issue go very easily.
Paul L.
I can read it. I just find it to be funny, one-sided and do not take it seriously. I will continue to mock it.
Keep sounding like a elitist self-important smug pr*ck who has too much self-esteem. Reminds me of John Kerry or Joe Wilson.
Pb
Paul L.,
Mock, or misrepresent?
Reminds me of George W. Bush or Paul L.
Paul L.
Oh the “I know you are. But what am I.” retort.
Bravo. Good Show. Clap-Clap-Clap. Your superior wit/intelligence has defeated me.
“I’m Paul L. and I’m reporting for duty.” [Salute]
Pb
Paul L.,
I was thinking more along the lines of the “exposing hypocritical projection” retort, but either way, if the shoe fits…
We need you out there, soldier!
John S.
Interesting, because for all intense purposes that chart continues to mock YOU. Or at the very least, make a mockery of you.
Amazingly, even inanimate objects are smarter than Paul L.
ThymeZone
Close but no cigar. It’s “moralizing” which trumps ethics, and morality as well. Morals are useless when moralizing is de rigueuer. Ethics fall by the wayside.
That’s why the Ends Justify Means world of Bush, the Neocons, Darrell and the whole insane right wing are so dangerous. Their pompous and hubristic crap sweeps aside everything in its path.
nyrev
And we’re this much closer to my being able to declare my ova as dependents. Take that, IRS!
canuckistani
I’m with John here. Finding a solution for their objections is a way of validating their objections. And what if the new techniques don’t work? Are we stuck, having conceded that a zygote is a human being? Best thing to do is treat a zygote like a zygote and not let religious extremists force the world to live by their rules.
Richard 23
Well none of this really matters as we’ve already seen The Death of Science. It’s all over folks.
bago
Humans have the ability to do abstract thought. That’s what makes us us.
Mindlessly propagating genes will lead to this
No brain, no human. Anyone who doesn’t ensure that their spawn will be healthy is perpetrating a cruel hoax. It’s like being given the wisdom of gods and renouncing it on some principle of ignorance.
bago
Also, on the death os science. See, the problem with that is that science has this annoying habit of working. That’s why it’s science.
Germany is a perfect example. Chase the Jews out because you don’t like Jews. They still invent the A-Bomb and change the world. Welcome to that cold cruel wall of reality.
scs
Wow Dj, I read this blog maybe once a week, depending on what is on TV or who there is to chat with online, and everytime I do, it doesn’t take long to see your clones put my ‘name’ in there. You are obsessed with me man! Get some help on that why don’t you.
Anyway, what I’ve said many times, but you don’t have enough Kerry complexity to get, is that I am not even religious, but unlike John Cole, I defend the right of people to be religious and to organize politically for whatever belief they have. Let’s face it, I am the true liberal here.
scs
And as for John… come on now. And you let TimF get away with accusing ME of caricatures when look at all the irresponsible caricatures YOU throw out?, (and seem to believe.)
I don’t think any GOP pols thought Terri was about to get off her hospital bed and dance. I don’t believe the mainstream of even the far far right even thought that. I don’t believe the far right spokesman Randal Terry even thought that, because I watched the TV coverage pretty thoroughly and I never saw him even coming close to saying anything like that.
The only people I saw in the media who even came close to saying anything like that, besides the ever omnipresent kooks, were Terri’s family. I can’t believe you are turning your back on your life long beliefs because you object to the statements of hope, likely in vain, that an injured girls family made about her recovery.
What you don’t and still don’t seem to get it that it was not about the fact that anyone thought Terri would start playing volleyball soon. It was about the fact that many consider life precious, and if we decide to take it away, we should go beyong all doubt to make sure we are making the right decision. And that includes making sure she got all the right legal proceedings, all the right medical tests, and to make sure the right person was speaking for her. It’s sad that you are using the injustice done to Terri as an excuse and a coverup for your decision to change your lifelong beliefs.
Tom in Texas
You are quite correct. I think all Bill Frist said was that based on a few minutes of edited videotape, Terri was not in a coma. Of course, being a certified doctor, he should know better than to diagnose a patient on such flimsy evidence — maybe he’s just as awful of a doctor as a Senator. But he never once said she could dance. I praise his admirable restraint.
Are you familiar with Bush’s record as governor concerning the death penalty? Does this same logic apply to those who the state is executing, and is all life considered precious? The most recent example of this would be the case of Ruben Cantu. The lone eyewitness to identify Cantu has recanted, saying that police pressured him into testifying. The officer who spearheaded the arrest was suspended multiple times for poor judgement and faulty arrests. It is quite likely that Texas executed an innocent man, and certainly the state under Bush did not go “beyong all doubt to make sure we are making the right decision.”
Tom in Texas
A full apology for the Cantu post. The conviction was in 1985, and Ann Richards was governor at the time of the execution (1993). Of course, the fact that multiple public defense attorneys slept through their clients’ trials in death row cases under Bush supports my case that the man has only a selective interest in insuring someone deserves death before administering death upon them. (The Judge actually allowed the conviction with the explanation of “[t]he Constitution doesn’t say the lawyer has to be awake.” Only in Texas).
scs
Well Frist stated quite correctly that if a patient can follow an object wth their eyes, than that person is not PVS, as being able to do that is, by definition, one of the characteristics of being minimally conscious. So I don’t understand what the big deal is about his statement. He’s correct.
Now the question was if she indeed followed an object with her eyes. Now I saw the tape and to me she looked like she followed the object with her eyes as well. Did we ever establish how she did that? Did we establish often she did this? Even if it was once in a six hour tape, it was still pretty strange. If Terri did that pretty consistently even once every six hours, that would make think start to wonder. Of course the other side said it was just random chance, but I think the eye movement was too long and on point, even if only once in 6 hours. Did we establish if the parents edited the video? Faked it somehow? No. We didn’t. In fact, I never heard any accusations of that, leaving me to believe it was an undoctored tape.
See, all of this was still unanswered before her death. Of course John C and many will declare with outrage that she was definitely blind before her death, due to the fact that the vision centers of her brain appeared to be destroyed as seen on her autopsy. However, I don’t think it’s quite as simple as that. For instance, doctors used to think that all of your short term memories were formed by your hypothalamus in your brain, and if that was destroyed, you wouldn’t be able to form any short memories to convert to longer term memories. However, they then started seeing patients with destroyed hypothalamus, who did process short term memories. Turns out there was some overlap in the brain and there are others areas in the brain that can assist in that funtion once the primary area is destroyed.
I wonder if it could be the same way with other functions and if there is not some overlap in the brain as well for other important funcitons such as sight, especially since we know the brain can slowly rewire itself with stem cells. To me it’s not impossible that some primitive visual function, such as responding to movement or light, was left or reinforced by stem cells over time in the 30% of Terri’s cortex that was left. After all, we have known from research studies that some even severely classified PVS patients such as Terri have been shown upon bran scans to process in some way outside stimulae.
Anyway, to wrap this up, there is a lot left doctors don’t know about the brain, and if you even read a little on the subject, that will become clearer to you. That’s why we cannot take anything about brain injury for granted and that’s why we have to do thorough testing before we decide anything.
scs
“After all, we have known from research studies that some even severely classified PVS patients “- to clarify what I wrote above, I mean people who had been mstakenly diagnosed to be severely PVS, which happens according to some studies very often, or had been shown to have very severe brain injuries. Once they are shown to respond to stimulae in brain scans, they are then by definition minimally conscious.
scs
Sorry, another correction- I meant hippocampus above, not hypothalamus. Funny no one caught me on that.