I know you lefties hate Charles Krauthammer, but I continue to think he is one of the better columnists out there, and he has am eminently reasonable piece on the stem cell issue today:
It is a good idea to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. It is a bad idea to do that without prohibiting research that uses embryos created specifically to be used in research and destroyed.
What is deeply troubling about the Castle-DeGette stem cell bill, which passed the House and will soon roar through the Senate, is that it combines the good with the bad: expansion with no limit.
The expansion — federal funding for stem cells derived from some of the thousands of embryos that fertility clinics would otherwise discard — is good because the president’s sincere and principled Aug. 9, 2001, attempt to draw a narrower line has failed. It failed politically because his restriction — funding research only on stem cells from embryos destroyed before the day of that speech — seems increasingly arbitrary as we move away from that date.
It failed practically because that cohort of embryos is a diminishing source of cells. Stem cells turn out to be a lot less immortal than we thought. The idea was that once you created a line, it could replicate indefinitely. Therefore you would need only a few lines.
It turns out, however, that as stem cells replicate, they begin to make genetic errors and to degenerate. After several generations some lines become unusable.
He then goes on to explain why the policy from 2001 is now obsolete, and continues on:
It simply will not do for opponents of this expanded research to say that the federal government should not force those Americans who find this research abhorrent to support it with their taxes. By that logic we should never go to war, or impose the death penalty, except by unanimous consent of the entire population. We make many life-or-death decisions as a society as a whole, without being held hostage to the sensibilities of a minority, however substantial and sincere.
He finishes with this compromise:
Both in my writings and as a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics, I have advocated this dual policy: Expand federal funding of stem cell research by using discarded embryos, but couple that with a firm national ban on creating human embryos for any purpose other than the birth of a human baby. We finally have a chance to enact this grand compromise — but only if a majority of senators insist that the welcome expansion provided in the Castle-DeGette bill, which will yield a near endless supply of embryonic stem cells, cannot take place unless the door is firmly closed now, while we still have the chance, on the manufacture of human embryos for research and destruction.
It will be interesting to see how both sides react to this, although as it is eminently reasonable, and this is a Friday in August, it will probably be summarily ignored by the reactionaries on both sides of the debate.
*** Update ***
Some say it is not that reasonable at all, as it would ban something which is currently legal. I thought there was an ample supply of already existing embryonic stem cells, and those would continue to be available in the future. I read the proposed ban to prohibit creating stem cells SOLELY for the purpose of resaearch, but allowing the use of emrbyonic stem cells that are created for other reasons would remain permissible. Am I just flat-out wrong on my interpretation of this column?
*** Update #2 ***
Via Instapundit, this:
Scientists looking for easier and less-controversial alternatives to stem cells from human embryos said on Friday they found a potential source in placentas saved during childbirth.
They described primitive cells found in a part of the placenta called the amnion, which they coaxed into forming a variety of cell types and which look very similar to sought-after embryonic stem cells.
With 4 million children born in the United States each year, placentas could provide a ready source of the cells, the team at the University of Pittsburgh said.
It is not yet certain that the cells they found are true stem cells, said Stephen Strom, who worked on the study. But they carry two important genes, called Oct 4 and nanog, which so far have only been seen on embryonic stem cells.
*** Update ***
From the left, Kevin Drum attacks Krauthammer. And from Leon, a self-described member of the rabidly pro-life movement, more disagreement.
neil
Kevin Drum takes the bait, and takes the Hammer to task for his phony “spare body parts” scare tactic.
Also.. the “President’s sincere and principled” attempt to cut the baby? Whatever.
Don Surber
Of course Krauthammer only has a medical degree and an intimate knowledge of neurlogical disease, Neil
John Cole
Well, Neil, I know he failed to mention something about Chimpy ‘Bushitler’ McHitlerburton, so I didn’t think you would really care for his piece.
:)
gratefulcub
Looks like a reasonable argument to me, except for one thing. I don’t think embryos are people, and if stem cell research is effective as a treatment to multiple diseases, we are going to need more and more stem cells. So, we will need to produce them.
But, living in today’s America, I would take the compromise.
metalgrid
I fail to see the reasonable part of his article. He posits the compromise of allowing federal funding of SSR and balances it out by the banning of private individuals and businesses from creating stem cells for research – something that is currently legal.
He is the epitome of a statist with this very example – expand the powers of government for research while at the same time restricting and clamping down on private enterprises. I can see lefties loving this, but how far the right has fallen when they sing praises expanding government and restricting private enterprise. There really is no difference between the right and left.
Defense Guy
I could live with this, but I still don’t like it. You can dress it up however you want, but an embryo is meant to be a human being and not a scientific plaything.
Brian
And remember, not only does Krauthammer have a ton of knowledge in this area, he has a personal stake in this. He has been a paraplegic for many years, and if he truly thought it could get him out of that chair, he’d be the biggest cheerleader out there.
A lot of people don’t know that he has been in a wheelchair for 20+ years. I didn’t even know until recently, and I watched him on TV for the last few years.
John Cole
Brian- I thought it was common knowledge he was in a wheelchair.
Mike S
I had no idea. That definately clarifies his position for me. MetalGrid brings up an interesting point. If that can be reconciled in some way, if it’s true, then I could live with this compromise.
Stormy70
A compromise here will have to do, since it is a polorizing issue. I hope the placenta cells work out since most of my Science Fiction has some sort of horror coming out of labratory embryos or clones. Hello, Matrix? What if they turn people into batteries! Ahhhh! ;)
Biff
This might be a feasible compromise politically, but morally it makes no sense. If you think an embryo is a person with rights, you should ban the discarding of embryos altogether. If you think an embryo is not a person with rights, what’s the problem with creating more for the sake of this research?
(I guess a third possibility is that the embryo is a person without rights, not sure where that leads)
Brian
The wheelchair, fictional sounding germanic name, and hawkishness (at least for wars Republicans start) have led some internet wags to christen him Dr. Strangelove.
Mr Furious
Yup, well actually hate is a little strong, even for Mr. “Furious”, but I do think Krauthammer is a hack. As a columnist and a doctor. “Diagnosing” Howard Dean sight unseen (ala Frist) will tend to undermine credibility.
Being on the right side of stem cell and intelligent design ain’t gonna change MY mind.
Oh, and I had no idea he was in a wheelchair.
neil
Oh, well golly gee, if he is a Doctor then I guess he cannot also be a Pundit. It would be unthinkable for him to use his Newspaper Column to endorse a policy that was politically expedient but not medically ideal.
Get a clue, wingnuts. Anyone who’s praising Bush’s stem cell stance is guaranteed to be doing it for no reason besides the inherent value of praising Bush. People who are in a situation to place non-Bush-praising interests first, like Dr. Frist and Dr. Dobson, have their own reasons to dislike the policy.
Mark
Gee, I didn’t know Charles K was in a chair either! That makes a lot of us. As a doctor, I’m surprised he’s opposed to cloning body parts for the treatment of illnesses. It’s not like we’re going to grow whole humans, slaughter them, and harvest their organs.
What’s the big deal about taking a cell, that will *never* become a human, and grow it into a spleen for someone who’ll die if we don’t?
As an aside, Krauthammer and Frist should be publicly criticized by the AMA for abusing their MDs for political gain.
BinkyBoy
Every embryo should be taken home for the rest of the family to bond with, after all, its part of the family and everyone deserves to look at its rapidly decaying earthbound form.
And I’m in agreement with Defense Guy that surgeons are heretics and should be burned at the stake for operating on the human body. It is a pollution to our soul, Dog himself will deny us entry into heaven for play acting the part of a diety.
Rome Again
Bush being president is a polarizing issue as well, can we compromise on that also?
I’m sure your answer is no… then again, I can’t see anyone in this administration that I would like to replace him with, so I guess I can’t compromise either.
Rome Again
We took away its chance to be initiated into the Jesus cult.
Defense Guy
You should get back on the medicine, it appears that the voices have started again. First I am a sociopath and now I’m some sort of witch-hunter.
Are you getting some other part of balloon-juice that I am unaware of? Is there a gold-card member only area or is this perhaps another instance of your hate showing?
Vlad the Enabler
Even though Krauthammer never met a Serbian Fascist he did not like, it is interesting to see him buck the GOP talking points on Evolution and Stem Cell research.
BinkyBoy
Your earlier comment of
stinks of the same types of fear, paranoia and propaganda that were put out by prayer healers. I’m sure it goes over well with the rest of the Sunday crowd, but those that deal in science and saving lives through medicine just shake their heads in awe of your absolute ignorant Dobsonite faith.
The Quiet Storm
“First I am a sociopath and now I’m some sort of witch-hunter”.
Sorry Defense Guy. Stormy70 is already the resident Sociopath on BJ. She says humiliation does not equal torture. Yet if we tied her up in public, naked, and covered with feces she would not consider that torture.
Defense Guy
This makes no sense, not that this is surprising. There is no fear, paranoia or propaganda about it – the purpose of the human embryo is to become a human being. I am not sure how you can dispute this. Perhaps you can exlain it.
So you paint me as your devil. Fine, you drip venom and hatred with your wild ass descriptions of otherwise reasonable statements. You are still a moral and intellectual paintywaist, and quite frankly your rhetorical style is embarassing. As is my grammer and spelling.
Stormy70
Failed reading comprehension, did you?
If you can’t be bothered to read what I post, then try to keep the personal insults in the designated Plame Flame thread, please. Time and Place, QS.
BinkyBoy
I’m painting you as the religious conservative whackjob that you’ve easily outlined for everyone to see. You and yours that believe in life at conception do so with a blind faith that is dangerous and unrealistic, much like the faith healers and their fears and paranoias about surgeons and modern medicine.
Embryos are destroyed on an almost daily basis, many past their useful age for implantation. Why waste valuable resources? If there were a religion that believed that oil was the lifeblood of the earth and by spilling it we are killing Gaia, should we stop using it?
There are kind open people in this world that are ready to donate their eggs and extra embryos to science and people like you want to believe you are giving them some sort of “compromise?” like you own the spiritual and moral high road and you expect some sort of return for your generosity.
Or maybe you want to believe in the South Park charicature of Christopher Reeves sucking the spinal columns from aborted fetuses?
Stormy70
Binky – why the bigtroy from his reasonably stated position? Do you go on the attack for every little disagreement if they are a Christian. The topic is a political type compromise, and by it’s nature it will not satisfy everyone, but it is better than the complete impasse we are at right now. So some are uncomfortable with it, fine, no need to trash people’s reticence with experimentation on embryos. Sheesh.
Defense Guy
BinkyBoy
You have a sort of blindness about that does not allow you to see that the arguments you are using against me are the same you share yourself. No one can say with any degree of certainty when life begins. So your claim that my position is based on blind faith is exactly the same position you hold yourself when you claim it is not a life. It is ego that allows you to think there is any difference in the foundation for either of our positions. You should stop that.
One other thing, stop making the statement ‘people like you..’ and then go on to describe something for which you cannot possibly have any earthly idea. It makes you look like a dork, and an emotional doofus. Unless you can’t help it, in which case, sorry, that sucks.
BinkyBoy
Reasonably stated position? A position that maintains that he is granting a “compromise” as if he is the standard bearer for religious morality?
And as for “people like you”, I lump in all the Schiavo hyteriacs and the “embryos are people too” into a nice little ball of religious idiocy that allows me to realize those people deserve no real position on anything, as their tenuous grasp on reality slips each time they allow their faith to be used for political and emotional issues.
And I said nothing about when life begins, DG. Thats not my decision to make, nor does it make a bit of difference to me. The embryos belong to the mother and the father, they can do with them what they will. If they sell them to the highest bidder or donate them to scientific advancement, its their call, not mine and not yours. The federal government has no right to step into the morality battleground and should have taken the high road and continued its ambiguous support of medical advancement for the betterment of its populace.
Nash
I thought there was an ample supply of already existing embryonic stem cells, and those would continue to be available in the future.
You thought wrong, but I do not blame you. You bought into the deception. The existing lines were (1) many fewer than the 60 or so that were touted by Bush at the time–the correct number was more on the order of 20 and (2) already recognized as genetically corrupted and therefore of limited use.
Both of these complaints were correctly lodged at the time and known by those of us with backgrounds in this area, but the complaints were downplayed by the liberal MSM and ignored, because they were made by those severe leftists funded by the NIH and by people such as Kinsley, all of whom just didn’t believe in sound science and hated America.
It was never a reasonable compromise and it can only be considered a reasonably stated position in terms of its political effect.
BTW, cf Krauthammer now with Krauthammer then. His take has changed. Before, there was absolutely no point in pursuing new stem cell lines, because it would offer “false hope” and because the conditions being described as potential areas for treatment (e.g., Parkinson’s disease) were not actually valid targets. He was wrong on both counts.
Stormy70
Dude, the whole conversation is about the political compromise on the table in the article. You did read the article, right? I hope you are not trying to tell me what my position on Terry or embryos is, because you are talking out your ahem.
Defense Guy
BinkBoy
I see. You have staked out a position as arbiter of what is acceptable, unless it involves a moral decision in which case you take no position. You lump me into your pre-defined catagory removing my individuality (this is bigotry by the way) and assign to me all of the things you don’t like about a group of people much larger than me.
Since you are also elevating the right of property over life, wouldn’t that probably put you on the side of that which you declare to hate?
I will be far more careful being the banner carrier for all that is religous, a position I did not know I held, but will try to treat with the respect it deserves. You may kiss my ring, and i will most certainly pray for forgivness of your transgressions. Donations can go directly to John at Balloon-Juice.
Nash
I do give Krauthammer some leeway in one regard. OTT Edwardian claims such as “Christopher Reeve would be alive, yada yada” didn’t advance the debate in any way. Krauthammer has a right to own some anger over that. But he doesn’t have a right to mislead and lie. Which he did and which he continues to do.
BinkyBoy
Actually, Stormy, this time you just happened to jump into the middle of something I had going with Defense Guy and his statement that
Which is the same reasoning that brought us to the point of killing stem cell research entirely.
Also, for scientific reasoning beyong my understanding, cord cells arn’t as valid, genetically, as embryonic stem cells taken from spinal fluid. Or at least, thats how I’ve always understood it.
frontinus
Re: Placenta
Don’t expect everyone to be happy[Gag Factor: high] about this if true.
Nash
Also, for scientific reasoning beyong my understanding, cord cells arn’t as valid, genetically, as embryonic stem cells taken from spinal fluid. Or at least, thats how I’ve always understood it.
Cord cells have their uses, especially in current replacement therapies, but as progenitor cells for research, they are of less use than embryonic stem cells because they are further along the differentiation pathway than the embryonic ones are. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, and cord cells have lost some of this “elasticity.”
BinkyBoy
Ah, thank you for that clarification Nash
Nash
You are welcome. One more thing, and then I will leave off with the science.
There are some promising adult stem cell lines, that is cell lines from living breathing humans, that show a degree of pluripotency as well. There are also studies showing that differentiation can be reversed (as in neoplasia) in some adult stem cells. If this worked out, we’d likely not need embryonic stem cell lines or we’d need fewer of them.
But, I’m not willing to bet a cure for diabetes on adult stem cell lines coming through anytime soon. I do think there *will* be a cure for diabetes using stem cells in my lifetime.
John Cole
Not what I meant, Nash. What I meant was that I thought there would be enough ESC produced in the future re: IVF and other procedures that would create extra ESC. Those could be used, as they are not solely created for research. They would exist, just as the old ESC’s existed for other reasonsthat research.
BARRASSO
I hate how life begins at conception types say that the poor little globs’ soul will be lost if they aren’t allowed to grow into a larger glob. How stupid does an all powerful all seeing god have to be to just let the soul of the baby go to hell or whatever jackass stupidity you beleive, without giving it a second chance. God gives aborted babies do-overs, it’s in the bible people under Mulligans 4:16.
Nash
I respect that that is what you meant, John, but that really isn’t what you said. In addition, that is not the conclusion reached by most who heard the President’s claim. The impression they wanted people to have was that there were enough embryonic cell lines already in existence.
In addition, and this makes some uncomfortable or resistant, but IVF-derived cells are not necessarily sufficient. Unless we can “invent” another reason to create these blastocysts, we may be in an untenable position in terms of ethics.
metalgrid
*** Update ***
Some say it is not that reasonable at all, as it would ban something which is currently legal. I thought there was an ample supply of already existing embryonic stem cells, and those would continue to be available in the future. I read the proposed ban to prohibit creating stem cells SOLELY for the purpose of resaearch, but allowing the use of emrbyonic stem cells that are created for other reasons would remain permissible. Am I just flat-out wrong on my interpretation of this column?
The whole point was that only ‘mistake’ ESCs end up being used for SSR. Once fertilization and implantation techniques are further refined and only 1 or 2 embryos are needed to trigger a pregnancy and the supply of ESCs decline since they cannot maintain viability endefinitely, we’ll arrive at similar organ waiting lists and waiting lists for even more procedures than we do now because of the limited number of replacement cell lines.
Meanwhile, privately generated ESCs have been banned, thus making large ‘benevolent’ government the arbiter on the whole issue. I don’t like it. The conservative position is to get government out of this, not to bring government into the private sphere and outlaw such activities. In addition, the banning of private development means that government is basically curtailing the rights of those who do want to use their embryos for scientific research. They will find ways around it. A couple will go in, make their cluster of embryos and then change their mind about having a baby. There, a whole bunch of embryos to be donated for SSR. So we’re gonna have to set up a Government Office For Reproductive Honesty that will have to investigate every single couple who applies to have in vitro fertilization done. Government will have to come into monitor every single private fertility clinic even more than it does now. Oh and guess what, we’re gonna end up having to pay the tax hike to keep these additional government activities funded.
I think Mr. Krauthammer fits in rather nicely with the new breed of spend-like-drunken-sailor Republicans. Perhaps it is time to start looking towards Democrats for some small government and fiscal sanity.
As to this:
You can dress it up however you want, but an embryo is meant to be a human being and not a scientific plaything.
Any cell is ‘meant’ to be whatever science available at that time deems possible. If it weren’t for the advances in reproductive biology and in-vitro fertilization, we wouldn’t even have come this far. If it weren’t for in-vitro fertilization, we wouldn’t be looking at the potential of SSR. If scientific research hadn’t brought us hormonal therapy to increase chances of implantation, there would be far more embryos being flushed down the toilet than being brought to term.
Humans are scientific playthings, not just embryos. If we weren’t, we’d still be dying in our 50s of heart diseases and cancer and myriads of other ailments. Once science finds out how to take a placental cell and make an embryo out of it, will you begin insisting that procedure is carried out for every single cell found? When science arrives at a way of triggering skin cells to (un)differentiate into a potential embryonic cell, will we end up having to live in rubber suits to collect all our sloughed off skin so that you may covert them into embryos for implantation? It seems silly because it is. Just because something can happen, doesn’t mean it will. Just because something can develop into an embryo and then a zygote onwards doesn’t mean it can’t just as well develop into a replacement kidney for someone else. Just think of it as living through someone else. It’s all ‘culture of life’ baby.
Defense Guy
It is a dishonest tactic to use cell when we are clearly talking about something far more advanced. It has human characteristics at this point, and given the chance will create life, human life.
To the arrogant and the criminal perhaps. You would so easily take from another what you would protect to your last for yourself. An embryo can hardly consent to it’s own demise, and for another to intentionally kill it for the purposes of scientific study is as immoral today as it ever was.
jg
Now that was funny. LOL
Doug
When superstition comes to loggerheads with science, I figure science is the best bet. The Pope couldn’t keep the earth in the center of the solar system and the universe just by locking up Galileo, thank God.
Also, I think it’s important to note that the debate isn’t whether life begins at conception. We don’t really get all twisted up about taking life generally. It’s human life we feel its necessary to protect. So, we’re really arguing about when human life begins which is pretty much asking what it means to be human. Is it just the fact of having a heart beat and the right genetic information? I think it’s something more and would suggest that something like self-awareness be required before we need to be much more concerned over the human life than we are for other sorts of life.
I’d be much more concerned about, say, testing on dogs than I would about testing on an embryo.
Mark
Great comment from Barrasso at 5:28!
Why would God allow the souls of embryos go to hell instead of simply putting them into the next embryo until one actually becomes a person?
I’d love to hear an answer to that, Stormy and Defense Guy.
Defense Guy
You are talking about 2 seperate issues. First, who says he doesn’t and second what does that have to do with the fact that you are intentionally taking at the very least the life of a potential human being. Is the only reason you behave in a moral manner because you fear the consequences if you don’t?
Stormy70
Why from me? I’m for stem cell research. Mentioned way up there. I just don’t want any Matrix-like shennanigans. Do you guys skip over my posts?
BinkyBoy
Most ESC’s come from frozen embryos originating in fertility clinics, from what I understand. These embryos are destroyed at the time when the originators (parent’s) of said embryos want them destroyed OR when they are past a certain date, as the implantability of the embryo is beyond an acceptable level.
If they are going to be destroyed, why not use the left over “goo” for science, allowing humanity to benefit? Its exactly the same as organ donation. The donor is dead anyway and a small portion of humanity benefits.
jg
Because the road to hell is paved with good intentions? Some people are uncomfortable with anything that seems to encroach on Gods domain. You’re right that they are going to be destroyed anyway but ‘playing God’ gives people goosebumps so its verboten. Personally I think we should make the most of what God gave us; our brains, our planet, our stem cells. They were provided, lets have some fun.
This is why I was never the priests favorite in Sunday School btw.
S.W. Anderson
Krauthammer’s proposal is reasonable. I doubt those so vehemently opposed to this research are going to buy into it; compromise isn’t part of their dogma.
If a person considers an embryo to be a human life, the discussion ends right there. Using embryos for research is wrong, destroying ones from fertility clinics is wrong, and so on.
As with abortion, public-supported stem cell research will have to be OK’d and conducted over the objections of religious fundamentalists and Bible literalists. And as with abortion, eternal struggle will ensue.
Bob
Krauthammer’s position sounds reasonable. I didn’t know that there were embryos being fertilized soled for stem cell research, though.
Considering the thousands upon thousands of fertilized cells sitting around in freezers, I don’t think that his proposed limitation would be any inconvenience for scientists or science. Admittedly, my science knowledge not extensive.
Here’s a thought, though. Krauthammer is fronting a way out of this dilemma for Bush, a parachute if you will for Bush’s current policy. It’s a compromise that won’t put him through the hissy of possibly losing a veto or being even more despised than he now is if his veto is upheld.
Rome Again
You’re not all that far off, actually… reincarnation is in the Bible in the Old Testament (if you know where to look, *hint: it’s in the scriptures having to do with “The Assyrian”*). If God is willing to give second chances of life to his adversary, why not another chance for those souls that were unborn?
Geek, Esq.
How can the Redstate folks be so lucid and write so well, yet be so freaking crazy at the same time?
Cassidy
They aern’t being crazy, except for DougJ., maybe, but anyway…it’s a perfectly resaonable argument. I happen to disagree with it. I think life begins with self-awareness, and not in the off chance meeting of sperme and egg. But, you’re trying to convince someone, who allready has an explanation for the origin of life, that they are wrong; it doesn’t work like that.
Defense Guy
Hey, I said way back up the thread that I could agree with this comprimise. Some people just do not like to hear the other side of the argument, especially if it involves something as sticky as when a human life begins and when we have a right as individuals or society to end it.
Go figure.
Defense Guy
The same question replacing crazy with gobsmackingly immoral could be asked of the dissenters.
My issue is that I just don’t know. No one does. Consider this, if you don’t believe in G-d, and there is no G-d, and life does begin at conception then both this and in vitro and abortion are very monstrous acts. There wouldn’t even be a discussion if we knew for sure. It is because we don’t that we discuss. I find this reasonable, and am not sure why some don’t.
Then again, I find an evening with hedgehogs and tequilla to be reasonable.
Stormy70
I guess some people just glob onto the part of the post they expect to see, and skip over anything written that might threaten the stereotypes of the right. But if you argue with some small point, especially if you believe in G-d, then you are to be insulted and your religious beliefs slimed, and all manner of bigotry and bile will issue forth from the keyboard. When that happens I know at least they are not going to give you a fair hearing. At least they self identify. Most on this board will engage on a good debate without resorting to those tactics, though.