Redstate

as problematic to argue against this research on a utilitarian basis (it doesn't work) when the real objection is moral (its evil). Because with the passage of time, the utilitarian argument may collapse.

I make no prediction about the likelihood of such a development but what would happen to this argument if someday some really significant invention came out of this - like a cure for cancer or something.

The two-pillared argument would be weakened badly because it suggests in some way that the practice is evil because it doesn't work when in fact the utility aspect is incidental to the real objection. Its just thrown in on the side in hopes of swaying people ambivalent about the moral aspect.

This has been a critique of rhetoric rather than substance.

Is one of where we ought to be fighting.

While I understand your position, utility usually determines priority.  My point is that we're arguing about the wrong thing.  And yes, the moral wrong still exists.

A super-5 diary, Augustine!!!

I wrote something similar on another thread a few days ago, but you really nailed it here!

Do our conservative friends in Congress (e.g. Senator Frist) know this?

The National Right-to-Life News (a monthly publication of the National Right-to-Life Committee) is full of articles about catastrophic failures of clinical experiments using embryonic stem cells (some patients developed bones in their brains, or uncontrollable seizures, and worse). The NRLC also publishes many articles about major clinical successes using adult or cord-blood stem cells. But pro-lifers are not anti-science or anti-therapy--we want to use cells that can be obtained without harming or killing the donor.

Embryonic stem cell propagandists insist on the fact that they can transform into many types of cells after replication, and have more "potential" than cord blood or adult stem cells. But they overlook the fact that the diversification of embryonic cells is controlled by extremely complex hormonal secretions in the womb. Take those cells out of a womb, and try to grow them in a Petri dish or an elderly person's brain, and they are uncontrolled, and highly unpredictable.

Adult stem cells, which can be taken without killing the donor, are already well-adapted to the chemical conditions in the organ in which they are found. If transplanted into the same organ in another patient, they will behave as they always have, to the benefit of the recipient.

Transplantation of adult stem cells is the moral equivalent of a blood transfusion--inflicting minor, temporary harm on a voluntary donor for the great benefit of a patient. Use of cord blood or placental cells after birth does no harm to either mother or child. Morally, taking embryonic stem cells kills a human being who could otherwise live for 70 or 80 years to try to prolong the life of an elderly person by a few years, and no clinical benefits have yet been obtained.

Science and morals AGREE on the stem-cell issue, for those who look at the facts. Killing human embryos for their stem cells is both morally wrong and scientifically dangerous. Use of adult or cord-blood stem cells poses no moral problems to the devout, and has already achieved clinical successes, with promise for the future.

The major problem is to cut through the lies and spin and get the facts out on the table before Congress, then they should make the right decision.    

It seems to me that some proponents of this research claim that the medical necessity outweighs any moral objections, that it's the lesser of two evils.

By attacking the claim that it's so important, one can destroy the primary defense against the moral argument against embryonic stem cell research.

There are huge commercial applications for the kind of applications they claim are possible with this technique... so I don't see why the government has to be involved at all.

If government funded research leads to breakthroughs what happens to the IP rights? Don't they stay with the University or whatever institution is performing the research?

(from either side of the aisle) don't know what cloning is either, having derived most of their info from movies.

What is the upside of having the government do this research? The private sector is better suited for this type of research anyhow.

If we would have left polio research up to the government right now instead of having a cure we would have the best, shiniest Iron Lung money can buy!

that there is a slippery slope between ES research and "organ farms" <shudder> I have to take issue with what you present as "The Truth" about the current state of ES research:

1. The stem cells taken from destroyed blastocyst-stage embryos currently have NO therapeutic value whatsoever, and are unlikely to ever be used in the treatment of diseases.

This is patently untrue.  To quote a recent piece in Science by Gretchen Vogel (Science 21 October 2005: Vol. 310. no. 5747, pp. 416 - 417),

Two methods that create embryonic stem (ES) cells without destroying viable embryos can work--at least in mice. But although some scientists and ethicists herald the research as a step toward finding an uncontroversial way to produce ES cells, it seems clear that neither method completely resolves the ethical debate.

One method, called altered nuclear transfer (ANT), uses nuclear transfer to create cells that are incapable of forming a normal embryo but can give rise to ES cells. In the second, researchers derive an ES cell line from a single cell taken from an early embryo--while allowing the remaining cells to develop into a live-born mouse.

Both of these promising new techniques, the ones which were touted as producing "controversy-free" ES cells, require early stage blastocysts.

2. There is not a single therapy or treatment using embryonic stem cells even in clinical trials, let alone production. (Compared to adult and umbilical cord stem cells, which are already being used in the treatment of 65 diseases.)

This is because we are still learning how to use them.  This can be used as an indictment of those who claim ES cells are a panacea, but not for those seriously pursuing it as an option for one, two, or five decades from now.  Notably, it is in large part the success in using adult and cord cells which has spawned current interest in adapting ES cells as similar, or better, therapies for a wider range of diseases and injuries.

3. Anyone who's actually an informed commentator on this subject knows full well that embryonic stem cells CANNOT be used in therapies.  Why? Well, they just happen to have the tendency to generate dangerous tumors. It's a small problem.

They cannot CURRENTLY be used in therapies.  Which you stated in point 2.  This is a problem which is not universal, and which is not insurmountable.  Just because gene therapy trials have resulted in leukemias doesn't mean the scientific community has abandoned gene therapy, either.  

4. The scientific community on the whole are not devoting significant amounts of time or investment in the pursuit of treatments derived from the stem cells of destroyed embryos.

I have a lot of friends whose careers and paychecks would beg to differ.  I don't know where you are getting this from but the Science article that Slate mentioned, as well as the other recent articles in Nature referenced by the article I cited above, testify that scientists are indeed spending a lot of effort (and indeed, want more money to pursue it, hence the debate about federal funding) on ES cell research.

Anyway, I thought these "Truths" were a little heavy-handed. Overall, though I think your diary points out the macabre possiblity of "organ farming" well, shedding some light into a corner of the debate most are unaware of.

(Leaving aside the ethical issues which have been discussed elsewhere.)

Augustine offers some good advice that we should not be misled by those espousing a  political agenda who do not understand the science involved with stem cell research.  

This is a complex technical issue.  Involving science, ethics, business, and a federally funded biomedical infrastructure that is the envy of the world and a major engine for economic growth in the US.  Few people understand one of these issues well.  Very, very, very few understand all of them at once.  

So, where can we as citizens, or for that matter, our elected representatives without specialized training in science and medicine turn in order to get the best evaluation of the scientific issues at hand that is not subject to political or financial bias?

Thankfully, a great man set up a system by which our elected representatives could call upon some of the greatest scientific minds in the country.  That man was Abraham Lincoln.  He established this system to provide advice to the

US government on science and engineering during the Civil War.  The body he created has grown over the years so that today it contains some of the most eminent scientific minds alive today.  It is the most prestigious scientific body in the world.  The National Academies.

To give you some idea of the quality of intellect this body contains let's take a look at the Nobel Prize recipients for this year:  

Chemistry-- 2 members of the National Academy of Sciences

Physics--2 members of the National Academy of Sciences and one foreign associate of the National Academy of Sciences

Economics - 2 members of the National Academy of Sciences, one of whom is also a member of the National Academy of Mathematics

Medicine - 1 foreign associate of the National Academy of Sciences

These scientists serve the citizens of the United States, and our elected representatives by providing expert advice on science, engineering, and medicine.  These scientists evaluate scientific matters and advise Congress and the President of their findings, they publish their findings so that the public can read them, and they do it all for free.

I don't know whether the members of the National Academies read The Weekly Standard, but I do know that the writers of The Weekly Standard do not read the work of the National Academies.

On Augustine's advice:  

"But in the old D.C. tradition, here you have people who know the least about an issue making grand statements that have little or no basis in actual fact."

perhaps we should take a look at what The National Academies have to say so that we may be "...informed by actual scientific researchers, medical experts, or health policymakers,..." about ESCR.

Adult vs. Embryonic Stem Cells:

Although stem cell research is on the cutting edge of biological science today, it is still in its infancy. Studies of both embryonic and adult human stem cells will be required to most efficiently advance the scientific and therapeutic potential of regenerative medicine. Moreover, research on embryonic stem cells will be important to inform research on adult stem cells, and vice versa. Research on both adult and embryonic human stem cells should be pursued.

On Public Funding:

High-quality, publicly funded research is the wellspring of medical breakthroughs. Although private, for-profit research plays a critical role in translating the fruits of basic research into medical advances that are broadly available to the public, stem cell research is far from the point of providing therapeutic products. Without public funding of basic research on stem cells, progress toward medical therapies is likely to be hindered. In addition, public funding offers greater opportunities for regulatory oversight and public scrutiny of stem cell research.  Publicly funded research on human stem cells that is conducted under established standards of open scientific exchange, peer review, and public oversight offers the most efficient and responsible means to fulfill the promise of stem cells to achieve medical breakthroughs, says the committee.

The potential for therapeutic benefits from Embryonic Stem Cells:

The ability to take tissue derived from stem cells and transplant it into the human body to restore lost function may be a long way off, the committee said, but some studies involving animals have been encouraging. For example, transplanted embryonic stem cells from mice have restored some insulin regulation ability in mice with diabetes, relieved symptoms of Parkinson's disease in rodents, and partially restored neural function in animals with spinal cord injuries. The committee called such studies promising albeit not definitive evidence that similar treatments could be effective in humans.

On the utility of the currently available ES cell lines:

Over time, all cell lines in tissue culture change, typically accumulating harmful genetic mutations. There is no reason to expect stem cell lines to behave differently. In addition, most existing stem cell lines have been cultured in the presence of nonhuman cells or serum that could lead to potential human health risks.

And proving yet again that the media doesn't know jack about reporting science, we have the claims that the need for ESCR has been obviated by recent findings.  This claim is crap.  The Weekly Standard hasn't provided the authors of the study so I can find out why they are wrong, but I believe that they are referring to a study that simply removed a cell from an embryo to develop stem cells then refroze the embryo without implanting it into a womans uterus.  As we know most people who are anti-embryonic stem cell research are anti-embryonic stem cell research because they are anti-IVF in general so this advance will not satisfy them.  The advance by the researchers in Texas was not an advance at all as similar work had been done two years ago and neither has replaced the need for using embryonic stem cells.

Embryonic stem cell research is a controversial issue.  But misrepresentations of the science by opponents are no more helpful nor responsible than claims by advocates that with embryonic stem cells Christopher Reeve would have gotten up and walked.

That's all I have time to address, Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

Excellent work.  Best diary I've seen on this topic.

The NAS is a joke of a body, long dominated by liberal political correctness, an opposition to outside the box research, a disdain for moral bioethics, and a marked greed for taxpayer dollars to throw at silly scientific projects that lead nowhere.  Give me a freaking break.

You're the one who brought up the issue of truth in discussing the science of stem cell research.  I guess you just meant the "truth" <wink> <wink> that opposes stem cell research.

Do you have a criticism of the NAS's scientific credentials?

I'm not sure whether the guy at The Weekly Standard has absolutely no clue what he's talking about, or whether he's turned on the more absolutist opponents of ESCR and is trying to convince them that some embryos are less equal than other embryos.

By the way have you read the New Jersey law?  I fail to see how it promotes "fetus farming". Although it may not expressly make it illegal I see no place where it discusses implantation of a cloned embryo into a woman's uterus.

You need to front-page this diary.

That is all.

However, you may have noticed that the guy who wrote it was certainly in a position to do so himself. We just work here.

Is this a general objection to government funding and conduct of medical research? Jonas Salk did his work on the polio vaccine at the public University of Pittsburgh.

Our universities are phenomenal engines for scientific discovery and research, particularly medical research. If there are significant moral objections to specific research areas, then let's address them case by case. But please don't make any assumption that the profit motive somehow improves the conduct of science.

It's remarkably hard sometimes to dig down to the truth of a scientific matter, such as global warming or stem cell science.  Even among scientsits, there is usually a subset who actually know deeply what they are talking about.

The NAS is not a joke, but it is definately a very exclusive club that may or may not select the best of the best all the time.  But if you can't believe them, then who do you believe?  It may be true that the establishment rejects outlandish theories, but it is also true that this is the cry of every pseudo-scientist who's absurd theory gets rejected by everyone.

It is not logically valid to just go from scientist to scientist until you hear the answer you want.  One can believe the Earth is 6000 years old, and countless famous astronomers and geologists and biologists will tell you you're wrong.  Then you find a professor who agrees with you and has written papers proving the Earth is 6000 years old.  Does that mean Creationism is correct, or does it mean the professor is a knucklehead?

Of course I've read it.  It was a pretty big issue at the time.  That you fail to see what was quite obvious to intelligent observers does not surprise me in the least.

So on one hand, you have a collection of some of the most prominent, respected, and brilliant voices on bioethics in our time.

On the other hand, you have a cut-n-paste of the policy goals of an organization long-known for being a haven for those opposed to the very concept of morally informed bioethics, and also given to fudging science and making false promises to attain bigger grants.  And you have indicted former Governor Jim McGreevey.

You are quite welcome to stake your claims on the positions of the latter.  In fact, I daresay it suits you.

The NAS, as a whole, is not a joke - I typed too rashly.  But ON THIS ISSUE, quoting them as an impartial source is laughable.  They have a longstanding feud on this topic with those who believe in the very concept of bioethics, and cut-n-pastes of their policy positions are simply not credible.  One might as well quote a biotech company directly, or those old NARAL talking points about why pregnant women ought not get an ultrasound, since it can be "emotionally confusing."

I note that the scientific advisory grouping quoted makes no mention at all of ethics. For all I know, ethics may not be in their remit. If it is their remit, they have signally failed to take any note of it. If it is not in their remit, that places their statements in need of an ethical review, rather than being an unchallengable edict of scientific wisdom.

As a graduate Physicist, it was my depair one day to be arguing with someone who believed that there was no limit implied by the speed of light. His reasoning appeared to be that since he had heard a popular science journalist say that there was not, any assertion to the contrary was null and void, and clearly tainted by my Christian beliefs. He did eventually shut up when I pointed him at a website that stated the obvious, but it remains the case that far too many people, and certainly too many politicians, cannot tell scientific truth from fable, and cannot tell when scientists don't know the truth themselves.

The trouble is that what science proposes may yet be, is really not cut and dried. Someone working on a new field of research is bound to be enthusiastic about it, those not doing it, less so. It is simplistic to suppose that the availability of a research grant to do exciting research does not colour the attitude of researchers towards the advisability of undertaking a project; ridiculous to suppose that lifetimes spent researching an idea do not colour the judgment of a scientist towards the pursuit of the possible.

All we can really expect of scientists is to accurately describe the state of knowledge they have, not what the likelihood of future benefits from a field of research may be. What you don't know, you don't know.

Back in the 1980s, I was taught as part of my degree a series of assertions about Nuclear Physics, in a course which concentrated on what particle physics researchers were trying to prove. That made me itchy. They got the budget for an accelerator to go and look for new and remarkable particles which would prove the hypothesis - which is all it ever was - and once they ran the thing, they found nothing, zip, zilch. That energy range is now known as the 'Great Desert'.

So I was taught a hypothesis as fact about to be discovered, and knew that very well. But I think that the lecturer who taught that course had forgotten, in the excitement, that this was really just hypothesis, and I think a lot of other well meaning people elevate their hypotheses into idols as well. People should take the things that scientists ecxpect of research with a pinch of salt.

If the earth is 6000 years old, I''ll be very surprised, but that doesn't 'disprove' Creationism. The real issue is a Hebrew word 'yoml', commonly translated as 'day', but also translated over a hundred different ways elsewhere in the bible.

Since the sun appears on day four, one can discount the idea of the first three days being thought to be quite like any other days we've seen since then. And thus it seems to me that the writer of the Hebrew original never intended people to envisage a 168 hour first week, but to see an analogy between seven phases of creation, the last resting, and the pattern for our lives, the week, culminating in a day of rest.

Arguments about the English translations are only important if they are inherently accurate, and in this case I don't think they ever can be. Once you take away the requriement for the earth to be six thousand years old to 'prove' the bible, two things happen. One, the argument between evolutionists and creationists becomes pointless. Two, a lot of people will over time discover that a lot of their crazy ideas are not worth defending, since both believers and biologists are capable of suspending their disbelief in an attempt to prove what they would dearly like to be right.

For the response but you miss the point. Universities could still be funded by privet companies so I'm not sure your point is valid?

Salk was funded by mostly privet funds! Less than 5% was donated by the GOV. so let's not go there...

And yes lets privatize all we can; health care & education would be a great start. Socialism doesn't work. Period.

Yes, I understand.  And many a very brilliant scientist has a surprisingly naive political viewpoint.

that it appears some advocates of stem cell research are misleading the public in thinking that the usefulness of this practice is right around the corner.

Also, while a lot of people aren't too upset at the idea of using stem cells for research, they tend to balk at the idea of farming them.

Two different moral issues, and if the MSM or scientists are playing bait and switch, then there is an even bigger ethical divide.

But you are right that if the argument is built solely on the idea that the research isn't appearing to move forward and doesn't appear as promising as the media protrays it, while the moral arguments are ignored, it does leave a hole to fill, and possibly too late, if the moral reasons are ignored.

But in general, moral arguments tend to be made in conjunction with this.

that scientists want to research unrestrained by any ethics.

I am sure somebody will come along and argue that this isn't the case, but this issue has long seemed to be one of pushing the envelope, and essentially pushing the rock down the slope, but all the while denying they have done so.

I just think the whole issue of ESCR is fraught with many an ethical delimna, and science is going to make the "but this is for the greater good" each time.  

So just where is the ethical line to be drawn, and who gets to draw it?  This is one area, where I confess I don't trust the scientists to be the sole arbitor or the ethics.

(Other than my lovely wife and children.)  So that may tell you a lot.  It may also explain why I waste so much time on-line.

Regarding the bill, failing to expressly forbid a certain thing hardly amounts to promoting it.

It is quite obvious to an intelligent reader, of the bill, that the clear intent of the writers, of the bill, is to make the production of embryonic stem cells from either somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) or from discarded embryos from fertility clinics legal in the state of New Jersey.

" This bill provides that the public policy of this State is to permit the conduct of research that involves the derivation and use of human embryonic stem cells, human embryonic germ cells and human adult stem cells from any source, including somatic cell nuclear transplantation."

What is also obvious to an intelligent reader, of your links, is that certain extremist opponents of embryonic stem cell research will resort to the same sort of scare-mongering tactics and anti-science slurs as those members of the left who oppose Genetically Modified foods.  

For example, this from the link to the contemptibly dishonest Discovery Institute:

The key to understanding the radical depth and scope of A-2840 is in the bill's definition of the term "human being":

As used in this section, "cloning a human being," means the replication of a human individual by cultivating a cell with genetic material [the SCNT cloning process] through the egg, embryo, fetal and newborn stages into a new human individual.  [(my emphasis) theirs]

Read this sentence carefully. Its terms would make it legal in New Jersey to create a human cloned embryo, implant it in a willing woman's womb, gestate it through the ninth month, and only require that the cloned fetus be killed before it becomes a "new human individual," e.g., at the very point of birth. This means that law would expressly permit implantation and gestation for any amount of time before the cloned fetus becomes a "new human individual"

The problem is, no such sentence exists in the bill.  Nor does such a definition, nor does the word cloning, nor does any discussion of implanting a cloned embryo "in a willing woman's womb", nor does any such permission to abort a fetus in the ninth or any other month of a pregnancy...

On the contrary, the intelligent reader, of the bill, will see that:

 The bill stipulates that this research is to be: conducted with full consideration for its ethical and medical implications; and reviewed, in each case, by an institutional review board operating in accordance with applicable federal regulations.

Show me an institutional review board that would approve "fetus farming".  Transferring DNA from a skin cell to an unfertilized egg and culturing the resultant cells in a petri dish for stem cells? yes, that would get approved by many.  But aborting cloned fetuses to remove their hearts, kidneys, or other organs?  NO FREAKIN' WAY!! is any IRB going to approve any such "research".

Additionally the bill:

∙   prohibits a person from knowingly, for valuable consideration, purchasing or selling, or otherwise transferring or obtaining, or promoting the sale or transfer of, embryonic or cadaveric fetal tissue for research purposes pursuant to this bill (while permitting embryonic or cadaveric fetal tissue to be donated for research purposes in accordance with the provisions of the bill); and

∙   makes a person or entity who violates this prohibition subject to a civil penalty of not more than $50,000, or imprisonment for a term of not more than five years, or both, for each such incident.

 The bill defines "valuable consideration" to mean financial gain or advantage, but would exclude, from this definition, reasonable payment for the removal, processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, storage, transplantation, or implantation of embryonic or cadaveric fetal tissue.

I think an intelligent reader, such as a judge, would interpret this to mean that a fertility clinic storing and transporting tissue for a research facility could be reimbursed for the expense of keeping cells frozen in liquid nitrogen and shipping them via FedEx to a researcher.  A woman paid to be a fetus farm, would reasonably be expected to spend five years in jail and pay a $50,000 fine.  

Re these:

"That you fail to see what was quite obvious to intelligent  observers does not surprise me in the least."

"On the other hand, you have a cut-n-paste(1) of the policy goals of an organization long-known for being a haven for those opposed to the very concept of morally informed bioethics, and also given to fudging science and making false promises to attain bigger grants."

"In fact, I daresay it suits you."

That you and other opponents of ESCR would descend into insult, slur, and distortion so quickly provokes scepticism about the "ethical" component of your arguments as well.

(1) (You have some nerve, really, to criticize me for cut and pasting the NAS's position about the promise of stem cell research while you cut and paste no less a scientific authority than The Weekly Standard as your source for accurate scientific information!)

a link to the bill.

If it doesn't work 'Subsidize'!

The reason the Government needs to pay for this is that nobody else will.

(1) No, embryonic stem cells cannot now be used in therapies. Why not? Partly because they were only isolated in 1998, and since that time have not gotten much in the way of federal funding. To those who ask: if embryonic stem cells will be so great, why isn't there adequate commercial funding? the answer is: there's a lot of basic research to be done first, which will not directly yield therapies.

(2) Wrong. The first phase 1 trial was approved about a month ago. See here.

(3) Wrong again. Some embryonic stem cells are teratogenic, but this does not seem likely to be an insuperable problem.

(4) Oh, yes they are -- as much as possible given the restriction of federal funding to a small number of lines that are contaminated with mouse proteins.

About the alternate ways of getting embryonic stem cells: one involves taking a blastocyst that has stopped developing, looking for some normal cells that have not yet died, coaxing them a bit, and deriving embryonic stem cells from them. Problem: these cells are capable of developing into full human beings themselves, so using them doesn't get around the basic problem.

One (Hurlbut's 'alternate nuclear transfer') relies on what I can only describe as  a tortured view of what counts as an embryo. He says: modify someone's DNA so that it cannot develop normally; insert into an enucleated egg; and get it to develop until it reaches the stage at which stem cells can be harvested. It develops to this point just like a normal embryo. Why isn't it an embryo? Well, according to Hurlbut, because it doesn't have the capacity to develop normally. Personally, I think that if I believed that it was wrong to kill a six day old blastocyst, I would not think that a six day old blastocyst that we have genetically engineered to be doomed was just as deserving of protection as any other, but if you can find some morally salient difference, or some reason to think that this doesn't amount to killing the embryo, more power to you.

Scientists don't like these approaches because they don't get around the moral problems at all; and if you're not going to get around the moral problems, why waste time developing whole new ways of not doing so?

Fetal farming is a complete and total myth. Since someone else has discussed the NJ bill, I won't repeat it. But tell me what, exactly, the research program involving 'fetal farming' is supposed to be. I have never heard of it, and I work with these people.

Finally, the Weekly Standard is a really unreliable source of science information.

Wrong link in my last comment. Here's the right one:

"Scientists have made stunning progress helping paralyzed rats and mice walk again by injecting them with stem cells. Now researchers at Geron of Menlo Park, Calif., want to take the next step - in people.

They hope to get federal permission to inject those cells into damaged spinal cords. The procedure - which Geron intends to do next year - would be the first human tests of a treatment derived from human embryonic stem cells, the highly versatile body cells that can be coaxed into becoming almost any tissue in the body."

link

Keep in mind, the University of Pittsburgh was not public at that point in time.  It only became public in the late 60s/early 70s

If certain types of government funding (e.g., NIH grants, but not including educational grants) are used in the development of a patented invention, the government retains very limited rights to the invention which, in practice, are rarely if ever exercised.  By filing some simple papers, the university can retain the major rights, which it can sell or license to for-profit companies.  Typically, the university licenses a biotech or pharma company in exchange for a combination of up-front fees, milestone payments (e.g., upon initiation or completion of clinical trials) and royalties on final products.   See 35 USC 200 ff., commonly knowhn as the Bayh-Dole Act.