It is ironic that every time we vote on this legislation, there’s a major scientific study that says you don’t have to do stem cell research.
Truer words were never spoken (as long as you add “embryonic” to the last three words). Even as Rahm and his buddies were pushing their umpteenth attempt to get federal funding to kick-start the Devil’s choice of embryonic stem cell research (to save a life you must take one), Japanese researchers were announcing a major breakthrough using not even uncontroversial adult stem cells but lowly skin cells.
The Kyoto University breakthrough, announced in the prestigious journal Nature and confirmed by scientists from MIT, Harvard, and UCLA transforms skin cells, one of the easiest cell types to harvest, into an embryonic state. Bypassing the difficulties of cloning and nuclear transfer (transferring the nucleus of one cell to another), Dr. Shinya Yamanaka focused on finding genes that would allow an adult cell to regress to its original primitive, pluripotent state.
And he succeeded, at least for mouse skin cells. In that case, he found just four genes which could enable this “Holy Grail” of stem cell therapy. By every test his team—or their colleagues at other institutions—can preform, these regressed cells are the full equivalent of embryonic stem cells. They seem to lack only one thing: the need to kill a tiny embryo to harvest them.
That’s the real scandal of the stem cell debate. Incredibly promising, non-controversial research is being completely neglected—even ridiculed—as the debate rages over highly controversial, difficult, and (so far) comparatively unproductive research. For no legitimate scientific reason. When Sen. Hillary Clinton said:
This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science, politics before the needs of our families.
she was in fact the one putting ideology before science. If she were really committed to advancing science without regard for ideology, she would be supporting independent efforts to increase funding to non-embryonic stem cell research programs. That would show true leadership and an appreciation for the science involved, and could be done alongside continued efforts to override the President’s veto on embryonic research funding.
No matter what the merits of embryonic stem cell research, or the worthiness of overriding the President’s veto, why should good science go neglected? No matter which side one takes on the embryonic stem cell debate, surely everyone can agree that moving ahead with research into using other stem cells—research which doesn’t push anyone’s buttons—is a good idea?
But neither the Democrats nor their media allies seem interested in stem cell research that doesn’t involve killing humans. Consider this fine example of spin by the New York Times:
“How many more advancements in noncontroversial, ethical, adult stem cell research will it take before Congress decides to catch up with science?” said Representative Joseph R. Pitts, Republican of Pennsylvania, holding up a front-page newspaper account of the scientific discovery. “These have all of the potential and none of the controversy.”
Such techniques, if proven successful, could sidestep heated debates about the research. The technique described on Wednesday works only in mice and is unsuitable for humans. Scientists hope it will prove adaptable to human cells, but cannot say when that may happen.
True enough. But this describes nearly all stem cell research. It is the height of spin to criticize what your chosen approach shares with the alternatives. The fact is that we are merely at the beginning of stem cell research in general, and we have a long road ahead whichever road we take. Why should that be used as an argument against any promising technique?
This is why the rush to focus nearly exclusively on embryonic stem cell research is so puzzling—and troubling. In a world of limited resources, surely a case can be made to prefer promising approaches which a large portion of the population does not find abhorrent? And shouldn’t even proponents of embryonic stem cell research see the benefits of separating the two? Since one branch of stem cell research is not controversial, why not pass specific funding for it separately? Why conflate the two in the mind of the public and on the floor of the Congress. There’s only one reason: because embryonic stem cell proponents want to make it an all or nothing proposition. “Either you embrace all stem cell research—with no restrictions at all,” they seem to be saying, “or we’ll prevent funding for any research.”
And that’s why it’s the Democrats and the media who are putting “ideology before science” every time they fail to clearly distinguish embryonic stem cell research from other stem cell approaches. Considering the promise of numerous adult stem cell therapies, the Senate Democrats’ constant campaign to derail funding for it is the true scandal of the debate. And the Democrats need to be held accountable for it, and for the harm it threatens to do to those awaiting cures across the world.
June 29, 2007 at 8:00 pm
The problem is whether or not you consider an embyo a living person. According to the Bible, Adam wasn’t alive until he breathed.
June 29, 2007 at 8:33 pm
It doesn’t say that anywhere in my Bible kip152. The question of when life begins is unsettled, some believe it begins at conception, some at other stages for development.
Me? I’d put my money on quickening, but since we don’t know for sure it is a fair argument to say “Are you willing to risk it, given that there is a chance the fetus is alive?”
This question is answered in different ways by different people, but no answer is currently certain.
July 1, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Ok, when is a fetus a fetus and an embryo an embryo? I can’t answer that either…
July 1, 2007 at 6:15 pm
I was a video clip of Ann Coulter talking about abortion. She made an interesting point as to how the abortion supporters use language to obfuscate the issue. For example the use of ‘fetus’ verses ‘baby’.
You never hear a woman saying “What color are we going to paint the fetus’ room?” or “I’m having a fetus shower for my friend”.
It was also interesting that the ‘left-policially correct term’ was partial-birth abortion, instead of “extract the baby until the head shows, crush the skull and vacuum out the brains.”
July 1, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Here is the video link to Ann:
Previous post reference
July 2, 2007 at 8:20 am
The problem is whether or not you consider an embyo a living person. According to the Bible, Adam wasn’t alive until he breathed.
Well, for fundamentalist Christians and Jews perhaps this is a problem, but for those of us who believe in modern science, the question of whether or not the embryo or fetus is alive is simple. It’s an growing, genetically distinct organism directing its host to provide nourishment and regulating its host’s environment to suit its needs. By any accepted standard it’s definitely “alive” and certainly “a distinct organism.”
No, the question is whether or not it’s a human person not whether or not it’s a living human organism.
As for:
Ok, when is a fetus a fetus and an embryo an embryo? I can’t answer that either…
once again, science to the rescue. Embryo and fetus are scientific terms, and simply denote stages in the life cycle of human beings. Here’s a decent summary of what these terms mean:
http://www.visembryo.com/baby/pregnancytimeline4.html
Note the use of the term “human development.” Again, while personhood may be disputed, by all the usual biological classification a human embryo is, well, human (and alive) from the first moment of its new life.
August 29, 2007 at 2:29 pm
[…] Blagojevich , Society , Science , Health , Technology A couple months back, I mentioned the real scandal of embryonic stem cell research: its supporters oppose effective, non-controversial stem cell research in favor of the immoral and […]
January 7, 2008 at 6:07 pm
let me say something. i went to 13 years of catholic school and was in the pro rights club but when i was nearly killed by a drunk driver left with a broken jaw and leg i searched for anyting that could help. the people who are dragging their feet don’t require help, must be nice! i’m not even 30 and walk with a cane but heck i’m not in a coma anymore! i would be the first to argue for it but nobody listens to me. i’m just a girl with a tbi! let me quote alanis and ask”isn’ it ironic?”
January 7, 2008 at 6:12 pm
ias a mother of two i wouldn’t want anyone to die either but i think they are venturing into how to use adult stem cells from a patients own marrow. heck sign me uo. i’m ready! i think a lot of people are merging the two options due to lack of propper titles. theyy contain similar titls but are almost nothing alike.
January 8, 2008 at 9:38 am
My sympathies and prayers for your sufferings. As you point out, though, embryonic stem cells are not the only game in town. Adult stem cells continue to go from strength to strength. I agree that the media coverage often confuses and merges adult and embryonic stem cell research, which does confuse the issue.
I still maintain that the real scandal is that more resources aren’t being poured into stem cell research which both avoids the nasty moral issue of grinding up some human beings to serve other human beings and seems to be the most effective in the short-term.
In short, there may come a day when we know that certain things can only be done by embryonic stem cells, and on that day there will be a conflict between the desire for cures and the need to protect human life.
But this is not that day. And if we fully fund adult stem cell research, that day may never come.
March 23, 2008 at 4:14 am
I THINK ITS QUITE SIMPLE REALLY,,,, PEOPLE DECIDE THEIR PERSONAL PREFERENCE, SIGN A AGREEMENT AND THEN IF THEY DISAGREE WITH THIS AND THEY GET CANCER, MS OR THE LIKE LETS SEE IF THEY WISH TO STAND BY THEIR DECISIONS THEN, I THINK THERE WOULD BE SOME INTERESTING TURN ABOUTS.
TALKING OF DUTY TO THE CHRUCH,, WHEN DID JESUS PARADE SELF RIGHOUSLY ABOUT IN SHIRLEY BASSEYS CAST OFF FROCKS,, GET A LIFE AND KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE CHURCH, NOT POLITICS. BECOME HUMBLE,, AS JESUS WAS NOT POMPUS AS THE “MAJORITY” OF THE CHURCH IS.
AS FOR GRINIDING UP HUMAN BEINGS,,, ISNT THAT WHAT THE CHURCH HAS DONE TO PEOPLE THROUGH HISTORY AND AT ANY OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE ITS OWN WAY? TALK OF DOUBLE STANDARDS.
JESUS SURE WAS A REAL PERSON,,, THE BIBLE HOWEVER,, A PROPERGANDER BOOK WHERE PEOPLE OTHER THAN JESUS DECIDED WHAT WAS OMITTED OR INCLUDED,[LOOK AT THE GOSPELS OF JUDAS OR MARY] IF THE CHURCH IS AS EDUCATED AND IN TOUCH WITH JESUS AS IT BOASTS IT NEEDS TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX AND CONCENTRATE ON HOW TO ATTRACT, NOT REPELL, YOU ARE A RACE IN DANGER OF VANISHING THOUGH YOUR OWN IGNORANCE.
April 7, 2008 at 10:03 am
[…] position or another might be enabled in a future act, but such environments are very fragile. The issue of stem cells is a case in point — for all the posturing, the issue became irrelevant when Japanese […]