Jeb Bush, Scientist
Kristen Philipkoski is a great Wired magazine writer, and reports from the Biotechnology Industry Organization meeting (now easily the most important meeting in biotechnology) that Florida Gov. Bush has decided to give loads of credence to our favorite neo-con William Hurlbut's bogus theory that embryonic stem cells can be derived from what the right-to-life folks have described as "handicapped embryos." We've written at such great length here about how mind-boggling this theory is - and noted that it went down in flames in Massachusetts after being embraced by Mitt Romney there.But Wired magazine has something invested in Hurlbut, having published what amounts to a puff piece about him last month, and in so doing having essentially been suckered into what is becoming a hillarious snake oil road show, orchestrated by
Hurlbut, but gaining momentum as it acquires signatures - a bit like Jeremy Rifkin's zillion signature petition in the late 1990s against gene patenting, in that it is being signed by folks who will later realize what they are signing and come to regret it. The best evidence of this of course is the fact that no significant stem cell researcher will give Hurlbut the time of day, nor have any senior scientists said anything about the Hurlbut proposal other than "who is that guy, again?"
In any event, Bush, who lends considerable expertise in bioethics, particularly in end of life issues, opines that Hurlbut is the "bright person" who can solve the big ethics problem about stem cell research:
"I think taking of human life to create life is a huge contradiction morally," Bush said. "But ... there are other really bright people in this issue who share that view who are trying to find an alternative that would not retard the advancement of science."
contribute a comment
Comments have been closed for this post.
comments
"Ive talked to the guy from Stanford [William Hurlbut] who has been a big proponent of that." James Thomson, as quoted on MSNBC.com
Not quite as described in the post.
But quite typical of the level of accuracy around here more generally.
- by Thomas on Jun 29, 2005 at 3:43 AM | link
I'd say that Thomson's comments - which were limited to exactly your quote - are pretty much in line with the posting. Hurlbut, whose role and proposal was described and profiled in detail in the blog, has in no way seen his proposal embraced by any stem cell scientist of any repute. Keep digging though. Never give up.
BTW - how much does the Bush administration, RNC or AEI pay you to lurk on this blog and make drive-by comments about how much you hate it?
- by Anonymous on Jun 29, 2005 at 4:00 AM | link
Yeah, I have wondered that too. I'm not posting my name anywhere that this guy comments! After reading Frank Rich in the Times this week about the way that Rove's people watch and keep score on PBS material, I'm terrified to write anything anywhere!!
- by Anonymous on Jun 29, 2005 at 4:02 AM | link
That is silly and mean spirited. Thomas writes interesting stuff and even when I disagree with him I respect his right to write. I am sure he will be happy to clear up "who he is" but he certainly doesn't have to!
- by Editor - McGee on Jun 29, 2005 at 4:06 AM | link
I've been asked that question before, a few weeks ago, and I answered it then. I'm not paid by anyone to read this blog or to post here (or to read and post anywhere else). I'm not affiliated (except in the sense that any voter might be affiliated with) any political party, any think tank or research group, or any part of government (except in the sense that any lawyer--which I am--is an officer of the courts). I'm a practicing lawyer in the midwest with a longtime interest in bioethics. That's it. This is a sort of clearinghouse for bioethics, and it's always interesting even though I disagree with much of what's written here. I hope that clears things up.
- by Thomas on Jun 29, 2005 at 12:15 PM | link
On a different bioethics listserve, I was also accused of being paid to lurk and write terribly heterodox things. I guess some people can dish out the criticism, but they just can't take it.
- by Wesley J. Smith on Jun 30, 2005 at 1:52 AM | link
Seems like that little nonsense is all cleared up. How about next time anyone needs to make a claim like that about one of our readers they do so using their real name instead of "Anonymous" ...
- by Editor- McGee on Jun 30, 2005 at 2:14 AM | link
I was also accused of being paid to lurk and write terribly heterodox things.
Does anyone actually pay for this service, and if so, where can I sign up? I'd love to be paid to say terribly heterodox things on the internet.
- by rob helpy-chalk on Jun 30, 2005 at 8:14 PM | link
Glenn, I appreciate the words of support.
- by Thomas on Jun 30, 2005 at 9:03 PM | link
Well Rob I'll pay you to lurk at my old high school class' 20th reunion blog and lie about how handsome I've become.
- by Editor- McGee on Jun 30, 2005 at 11:10 PM | link
No. No one pays. Alas. It is all pro bono.
- by Wesley J. Smith on Jul 1, 2005 at 11:58 PM | link