Gina Kolata Discovers the Amazing Hurlbut
It lives. It lives again. Jeb Bush's solution to the stem cell problem, The Hurlbut Suggestion, or semantic nuclear transfer, as we've begun to refer to it, has prompted the Times' Gina Kolata to essentially break the embargo on a major science journal's publication of studies that show, well, something we can't write down yet about how some folks have achieved success in producing embryonic cells that promise to anger nobody, by using techniques that make embryonic cells without awakening the Torquemadas of the right.The research all stems, Kolata claims - stretching matters a bit - from Hurlbut and his brilliant idea that we could avoid the embryonic stem cell debate if we could just make little embryo-like-things that are somehow disabled enough (through the prior alteration of the adult somatic cell from which they derive) that their creation will not involve the potential for birth. It seems to us to be a cross between nuts and a smokescreen, and the idea has (we noted) not really persuaded folks from the world of right to life either.
If having read all of our discussion and incessant whining about the idiocy of these "almost an embryo, but not" ideas you are still thirsty for more, then don't wait another moment, surf on over right now to read Ms. Kolata's "Hunting for Ways Out of an Impasse" at the New York Times site.
contribute a comment
Comments have been closed for this post.
comments
Bill Hurlbut is trying to merge morality and respect for human life, even nascent life, and science with his proposal. And it just might work. But, that is worth smug derision in some circles.
And of course, even if ANT or OAR were to produce pluripotent stem cells for use in medical treatments without creating an actual embryo, the scientists would just shrug their shoulders and keep on cloning.
But most people abhor human cloning, even for biomedical research. Hence the word games aluded to in the post by Big Biotech's multi million dollar propaganda campaign that to change terms and definitions.
But there is a danger here. In my view science is being corrupted by this overt politicization. And if the CURES! CURES! CURES! fail to materialize, people will believe they were had and begin to look at science as just another special interest spinning and jiving away.
- by Wesley J. Smith on Oct 13, 2005 at 8:11 PM | link
Look, nobody is disputing the fact that it would be vastly better to do something other than embryonic research were it possible to obtain the same results, were it not necessary to use embryonic cells to begin the basic research that will ultimately unlock the developmental biology that can one day develop cures, cures that very likely will come from something other than embryos.
Nobody is denying that hype hype hype dominates the stem cell debate - on both sides - and that the lies on both sides are obscene. The potential for therapeutic misconception is extraordinary, as is the potential that Americans will mistakenly believe lies about the "miraculous power of adult cells." Neither claim is true. Both sides lie. Nothing new there. We've been listening to Christopher Reeve vs. the Catholic Scientists Guild for a long time now.
The point is that the effort that is currently underway is shameful. It is a sad day indeed when scientists have to spend - or choose to spend - this kind of money and time trying to evade a moral debate by making disabled embryos. This is not respect for life, it is a charade. It is in fact the ultimate irony of the debate that the religious conservatives and luddites would team up to advocate precisely the sort of disrespectful "pick a euphamism, any euphamism" behavior that characterized the Clinton administration's original "artful dodge" on stem cells (remember, Harriet Raab's "it is ok to do research on embryonic cells as long as the scientist didn't destroy them herself" plain brown wrapper argument??).
It grows tiresome fighting this stupid war on Karl Rove's terms. The next step in the stem cell debate should be an honest airing of the state of the field, its likely trajectory, and the honest opinions held by scientists and by the majority of Americans. We need to know: how many embryos could ethically be destroyed? 10? 100? How many per patient? The honest reality of the matter is that nobody wants to turn procreation into a factory. But short of that there is also the reality that embryos are not little people, especially not when they are not viable for any number of reasons. They are part of procreation and should not be destroyed lightly and without any measures to protect the moral fabric of society, but they shouldn't be worshipped as babies either.
Is it too much to ask that we start with the question, "how much is too much," and "when is it just not moral"? Embryo destruction for enhancement seem utterly unacceptable. But what about the thousandth embryo in a race to see who can develop the newest form of a drug that might be 5% better than the standard of care? What about the earliest efforts to identify the powers that make stem cells work - and to figure out how to use them in therapy? What if the embryonic research is the key to doing adult stem cell research? Then is it ok?
This debate is filled with hollow dogmatism and easy punditry. I am sick of it. If you are too, then this is the moment to get engaged in this debate. More reasonable arguments are sorely in need.
Glenn
- by eds on Oct 13, 2005 at 11:39 PM | link
"War"'?"Rove"?
"Worshipped"?
"hollow dogmatism and easy punditry"?
As you say, Glenn, this is not a subject to take lightly. I do agree that reason can help decide moral issues.
The problem is that once we begin weighing the worth of any human individual's life, even when they don't look like us or have the minimum abilities that we consider worthy of life, the questions of how many and why are going to get emotional.
In the past, the line on research on human subjects was drawn at "a reasonable expectation of benefit for the subject." If research depends on a guaranteed and intentional death of a particular individual human organism, I'm not surprised that there's debate.
One problem is that what seems unacceptable for you seems perfectly acceptable for the next researcher. And the debate becomes unscientific and unreasonable.
I just keep remembering the problems in the past when we manipulated local ecologies without knowing the consequences (pesticides, limited diversity in plantings, organics dumped where they could get in the water table, failure to pay attention with HIV got in the blood supply - or even IVF that resulted in the routine production of "spare embryos") and wonder whether we learned anything.
But, it probably doesn't matter. Someone will decide it's "worth it," and go do whatever, with private funding or off shore facilities. We'll find out about it when things go wrong or there's a new patent.
- by Beverly on Oct 14, 2005 at 3:37 AM | link
thnks for the comment, beverly. gm
- by eds on Oct 14, 2005 at 2:55 PM | link
As for the assertion that "both sides lie," what I have noticed is that those who promote adult/umilical cord stem cells generally stick to the published reports and clear evidence of success in humans and animals. Of course, it is easy to do because there are so many and they are constantly increasing. Proponents of ESCR have no such luxury. So, they make bald assertions, such as "embyronic stem cells can become any tissue in the body," which have yet to be demonstrated scientifically.
- by Wesley J. Smith on Oct 16, 2005 at 4:55 PM | link