Berger & Moreno Go to Town Over the Alternative Stem Cell Report
At the Center for American Progress, Sam Berger and Jon Moreno picked a fight with whomever would listen concerning the idiotic White House report on alternative sources of stem cells. Well, listening was
I'm just not capable of typing even one more time either the work by or the critique of the New Republic/Weekly Standard on stem cells. I'd say that someone should kick these guys and let them know that the voters already decided, and continue to decide, state by state by state ... and that nobody wants to destroy embryos, whether they are little people or not, and that the activity of doing so will likely fade away if only the basic science can get accomplished, and preferably through a decent funding mechanism so that the entire embryo isn't owned by companies as a result of the rush of venture capital into the funding and regulatory vacuum.
But I won't say that, because inside-the-beltway fights about stem cell funding are about as invisible out here in the fields as the annual Wonkette debate over which congressional aides are most attractive, and certainly just as futile. Only in Washington can so much debate ensue over a bill that can't survive a veto and that wouldn't really compete with California's budget even if it did.
Labels: adult stem cell research, Center for American Progress, embryonic stem cell research, White House
contribute a comment
Comments have been closed for this post.
comments
I don't know whether I am "allowed" to post on this hack blog by your Stalinist editors, but you fools might actually want to refrain from engaging in self-parody so much: Ramesh Ponnuru is Senior Editor at National Review, and he certainly has never worked for The New Republic. Id say get your facts straight before you preach, but Ive been saying that for four years now, and others before me have been saying it longer, and bioethicists will obviously never do it.
Oh, by the way, before you do take this post down because it is as harsh with you are you are with everyone who is a conservative, please explain how writing about "kicking" your opponents is consistent with your contention that this blog and AJOB is a forum for real scholars and not DNC hacks? Ponnuru, being older than 5, has never written about kicking anyone...but then again, he doesn't have a Master's Degree in Bioethics.
- by Bradford Short on Jan 17, 2007 at 1:29 PM | link
Quick piece of clarification. Ponnuru writes for the National Review, not the New Republic.
- by Sam Berger on Jan 17, 2007 at 5:56 PM | link
The New Republic reference is just a (Freudian) slip, I'm sure.Even if it is showing twice.
Would the editors and pseudoeditors would care to explain the difference between their own incestuous relationship with "progressives" and the relationships of others with "conservatives"?
- by Beverly Nuckols, MD on Jan 18, 2007 at 3:18 PM | link
Gee, you would think that two people presenting themselves as experts on the embryonic stem cell issue would know that
1. The vast majority of those famous 400,000 or so embryos in IVF clinics are being reserved not for destruction but rather for the reason they were intended in the first place: future attempts at pregnancy, and,
2. Of those who HAVE been slated for research, the most generous of estimates states that they'll be able to come up with, at most, 275 stem cell lines.
These facts have been highlighted online enough and have been rather hard to miss, but for those who did here they are again:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9038/index1.html
- by Brian Gillin on Jan 18, 2007 at 5:22 PM | link
It's not nice to burden people with facts. Have you no respect for the demands of an agenda?
- by bob koepp on Jan 19, 2007 at 2:29 PM | link
Others have taken the obvious route on this post, so I'll go a different direction:
Some people really do want to destroy embryos.
They want to, because it's good for them politically, and bad for others politically.
- by Thomas on Jan 20, 2007 at 3:47 PM | link
The study concluded that only about 3 percent of the 400,000 embryos frozen since the 1970s have been designated for research. However, there is no way to know how many of those who gametes were used to produce those 400,000 embryos have been given the research option. This is one reason I am skeptical about the conclusions that can be drawn from this data. Many more may become available if fertility clinics conducted systematic "look back" projects and asked donors if they would now permit the research option. Further, although the embryos may be "low quality" as a result of preservation processes that are less sophisticated than those used today, they may produce cells that could be useful for research purposes. Much has been learned about the creation of stem cell lines since the original study (now nearly 4 years old) that could be applied to these emgbryos. More to the point, a change in federal funding policy would permit new embryonic stem cell lines to be used in research from newly donated embryos. Hence the numbers and quality available for federally supported could be significantly increased.
- by Jonathan D. Moreno on Jan 24, 2007 at 6:43 PM | link