White House Plays Politics, Again, with Science;
Just One Lie After Another...
The White House is playing politics with science in a highly deceptive way. No one knows if adult stem cells or fetal cells will perform in the same way as embryonic stem cells. No one knows much of anything about any of the science because it is all new. It is true that, contrary to the report, Dr. Atala has said that federal funding for embryonic stem cell research ought proceed for the same reasons I have just given. The notion that there are viable alternatives to embryonic stem cell research has about as much substance as earlier Presidential statements that all embryos now frozen in U.S. IVF clinics could find couples willing to adopt them.-Art Caplan
[The Ridiculous Report]
Labels: Anthony Atala, embryonic stem cell research, Hurlbut, White House
contribute a comment
Comments have been closed for this post.
comments
Ethically, "self-" comes before the word "sacrifice."
While we may not know the outcome from embryonic stem cells, we do know that it is unethical to involuntarily sacrifice one human life for the benefit of another.
The fact that you "don't know" the outcome is pretty shabby logic.
- by Beverly Nuckols, MD on Jan 12, 2007 at 3:30 AM | link
Except we do know enough to say that from the standpoint of therapuetics adult stem cells are far outpacing embryonic stem cells with respect to their potentia. Four words suych as phenotypic instability and unrestricted expansion are case in point of this. No amount of Orwellian doublespeak on the part of CAMR or it's allies can change this fact
- by on Jan 12, 2007 at 6:39 PM | link
Dr. Atala has also been quoted as saying that amniocentesis is perfectly safe and without risk - quite contrary to what the CDC has to say about it (something like 1-200 to 1-400 chance of miscarriage). Would seem to me that if someone is anti-hESC research because it might be killing someone - the potential of who an embryo has to develop in to - they rather logically have to be anti-amniotic fetal stem cell research, too. At least that derived from the amniotic fluid; it should not be acceptable to risk the actual life of an existing and growing fetus if it's not acceptable to risk the potential life of a potential fetus.
I actually find it rather horrifying that someone could be anti-hESC research, with all of its potentials attached to anything resembling life, but pro-amniotic fluid stem cell research - placing more value on the potential of a bundle of cells than the actual of a pregnancy.
- by Kelly on Jan 13, 2007 at 1:25 AM | link
Over at Framing Science, I have this post up on the "hyped science" and "middle way" message tactics of research opponents, and a link to an earlier Web column detailing this framing strategy.
http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/01/on_stem_cell_the_weekly_standa.php
- by Matthew C. Nisbet on Jan 15, 2007 at 11:28 AM | link
In an effort to at least temporarily side-step the controversy, why not investigate all of the possible uses of non-embryonic stem cells (say, by means of prohibiting all research into embryonic stem cells)? This way the context of debate in the House (or other government body) and in civil society will not be tainted by the undertaking of the controversial research.
- by ADAM on Feb 5, 2007 at 11:59 PM | link