India Says No to Euthanasia

There has been some agitating lately to legalize assisted suicide/euthanasia in India, of all places. Apparently, the government has turned a firm thumb's down. Good.

Jonathan Alter Gets it Wrong

Jonathan Alter goes after Bush's veto of the ESCR funding expansion bill in this Newsweek column. But he is ignorant about the actual policy, as demonstrated by this line, "No lab that receives federal financing can take part in embryonic-stem-cell research."

This isn't true, of course. Indeed, in 2005, the Feds doled out $50 million for human ESCR. But we wouldn't want to confuse Alter. It makes him feel good to bash Bush and apparently he doesn't care enough as a journalist to learn the real facts.

"The Great Stem Cell Coverup"

I have a piece in the newly released Weekly Standard about "embryonic stem cell mantra," and the lack of coverage about adult stem cell research advances. I think it requires a subscription to access, but here is the link (which may be generally accessible later).

For those who can't get the article, here is a very abridged summary. I begin, "IT HAS BEEN REPEATED so often that it is now a mantra: 'Embryonic stem cells offer the most promise for finding cures' for degenerative diseases and conditions such as Parkinson's disease and spinal cord injury. But saying something ten thousand times doesn't make it true. Indeed, the embryonic stem cell mantra has yet to be demonstrated scientifically.

"More than that, the actual data published to date in peer-reviewed science journals tell a far different story. While there have certainly been successes in embryonic stem cell experiments in animal studies--many of them hyped to the hilt in mainstream media reports--the numbers pale in comparison with the many research advances being made with adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells, which are already being used in human patients."

I describe two such adult stem cell studies as examples; one involving the progress of MS being apparently stopped by blood stem cells and the other the Carlos Lima paper reporting on his pilot program using olfactory mucosa to treat spinal cord injury. I write, "If Lima had used embryonic stem cells to help human patients recover some sensation after spinal cord injury, the headline in the New York Times would have been printed two inches high in red ink," and note that the media usually ignores these studies while hyping any embryonic advance.

"There is a reason for the news blackout about the many encouraging advances in adult stem cell science," I opine. "Worried that adult/umbilical cord blood research successes might tip public support away from embryonic research, proponents of federal funding for embryonic stem cell studies, aided by a compliant press, have mounted a vigorous campaign to downplay adult stem cell research."

I then defend David Prentice, who was the subject of an unfair attack in Science by promoters of human cloning and ESCR. I point out that by these advocates' own standard, that research advances don't really count unless they are in regular clinical practice and fully approved by the FDA, "embryonic stem cell-boosting scientists and their boosters in the media had better stop chanting the embryonic stem cell mantra," since they have zero results that would qualify.

Here is my conclusion: "Embryonic stem cells have not treated a single human patient, and only time can tell whether they ever will. Highlighting the progress of adult/umbilical cord blood stem cells...is a legitimate part of the public discourse. Indeed, the unfair attack on Prentice for educating the public about the potential of adult stem cells may indicate that these scientist/political advocates know where the true best hope for regenerative medical treatments is likely to be found."

Bone Marrow Stem Cells Help Heal Broken Bones

Another apparent adult stem cell advance: A hospital in the UK is pioneering a treatment for people whose broken bones do not heal--perhaps preventing the need for amputations. From the Telegraph report:

"Doctors at the Robert Jones & Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital, Oswestry, Shropshire, are harvesting stem cells from the patient's bone marrow, growing them and then applying them to the fracture site, where they help broken bone grow again and unite.

Prof James Richardson, consultant surgeon, said yesterday: 'The stem cells then help to grow new bone and literally 'knit' the fracture site together."

Yup. Adult stem cells offer great potential for ameliorating human suffering.

Mistakenly Declared "Brain Dead?"

This story is a bit suspect. It claims that three Japanese nationals were declared "brain dead" in Canada and the USA, but later recovered after being transported back to Japan.

The term "brain dead" is notoriously misused. For example, one of the patients was breathing on his own but was supposedly declared brain dead anyway. NO reputable doctor would declare death by neurological criteria if the patient could breathe independently since, by definition, part of the brain would clearly be working.

What I suspect might have happened is the patients were declared to be in a persistent vegetative state, which some refer inaccurately to as brain dead. Of course, even this diagnosis was apparently wrong, highlighting the problem of rushing to cut off life-sustaining treatment to people with serious and catastrophic brain injuries. It also illustrates the need to establish universal diagnostic criteria that must be followed before doctors can declare death by neurological criteria.

Treating UK Women as Harvestable Crops

UK scientists are offering unfertile women thousands of pounds off the price of IVF treatments if they agree to "donate" their eggs for use in biomedical research--meaning cloning. The scheme was necessary because the human cloners did not have enough eggs to pursue their cloning research.

This is no different than buying eggs, added to which, the cloners are making human life for the purpose of destroying it. Moreover, it is aimed at poor women who would not otherwise be able to afford the IVF treatment.

The slippery slope is sliding before our eyes and the UK continues its headfirst plunge toward Brave New Britain.

Pamela Winnick Getting Action Against "Dr Death"

Regular readers of Secondhand Smoke will recall the trouble that author Pamela Winnick and her family were having with a few physicians they named collectively "Dr. Death," who kept trying to pressure them into "pulling the plug" on her father. Here is the latest update from Pamela, reported here with her permission:

"Wes, you'll be happy to know that I just got a call from the head of ethics at [name omitted] Hospital re my piece in the WSJ. He's conducting a full investigation. The residents in question are being identified, reprimanded--and possibly fired. He's very serious about this and said they violated hospital policy. My father is within days of dying now, but it's the right way.

Thanks for all your help. pam"

Our sympathies to Pamela's family and our gratitude to them for defending the value of her father's life. There is a huge difference between dying when one's time has come, and being pushed out of the lifeboat.

Polling Data on Embryonic Stem Cell Funding Veto Not Such Bad News for Bush

This poll by Gallup is a bit unfair in its wording, but what else is new? Still, I believe it shows what I have been thinking to be true; that the stem cell issue does not cut deeply.

6. As you may know, earlier this week, President Bush vetoed a bill that would have expanded federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Do you approve or disapprove of his decision to veto this bill? Approve-36, Disapprove-58, no opinion-6.

That isn't nearly the margin that the media has been suggesting. Moreover, it neglects to mention that the law would have permitted embryos to be destroyed with federal money for the research. I would bet that if such a question were asked, majorities would either oppose the bill or it would be very close.

The next question measures the intensity of the disagreement with Bush.(Interesting they don't ask a similar question of those who approved of the veto.) But note that the "How upset are you that President Bush vetoed this bill?" question came in at only 44%.

COMBINED RESPONSES (Q.6-7): BASED ON NATIONAL ADULTS: Approve-36%, Disapprove, upset vetoed-44%, Disapprove, not upset vetoed-14, No Opinion-6.

Hardly, an uprising against the President.

Finally, most see Bush vetoing the bill out of conviction, and not political calculation.

8. Would you say President Bush vetoed this bill mostly on the basis of personal moral beliefs (or) mostly in an attempt to gain political advantage? Personal moral beliefs-61, Gain political advantage-32, No opinion-7.

All in all, I don't think this issue is as cutting against Bush or opponents of ESCR as the MSM and some scientists and politicians hope.

The Mother of a Down's Child Takes on the New Eugenics

This is a great column by lawyer Elizabeth R. Schiltz, published in Business Week. The mother of a Down's child, Schiltz blisters the pressure people like her are put under to abort Down syndrome babies:

"I've come to realize that many in the scientific and medical community view me as grossly irresponsible. Indeed, in the words of Bob Edwards, the scientist who facilitated the birth of England's first test-tube baby, I am a 'sinner.' A recent book even branded me a 'genetic outlaw.' My transgression? I am one of the dwindling number of women who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome and choose not to terminate our pregnancies."

This is indeed eugenics. Reading Schiltz' article reminded me of a speech I made to some medical school students a few years ago. It was a critique of personhood theory and the importance of recognizing the intrinsic value of human life simply and merely because it is human.

After the speech, a student approached me and said that he was engaged in genetic counseling. What is he supposed to do, he asked, when a woman presents with a diagnosis that she is carrying a Down's baby. I suggested that perhaps a true counseling would include letting the prospective parents of a Down's baby meet people who are actually living that experience. They could tell of the great joy and love--as well as the very real difficulties--that come from parenting a developmentally disabled child. That would certainly be better than the pressure to abort that seems to be on the increase in such cases.

Fat Cells Can Turn into Muscle, Other Tissues

I am not a scientist, but I believe I am a good analyzer of information. I keep reading that ESCR is necessary because of the need for stem cells used in medical treatments to be pluripotent, that is, capable of becoming any body tissue. This never made sense to me, since apparently adult stem cells exist in many different parts of the body that are multipotent, meaning they can become some, but not all, types of tissues--perhaps to the point that sufficient types of adult cells/umbilical cord blood stem cells will be identified to cover the gamut. I don't know if this will prove to be true, but it makes logical sense to me. (Yes, I know some adult cells may be pluripotent, but I don't think that has yet been sufficiently established.)

Now, a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences seems to demonstrate that fat cells can be morphed into smooth muscle and organ tissues. "Fat tissue may prove a reliable source of smooth muscle cells that we can use to regenerate and repair damaged organs," Dr Larissa Rodriguez, an assistant professor in the Department of Urology at the University of California Los Angeles medical school, told Reuters.

Yes, I know, I know: ESCR offers the "best hope" for new treatments. "The scientists" keep saying it again, and again. The only trouble is, the actual science reported to date seems to tell a different story.

Destroying Human Exceptionalism By Creating Human/Chimp Hybrids

I just don't understand the emotional stake some people invest in convincing us that humankind is nothing special in the universe. Indeed, some, such as University of Washington psychology professor David P. Barash, are willing to go to extraordinary lengths to knock us off the pedestal of exceptionalism. This includes, as he urges in this piece published in the LA Times, creating human/chimp hybrids to prove that we are just a bunch of apes. (This is not the first time I have seen such advocacy.) And, bonus of bonuses, Barash believes, such a hybrid man/ape would prove that materialistic Darwinism is true.

Barash writes: "Should geneticists and developmental biologists succeed once again in joining human and nonhuman animals in a viable organism--as our ancient human and chimp ancestors appear to have done long ago--it would be difficult and perhaps impossible for the special pleaders to maintain the fallacy that Homo sapiens is uniquely disconnected from the rest of life...

"Moreover, the benefits of such a physical demonstration of human-nonhuman unity would go beyond simply discomfiting the naysayers, beyond merely bolstering a 'reality based' as opposed to a bogus 'faith based' worldview. I am thinking of the powerful payoff that would come from puncturing the most hurtful myth of all time, that of discontinuity between human beings and other life forms. This myth is at the root of our environmental destruction--and our possible self-destruction."

Barash is so wrong: Believing that humans are special is not a "hurtful myth" that disconnects us from the rest of life. It is a powerful moral imperative that places upon our shoulders special--and uniquely human--duties to life and the planet. Indeed, if we come to disbelieve that humanity is an exceptional species, we will be dismantling one of the most important concepts in human affairs--the belief in human exceptionalism.

This would be catastrophic. I strongly believe that our widespread acceptance of our unique status in the known universe is precisely why we accept the human duty to treat animals humanely, preserve the environment (you won't see elephants or any other animal giving a hoot about the destruction they cause), and promote universal human rights.

Let me also add that accepting the theory of evolution is perfectly consistent with believing in the concept of human exceptionalism, since it doesn't matter whether we evolved into our special state of being through undirected mutation and natural selection or got here through divine or other intelligent intervention. Indeed, it matters not whether all there is to life is what we can measure and observe, or whether, to paraphrase Shakespeare, there is far more to life than are dreamt of in Dr. Barash's philosophy.

Dr. Barash reveals his real purpose late in the column when, seemingly shaking with rage, he rails against Judeo/Christian belief as causing "speciesism." Ah yes, that old bugaboo. Don't we know that a rat, is a pig, is a dog, is a boy?

He should get a grip. If he and his ilk succeed in convincing humanity that we are just another animal in the forest, that is precisely how we will act.

50,000th Hit on the Website

My WEBsite just hosted its 50,000th hit. Most, I believe, are visits to Secondhand Smoke.

When I began this blog (HT, Colin), I was skeptical about the genre. But I have learned that blogging is an excellent way to communicate with (a growing) number of people--and to be communicated to by them. Thanks to all who visit and who share their views on Secondhand Smoke. I look forward to our continued interaction.

Congressman Bilbray: "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire"

Mike Spence of California's Republican Party, blisters San Diego area Republican Congressman Brian Bilbray in Flashreport for promising in writing to uphold President Bush's veto of the stem cell funding bill--when he wanted social conservatives' votes to get elected to an interim term--and then doing just the opposite. Here are the key points:

"Bilbray promised that he would support the President's policy IN WRITING. Again, attached is the questionnaire.

Look at question number four.

"Would you oppose any legislation that would authorize federal funding of research for which the killing of human embryos would be a predicate step or necessary?"

Bilbray answers yes after adding in writing. "I support President Bush's policy of limiting research to existing lines of cells." Just so there is no mistaking his position look at the last page where he signs it. Bilbray adds. "On Question 4: I strongly support laws aggressively outlawing the creation of embryos for research purposes. I am opposed to any "sale" of human life in any form."

Except, apparently, when it comes to actually voting...

More Evidence That "Science" is Mutating Into a Special Interest

This important study supports my hypothesis that science is being corrupted by the money imperative, and indeed, is becoming akin to any other special interest feeding at the government trough. Society looks to scientists to provide dispassionate, objective information so that proper public policies can be crafted. Journal articles are an important part of this, since this is a primary way in which scientists communicate with each other, and by extension, the rest of us.

But it turns out that according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, about one-fifth of scientists who have helped write scientific reports for the National Academies had "direct financial ties to companies or industry groups with a direct stake in the outcome of the study." The report does not criticize the quality of the reports but worries rightly that these alleged conflicts could skew the findings--which are particularly important in the Academies' publications since they supposedly represent the scientific consensus.

I will add another issue that may be beyond measuring in studies such as this. Science has become ideological, at least at the level of leadership and among the "advocates." And this ideology is pressed against heterodox thinkers who worry that speaking out against the mainstream view could ruin their careers. Yet, media continues to present the opinions of these activists as if they were dispassionate and objective. We see this in the fields in which I contend, particularly cloning and ESCR. But others tell me that ideology also skews issues ranging from global warming to AIDS. If indeed these issues are distorted in the outrageous ways I have seen in the biotech controversies--I emphasize that I do not know if this is happening--it is an ugly situation, indeed.

EU Follows Bush Lead on Embryonic Stem Cells--Sort Of

For all of moaning and groaning by the MSM and ESCR propagandists about Bush imposing theocracy on America for refusing to permit the federal government to fund the destruction of embryos for use in research, get this: Led by Germany, the EU has just passed its own stem cell funding bill and it only permits funding for research on existing stem cell lines, not the destruction of new embryos for stem cell research. However, from what I can gather from news reports, the policy seems to also be along that proposed by President Clinton in that once a stem cell line is established through private means, it would be apparently okay to obtain EU funding for subsequent research. In other words, there is no date limitation for funding of ESCR as there is here.

Individual countries can still pursue their own individual policies. Germany is more conservative that the USA in these matters, refusing to permit private or publicly funded embryo destruction for research, along with nine other European countries that ban ESCR altogether, while Brave New Britain permits human cloning for biomedical research.

A Concise History of Euthanasia

I have a book review of a wonderful history of the euthanasia movement in the current issue of First Things. It begins, "To read Ian Dowbiggin's A Concise History of Euthanasia is to learn that in more than a century of advocacy for euthanasia, the arguments have barely changed at all."

You can access the rest of it here.

Animal Testing in the UK: Going Up

The UK has had a terrible time with animal liberationists trying to prevent the use of animals in necessary medical research. Apparently their campaign isn't working. The number of animal experiments rose by 2% last year. Obviously, animals should not be subjected to research for frivolous reasons and should be treated humanely when they are so used. But if this research is needed--as the government claims--it is a good thing that result in the relief of much human suffering.

Time Magazine Plays the Old Brain Drain Gambit--Again

Oh, puhleese: Time is now fear mongering that our top stem cell scientists will flee to Singapore to do stem cell research because of the President's veto. Wait a minute! I thought they were all going to be coming to California to get a piece of the $3 billion we will be handing out in my state over the next ten years. That's sure what we were told when asked to vote for Proposition 71. And don't forget, there are several other states tripping over each other to throw money at embryonic stem cell research.

What a joke. These guys in the MSM will print just about any press release that Big Biotech throws their way.

Heading for a Biotech "Dot-Com" Bust?

So, my governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, has authorized California to borrow $150 million to fund the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine. This means a lot of money is going to go to human cloning and ESCR, more perhaps than researchers will be able to spend--money that may well never be repaid if the appeal against Proposition 71 is successful.

Some will claim that this defies Bush. But it is actually in keeping with the president's policies. The people of my state--unfortunately--voted to financially support this research. I am now stuck having to help foot that bill. But at least people in other areas of the country who disagree won't have to open their wallets.

The field of ESCR and therapeutic cloning has become so hyped that an Oklahoma Land Race mentality has set in among the states, many of which are competing to throw the most money at cloning and ESC researchers--primarily for (mis)perceived business reasons, it seems to me. But this blank check mentality creates the distinct potential of a great dot-com type bust; only this time with public instead of private money since the entrepreneurs are generally avoiding investing in this highly speculative and morally controversial area of research.

Attempts at Reproductive Cloning Ongoing

Renegade fertility doctor Panos Zavos claims to have tried reproductive cloning in several women, including a 52-year old. He failed and no pregnancies were established. He also claims to have created 4-celled cloned embryos, but they may not have been embryos at all since an egg without a nucleus (or with a non working nucleus) can be stimulated to divide a few times. According to Bill Hurlbut, "This is possible because the messenger RNA and other components necessary for early division are already present in the egg even before fertilization." I recall when Advanced Cell Technology claimed to have created a 6-celled cloned human embryo and were hooted down for this reason by the science community.

Be that as it may: I think a point to note in all of this is the danger therapeutic cloning poses to the practice of moral medicine. Right now, Zavos is hamstrung. The science of human cloning, so far, hasn't gotten anywhere fast. But imagine if all of the money that politicians want to throw at cloning research leads to reliable ways to clone human embryos: Unethical characters like Zavos will take that knowledge to the bank and try to create the first cloned baby--no doubt leaving a trail of aborted deformed fetuses in their wake.

The science of human cloning will probably require billions, or perhaps even, tens of billions or more of research dollars to reach the point that cloned embryos can be made reliably for research. The best way to prevent the kind of experiments Zavos and others envision is to outlaw all human cloning as the United Nations General Assembly has urged. That would starve the science of human cloning of funds, which would go a very long way to ensure that Zavos never gets a chance to really do what the nutter Raelians claimed to have done a few years ago; proclaim to a hyper-excited press core that the first cloned baby has been born.

Germany Calls for Ban on EU Funding of ESCR

Germany has a more restrictive policy on these issues than the USA. Here is a story about the country's attempt to ban all EU funding of ESCR. (And guess what: Germany doesn't have a "religious right.")

A Few Pictures From The White House

Here are a few of the pictures I took at yesterday's event at the White House, plus one of me with my pal Tony Snow.

 
 
 
  

I Was Right About Media Ignoring Lima Study

Apparently, Carlos Lima's paper came out while I was on vacation. I am told that the media paid it utterly no attention. But I will. Stay tuned.
WJS

Paralyzed Human Spinal Cord Patients Benefit from Adult Stem Cells!

I knew this was coming, and now, here it is: Carlos Lima has published his research demonstrating that a patient's own adult stem cells and olfactory mucosa can treat paralysis caused by spinal cord injury. This study, published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, reports on 7 patients treated with the procedure. (Lima has treated at least two dozen more.) Two of the seven regained bladder control. One regained control of anal sphincter. This alone, is huge! "Every patient had improvement" in "motor scores." "Most recovered sensation below the initial level of injury that was repaired." No side effects other than those associated with any surgery.

Let us caution, that this isn't a "cure." It is apparently effective treatment that may one day substantially improved the quality of lives of spinal cord injury patients, and may return some to the potential of mobility.

I hope I am wrong, but I will bet that the mainstream media ignores the story. They will be too busy reporting on rats with improved mobility from embryonic stem cells.

At the White House

I attended President Bush's stem cell speech yesterday, and I have to say, it was a real thrill as an American to be invited to the White House to hear the President of the United States give a major policy address.

Taking the stars out of my eyes, as promised, here is my impression of the day: I was seated in the third row on the right side of the podium, and so had a very clear and close-up view of the president. His body language and particularly, seeing the "on fire" look in his eyes, convinced me that, agree or disagree with Bush, he believes in his stem cell policy wholeheartedly. And, he is keeping a campaign promise--imagine that in a politician! In other words, Bush is not "pandering to his base," as some have said. Nor is he being uncompassionate about people needing medical treatments. He truly believes that he has drawn an important moral and ethical line that does not place the imprimatur of the United States on harvesting nascent human life as if they were so many ears of corn, but which at the same time, does not impose his moral view on a country that substantially disagrees (at least when the embryos are "leftover IVF embryos due to be destroyed anyway").

At a deeper level, Bush's policy has kept the ethical debate where it belongs: Does human life have intrinsic value simply because it is human? With his stem cell policy and advocacy to outlaw all human cloning, Bush says yes. And whether the issue is the ethical propriety of embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, redefining death so that people like Terri Schiavo can be harvested for their organs, human enhancement, personhood theory, or a myriad of other biotechnological and bioethical controversies of the day, that is the fundamental issue that our nation and our world faces. Kudos to President Bush for understanding this and acting accordingly.

Question and Answer Interview with David Prentice

David Prentice has done more than anyone else I know to educate the public and policy makers about the potential benefits of adult stem cells. He is a co-founder of Do No Harm, which, among other things, posts the results of peer reviewed studies using non embryonic sources of stem cells. DNH has identified 72 medical conditions in which ASCs and UCB stem cells have demonstrated "some benefit" to human patients in clinical practice or early medical trials. The point of this is to use science to rebut the speculative or ideological assertions that embryonic stem cells "show the most promise" to treat patients--an oft made assertion that has certainly not yet been backed up by research results.

This empirical approach has been very effective. As a consequence, David was recently personally attacked in a disingenuous, and frankly, dishonest letter published in Science and penned by William Neaves (head of the Stowers Institute) and others--an approach typical of Neaves' pull-the-wool-over -their-eyes style of advocacy. I have strongly advised David to respond in writing to Science. If the journal (which fell for the Hwang fraud) refuses to permit him to defend himself, it would tell us all we need to know about that journal's ideological agenda.

I am told by David that he plans to do that. But for now, this Q and A interview with Kathryn Lopez of NRO, is worth reading.

Here is a key quote from that interview:

Lopez: What do you have to say about that recent letter that appeared in Science magazine on you and your work?

Dr. Prentice: It's easy for someone to put words in your mouth and then claim that those words are false, which is exactly what the Science letter's authors did. Do No Harm has not claimed that current adult-stem-cell treatments are 'cures' or 'generally available' at this time. We have consistently said these are examples where patients have been helped by adult/cord-blood stem cells and shown some benefit and improvement, something that can't be said to be even remotely close for embryonic stem cells.

In fact, if you look in the supplement to that letter, you find the authors repeatedly noting that the references in our list show 'improved long-term survival,' 'disease remission,' 'extended disease-free period,' 'alleviate the symptoms,' etc. They [the references cited in the letter] actually validate precisely what we've been saying.

The Shameful House Scuttling of the Alternatives Sources Bill

Richard Doerflinger sure can write fast. I spoke to him last night when I got off the plane at Dulles and he informed me that the "alternative sources" legislation had been scuttled by a legislative maneuver by the "embryo or nothing" (my term) stem cell zealots, Representatives Mike Castle and Diane DeGette.

Richard was really steamed and apparently was up all night penning this excellent rebuttal, "Anti Life, Anti Science," to Castle/DeGette's disengenuous talking points memo against the alternative sources bill. That bill is not really controversial, by the way, given that it passed the U.S. Senate 100-0.

Refuting the Science Propagandists

The recent attack on the potential for adult stem cells to provide tremendous benefit and efficacious regenerative medical treatments is shameful. Apparently the truth about ASCs has filtered through the media information blockade to the American people. So, rather than admit the amazing progress being made in that field, the scientist/propagandists have instead mounted a profoundly disengenuous attack on David Prentice in specific (for so forcefully bringing this story to the public's consciousness) and upon adult stem cell research in general. Why? To panic us into embracing human cloning. Michael Fumento is on the case.

Study: Human Clone Would Feel Like Individual

Duh! Talk about a classic non story. Why a study was needed to determine this obvious point is beyond me. The "researchers" found that identical twins (true clones) feel like individuals and hence, people with SCNT cloning would, too. I could have told them that without spending the money needed to conduct this research.

Tantrum Thrown

In what can only be described as a tantrum thrown because the Senate did not approve the ESCR funding bill by a veto proof margin, the chief supporters of federal funding of ESCR have thrown a procedural monkey wrench into the "alternative sources" bill. This makes no sense if they care about cures as much as these leaders claim, since these alternative methods could concievably do the trick. And it flies in the face of these advocates' previous assurances that they support every avenue of research to obtain pluripotent stem cells. But apparently, the ESCR leadership in the House only want their pluripotent stem cells to come from destroyed embryos and are willing to thwart other potentially efficacious approaches unless and until they get their way. (We saw the same impetus in the shameful stalling of the umbilical cord blood stem cell bill by ESCR supporters, a bill that was held up for years in the Senate, but which finally passed unanimously when the foot draggers could obstruct no more.)

This episode is further evidence that the heart of the fight over stem cells isn't really about cures. Nor, in my view, is it primarily a dispute about science. It is a struggle over the cultural values that are going to control society. And this explains the tantrum.

Katrina "Euthanasia" Murder Indictments

I thought this would turn out to be an urban legend, but one doctor and two nurses have now been arrested for second degree murder, apparently arising out of their alleged intentional overdosing of patients in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. I am not ready to draw any larger lessons from this episode about euthanasia advocacy or what has been called the culture of death. But we should watch these cases closely to see what the defendants have to say, if anything, about their alleged criminal conduct.

Humans as Harvestable Crops

This story from the Daily Mail in the UK is a sobering reminder of the increasing tendency to use poor people as commodities, that is, as so many harvestable crops. The Mail's story concerns the health costs too many poor women pay for selling their eggs so that prosperous infertile women can give birth. (Imagine how much worse it could become if therapeutic cloning created a hyper-demand for eggs.) We read from time to time of the scandalous organ markets wherein poor people sell kidneys and parts of their livers out of desperation caused by terrible poverty--sometimes with fatal results. For those libertarians and others who believe that markets solve all: Such attitudes are leading us toward a social Darwinism in which the poor are looked upon as mere natural resources for the rich.

Regarding the Pending Stem Cell Votes in the Senate

I have heard from people requesting that I post my thoughts about the upcoming Senate votes on funding embryonic stem cell research, funding "alternative sources" for deriving pluripotent stem cells, and the ban on "fetal farming." So, here goes:

The vote to increase funding for ESCR is just so much hype. With existing federal, state, and private funding, ES cell scientists already have more money available than they can spend at the moment. Moreover, the bill will not become law while President Bush is in office, since he will exercise his first veto. The media will huff and puff but I don't think it will hurt the president politically since he is merely keeping a campaign promise.

I do note with some amusement (and no surprise) the very personal attack against the credibility of my good friend David Prentice by the forces of Big Biotech. David has worked very hard to make the world aware of the potential for adult stem cell research, and this attack is clearly timed for the Senate vote. (See the Do No Harm Web site for an initial response.) Apparently, David has drawn blood by pointing out that adult stem cells are treating human ailments either in clinical settings, or more often, in early human trials around the world. Scientists can't say anything like that about ES cells since they are unsafe, at present, for human use.

The big news for me is the bill to fund alternative sources of stem cells, which is expected to pass by a huge margin, followed quickly by a House vote. This is a personal triumph for my good friend Bill Hurlbut who has worked intensely for years to raise the level of public awareness about this possibility. The bill would not only fund animal research into altered nuclear transfer (ANT), which is Bill's project, but other innovative approaches as well, such as the potential to revert a patient's own cells into an embryonic stem cell state.

The ban on fetal farming is important because it draws a first line in the sand, which is only the beginning of an important process aimed at ensuring that biotechnology does not run out of control. This bill will also pass easily, perhaps unanimously, followed by an immediate vote in the House.

My understanding is that President Bush will sign the two bills and veto the one at an East Room ceremony at the White House on Wednesday. I have been invited to attend the President's speech, which I was honored to accept. I will post my reaction to what he has to say when I return from Washington.

Drake Says Not Dead Yet Not Invited to Present in Albany

I mentioned in my initial post about the Albany bioethics conference that Glenn McGee told me a representative from NDY had been invited to present in Albany. Stephen Drake begs to disagree. Here is his comment:

"I have absolutely no idea what McGee is talking about when he said I was invited to present. During negotiations at the conference, he said he put out a call for proposals on the bioethics list. That's true, but that's not an invitation and it was a general call. He conceded both points during negotiation. The call for proposals was an 'invitation' to pay registration, and submit a proposal *they* get to decide on, which was dubious since the whole event was framed as 'conservatives' vs. 'liberals.'

"Philpott invited me to stay for the conference, but never invited me to present. I didn't come to schmooze and I definitely had no interest in breaking bread with the folks there or being a beneficiary of their 'generosity.'"

And there you have it: I report, you decide, to borrow a phrase.

Evidence that Science is being Corrupted

The story published in The Scientist about one of the presentations I missed in Albany, shows the utter disingenuousness of Big Biotech's propaganda campaign in favor of ESCR and human cloning. In Maryland, for example, legislators replaced the accurate term "embryo" with the junk term "unused material," in order to pass an ESCR funding bill. And it worked. Shame on the legislators for being so ignorant that they would fall for such a maneuver, and shame on the scientists for being proud of corrupting science by approving the use of misleading language in a debate about science ethics.

The "Endarkenment:" More on Albany

I have been reflecting some more on the Albany bioethics conference. I think that R. Alta Charo's Friday lunch keynote address, in which she worried about "the endarkenment" of bioethics (allegedly due to "neoconservative" influence), is worth mentioning. I didn't take notes, but the primary cause of her alarm seems to be the assertion by "conservatives" that human beings are a special species--human exceptionalism, if you will--with this blog and yours truly specifically referenced by Charo as an example of the problem. The assertion that (in my words) human life has intrinsic value simply and merely because it is human, Charo contended, leads to oppression because we endarkeners seek to suppress "novel" ideas generated by scientific research demonstrating that humans are (again in my words) merely another animal in the forest. Thus, we endarkeners strive to prevent human cloning and other scientific inquiry because we fear that new discoveries will knock humanity off of the pedestal of exceptionalism. In this view, Charo echoed advocacy by many prominent transhumanists.

The remedy she touted to prevent the dark forces from suppressing new views of human life and human worth is a constitutional right to conduct science. (I have repeatedly warned on this blog and elsewhere that the intellectual foundation is currently being laid for such a claim.)

It is interesting how both sides of the bioethics divide are coming to view the nub of the debate in strikingly similar ways. I disagree with Charo that advocacy for human exceptionalism constitutes an "endarkenment." To the contrary, I see HE as the necessary foundation for universal human rights. But I do believe that she has put her thumb on the fundamental issue.

Bioethics on a Coffee Cup

Sightings of my Starbuck's coffee cup have been coming in from as far away as South Africa. Jennifer Lahl of the Center for Bioethics and Culture weighs in with her take on my statement, here.

New Texas Futile Care Case

Apparently while I was on vacation, a new futile care dispute has erupted in Texas. Here is the Houston Chronicle's story. From the story's tenor, I sense that the Texas futility law might be in some jeopardy. I certainly hope so.

Good Conference in Albany

I have to hand it to Glenn McGee: He organized an excellent bioethics conference. The deck was definitely not stacked and people with sharp and deeply felt differences were able to meet and debate without undue rancor or nastiness. I missed the first day but apparently Not Dead Yet sprang a surprise demonstration on the conference, chanting, "Nothing about us without us," and were then allowed to speak. (McGee told me he had invited a representative to present. I haven't spoken with any NDYers to get their side of the matter.)

The panel in which I presented, "How has Politics Affected How We Do Bioethics," was certainly balanced. Eric Cohen and I were on one side, with Art Caplan and Jonathan Moreno on the other. The presentations of Caplan, Moreno, and Cohen were solid and articulate. As a man of a certain age who remembers my childhood terror of polio, I was very interested to learn that Caplan's experience as a young polio patient led to his interest in bioethics. I also learned from Caplan that Paul Ramsey and Joseph Fletcher became so estranged over their twenty-year intellectual struggle that they refused to share a stage together when they received a prestigious bioethics award.

Space does not permit a fair recitation of what the other panelists had to say. I assume that there will be some kind of record published, as we were videotaped. But for those who are interested, here is a very condensed summary of my presentation:

The conference is about bioethics and politics. "But," I said, "bioethics is politics." I then differentiated between what I called "micro bioethics," that is the work of people in hospital corridors and at bedsides trying to help patients, families, and medical professionals work through difficult dilemmas, and "macro bioethics," which tries to impact public policy, culture, and the methods by which micro bioethics is conducted.

I suggested that (macro) bioethics is not a discourse and not a matter of bioethicists being "neutral arbiters" of complex moral dilemmas. Nor, is it a profession, as there is no specific training required to become a bioethicist, no state licensing, no professional discipline, etc. Rather, mainstream bioethics is a political and social movement, and like all such movements, seeks to implement policy based on a distinct ideology.

I pointed out that generally, if I know someone is a mainstream bioethicist, I can predict where they will come down on the important bioethical issues of the day (which I listed, ranging from abortion, to assisted suicide, to therapeutic cloning, etc.). These are highly contentious political issues, and, not surprisingly, have generated a political response from the so-called "conservative" bioethicists who oppose the mainstream view.

The cause of the divide is fundamental: Mainstream bioethicists reject the intrinsic value of human life and instead have embraced personhood theory. Those of us perceived to be in the other camp, accept the intrinsic value of human life. This divide is too wide for the two sides to reach accommodation. Thus, we will always be in conflict.

But, this is good. These conflicts are how democracies decide important issues. Moreover, we will not decide how it all turns out. The people will through our democratic institutions. Thus those of us in the fray owe it to society to vigorously and energetically debate these matters. But how we do that is important. The people have a right to make informed decisions based on accurate information.

I also argued that coalitions of strange political bedfellows could be very powerful and suggested that we be on the lookout for areas where we can agree. One potential issue in which we might come together is to stimulate world protest over the apparent killing of Falun Gong members by China and the sale of their organs. A new Canadian study (which I have yet to read) seems to provide solid evidence that this is happening. If the study is credible, the collective voices of both sides of the great bioethics divide could spark an important corrective.

In summary: I was treated courteously and respectfully and enjoyed the give and take very much. I am very glad I participated.

Cathy Young Gets Me Wrong

Cathy Young, a libertarian writer, wrote this piece on transhumanism for the Boston Globe, which she launches using my piece published a few weeks ago in the Weekly Standard. Young tries to take the center spot between those who have a "knee-jerk fear of the unknown" (that would be me, in her view) and the "optimists" who don't realize that there could be problems in the pursuit of post humanity. Nice try, but in my view, no cigar.

My only real gripe about the piece is that she claimed that I "see something sinister about...the desire to eliminate the physical affects of aging," which is not true at all. I oppose the transhumanist utopian "immortality" agenda and diverting mass funds from more present health care needs to "cure aging." But this is not at all the same as opposing helping seniors live longer and healthier lives.

Party of Death

I reviewed Ramesh Ponnuru's book Party of Death in the current issue of the Weekly Standard. I gave it pretty much a rave.

British Medical Association Rejects Assisted Suicide

In preparation for trying to convince the House of Lords to legalize assisted suicide, a small rump group in the BMA pulled a ploy that got the organization on record as neutral to legalizing PAS. But now the membership has weighed in and come out strongly against legalization. With the BMA now firmly opposed to assisted suicide, virtually all medical associations in the world, other then the Dutch and a few other ethical renegades, agree that killing is not a medical treatment. Great news that should put the stake to the heart of the Joffe Bill in the UK.

That's two pieces of great news since I began my holiday. I should go on vacation more often.