MSM Jumps on Stem Cell Hype Scandal! Well, Not Really
Last week we were treated to a full fledged media frenzy about Advanced Cell Technology having derived embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos. Oops, it wasn't true. Having been so badly taken in, one would think that the media would angrily expose the lying liars and the liars who lie about ESCR. Not a chance. Mostly, it has either continued the charade that a breakthrough occurred, as in yesterday's Washington Post editorial. Or, it has quietly walked away from the story with nary an apology.
There are a few exceptions, such as this MSNBC on-line story that focuses on the business value to Advanced Cell Technology for its deception. But even this story doesn't disclose that the experiment was not as described. Otherwise, not much. This is because the narrative the media is intent on telling is how the Bush stem cell funding policy is wrong. This story served the narrative. So what if it was factually inaccurate?
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 10:03 AM
10 Comments
10 Comments:
Yes, the media is for the most part highly-biased - all of our "news" outlets.
But still, destroying those 16 cells is a far, far better fate than letting them deteriorate in a permanently frozen condition. Were you planning on adopting them? I sure wasn't. As such, I'll let the media have its bias because I don't see the harm.
I think the Bush policy is wrong, confused, short-sighted, and highly naive.
I see you're willing to lambast the media for its bias, but are you willing to criticize Bush when he shows pictures of the 60 or so "snow-flake" babies? What about the 400,000 frozen embryos? Who will adopt them?
So, you're in favor IVF? Well, IVF results in excess embryos. What then? (I know your answer: "go read me book". But you have a blog and I will challenge you in blog, not book)
To present adoption as a realistic alternative for the 400,000 excess embryos is bias and data manipulation on the part of Bush. A sin far worse than the media's failure to acknowledge the problems on the latest round of ESC information.
I'm glad that media isn't swallowing Bush's lie, as it did with the Iraq war. I'm glad that America is holding Bush accountable, at least on this issue.
And yes, the Bush policy is wrong.
Royale: The stem cell debate is one of the most important ongoing at this time. It will be decided not by me, or by Bush, or by Advanced Cell Technology. It will be decided by the people.
To do this, we need accurate information. When the media decides to misreport and not correct the record in order to achieve a desired outcome, they fail in their duty to inform the American people. That is plain wrong, no matter what side of this issue one might be on. It is very harmful and is corrupting journalism.
"What about the 400,000 frozen embryos?"
I see, Royale, that you're one of the many misguided individuals who have bought into the myth of the 400,000 embryos. More than 88% of these are being reserved for future attempts at pregnancy, not destructive research.
Furthermore, President Bush's press conference with the "Snowflakes babies" illustrates precisely what SHOULD be done with all of them. These are not mere clumps of cells we're talking about here; they are all human beings and all of them should receive a chance at life.
I'm all for adopting the snowflake children - IF THEY CAN BE ADOPTED.
But many parents opt to not have their extra embyros adopted. Under current law, parents decide that - not you, not the Pope, not Bush - the parents and them alone.
Plus, many of these excess embryos are sitting in the tanks, slowly degrading to the point that one-day they will not be able to be used even for adoption.
What then? It makes far more sense to use them to advance science, even if that
Have you noticed that many (if not all) the snowflake children are white? How many black, hispanic, or Asian embryos are sitting in storage? Will they be adopted?
It seems to me anti-ESC but pro-IVF wants it both ways. The truth is - that creates an unbalanced situation. As proof - how many embryos have YOU adopted?
I'm not defending the media, nor could I. But Bush, the Religious Right, Family Council do their own truth manipulation. If you want my respect that you're legitimate, take them to task as well.
Actually, Royale, if you read my book Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World you will see that I explicitly state that most of the 400,000 leftover embryos will never be adopted.
That doesn't justify using them as crops, but it certainly is the truth.
"But many parents opt to not have their extra embyros adopted. Under current law, parents decide that - not you, not the Pope, not Bush - the parents and them alone."
Which is a current law we're trying to ADDRESS. No human being should be alone. The current situation is perfectly analogous to that of a couple taking fertility drugs, giving birth to septuplets, deciding they only really want two kids, picking out the two they like the best, and then killing the other five. I'd move to change THAT law, too.
"Have you noticed that many (if not all) the snowflake children are white? How many black, hispanic, or Asian embryos are sitting in storage?"
How many blacks, Latinos, or Asians USE IVF?! That's where it starts.
"It seems to me anti-ESC but pro-IVF wants it both ways. The truth is - that creates an unbalanced situation. As proof - how many embryos have YOU adopted?"
Again: if you campaign against child abuse, do you need to adopt all the children currently being abused to have any credibility?
"I'm not defending the media, nor could I. But Bush, the Religious Right, Family Council do their own truth manipulation. If you want my respect that you're legitimate, take them to task as well."
I'll take them to task on the issues on which I disagree with them (which certainly do exist).
I actually have your book, the first chapter anyway.
I fundamentally disagree with you on "crossing this moral line" on a couple of points.
First, and this goes to the nature of the debate generally, but I don't think of embryos sitting in a petri dish as "human life."
Are they dead? No, not really.
Are they alive? No, not really either.
They have elements of both death and life: cellular division, potential for animation, potential to develop to a fully developed human being. However, they don't fit cleanly into either category because they are in a petri dish. It's an unnatural state and their future completely depends on what the technician decides to do.
If the technician implants them into a uterus, then they are much closer to alive, if not just plain alive in the conventional sense.
If the technician freezes them perpetually, then I would say they are far closer to death, if not dead in the conventional sense.
If the technician throws them away, then they are dead in the conventional sense.
Thus, I would put them into a 3rd category: human embryos in a petri dish, at least until a better definition arises.
Second, you believe it's OK to use the dead for scientific research, but not embryos. See, it seems to me that the embryos leftover from IVF and who will either (1) be discarded as the parents decide agaisnt adoption, or (2) perpetually frozen are in fact - dead. As such, they should be used for medical advancement similarly the way we use cadavers.
What you plan to do isn't to give human embryos basic human rights - but rather, super-human rights.
On my driver's license, it says that I'm a organ donor. If I die, please cut me up to save another person's life.
I don't see why embryos should be treated any differently. Any coherent rationale shouldn't focus on what to do with the excess embryos with no chance of developing (since they're dead), but rather - to prevent the excess (i.e., illegalize IVF).
Back to your book - no, that does not cross any moral lines. We are not treating embryos any differently than the way we treat fully developed humans.
But if you want to give human embryos rights based on their status as nascent human beings, then be honest with your rationale and ban all IVF. Your current line-drawing is clearly unethical by your own standards.
"First, and this goes to the nature of the debate generally, but I don't think of embryos sitting in a petri dish as 'human life.'"
Not really relevant. We know from science that they're not just "human life" but also human BEINGS. You're committing the Orrin Hatch Fallacy: that location is the chief criterion for personhood. That's like saying I'm a person if I'm in my living room but not if I'm walking through the airport.
"On my driver's license, it says that I'm a organ donor. If I die, please cut me up to save another person's life."
...i.e. you granted permission, something that embryonic human beings, just like newborn human beings, cannot do.
If it dehumanizes embryos by lowering their status based on being in a petri dish, then like I said, ban IVF.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home