We Are Drowning in Anti-Science Junk Biology
And here we have been told that Republicans engage in phony science: In Texas, a report is about to come out about cloning and stem cell research. But three Democrats refuse to sign and have leaked to the press that it states that SCNT cloning creates an embryo or an embryo-like entity. Gasp! Accurate science in the cloning debate: We mustn't have that!
Here is what these legislators told a reporter for the Houston Chronicle: "The three don't like a part of the report that addresses what happens if the technique 'creates an embryo by replacing the original DNA in the egg and yields embryonic stem cells.'
"In a letter to Swinford, the three Democrats said the discussion equates the technique 'with embryonic stem cell research and all of the moral, ethical and existential questions surrounding that scientific investigation. In truth, SCNT holds the best hope to avoid the moral implications of stem cell research, because, at present, a human SCNT cell cannot become human life.'
"While saying the process 'was used to create a sheep clone nearly a decade ago,' the three added that 'there is no peer-reviewed, scientifically verifiable process that claims to use a human SCNT cell implanted into a woman's womb to create a human life.'"
What utter hogwash! Of course there are no peer reviewed studies showing that an "SCNT cell" (!!!) has been implanted since cloned embryos have only barely been created to date. Moreover, the idea that once cloned human embryos can be created, it can't lead to reproductive cloning is balderdash.
Here is the truth: SCNT creates an embryo "asexually," which, if all goes well, acts like any other embryo. Don't take my word for it. Hearken to the writing of four adamant supporters of research cloning: Robert P. Lanza, Arthur Caplan, Lee M. Silver, Jose B. Cibelli, who write in the Journal of the American Medical Association, 284, 3175-3179: "CRNT [cell replacement through nuclear transfer, a.k.a. therapeutic cloning] requires the deliberate creation and disaggregation of a human embryo."
They go on to state: "It is true that the techniques developed in CRNT research can prepare the way scientifically and technically for efforts at reproductive cloning."
The Democrats in the story were regurgitating crap propaganda of the kind disseminated by the Alliance for Medical Research. We are being drowned in junk biology as an intentional tactic to win a political debate. But this is intellectually dishonest, and profoundly so--which is anti science.


6 Comments:
Oh, it's great. I attend U of Houston myself. You should hear some of the name calling and sharking that goes on within the campus on this issue. It's weird, but since Texas is a conservative state, it's like the liberal Democrats have to be three times as liberal as they are anywhere else, so they don't let themselves get confused by the facts.
But liberals claim to be the pro science ideology. It is anti science to be intellectually dishonest. Which makes me think this is about scientism and not science, it is about having certain values, masking as "science" dominate society, and if the facts get in the way of the proselytizing, well the facts be damned.
While Representatives Mike Villareal, Jessica Farrar, and Trey Martinez Fischer did travel to Ardmore, Oklahoma in 2003, they did not bother to attend the HHS Committee's hearing in Houston in September on the stem cell charge.
http://www.lifeethics.org/www.lifeethics.org/2006/09/stem-cell-hearing-houston-chronicle.html
Lifeethics, write a letter with this information to the CHRONICLE itself. It will be illuminating.
Personally I think you are both splitting hairs. They are technically correct: No child has ever been conceived by SCNT. Therefore, we can only say that SCNT creates an "embryo-like" entity. It certainly looks like an embryo, but if it cannot develop into a human being, it is not an embryo. If you've ever been to a wax museum, you know that those statues look alot like human beings, but we do not consider it murder to destroy a wax sculpture. It is certainly not "anti-science" to remain skeptical about how things "look." It is actually quite scientific to point out that the experiment to test this hypothesis has not been performed. HOWEVER, based on work in animal models, and the unethical nature of the experiment in question, it is a MORE THAN REASONABLE assumption that these are indeed embryos. As I said, they are splitting hairs, but no more so than your hair-splitting on ANT. The claim is that an ANT embryo is not an embryo because it cannot be carried to term. Unfortunately, it will "look" identical to an embryo, and it would be unethical to attempt to implant it, so the test will not be performed. Therefore, if we apply the same assumptions to an ANT embryo that you apply to an SCNT embryo, we should consider both as life.
Sorry about the space up there.
I did email the author and the Chronicle. I hope they find the fact that these three couldn't be bothered to do their homework interesting.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home