More Bias from the KANSAS CITY STAR
The bias in the reportage about human cloning and stem cells has been complained about so frequently to KC Star reporters and editors that there is no question they know precisely what they are doing when they publish scientifically inaccurate reports such as the this one, byline Kit Wager.
The story concerns a pending attempt to amend Amendment 2 by banning all human cloning in MO. It contains all of the junk biology and euphemisms that have come to mark the terribly biased reporting by the KC Star on this issue, to wit:
"Just six weeks after Missouri voters approved constitutional protection for medical research, two lawmakers plan to propose a ban on a cutting-edge method of creating early stem cells." Early stem cells is an euphemistic advocacy term for embryonic stem cells. It was coined by the Amendment 2 supporters to avoid having to deal with the reality that ESCR destroys human embryos. And of course, the KC Star immediately jumped to play along.
"The initiative narrowly approved by voters protects all stem cell research allowed by federal law. It will allow a technique that grows stem cells by cloning a patient’s cells to repair diseased or damaged tissue." Sigh. Cells are not cloned in SCNT, a new embryo is created asexually. No one objects to cloning cells, which is a different technique.
"But the amendment expressly prohibits any attempt to implant cloned cells into a woman’s uterus in an effort to create a cloned baby." You could implant "cloned cells" for the next 100,000 years and never have a baby. But if you implanted cloned embryos, you could.
"About five days after the zygote begins to divide, it forms a ball of cells known as a blastocyst, which includes a mass of stem cells, which have the potential to become any kind of tissue in the body. The ball of cells becomes an embryo if it attaches to the wall of the uterus." This is the myth of the "pre embryo." Embryology textbooks will tell you that biologically, there is no such thing, that an embryo is an embryo from the zygote stage onward.
Allow me to quote from Human Embryology and Teratology, embryology text book on this matter: "The term 'pre embryo' is not used here for the following reasons: (1) It is ill defined...; (2) It is inaccurate...(3) It is unjustified because the accepted meaning of the word embryo includes all of the first 8 weeks; (4) It is equivocal because it may convey the erroneous idea that a new human organism is formed at only some considerable time after fertilization; and (5) it was introduced in 1985 largely for public policy reasons [politics]."
Wager's story isn't journalism, it is advocacy. I am sure he will get a raise.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:11 AM
18 Comments
18 Comments:
Wesley, the one thing I like about Amendment 2 is that it is the nations first "egg and sperm" law. Yes, the rest of the bill is terrible, but I think it is interesting that the "egg and sperm" part was so uncontroversial. That part seemed to be supported by everyone, and was probably why the amendment passed. I didn't hear about anybody compaining that it was "homophobic" to limit implanting embryos to those created by fertilizing a woman's egg with a man's sperm. (It would be better to limit "conceiving children" rather than implanting embryos, imo, since the implantation could be done fairly easily in any neighboring state or country that allows turkey basters)
Do you agree that is a good sign? I think the PCBE's recommendation that Congress enact a similar law could be passed pretty easily, as part of a compromise bill. Instead of compromising on SCNT stem cell research though, we could achieve a federal "egg and sperm" law through a compromise on federal recognition for same-sex civil unions. I think it is our best hope for actually enacting a law that would stop genetic engineering.
Honestly, John, there is no way that the Feds will ever limit artificial insemination. And I find no good signs coming out of MO, unless the effort to actually outlaw human cloning comes to pass.
Gee, don't you think Congress could stop cloning? It surely can't be a state's rights issue, because there are too many commerce clause implications, since people can simply go to another state to pay for their cloned child. Other countries have banned cloning, why shouldn't the US be able to ban cloning? And the language they use should be like Amendment 2 or the PCBE's recommended language, which limits conception to a man's sperm fertilizing a woman's egg.
That is surely one good thing that comes out of Amendment 2. It is not a bad thing, is it?
We should be able to ban cloning. But for it to mean anything, it has to be a ban on SCNT. We don't have the votes to do that BEFORE the last election.
Nothing about A. 2 is good.
But isn't SCNT just one way to unethically create a person? For instance, what if they came up with a way to manipulate the genes in gametes, and then somehow joined the modified gametes to get their GE'd embryo? Why outlaw a specific method but leave the goal legal, when it would only challenge them to look for other methods? Why not outlaw creating people using any method other than natural conception, using a man and a woman's actual gametes? Except for the fact that it only outlawed implantation, that's what that part of A. 2 did.
I think that is good thing, and it proves that people pretty unanimously will support a law limiting conception to a man's sperm fertilizing a woman's egg. How do you feel about the scientist named Richard Scott in New Jersey who is working on ways to engineer stem cells to produce gametes of the other sex, so that two men or two women can have a baby together? I feel it opens the door to GE'd people and would be unethical. It would not be allowed in MO, at least the implantation part. But if same-sex couples can fedex their DNA to NJ for the service, it won't matter what MO laws say. We need a federal law.
John: To outlaw reproductive clonign but permit research cloning accomplishes nothing, since all they can do now is research cloning. But doing the research cloning will lead to reproductive cloning since once scientists perfect the creation of cloned embryos, it will be on to the next step.
Nothing about A 2 is good.
Sure, we should also outlaw research cloning, but I don't see how you can say that outlawing reproductive cloning does nothing. It outlaws reproductive cloning, or at least that is what everyone intends it to do. I agree it does it poorly, in a way that is easy to get around, and it's terrible that it also legalized research cloning, but my point is: the fact that the "egg and sperm" part of it was so uncontroversial is a good sign! It shows how easy it would be to limit human conception to natural human conception. It shows how no one would object, or call it homophobic.
Do you agree with me that limiting conception to the natural conception of a man and a woman would be a better way to ban cloning than to ban particular techniques? You do oppose efforts at same-sex conception, right? Or do you think that sort of genetic tinkering should be allowed?
I don't know it we'd have a better chance stopping human genetic engineering in a way that also stopped research cloning or not. But it seems strange to me to oppose laws that stop people from creating children from genetically engineered or cloned DNA because they don't go far enough. What makes you think that we won't subsequently be able to go the rest of the way?
I also don't get why you say that "all they can do now is research cloning." You mean legally or physically? I wasn't aware we had a law against implanting cloned embryos, or a law against implanting genetically engineered embryos. And I know that they can physically attempt to do human cloning if they want to. So what do you mean?
I am just curious why you seem to be reluctant to find something to agree with me about, when I had always agreed with you about everything.
All they can do technologically. They really haven't succeeded at creating viable human cloned embryos yet.
You permit any cloning and the game is over. The pro cloners want to ban rep. cloning, but permit research cloning. That's so they can do the research on how to clone. Once that is done, it is on to cloning and gestating, cloning to birth, and research into genetic engineering.
In for an inch, in for a mile.
You permit any cloning and the game is over.
Don't we permit cloning now? Didn't ACT claim to have conceived a multi-cell embryo that could have lived and been implanted? Didn't Clonaid and Zavos claim to have implanted human cloned embryos, without anyone being jailed?
All they can do technologically. They really haven't succeeded at creating viable human cloned embryos yet.
Who knows what they can do technologically? Am I wrong that they can legally try to conceive of a cloned or GE'd human child today, and it might work? I'd say that whenever they attempt to conceive a human person, a human person is conceived? That upon conception, that attempt becomes a human being worthy of full human rights? How does the fact that the attempt probably won't "work" change that? So don't we need to establish that we aren't allowed to even conceive GE'd, cloned, or anything other than natural egg plus sperm children?
I think that is possible to do, right now, based on how universally accepted and uncontroversial the "egg and sperm" aspect of A2 was. Why do we have to attach it to the rest of A2 to pass that part? I think it shows that we don't have to legalize or even mention research cloning to ban cloned children.
Right you are Ken. As I have pointed out in other posts, the game is this: 1: Pass legislation permitting a state to do anything permitted by federal law.
2. Keep quiet about the fact that any activity not explicitly made illegal, is legal.
3. Prevent the Feds from regulating biotechnology meaningfully, so that # 2 applies to most activities.
4. Agree to outlaw that which cannot now be done technologically, but plant the seeds to undo these regulations as they become technologically more feasible.
That's their moves in the game, so we should have counter moves.
1: Pass legislation permitting a state to do anything permitted by federal law.
So we should focus on enacting federal laws.
2. Keep quiet about the fact that any activity not explicitly made illegal, is legal.
So we should loudly publicize the fact that nothing is illegal and they are working on strange things, loudly push for a blanket ban to reverse that state of affairs. How about using the language of the President's Council on Bioethics to ban attempting to conceive a person using any method other than joining unadulterated egg and sperm?
3. Prevent the Feds from regulating biotechnology meaningfully, so that # 2 applies to most activities.
So we work force the feds to regulate biotech.
4. Agree to outlaw that which cannot now be done technologically, but plant the seeds to undo these regulations as they become technologically more feasible.
This is the first time they've agreed to outlaw something regarding conception, and they did it with a blanket ban on everything but egg and sperm (contra #2, surprisingly).
I agree that ethics boards of IVF clinics and country's councils have a pattern of announcing that they will ban something, only to quietly lift the ban later, not because it is safer, but because it doesn't seem so wrong anymore, and they simultaneously announce a new ban on something new that seems wrong now. We counter that move by coming up with a good reason to get the public to hold the line at a certain point.
Good luck with that John. The power of logic makes that a tough sell.
John Howard-
Nice to see you again!
Now, to the nitty-gritty.
I'm opposed to cloning of anything with more brain than your average flatworm, and for a variety of reasons (most of them pure theology, and those I shan't go into because they have no place here).
Now here's a bill that allows all kinds of things but limits implantation to one chick's egg with one dude's sperm. Fair enough, it leaves out some unpleasantness caused by the notion of same-sex conception (which I'm against for purely scientific reasons - humans will eff it up and create some kind of monsterous genetic disease that will ravage some poor, innocent baby).
Here's the deal - that bit is NOT a good thing, though you and I might like to think so. No, my friend, that little bit is a trap.
See, you're right, it wasn't met with any resistence. That's because very few people are comfortable with the idea of same-sex conception. Even most of the gay people I know are uneasy about it. They all have said they wouldn't think of it, simply because they fear that too many things could go horribly wrong with the baby.
It's a slip-line. It's designed to put people at ease - "Oh, well, if they're going to do this, at least we know they won't be taking this too far by implanting same-sex embryos."
But here's the deal - See that bit about "About five days after the zygote..." etc? Look carefully: "The ball of cells becomes an embryo if it attaches to the wall of the uterus."
So, John, what's to stop someone from creating a same-sex concieved "pre-embryo" (i.e. human baby in the building stage) and doing horrible things to it, like implanting it in a cow?
Because I never saw anything banning the implatation of such unborn in anything other than people. If I missed it in my reading of the Amendment or in MO's Constitution (and I admit flat out that I may have; I've been very busy with home life recently and haven't had much chance to go back and do a proper job with gathering my sources), I would very much like to be pointed in the right direction (links, please!) so that I can feel reassured that nobody will be allowed to pull a stunt like that legally.
But the way I see it, the Amendment simply says that you can't create a baby human through same-sex conception and then put said baby into a woman to grow up to be a big human.
That doesn't outright forbid creating a baby through same-sex conception.
Don't allow a "feel good" passage to make you think that there's ANYTHING of value in that Amendment. There isn't. It's a sneaky trap to reassure the sheep. It doesn't go far enough to really, REALLY stop same-sex conception, and it doesn't do any good to think that it's a good sign. It's just a ploy.
If a law doesn't completely ban human cloning, it's not a good law, period. Someone WILL find a way to get around whatever restrictions there are.
Wesley, not sure what you mean about power of logic. Shouldn't we push for a federal law, so that states like MO are not allowed to conceive embryos for research? Their game has soft spots where we can make progress.
I think there is huge public support for a natural conception egg and sperm law. I don't like having it legal to clone or engineer children while we try to stop stem cell work. What change of atmosphere are you waiting for so that we can ban them both?
Seems to me that having a law against creating engineered children is better than leaving it legal. You do think it should be illegal, right?
TE, the "egg and sperm" part of A2 does more than ban same-sex conception, it also bans cloning, genetic engineering, human-animal chimeras, everything but natural conception.
Yes, I agree the language of "implantation" leaves too many loopholes. But my point is that people didn't support that part of A2 because of the loopholes, they supported that part in spite of the loopholes. People strongly believe that children should be created naturally, from a man's sperm and a woman's egg, with no genetic engineering. People seem to be reluctant to make laws that they are told impede medical research, but they are not reluctant to make laws to ban unnatural conception of people.
I think it would be easier to ban embryo experimentation if we have already ruled out creating people from GE'd embryos. You haven't revealed why you disagree. Is there some secrret long term strategy? Seems to me you two are the ones preventing a federal law.
John Howard:
Happy Holidays!
I like your thinking. I like, also, that you agree with me on not wanthing anything but natural conception.
But I admit that I'm MUCH more paranoid than you are.
I don't have a high level of trust in people, particularly those doing research of any kind.
Unless a law specifically forbids all human cloning of any stripe, someone, somewhere, is going to find a way to do something incredibly stupid.
My argument:
The law (as my limited brain can understand it) - Only a natural egg fertilized by a natural sperm (human on both counts) and forms an embryo (a baby human) will be allowed to be implanted and grow up big and strong to be a US tax payer.
The idea - people can concieve naturally, and those ladies who want to be mama's but need help can have babies IVF-style.
The 900-lb Gorilla that's sitting there giving me the hairy eyeball - "pre-embryonic cells." Know what those are? Those are embryos in the earliest stages that people refuse to call said because it makes scientists who want to abuse those babies for their stem cells look like killers. It's "twisty-wording" again, at its best. The law is not specific enough in forbidding outright any kind of human cloning/same-gender conception/chimeras/etc. because it talks about implantation of an embryo, but legal language effer-uppers are going to define us right into bad territory.
I don't mean that my whole objection rides on the "pre-embroy" term. I mean that unless all monkeying with tiny babies is outright forbidden, any kind of horrifying thing can take place because the law gives a name and the lawyers change the names to suit themselves.
So say the law says, "You cannot implant any embryo into a human being if it is a chimera, that is, a mix of human and animal babies." Now you have Dr. X, buiding his creature (Shout out to all RHPS fans!), implanting "pre-embryonic cells" into a mouse. The "cells" are a chimera of mouse and human, but they're legally defined as being pre-embryonic because someone managed to twist the language enough to make people think that there is some difference between a baby that was created five minutes ago and one that was created five weeks ago. You and I both know that the number of cells in a baby's body doesn't make a bit of difference, but someone else who believes that anybody who's not breathing on her own is just a mass of cells will think there's a difference. Dr. X will scream about the benefits his new little mouseman will bring about, and ignore the fact that he's got a little baby that's horribly gone wrong on his hands.
That's what I object to.
I want nothing less than clear-cut across-the-board FORBIDDING of anything that can make life miserable for any baby.
Yeah, I agree that we shouldn't allow people to create chimeras or human embryos and implant them in anything, or grow them at all. And I agree if the law banned "conceiving a person from anything other than egg and sperm" it wouldn't necessarily ban creating human-animal chimeras, at least if they aren't intended to become semi-human children. Perhaps we'd need another law saying we can't add human DNA to anything intended to be a living being. I think that experiments using human dna that aren't intended to become living beings should be regulated with a sperate law also.
So our disagreement, I think, is that I think there could be seperate laws to ban attempting to conceive unnaturally, experimenting with human DNA in ways that are not intended to conceive, and creating chimeras. But you think we should not have a law banning non egg-and-sperm conception unless it also bans, well, I'm not sure.
I have a thought-question for you:
If a scientist DOES create a GE'd embryo, perhaps for a same-sex couple or perhaps with additional genes for musical talent or super-human strength something, would you support or oppose implanting it? How about if it was a human-animal embryo? I'd rather such an embryo be flushed down the drain rather than implanted. If there was a law against implanting it, it would help discourage people from trying. There should also be laws against creating such embryos, of course, but if that was all there was, I would rather also have the law against implanting it.
This is why I like using the word "conception" in the ban. It implies that a person has "conceivably" been created, even if one hasn't. This fits with my experience of possibly causing pregnancies. As far as we are concerned, there is a baby that we might be holding in about nine months. We can picture it - we have conceived it. Conception isn't when sperm fertilizes egg, it is when people get the idea that a baby is on the way. So I think that's the language that the ban should use. It shouldn't be based on technical distinctions, but should ban the very idea, the conception, of a baby that isn't the natural union of a man and a woman.
I should have said "Conception isn't when sperm fertilizes egg, it is when rational people get the idea that a baby could conceivably be on the way," instead of "is on the way". This "is" is too certain, conception doesn't have to result in birth, birth is always only a possibility (even implantation only has to be a possibility). But we do know that for there to be a possibility of birth, something special certainly has to happen first that could conceivably result in birth. That is usually intercourse, but it could be a turkey baster or a test tube, and it could be SCNT or anything else. We know that kissing or hugging cannot conceivably result in a baby, but lots of other things might.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home