More Lies from Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures
The human cloners over at Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures are sure a disingenuous lot, for example, claiming in Amendment 2 to have outlawed human cloning when the measure actually created a state constitutional right to clone human life.
Now, a representative has a letter in the St. Louis Post Dispatch claiming falsely that cloning opponents would have prevented the great iPSC breakthrough. From the letter:
If anti-embryonic stem cell research groups had their way, this outstanding science would not have been possible. They would have blocked the very groundwork that led to the reprogramming of ordinary human skin cells into embryonic-like stem cells. If they get their way now, they will block the important research required to bring this new technique to its full lifesaving potential...Those who threaten to repeal Missourians' access to stem cell research should allow scientists to conduct the work necessary to achieve the goals that I hope we all share: to cure disease and improve the lives of patients and families.What hogwash. First, legislation in Missouri was always aimed at outlawing human cloning, not embryonic stem cell research. Indeed, ESCR would have remained perfectly legal in MO if A. 2 had failed. Second, the potential repeal pending in MO would really outlaw human cloning, and not impede ESCR in the least. Third, cloning had zero to do with the iPSC breakthrough, and indeed the new approach is seen widely as a moral and ethical way to derive pluripotent stem cells without SCNT cloning. Fourth, Bush-approved ES cell lines were and are perfectly suitable for the kind of basic research into pluripotency that scientists say they need to continue to perfect iPSCs. Finally, James Thomson, one of the scientists who demonstrated the viability of the approach, did so with an NIH grant from the dreaded Bush Administration.
The prevarication and bull manure continually shoveled by this organization is a disgrace to public policy advocacy.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:01 AM
6 Comments
6 Comments:
Embryos are babies. Stem cells are not. Stem cell research is wonderful and should be fully supported. Embryos should not be cut up to do that research. Find another way to do the research without cutting up an embryo and everybody's happy.
You see the logic here?
So... why are they saying we're unhappy when we're not? The anti-embryonic stem cell types would have prevented the discovery of embryo-like stem cells that doesn't involve cutting up a baby! ...gimme a break.
You dissect his comments and they're silly. I don't want cloning legal and I don't want babies of any stripe to be cut up. Find another way - well, there ya go! You'd think they'd be dancing in the streets to find stem cells that do the same things they want that don't anger the rest of us.
So if its "hogwash" then are you promoting the use of IVF embryos for use in Embryonic Stme cell Research?
If your not promoting IVF embyros then what is your point here Wesley?
For you to say that SCNT is not the same as ESCr is so skewed from reality that you are deliberatley misleading your fanclub.
SCNT is the major chunk of all ESCr. After all the only other portion of ESCr is IVF research
IVF research is of limited value to researchers in comparison to SCNT.
If you dont know this you shouldnt be pretending to be an expert on the morality of it, and since you do you are pretty much lying to your readership.
Second, the potential repeal pending in MO would really outlaw human cloning, and not impede ESCR in the least.
How do you figure Wesley?
How would making SCNT in Missouri a crime not impede ESCr in the least.
What state are you from anyways? a state of denial?
Do you not listen to any of the scientists, do you not read journals? If you did you couldnt make such absurd statements.
Of course making criminals of scientists who utilize SCNT would impede ESCr in Missouri.
To deny that SCNT is THE fundamental method of ESCr shows your lack of credibility on dealing with this issue from a realistic perspective.
Third, cloning had zero to do with the iPSC breakthrough, and indeed the new approach is seen widely as a moral and ethical way to derive pluripotent stem cells without SCNT cloning.
Even though the scientists who made the Direct Reprogramming iPSC breakthough Shinya Yamanaka urged the scientific community: “Do not stop stem-cell research with human embryos, because patients will die if you do stop.” Although his work could transform the stem-cell field, speaking on the eve of his arrival in Britain to present research to geneticists, Professor Yamanaka emphasised that “right now, embryonic stem cells are vital to medical research”.
“Within two to three years we may be able to create a stem cell that is indistinguishable from one taken from an embryo. What we cannot do, though, is to let the optimism over my science hold us back from conducting research on embryonic stem cells while we are waiting for the alternative.”
But hey Ive come to expect you to ignore the facts surrounding medical advancement and cherrypick information so you can twist it to meet your personal vision of a moral end, and them propose your version is the moral authority. I can see straight though your cherrypicking ways Wesley - Merry Christmas!
Shawnee: Are you willfully misleading or just unaware that there is a definitional distinction between embryonic stem cell research--which I write scientists say is still needed--and human cloning via SCNT, which is creating a cloned embryo?
As I wrote, for the ESCR that is supposedly still needed to explore the nature of pluripotency, normal Bush approved lines would suffice. No need to clone. Moreover, ESCR is not threatened in MO, either before A 2 and now, if it is repealed. SCNT is what t hat controversy is about, which I repeat, is not a synonym for embryonic stem cell research. That shouldn't be too hard to understand.
As for SCNT being THE fundamental method of ESCR (meaning, one makes an embry through cloning and then, destroys the embryo for ESCR), it HASN'T EVEN BEEN DONE YET IN HUMANS. That kind of makes your statement ludicrous, doesn't it?
Learn your biology.
Merry Chistmas to you, too.
Shawnee: "For you to say that SCNT is not the same as ESCr is so skewed from reality that you are deliberatley misleading your fanclub."
Shawnee, you obviously have no grasp on this issue. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is cloning, which is a related issue BUT HARDLY THE SAME THING AS embryonic stem cell research. Wesley has it right; you have it wrong. Got it now?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home