Unlimited Appetite: More Pressure from "The Scientists" for Feds to Fund Embryo Creation and Destruction for Use in Research
The appetite from some sectors of the biotechnology community for funding and ethical license, is never satiated. Only days after President Obama euthanized President Bush's ESCR policy--and in the wake of the New York Times calling for revocation of the Dickey Amendment that prohibits the Feds from paying for the creation and destruction of embryos in research--the prestigious science journal Nature has added to the political pressure. From its editorial:
When US President Barack Obama lifted the funding ban for research on human embryonic stem cells earlier this month, he did not mention the Dickey-Wicker amendment--legislation that forbids the use of federal funds for research that destroys or creates embryos. It was a missed opportunity to begin a necessary conversation.There was no ban, but never mind. The point is that Nature wants to destroy Dickey:
In force since 1996, the Dickey-Wicker amendment badly needs updating to fit the current research reality, if not outright repeal...Both the Dickey–Wicker amendment and the new guidelines on human embryonic stem-cell research being drawn up by the National Institutes of Health merit an intense national conversation. In particular, that dialogue should thoroughly explore attitudes towards studying different types of embryos--not just those left over from fertility procedures, but also those that might be specially created for research.See, the assurances--oft stated--that all "the scientists" want are "leftover" embryos that were "going to be destroyed anyway" was always hogwash, part of a sophisticated propaganda campaign intended to unfetter biotech from any meaningful limitations on the instrumental use of nascent human life. Yet, despite these editorials, the "leftovers" meme will continue to drive most media reports.
Nature also wants to continue the word engineering project we have discussed here over the last several years:
A key requirement for productive dialogue is a common frame of reference. Here, the [me: scientifically accurate] word 'embryo' is a stumbling block. This term refers to everything from a newly fertilized single-celled egg to millions of cells organized into eyelids, ears, genitals and limbs. Yet the latter form, which is present some eight weeks after fertilization, is not only ethically unacceptable for research but also far too old to yield embryonic stem cells.Why is it ethically unacceptable? Nature doesn't say. And why should anyone believe that embryonic stem cells are "all" that "the scientists" are interested in? I mean, why would anyone believe this platitudinous assurance, when the "leftovers only" promise proved so patently false?
Indeed, some studies indicate that germ stem cells, that develop at about 6 weeks, might be better than embryonic stem cells. We have already seen calls for using fetuses as sources of organs and fetal farming, which would be even more pronounced if cloning were added to the mix to do away with the immune rejection issue. Beyond that, imagine the potential for testing drugs in fetuses,particularly fetuses genetically engineered to have certain medical maladies. Anyone who thinks that embryonic stem cells are the ultimate goal of all of this just hasn't been paying attention.
Here's the bottom line: Now that Big Biotech and its supporters in Big Science and the MSM believe they are in the driver's seat with regard to ESCR, they are intent on pushing the boundaries to the next of many stages--federal funding for the creation and destruction of custom made embryos, including via cloning. But of course, that was the plan all along.
Labels: ESCR. Dickey Amendment. Nature Editorial. Fetal Farming.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 12:21 PM
26 Comments
26 Comments:
Down with Dickey! Its about time.
Now the masses of scientists and citizens will have their say in expressing that cloned human organisms are not people!
Moral dilemma, a buildings on fire and you can save a baby or a petri dish full of clones, which do you grab if you can only choose one.
To me the answer is simple - the baby.
But that's a false dicotomy, and I assume you acknowledge the falsity of so much of the political advocacy on behalf of ESCR in this regard.
So, Swan, would you experiment with the disabled baby in order to save the healthy one? If so, why, if not, why not?
Dark Swan,
First of all, the act of saving anyone from a burning building is an act of supererogation, and hence the decision one pursues in such an act may in no way be taken as a paradigm for how one must morally act under normal circumstances.
That being said, saving either would be a morally upright thing to do. However, in a situation like this, one should try and save the person or people who have the greatest chance of survival. The embryos are in an unnatural state, and will not survive unless implanted, so this is why one would be justified in choosing the baby. We could also ask what one would do in the hypothetical situation where you could only save a 3 year old or one-hundred 90 year olds. Either choice is morally acceptable, but we would probably go with the 3 year old because she has a better chance of survival. Choosing the three year old in no way diminishes the humanity of the 90 year olds, which is what this scenario attempts to do.
Furthermore, it is morally permissible to save the embryos. For suppose you save them and they are implanted. 20 years later, they decide to throw you a party because you saved their lives. Are they not justified? Was that not those SAME 20 year olds that you saved 20 years ago now thanking you? It is a biological fact that we all began our existence as an embryo, and thus saving embryos is to save a human being.
Hence, the "moral dilemma", originally attributed to the great genius of Ellen Goodman or Anna Quindlen, really turns out to nothing more than an extremely poor analogy with no bearing whatsoever on any moral question given ordinary circumstances.
Mr. Creosote is a great poster child for them. The question that follows though is where can we find the waffer-thin mint to give them?
I realize not everyone can fight every battle, but I'm not so sure the public is largely aware of the some 0.5 million frozen embryos (if not more) throughout clinics and labs around the US. It may be my ignorance, but I haven't seen quite the outrage over this (though I believe it has been expressed on this blog before). I would suggest it consistent to enter the frozen embryo reality into the public debate, too.
As for why it is ethically unacceptable (8 weeks), I presume "Nature" is referring to the various opinions, 'statutes', guidelines, etc listed in the following paragraph, so it seemed to me. I posit the public may largely be unaware of these as well.
And it's true there was no blanket ban, and it's not 100% definitive that said embryos are "far too old" for ESCs - this seems an odd, sloppy editorial from "Nature", hmmm.
I'll attempt to add to their point, however. To get society engaged in the role science plays, I propose it's time our policy makers have debates that center on issues related to science - something more formal than the 'sciencedebate2008' of the last election.
Wesley - Yes I admit that's a false dichotomy, but it's illustrative of how I regard pro-life absolution that demands pre-implantation embryos are worthy of full personhood much the same way. Bobby alludes to the difference in viability of the two choices which has long been the view of the scientific community. Science doesn't assume personhood to the developing organism whereas you do.
Just because a blastocyst is capable of becoming a person does not mean it is. Its not viable until the proper conditions are met. A stack of lumber and blueprints are not yet a home.
Science is going to receive public support for seeking cures to basic disease. I applaud your efforts to keep eugenic reproduction in check, but your continual tendency to broadly paint scientists who do basic research as these Dr. Frankensteins on one hand and then support the same approaches on mice or other animals is another perplexing dichotomy. The broad scientific community has a conscience and are not seeking to engineer babies. Maybe in the back rooms of elite fantasy but not mainstream Science. Its worth discussing though.
Heres moral dilemma number 2. If mouse paralysis is completely cured by ESCs and its possible by no other means, then would research and trials with human subject be considered the moral imparative? I'm guessing die hard pro-lifers wont agree, but the vast majority of the population would applaud such research and treatment, and that's our difference.
Hopefully IPs cells prove a legitimate alternative and render this point moot, but that is not the case today.
I would value your attention towards eugenics instead of fighting basic research on embryonic stem cells.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FLAGS AND THE NUMBERS?
Ok. I see them now; they weren't coming up on my screen yesterday. Still about a thousand a day in the U.S., but looks like the numbers rising faster proportionately in Greece and Italy, where not only was Eluana just murdered, but they have the highest infertility rates in Europe, last I heard.
Bobby: Good analysis. That the embryos are in an unnatural state is what I've been saying all along. Of course that's part of why they say it's ok to use them, but they created the unnatural state in the first place. The there are the people who are born from them. Some have been quoted as saying how grateful they are to their parents and to i.v.f. for having given them life; of course. But I'd think it would also be something that could sort of give at least some of them the willies, one way or another. Maybe not; I'm not they, and it's impossible to be in another's head and shoes, and it's not wise to speculate like that, but it just doesn't seem right, and I'd think that it anything could give someone the willies, that could.
And what we've got now are rising generations of people created via i.v.f. to some of whom all this messing with nature may be abhorrent based on their own experience, and to some of whom it may seem perfectly natural, normal, and desireable, which certainly fits the scientific agenda.
DarkSwan says Science doesn't assume personhood to the developing organism whereas you do.
That is because science has no business foraying into the notions of "personhood", a socially constructed paradigm. Society has the obligation to dictate the morality that science operates within. We are presently in an ever quickening march toward an opposite system, where science dictates to society what is moral based upon what, in their opinions, in necessary. As a true scientist will approach any research as amoral, judging it solely upon its potential worth, this system can lend itself to the grotesque (lest we forget Sweden's forced sterilization of the less desirable to build a more perfect country).
No opponent of ESCR, etc., would talk about "personhood," because who the heck knows what it even means. It's a straw man. The question has always been whether an embryo is an individual human organism, and the answer, as any decent biology textbook can tell you, is, was, and will be yes.
Oh, please, Dark Swan. Wesley has been fighting eugenics for years, so stop pretending that he is focused on preventing "basic research" instead of eugenics.
Oh Puh leez SAFE ...thats why I said I applaud the effort against eugenics.
So quit peripherally cherry picking sentences and take my message as a whole. If you dont think that Wesley paints all ESCr research with the same broad skepticism then you haven't been paying attention - as Wesley clearly states in this post!
Wesley says: "why should anyone believe that embryonic stem cells are "all" that "the scientists" are interested in?...fetal farming, which would be even more pronounced if cloning were added to the mix...imagine the potential for testing drugs in fetuses,particularly fetuses genetically engineered to have certain medical maladies. Anyone who thinks that embryonic stem cells are the ultimate goal of all of this just hasn't been paying attention."
Gregory no one denied these are human organisms. An organism is not a person!
Let me reiterate
Moral dilemma number 2. If mouse paralysis is completely cured by ESCs and its possible by no other means, then would research and trials with human subject be considered the moral imperative? I'm guessing die hard pro-lifers wont agree, but the vast majority of the population would applaud such research and treatment, and that's our difference.
And this is a very likely scenario.
What makes a person? If you can define it in some hard scientific way, then you can base an argument on it. If not, then you're merely appealing to emotion, which is a classic logical fallacy.
Your dilemma would appear to be a false one, as adult stem cells are already reversing paralysis in rats: http://www.livescience.com/health/090129-stem-cell-spine.html. And if you say that you were merely proposing a hypothetical, I will agree, and we can leave it in the realm of make-believe.
Dark Swan: A clarification, which I don't think it needed, but just in case: I never said "all" ESCR researchers want the brave new world technologies to be developed. I said that these agendas are being contemplated and supported within Big Biotech, within bioethics, etc. That is undeniable. Moreover, the ethical arguments made about ESCR are just as applicable to fetal farming.
I have also said that the politicized scientists pushing ESCR have not been candid. The "only the leftovers" argument was never sincere, or at least, quickly became inapplicable.
Here's how it works: Support restrictions on what can't yet be done, but deny meaningful restrictions on what can.
When we get to the spot where something that can't be done, can be done, remove the restrictions.
"An organism is not a person!"
Well, it's certainly true that NOT ALL organisms are persons. The squirrel I saw running outside my window the other day isn't one, and the plants I watered in my bedroom aren't persons, but HUMAN organisms most certainly ARE human beings, as I stated in a letter to the editor published this week:
"Your editorial contends that President Obama's decision on embryonic stem cells restored 'the division between science and religion.'
What 'religion' might that be, pray tell? As I work in education, I've pored through plenty of (completely secular) biology and human-development textbooks, which accurately cite fertilization as the beginning of a human life. The WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA defines 'embryo' as 'an animal or plant in an early stage of its development.' Obviously, it follows, then, that a HUMAN embryo is a HUMAN being in an early stage of HIS OR HER development.
No distinction is made, by the way, between an embryo created via intercourse and one created in vitro.
You also say that many embryos fail to implant on their own. In other words, they die of natural causes. Many people will one day die of natural causes, too. That certainly doesn't mean that we aren't human beings, or that makes it okay for us to kill each other intentionally.
Dark Swan,
Again, moral dilemma number two is a problem only if one holds to a utilitarian worldview. If one does not believe that the ends justify the means nor that one can do evil so that good may come of it, then there is no problem. You simply don't kill someone to make other people better. The morality of an action is determined by the action in-and-of-itself, the intent, and the circumstances. And it is always wrong to directly kill an innocent human being as a means or an end. The proposed action is wrong in-and-of-itself. Directly killing an innocent human being is what you are proposing above, and so regardless of the outcome of said killing, it can not be tolerated.
Gregory and Bmmg: In the human realm, it's the province of the law, not of science, to define "person." The squirrel and the plant, in their own terms, even if not in ours, are persons. Certainly the squirrel who found a way through cracked masonry my breakfast room this winter and came in periodically to stay warm or steal an english muffin behaved like a person when she or he looked at me, listened alertly, understood, and left whenever I told him/her to; it was the same as dealing with a dog or cat. An embryo, created no matter how, couldn't do that. Nor could a squirrel embryo. I think it's both what we, as creatures of any kind, are to ourselves and what a being is capable of becoming that defines person. I don't think it's the job of science to make the determination; science is knowledge, but it is not judgement. Which is why its proper role as as servant only.
Becky: Exactly.
Ianthe,
"Bobby: Good analysis."
Thank you kindly, my friend.
Lanthe: my purpose is not to degrade squirrels or plants. I support treating all animals with great care and I'm not for damaging plants, either. My point is that science is rather stubborn and strict in its description of human embryos as human beings. Not all organisms are human beings, but these human embryos are. While it's true that an embryo can't leave the room when you say, neither can a newborn, but we wouldn't use this as an excuse to deny the newborn's status as a human being, or to kill her.
Lanthe : Thank you and the same to your postings.
Dark Swan : You're again presenting an argument that assumes a dilemma that does not exist. As with your initial "moral dilemma", you presume we should base forward-momentum upon a hypothetical analysis of a hypothetical populous' view of a hypothetical outcome as presented by scientists with an agenda. You cannot declare the agreement of the majority before the majority has been queried, yet that is exactly what researchers with an agenda are currently doing.
In the amoral purview of science, this is how theories are created by benefit/risks. The outcome of X outweighs the risks of X, therefore X has an intrinsic value that should be researched.
However, it is our duty as individuals to accept that we often must sacrifice potential benefits for immediate harm. If this were not the case, the [scientifically backed] notion of forced population reduction would be status quo. The short term harm of exterminating the perpetually and unalterably non-productive without doubt is outweighed by the future benefit of a more streamlined, productive system. However, the citizenry has spoken against such eugenic actions and accepted the sociological "damage" of sustaining such individuals.
Simply because a particular field of research may hold a potential benefit, it does not become necessarily moral, or necessarily require research. This holds invariably true in areas that we utilize human beings for research without their consent - whether they are capable of offering consent or not. The differentiation between when it is "morally acceptable" to utilize an embryo and when it becomes a "viable" human organism is based solely upon the opinions and desires of researchers. When the 14 day mark is no longer sufficient, a new logic will be created to justify 28 days. If the use of a 14 day old embryo is justified, what is unjustified about using an embryo at 8 weeks or a fetus at 6 months?
Gregory no one denied these are human organisms. An organism is not a person!
Well, it's certainly true that NOT ALL organisms are persons. The squirrel I saw running outside my window -
Bmmg I haven't seen you make a valid point ever, your a classic troll who can't engage in an honest argument. Your disingenuous contribution and inability to argue in context is a detriment to your cause and this site.
Dark Swan: Please play nice. I have stopped people going after you personally, please desist. Thanks.
bmmg39: Please don't respond in kind. Thank you.
Becky your thoughts are very, well thoughtful..
The differentiation between when it is "morally acceptable" to utilize an embryo and when it becomes a "viable" human organism is based solely upon the opinions and desires of researchers.
Moral acceptability is not solely based on researchers, it is based on public consensus. If Big biotech determines societies morals then the country has much bigger problems than these, because that means Corporations rules our morals and that we are nothing more than a Corporatocracy, which may be true, but that concedes that America is no longer, and that's an argument for another forum.
Public consensus in the 70s agreed that abortion was not murder. Watch Fast Times at Ridgemont High and see how integrated its woven. Public perception of left over IVF is not considered murder either. The majority of society gains little benefit from the process other than those seeking to become pregnant or terminate pregnancy.
ESCr is different in that when/if successful it will offer masses of society cures or therapy for disease, which I postulate will be widely accepted.
If you choose to ignore the probability until it happens then thats up to you.
I don't speak for Wesley but I would guess it's the same reason he doesn't sit here day after day reporting on every abortion clinic or IVF clinic that operates. He might bring it up now and again but its not the main focus of his agenda. I assume he realizes his effort to fight these causes, though desirable, will ultimately end up in vain, so he puts his effort where it seems plausible to make a difference.
What I'm saying is that fighting basic ESCr is the same loosing battle and that efforts in this arena would be better suited to informing people about eugenics, which I agree with. Painting ESCr research as "Anyone who thinks that embryonic stem cells are the ultimate goal of all of this just hasn't been paying attention." is a bad approach.
Dark Swan, I think at the core, we agree. I oppose [Federally funded] ESCR, not on a moral level, but on a practical level.
I have to question the citation of Fast Times. It's similar to citing Erika Kane's abortion on All My Children as a show of public support. The MSM is very often on the "cutting edge" of "social issues", which is why you see TV and movies portraying gay marriage, yet the majority of Americans are still in opposition.
Back to researcher adjusted morality. We have experienced in recent times a change in the accepted formula for determining morality. Things are moral if we can find an acceptable reason for their morality, which researchers are quick to supply by defining the beginning of "life" and interweaving nebulous concepts that they, frankly, have no business discussing, in their reports. For example, the Nature article calls into question the validity of using the term embryo. While this article may (and probably wasn't) written by an agenda-focused researcher, it does reflect the problem quite accurately. Researchers are dictating to us what is "ethical" and what they should (or shouldn't be) limited by. Since the focus of the abortion debate, which is the main division for ESCR and human cloning, has fallaciously focused around the beginning of human "life", a scientifically sound argument for pushing back that beginning a few weeks can yield the leeway they desire.
As you mentioned abortion in the '70s, I'd like to bring to light the promise made then. The proposition of using these pre-viable tissues for research or medicinal purposes was decried by abortion supporters. They agreed that the practice would be morally reprehensible, stated that abortion was simply about control of one's body, and insisted that such practices would never be pursued. My point here is not to invoke the boiling-a-frog fallacy, but rather to point out the tendency human beings have to forget what we found reprehensible when it wasn't potentially beneficial to us. What good is morality if we throw it away the second it suits our purpose to do so?
Bobby: Well it was.
Bmmg: I don't think you're denigrating squirrels or plants. I was saying the same thing about embryoes. It's not science's proper role to define whether they are persons, is what I meant; science's proper role is to be subordinate tp the society it serves; when it isn't kept in its place and kept in hand, and gets out of hand, we get what we've got now.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home