A little more deserving than, say, Krugman. None of this is news, exactly, but it might make for some stimulating discussion. And if you’ve only read about it in AP reports, this entire article is worth reading:
When historians chronicle the stem cell research wars, Shinya Yamanaka will likely go down as a peacemaker. The Japanese scientist has helped send the field on a surprising end run around the moral debate surrounding embryonic stem cells, the creation of which requires the destruction of embryos. Last year Yamanaka led one of two teams that showed that normal human skin cells can be genetically reprogrammed into the equivalent of stem cells. These so-called induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) seem to be essentially identical to embryonic stem cells and possess the ability to become any cell.
The 46-year-old Yamanaka is a clean-cut, almost military figure. His small office in an aging wing of Kyoto University’s Institute for Frontier Medical Sciences is spotlessly tidy, with nothing to mark his achievement in producing iPS cells. A Nobel Prize may one day adorn his shelf space.
Yeah, but he deprived abortionists of one of their principle arguments, so we’ll just have to see how this all shakes out, won’t we?
I’ve got to go do some Christmas-related volunteery stuff, but I suspect the trolls will be by for some hammering, so . . . enjoy!
Though permissive in spirit, Japan in practice imposes strict rules on the production and (unlike in the U.S.) the use of stem cells derived from human embryos.
Wait a minute. According to Nishi, the two-digits here in the United States were KILLING SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH by running the MOST OPPRESSIVE REGIME EVER based on XTIANIST DOGMA.
Of course, people like nishbot won’t like this; they view killing the fetus as a feature, not a bug.
Yamanaka-san should be glad he doesn’t live here. The pro-baby killer brownshirts would be doing everything they could to destroy him.
His personal information would be dug up by state employees and disseminated to the media and the various hate groups. He would be receiving death threats and his family members would be harassed.
He then would be pressured to disavow his discovery.
Since when are stem cells an “argument of abortionists”? Dan, is it not more of a “never allow any good to come of destruction of an embryo, lest people comfort themselves with that good” when in vitro embryos are discarded or in vivo pregnancy ended for some other reason?
That’s not very clear. I mean, isn’t the utility argument a kind of pre-emptive one projected by opponents of use of embryos for research or medical treatment of others? I don’t hear people advocating ending pregnancy in order to provide a ready supply of stem cells..rather proponents of embryonic stem cell research object to blocks to research on POC or embryos that are to be discarded in any event.
But maybe you meant something else.
I’m sorry, Sarah, but I think you’re being a bit naive here. The debate over stem cells was just a stalking horse for those who see the destruction of formative human life as a positive social good. They didn’t give a fig about curing disease except as a prop for their political project. The objective was, and is, to get those who are anti-abortion to accede in such destruction to dirty their hands.
I don’t think so, Jeffersonian. I think that’s an argument projected by those who want to pre-empt a utilitarian argument.
The debate over stem cells was just a stalking horse for those who see the destruction of formative human life as a positive social good.
Whoa now, I am with Sarah, I think that is a bit of a leap right there.
I really think most proponents of stem-cell research care about the promise of such research. And object to the discarding of tissues that could result in new knowledge or effective medical therapies, on the basis that it is necessary to prevent any good from coming from use of those tissues.
We’ve faced similar issues before.
One would squirm at the unpleasant thought of bathing with a bar of human soap from Auschwitz. Assume for argument’s sake that one bathed with the soap and actually knew of its ugly origin. One’s initial suspicion would be that the bather probably approved of the Nazi atrocity by mere virtue of the fact that he used the soap in his shower.
But suppose the bather clearly condemned the Nazi evil, and rationalized his actions in the following way: that this use of the Auschwitz bar of human soap did not harm the dead Jews nor did it reward the dead Nazis. It will not encourage further acts of Nazism, and in fact, the bather is convinced that the soap’s use has no moral relevance for the future. Instead, the Auschwitz bar of soap is a perfectly good bar of soap for cleaning his body, so that there would not be any reason why he should not be allowed to use it. The bather’s argument seems logically sound; however, something seems terribly wrong with his conscience.
* * *
Absolute censorship of the Nazi data does not seem proper, especially when the secrets of saving lives may lie solely in its contents. Society must decide on its use by correctly understanding the exact benefits to be gained. When the value of the Nazi data is of great value to humanity, then the morally appropriate policy would be to utilize the data, while explicitly condemning the atrocities. But the data should not be used just with a single disclaimer. To further justify its use, the scientific validity of the experiment must be clear; there must be no other alternative source from which to gain that information, and the capacity to save lives must be evident.
I don’t think so, Jeffersonian. I think that’s an argument projected by those who want to pre-empt a utilitarian argument.
Then why are pro-abortion types so vocal about embyonic stem cell research and virtually silent about stem cell research that doesn’t require the destruction of another human being?
No, the idea here is to get the anti-abortion side to acquiesce in the utilitarian (and Mengelian) death of human life for the supposed benefit of the living. That will then be used as the camel’s nose under the tent to justify further incursions against life.
I really think most proponents of stem-cell research care about the promise of such research.
I do too. But I’m not talking about them.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 12/6 @ 10:27 am #
We’ve faced similar issues before.
Using such data today is one thing…the Nazis are long gone and there is zero threat that such acts will be repeated. It would be quite another if the data collection/soap factories were still churning out their loathsome product and looking for moral justification for continuation of their activities. That is the reality of what we are facing with embryonic stem cell therapies.
Then why are pro-abortion types so vocal about embyonic stem cell research and virtually silent about stem cell research that doesn’t require the destruction of another human being?
Because no one is blocking funding of non-destructive research. There are obviously people who fit your description, but I don’t think it is the majority, and I don’t think it is the driving force. You are letting the nishidiot cloud your view of these people.
I have to disagree with the Sarah W camp. If you argue the case that Democrats/proponents of ESC are solely interested in producing miracle medical cures, then they should have breathed a deep sigh of relief when Yamanaka and the other guy at UoWisconsin figured out the skin to pluripotent thinger. But they didn’t. Instead Obama has vowed to issue an executive order lifting Bush’s ban on ESC research and Pelosi has said something like ‘its our day 1 priority.’ Note that all this funding goes to embryonic sc rather than skin-to-esc, because to favor the latter would admit that there is a moral quandary in obtaining and utilizing embryos, thus impugning abortion. Also, I think there is a lot of Bush-resentment going on as well, as he mentioned this method indirectly in the State of the Union, ‘fund research in stem cell tech based on new discoveries,’ and all the Republicans got up and cheered and all the Dems sat there like angry children.
Look, dammit, despite obfuscation and occasional flat lying from nishi and others, the debate is not and has not been Shall embryonic stem cell research proceed? The answer to that is, it’s still at least a semi-free country. If you feel that you can accommodate, can live with, the moral and ethical issues, whether by discarding their basis or coming to some conclusion about them that supports your effort, go for it.
The question is, and has always been, Federal funding for it. If it works — if it’s a valid and useful medical procedure — funding WILL be available from private sources, licit or illicit. There are a lot of people who want to live forever. Why, then, the argument, and why is it so consistently misrepresented, especially by its proponents? Is Federal funding the only available route? –of course not.
It’s not so much the “stalking horse” idea; it’s that the proponents of ESCR are themselves troubled by the moral and ethical questions, and want somebody else to pronounce them Good People and declare that the research can go ahead untroubled by qualms. They don’t want Federal funding for the money, which will be available if it’s a valid therapy. They want Federal funding to calm their consciences.
That looks less and less likely as research discovers alternate means to the same end. For myself, ignorant of the details, ESCR has always seemed something of a dead end. The cells, “stem” or otherwise, contain the genetic material of the original donor, which doesn’t match that of the recipient, and the result is bound to be subject to the same class of problems encountered with any transplant.[*] Creating pluripotent cells from the recipient’s own tissues is the way to go if it’s possible, and while there are moral and ethical questions around that (cloning, e.g.) they are much more tractable.
There are lots and lots of perfectly sincere researchers in the field. What’s happening, now, is that the appearance of alternate means is smoking out the minority who really are as Jeffersonian describes — the ones who see abortion and the termination of pregnancy as a positive good, regardless of other considerations; the ones who wish to, for instance, assume the Power to Dispose, and declare that any woman who chooses against abortion is somehow morally tainted. Scientists who still see promise in ESCR and are not troubled by the moral and ethical questions will continue; others, in my opinion the majority, will follow the new avenues to see where they lead, and we will get a clear division between the two groups. In case it isn’t clear, my sympathies are with the latter.
Regards,
Ric
[*]Yes, I know, there have been very promising results from some studies, especially in animals. Paging Dr. Pons; Dr. Stanley Pons, please pick up the white courtesy telephone…
Well articulated Dash, I agree completely…
And, I think that Dan’s headline is right on; Yamanaka should be getting the nobel prize for this breakthrough…
Despite the promise of stem cell use in medicine, the moral and ethical dilemmas surrounding their acquisition really held back their exploitation in cures…
Yamanaka removes all of those impediments, and makes it possible for folks to get the same cells using skin as the building block; a part of our body that is constantly renewing itself. In hindsight, his discovery seems elementary, in a logical sense…
And, it is clearly a more far reaching and influential discovery, one of real science, than anything proferred by Messers. Gore or Krugman…
In fact, don’t they need to re-posess Al’s prize or something; because of the cooling?
If you argue the case that Democrats/proponents of ESC are solely interested in producing miracle medical cures…
But that is not what we are arguing, what I am arguing is it is wrong to assert the pro-stem cell funding side is really interested primarily in killing babies. I sick and fucking tired of hearting “yeah but what you really mean” accusations from progressives and don’t like it from the right eiher. “Code word” accusations are wrong from either side.
Ric,
As always you are spot on the target, Bro. This is all about affirmation; by whatever means necessary…
In fact, don’t they need to re-posess Al’s prize or something; because of the cooling?
They’ll do that right after they take away Walter Duranty’s Pulitzer.
“If you argue the case that Democrats/proponents of ESC are solely interested in producing miracle medical cures, then they should have breathed a deep sigh of relief when Yamanaka and the other guy at UoWisconsin figured out the skin to pluripotent thinger. But they didn’t. Instead Obama has vowed to issue an executive order lifting Bush’s ban on ESC research and Pelosi has said something like ‘its our day 1 priority.’”
Dash – Taking it further, even your description is misstated. Bush did not ban ESCR. He limited federal funding on new lines after consultation with the scientific community. The Bush Hates Science crowd conveniently forgets that Bush got expert agvice before reaching his conclusion. I also agree with Ric that if the potential of ESCR os so outstanding, private funding would be there. Other things are in the mix.
SBP,
A good example, my friend; you are probably right…
*sigh*
Because no one is blocking funding of non-destructive research. There are obviously people who fit your description, but I don’t think it is the majority, and I don’t think it is the driving force.
No, I don’ think they are the majority either, though it would depend on whom you are counting. They are most likely the majority of the activists promoting it in the halls of legislatures, however.
I think Ric gets close to the nub, though he’s optimistic in saying that “proponents of ESCR are themselves troubled by the moral and ethical questions, and want somebody else to pronounce them Good People and declare that the research can go ahead untroubled by qualms.” I’d guess that there are some who are so troubled, but the people I’m talking about aren’t in the least bit bothered by it. Their agenda is to dehumanize formative human life by any means necessary to make abortion culturally acceptable, virtuous even. ESCR is an opportunity to advance that idea.
Agreed with 23. I am mainly just troubled by broad brushes and implied agendas on either side, I think because I sit pretty squarely dead in the middle on this one it is easy to see the rhetorical trickery of both sides.
daleyrocks, you’re quite right, and I was aware of the intent of Bush’s order to utilize existing embryos for research but no further, but I don’t think my core point changes, which is basically identical to what Jeffersonian said: “Their agenda is to dehumanize formative human life by any means necessary to make abortion culturally acceptable, virtuous even. ESCR is an opportunity to advance that idea.†There is some notion of finality in this aspect of the culture wars if ESCR continues and leads to viable cures, in the sense that “those right-wing Neanderthals attempted to block this miracle science and it has netted society X†wherein abortion is the font of raw materials for said treatments and the destruction of human life is seen as a means to an end. It’s a back door tactic to ending the stalemate in the current abortion debate, among other things, IMHO.
However all that said, ESC’s have netted 0 cures thus far, while adult stem cell therapies hover at around 80 or so. And these aren’t Mayo clinic only, break the bank type things, but fairly routine treatments. My grandfather survived a bout of Hodgkin’s disease after docs extracted adult, multipotent stem cells from his bone marrow to the cancerous lymph nodes.
Ric, I think, is correct.
Let me add that I am disturbed by anyone advocating that government should be in the business of creating life merely to destroy it for a commodity.
Really? I can easily see, should the far left gain the whip hand,
campsresearch installations dedicated to finding out what leads people to be more conservative than they like, with the goal of preventing such people from occurring in the future.I think it depends whether you’re talking about science or technology.
If you are talking technology then the discovery is very hopeful.
It raises the possibility that we will eventually be able to obtain easy-access to embryo-like stem cells, using the patient’s skin cells as a source, and without having to use a cloning procedure, which would entail the destruction of a “potential person” human embryo. I put “potential person” in scare quotes, because the question of whether it is a real person or “merely” a potential person is the point at issue.
I’m going to adopt a completely clinical, detatched, amoral perspective now:
Pretend we are talking about some other animal, the mouse say.
Let’s now look at the scientific question:
“These so-called induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) seem to be essentially identical to embryonic stem cells and possess the ability to become any cell.” (my emphasis)
How do we confirm that they are actually identical for all practical purposes to embryonic stem cells?
Understand this point:
The theory that they are identical for all practical purposes is a theory not a fact.
How do you confirm theories?
You have to experiment/observe.
On what?
In this case you have to compare.
You have to compare induced pluripotent stem cells, to actual, known, pluripotent stem cells obtained from embryos of the same species.
After all the theory might be wrong.
How often must we compare it?
If we a talking human medicine with serious consequences if we are wrong:
We should compare it, at least, for every new, untested procedure that is attempted.
That would be the minimal, prudent, responsible thing to do.
There would have to be a sufficient number of trials to make the result statistically meaningful.
So, the scientific validation of the induction procedure, still requires the use of human embryos to confirm its validity for every new procedure. And we are still not being maximum cautious. We are ignoring the possibility that there might be differences between individual humans. We are generalizing from laboratory trials to the wider population. But then we always do that for every new drug or treatment. That’s why we have to do clinical follow-up studies, even after the procedure is out there in the field.
So IMHO, the scientific validation of the procedure will still need the use of some human embryos, but the eventual wider technological application, might (if the theory pans out), take place without the use of human embryos.
“research installations dedicated to finding out what leads people to be more conservative than they like, with the goal of preventing such people from occurring in the future.”
Well looking a few posts above, the persistent undertow against religiosity, save Islam, is well apace.
Daniel Dare, I have a quibble with your argument that embryonic stem cells are needed to prove the theory that iPS cells are essentially identical to embryonic stem cells. It doesn’t matter if iPS cells are identical to embryonic, as the end pursuit here is not to obtain embryonic stem cells. The end pursuit is to find cures, and embryonic stem cells are a theoretical means to that end. Should iPS cells be proven to be a means to that end, their similarity to any other proposed means is moot. If I can reach a destination as quickly and easily in a boat as I could in a car, there’s no need for the boat and car to resemble each other in any way at all. The terrain makes the difference, not the vehicle. To take a silly analogy further, (and turn it into an even sillier simile) if we’ve been assuming that the terrain is rocky, and a 4 wheel drive vehicle is the only way across, then why would we continue to insist on that evil gas guzzling SUV after discovering that there’s a well paved road leading straight to our destination? The only reason would be that we have some vested interest in promoting SUVs as the vehicle of choice.
I’m surprised that the argument here, regarding the motivation of embryonic stem cell researchers, doesn’t mention what I believe to be the most common motivator: money. It’s my understanding that grants for scientific research are very specific. If you request a grant to do research using cells from palm trees and find out that palm tree cells are a dead end, but cells from cuttlefish might work, you have to write a new grant request that specifies cuttlefish cells, and lose the rest of the palm cell money budgeted. If I’m correct in this (and please correct me if I’m wrong), there is powerful motivation for researchers to persist in advocating the merits of palm tree cells or risk losing financing. Scientists that jumped aboard the embryonic stem cell theory would lose a lot of ground if they abandoned their current theories and had to spend the time investigating which of the latest advances are most likely to work and rewriting grant requests. We know it makes more sense to work on technologies that are likely to succeed than stick with ones that are less promising, but we also know that people can be very irrational when they’re protecting their comfort zone.
“The theory that they are identical for all practical purposes is a theory not a fact.”
Of course, but if they appear to do all the things people hoped embryonic stems might do… why does it matter? Also, the key phrase here is: for all practical purposes. Practical purposes. Think about that and keep the semantics out of it. For the purposes required (or planned) they are as practical as the other, so who needs proof that they are interchangeable? For heaven’s sake (pun intended) just use the darn things and be glad that harvesting the unborn (so to speak) isn’t needed. Just breathe easy and be glad that sticky burden is lifted from our societal conscience and run with the new stem-skin cells.
Why must people insist on proving their theoretical square wheels are superior to the round ones?
It’s great that you picked that up Rebecca, Kresh, I was wondering whether I should risk cluttering up my argument with that point.
Yes of course, but consider: Let’s say we only use iPS and we find it cures. But is it the best possible cure? In a way it is like you have two different drugs: Which one actually does the best job? Think of the statins, there are a number of different kinds, with subtle differences between them. In the end wouldn’t you need to test all kinds, for each potential application, to determine if there was a difference, and which one was truly the best?
Also there is the purely theoretical interest. If you do find a subtle difference, don’t you want to know why? That would be a clue that there is some other factor controlling the induction of pluripotent stem cells. Find what it is and you have the possibility of further refinements to the technology.
If the long-term goal is the maximization of human welfare, then we must test, test, test, every chance we get. Every new test is an opportunity for new knowledge, to advance the state of the art – a potential clue.
Sorry if I took a while to answer, but this thread is very old now and I only come here occasionally just to check if there were any other comments. If anyone else wants to talk please consider emailing me at taoofscientism at gmail.com