Lawyer-Wearing-Yarmulka
Friday, January 12, 2007
Krauthammer On Stem Cell Research
posted by LWY, 8:29 AM
8 Comments:
That was excellent - thanks.
Sorry to both of you, but is a big rhetorical card game.
He starts out: I love science and stem cell research coudl be great
He then take an idiotic quote from the idiotic Edwards to explain how people who promote stem-cell research are liar.
He then calls one idea of anti-stem cell advocates liars to show how middle of the road he is.
He then shifts gear and brings of the standard idea of unrestricted mad scientists growing brains in a jar. For good measure he bring in the fraud in South Korea which really has nothig to do with the topic at hand.
He then starts to show a profound misunderstanding of science. If true stem cells are made they can do exactly what he's fear mongerig about. They could be organs or deformed humans floating in tanks. This is true whether the stem cell is from an embryo or amnitoic fluid. The point of stem cells is that they can become anything. In fact, if the President's policy did anything, it advanced the technology behind human cloning since scientist who might have wanted to use embryonic stem cells needed to figure out ways to turn differentiated cells back into stem cells, the core of cloning.
His paragraph of why amnitoic stem cells are bettern tha embryonic or adult makes no sense. Why would embryonic cells grow uncotrollably into tumors? They seem to grow into people just fine.
He assumes that no one would have studied amniotic cells if it wasn't for Bush's ban and that, even if the same mad scientist results happen from these, they are no long unethical.
His other general horrible assumption is the fact the the Democrat plans have no boundaries. We are all talking about government funded research. Every project that gets government funding first must go through at least on ethics panel at the level of the research center. It then much go through the funding processes where the proposal is examined for both scientific and ethical rigor. These are very real barriers and to say there would have been no boundaries is a lie.
So why again is this considered good stuff?
He starts out: I love science and stem cell research coudl be great
He then take an idiotic quote from the idiotic Edwards to explain how people who promote stem-cell research are liar.
He then calls one idea of anti-stem cell advocates liars to show how middle of the road he is.
He then shifts gear and brings of the standard idea of unrestricted mad scientists growing brains in a jar. For good measure he bring in the fraud in South Korea which really has nothig to do with the topic at hand.
He then starts to show a profound misunderstanding of science. If true stem cells are made they can do exactly what he's fear mongerig about. They could be organs or deformed humans floating in tanks. This is true whether the stem cell is from an embryo or amnitoic fluid. The point of stem cells is that they can become anything. In fact, if the President's policy did anything, it advanced the technology behind human cloning since scientist who might have wanted to use embryonic stem cells needed to figure out ways to turn differentiated cells back into stem cells, the core of cloning.
His paragraph of why amnitoic stem cells are bettern tha embryonic or adult makes no sense. Why would embryonic cells grow uncotrollably into tumors? They seem to grow into people just fine.
He assumes that no one would have studied amniotic cells if it wasn't for Bush's ban and that, even if the same mad scientist results happen from these, they are no long unethical.
His other general horrible assumption is the fact the the Democrat plans have no boundaries. We are all talking about government funded research. Every project that gets government funding first must go through at least on ethics panel at the level of the research center. It then much go through the funding processes where the proposal is examined for both scientific and ethical rigor. These are very real barriers and to say there would have been no boundaries is a lie.
So why again is this considered good stuff?
He then calls one idea of anti-stem cell advocates liars to show how middle of the road he is.
Well actually, he is middle of the road. You just have to read some of his past columns.
He then shifts gear and brings of the standard idea of unrestricted mad scientists growing brains in a jar. For good measure he bring in the fraud in South Korea which really has nothig to do with the topic at hand.
South Korea actually is important- one the (many) issues with the guy was that he was using eggs donated by his lab assistants.
His paragraph of why amnitoic stem cells are bettern tha embryonic or adult makes no sense. Why would embryonic cells grow uncotrollably into tumors? They seem to grow into people just fine.
My guess is because it's what actually happens sometimes. I'm not a doctor, but I guess that sometimes the cells turn into tumors. Unless of course Krauthammer is making the whole thing up. (I don't have time to investigate the matter)
He assumes that no one would have studied amniotic cells if it wasn't for Bush's ban and that, even if the same mad scientist results happen from these, they are no long unethical.
It's a safe assumption that limitations on A will lead to more research on B if B is very similar to A.
Well actually, he is middle of the road. You just have to read some of his past columns.
He then shifts gear and brings of the standard idea of unrestricted mad scientists growing brains in a jar. For good measure he bring in the fraud in South Korea which really has nothig to do with the topic at hand.
South Korea actually is important- one the (many) issues with the guy was that he was using eggs donated by his lab assistants.
His paragraph of why amnitoic stem cells are bettern tha embryonic or adult makes no sense. Why would embryonic cells grow uncotrollably into tumors? They seem to grow into people just fine.
My guess is because it's what actually happens sometimes. I'm not a doctor, but I guess that sometimes the cells turn into tumors. Unless of course Krauthammer is making the whole thing up. (I don't have time to investigate the matter)
He assumes that no one would have studied amniotic cells if it wasn't for Bush's ban and that, even if the same mad scientist results happen from these, they are no long unethical.
It's a safe assumption that limitations on A will lead to more research on B if B is very similar to A.
South Korea actually is important- one the (many) issues with the guy was that he was using eggs donated by his lab assistants.
How does this relate to US embryonic stem cell research. This is/was/and will be illegal in the US and it was also illegal in South Korea. As a result of this and other issues, the guy's entire career was destroyed. How does the fact that someone broke the law in South Korea have any relevance to making laws in the US?
My guess is because it's what actually happens sometimes. I'm not a doctor, but I guess that sometimes the cells turn into tumors. Unless of course Krauthammer is making the whole thing up. (I don't have time to investigate the matter)
I'm pretty sure he's making this up. I have a decent familiarity with this area of research, I've never heard anything like this, and I can't imagine any reason it would be true. Even if there is some evidence of more tumors in embryonic stem cells, I don't understand why amnitic cells would be different. Considering how recently they were discovered, there is no way anyone would know.
It's a safe assumption that limitations on A will lead to more research on B if B is very similar to A.
The key word there is "more." With or without embryonic stem cells, there are thousands of people looking for other types of stem cells. It might have taken longer, but it would have been found. The key is that once you have a good stem cell, the technology to cultivate it is similar. The easiest place to develop these techonologies was embryonic stem cells. Therefore, this section of research, which is holding back the whole field, has been delayed by several years.
How does this relate to US embryonic stem cell research. This is/was/and will be illegal in the US and it was also illegal in South Korea. As a result of this and other issues, the guy's entire career was destroyed. How does the fact that someone broke the law in South Korea have any relevance to making laws in the US?
My guess is because it's what actually happens sometimes. I'm not a doctor, but I guess that sometimes the cells turn into tumors. Unless of course Krauthammer is making the whole thing up. (I don't have time to investigate the matter)
I'm pretty sure he's making this up. I have a decent familiarity with this area of research, I've never heard anything like this, and I can't imagine any reason it would be true. Even if there is some evidence of more tumors in embryonic stem cells, I don't understand why amnitic cells would be different. Considering how recently they were discovered, there is no way anyone would know.
It's a safe assumption that limitations on A will lead to more research on B if B is very similar to A.
The key word there is "more." With or without embryonic stem cells, there are thousands of people looking for other types of stem cells. It might have taken longer, but it would have been found. The key is that once you have a good stem cell, the technology to cultivate it is similar. The easiest place to develop these techonologies was embryonic stem cells. Therefore, this section of research, which is holding back the whole field, has been delayed by several years.
The key word there is "more." With or without embryonic stem cells, there are thousands of people looking for other types of stem cells. It might have taken longer, but it would have been found. The key is that once you have a good stem cell, the technology to cultivate it is similar. The easiest place to develop these techonologies was embryonic stem cells. Therefore, this section of research, which is holding back the whole field, has been delayed by several years.
That's a poor argument. While it slowed down that side, it sped up this other side, as you acknowledged. Meanwhile, if this works better, we can scrap the (morally questionable) A technique while using the (morally acceptable) B technique. Why is that not a good thing for everybody?
Moreover, had A been working very well, it's likely that B would have eventually been scrapped - "we already have A".
That's a poor argument. While it slowed down that side, it sped up this other side, as you acknowledged. Meanwhile, if this works better, we can scrap the (morally questionable) A technique while using the (morally acceptable) B technique. Why is that not a good thing for everybody?
Moreover, had A been working very well, it's likely that B would have eventually been scrapped - "we already have A".
Techniques A and B both rely on method C. Four years ago, technique B did not exist so the only way to improve method C was through technique A. Since A was restricted, research in method C was also severely slowed affecting method B now.
As far as the two techniques being equal with one being morally acceptable, that is still very unclear. I am not completely familiar with all techniques, but each one seems to have benefits and limitations. Embryonic stem cells will always be the best because they are essentially the stem cells which really do create every organ in the body. Whether other sources will be able to do everything we want is unknown, but that's one reason the research is so active.
As for morally acceptible, fundamentalist Christians focus on the soulhood of the embryo as the key to the moral questions. This is not a Jewish position. Still there are other moral issues too. The more advanced the development of adult stem cells get the closer we are to cloning a human being. In my mind, that's the really morally unacceptible region. If all stem cell research focused on embryos and not converting other cells back to an embryonic state, there would be many fewer researchers laying the groundwork for human cloning.
As far as the two techniques being equal with one being morally acceptable, that is still very unclear. I am not completely familiar with all techniques, but each one seems to have benefits and limitations. Embryonic stem cells will always be the best because they are essentially the stem cells which really do create every organ in the body. Whether other sources will be able to do everything we want is unknown, but that's one reason the research is so active.
As for morally acceptible, fundamentalist Christians focus on the soulhood of the embryo as the key to the moral questions. This is not a Jewish position. Still there are other moral issues too. The more advanced the development of adult stem cells get the closer we are to cloning a human being. In my mind, that's the really morally unacceptible region. If all stem cell research focused on embryos and not converting other cells back to an embryonic state, there would be many fewer researchers laying the groundwork for human cloning.
I agree with just about every single thing bcsi said.
Not sure if anyone's still reading this comment thread, but I just found the following in the NY Times Public Editor's blog. It's from the NY Times genetics reporter and I'm impressed by his work in general (not true for some of the other Science Times reporters). He's saying what I suspected, but I didn't have enough information to confirm:
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=79#more-79
Our genetics reporter, Nicholas Wade, looked at the Atala paper last week and deemed it a minor development. Nicholas noted: “It reports finding ‘multipotent’ stem cells in amniotic fluid. Multipotent means they can’t do as much as bona fide embryonic stem cells (which are called ‘pluripotent’). So the cells really belong in the adult stem cell category, even though the authors claim an ‘intermediate’ status for them.” Nicholas further noted that there had been previous reports of multipotent stem cells, which were much heralded at the time but then seemed to go nowhere.
The same link also include a buried paragraph from the Washington Post article:
“Although several stem cell experts applauded the work, some questioned the novelty of the newly described cells. Similar cells have been under study for years with little fanfare, they noted. And though Atala’s careful characterization of them is better than any previously done, they said, it is not clear that his cells are truly different than ones others have in hand.”
Assuming this is true - and it does make scientific sense - Krauthammer really was just blowing hot air.
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=79#more-79
Our genetics reporter, Nicholas Wade, looked at the Atala paper last week and deemed it a minor development. Nicholas noted: “It reports finding ‘multipotent’ stem cells in amniotic fluid. Multipotent means they can’t do as much as bona fide embryonic stem cells (which are called ‘pluripotent’). So the cells really belong in the adult stem cell category, even though the authors claim an ‘intermediate’ status for them.” Nicholas further noted that there had been previous reports of multipotent stem cells, which were much heralded at the time but then seemed to go nowhere.
The same link also include a buried paragraph from the Washington Post article:
“Although several stem cell experts applauded the work, some questioned the novelty of the newly described cells. Similar cells have been under study for years with little fanfare, they noted. And though Atala’s careful characterization of them is better than any previously done, they said, it is not clear that his cells are truly different than ones others have in hand.”
Assuming this is true - and it does make scientific sense - Krauthammer really was just blowing hot air.
