The Pluripotent

Ah… It feels so refreshing whenever someone strikes a blow to right-wing morals. Bonnie Erbe, contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report, criticizes this Reuters article about Obama’s potential lift of the stem cell research ban in the US.  Specifically, she quotes this part of the article: “In 2001, Bush limited federal funding for stem cell research only to human embryonic stem cell lines that already existed. It was a gesture to his conservative Christian supporters who regard embryonic stem cell research as destroying potential life, because the cells must be extracted from human embryos. Embryonic stem cells are the most basic human cells, which can develop into any type of cell in the body. Scientists believe the research could eventually produce cures for a variety of diseases, including Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, heart disease and spinal cord injuries.”

Here’s her punch (which I’m loving): “Note the verbiage in the Reuters article above, which says that the Christian right opposed stem cell research because its members see use of embryonic stem cells as destruction or murder of “potential life.” These people need to get a life. They care more about potential life than actual living, breathing, grown up human beings. They are costing lives while pretending to campaign as pro-lifers.”

Basically, her point is that pro-lifers can be reasonably blamed for playing a part in delaying cures for diseases that may be treated by stem cells since they denied researchers in the US the opportunity to use embryonic stem cells.  That’s an indubitable statement.  But will pro-lifers ever admit they were wrong on this issue?  I doubt that.

Popularity: 8% [?]

It seems like ever since the FDA approved Geron’s clinical trial that will use human embryonic stem cells, the right-wing has been up in arms about the issue, meaning that arguments against the use of human ES cells for research and therapeutics are resurfacing.  Bob writes in the Dakota Voice, which is um… an pro-life blog, where he sets up premises for his argument against human ES research.

Here’s what he writes: “The fact that Obama has not yet done so is a matter of consternation for those eager to destroy innocent human life in the hopes that stem cells derived from them might, maybe, someday cure various diseases in other humans… Embryonic stem cell (ESC) research involves the harvesting of stem cells from human embryos.  In the process, the human embryo is destroyed…” and so on.

He goes on to use the Nazi’s treatments of Jews as an analogy to what scientist are allegedly doing to human embryos, which of course I don’t think is a sound analogy.

The one thing that I agree with those who oppose human ES research on moral grounds is the creation of human embryos just for the sake of research.  I think it’s wrong to put together a sperm and egg with the intention to destroy it shortly after the egg’s been fertilized, especially if that fertilized egg can develop into a person.  But, if the original fate of the fertilized egg is destruction anyway, is it wrong to make charitable use out of it?

Any scientist and policy-maker in their right mind won’t allow the creation of embryos for their destruction.  That’s why there are strict guideline when human ES research is allowed–you can only use embryos that are gonna be thrown away from IVF clinics.  If people like Bob want to hold on to their arguments, they should be pointing their fingers at IVF clinics or the couples that are unsuccessful at fertilization.

Popularity: 9% [?]

A couple of “pro-life”  news sources are reporting that adult stem cells have reversed the effects of Parkinson’s disease in a UCLA clinical trial.  One source reports: “Scientists have published a paper in a medical journal describing the results of the world’s first clinical trial using autologous neural stem cells for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. A leading bioethics watchdog says the results show more money should be put behind adult stem cells.”  What’s this medical journal you ask?  Benthan Open Stem Cell Journal, which was started this year.  Judging by their website, which looks more like a sketchy off-shore based ebay store website, it seems like anyone can submit and “publish” a paper, which raises a bunch of red flags about the validity of this clinical study.

Also, this South Dakota based pro-life news source reported the story too, and they sure do hype up the adult stem cell aspect of the “study.”  They tastefully add that “not a single successful treatment has been developed from embryonic stem cell research.”  Great, lock the dog in the cage and blame him for not being able to run.

P.S.  This post was not put in the ‘Science’ category.

Popularity: 10% [?]