Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, March 11, 2009
Science Stem Cell Liberation Week
Posted by Jonathan Golob on Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:25 AM
The Dear Science podcast is back! Now with 100% more scientist!
In this episode, my colleague—and fellow biologist—David Smith joins as we discuss the implications of President Obama's executive order overturning the Bush-era restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. 
.
The short summary? We're pro.
Regardless of your feelings about when human life starts, the Bush policy was a mess. It allowed privately funded research—occurring without any disclosure requirements, nor regulations—to proceed while forcing publicly funded institutions—where regulations and ethical standards can be worked out—to sit on the sidelines. It did nothing to stop the generation or destruction of pre-implantation human embryos in IVF clinics.
Bush's policy made a mockery of those seriously concerned about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research—along with the genuine tradeoffs of hindering such research for human health and science. Obama's new policy isn't a free-for-all. It's a rational start to a serious discussion.
1
What about placentas? No one talks about this. Favor the zealots and reap the rewards. It substantially more, but that is much better then ending funding.
2
Jonathan, when do you think human life begins (not "personhood"; biological "life", a new member of the species...)
3
Jonathan,
Indeed, let the discussion begin. I believe I disagree. I had trouble with the signing.
I wrote this to P-I yesterday:
Pres. Obama’s overturning of the ban on Stem Cell Research may be unnecessary. Since Nov. 07, scientists can produce the biological equivalent of embryonic stem cells without creating, using or destroying any human embryos. The jab at former Pres. Bush “to restore scientific integrity to government decision-making." was unnecessary. Stem cell research is hotly controversial. Critics of human embryo-destructive research aren’t necessarily hostile to science. Many just want restrictions spelled out.
Fine, let's use science to assist in determining policy. But beware that science may draw conclusions that seem or are politically incorrect or worse flat out unethical and destructive. I couldn't help but notice in this morning's P-I as well that NYC is hosting a summit to present views that question global warming.
Also, Sheryl Stolberg of the NYT examined the issue fairly:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/us/pol…
Indeed, let the discussion begin. I believe I disagree. I had trouble with the signing.
I wrote this to P-I yesterday:
Pres. Obama’s overturning of the ban on Stem Cell Research may be unnecessary. Since Nov. 07, scientists can produce the biological equivalent of embryonic stem cells without creating, using or destroying any human embryos. The jab at former Pres. Bush “to restore scientific integrity to government decision-making." was unnecessary. Stem cell research is hotly controversial. Critics of human embryo-destructive research aren’t necessarily hostile to science. Many just want restrictions spelled out.
Fine, let's use science to assist in determining policy. But beware that science may draw conclusions that seem or are politically incorrect or worse flat out unethical and destructive. I couldn't help but notice in this morning's P-I as well that NYC is hosting a summit to present views that question global warming.
Also, Sheryl Stolberg of the NYT examined the issue fairly:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/us/pol…
4
We are talking about embryos that are discarded anyway. Stopping funding for stem cell research saved ZERO embryos. If president push was really true about this, he would have banned invitro fertilization. All the excess embryos from this process are discarded and destroyed.
Parents can donate their child's organs if that child dies, why shouldn't they be able to donate the embryos that will never become a person?
Parents can donate their child's organs if that child dies, why shouldn't they be able to donate the embryos that will never become a person?
6
Look, we just outsourced the stem cell research to other countries during the Bush Regime, so this is just us creating US jobs instead of jobs in Canada and the EU, for the most part.
Plus, it cuts our costs way down to make them here, where we already have all the permissions from the donated stem cells, which means we get more research done for the same amount of cash.
Not that we're flush - god, the cuts over the last few years gutted a generation of new US scientists and forced them to move to other countries to become Professors ...
Plus, it cuts our costs way down to make them here, where we already have all the permissions from the donated stem cells, which means we get more research done for the same amount of cash.
Not that we're flush - god, the cuts over the last few years gutted a generation of new US scientists and forced them to move to other countries to become Professors ...
8
@5 not necessarily, who is to say that the same discoveries wouldn't have been made regardless. Scientists are curious about the world and Bush was decidely not. By the same argument, how many diseases could have been cured by now if those restrictions were not in place?
Overall, look at human history. Science always wins out over morals and ideology. Ideology can push the pause button but humans are curious and thirst for knowledge about everything.
All the Bush policies did was put the US behind the rest of the world (while ironically pushing science education in schools). Stem cell research is going to push our ick factor. For every few advances there will be something creepy. But the technology is already out of the bag, all those opposed have already lost, before Bush did anything.
Overall, look at human history. Science always wins out over morals and ideology. Ideology can push the pause button but humans are curious and thirst for knowledge about everything.
All the Bush policies did was put the US behind the rest of the world (while ironically pushing science education in schools). Stem cell research is going to push our ick factor. For every few advances there will be something creepy. But the technology is already out of the bag, all those opposed have already lost, before Bush did anything.
9
@3 and 5:
You are both referencing iPS cells. This technique--to turn some committed cells into a cell that resembles an embryonic stem cell--was developed in Japan by Dr. Yamanaka. Japan's restrictions on embryonic stem cell research were (and are) far more restrictive than the US's.
This reprogramming technique required, first, extensive study of human embryonic stem cells. Dr. Yamanaka used a list of potential master regulator genes that was generated based on a large amount of work done on embryonic stem cells.
And it isn't anywhere close to perfect. My lab--and I specifically--have done experiments to compare these iPS cells to true embryonic stem cells. They aren't the same--with a significantly hindered abilities. We're attempting some further reprogramming techniques to make them better--but that's still years off.
You are both referencing iPS cells. This technique--to turn some committed cells into a cell that resembles an embryonic stem cell--was developed in Japan by Dr. Yamanaka. Japan's restrictions on embryonic stem cell research were (and are) far more restrictive than the US's.
This reprogramming technique required, first, extensive study of human embryonic stem cells. Dr. Yamanaka used a list of potential master regulator genes that was generated based on a large amount of work done on embryonic stem cells.
And it isn't anywhere close to perfect. My lab--and I specifically--have done experiments to compare these iPS cells to true embryonic stem cells. They aren't the same--with a significantly hindered abilities. We're attempting some further reprogramming techniques to make them better--but that's still years off.
11
@9 Jonathan,
Thanks for the insight. I'm glad you pointed out Japan's restrictions. I'm not categorically against funding stem cell research. But, if an alternative can be found let's look at it.
Thanks for the insight. I'm glad you pointed out Japan's restrictions. I'm not categorically against funding stem cell research. But, if an alternative can be found let's look at it.
12
@2 and 10: Why no response? Because it's a trolly question--one that is fundamentally not resolvable by discussing the science. And, believe it or not, I'm busy with other stuff.
But fine. I'm regretting this already....
The basic science I work on in the lab is somewhat related to this question; how does a single cell manage to become hundreds of distinct cell types--each with a unique pattern of gene expression that is maintained throughout life. It's a huge question that I narrow by focusing on the path from anything to heart cell.
The answer is tremendously complex--much deeper and interesting than "sperm meets egg." Part of what's going on in that first trimester is the establishment of all those hundreds of cell types. Complex three-dimensional geometry, a dozen or so of delicate signals, precise timing and luck itself all play into this process. It often fails--in a lab dish or in the gestation of a baby.
For all these reasons, and more, I find it hard to accept that a human life starts before the end of the first trimester. Humans are not yeast or bacteria. It takes those three months to even get the vague shape of the complex machine of human life.
In fact, it's not until deep into the third trimester when all of these cell types are formed into organs that function. Until late in gestation, independent human life is not possible; survival takes extraordinary mechanical life support.
Nor does reaching one step, in any way, mean the next is going to succeed. Very little about development is deterministic; much is subject to the whims of chance and environment.
So.. there it is. Prove my suspicion wrong. Make your tag accurate.
But fine. I'm regretting this already....
The basic science I work on in the lab is somewhat related to this question; how does a single cell manage to become hundreds of distinct cell types--each with a unique pattern of gene expression that is maintained throughout life. It's a huge question that I narrow by focusing on the path from anything to heart cell.
The answer is tremendously complex--much deeper and interesting than "sperm meets egg." Part of what's going on in that first trimester is the establishment of all those hundreds of cell types. Complex three-dimensional geometry, a dozen or so of delicate signals, precise timing and luck itself all play into this process. It often fails--in a lab dish or in the gestation of a baby.
For all these reasons, and more, I find it hard to accept that a human life starts before the end of the first trimester. Humans are not yeast or bacteria. It takes those three months to even get the vague shape of the complex machine of human life.
In fact, it's not until deep into the third trimester when all of these cell types are formed into organs that function. Until late in gestation, independent human life is not possible; survival takes extraordinary mechanical life support.
Nor does reaching one step, in any way, mean the next is going to succeed. Very little about development is deterministic; much is subject to the whims of chance and environment.
So.. there it is. Prove my suspicion wrong. Make your tag accurate.
13
@12 - I've always maintained that particular question was better answered by philosophy, not biology, but that's a damned good answer, and I thank you for taking the time to write it.
14
Conception creates a living organism.
It is distinct from and different than either of it's parents (it is not a piece of the mother's tissue- it's DNA is different from either parents)
Using the Linnaean system of classification used in the biological sciences to describe and categorize all living things what species does this living organism belong to?
The answer is Homo Sapiens. It is not yeast or bacteria. It is us.
If one does not believe it is "human life" then what is it?
What species does it belong to?
True, it is tiny and has a lot of growing to do but it is alive and it is human.
I beat this dead horse because it is so simple and yet so important and yet so totally ignored and glossed over.
I find it impossible to imagine that others do not also recognize the truth.
Yet no one dare utter it-
embryos are human.
Science is ruthless in it's disdain for BS and it's lust for the truth.
Science has been denied too long on the question of "when does life begin".
We will know that Obama truly has ushered in an era of "Science unfettered by Ideology" when Scientist are not afraid to answer that question.
It is distinct from and different than either of it's parents (it is not a piece of the mother's tissue- it's DNA is different from either parents)
Using the Linnaean system of classification used in the biological sciences to describe and categorize all living things what species does this living organism belong to?
The answer is Homo Sapiens. It is not yeast or bacteria. It is us.
If one does not believe it is "human life" then what is it?
What species does it belong to?
True, it is tiny and has a lot of growing to do but it is alive and it is human.
I beat this dead horse because it is so simple and yet so important and yet so totally ignored and glossed over.
I find it impossible to imagine that others do not also recognize the truth.
Yet no one dare utter it-
embryos are human.
Science is ruthless in it's disdain for BS and it's lust for the truth.
Science has been denied too long on the question of "when does life begin".
We will know that Obama truly has ushered in an era of "Science unfettered by Ideology" when Scientist are not afraid to answer that question.
15
@14: Ahh. Thanks for proving my suspicions correct. I was worried I was becoming paranoid or something!
Nice copy-paste job too! Nothing better than a lazy troll.
In fact, your tag reminds me of a joke told to me by a Baltimore cop when I first moved to that city over a decade ago:
"Any area labeled a 'Drug-free Zone' isn't."
Ah, memories. Thanks for bringing me back to when I was training with Baltimore City EMS.
Nice copy-paste job too! Nothing better than a lazy troll.
In fact, your tag reminds me of a joke told to me by a Baltimore cop when I first moved to that city over a decade ago:
"Any area labeled a 'Drug-free Zone' isn't."
Ah, memories. Thanks for bringing me back to when I was training with Baltimore City EMS.
16
Thanks Geni and Lark. It's definitely an interesting discussion to have. I've focused a fair bit of my efforts in the lab on trying to get around having to use embryonic stem cells.
17
Cost-wise, stem cells are best, and it allows the donors to donate them to be used for scientific research ... if they CHOOSE to.
But pluripotent stem cells (adult) are pretty much where we take a pound of flesh from your gut and get just a few grams of stem cells after a lot of work. They might be useful in targetted gene correction on an individual level, but they're very expensive and not that useful for general scientific research.
This was a GREAT decision. Even if the Talibangelists don't like it.
But pluripotent stem cells (adult) are pretty much where we take a pound of flesh from your gut and get just a few grams of stem cells after a lot of work. They might be useful in targetted gene correction on an individual level, but they're very expensive and not that useful for general scientific research.
This was a GREAT decision. Even if the Talibangelists don't like it.
18
15
What species are your embryos?
How do they magically become human?
Glib smartass is a poor substitute for courage.
What species are your embryos?
How do they magically become human?
Glib smartass is a poor substitute for courage.
19
@15 - 'kay, biting. Your argument is stupid, you are stupid. No one is saying the embryos are not human embryos. We're saying they're not actually human LIFE yet, since the most basic functions of living have not been formed yet. My answers are not as scientific or complete as Jonathans, but man, even I get it.
21
19
What characteristics of "life" do human embryos lack?
Jonathan will tell you that they are "alive".
What characteristics of "life" do human embryos lack?
Jonathan will tell you that they are "alive".
22
not a troll = repetitive asshole. Fighting the fight in blog comments, keep up the good work buddy, who says unemployment has to be boring?
23
We call names but don't address the questions. We could learn something about manners from trolls, evidently.
26
@23 I like your use of the universal we. Perhaps you should take your well intentioned lesson on manners on the road. Hit up lab after lab, evangelizing the merits of courtesy to all those embryos everyone is fighting over in this discussion. From what I'm reading here, they'd be posting on the slog if only the evil scientists weren't doing all this experimenting on them.
27
@23
Yeah you tried this one the other day. They repeatedly answer your inane questions and you just respond with the exact same question over and over again. Are you stupid or just too lazy to read, or just a fucking troll who is a little of all of the above? You as a troll are by definition "lacking in courage."
Yeah you tried this one the other day. They repeatedly answer your inane questions and you just respond with the exact same question over and over again. Are you stupid or just too lazy to read, or just a fucking troll who is a little of all of the above? You as a troll are by definition "lacking in courage."
28
Ok "Not a troll" it is time for you to man up. What scientific information do you have to base your opinion on? Tell us all here what you really know on the subject and please be sure to include plenty of factual details, not opinion. And please site your sources without just doing a good old cut & paste on it from some conservative blog.
We await your reply. Thank you.
We await your reply. Thank you.
29
One of the key characteristics of our species is that it is sapient. It is self-aware and capable of cognition; thus, homo sapiens. Is a largely undifferentiated mass of cells sapient?
But none of that is anything but a philosophical discussion. Until said organism can survive on its own, without relying on another organism to be its host, it is not a fully individual entity. It is a potential human being. It is unquestionably human life. Is it homo sapiens, thinking man? Not in the first trimester. The nervous system is too undeveloped to allow for higher brain functions.
But none of that is anything but a philosophical discussion. Until said organism can survive on its own, without relying on another organism to be its host, it is not a fully individual entity. It is a potential human being. It is unquestionably human life. Is it homo sapiens, thinking man? Not in the first trimester. The nervous system is too undeveloped to allow for higher brain functions.
31
29
A 3 week old baby cannot survive on it's own.
It depends on other organisms to care for it.
Is it a thinking man?
A 3 week old baby cannot survive on it's own.
It depends on other organisms to care for it.
Is it a thinking man?
32
An embryo is anything (animal or plant) in its earliest, rudimentary stage of development. It is by definition undeveloped.
33
So,
we can racapitulate what we've discovered so far:
Embryos/Zygotes are living 'human' (of the species Homo Sapiens) organisms.
From the moment of conception.
They are small and immature and have a lot of growing to do before they can hire lawyers or lobbyist or scream "don't cut me apart!" but they are nevertheless living human life.
That is the Science.
What to do with that nugget of fact is a matter of ethics/law/philosophy.
When to grant them "personhood" is a matter of ethics/law/philosphy.
Scientist have done their job when they educate policy makers of the facts. They have not done that job at all yet on a national level.
If they do, it will be a sign that science has trumped ideology and political correctness.
Don't hold your breath.
we can racapitulate what we've discovered so far:
Embryos/Zygotes are living 'human' (of the species Homo Sapiens) organisms.
From the moment of conception.
They are small and immature and have a lot of growing to do before they can hire lawyers or lobbyist or scream "don't cut me apart!" but they are nevertheless living human life.
That is the Science.
What to do with that nugget of fact is a matter of ethics/law/philosophy.
When to grant them "personhood" is a matter of ethics/law/philosphy.
Scientist have done their job when they educate policy makers of the facts. They have not done that job at all yet on a national level.
If they do, it will be a sign that science has trumped ideology and political correctness.
Don't hold your breath.
35
kim @ 34,
You ask a good question. Perhaps, we should ask the question: What are the rights of "personhood". At present, we the US, deny full personhood rights to a segement of the population, based upon their sexual orientation. Perhaps, we should ensure equal civil rights for all presently existing persons, before we fight for the rights of an embryo who may or may not survive gestations to become a fully developed person. Seems a tragedy to save an embryo on the basis of its "personhood", then later strip it of equal rights as a fully developed person because we (as a nation) believe it's sexual orientation makes it a second class citizen. And, therefore unworthy of equal rights.
You ask a good question. Perhaps, we should ask the question: What are the rights of "personhood". At present, we the US, deny full personhood rights to a segement of the population, based upon their sexual orientation. Perhaps, we should ensure equal civil rights for all presently existing persons, before we fight for the rights of an embryo who may or may not survive gestations to become a fully developed person. Seems a tragedy to save an embryo on the basis of its "personhood", then later strip it of equal rights as a fully developed person because we (as a nation) believe it's sexual orientation makes it a second class citizen. And, therefore unworthy of equal rights.
38
35
It seems harsh to deny the right to life to others because you are peeved that your civil union that has the same rights as marriage is not called 'marriage'.
It seems harsh to deny the right to life to others because you are peeved that your civil union that has the same rights as marriage is not called 'marriage'.
39
@35
You make a good point.
we should abort as many babies as we can and destroy as many embryos as we can because otherwise they may grow up to be gay.
You make a good point.
we should abort as many babies as we can and destroy as many embryos as we can because otherwise they may grow up to be gay.
41
35 Maybe if GLTB worked to help protect the rights of embryos they would recieve more support in their struggle for marriage rights.
42
There are 100's of scientific studies that have been done on AFA and our product StemEnhance. There are also 100's of scientific papers on Adult Stem Cell therapy. I have listed quite a few on my blog that you can read at http://www.phyl247.biz You can also find the book over at Amazon.com that Christian Drapeau wrote. It is called "The Stem Cell Theory of Renewal" Take a look if you would like to talk feel free to email or call me anytime 877-696-8581
43
Thanks for the "quotes", 36 and 37. You know they apply both ways?
@ 38 - If only civil unions were truly equal, both on the state and federal level, then there would be one less inequality to deal with.
Oh, I'm straight by the way, so I don't have a peeve about my marriage.
@ 41 - Interesting idea. Do you have any evidence to support it.
@42 - Thanks for the information.
@ 38 - If only civil unions were truly equal, both on the state and federal level, then there would be one less inequality to deal with.
Oh, I'm straight by the way, so I don't have a peeve about my marriage.
@ 41 - Interesting idea. Do you have any evidence to support it.
@42 - Thanks for the information.
44
43
They do apply both ways.
The embryos, alas, are in no position to help out others (tho I'm sure they gladly would, they are the quintessential gentle people, after all).
(The you in 38 is rhetorical)
re41-Doing the right thing is it's own reward, but also usually pays off in the long run.
They do apply both ways.
The embryos, alas, are in no position to help out others (tho I'm sure they gladly would, they are the quintessential gentle people, after all).
(The you in 38 is rhetorical)
re41-Doing the right thing is it's own reward, but also usually pays off in the long run.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (46) RSS