Belief in Human Exceptionalism Called "Un Evolutionary"

I haven't read any of Richard Dawkins' many jeremiads against faith, and don't plan to as I am not particularly concerned with issues of atheism vs. religious or spiritual belief. However, I must take note of something he wrote in his blog (which he modestly touts is "a clear thinking oasis") criticizing opponents of ESCR (and by implication, research cloning) based on the idea that we should reject human exceptionalism.

Dawkins sarcastically decries ethical objections to ESCR as "partly a mystical reverence for humanness, as though all cells of Homo sapiens are suffused with a divine essence, some sort of sacred juice called Homsap, which no other species possesses. Such a notion is fundamentally un-evolutionary." He then describes in highly emotional terms why we should care much more about the painful killing of animals than we do the destruction human embryos--as if the two concerns were mutually exclusive.

In fact, we don't decry the infliction of gratuitous suffering on animals because of any evolutionary imperative, but rather, because we have moved as a species well beyond behaving based on purely Darwinstic impulses. Indeed, it seems to me that it is distinctly un-evolutionary--in the Dawkins sense of a meaningless, purposeless universe--for us to give much of a damn about other species. (Elephants care very much whether a lion tries to kill one of the herd's calves, for example, but are quite indifferent when the same lion stalks a zebra.)

We are different. We evolved into or were created to be moral beings--it doesn't much matter which or whether we arose from a combination of the two. In this regard, we are a truly exceptional species, giving us both unique moral value and unique moral responsibilities.

The best way in my mind to support human exceptionalism--and the great good that flows therefrom--is to concomitantly embrace intrinsic human worth, a belief that is embraced by the equality/sanctity of human life ethic. But equality of human life is opposed by advocates like Dawkins, as in the quoted blog entry, who advocate personhood theory in which any being's moral value is equivalent to its level of awareness or consciousness. But the implications of personhood theory are truly horrific since, as I have written before, it would open the door to odious practices such as fetal farming and strip mining people diagnosed as permanently unconscious for their organs.

Some materialistic Darwinists also claim--I don't know whether Dawkins does--that because we share so many genes with other life forms, we have no greater or lesser worth than they. This kind of thinking, if widely accepted and adopted, is also un-evolutionary because it would force us to cease making the welfare of humans as our primary imperative. I mean if we have to give equal consideration to a mouse as to a child, imagine the human harm and suffering that would go unalleviated.

In summary, because we are human--not elephant, not dog, not field mouse--we do and should concern ourselves with the suffering of cows. We do and should worry about the environment. And we do and should care very much about the intrinsic value of every member of the human family--whether nascent, healthy, ill, disabled, or elderly.

HT: AJOB blog

"Thriving" Trade in China From Selling Prisoners' Organs

The BBC reports that China is continuing its policy of selling the organs of executed prisoners--only with the "consent" of the prisoners, of course. But there aren't enough executions in China, or procurements from those who die by other means, to explain all of the organs being sold there. So, where do the surplus organs come from? The story of harvesting Falun Gong, to me, remains the best hypothesis. This issue demands an international investigation.

The Politicization of Science Continues

The mutation of science from a fact deriving and disseminating enterprise and into a political one, continues unabated. Now, a "pro science" political action committee has been created, allegedly nonpartisan, to promote candidates "who respect evidence and understand the importance of using scientific and engineering advice in making public policy."

Baloney. Most of the debates we have over "science," aren't really scientific. They lie instead in the realms of values, ethics, philosophy, and religion. Take the embryonic stem cell debate, as just one example. This is primarily an ethical debate, whether federal taxpayers should pay for the destruction of and research upon embryos. That isn't a controversy science can answer scientifically. Science's contribution should be to describe honestly and candidly what is involved, what they hope to achieve, and the problems they face. Scientists are of course free to assert that destroying an embryo for research isn't unethical, and to lobby for funding, but those activities do not lie in the realm of science, and thus, should be given precisely as much and as little weight as anyone else's opinions about ethics and morality.

The fight over Plan B birth control, an issue about which I am not engaged as a public advocate, is another example. The complaint from "the scientists" has been that the FDA has been slow to approve the use of the "day after" birth control pill without a prescription. But as I understand it (and I only have general knowledge about this dispute), the primary controversy was not over whether Plan B is an effective contraceptive or over its safety--both science issues--but rather, involved whether minors should be permitted to purchase this product without parental knowledge or consent. Sorry, but that issue has little to do with science. It is a dispute over values, the rights of parents to know whether their kids are being medicated, whether the right of autonomy in this area should extend to minors, etc.

So, when these scientists say they want to support candidates who will accept the advice of scientists, what I think they really mean is that the values of "the scientists" should prevail in public policy controversies involving scientific issues. In other words, this PAC continues the process of devolving science into a mere special interest. And in the end, that is very bad for science.

A Vivid Illustration of How Medicine Has Changed

This movie clip form the 1950s (Not As A Stranger) depicts Robert Mitchum as a doctor, trying to save the life of an elderly patient another doctor has written off as not worth treating. Mitchum discovers the patient has typhoid fever and saves the day.

Today, the scene would be written completely in the opposite manner. The "do nothing" doctor would be depicted as the hero and the aggressive doctor denigrated as either religious or fanatic. The patient would have Alzheimer's and the sympathy of the audience would be clearly directed on permitting death rather than saving life.

My, how times have changed.

HT: Jerri Ward and Bobby Schindler

Note to Internet Explorer Users

I am being told that the entry about the "Post It" note is badly framed for Internet Explorer users. This is because that program has divided the picture of the note from the headline. To see the picture and text of the post, please scroll down. Thanks, and sorry for any inconvenience. (It looks fine on Firefox.)

Lethal Injection: "Death with Dignity" or "Cruel and Unusual Punishment?"

I don't get into the death penalty here at Secondhand Smoke, but I find this confluence of issues so paradoxical. In the Netherlands, the preferred method of euthanasia is to inject the suicidal person with strong drugs to put them in a deep sleep. Then, a lethal drug is administered that paralyzes the muscles and stops the heart. This is called "death with dignity" by euthanasia supporters.

This is very close to the method used for lethal injection in California, which is now under attack in the courts, not because it kills--the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that capital punishment is not unconstitutional--but because it supposedly causes suffering to the point that, the argument goes, executing by lethal injection is unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment.

So, I guess this means that if the executed murderer wants to die it is cruel and unusual death with dignity.

A "Post-It Note" About Amendment 2 Worth Reading

 

Concept and artistic credit: Rebecca Taylor 

Italy Says *Basta* to Euthanasia

Early attempts to legalize euthansia in Italy are apparently going to go nowhere under the new ruling party. One of the leaders of the parliament has stated firmly that "Reason forbids us to give to the state the power to decide if and when life must end even if the state is asked to do it by the person who is interested in it." Bravo!

PETA Makes Itself Ridiculous

PETA is (I believe) the world's largest and richest animal rights/liberation organization. They key to PETA's success has been its clever strategy of suckering people into thinking it is merely a benign "be nice to animals" organization, when in fact, it is radically committed to the misanthropic ideology of animal liberation. I believe many people support PETA because they don't fully understand that PETA's leaders and most radical followers believe fervently in an absolute moral equality between fauna and people. Hence, to animal liberationists of this stripe, cattle ranching is as odious as slavery and medical research using animals is Mengele.

Too many people don't take PETA sufficiently seriously because some of its protest tactics are whacky and funny, such as the "running of the nudes" to protest the running of the bulls in Spain. But sometimes, its leaders forget that the world doesn't think like they do, and they drop their masks long enough for all to see the lunacy beneath. This story is one such case. Apparently, PETA includes insects in its quest for moral equality between humans and all animals. The group is protesting Six Flags Halloween "eat a roach" contest as "gratuitously cruel" to the cockroaches.

This is not a big deal in the scheme of things. But sometimes small deals cast needed light upon areas of important concern. Protesting the eating of insects demonstrates that PETA is essentially a ridiculous organization that should be relegated to the fringes of society rather than being treated as a serious organization with a respectable point of view.

Secondhand Smoke is International

I just installed (more honestly, my good bud Colin installed) software that lets me track traffic here at SHS. I discovered to my great delight that we have readers from all over the world. In the last two days, not only have people visited from all over the USA, but also from Canada, India, New Zealand, Philippines, Australia, People's Republic of China, and the UK. I am most humbled and grateful.

Embryonic Stem Cells From Dead Embryos

Contrary to the major international front page splash over Advanced Cell Technology's embryonic stem cell non breakthrough, this story, which could be a bonafide major advance in solving the ethical dilemma surrounding ESCR, only received minor media coverage. Why? In my view, because it would not undermine President Bush's embryonic stem cell funding policy--and that is the prism through which the media judges how to report stem cell stories.

Nonetheless, it appears that researchers have been able to derive viable ESC lines from dead embryos. If so, there would be no problem garnering federal funding, either under the Bush policy or the Dickey Amendment, since the research would not involve the destruction of embryos. (When I was at a bioethics conference in Rome last year, some of scientists involved with this idea presented their concept. I was impressed.)

If the ESCR ethical dilemma has indeed been worked out, it is worth at least as much attention as the ACT embryonic stem cell non breakthrough. But again, it doesn't hurt Bush's policy so the media perceives it as less news worthy. Also, don't expect the scientific community to jump and cheer. They are after more than full funding of ESCR. They want their values to control the culture.

Here is the link to the original paper. (HT LifeEthics.org.)

We will see where it goes from here.

Kansas City Star Continues Shameful Biased Reporting About Cloning Amendment

This is so ironic: The Kansas City Star, the most biased and inaccurate mainstream media outlet reporting today about embryonic stem cells and cloning--even worse than the New York Time and that is saying a lot--has this story seeking to demonstrate that opponents' ads against Amendment 2 are inaccurate. Needless to say, the alleged corrective is filled with errors and pro-cloning advocacy jargon. (I will be commenting on the italicized sections quoted below, my comments in bold.)

"The ad uses language and definitions used by opponents of Amendment 2, but the ad is probably misleading to most of the public. The ballot measure does allow the cloning of cells in the laboratory to grow stem cells. To clone means to copy. The goal is to copy the cells of the patient. The cloned cell begins to divide and creates stem cells."

This is pure junk biology out of the proponents' play book, who would undoubtedly pay the KC Star to run stories like this but don't have to because they are so already in the tank! Somatic cell nuclear transfer is a form of asexual reproduction. It is known commonly as cloning. It doesn't clone a cell--which is a totally different procedure--it creates a cloned embryo. The embryo is developed (in theory since it hasn't been done) for a week and destroyed for its stem cells. The Star reporters and editors know this and don't care.

"At the same time, Amendment 2 makes it a crime to try to create a human baby through cloning. Currently, there is no prohibition on cloning a human."

Right. And Amendment 2 would explicitly legalize human cloning, requiring that the cloned embryo not be implanted in a woman's womb.

"No treatments have resulted from research on early stem cells, which were first isolated only eight years ago. Research since then has been hamstrung by opponents who say taking stem cells destroys human life. The vast majority of scientists say that cures and treatments could come from all types of research, but research on early stem cells provides the greatest potential.

The term "early stem cells" is an advocacy term created by the proponents of Amendment 2. It is used instead of the scientifically accurate "embryonic stem cells" because the campaign's focus groups probably found that using "embryonic" causes support to drop. ESCR does take human life because an embryo is a human organism. That is science, and it can be attested to by referring to any major embryology text book. Opponents have not "hamstrung" the research, they have supported President Bush's limitations on taxpayer funding.

The vast majority of scientists make a lot of claims that cannot be demonstrated scientifically. Nor are they "objective." The published science tells a far different story, but the Star isn't interested in these facts.

The Star, continues to play Ginger Rogers to the pro-cloners Fred Astaire, repeatedly committing journalistic malpractice as they go. Bottom line: The paper's "corrective" is inaccurate and misleading to most of the public.

Big Biotech's Pro Cloning Strategy

Big Biotech is mounting a clever--it should be, considering the tens of millions being spent on its propaganda campaign--strategy to keep research cloning legal. Here's how the gambit would work: Pour millions of campaign and advocacy dollars into conservative states to induce voters to pass laws or constitutional amendments protecting any research allowed by federal law. Promote these laws by, 1)Hyping the potential for CURES! CURES! CURES!, 2) Obfuscating the biology of the issue, such as redefining the term cloning so that an explicit legalization of cloning can pose as a ban, and 3) Sponsoring spurious studies that promise hundreds of billions in economic benefit to the state if the amendment will only be passed. And work the ever-compliant media to set aside any skepticism in pursuit of the cause of science. (Well, that isn't work, actually, it is a given.)

Then, at the federal level, simply impede any effort to create reasonable regulatory prohibitions against human cloning.

The model is Amendment 2 in Missouri. But I am now hearing from people in Nebraska who have noticed the early rumblings of a similar campaign likely to be mounted there. And polling was just published in Georgia that seems geared clearly toward these same ends.

This makes Missouri the key. If Amendment 2 is defeated, Big Biotech and its propagandists will have to go back to the drawing board. If it passes, watch for the game plan to repeated throughout Red State America.

Ralph Waldo Emerson on the Purpose of Government

I am reading this month's Atlantic and an essay Emerson wrote in April 1862 is excerpted. I was struck that Emerson's perspective, written to applaud Lincoln's move toward emancipation, remains relevant and germane to the controversies of our own time.

"The end of all political struggle," he wrote, "is to establish morality as the basis of all legislation. It is not free institutions, it is not a republic, it is not a democracy, that is the end--no, but only the means. Morality is the object of government."

Now I am a firm believer that, for better or for worse, the means usually become the ends. Hence, I do not believe you can achieve beneficent and moral ends through immoral or unethical means. In contrast, proper means do not guarantee proper ends--but it least they offer the potential. Thus, it seems to me that if the means involve participation in the function of free institutions, our ends have at least a chance of being moral.

Which, of course raises an obvious question: What does "morality" mean any more? Still, we should be optimistic. In Emerson's day people were willing to kill and die by the hundreds of thousands to protect their power to use human beings as non person slaves. So, maybe we should count our blessings.

Human Embryonic Stem Cell Advance Done Years Ago with ASCs

The media is touting Advanced Cell Technology's claim to have helped improve the vision of rats using human ES cells. If true--with ACT and Robert Lanza always verify given all of the lies that they have told--it is an advance in ESCR.

But it is worth noting that rat adult stem cells have previously done the same thing, and these successful experiments are a few years old. Naturally, those studies received barely any mention in the MSM because they would not serve to undermine President Bush's stem cell funding policy. And that is the point to remember: The MSM's first and almost foremost agenda in reporting stories about stem cell research and cloning is to undermine the Bush policy. That is the prism through which stories will be hyped, presented, downplayed, or ignored.

More Proof that Assisted Suicide Isn't About Terminal Illness

The Swiss prove the point oft made here, in testimony before government bodies, and in my articles on the subject, that assisted suicide isn't really about a "safety valve" for the dying for whom nothing can be done to alleviate suffering--the usual sound bite of domestic PAS advocates.

But Swiss suicide ideologues are much more candid about the ultimate destination toward which assisted suicide consciousness would lead us. They have asked a judge in Switzerland to approve their facilitating the suicides of depressed people who are not otherwise ill. Some are shocked by this, but shouldn't be. The Dutch have long permitted euthanasia for depressed people who are not otherwise ill.

Permitting near death on demand is the logical consequence of euthanasia ideology: The two weight-bearing pillars of euthanasia advocacy are an almost absolute notion of personal autonomy and the belief that killing is an acceptable answer to human suffering. This being so, in the end, what does terminal illness have to do with the so-called "right to die." Other than being a useful political argument; not a thing.

ESCR Booster Shovels the Bull

Big Biotech is shoveling tens of millions into a propaganda campaign to convince the American people to embrace ESCR and human research cloning. Toward these ends, a new book is being published by an academic house called The Stem Cell Wars, by Eve Herold, Director of Public Policy Research and Education at the Genetics Policy Institute--an ESCR boosting think tank. If the answers Herold gives in this publicity Q and A interview are any indication, the book is going to be (unsurprisingly) filled with junk biology and bold assertions that are either inaccurate or scientifically unverified. I don't want this entry to get too long so I won't hit every point I could. But the entire interview is rife with spin. Here are a few examples with my comments in bold:

On why ESCR is supposedly better than adult stem cell research: "There has been a lot of research on adult stem cells, and rightly so, because they do seem to have some healing potential. And they've been very successful at treating some blood diseases. The problem is that they're quite limited compared to embryonic stem cells. So far, scientists have found that adult stem cells can give rise to only a limited number of other cell types. On the other hand, embryonic stem cells are the 'master' cells of the human body. They are pluripotent, meaning that can give rise to any of the body's 200 cell types, so they can treat many more diseases."

Ah, the usual crapola about ASCs. But readers of this blog know that adult stem cells are at least multi-potent, meaning they can become many types of tissue, and are already treating more than 70 human maladies in early human trials, including heart disease, MS, spinal cord injury, cancer, etc. (Human trials do not, of course guarantee that the therapies will work. But ES cells are in zero human trials.) Meanwhile, we don't know that ES cells are pluripotent and "can give rise to any of the body's 200 cell types" because it hasn't yet been done. In science, such affirmative assertions are inappropriate until the matter has been proved. So far with ES cells they get bunches of cells of different kinds in a dish and therefore have to tweeze them out, not the same thing at all. (I know of one cell type that has been able to be derived from ES cells on demand.) Moreover, even though mouse ES cells have been around for more than 20 years, they still haven't been able to use them to effectively treat a single condition.

Herold speaks admiringly of Hwang's cloning technology: "One thing I did learn from touring his lab is that the Koreans really were making strides in cloning technology, or at least were well positioned to do so. Their claimed specialty in the way of gently removing the nucleus from an egg cell, which is less damaging than earlier methods, was real. I saw this being done in front of my eyes (on a magnified video monitor) in Dr. Hwang's lab, when a researcher took an egg cell, poked a hole into its outer membrane, and then gently squeezed it until the nucleus popped out. Before this method was developed, researchers would suction the nucleus out, which inevitably removed some of the cell's cytoplasm, or the material floating around outside of the nucleus. There's a reason for that cytoplasm to be there, and keeping as much of it intact as possible probably contributed to the lab's great success in cloning animals."

Read my lips: It didn't work! Hwang went through more than 2000 eggs using his technique and was unable to create one cloned embryo.

How SCNT works: "Any time you transplant cells into a patient's body, they have to be genetically matched, just as transplanted organs do. Otherwise, there is a risk of rejection. Therapeutic cloning is the only way known to create embryonic stem cells that are a sure match for the patient. It involves taking an egg and removing its nucleus, as I described before, and then fusing the egg with an adult cell, usually a skin cell taken from a patient. The nucleus of the skin cell, which contains the patient's DNA, then becomes the nucleus of the egg cell. The egg is activated to begin dividing and as it does so, it creates embryonic stem cells that carry the patient's DNA. This means that brand new, pluripotent, 'master' stem cells are being created that are the best possible match for that patient."

No, it does not create embryonic stem cells. It creates an embryo from which ES cells can--in theory--be derived. Remember, this hasn't yet been done, either. I would also point out, since Herold won't tell you, that an even bigger problem with ES cells is that they cause deadly tumors in animal models--which makes them unsafe for human use. Even if cloning were to solve the rejection issue, it does nothing to address the tumor formation problem.

Herold pretends to be boosting science with her book and interview. But she is really undermining science by disseminating scientifically inaccurate information to win a political debate. If her book is anything like her publicity interview, it is a massive spin job proving once again that science is devolving into a special interest willing to use lobbyists' techniques of spin and obfuscation to win a political debate in order to garner billions in public funding.

Details about James Kelly "Muffling" Incident

I have been asked to provide more details of the incident, mentioned in a previous entry, in which James Kelly was forcefully prevented from telling Christopher Reeve about advances in spinal cord injury research using adult stem cells. I am happy to oblige. Here is Kelly's account of the incident from a column linked below for the Seoul Times:

"Later that year I debated the practicality of cloning with Reeve at the New York Academy of Sciences. At Reeve's request I tried to tell him of an adult bone marrow clinical trial for ALS and SCI in Turin, Italy. But as I began to speak I was physically muzzled from behind by the scientific moderator of the debate. While I struggled to pull his hands from my mouth, fifty reporters looked on in stunned silence and Reeve's handlers quickly wheeled him from the room.

Not a word of this reached the public and Reeve remained in the dark."

For those interested, the entire column, which is about adult stem cell research, it is well worth reading.

Oh Hum: More Adult Stem Cell Good News

These stories are ubiquitous but I report them here from time to time because it is worth keeping in mind that adult stem cell research is moving forward at a very nice pace in human patients. First, Australian researchers are reporting in early studies that adult stem cells can indeed help treat heart disease, with improvements in the 20-60% range. These findings reflect other reports. And children with a form of brain cancer have enjoyed much better results than normal treatments when their own bone marrow stem cells are added to the regimen.

The number of patients is small, and much more needs to be learned, but there is no doubt that this is all very good news.

Why a Man With Paraplegia Rejects ESCR

James Kelly is an activist friend of mine who is solidly against ESCR and human cloning. Years ago he was in a terrible automobile accident that left him paralyzed--and he has devoted himself ever since to seeking a method of treatment that will help him walk again. He once supported ESCR, and even wrote President Bush urging full federal funding. But the more he researched the issue, the more he came to believe that ESCR may be more hype than hope. He soon "changed sides" as it were and now argues that money invested in ESCR is that much less money available for the non embryonic areas of research where he believes his best chances of effective treatment are to be found. He even debated the late Christopher Reeve about this matter, and has an interesting story to tell about that encounter in which someone placed his hand over Kelly's mouth after the debate to keep him from telling Reeve about adult embryonic stem cell successes in spinal cord injury research.

In the wake of the Hwang scandal, the Seoul Times retained his services as a biotech columnist. He now has this very interesting article out in Human Events. Readers of Secondhand Smoke, I give you James Kelly.

Michigan Futile Care Case in Court

For years I have been predicting that futile care treatment withdrawals will become the next big bioethics agenda issue to roil the public and involve the courts. Now, the futile care imposers are beginning to roll out the agenda. This Michigan case may be one. Emmie-Rose Yannella, a prematurely born infant with an often fatal medical condition in which bowel tissue dies, is being denied wanted life-sustaining treatments.

Doctors at the University of Michigan Medical Center predicted that the child would only live for a few days--two weeks ago. Now, the ethics committee has determined that the baby will be denied blood transfusions and sustenance containing fat and nutrition, replacing it with a sugar and salt solution, because to do otherwise will "only delay" the date of death. But isn't delaying death a proper purpose of medicine? And haven't the doctors' predictions already been proved to have been mistaken?

If you read the story, it is striking how vague the parties are about how the decision to unilaterally withhold treatment was made. But such life and death decision cannot be allowed to be so apparently ad hoc or based solely on secret internal administrative deliberations.

If the treatment is physiologically inappropriate or useless, let the doctors tell a judge. But if their decision to overrule the parents is based on their values--the treatment should be ordered continued. In any event, it would seem that due process of law would require a public process, the right of the patient/family to representation, an accurate record to that it can be determined the bases upon which the refusal of wanted treatment decision was made, and a right to appeal. In other words, transparency, the very thing futilitarians seemed bent upon refusing to permit.

This may be another case that the proposed Nebraska Humane Care Amendment would partially prevent. It would not impact the blood transfusion issue, but it probably would prevent sustenance from being denied from the child if it could nourish the baby and if the intent behind the removal is to cause death.

Texas Futile Care Law on Defensive

This is a good and fair article from the Chicago Tribune (one of the fairest of the MSM in my view), about the growing challenge to Texas's futile care law. The push back the story reports against the abandonment of patients under futile care theory in Texas is very encouraging. (Attorney Jerri Ward, who is quoted in the story, is leading the legal charge against the Texas law.)

One of the things I most object to about futile care theory is the twisting of the concept of extending life--which is what these patients want--into what is often called "merely extending the dying process." (When you think about it, you could say that about giving insulin to a diabetic--it is extending the dying rather than saving life, but that would be just as ridiculous.)

Futilitarians are not monsters who want to "kill" people. But they are profoundly misguided: They think they are doing the patients a favor, but are really imposing their values upon a patient and family--which they would never dream of doing of the patient rejected life-sustaining treatment. Moreover--and this is important--dying isn't dead: It is living. If doctors and bioethics committees are given the right to refuse wanted life-sustaining treatment--including tube-supplied sustenance--based on their judgments about the quality of a patient's life, then the most fundamental purpose of medicine has been subverted.

Preventing such unilateral withdrawals--at least as it relates to the provision of food and water--is the primary purpose of the Nebraska Humane Care Amendment. It was found not to have enough valid signatures to qualify, but that may not be the end of the story. This decision by the Secretary of State is now in court and I am told it may still make Nebraska's November ballot. We'll know soon. Stay tuned.

Fan Mail From Some Flounder?

Good grief. Now the animal liberationist nuts are freeing halibut from fish farms. Well, stealing them actually. This isn't "mere" vandalism. It is felonious theft that is depriving honest and hard working entrepreneurs of the fruit of their labor merely because the crazies don't want people to eat fish.

I Told You So: Ellen Goodman Isn't Amused That UK PVS Patient Found to be Interactive

When the woman from the UK, diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative state, was found to actually be interactive via a form of MRI, I predicted that proponents of the death culture would claim that rather than eschewing dehydration for such patients, their awareness would be found to be an even more urgent reason to "make the hard choice" and end their lives. Comes now Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman--predictably for those familiar with her body of work--to argue that consciousness should not be a bar to ending life.

Goodman is an archetype of a species of relativists who are ever wringing their hands about hard choices that lead to death and burbling on about how guidelines will protect vulnerable people from abuse, but somehow never manage to say no. I recall seeing an article of hers written in the late 80s, claiming that IVF doctors would never create excess embryos, we would never treat nascent human life as if they were no more valuable than salmon eggs, and urging that the technology go forward with society putting the IVF practitioners on notice that there are lines we will not permit to be crossed. (I wrote in more detail about this column in Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World.)

Of course, no lines were ever drawn, IVF doctors did create hundreds of thousands of excess embryos, and now Goodman leads the pack supporting their use as a mere natural resource to be exploited and used as so many crops in research.

I e-mailed her about her old column, noting that she had once said she would say no, but hadn't managed to do so yet. She responded politely that her "lines have changed." Of course they did because they were never real. Her old soothing words were never about creating real ethical boundaries, just offering a wary public false assurances.

Encouraging News Out of Missouri About Amendment 2

The more the proponents of Amendment 2 spend, about $16 million to date, almost all from James Stowers of the Stowers Institute, who is determined to buy a constitutional amendment, the worse the measure does. This poll of likely voters shows it with 52% yes, down from above 60% when the initiative first qualified for the ballot. True, it is above 50%, but realize the opponents, which have much less money, have not started their media buys yet. And, the proponents have been so dishonest, it could be that the voters of the "Show Me" state will turn their backs on the amendment in disgust. They certainly should.

Coming Soon: The Secondhand Smoke Podcast

Stay tuned. It will take me a little while to figure out the technology, but, with the help of my good friends at the Discovery Institute, I am hoping to have a weekly podcast up and running within a few weeks.

Never Underestimate The Ingenuity of Scientists

A woman has been fitted with an artificial arm that she can control with her thoughts. Outstanding achievement. As my friend Bill Hurlbut always tells me, "Never underestimate the creativity and ingenuity of scientists." Which, of course, is why we need proper moral and ethical parameters beyond which science should not stray.

Oh, for those transhumanists out there: This isn't transhumanism. It isn't enhancement. It isn't "post human." It is proper therapy that I am sure we all hope can someday be made available to anyone who needs it.

Bone Marrow Stem Cell Research Moving Forward

I complain so much about bad media, I feel duty-bound to point out when a good story is printed--either because it is accurate about ES cells, or because it reports progress being made steadiy with adult stem cells.

This story in the SF Chronicle, byline Sabin Russell, is an example of the latter category. Russell reports that progress is being made at UC Berkeley using a form of bone marrow stem cell, and transforming them into other types of tissues. There is a long way to go before this procedure is ready for prime time--if it ever will be--but obviously, this is good news.

Of course, it should be noted that this kind of encouraging experimentation will almost certainly not be funded by Proposition 71 money. That money is reserved for now for human cloning research and ESCR. Adult stem cell researchers need not apply.

(Full Disclosure: My wife is a columnist at the Chronicle.)

An End to Creating Excess Embryos in IVF?

Jennifer Lahl has this piece up over at The Human Future. Dutch physicians have apparently pioneered a new IVF method with good efficiency rates--using only one egg! This means that women do not have to undergo hyper-ovulation, the potentially dangerous procedure in which women receive huge doses of hormones so that they will release 10-15 eggs. Women can die in rare cases from the procedure.

Let us hope this procedure becomes the norm. It would permit families with fertility troubles to have babies. It would do away with the ethical problem of having to store "excess embryos," which many scientists now see as so many harvestable crops, and it would be safer for the women undergoing treatment. A true, win, win, win.

Source: Human Reproduction 2006; 21: 2375-83

Media Continue to Report ACT Non- Breakthrough as if it Actually Happened

Embryonic stem cell science is devolving into pure spin and hype--and the media are happy to play along. This story from Reuters describes an agreement between the mendacious Advanced Cell Technology and an embryonic stem cell distributing non profit company, WiCell Research Institute, to distribute ES cell lines derived from ACT's "new method" that does not destroy embryo--so long as the Feds agree to fund it.

AP had a similar report, picked up in today's San Jose Mercury News.

Repeat after me: There is no new method. There may never be a new method. At this point, it is a fiction.

ACT is so beyond the pale now it hardly rates a comment. But this journalistic malpractice must stop. Reuters and the AP owe their readers more than merely regurgitating press releases. Good journalism would require telling readers that the supposed new technique doesn't yet exist. Instead, in the version of AP story I linked above, the new method was treated merely as a fact. Reuters readers are told that opponents have "reservations about the method the company had devised and even some supporters of the research have expressed some doubts," but no details are given.

Pulitzer is rolling over in his grave.

Now Scientists Want to Buy Eggs for Cloning Research

Cloning commoditizes human life. In research cloning, it creates human life for the purpose of destroying and harvesting it like a corn crop. In reproductive cloning--the same process but a different use of the human life created by SCNT--a baby is born that has been "made to order."

Anti cloning advocates have also warned that since each cloning attempt requires a human egg, that "asexual reproduction" will result in the instrumentalization of women for their eggs. To prevent that, a coalition of pro life feminists and pro choice feminists started Keep Your Hands Off Our Ovaries to fight against treating women as so many egg purveyors--particularly since egg procurement can cause physical harm to women, and in a few cases, even kill them.

And now it is starting. The LA Times is reporting that would-be human cloners are frustrated by an egg dearth and want to purchase eggs since they are having a tough time getting a sufficient supply to permit their cloning research to go ahead full bore. (Our friend Dr. Lanza is quoted. I guess lying to the press about research successes doesn't disqualify one to be a source.)

Happily, the law generally stops egg purchasing for research purposes--for now--as do many voluntary protocols. Part of this is, ironically, apparently due to Proposition 71, which bars egg purchasing and sets the ethical standard for the world since everyone wants to have access to all that money we Californians are going to borrow to pay them to do human cloning. And now, despite the risks to women, the scientists want to garner thousands of eggs through purchase and sale. But they should think about that very carefully: If one woman dies from such a transaction, and two UK women have died recently having eggs procured, the cloning enterprise will suffer a profound blow.

This article didn't just appear by accident. The reporter was almost surely approached by someone in (or who represents) the biotech sector with the story idea, and she ran with it. Mark my words, the Times article is the opening salvo in Big Biotech's next move: Doing away with the ban on egg sales for medical research. Don't say you weren't warned.

More Evidence That Science is Becoming a Mere Special Interest

This story about NIH scientists who received money from drug companies improperly, but who faced no serious consequences, is illuminating. Science is becoming, and in some cases, has already become a mere special interest grubbing for public money, political advantage, and control of public policy. And, it uses all of the tools of the political world; spin, deception, personal attack, dissembling, the power of big money to buy laws, etc., to achieve its objectives.

Meanwhile, at the university level, science academics are often in bed with big business--corrupting the ideal of the university as a place dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge.

All of this is corroding the very soul of science and sapping it of its once well deserved presumption of credibility. The media continues to pretend that "the scientists" are objective and dispassionate. But to an increasing degree, this is no longer so. In the end, that isn't good for science or society.

Will MO Stem Cell Science Exhibits be Accurate? Not Likely

The Missouri science establishment is going all out to pass the human cloning legalization initiative, Amendment 2. Now, science museums have announced they will present stem cell displays that "contains information consistent with that presented by the scientific community to the public."

If that is true, there will be an awful lot of junk science on display. Readers of Secondhand Smoke know that "the scientists" often misstate the science of stem cells and cloning when presenting information to the public. Among the worst of these have been "the scientists" engaged in promoting Amendment 2, some of whom I have personally witnessed presenting wildly deceptive and inaccurate presentations.

For example, I was present when Dr. Steven Teitelbaum, a pro-cloning advocate of Amendment 2, falsely told a committee of the Missouri legislature that adult stem cells are merely "unipotent," meaning that blood stem cells can only make blood, fat stem cells only make fat, etc. This was pure bunk, since it has long been known that adult stem cells are at least multi-potent, meaning they can become several types of tissues, and a few may even be pluripotent.

Oh, not coincidentally, Dr. Titelebaum will be presenting on stem cells at one of these museums. No. I am not holding out much hope for scientific accuracy to be on display at these stem cell exhibits.

Montana Doctor Sentenced to Jail for Euthanasia

A doctor who lethally injected an elderly stroke patient has been sentenced to jail for negligent homicide, in a plea bargain in which he was originally charged with murder. This case shows that not all euthanasia or assisted suicides in this country are winked at, as some would claim.

The doctor has also been convicted of bank robbery.

Three SHAC Terrorists Jailed

Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) animal liberation terrorists, who engaged in "tertiary targeting" against people for working for companies that dared to do business with Huntingdon Life Sciences are going to jail for 4-6 years. Good. But don't expect these wild ideologues to be deterred. These people are fanatics. The only remedy is increased pressure by law enforcement and the strengthening of laws against terrorism and intimidation against animal using industries and companies that provide these companies services and products.

Once Again Missouri Media Totally Ignorant About SCNT

The only question I have about the Missouri media is whether they are intentionally ignorant about the scientific facts of human cloning, or they just don't care.

The latest example of such journalistic malpractice comes in a St. Louis Post Dispatch column by Sylvester Brown, Jr.. Brown writes about a political candidate named Cynthia Kramer, who is supporting Amendment 2--an initiative to create a state constitutional right to conduct human cloning research in MO--as having had her leukemia put into remission, by stem cells, he writes, created through SCNT. He writes: "When Kramer's cancer went into remission in 2002, she had her healthy cells harvested through a process called somatic cell nuclear transfer. After doctors transplanted those cells, the cancer again went into remission."

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at such a bold assertion of an utter falsehood. Scientists have never harvested embryonic stem cells from cloned embryos to date, and certainly hadn't done so in 2002. In fact, the procedure he describes is a classic adult stem cell procedure using bone marrow, a method often used with great success in treating leukemia. Good grief, where were this man's editors?

I ask again: Can't the media ever get this story factually right? Shame on Mr. Brown and his editors for foisting such misinformation upon the MO electorate during a heated and crucial campaign.

U.K. National Health Service Imploding?

This is a distrubing turn of events: The NHS is so broke it is going to be closing whole departments in hospitals around the country, including many maternity wards. I am of the belief that we have to find a way to improve access to health care for Americans. But the socialized system, epitomized by the NHS, sure doesn't seem to be the way to go.

Are Turkeys Morally Equal to People?

Apparently so, according to animal liberationist guru, Gary Francione. Over at the First Things blog, I discuss this and other aspects of Francione's ideology. I also point out that, in my view, Francione, while profoundly misguided, is a man worthy of respect based on his integrity and promotion of peaceful advocacy. I conclude my post with these words:

"I just wish Francione would turn his considerable talents and intellect to solving more urgent problems involving human injustices and oppression. Of course, from his point of view, that is precisely what he is doing, since he doesn't recognize any moral distinction between humans and fauna. But at least he promotes his agenda with intellectual honesty, skill, and a total eschewing of violence and threats. That's more than you can say about many of his co-believers. The animal-liberation movement could use a lot more leaders like Gary Francione."

Did Lanza Engage in Science Fraud?

As I have deconstructed the great ACT deception about its embryonic stem cell experiment, I have worked off the following assumptions: The paper published in Nature was bonafide, but that the PR that ACT attempted to generate about its experiment was profoundly misleading, as was Nature's initial press release. The media, wanting desperately to undermine President Bush's ESCR funding policy, took one look at the releases and were off and running without reading the actual paper.

This was different from the Hwang cloning fraud, I have stated in numerous radio interviews, because Lanza did not write a fraudulent paper, but misled the public about what was actually in the paper. In contrast, Hwang engaged in fraud up and down the line.

But now, it seems that Lanza may have left crucial data out of the Nature paper itself that would have undermined the premise that ACT's "technique" could create ES cell lines from single cells without destroying the embryo. If so, should Lanza and ACT ever be permitted to publish in prestigious journals again? And will the media finally learn that "the scientists" cannot necessarily be trusted to tell them the objective truth?

HT--AJOB blog.

Hemlock Society Founder Suggests His How to Commit Suicide Book to Mentally Ill

Derek Humphry, the founder of the Hemlock Society, has written a little essay that demonstrates the utter amorality of the euthanasia movement. For example, he states that he is contacted by the mentally ill several times a week with requests for help with suicide. What does Hummphry do?

"I talk things over with them, always decline actually to help, urge them to seek further treatments (they've usually had lots already), but mention that my paperback book "Final Exit" has been in bookstores and libraries worldwide for 15 years....I gently tell such troubled people that I don't think anybody is going to help them to die -- it's just too much to ask -- and if they are still determined to leave this world they must handle it themselves. Some do, most don't so far as I can tell, at least, not until later on."

Among the many people who have made themselves dead following Humphry's suicide primer: Teenagers. Swell guy.