Peter Singer: Infanticide, Yes; Kangaroo Cull, No

Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer is famous for two primary reasons: First, he jump started the animal rights/liberation movement with his 1975 book Animal Liberation. Second, he is the world's foremost proponent of the legitimacy of infanticide. Thus, writing on page 186 in Practical Ethics, he supported the right of parents to kill a newborn with hemophilia in order to make life easier for a hypothetical, yet-to-be-born sibling:

When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be higher if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.It should be noted that the disability of the infant isn't why he can be killed, but rather, his view that infants are not persons.

Cut to Australia where an overpopulation of kangaroos threatens the animals with starvation. The government is proposing a cull. But Singer opposes. From the story:

Professor Singer has urged the Australian Defence Force to use kangaroo contraceptives instead of guns to control numbers. Defence has applied to kill up to 3200 kangaroos at two of its sites around Canberra. The animals risk starvation and are damaging the environment, Defence says.

Professor Singer, whose 1975 book Animal Liberation spawned the modern animal rights movement, is one of the world's best-known and most controversial thinkers on animal rights. He said the cull did not seem to be necessary. "We need some form of fertility control to deal with these situations," the Princeton University bioethics professor told the Canberra Times

The thing is, Singer doesn't believe in either human rights or animal rights. He is a utilitarian who believes what should and should not be done must be based on whether the outcome would promote satisfaction of preferences or interests, or be detrimental to those goals. He broke out of the crowd because he asserted that in taking such utilitarian measurements, the interests of animals deserve equal consideration with the interests of people.

With the kangaroos, Singer apparently weighed the suffering in the animals that would be caused by the cull and that of potential starvation, and believed the cull would cause more suffering and hence should not be done. But if the happiness were increased with the cull, he would support it--as he did experimenting on monkeys last year.

You see, for Singer, principles of right and wrong make no sense. We follow Peter Singer at great peril to human rights and the well being of the weak and vulnerable among us.

Medical Miracles Do Happen: Girl Survives Rabies

Talk about a tale that demonstrates the power of the human spirit, and the genius of the human mind: When teenager Jeanna Giese contracted rabies after being bitten by a bat, her chances of survival were deemed nil. But...Her doctors refused to give up. From the story:

Rabies, a viral disease spread by the bite of an infected animal, attacks the nervous system and is usually fatal once symptoms develop. The other five people known to have survived it after symptoms appeared either were vaccinated in advance or received vaccine soon afterward. All but one ended up with persistent movement difficulties.

But Giese was not hospitalized until a month after she was bitten by a bat she picked up in church.

In a desperate attempt to save her, Wisconsin doctors intentionally put her in a coma and gave her a slew of antiviral drugs and other medications to prevent a cascade of events that causes nerve cells to die. She spent two months in intensive care before returning home on New Year's Day, 2005.

Two years of rehabilitation later, and Geise is entering college. Classes can be tough, but what can possibly compare to what she has already been through? Great story. Great doctors. Here's hoping she has a great life.

Potential Surgical Treatment for Type II Diabetes

Adult onset diabetes may be treatable with a radical surgery used to treat morbidly obese patients. From the story in the Telegraph:

Gastric bypass surgery could be the latest tool in the fight against Type 2 diabetes, which is normally caused by obesity. One in four people in the UK is currently overweight and as the obesity problem grows experts are warning that there will be an explosion in diseases such as Type 2 diabetes. There are already two million sufferers in the UK.Shortening the bowel means the body has less time to absorb food as it passes through the digestive system and can result in dramatic weight loss. But early results have shown that the surgery is having an effect before weight loss occurs, meaning that the precise section of bowel that is removed has some other role.

Two people who have had surgery to remove the upper small intestine or duodenum had Type 2 diabetes but were not overweight. Since the operation they have been able to come off their diabetes drugs as their body is now able to deal with sugar more normally.

This is a drastic procedure, but serious conditions call for drastic remedies. Still, once again we discover that embryonic stem cells are not the "only hope."

"Wrong" Baby Aborted

The moral implications of this story are profound and complex. An Italian couple was pregnant with twins. One of the fetuses tested positive for Down syndrome. A eugenic abortion was performed. The baby without Down was destroyed. The Down child was then also aborted. From the story in the (London) Times:

The mother, who has a small son, said that her life had been ruined. "Neither my husband nor I can sleep at night," she told the Corriere della Sera, which first reported the blunder. She said that the happiness she and her husband had experienced when they learnt that she was expecting twins had been transformed into heartbreak.

Her husband said that they were "truly desperate over this terrible mistake" and were consulting family lawyers.

Here's the saddest part to me: The "transformation" from joy to heartbreak was entirely preventable. If society and this couple had embraced the value of both of their gestating children, rather than accepting the eugenic belief that the Down baby should not be allowed to be born, their joy would remain unabated. If there was more publicity given to the potential joys of raising children with Down, as I discuss here, perhaps a different choice would have been made. Truly, when we reject the intrinsic value of each of us, tragedies often result.

PETA's Worst Nightmare Strikes Again

The Center for Consumer Freedom, a food industry-financed non profit, knows more about the animal rights movement and its leading minions than anybody. The Center is also as edgy and in-your-face as the animal activists, which doesn't please the liberationists one bit--proving that PETA doesn't believe that what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. And contrary to the assertions that PETA's representative spouts in this story on the ad, some of the animals PETA destroyed were adoptable.

True, PETA didn't torture the dogs as Vick did. But it is choice to see PETA get a taste of its own medicine. For more on this issue, check out Petakillsanimals.com. Ouch.

P.S. The answer is Vick 8, PETA 14,400.

Get Your Colonoscopy!

My dad was diagnosed with colon cancer at age 62 and died at age 65 (in 1984). So my doctor and I agreed that at 58, it was high time I had a colonoscopy. (About seven years ago, I underwent the less "intense" sigmoidoscopy.) Well, this morning the deed was done and a small polyp was discovered and excised. This polyp had not been there when I had the sigmoid.

This not pleasant--but certainly not onerous--preventive procedure might well have saved my life. While I don't have the pathology results yet, the doctor doubts it is malignant. Moreover, in the unlikely event that it is, it will have been caught very early. The point is: Who knows what that polyp would have become in the years ahead if it had remained growing in my body. Or to put it more concretely, if my dad had had a colonoscopy at age 58, the polyp that was then growing in his body and became cancer would have been removed before turning malignant--and he might still be with us today. Oh, that it were so! I really miss my dad.

Many people put off taking the test because of understandable squeamishness. Don't. The procedure is easy. I am going to describe my experience so that no one will hesitate to have a colonoscopy for fear of pain or unease over having a tube inserted "where the sun don't shine."

I spent all day yesterday at home on a clear liquid diet and laxatives so my colon would cleanse. This morning I was driven to the out-patient clinic by Secondhand Smokette. I was brought into a common ward and assigned a bed. I was told to put on one of those gowns with the ventilated back. An IV drip was put in my arm, my blood pressure tested, etc. Then, I was wheeled into the testing room. My doctor greeted me, and a nurse administered sedation. I was a little nervous about this because I had never received such drugs before. She told me that it would be like having four martinis. I laughed and said I had a little experience with that.

At first, I didn't feel anything and then my head felt light and I became very relaxed. (The sedation does not make you unconscious.) I was also given a pain medication. I was asked to turn onto my left side and the procedure began. I could feel the tube, but it wasn't much more than the sensation when having a digital exam in the doctor's office. I could not feel that the scope had gone up my entire colon. I recall the doctor saying to the nurse that he had found the polyp. Then, it was over. I must have dozed off because the thirty minute exam seemed more like five.

Afterwards, I rested in the bed for about half and hour, spoke with a nurse about the initial results, and instructed to rest for the day. Secondhand Smokette then drove me home. I have dozed a bit, but I feel fine.

We spend billions of dollars researching various means of curing cancer and serious disease. Yet, preventive procedures like the colonoscopy are comparatively inexpensive and could save some 80% of the 50,000 lives colon cancer takes annually--perhaps including mine in about ten years.

If I can do it, you can do it. Because a polyp was found, assuming it is benign, I will have to have another colonoscopy in three years--and I will without hesitation. Here is a link with more information on this important life-saving preventative procedure.

Gallup Poll: Suicide, Human Cloning Immoral, Stem Cell Research, Animal Testing Moral

A recent Gallup Poll rated the views of the American people on key moral issues. Here are the results regarding issues of concern here at SHS. The first number reflects "Morally Acceptable," the second "Morally Wrong:"

- Medical research using stem cells obtained from human embryos: 64%-30%
- Suicide: 16%-78%
- Cloning humans: 11%-86%
- Medical testing on animals: 59%-37%
- Buying and wearing clothing made from animal fur: 59%-37%
- Cloning animals: 36%-59%
- Doctor assisted suicide-49%-44%
- Abortion: 40%-51%

Some thoughts: The attitudes toward the human use of animals seems very consistent with approximately 59% favoring and 37% opposing. In this regard, I would have been interested to see a poll on the morality of eating meat.

Thoughts on suicide are conflicted: Suicide is deemed immoral, but doctor-assisted suicide is close to evenly split. To me, this shows the power of a doctor's authority. Also, it demonstrates that assisted suicide is not as wildly popular as its proponents pretend.

The cloning number is dramatic, but may refer in people's minds to reproductive cloning. Still, in other polls, majorities also opposed creating human cloned embryos for use in research. Finally, while we don't deal with abortion here generally, the poll seems to indicate that the nation is more closely split on the issue than I would have thought.

Finally, this poll does not measure whether a particular activity should be legal. Many might feel that an act is immoral, but should be legal.

Rough Seas Continue at the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine

Another big resignation at the CIRM. This time, the head science officer. From the story:

The top scientific officer at California's stem cell agency has resigned, effective Oct. 31. Arlene Chiu, interim chief scientific officer since April, made the announcement in a letter sent earlier this week to the agency's oversight board. During her tenure, Chiu directed the scientific review of applications for funding, and led the team that crafted the stem cell agency's long-term research agenda...

Chiu joined the agency in 2005 as director of scientific activities. She became the top scientific officer following the resignation of Zach Hall, who also served as president.

The grants taken from the hides of California taxpayers (including me), will continue of course. But for some reason, the atmosphere of the CIRM does not seem conducive to keeping its top people. Someday, a book may be written.

To Biased Media, in Stem Cell Research a Rat is a Man

Geron his issued another press release claiming advances in embryonic stem cell research, and once again saying, as it has for years, that the company is very close to human trials. But that is not the point of this post.

The Geron experiment apparently used rats with damaged hearts. The rats were killed after four weeks, too soon to know whether tumors would form. But get this headline in the Mercury News!

Geron sees progress in stem-cell therapy: STUDY OF HEART ATTACK PATIENTS

The capital letters are within the text.

There was no study of human heart attack patients and the rats weren't patients, the were "subjects." I know Ingred Newkirk of PETA believes a rat, is a pig, is a dog, is a boy, but apparently, so do the headline writers at the San Jose Mercury News--at least when it comes to hyping embryonic stem cell research.

The Consequences of Sex Eugenics in China

A crisis looms in China as 18 million men want wives and the women don't exist because of forced abortion, female infanticide, and other eugenic actions resulting from China's one child policy. From the story in the Guardian:

China is planning to tighten punishments for sex-selective abortions amid concerns that its widening gender imbalance will lead to wife trafficking, sexual crimes and social frustration.

Too la-aate. The deeds were done, the girl babies were killed, and the consequences will be paid.

An ALS Patient Tells Us: "Choose Life"

This one minute video is worth watching.

HT: Mark Pickup

More "Right to Suicide" Advocacy

The momentum is growing in some quarters advocating for what is often called "rational suicide." One of the first articles I saw about "rational suicide" was written some nine years ago by a former Hemlock Society activist and psychologist named James Werth, in the mental health journal Crisis (Vo. 19. No. 4, 1998), "Using Rational Suicide as a Means of Preventing Irrational Suicide." (Werth asked me to write a chapter in his book about rational suicide. For those interested, here it is: "'Rational Suicide' as the New Jim Crow.") Most recently, as we discussed here at SHS, Jacob Appel urged legalization of assisted suicide for the mentally ill in the prestigious Hastings Center Report.

This advocacy is now slipping beyond popularly obscure mental health and bioethics journals and into the general press. Example: A pundit named Emer O'Kelly, who writes for the Independent (Dublin) has written a piece urging a "right to suicide." It makes for depressing reading. To make suicide seemingly more legitimate, O'Kelly first attempts to claim that refusing unwanted life support is suicide. He then trots out the old shoe that permitting some suicides will prevent youth suicides. But in Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal for the terminally ill, youth suicide has increased. And he boosts suicide too:

Personally, I think suicide is courageous rather than cowardly, even when it is undertaken as a means of avoiding the shameful consequences of dishonourable actions...But when people have wisdom, courage, and endurance and have reached the point of no return, with physical deterioration, pain, or mental and emotional despair, we have absolutely no collective right to deny the right to suicide. In such circumstances it becomes the ultimate civil and human right.

Advocacy for a right to suicide with those O'Kelly denigrates as having a "life not worth living," will not save lives--not even those O'Kelly deems worth saving. It will merely turn suicide into another "choice," and the cost will be considerable.

The Canadian journalist Andrew Coyne summarized society's growing flirtation with euthanasia and suicide quite succinctly some years ago in an article decrying the public support for Robert Latimer, who "mercy" killed his disabled daughter Tracy. Coyne warned:

What begins in relativism ends in nihilism. A society that believes in nothing can offer no argument even against death. A culture that has lost its faith in life cannot comprehend why it should be endured.

Will we embrace the values of O'Kelly or Coyne? The choice is ours. So too, will be the consequences of our decision.

Geoffrey Fieger Indicted

Geoffrey Fieger, Jack Kevorkian's former lawyer who deserted the sinking ship just before it went down, has been indicted for conspiracy to violate campaign contribution laws in the 2004 election. I take no position on his guilt or innocence, of course. But one of the things that drove me to near apoplexy about Fieger (whom I debated on television several times) during the Kevorkian years was his complete disregard for legal ethics and propriety. If every lawyer practiced the way he did in the Kevorkian cases--particularly the one in upper Michigan in which he accused the prosecutor of a crime in front of the jury causing a mistrial--there would be chaos. And judges and prosecutors were intimidated of his extreme behavior, evidenced by the judge in that case failing to hold him in contempt for repeatedly violating his rulings from the bench and the prosecutor not refiling the charges.

I don't know if Fieger is a crook. But in my view, he is a disgrace to the legal profession.

Animals May be Property, but They Are Not Stones

I often rag against the animal rights crowd that seek to reduce human moral worth by making it equivalent to that of animals. But sometimes those who oppose animal rights miss a huge point about human exceptionalism, too. Case in point: Ilana Mercer of World Net Daily.

Mercer has written two columns on the Vick case which I think contain gross errors. (My Vick piece ran again the other day in the Seattle Post Intelligencer.) In her first column, Mercer correctly identified a central problem with animal rights/liberation ideology:

Animal-rights activists share a humanity-hating agenda with environmentalists. The first would like ultimately to see the State proceed against anyone who slaughters, markets, experiments on, or even eats and wears animals...

But then she goes off the rails:

Human beings ought to care for and be kind to animals, but a civilized society is one that never threatens a man's liberty because of the callousness with which he has treated the livestock he owns.

But this misses an essential point of human exceptionalism. We are uniquely in the known universe moral agents, which not only is a basis for rights--but also gives rise to solemn and uniquely human duties. Animals are not stones. We have the obligation to never cause them gratuitous pain or suffering and need to continually challenge ourselves to better methods of animal husbandry and empathetic concern. Moreover, we owe it to ourselves to treat animals in ways that honor their magnificence as living beings and upholds our own humanity.

In Mercer's view, I could buy puppies for torture and other than potential social shunning, society would have to permit it because the puppies would be my property. Such a society would be a throwback to pagan Rome that routinely engaged in the public torture of animals to satisfy the blood lust of the crowd.

In her second column, Mercer claims:

Vick is being treated like an animal and his dogs like human beings.

To the contrary: He is being held responsible precisely because he is a human being who acted inhumanly by treating his dogs so abominably.

A Terrible "Final Exit Network" Assisted Suicide In Phoenix

Once again, the a weekly alternative paper comes in with a big story. This time from Phoenix, where the New Times, byline Paul Rubin, exposes the apparent assisted suicide of a mentally ill woman by members of an assisted suicide outfit called the Final Exit Network. FEN members are zealots who help people kill themselves using helium and drugs. From the story:

Primary sources for this story include extensive police reports about the case, and New Times' interviews with Jana's family and with one of the two so-called exit guides from a national assisted-suicide group who were present when Jana died.

That "senior" guide was Wye Hale-Rowe, 79, a retired family therapist and great-grandmother from Aurora, Colorado. The title refers to her experience in the field, not her age. The second guide was Frank Langsner, a retired college professor who lives in Scottsdale. They are volunteers for the nonprofit Final Exit Network, an offshoot of the now-defunct Hemlock Society [actually merged into Compassion and Choices], which was founded in 1980 by author Derek Humphrey...
Humphrey's bestselling book, Final Exit: The Practicalities of Self-Deliverance and Assisted Suicide for the Dying, was published in 1991 and still sells well. One of its pitches: "Follow my instructions for a perfect death, with no mess, no autopsy, no postmortem."

It's an ugly story and Rubin gets to the bottom of it.

I was interviewed extensively by Rubin about the story a few weeks ago. My take and that of pro-assisted suicide advocates Barbara Coombs Lee, head of Compassion and Choices, and Jacob Appel, a pro assisted suicide bioethicist, are presented at some length in a sidebar perspective piece by Rubin. Lee claims to want to limit assisted suicide to the terminally ill, Appel, as I noted here previously at SHS has advocated assisted suicide for the mentally ill, and I oppose all legalization. Our views, and I think the issue itself, are all fairly presented in Rubin's penetrating journalism.

Credit Where Credit is Due: AP Gets Missouri Cloning Story Right

The Associated Press has, miracle of miracles, reported accurately about the planned anti-cloning amendment that Missouri's own media generally botched From the AP report (in the St. Louis Post Dispatch!) byline David A. Lieb:

Without specifically repealing last year's measure, the new proposal attempts to reverse a key portion by writing a new definition for banned human cloning activities.

As a result of the 2006 initiative, "the Missouri Constitution currently has confusing language, which allows the same method of cloning that was used to create Dolly the sheep," said Dr. Lori Buffa of St. Peters, a pediatrician serving as chairwoman for the new group. "The Cures Without Cloning initiative is meant to just make it clear that human cloning within the state of Missouri would be prohibited."

At issue is a procedure known scientifically as somatic cell nuclear transfer, in which a person's cell is injected into a human egg, then stimulated to grow as if it had been fertilized by a sperm. Scientists remove the resulting stem cells for research, destroying the newly formed embryo.

Last year's amendment made it a crime, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, to "clone or attempt to clone a human being." But its definition of human cloning allowed somatic cell nuclear transfer, so long as no one attempted to implant the cloned embryo in a woman's uterus.

Opponents contend that definition is deceptive. They claim a cloned human exists the moment scientists create that embryo. The newly proposed constitutional amendment would create another cloning definition that would encompass--and ban--somatic cell nuclear transfer.

Cue the "Hallelujah Chorus!"

Cloned Monkey Fetal Farming

I have long asserted that conducting ESCR and human cloning research is not intended, nor will it long remain, in the Petri dish. Rather, the real game is implantation and gestation into the late embryo and fetal stages, which would better permit disease studies, research into genetic engineering, organ harvesting, etc.

Primate cloning is the precursor to learning how to do human cloning. Now, a paper (Human Reproduction Vol.22, No.8 pp. 2232*2242, 2007) published in a professional journal (no link), shows scientists indeed want to conduct fetal farming in monkey models:

The availability of reliable, efficient methods for producing viable SCNT embryos in the monkey should support the derivation, characterization and transplantation of autologous, immunocompatible ESCs in efforts to restore form and function to damaged tissues in a preclinical model. However, our goal of producing neurodegenerative disease models in the monkey from gene targeted donor cells will require pregnancy establishment following SCNT embryo transfer into synchronized recipients.

When human fetal farming begins--assuming it can be technologically--don't say you weren't warned.

Bias Alert! Missouri Media in the Cloning Tank Again

Once again, a Missouri newspaper simply refuses to accurately report a story about human cloning research in MO. A group called Cures Without Cloning is attempting to bring an initiative to ban human somatic cell nuclear transfer in Missouri. From its press release, how the proposed initiative would define human cloning:

Section 38(e) 1. It shall be unlawful
to clone or attempt to clone a human
being. Researchers may conduct stem cell
research to discover cures for disease
[my emphasis]and develop stem cell therapies
and cures, provided that the research complies
with the limitations of this section and, in
addition, the limitations of Section 38(d).

2. For all purposes within this constitution:
(1) "Clone or attempt to clone a human being" includes the
creation of or the attempt to create, by means other than
fertilization of a human egg with human sperm, a new human
organism that is virtually identical genetically to an existing
or previously existing human organism or human organisms.

Note, there is no ban on embryonic stem cell research in the proposed amendment, whatsoever. This would be a ban on human cloning, that is, the creation of a human embryo through cloning techniques.

Now look how the Columbia Tribune, byline Jason Rosenbaum, reports the story:

"Group Launches Anti-Stem Cell Initiative"

Opponents of embryonic stem cell research began in earnest today to upend key portions of a constitutional amendment that protects the practice.

Ba-lo-ney!

Rosenbaum then describes SCNT, and to his credit admits that it creates an embryo (which is not the same thing as creating stem cells), and quotes a representative of Missourians for Life Saving Cures making this ludicrous statement that, if given on a test, would have caused her to flunk high school biology:

[Connie]Farrow said replicating cells in a laboratory dish holds promise for the future. "There's never been a human life created that didn't come from a womb," Farrow said, "and our measure strictly bans that. But what our measure does is allow scientists to use a person's own DNA to create a cure for them."

So, all of the IVF embryos were not human life? Please.

The media in Missouri is shamelessly biased on the issue of human cloning. Despite this, and despite Mr. Stowers "investing" more than $30 million to buy his own constitutional amendment, the media's pet Amendment 2 barely passed. If this initiative gets on the ballot and people are able to cut through the smoke and mirrors from Missourians for Lifesaving Cures and their minions in the media, Missouri could very well outlaw human cloning. And that would change the face of the biotechnological debate.

Gary Francione Writes Against Violence in Pursuit of Animal RIghts

Gary Francione has an essay out giving his preliminary reasons for opposing violence in the animal rights cause. He states in part:

First, in my view, the animal rights position is the ultimate rejection of violence. It is the ultimate affirmation of peace. I see the animal rights movement as the logical progression of the peace movement, which seeks to end conflict between humans. The animal rights movement ideally seeks to take that a step further and to end conflict between humans and nonhumans...

Second, for those who advocate violence, exactly against whom is this violence to be directed? The farmer raises animals because the overwhelming number of humans demand to eat meat and animal products. The farmer raises those animals in intensive conditions because consumers want meat and animal products to be as inexpensive as possible. But is the farmer the only culprit here? Or is the responsibility shared by the rest of us who eat animal products, including all of those conscientious omnivores, the non-vegan "animal people" who consume "cage-free eggs" and "happy" meat, who create the demand but for which the farmer would be doing something else with her life?...

Third, it is not clear to me what those who support violence hope to achieve as a practical matter. They certainly are not causing the public to become more sympathetic to the plight of nonhuman animals. If anything, the contrary is true and these actions have a most negative effect in terms of public perception.

I think Francione misses a crucial point: Violence directed against humans is different categorically and morally from harming animals. If an animal is slaughtered humanely for food, for example, it isn't wrong. If an animal is treated inhumanely, it is a different class of wrong than treating a human in the same way. (Thus, drowning an unwanted puppy is horrible act, but it is not the evil of infanticide.) But I welcome his essay and his stated intent to write more fully on this crucial issue. As I have always said, the best chance to avoid murder and mayhem in the name of animal rights is for the believers in the ideology to rein in the crazies of the movement.

Should Animals Be Patented?

I am no fan of anti-vivisection societies given that I believe medical research using animals is scientifically necessary and (usually) a profoundly humanitarian work, and these groups seek to end such activities. That being said, I do think they can provide a valuable contribution to society by acting as watchdogs over what scientific laboratories do to animals. This is in keeping with our human duty to treat animals humanely and properly--whether in research, when raised for food, or as pets.

The American Anti-Vivisection Society and Patent Watch may have a point in their joint challenge against the patenting of animals who have been injured or sickened. From the AAVS press release:

This week the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced a decision to open an investigation into whether rabbits and other animals whose eyes have been purposefully damaged can be patented. The patent (#6,924,413) which is being challenged by the American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS), the Alternatives Research & Development Foundation (ARDF), and PatentWatch, argues that animals are not patentable subjects and that, in fact, animal patents provide an incentive to harm animals for economic gain...

The groups’ first challenge to an animal patent succeeded in having the University of Texas drop its patent claims on beagles who were severely sickened and infected with mold. In addition, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that animals could not be patented, further challenging the legitimacy of animal patents in the U.S. "Animal patents have no place in our society and are an inappropriate application of U.S. patent law. A rabbit with damaged eyes is still a rabbit," said Tracie Letterman, an attorney and Executive Director of AAVS.

Of course the primary point of challenges such as this is to make research more difficult. Moreover, I make it a point never to accept these groups' assertions about what is done to animals at face value. But I do think that an injured animal is not a human invention, and thus probably should not be patentable.

That does not mean, of course, that research using those animals would (or should) stop, just that one lab could not prevent another lab from using animals in research in the same manner. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

"Vick Dog Fighting Violated Human Dignity"

With the Michael Vick guilty plea, I updated my earlier column on how his dog fighting activities violated our human duty to treat animals humanely for the San Francisco Chronicle. It is a little stronger on the human exceptionalism than the former column, and all in all I think, a somewhat better piece.

But this fascinates me: Every time I bring up human exceptionalism, some people get into high dudgeon--insisting that we are not special. I am not sure why these folk seem so attached to human unexcetionalism. But if being human isn't what gives us the moral obligation to treat animals (and the environment) properly, I don't know what does.

Science Isn't Science Anymore

The politicization of science has grown so bad that science has, in many cases, ceased to be science any more. We have seen this in the cloning debates in which heterodox thinkers about the ethics of ESCR and cloning have been denied tenure and/or driven out of universities. We see it in the global warming debate, in which skeptics are accused of being on the take despite their credentials and evidence-based doubts. We see it in the intelligent design issue in which very credentialed academics and scientists are denied tenure, harassed--even slandered--because they dare to doubt the reigning paradigm.

And now, we see it in gender studies. This New York Times story should alarm everyone who believes in the scientific method. A researcher named J. Michael Bailey dared to assert that transsexual identity comes from a sexual obsession rather than a biological "mistake." You would think he had asserted that all kittens should be drowned at birth. A barely failed campaign was commenced to destroy his career, with allegations of sexual impropriety and professional dereliction. Colleagues had to distance themselves of lose grant financing. It was, apparently, pure hell--and all because he had breached a "taboo." From the story:

To many of Dr. Bailey's peers, his story is a morality play about the corrosive effects of political correctness on academic freedom. Some scientists say that it has become increasingly treacherous to discuss politically sensitive issues. They point to several recent cases, like that of Helmuth Nyborg, a Danish researcher who was fired in 2006 after he caused a furor in the press by reporting a slight difference in average I.Q. test scores between the sexes.

"What happened to Bailey is important, because the harassment was so extraordinarily bad and because it could happen to any researcher in the field," said Alice Dreger, an ethics scholar and patients' rights advocate at Northwestern who, after conducting a lengthy investigation of Dr. Bailey's actions, has concluded that he is essentially blameless. "If we're going to have research at all, then we're going to have people saying unpopular things, and if this is what happens to them, then we've got problems not only for science but free expression itself."

These issues should be argued based on evidence and/or ethical debate. That is the scientific way. Destroying the careers of those who hold minority views is the political way. The point isn't whether scientists outside the mainstream are right or wrong. It is that science can't be science if it becomes career-ruining to bring up views that cut against the grain. The Catholic Church is still flayed for its treatment of Galileo. Yet this is just as much a stifling--and by those who claim to hold the "rational" high ground. If scientists don't find the courage to stop these figurative burnings at the stake, science will lose all credibility and devolve into merely another special interest. And we would all be the poorer for it.

The Sunday Comics at Secondhand Smoke

It's a little hard to see but the little man at the left, who failed to sell the tonsils, is saying, "I guess I should have gone with the appendix." Ha!

Brave New Bioethics Meets Michael Vick

This edition of my podcast Brave New Bioethics considers the Michael Vick case. Based on my column of a few weeks ago, I describe how the profound wrong done to the dogs was a violation of the perpetrators' humanity.

End Environmental Colonialism: Use DDT and Save Human Lives

The ban on DDT has cost of millions of lives in Africa and other tropical places. Yet despite the human carnage, environmentalists continue to resist permitting the anti-mosquito chemical to be used as a malaria and other disease preventative.

But as the Wall Street Journal points out (subscription needed), that may be about to change:

Last year, the World Health Organization reversed a 25-year-old policy and recommended using the pesticide DDT to fight malaria in the Third World. A new study published in the public health journal, PLoS ONE, provides more evidence that the decision was long overdue.

The U.S. and Europe solved their malaria problem a half-century ago by employing DDT, but the mosquito-borne disease remains endemic to the lowland tropics of South America, Asia and Africa, where each year a half-billion people are infected and more than a million die...

Repeated studies have shown DDT to be safe for people and nature when sprayed indoors, yet other supposedly greener pesticides like alphacypermethrin have been touted as viable alternatives. Nevertheless, the latest research shows that DDT continues to be the most effective tool we have, as well as among the cheapest. "To date," conclude the authors, "a truly efficacious DDT replacement has not been found." Opponents of DDT are only ensuring more misery and death.

If the choice is between saving human lives or risking environmental degradation, humans must come first. Protecting the environment from the safe haven of areas in which DDT had already eradicated the problem is a form of environmental colonialism.

HT: Keith Pennock

Feed Me! Embryonic Stem Cell/Human Cloning Researchers Rolling in the Dough

For all of the whining we hear from the political-scientists about lack of funding for ESCR/SCNT, it is stunning to see just how much money is out there for the research, as shown in the Rockefeller Institute Report, "Federalism by Necessity." Consider that the Feds support for ESCR (about $40 milllion annually) states pay for it (California alone, soon to be about $300 million annually) and philanthropic funding (Stowers Institute $985 million so far), have already poured billions into the research. Indeed, author shows that private sources alone have contributed about $1.7 billion into ESCR/SCNT so far.

It is interesting that the author also does not believe the federal support will go up much in the next administration. The NIH's budget is flattening and grant application approvals shrinking. Thus, even if the Bush policy is rescinded, the bulk of ESCR funding will be provided by the states and philanthropic sources.

I would also note that if billions have gone into the research so far, with limited progress due to ESCR's difficulty and complexity, imagine the cost of trying to bring this form of regenerative medicine to the clinical setting. And the time it will take.

Perhaps the funders should rethink their priorities.

Elder Abuse and Neglect in UK Hospitals

The weak and vulnerable need the "conscience" protection provided by adherence to the sanctity/equality of life ethic. Without extra devotion to this vital principle, those least able to defend themselves can become victimized by behavior that flows from a belief that their lives and well being matter less.

To me, this explains why some of those who are charged with the crucial duty of caring for the elderly are instead subjecting them to terrible abuse in hospitals and care homes throughout the UK (and, of course, elsewhere). From the awful story in the Guardian:

The study by the joint committee on human rights warns that many older people are facing maltreatment ranging from physical neglect so severe they are left lying in their own faeces or urine to malnutrition and dehydration through lack of help with eating.

Lack of dignity, especially for personal care needs, inappropriate medication designed more to subdue patients than treat them, and over-hasty discharge from hospital are also causing suffering for many older people, the MPs and peers conclude...

The committee says that "an entire culture change" is needed to ensure that patients and staff who work with them are aware of their basic human rights. While there have been some recent signs of progress in policy and guidance, the rhetoric has not translated into practice on the ground, the report concludes.

Yes. The answer is to respect human rights. Human rights flow from acceptance of human exceptionalism, that is, acceptance of the principle that each and every one of us matters simply and merely because we are human, not based on individual capacities or life's quality. Lose sight of that vision and you lose sight of universal human rights. Lose site of human rights and abuse follows like water flowing down hill.

"Medical Ethics and the Holocaust"

The Holocaust Museum of Houston, Texas is presenting a terrific lecture series entitled "Medical Ethics and the Holocaust" over the fall and into the early winter. I am honored to be a participant. I will be debating the issue of assisted suicide against Compassion and Choice's (formerly, Hemlock Society) Katherine Tucker on 11/27.

Among the presenters during the series will be Leon Kass, Art Caplan, George Annas, and Edmund Pelligrino. The topics will range from assisted suicide, to genetic engineering, to professional responsibility. It all seems very interesting. If you can, check it out.

ESCR Not "Only Hope" for MS Patients

We've heard the mantra repeatedly: embryonic stem cells are the only hope (or the best hope) for curing this disease and that disease. But the evidence continues to grow that this just isn't true.

Today's story deals with multiple sclerosis. I have previously reported here at SHS and in journalistic publications that adult stem cells have stopped the progression of the disabling disease in Stage 2 human trials. Now, a different approach in early human trials is also showing promise. From the story in the Telegraph:

A vaccine that slows the progress of multiple sclerosis has been developed. Preliminary research suggests the vaccine reduces the damage inflicted by MS sufferers' immune cells on their nervous systems...

The vaccine--the first that appears to slow the progress of MS--works by inserting DNA into the body to provoke an immune system reaction. A larger trial of the vaccine in 290 patients has begun. Alison Handford, from the MS Society, said: "These are very early but encouraging findings."

There is so much going in in biotechnology that has nothing to do with cloning and ESCR. It's time to stop the hype and acknowledge that embryonic stem cell research is merely one of many potential biotechnological approaches for treating diseases--most of the others being utterly non morally contentious. And cloning increasingly appears to be an unlikely avenue towards helping anyone anytime soon.

California's Misplaced Stem Cell Priorities

This story illustrates how politics has twisted the proper pursuit of regenerative medicine in California. During the last six years or so, the legislature went GA-GA over ESCR and human cloning. It passed a state law explicitly permitting human cloning research. And then, under a $35 million propaganda barrage, state voters agreed to an initiative (Proposition 71) that created a constitutional amendment to permit human cloning research and to fund SCNT and ESCR to the tune of $3 billion over ten years using borrowed money--meaning the actual cost will be about $7 billion. And all to pursue utterly unproven and ethically contentious approaches to regenerative medicine--and to supposedly "defy Bush," even though Bush has done nothing to prevent state jurisdictions from funding whatever they want.

And yet, the legislature