SHS Funnies

Why humans have nothing to do with the threatened extinction of a certain sub-subspecies of crocodiles:

Lead Into Gold: More IPSC Advances in Mice

Research on the new Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells continues to advance. Now, scientists have morphed them into heart and blood cells. From the story:

Stem cell researchers at UCLA were able to grow functioning cardiac cells using mouse skin cells that had been reprogrammed into cells with the same unlimited properties as embryonic stem cells. The finding is the first to show that induced pluripotent stem cells or iPS cells, which don't involve the use of embryos or eggs, can be differentiated into the three types of cardiovascular cells needed to repair the heart and blood vessels...

"I believe iPS cells address many of the shortcomings of human embryonic stem cells and are the future of regenerative medicine," said [Dr. Robb] MacLellan, an associate professor of cardiology and physiology. "I'm hoping that these scientific findings are the first step towards one day developing new therapies that I can offer my patients. There are still many limitations with using iPS cells in clinical studies that we must overcome, but there are scientists in labs across the country working to address these issues right now."

I'm not a scientist but from where I sit, I still think most clinical applications for stem cells will be from the adult/umbilical cord blood types. But the IPSCs will apparently do everything scientists said they wanted from therapeutic cloning--and at far less expense, at no risk to women for their eggs, and without moral contentiousness. Too bad California is still borrowing $300 million a year to pay scientists research on human cloning.

Reporter Connects With "Terminal Nonjudgmentalism"

I posted here at SHS a few days ago about a story reporting that Peter Singer would receive a cool $20 Gs for speaking at Arizona State University in Phoenix. I didn't mention that I was interviewed for some time by the reporter but was not quoted. Nothing unusual there. I am often interviewed by the media for a story and not mentioned in the end product, which is fine with me. Sometimes, I am asked to provide a background understanding or to help consider angles of the story to cover. Or, the reporter might not think my comments were worth quoting--whatever.

But reporter Sarah Fenske apparently "got" something I said to her, which is an issue I think is a matter of some import. From her blog entry on Singer's appearance:

When I was working on the column about Singer, I got in touch with one of his most outspoken critics, Wesley J. Smith. "As a society, we suffer from terminal nonjudgmentalism," Smith told me. "We find ourselves unable, except against tobacco users, to say that we're capable of making judgments."

He's right. And on top of that, I think, your average ASU student likes what Singer has to say about eating ethically. (You know, avoid factory farms, eat less meat, consider going vegan.) It's kind of cool to have the "most influential philosopher in the world" saying what you want to hear.

Singer is a decent speaker: smart, quick, polite. But for $20,000, I would have loved for him to challenge people's assumptions a little more. For example, he's argued that "buying local" isn't necessarily the most ethical choice--for all its trendiness, it doesn't do much for Third World farmers. But that idea was only briefly touched on; he was too busy hashing over things we already all knew, like the idea that animals feel pain. Duh.

So despite Singer's writings about babies, despite his status as "the most controversial philosopher in the world," the whole thing was pleasant, unchallenging--and completely uncontroversial. Terminal nonjudgmentalism, indeed.

If Singer were a racist, he would have been challenged vociferously, ground rules notwithstanding. But apparently promoting infanticide isn't seen as odious as discrimination based on race. Or perhaps it is because people make the mistake of not taking his advocacy for the propriety of killing babies who interfere with family interests--based on their purported non personhood--seriously. That's a big mistake: Remember, the most dangerous sentence ever uttered is, "It can't happen here."

UK Scientists Seeks to Ban Creation of "Humanzee"

The UK is debating a new bill to govern the ethics of creating embryos. Part of the bill would outlaw putting animal sperm into human eggs. But the reverse is not mentioned and at least one scientist is concerned. From the story:

A leading scientist has warned a new species of "humanzee," created from breeding apes with humans, could become a reality unless the government acts to stop scientists experimenting. In an interview with The Scotsman, Dr Calum MacKellar, director of research at the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, warned the controversial draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill did not prevent human sperm being inseminated into animals.

He said if a female chimpanzee was inseminated with human sperm the two species would be closely enough related that a hybrid could be born.

He said scientists could possibly try to develop the new species to fill the demand for organ donors.

I am not a scientist but I doubt that the human and chimp are akin to a horse and donkey's ability to mate and bring forth a mule. Be that as it may, there are those who would dance in the streets at the birth of the first humanzee because they think it would demonstrate that people are not special and thereby subvert human exceptionalism. Or, I suppose, because they want to manufacture a servile class, as envisioned by the late twisted thinker Joseph Fletcher.

But would scientists actually do that? MacKellar thinks that indeed, they would:

He said if the process was not banned, scientists would be "very likely" to try it, and it would be likely humans and chimps could successfully reproduce.

In other words, this scientist believes that the concept of the "mad scientist" may exist generally within the field. And therein lies the rub: If he is right--and I have my doubts--but, if it is true, then it means that a significant percentage of life scientists accept no reasonable limits on their experimentation, which will eventually require society to force them to cease and desist. And then we will hear the squawking from the Science Establishment about how the great unwashed are restricting freedom of inquiry. But if that happens, if lines are crossed best left unexplored, the "blank check" scientists will only have themselves to blame.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot: Of course they should outlaw putting human sperm into animal eggs.

Netherlands Euthanasia Statistics: Not Even Telling Half the Story

The latest Dutch euthanasia statistics are in, and the number of cases reported have gone up. From the story:

The number of cases of euthanasia reported by doctors last year rose to 2,120 from 1,923 in 2006, according to official figures published this week, reports ANP news service.

In three cases the regional committees responsible for ensuring the criteria for euthanasia are adhered to, ruled that doctors had not acted in accordance with regulations. The three dossiers have been sent to the justice department and health inspectorate.

Yea, and I'll bet there will be a strong letter to follow about those three cases. What a travesty.

By the way, these 2120 legalized murders do not include the about 900 "termination without request or consent" non voluntary euthanasia deaths that Dutch studies have reported doctors commit each year with nary a significant legal or professional consequence to the death doctors, and which are not counted as official cases of euthanasia in Dutch death bean counting. And, if the manner of keeping statistics is consistent with previous years, they don't include assisted suicides, which generally number about 500 per year. And they also don't include intentional overdosing with pain control with the intent to kill--rather than palliate--which the Dutch Government's "Remmelink Report" showed" to be above 4,000 in 1990. Nor do they include the increasing numbers of terminal sedations, which I reported earlier are on the rise in the Netherlands and are an abuse of a proper palliative procedure. And, they don't include eugenic infanticides, which number about 90 per year according to two reports in The Lancet. And while we are on the subject, it doesn't by definition include the cases not reported, which studies have indicated total about 40 percent or more each year, meaning that there were probably another 1000 or so that the authorities don't know about.

But other than that, I am sure it is an accurate statistic.

Stifling Scientific Heterodoxy

All around the country and the world, scientists who don't fall in line on human cloning, global warming, neo-Darwinism, and other issues in which the Science Establishment demands lockstep thinking, find themselves being pushed aside--ironically, by the very types who vociferously criticize the Catholic Church for its treatment of Galileo. The latest example may be the dropping of hurricane expert Bill Gray from receiving PR support from Colorado State University because he is a global warming skeptic. From the story:

By pioneering the science of seasonal hurricane forecasting and teaching 70 graduate students who now populate the National Hurricane Center and other research outposts, William Gray turned a city far from the stormy seas into a hurricane research mecca.

But now the institution in Fort Collins, Colo., where he has worked for nearly half a century, has told Gray it may end its support of his seasonal forecasting. As he enters his 25th year of predicting hurricane season activity, Colorado State University officials say handling media inquiries related to Gray's forecasting requires too much time and detracts from efforts to promote other professors' work.

But Gray, a highly visible and sometimes acerbic skeptic of climate change, says that's a "flimsy excuse" for the real motivation--a desire to push him aside because of his global warming criticism.

The university denies it, of course. But there is always an excuse given in these matters. And isn't it interesting that the stifling--er, ah, I mean changes in plans for rational reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with subverting free thought and academic freedom--always seems to flow in one direction.

Gene Therapy Success Restores Vision

This is exciting news and demonstrates once again that most biotechnology isn't morally contentious. A teenager with failing eyesight has had his vision improved by inserting healthy genes to correct a genetically caused disability. From the story:

In the trial carried out by a team at the University College of London Institute of Ophthalmology and Moorfields Eye Hospital, the world's first gene transplant for blindness produced an unprecedented improvement in Steven Howarth's sight.

The student suffered from a genetic mutation, called Leber's congenital amaurosis (LCA), which usually begins affecting the sight of sufferers in early childhood and eventually causes total blindness during a patient's twenties or thirties. Currently, there is no treatment for the condition.

Born with no peripheral or night vision, he noticed a marked improvement after the two-hour operation."Now, my sight when it's getting dark or it's badly lit is definitely better," he says. "It's a small change--but it makes a big difference."

Prof Robin Ali, the head of the team, said the evidence of his improvement was "compelling". The doctors injected genes only into Mr Howarth's worst affected eye and used the lowest dose in what was strictly a safety trial.

And that's an important point. Gene therapy can be dangerous, as Jesse Gelsinger tragically found out several years ago: It killed him.

But this is very hopeful news and a good sign for the future of regenerative medicine.

Transhumanism: The Early Years

A reader sent a funny old story to me from Modern Mechanix ("Yesterday's Tomorrow, Today"), circa 1956. The article is about transhumanism, long before the term was coined, and it ponders some of the ways that science might "redesign" the human body. Here's an excerpt:

Man's shape, then, would be altered rather drastically: The head would be a mere conning tower, probably be cylindrical, and the chest would have to be bigger. While redesigning the thorax Mr. Rowland brought forth another fairly radical suggestion: "Why is it necessary to have individual ribs? Why can't man's internal organs be protected with a device resembling a giant clam shell which can be opened easily for surgical purposes, be flexible enough to permit breathing and which would protect the vital organs a good deal better than the present lattice-work arrangement?"

Well, that sure gives the notion of "post human species" a vivid imagery, doesn't it? There's more:

Robert M. Wolff, an engineer and vice president of the Wolff Appliance Corp. of New York came out for an extra set of eyes in the back of the head. "At present," he said, "a human being's range of vision is at most 180 degrees and it's often much less than that. Why shouldn't man's vision be increased to a full 360 degrees?"

Ben Fromkin, a designer with the Burdick-Rowland firm, points out that man has trouble picking up small sounds emanating from the rear. Thus footpads, automobiles and falling objects may strike from behind without warning. Why, asks Mr. Fromkin, couldn't antennae be concealed in the head? These could pick up sound waves, lights and shadows, and relay them to the brain. The suggestion is not plucked from the blue--grasshoppers and other insects have them.

Adding wings was also suggested, bringing us closer to contemporary transhumanist thinking. However, the good people at the long defunct Popular Mechanix never considered going for immortality. That would hardly be Yesterday's Tomorrow, Today: It would be Never-Never Land.

HT: John Lochridge

Peter Singer Cleans Up: Pushing Death Pays

An article about a pending speech by Peter Singer in the Phoenix Times demonstrates once again that some of the best journalism and commentary can be found in the alternative press. From the story, byline Sarah Fenske:

In his 1985 book Should the Baby Live? The Problem of Handicapped Infants, the Australian-born philosopher writes that parents should have the right to kill a baby that's born disabled--and not just have the right to do it, but in some instances that disabled babies literally should be killed.Let me be clear here. Singer's talking about killing babies after they've been born. He's written that parents should have the right to kill a child within 28 days of birth. And if a family is inflicted with a senile relative, well, children ought to be allowed to kill feeble parents, too. Humanely, of course.

Actually, Singer has extended the infanticide license to almost a year. But I digress:

So, I was surprised to hear that Arizona State University is flying Peter Singer to campus for a lecture next week. And even more surprised when I heard the topic. He's going to talk about conscientious food choices.

It's more than a bit ironic. Here's a guy who argues, in effect, that human rights are limited to certain humans. That the siblings of a child with Down syndrome would naturally be happier without a disabled family member, so it's worth killing Down syndrome newborns. That the happiness of some people matters more than the very survival of others.

Now he wants to tell us how to eat?

Pushing death pays. Recall Jack Kevorkian was paid $50,000 to speak at the University of Florida. But Singer hasn't actually murdered anyone, so he gets a paltry $20,000. Perhaps if he acted on his culture of death convictions he could give himself a raise.

The organizers aren't letting Singer be confronted about anything other than food. So much for the free exchange of ideas on today's modern college campus.

Rights for "Social Animals" in Switzerland

The country that has brought the concept of "plant dignity" to the world has now extended "rights" to members of "social species." animals. From the story:

Under a new Swiss law enshrining rights for animals, dog owners will require a qualification, anglers will take lessons in compassion and horses will go only in twos.

From guinea-pigs to budgerigars, any animal classified as a "social species" will be a victim of abuse if it does not cohabit, or at least have contact, with others of its own kind.

The new regulation stipulates that aquariums for pet fish should not be transparent on all sides and that owners must make sure that the natural cycle of day and night is maintained in terms of light. Goldfish are considered social animals, or Gruppentiere in German...

The law extends to unlikely regions of the animal kingdom. Anglers will also be required to complete a course on catching fish humanely, with the Government citing studies indicating that fish can suffer too.

The regulations will affect farmers, who will no longer be allowed to tether horses, sheep and goats, nor keep pigs and cows in areas with hard floors. The legislation even mentions the appropriate keeping of rhinoceroses, although it was not clear immediately how many, if any, were being kept as pets in Switzerland.

Animal protection groups have greeted the news enthusiastically, but critics say that it means an extra financial burden on taxpayers and animal owners, and that it will be impossible to monitor the implementation of the rules. Farmers' associations have protested, arguing that the law will have a negative effect on the economy and decrease their competitiveness on the international market.

What can one say any more? Children die of malaria in Africa, genocide rages in the Sudan, and Switzerland is giving rights to plants and extending the concept of the proper care and treatment of animals to surrealistic proportions to the point that it may harm humans from thriving and prospering.

And get this from the country that permits lay assisted suicide groups to thrive:

And a word of warning for those planning a mercy killing for their goldfish: special chemicals will be required "to put them to death". Flushing them down the loo is no longer an option.

We are losing our minds.

On Retracting My Charge That Robert Lanza "Betrayed Science"

Some time ago, I charged Robert Lanza of Advanced Cell Technology with having "betrayed science." Recently, at his initiative, we have been in communication and have cleared some of the bad air that lay between ourselves. While we do not agree on ethical matters, I think it is fair to say that we understand each other far better than we did formerly. I appreciate his efforts to reach out and bury some hatchets and consider them permanently interred in the ground.

One ax apparently still lingers: Lanza and those close to him were apparently quite hurt by my charge of scientific betrayal. That was not my intent, and I made the admittedly harsh assertion after listening to an interview on the Nature podcast in which Lanza said:

What we have done, for the first time is to actually create human embryonic stem cells, without destroying the embryo itself.

Those who recall the controversy know that based on the published paper upon which the interview was based, Lanza had done no such thing, and indeed, that all the embryos in the experiment reported about in Nature were destroyed in the experiment. The resulting brouhaha culminated in a tongue lashing against ACT and Lanza by Senator Arlen Specter for not having accomplished all that the PR hype had claimed.

Yet Lanza believes I did him an egregious wrong. He believes he told the truth in the interview that so angered me because by that time he had actually accomplished what he stated--even though that subsequent success was not reported until later. And he didn't make that distinction in the interview from which I quoted, and so I concluded, quite reasonably, that he was talking about the reported experiment alone, while in Lanza's mind, he was also referencing the subsequent, but as yet unreported successes as well. Those advances were reported officially some months later and I wrote about them here as soon as they came to light.

I believe in fairness and have too many scars on my own body from unfounded attacks on my integrityw, motives, and beliefs to want to inflict similar wounds on others. I did not mean to hurt Lanza's feelings or of those close to him. In light of the explanation that his statements to Nature were meant in his mind to include successful experiments he conducted after those described in the original Nature paper, it is only right that we agree that the "betrayed science" episode was a bonafide misunderstanding, not an attempt to deceive or unfairly castigate.

That being the case, I retract my claim that Lanza "betrayed science." What he did was fail to communicate fully and clearly. But that is an inadvertence, not a moral failing.

We continue to disagree ethically about the cloning issue, but I have come to assume his good faith, as I believe, based on our discussions, he assumes mine. Thus, I view the matter as concluded and forgotten. Life's too short for feuds. The case is closed.

We Pass the 30,000 Mark

SHS continues to its slow, but satisfyingly steady growth. We just passed 30,000 visitors in the last 30 days. That is thanks to you all. My deep appreciation for your support and participation, for sending me stories you think will be of interest, and for your comments. Thank you.

"Plant Dignity"

I reported a few days ago here at SHS about how an ethics committee in Switzerland expounded on what could be called the rights of plants. Now Nature has weighed in about the ridiculous matter of "plant dignity," worrying that it could impede biology. From the editorial:

The Swiss federal government's ethics committee on non-human biotechnology has mapped out guidelines to help granting agencies decide which research applications deeply offend the dignity of plants--and hence become unfundable.

Although most people might be bewildered that a discussion on how to define 'plant dignity' should be taking place at all, the stakes for Swiss plant scientists are high. The Gene Technology Law, which came into effect in 2004, stipulates that 'the dignity of creatures' should be considered in any research. The phrase has been widely criticized for its general woolliness, but it indisputably includes plants.

All plant biotechnology grant applications must now include a paragraph explaining the extent to which plant dignity is considered. "But scientists don't know what it means," says Beat Keller of the
Institute of Plant Biology at the University of Zurich who is running the first field trial--of disease-resistant corn (maize)--to be approved under the new legislation.

"At the moment not even authorities who decide on grants know what the 'dignity of plants' really means," says Markus Schefer, a constitution lawyer at the University of Basel and a member of the ethics committee. "That's why we were asked to deliberate."...

The committee does not consider that genetic engineering of plants automatically falls into this category, but its majority view holds that it would if the genetic modification caused plants to 'lose their independence'--for example by interfering with their capacity to reproduce. The statement has confused plant geneticists, who point out the contrast with traditional plant-hybridization technologies, for example in roses, which require male sterility, and the commercial development of seedless fruits...

The definition of what constitutes dignity in animals is currently being tested in a Zurich court. Primate-research projects at the ETH Zurich technology institute, which involve separating young marmosets from their mothers, have been put on hold while the court decides if they conflict with the animals' dignity. A ruling is expected this year. Whichever way it falls, the decision is likely to end up in the federal constitutional court.

In one sense, I think the Science Establishment asked for this. It has been a prime mover in seeking to stamp out human exceptionalism as the reigning ethic of society. Well, this is what happens when we lose our self concept as a species of unique importance. Once we are knocked off the pedestal, all fauna and flora get thrown into the mix of "creatures" entitled to "rights," even to the point that human beings are the world's villains in some eyes. We are, in effect, eating our own tails as we move from human rights, to animal rights, and now plant "dignity." This is beyond satirizing and, if we are not careful, can stop our own flourishing in its tracks.

Oh yes: This is the same country that has a constitutional right to assisted suicide for the mentally ill. Where is the "creature dignity" in that?

UCLA Obtains Restraining Order to Protect Researchers

This shouldn't be necessary--and it isn't enough--but the Animal Liberation Front and others have been enjoined from coming within 50 feet or researchers' homes and from otherwise intimidating and harassing them. Of course, that will make no difference to the fanatics. From the story:"

Two of the groups (the Animal Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Brigade) are clandestine organizations that regularly break the law," Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a trauma surgeon and press officer for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, told City News Service. "The Animal Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Brigade neither care nor know about the restraining order."

Vlasak is only half right: They do know but they do not care. Why? In my view ALF-type animal rights fanaticism is not about animals at all. That is merely a pretext. The actual agendas are naked nihilism, the urge to destroy and tear down, and negativism for the sheer thrill of it. When one's countenance is so darkened, the rule of law and common decency to one's fellow humans mean nothing.

The Deprofessionalization of Medicine Continues

I submit, it is my hypothesis, that medicine is devolving from a profession with firm standards of excellence and ethics, into a technocracy--still possessing excellence--but with a very fluid concept of ethics. Case in point: A law that would require "good moral character" as a matter of licensing is being resisted in Massachusetts. From the story:

Of the proposed regulations, the Massachusetts Medical Society objects to an expansion of the listed grounds for disciplinary action, including a provision that defines "lack of good moral character" based on behavior within or outside of medical practice.

"Board disciplinary action should be based upon concerns relevant to the practice of medicine," said Auerbach.

Audesse said state law makes moral character a requirement for licensure.

"This is not a new requirement," she said. "The privilege of holding a medical license requires not only technical skills, but high levels of ethics and morals."

Of course, it would depend on how the term "good moral character" were applied. For example, if a doctor committed adultery, that should not be grounds for discipline. If he did it with a 16-year-old girl, which would not be a crime, it seems to me it should be. Similarly, if a doctor was convicted of shop lifting, it should be an issue of licensing just as it is for lawyers.

In any event, medicine is devolving from a learned profession into a learned technocracy (for wont of a better term) before our very eyes governed by the hallowed soundbite "choice." No wonder so few doctors take the Hippocratic Oath anymore, and the oaths they do take are such thin pabulum. This trend isn't good for doctors, patients, or society.

Lead Into Gold: Wilmut Says Human Cloning Research "Unnecessary"

Ian Wilmut was an enthusiastic human cloner, and indeed, had obtained a license from the never-say-no UK Embryo Authority to create cloned embryos from the DNA of motor neuron disease patients, known as ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease in the USA. Then Shinya Yamanaka invented Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells, and Wilmut called the cloning experiments off.

Now, Wilmut believes Yamanaka is due a Nobel Prize, wants to collaborate with him on iPSC research, and finds human cloning research to be unnecessary. From the story:

Wilmut praised Yamanaka's achievement, saying the finding was equivalent to the discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA. "I certainly think Yamanaka will have the Nobel Prize," he said. Wilmut said he had initially planned a study to produce embryonic stem (ES) cells from cloned embryos, which are produced by placing the nucleus of a human somatic cell into an ova.

In connection with his research on iPS cells, Wilmut said it will be unnecessary in years to come to conduct studies to develop ES cells from cloned human embryos. Nevertheless, Wilmut stressed the need to continue studies involving cloned animals in the future.

Wow. What a turnaround. It seems increasingly clear that the ethical conundrum regarding pluripotent stem cells is well on the way to being solved.

The Blind Can See

As I keep saying, most biotechnology is not controversial. This is amazing: Scientists have restored site with a bionic eye. From the story:

Surgeons have carried out the first operations in Britain using a pioneering “bionic eye” that could in future help to restore blind people’s sight. Two successful operations to implant the device into the eyes of two blind patients have been conducted at Moorfields Eye Hospital in London.

The device--the first of its kind--incorporates a video camera and transmitter mounted on a pair of glasses. This is linked to an artificial retina, which transmits moving images along the optic nerve to the brain and enables the patient to discriminate rudimentary images of motion, light and dark...

Linda Moorfoot is one of a few American patients to be fitted with the current version of the implant. She had been totally blind for more than a decade with the inherited condition retinitis pigmentosa. With the aid of the camera mounted on a pair of sunglasses, she can now see a rough image of the world made up of light and dark blocks. She told Sky News: “When I go to the grandkids’ hockey game or soccer game I can see which direction the game is moving in. I can shoot baskets with my grandson, and I can see my granddaughter dancing across the stage. It’s wonderful.”

By the way, this breakthrough would not have been possible had it not first been extensively tested in animals, almost surely in monkeys. In fact, the UCLA professor driven out of research by animal rights terrorists was conducting experiments with monkeys that involved similar technology. But it may not happen now because those thugs cared more about the monkeys than they do for people who have lost their eyesight.

PETA Contest for "In Vitro" Meat

Oh brother: PETA claims to be about ending all human use of animals, but its first priority is grabbing attention. The newest gimmick is a contest that will award $1 million to the scientist who first develops in vitro meat that can be sold to the public in place of steak or bacon. From the story:

The organization said it will announce plans today for a $1 million prize to the "first person to come up with a method to produce commercially viable quantities of in vitro meat at competitive prices by 2012."

The idea of getting the next Chicken McNugget out of a test tube is not new. For several years, scientists have worked to develop technologies to grow tissue cultures that could be consumed like meat without the expense of land or feed and the disease potential of real meat. An international symposium on the topic was held this month in Norway.

The tissue, once grown, could be shaped and given texture with the kinds of additives and structural agents that are now used to give products such as soy burgers a more meaty quality.

The chances of this happening in 4 years are pretty low, and so there is little worry that PETA will have to pony up the mil. Moreover, the chance that most meat eaters will switch to test tube grown protein is also pretty low--as is the likelihood that in vitro meat will be significantly cheaper than animal flesh. Besides, those who adhere to the maxim, "If it has a face don't eat it," are unlikely to switch back to meat from vegetarianism.

Then, there is this: Developing in vitro meat requires using animals instrumentally, which I thought was a violation of the PETA creed. Moreover, it does nothing to wean us off of our "addiction" to meat.

Interestingly, I asked Gary Francione his view on this, and it is strikingly similar to mine. He told me:

The likelihood of having commercially viable quantities of in-vitro meat by 2012 is very low. So PETA is not really putting anything at risk but is getting publicity. And the primary goal of PETA is to promote PETA--animal rights is only an incidental part of the equation. Moreover, as far as I am aware, PETA has not placed any restriction on the prize that would prohibit the use of animal-based growth mediums or vivisection as part of the research into the development of in-vitro meat. If that is the case, then you have a purported animal rights organization promoting animal exploitation through offering the prize in addition to the problem of PETA encouraging this sort of thing at all. But as PETA has in the past given awards to slaughterhouse designers and to those who produce and sell "happy" meat and and animal products, this most recent gimmick is nothing out of the ordinary for the organization.

PETA says that the goal of all of this for fewer animals to suffer. But that is a pipe dream. The PETA in vitro meat contest is really just a gimmick to garner publicity--PETA's addictive substance of choice.

Gail Collins Howler: Facts Don't Matter: Narratives Do!

This is a perfect example of all that has gone wrong with our public discourse and what passes for important public policy. Facts simply no longer matter. What counts are narratives and motives.

Thus Gail Collins, writing about global warming in the NYT, states:

The Europeans have a perfect right to look down on the United States since they've set much more ambitious targets for reducing global warming. While they do not appear to be likely to meet any of them, it's the thought that counts.

!!!!! Global warming is beyond our jurisdiction here at SHS, but this is an absolute howler! Actually accomplishing isn't what matters. Effectiveness isn't what matters. It is the narrative that really counts: The Europeans want to cut back on greenhouse gasses! Whether they actually do is immaterial.

Assisted Suicide Ideologues Pour in the $ for I 1000

Washington's Initiative 1000 to legalize assisted suicide is rolling in dough, thanks to Booth Gardner and the professional assisted suicide groups, who in turn, get much of their money from the likes of George Soros. Here is a breakdown of about $550,000 in campaign donations based on filed public records:

Compassion & Choices Action Network--$50,000

Compassion and Choices of Washington--$65,000

Death with Dignity National Center--$21,870

Euthanasia Research & Guidance Org--$3500

Booth Gardner--$200,000

Oregon Death with Dignity PAC- $200,000

That ain't hay. And Booth Gardner had the temerity to whine about campaign spending worries.

HT: Rita Marker

Senior Citizens Happiest Americans

Studies about seniors being happy seem to have surprised a reporter. From the story:

Eye-opening new research finds the happiest Americans are the oldest, and older adults are more socially active than the stereotype of the lonely senior suggests. The two go hand in hand: Being social can help keep away the blues."The good news is that with age comes happiness," said study author Yang Yang, a University of Chicago sociologist. "Life gets better in one's perception as one ages."

A certain amount of distress in old age is inevitable, including aches and pains and the deaths of loved ones and friends. But older people generally have learned to be more content with what they have than younger adults, Yang said.

Perhaps it is because they are not so self centered. Today's elders are the Greatest Generation, who sacrificed so notably for things greater than themselves, and in doing so overcame the Depression, defeated fascism, set postwar Europe and Japan on a course to freedom and prosperity, and won the Cold War.

This comment from an "expert" made me laugh:

This is partly because older people have learned to lower their expectations and accept their achievements, said Duke University aging expert Linda George. An older person may realize, "It's fine that I was a schoolteacher and not a Nobel Prize winner."

Maybe I am being unfair, but can't you just hear the word "just" before the words "a schoolteacher?" Somehow we shifted during the Baby Boom Generation from seeing our purpose as being a productive and integral part of a whole--and this is certainly not an original observation--to making the point of life about my desires, my ambitions, my choices. As I reflect back, that is sure what was going on at the times I went wrong and became (and made others) unhappy--and I hope I learned my lesson!

Wisdom is to be found here if we only look:

A separate University of Chicago study found that about 75 percent of people ages 57 to 85 engage in one or more social activities at least every week. Those include socializing with neighbors, attending religious services, volunteering or going to group meetings. Those in their 80s were twice as likely as those in their 50s to do at least one of these activities.

In other words, many seniors' focus is directed outward, to faith, family, and community. Perhaps that is the key to the secret of life.

One last point: With so much talk of "bitterness" in the ether these days, let us ask: Who really are the bitter ones? It isn't the folk--be they young or old--who "cling" to more traditional concepts of community and service, even in the bad times. (For example, I can't tell you how many happy soldiers I have met in airports who beamed when I thanked them for their service and told me it is an honor and a joy.) Rather, the self-annointed intellectual and cultural elites are the ones who seem to be constantly wearing a frown.

Thin Skinned Richard Dawkins Can't Take a Joke

Ha! I had some fun at the expense of Dr. Richard "a free thinking oasis" Dawkins the other day, accusing him here at SHS of being a Raelian because he states in Expelled that it is an "intriguing possibility" that life here was seeded by space aliens.

Well, today Dawkins had a tantrum in the LA Times about some of the flack he has been receiving--and get the last paragraph:

Everybody understood that this was an argument against group selection. Nobody twisted it to trumpet to the world, "See? Maynard Smith believes in Group Selection after all, and he thinks it happens in Haystacks, ho ho ho!" Creationists, by contrast, never miss a trick. When I have raised the science-fiction olive branch to try to argue against them, they have twisted it--most recently in a movie scheduled to open this week--in order to proclaim loudly, "Dawkins believes in intelligent design after all." Or "Dawkins believes in little green men in flying saucers." Or "Dawkins is a Raelian." It's called "lying for Jesus," and they are completely shameless.

Touchy, touchy. Poor baby can't take a little ribbing. I guess that happens when you think your gray matter is superior to everybody else's. Or to put it another way, Dawkins can dish it out in spades, but he sure can't take it. Ho ho.

Adult Stem Cells Treating Wounded Soldiers

Showing how far adult stem cells have come in a very short time, our wounded soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan are being treated with their own stem cells to help treat wounds involving bones. From the story:

With the dexterity of a carpenter, the finesse of a master chef and the tools of a painter, Dr. Thomas Einhorn uses stem cells to do something on the cutting edge of science: grow brand new bone. Today, orthopaedic stem cell surgery earned significant backing from the federal government, which announced plans to dedicate $85 million for the creation of the Armed Forces Institute of Regenerative Medicine (AFIRM) to fund this procedure for veterans injured in Iraq and Afghanistan...

Einhorn, the chairman of orthopaedic surgery at the Boston University School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center, used stem cells to try to repair a patient's hip, after seven conventional surgeries had failed. It was the first time he had attempted this specific surgery, which to the untrained eye looks a little like spray painting.

Einhorn extracts stem cells from the patient's bone marrow, drawn from the pelvis. Some is used for what Einhorn calls "grout. By mixing the bone marrow cells with protein, it gives me a kind of a grouting material that I can use to fill in the gaps," he said. Dr. George Muschler, who pioneered the surgery at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, which is a grant recipient, said, "I think [the procedure] has applications to some challenges that might have previously cost patients their leg, because we didn't have a way to heal their bone."

Illustrating how the hype overcame reality, the story's author felt the need to say that the stem cells did not come from embryos. But as readers of SHS know, no human applications have yet come from human ES cells.

It will not take much time for this procedure to become available in the civilian sector. The good news just keeps coming.

Flora Rights!

You all knew it was just a matter of time, didn't you? Yes, some ethicists have said that it is morally wrong to decapitate flowers and appear to have opined there is something of a right to life for plants. From the story:

PLANTS deserve respect, a group of Swiss experts says, arguing that killing them arbitrarily is morally wrong-- except when it comes to saving humans or maybe picking petals off a daisy. In a report on "the dignity of the creature in the plant world", the federal Ethics Committee on non-human Gene Technology condemned the decapitation of flowers without reason, among other sins.

Still, commission member Bernard Baertsche suggested the body weighed such cruel acts on a case by case basis, noting "the simple pleasure of picking the petals off a daisy might suffice as a reason".
Similarly "all action that involves plants in the aim to conserve the human species is morally justified,'' the commission, tasked to offer an ethical take on all areas of biotechnology and genetic engineering, said in its report. Nor did the commission object to genetic engineering, since this did not threaten plants' "autonomy--that is their capacity to reproduce or their capacity of adaptation".

And only a minority of the group's members objected to patenting plants, with the majority ruling the action did not infringe on "their moral value".

There must be more to this than the story depicts. But really, plant "autonomy?"

There CIRM Goes Again Hyping Away

What a disaster the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine has been. Management incompetence, fat executive raises in spite of the incompetence, conflict of interest charges sparking an official investigation, the list goes on and on. And now, it appears the CIRM tried to take credit that it did not deserve for funding research that made it to human trials. From the story:

California's stem cell agency overstated and hyped the importance of its funding in enabling clinical trials for a drug to treat a severe blood disorder, Consumer Watchdog said today, seriously undercutting the agency's credibility and alienating those who support publicly funded stem cell research. Last week the California Institute For Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) issued a news release titled "First Clinical Trial Begins for a Therapy Enabled By CIRM Funding." The announcement even drew a comment from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who issued a release saying CIRM funding led to the discovery. He added, "I am proud of our state's commitment to stem cell research, which delivers the best promise in finding treatments for deadly and debilitating diseases."...

The initial CIRM news release about the clinical trial said that Jamieson was funded by a stem cell SEED grant that was approved in February 2007. That grant was given to fund the derivation of cancer-causing stem cells from human embryonic stem cells. The research that led to the clinical trial did not involve human embryonic stem cells at all.

Moreover, according to the official notice of grant award, the time period for the CIRM funded grant of $613,305 was from Aug. 1, 2007- July 31, 2009. The university officially signed off on the grant on Aug. 31, 2007. The paper outlining the research findings was submitted to "Cancer Cell" on Sept. 19, 2007.

So the CIRM grant was issued less than one month before the paper was submitted, it didn't involve the same area of research as the subject of the grant, and yet CIRM tried to take credit anyway.

Is anyone surprised? No. Will someone--anyone--pull the plug on this profligate travesty? Alas, no.

Abortion as "Art"--a Hoax

Update: I am not surprised that the story turned out not to be true. From the story:

The story about Aliza Shvarts' project, published Thursday in the Yale Daily News, swept across blogs and media outlets-- including the Drudge Report, Fox News and The Washington Post--before Yale issued a statement saying it investigated and found it all to be a hoax that was Shvarts' idea of elaborate "performance art."

"The entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman's body," said Yale spokeswoman Helaine Klasky.

I don't think the art worked as drawing attention "to the ambiguity surrounding the function of a woman's body," whatever that means. But it did work as depicting vividly how far we have slipped as a society that such a travesty would be believable. Indeed, like all good hoaxes, it had at least one foot firmly in reality.

Thus, even though the facts of this particular matter are false, I think my reaction remains apt. Thus, I will leave the original entry as I wrote it, which is set forth below.

--------
Please let this be a hoax: According to the Yale newspaper, an "artist" named Aliza Shvarts repeatedly made herself pregnant through artificial insemination and then took abortion drugs and recorded herself expelling the embryo. From the story:

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

The goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body. But her project has already provoked more than just debate, inciting, for instance, outcry at a forum for fellow senior art majors held last week. And when told about Shvarts' project, students on both ends of the abortion debate have expressed shock--saying the project does everything from violate moral code to trivialize abortion.

But Shvarts insists her concept was not designed for "shock value.""I hope it inspires some sort of discourse," Shvarts said. "Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it's not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone."

I don't know whether to read too much into this story or too little. The arteest clearly has no concept of the importance of human life or the reproductive function--and the men who donated sperm so she could impregnate herself and abort are no better than Shvarts. But let's face it: there have always been morally stunted individuals and always will be.

On the other hand, the right to abortion was supposed to be about protecting women's autonomy rights when she found herself with an unwanted pregnancy. But if this is a true story, the woman in question intentionally impregnated herself so she could abort--repeatedly.

How could we go from there to here? In our dedication to terminal nonjudmentalism, we have refused to hold crucial ethical lines, most particularly the most important one of all; that being human in and of itself is a matter of great moral importance. Tens of millions of abortions have helped lead to this mindset, I fear, although I believe the eugenics movement--whose influence we have never fully escaped--is the root cause.

Making matters worse, the stain of human unexceptionalism is spreading. As I wrote in Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World, the right to an abortion has been used in bioethics literature as an intellectual springboard for the right to genetically engineer progeny in order not just to have a baby but the kind of baby the parents' want by any means they desire--leading to sex selection, eugenic terminations, infanticide, and the transhumanist post human species agenda. So intrinsic value takes it in the neck both coming and going.

Whatever the cause: Too many people these days in too many venues sniff at the intrinsic value of human life, to the point that deep ecologists yearn for a worldwide pandemic to wipe out the vermin species afflicting the living planet Gaia. This "art project" is just a symptom of that moral decay.

The woman should be shunned if she really did this. But she won't be. She will probably land on Larry King.

Biotech Advance Could Protect Patients in Drug Trials

I probably don't say this often enough, but most biotechnological research is entirely ethical and exciting. Case in point: The FDA is poised to approve a test that picks up "biomarkers" that could tell researchers whether a drug is harming a patient's kidneys during human trials and, I suppose, afterwards. From the story:

Currently, experimental drugs are tested in animals before being taken to human clinical trails. But animals' reactions aren't always the best predictor of whether substances will be safe for humans. Drugs harmless to animals can hurt humans, and vice versa. If a drug toxic to the kidneys passes animal tests today, the damage might not show up until it is too late.

"Using current tests, you have lost about 70 percent of the kidney function before you pick it up," says William Mattes, director of toxicology at the Critical Path Institute in Tucson.

The new biomarker process has the potential to save a patient's kidneys.

The ultimate goal of the pharmaceutical industry is to have a range of such marker tests that would signal dangerous side effects like heart failure, liver damage or cancer. Samples of blood, urine or saliva, for example, would be taken from participants in a clinical trial. If certain biomarkers indicated the patient was at risk, the trial could be stopped before any major damage occurs.

According to the story, drugs will continue to be tested in animals first. In other words, the biomarkers would be an added protection, not a substitute for other steps in the drug approval process.

It would be nice if the biomarkers could make animal testing superfluous, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards. After all, the biomarkers will detect damage being caused after the drug is consumed. That means it remains important to attempt to filter out drugs that could be dangerous before being allowed for human use.