Wizblog

Granted, I feel the timing of the latest Christopher Reeves comment may not be very tasteful or in good judgement, but I don't think the hope behind it is nearly "dispicable", certainly no more than any other strategy taken by either side throughout this campaign season.

In addition, as far as the brain-shavings excerpt: [I know I could post over there, but I'd rather discuss with DW!] I'll concede that there is no official "ban" on stem cell research, but there is a government-imposed limitation. However, to say that embryonic stem cell research is "morally repugnant"? I don't necessary want to be held to "brain-shavers" moral standards first of all. Regardless, the cells are harvested from umbilical cords and placentas that are normally discarded at birth anyway. I fail to see the morality issue with that. I mean, if he wanted to get into the abortion issue, blah blah, I could see having a moral dilemna and a much stronger argument.

I'm not sure why he feels confident in stating that "embryonic stem cells have less promise . . ." From the many sources that I've consulted, it's actually just the opposite. Additionally, THAT'S the point of having to do the research. (I'll continue this point below)

I find it odd that brain-shaver calls for the resignation of the Kerry/Edwards scentific advisors. I checked for his (brain-shavers) own credentials on his website and found very little, especially lacking in the "scientific" arena (not saying he doesn't have it, just saying it wasn't listed). Granted, he has a law background, and had to do a research paper or thesis, but I don't know that outranks a scientific advisor. I read through his article as well. Several places, he dismisses researchers and scientists findings and opinions, replacing them with those of ethicists.

Also, his argument saying that Adult stem cells are more important than embryonic stem cells is based on an outdated assumption. First of all, in his own article, he explains some of the dangers of adult stem cell use. Secondly, he willingly claims that most of the relevant research on stem cells has been done in the last 3 years. Yet, his main argument for adult stem cells comes from a British medical journal that states that this "could" be true - opinion, not fact. Oh, and that journal article was published in 2000 . . . therefore, by his own acclaim - not relevant.

JJ,

Good to hear from you, as always. What is "despicable" to me is not the "hope" of success from the research. We all have that. What I detest is the lie that is the premise of Edwards' comment, and the intentional distortion of fact being presented in a speech to high school kids. That is, that Bush has banned some kind of research when he has done no such thing. In fact, he is the first president ever to fund embryonic stem-cell research, making the claim even more disingenuous and irresponsible. And second, the pandering in claiming, with no basis in fact, that a vote for Kerry/Edwards means that the paralyzed will walk again. He didn't imply or suggest it, or say that he "hoped" it would happen. He claimed that it WILL happen! And by implication, that a vote for Bush means that it won't.

A couple other things: There is no "government-imposed limitation" on embryonic stem-cell research, apart from a painstakingly arrived at decision not to spend federal taxpayer money on researching embryonic stem-cell lines other than the ones currently under federal funding today. Private foundations, pharmaceutical companies, individuals, hospitals, universities, etc. have absolutely no limitations whatsoever on doing said research. That is the same as saying that there is a "government imposed limitation" on research on erectile dysfunction drugs, because the federal government isn't paying for it all with taxpayer money. By that logic, there's a "government imposed limitation" on me buying groceries and making my car payment.

And I think you misunderstood what Shavings said about the source of the stem-cells. His moral objection, (and that of GWB and millions of other taxpayers) is to the creation (and/or cloning) of embryos for the purpose of their destruction for research. He says "Embryonic stem cell research derived from destroyed embryos is morally repugnant, especially since those cells are obtainable from umbilical cords and placentas."

The former he objects to, the latter he does not.

Debating which type of stem-cells hold the greater "promise" is a conversation way over both of our heads, for sure. But what I have read (and I suggest some Wesley Smith articles for more info on this) suggests that the results so far from adult stem cell research have surpassed any successes or encouragement gleaned to date from the embryonic lines. I'll post some of the articles in question as soon as I dig them out. Also, there's some good comments on the Tigerhawk post I linked to, from people way smarter on this topic than you and me.

JJ,

From the Kass article in the Washington Post:

The Bush policy also offers a prudent means of addressing a divisive public question. By refusing to reward future embryo destruction, it respects those who regard this practice as immoral. Yet by refraining from banning embryo-destroying research in the private sector, it also respects those for whom the moral balance favors sacrificing embryos for the sake of medical progress. The policy offers hope to those who might be aided by stem cell medicine in the future without recklessly trampling over the most cherished moral ideals of their fellow citizens.

Fair enough.

I must've misunderstood your comment on Edwards, and Shaving's point on the umbilical cords and what not.

As for the "limitation" idea . . . I'm just saying that if the gov't provided funding, there would be x amount of additional dollars spent on the research. If that means you want to say that the government limits your grocery shopping . . . that doesn't bother me.

Wich the adult stem cells v. embryonic discussion . . . I've had plenty of biology and physiology classes that have gone into detail, and I've had to do research papers myself - not thesis-length papers, but papers nonetheless. Again, like I said before, that assumption is outdated and one of the precise reasons the research needs to be done. I'm not saying that the statement is true or false, I'm just saying it is not fact.

After I read your posting, I checked out that Tigerhawk site. Here as well, I read the post, then went looking for a profile. Suprise, suprise, he's an executive for a medical device company that says "only medical device companies and pharmaceutical companies can find a cure for patients."

My point is . . . I think that's one of the problems with the blog community - accountability and therefore credibility. I think it would be much more effective in supporting an argument with a link to a journal article or something along those lines than to link to another blogger that obviously shares your same convictions, motivations, or discriminations.

[Also, I'm curious, are there any points or topics that you agree with the Kerry/Edwards positioning on; or are there any points/topics that you disagree with Bush/Cheney on? -- that can be an email discussion is you prefer, since it's sort of off topic]

Point made on the tendency toward insularity by some bloggers and how that keeps the discussion narrow. But speaking of accountability, be careful about using quotation marks when you're not accurately quoting what the man said. His point is well made that researchers make "discoveries", but "cures" are provided to patients by the private sector developers of drugs, devices, treatments, etc. What's to argue, and how is it ideological?

Yes, he's in the private medical device industry so he is talking about something about which he is knowledgeable, and yes, perhaps biased. It's not The Evening News with Dan Rather. It's a discussion forum. He goes on to make the "conservative" point that "the private sector is working away at the promise of fetal stem cell research, all without the miracle of (massive) federal subsidy. There's a conference here in Princeton on that very subject next week. The Bush Administration, unlike virtually the entire mainstream media, understands that technology can flourish without taxpayer subsidies that are morally offensive to many Americans."

I'd be curious to hear what you think after you take a look at the Smith articles I posted. There is a high degree of politics, and of course the power of big, big money at play in the stem-cell debate, and Smith cites specific instances of misrepresentation, outright experiment fraud, and strong press and industry biases that serve to exaggerate the successes and promise of embryonic research. And it's mostly about the scramble for taxpayer money. The politicization of science is a major scandal. But that's for another day.

On your last question, I disagree with the Bush administration on many issues, which I'd be delighted to discuss with you anytime by phone, email, or right here..(when it's not 2: 30 a.m.)
That said, I can't say that on any of those issues, the prospect of a Kerry administration offers a preferable alternative. Must sleep.