Monday, June 14, 2004

There are ALWAYS ethical concerns...

In my previous post, I quote Peter Mombaerts as saying this:

A major benefit of the complete elimination of oocytes and embryos from the concept of therapeutic cloning is that the ethical debate would vaporize instantaneously. In this way, scientific progress may provide a solution to ethical concerns.

I was just thinking that that isn't true—it would create new ethical concerns. What he's suggesting is that one way to get around the obstacle of a limited supply of human ova is to develop techniques that:

• utilize non-human ova
• allow scientists to transform somatic or stem cells into ova or other germ line cells
• bypass ova altogether by directly transferring somatic nuclei to cultured stem cell lines

I can think of a few science-fictiony ways the possibilities here would give a fundamentalist the heebie-jeebies. Imagine someone cloning themselves with their own skin cell nucleus and egg cells harvested from their pet cat. Or a gay male couple who extract cells from one of the pair, culture it into an egg cell, and fertilize it with sperm from the other. Just in general, I think any scientific procedure that extends the potential for full development to non-germline cells, or uncouples sexual reproduction from the sex of the two parents, is going to freak some people out.

Myself, I think it would be cool.

Stem cells, Alzheimer's, and the contumely of the Discovery Institute

Minions of the Discovery Institute don't restrict themselves to only fighting for the indoctrination of high school students with creationism—they've also got a wider goal of infusing society with their anti-science dogma. One Discovery Institute Fellow, Wesley Smith, has been all over the place ranting against stem cell research lately, typically with as little actual grasp of the facts as the DI usually brings to bear against evolution.

For instance, how is this for a lovely title: "Embryonic Stem Cell Research Likely Won't Cure Any Diseases"? Now that's doom-and-gloom for you. The gist of his argument is that 1) biotech companies are not getting rich on embryonic stem cell research now, and 2) it won't work anyway. The first point is irrelevant. Basic research often isn't going to be immediately profitable, which is why we need government sponsorship; that our current administration has actively crippled this kind of research might, perhaps, be contributing to the reluctance of the biotech industry to leap into it.

His second point is backed up with some incredibly dishonest quote mining. What he does is quote scientists as being discouraging about the prospects for the research, while omitting key conclusions that contradict his points. For example, here Smith complains that the demand for embryos would be insuperable:

But now, we are being told that ESCR alone won't lead to treatments for degenerative diseases and disabilities such as Parkinson's, spinal-cord injury, Lou Gehrig's disease, juvenile diabetes, and the like. It seems that our bodies might reject tissues developed from natural embryos. Indeed, according to Robert Lanza, medical director of Advanced Cell Technology, writing in the May 24 Scientific American, the rejection issue is so huge that biotechnologists would require "millions of discarded embryos from IVF clinics" to create stem-cell lines with sufficient genetic variations to mitigate the problem through tissue matching.

But take a look at the Scientific American article. Here are the next sentences right after that quote:

Some researchers have speculated that such an extensive bank might not be necessary, that patients can be desensitized to ES cell derivatives or that the antigenic properties of the cells themselves can be reduced. But those feats have yet to be conclusively demonstrated. At present, the only sure way to circumvent the problem of immune rejection would be to create an ES cell line using a patient's own genetic material through nuclear transfer or cloning. This technique has inspired considerable controversy and has its own practical hurdles to overcome, but it has also produced encouraging results in animal experiments for regenerating failing tissues.

You see, scientists say "Yes, there are problems. Here are some avenues of research that might be productive in overcoming them." Smith selectively edits that to turn it into "Yes, there are problems. SO WE MUST IMMEDIATELY STOP ALL RESEARCH ON THE SUBJECT!"

He's not done yet. He cites another article to back up his claim of logistical impossibility:

But it is utterly unrealistic to think that cloning will ever become that efficient. Indeed, an article published last year by the NAS (written by Peter Mombaerts of Rockefeller University) revealed that it would probably take about 100 human eggs per patient to make just one viable cloned embryonic-stem-cell line for use in "therapeutic cloning." If true, this means we would need a mind-boggling 10 billion eggs just to treat 100 million Americans — never mind the hundreds of millions of patients who would clamor for such care in the rest of the world. These staggering numbers almost certainly doom therapeutic cloning from ever entering medicine's armamentarium.

Whoa, it sure sounds like Peter Mombaerts thinks there is no hope for this therapy! But, as you might expect, if you actually trouble to read the article, you find a completely different conclusion:

Despite major efforts, the efficiency of nuclear transfer has not increased over the years in any of the mammalian species cloned. Little hope should be placed in a dramatic (say, 10-fold) increase in efficiency in the near future. It becomes imperative to develop alternative strategies for therapeutic cloning, if this approach is ever to make a significant impact on medicine.

Alternative strategies can be divided into oocyte-dependent and oocyte-independent approaches. First, oocytes could be differentiated from existing ES cell lines, so that they can be produced in essentially unlimited numbers. This would eliminate completely the need for human oocyte donors. This exciting new approach has become realistic with a recent report of oocytes derived from mouse ES cells. For therapeutic cloning purposes, the oocyte is essentially a processor for reprogramming the inserted nucleus, and its nuclear genome is not carried over in the ntES cells. Another strategy would be to use oocytes from another species, ideally a nonprimate species such as rabbit. However, the idea of generating embryos with mixed human/animal properties, even transiently, is offensive to many people.

In the long run, efforts should be concentrated toward developing oocyte-independent systems, for instance by fusing somatic cells with enucleated ES cells, or by injecting ES cell- or oocyte-derived reprogramming factors into somatic cells. A major benefit of the complete elimination of oocytes and embryos from the concept of therapeutic cloning is that the ethical debate would vaporize instantaneously. In this way, scientific progress may provide a solution to ethical concerns.

Whoops. Wesley Smith forgot to mention all this other stuff from the article, I guess.

Smith is publishing versions of this story in various places. In a National Review article, he emphasizes the promise of adult stem cell research, which he claims is "...[u]nder-reported by the ESCR-besotted mainstream media" (a peculiar claim, that; I've never found the mainstream media to be besotted with research, period, let alone the more narrow bounds of embryonic stem cell research, and I've seen quite a bit of media hoopla over adult stem cells.) Yet if you talk to the people who are actually doing adult stem cell research, they urge much more caution and less restriction—and if you think about it, that's a case of scientists urging more support for their competitors. Here, for example, is Catherine Verfaillie, one of the world's leaders in adult stem cell research:

"It is correct that we have found adult stem cells in bone marrow of humans as well as mice and rats, with great growth potential and great versatility, much like we have seen in embryonic stem cells," Dr. Verfaillie wrote. "That said, it is far too early to say whether they will stack up when compared to embryonic stem cells in longevity and function. Further, we will not know which stem cells, adult or embryonic, are most useful in treating a particular disease without side-by-side comparison of adult and embryonic stem cells.

"While we are excited by our adult stem cell findings, it is not our intention to stop here. There are still too many unknowns for researchers or policy-makers to begin closing doors to opportunities of learning."

Smith doesn't bother to mention this when he's telling us we should give up on ES research and focus only on AS work.

One more. Wesley Smith has written another article, Of Stem Cells and Fairy Tales" (I concede that Smith probably is an expert in fairy tales), in which he castigates the press and scientists for propagating the "myth" that embryonic stem cell research could help correct Alzheimer's disease, suggesting that they are just preying on a grieving widow, Nancy Reagan.

Now it is true that ES research is not going to lead directly to a cure; if scientists had been suggesting that we could have used ES cells and therapeutic cloning to grow poor old Ronnie a brand new brain in a petri dish, Smith would have a case. Of course, that is not what has been proposed. Scientists have been clear that a simple stem cell transplant, as could be done for Parkinson's, is not the kind of strategy that is likely to pay off. The real work would involve:

• Using stem cells to develop models in culture that could be used to investigate the disease and experiment on treatments.
• Using stem cells to analyze the causes of the disease; there is some evidence that it may have its roots in embryonic development.
• The utility of basic research with stem cells is to determine the mechanisms that cause pluripotent cells to differentiate into more restricted fates, such as neurons. This is exactly the kind of information we'll need to figure out how to coax brain cells into recovery, if that is possible.
• And one never knows...maybe it will be possible to restore cognitive function with ES transplants.

Just as a general principle, we don't know what strategy will have the greatest payoff in long term research on a disease that we understand so poorly as Alzheimer's. Smith's attitude is that since we don't know something right now, we should therefore immediately close the door on future research in the field. That's just further evidence that the gang at the Discovery Institute has no clue how science works, and are really driven by a backwards-looking, ignorant, anti-science agenda.

Still under the non-existent thumb of a non-existent god

The Raving Atheist reports the results of the Supreme Court's deliberations on a case near to hearts of American atheists:

The Supreme Court just totally wussed out on the Pledge of Allegiance case. It held that because atheist Michael Newdow didn't have sufficient custodial rights over his daughter, he didn't have standing to challenge her school's policy of reciting "under God" in the Pledge (the "Roe" in Roe v Wade had standing even though she gave birth before it was decided and never had an abortion, but no matter). So the practice stands.

I can't say that I'm at all surprised. It was a weird case; in a sense, the basic matter is trivial and unimportant, since it's just a few stupid words (but it's the principle of the thing! I know, I know...but I stand up for the principle by practicing a little civil disobedience and not reciting the vapid little loyalty oath at all), but it also seems to me to be a no-brainer that the words didn't belong there in the first place. You just know that our current conservative Supreme Court was writhing on the horns of a dilemma, whether to appease the ravening hordes of right-wing ideologs, and the dark hole of their own souls, by standing up for the "America is a Christian nation!" lie, or whether to actually exercise that fading bit of integrity to the Constitution, reason, and real US history by doing the right and proper thing. Instead, they resolved their discomfort by finding a technicality to allow them to weasel out by dismissing the whole issue, and allowing the status quo to persist. It's always a safer bet to piss off atheists, who are few in number and will respond by writing disgusted lamentations on their weblogs, than the wingnuts, who have guns and unthinking fury.

Sunday, June 13, 2004

Jolly good show and all that

First, An Old Soul tips me off to this tale of Tony Blair's connection to British creationism:

A controversial chain of schools teaching Biblical "creationism" has been given Tony Blair's personal support despite serious doubts raised by parents and teachers, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

Mr Blair, said to be the most religious Prime Minister since Gladstone, has backed the millionaire car dealer Sir Peter Vardy in his attempt to take over seven comprehensives and turn them into Christian Academies promoting Old Testament views of the world's creation. This includes the claim that it was made in six days, 10,000 years ago. Two of Sir Peter's schools are open already, in Gateshead and Middlesbrough, and a third is under construction in Doncaster.

Last week, parents launched a campaign of opposition to his attempt to control a fourth school through his Christian Vardy Foundation. The protesters are supported by the scientist and author Professor Richard Dawkins, who has described creationism as "educational debauchery".

Depressing. Just horribly depressing.

But then, I browse through Leiter's place and see a link to a report on the recent elections over there, and feel all better.

The good people of the U.K. have spoken. In what is being gorily described as a "kicking", a "beating", a "hammering", a "routing", and a "near-massacre", Labour suffered its worst 24 hours at the polling booths since the mid-70s. With only two councils still unreported, Labour had lost 468 seats nationwide:

According to a BBC projection of total votes cast, Labour came in a humiliating third place behind the two main opposition parties, in an especially harsh drubbing which Blair conceded was due in part to his policy on Iraq.

I have no illusions that Blair's pandering to creationists had much to do with the defeat—it's the stupidity in Iraq more than the domestic stupidity, I'm sure—but since I oppose both I can't help but feel good about this.

Now, on to November and let's see if the US can dish out a better drubbing than those Brits!

(Commenters here have given me good reasons to not feel good about this—this is a victory for knuckle-dragging isolationism, not pacifism or good sense—so now my pleasant mood has evaporated and I'm back to my usual cynicism. Spoilsports.)

Have YOU submitted anything to the Tangled Bank yet?

There will be a new Tangled Bank this week, hosted at Borneo Chela, so get those entries in. If you’ve written something about science, medicine, or natural history on your weblog lately, send in a URL and a brief synopsis to host@tangledbank.net.

“I'm bored. Gimme something to do.”

I'm with Fontana on this article by Eggers. Although I did find the short rss blurb the NY Times attached to it amusing: "Colleges should require students to volunteer."

The point is that college is too long—it should be three years—and that even with a full course load and part-time jobs (I had my share) there are many hours in the days and weeks that need killing. And because most of us, as students, saw our hours as in need of killing—as opposed to thinking about giving a few of these hours to our communities in one way or another—colleges should consider instituting a service requirement for graduation.

I don't get this at all. It's a struggle to get many students to graduate within four years—to get it down to three would demand that we slash the requirements to get a bachelor's degree drastically. If we have a problem with bored students who are slacking off to play foosball, how do we justify reducing the graduation requirements? If they've got so much free time, maybe we should raise our expectations, and instead of expecting 15 credit hours/semester, or 120 credit hours for a four-year degree, we should insist on an average semester load of 20 credits, and 160 credits to graduate. That'll keep 'em busy.

Or all on his own, Eggers, genius that he is, could have quit hanging about the dorm rec room and taken a 20 credit overload every term, and accomplished his goal of graduating in 3 years. We have a number of students who try that every year. It's a killer schedule, especially in the sciences with all those fixed blocks of time-sucking labs, but disciplined students can do it.

It's also ironic that Eggers, after telling us about all of his wasted time and desperate attempts to find something to do in college, can complain that protests against forced philanthropy put forth "a pretty dim view of the soul of the average student." What gives me a dim view of a student is when he babbles about playing games and tossing chickens, and complains that someone else should have been responsible for telling him about constructive volunteer work he could have been doing instead.

I also don't recall needing to kill much time in college. I had fun with friends, I hung out with my girlfriend, but I also had two part-time jobs each term and a full course load. It's hard to have much sympathy for an "I'm bored" whine that's used to justify compelling other students to do volunteer work, now that he has founded a non-profit learning center that needs volunteers.

It lives!

Radio Free Pharyngula is online once again, and there are no further power outages scheduled for the foreseeable future.

He's not called Obvious Man for nothing

Saturday, June 12, 2004

What the heck is going on in DC?

Speaking of "too bizarre to be taken seriously", I am just gape-jawed with disbelief at these stories about our representatives kissing Sun Myung Moon's wrinkled, pretentious ass.

Should Americans be concerned that on March 23rd a bipartisan group of Congressmen attended a coronation at which a billionaire, pro-theocracy newspaper owner was declared to be the Messiah – with royal robes, a crown, the works? Or that this imperial ceremony took place not in a makeshift basement church or a backwoods campsite, but in a Senate office building?

Yes, I'm concerned. Either these congressmen actually believe the nonsense Moon hands out, or they're easily bought. Neither possiblity is very reassuring.

The only consolation...

They included conservatives, the traditional fans of Moon's newspaper: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA.), Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah), Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and Republican strategy god Charlie Black, whose PR firm represents Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress. But there were also liberal House Democrats like Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.) and Davis. Rep. Harold Ford (D-Tenn.) later told the Memphis Flyer that he'd been erroneously listed on the program, but had never heard of the event, which was sponsored by the Washington Times Foundation.

...is that it is bipartisan sleaze.

Downtime

A reminder: this site will be temporarily unavailable tomorrow, 13 June 2004, while the electrickal gnomes take pickaxes to the power lines to my lab. If the last time they did this is any guide, everything will go down early Sunday morning around 7 when I stroll in and pull the plug, and it should be back online sometime in the early evening.

Pharyngula

Weblogs