Good and not so Good News from the Messaiahs

Barack Obama is living up to some of his election promises. There's plenty to celebrate for reality based people. Embryonic stem cell research can finally continue without government regulations interfering with sensible, ethical research projects aimed at relieving human suffering. Overseas health aid projects will finally be able to aim at desirable health outcomes unhindered by abstinence only and similarly failed policies that were a hallmark under Obama's God guided predecessor. Obama also promised to close Guantanamo Bay. I wonder how, practically, he plans to do so. He also declares - seemingly without if's and but's - that the torture condoning policies of his predecessor are a thing of the past. Yet, doubts have already been raised, given that Obama pointed out that he will be guided by the army manual on this issue (as opposed to the CIA's). From what I gather, this manual is far from satisfactory on the torture front.

Still, a week in the game, plenty of plain ludicrous policies by born again Christian ex-Pres Bush have been reversed. Praise the Messaiah!

In other news: various other Messaiah reps have issued as ever enlightened decrees. Ex Hitler Youth Pope Benedict has revoked the ex-communication of a right-wing Bishop who insists that Jews were not killed in German concentration camps. Smart move Benedictus! Well executed. That should endear you to plenty of Jewish folks (mind you, and reasonably so, many many others) who have a bone to pick with your organization over its tacit support of the Nazis. - Never one's to let a chance pass by to look stupid, Islamic authorities in Indonesia and Malaysia, meanwhile, decreed that certain bits and pieces of Yoga practices are sinful and prohibit Muslims in those countries from practicing them. Reality based folks meanwhile failed to compete completely on the idiotic decree front. No news there either.

'Professional' and other interests

A low-profile discussion has recently taken place on the Letters page of the TIMES newspaper in the UK. Initially a number of top-flight scientists, including Nobel Laureates, argued that the current draft of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is flawed in that it prevents 'the generation of embryos (up to 14 days) in such research by the use of cells for which the donors did not, or could not, give specific consent.' Their point is that such research is of vital importance if we wish to 'increas[e] knowledge about the causes and potential treatment of serious, incurable degenerative conditions, including Parkinson’s disease, diabetes and motor neurone disease.' The trouble is that 'many existing cell and tissue samples and cell lines were donated, for any research purpose, by patients (now untraceable) with particular diseases, before this sort of research was even imagined. These cells have been well characterised over many years, or have unique properties and may therefore be the best samples to use for the derivation of embryonic stem cells. Such stem cell lines would be of great value in understanding how diseases develop, as well in the search for therapies.'

One can be persuaded by such arguments or not, this isn't actually the point that I am concerned about. The scientists who signed this letter pretty much constitute the international leaders in stem cell research. Still, people might think that there are good ethical reasons for not utilising genetic material donated by people for any kind of research purposes for this sort of research without the explicit consent of the donors. I don't see any serious ethical issues if someone gives an open-ended type of consent, agreeing at some point that his or her genetic materials may be used for any kind of research.

A day later, also in the TIMES, another letter appeared. The letter was critical of the scientists views. Read it yourself to decide whether or not you find it convincing. As I said, this is not really of concern to me for the purpose of this commentary. What bothers me about this letter is its writers desperate attempt to add authority to their (otherwise probably weak) arguments. The writers are actually driven by strong Christian beliefs, beliefs that they fail to mention in their letter. So, they're not saying, 'as a Christian, it is my view that'. No, they're describing themselves as 'individuals with a professional interest' in bioethics. So, unlike the scientists who clearly are professionals providing a professional opinion, here we have a bunch of folks who try to make us think that they are professionals, while really they have a 'professional interest'. Well, what's a professional interest, I wonder? They certainly don't have this interest as professionals, as most of them are philosophers, and in any case, they claim a professional interest in bioethics. So, what's that? Are they saying that they have no professional competence in bioethics but that they are otherwise professionals who are interested in bioethics? If that was the case, surely the 'respect for authority' demanding introductory line would have been pointless. If, on the other hand, they're suggesting that they have a kind of bioethical professional authority, akin to the professional competence the scientists have, they would be plain wrong. Bioethicists, much like philosophers and politicians are not professionals by any sensible interpretation of this term. They don't meet the most basic criteria of what constitutes a professional. One of the writers even refers to himself as Director of Research at some Scottish Bioethics Council. You might want to look for his 'professional' or other qualifications in bioethics (say a doctorate), or peer reviewed publications in academic journals (as opposed to in-house publications of his 'Council'). I think the Council is just another tool in the armament of our 'authority' demanding writers' group. It has not published a single research report that would have made it into the academic literature. For all intent and purposes it is non-existent. Another of the contributors directs a Christian bioethics think tank (conveniently forgetting to add the descriptor Christian to its name). Main main point is this: The 'professional interest in bioethics' crowd is very much an emperor who happens to be naked...

Stem cell wars - it's the science stupid!

The current uproar over new developments in stem cell research is nothing short of hilarious. What happened: scientists in labs in California/Japan and Wisconsin, using slightly different techniques, managed to produce pluripotent cells without relying on the destruction of 10-14 day old embryos in the process. Researchers have long been excited about these pluripotent cells as they can grow into all sorts of damaged or destroyed human tissue. In other words, the potential for medical breakthroughs using such cells is very substantial indeed.

The God squad has been vigorously (not to say viciously) opposed to the old-fashioned way of producing such cells, because embryos 10-14 days after conception would be destroyed in the process of extracting pluripotent stem cells. In God's mind this was terrible research, because according to God's representatives down here on earth these cell accumulations (called embryos) should be treated as if they were persons. Well, a few hundred cells don't display any of the dispositions we'd usually require to be present for a given entity to be called a person. God doesn't seem to know this. I tried to contact God for some time, but there doesn't seem to be any email details available to engage God in a discussion about God's views on embryo research. God's earthly representatives only refer to God's authority to explain why embryos - at whatever developmental stage - must not be destroyed. So, a serious argument about the ethics or otherwise of the matter could never be had, because the authority driving so much of the 'holy embryo' stance remains somewhat elusive.

As I write this the religious commentators claim that their ethical stance has been 'winning' on this matter, and science showing how 'right' they were all along. This is remarkable for several reasons:

• First off, it's highly unusual for this particular group of people to respect science at all - well, unless it supports their slightly warped view of the world (where evolution didn't take place, and where we humans - helped ever so slightly by, you guessed it, 'God' - popped into existence just a few thousand years ago). So I doubt they're well advised to suddenly pick scientific progress of the sorts explained above as proof of the truth of their ethical stance. After all, what are they going to do next time science contradicts their view of the world. Scientific truth is not really a pick-and-choose type activity. They can't have their cake and eat it, I'd think.
• Secondly, the research in question, good news as it is, suffers some serious drawbacks at the moment, including a higher risk of cancer in mice in which pluripotent cells that were derived by the new method were implanted. This drawback might be temporary, time will tell.
• Thirdly, most scientists working in the field still agree that we will not be able to progress significantly without some form of destructive embryonic research continuing. In other words, pretending that the ethics wars over the moral status of embryos have suddenly concluded due to a new 'ethical' method of producing pluripotent cells having been found is grossly misleading.

I am somewhat disappointed that those high-profile ethicists who campaigned in favor of destructive embryonic stem cell research (while there seemed no viable scientific alternative) have been awkwardly silent in their response to these new findings. The truth is, however, that the position they held at the time was correct. If scientific progress permits us now to achieve the same objective without destroying embryos, that's excellent news and should be applauded by them, too. The reason for this is not at all, of course, that the 'holy embryo' crowd was right all along, but rather, that crucial biomedical research can now progress much faster without God's earthly troopers interfering a great deal. That's great news and more than enough reason to applaud the new developments!

Still trying to save the lives of surplus IVF embryos

The pro-life crowd has been going on and on and on about the horrific price paid by embryos destroyed in the process of conducting embryonic stem cell research (ie therapeutic cloning research). Well, these stem cells are derived from surplus (ie frozen) IVF embryos that would be discarded (well, flushed down the toilet) eventually anyway. This cartoon, to my mind, captures nicely the absurdity of a world view that insists that somehow these frozen embryos have infinite value and should be treated as if they were persons... - hope you will agree/enjoy :).

Stem cell research - cultural wars continued

You will probably know of the never-ending ideological battles between pro-lifers and the rest of us. Main bone of contention is the moral status of embryos. Particularly viciously fought over was (well, is) the issue of embryonic stem cell research. For better or worse, embryonic stem cell research requires the extraction of embryonic stem cells around 10-14 days after conception. The embryos are destroyed in this process, much to the chagrin of pro-lifers. The cell accumulation they're concerned about has, of course, no central nervous system, no brain, no capacity to suffer, nothing in other words that would justify ascribing moral status to such embryos.
Comes scientific research 'demonstrating' that the same kind of therapeutic stem cell research can be undertaken without the destruction of embryos. In fact, so claims the research by Dr Catherine Verfaillie, we should also be able to use adult stem cells. Of course, if you can avoid fighting over nothing (with pro-lifers and others), that's what you should aim for. So, even if one subscribes to the view that the embryos in question do not deserve moral status of any kind, one should be relieved to see that valuable research can continue while cultural wars over moral standing can be avoided altogether by using adult stem cells.
Dr Verfaillie (that time of University of Minnesota affiliation) published her work in the prestigious peer reviewed journal NATURE. It has since turned out to be the case that some of the data she published was significantly flawed. Quite possibly her conclousions might not be sustainable in light of the serious mistakes she made. Perhaps, in light of the cultural wars just mentioned, it is not that insignificant that Dr Verfaillie since moved on to a Catholic university in Europe.
In case you're interested in good background information on stem cell research, check out this site at the US National Institutes of Health.