Since George W. Bush no longer owns a baseball team, he can take credit for whoever wins the World Series this year. After all, somebody will win despite his absence.
George W. Bush is a friend of the oil industry who has shown little interest in cultivating research into alternative energy or conservation—therefore, when (or if) someone develops a strategy for providing energy as the oil supply declines, George's heroic boosterism for oil will be remembered as the stimulus for the future.
The Bush administration dallied when Katrina struck, but New Orleans is still there, and George W. Bush now deserves full credit for the brave efforts of Louisiana's citizens to rebuild.
This Orwellian "logic", that individuals who neglect or oppose an endeavor are to later be rewarded with accolades for their hindrance, comes to mind on reading this ridiculously effulgent piece praising Bush for the recent stem cell breakthrough.
I believe that many of these exciting "alternative" methods would not have been achieved but for President Bush's stalwart stand promoting ethical stem-cell research. Indeed, had the president followed the crowd instead of leading it, most research efforts would have been devoted to trying to perfect ESCR and human-cloning research -- which, despite copious funding, have not worked out yet as scientists originally hoped.
So thank you for your courageous leadership, Mr. President. Because of your willingness to absorb the brickbats of the Science Establishment, the Media Elite, and weak-kneed Republican and Democratic politicians alike -- we now have the very real potential of developing thriving and robust stem-cell medicine and scientific research sectors that will bridge, rather than exacerbate, our moral differences over the importance and meaning of human life.
This is insane. The work that led to understanding the way to switch somatic cells into pluripotency required work on embryonic stem cells—the research Bush opposed. That scientists found ways to work around the Bush restrictions does not rebound to the credit of the man who threw up obstacles. This is also not a medical breakthrough at all: it opens the doors for basic research into how cells develop and differentiate (which may, of course, lead to medical advances), but to claim this develops "stem-cell medicine" is exactly wrong.
Reading that over-the-top praise for the man who hindered this progress reminded me so much of Powerline that I suspected John Hindrocket of authoring it…but no, it was my other bête noir, the Discovery Institute and Wesley J. Smith. I should have known. That's one right wing think tank that has really mastered the art of double-speak.
- Log in to post comments
I don't think you give Bush's hobbling of American science the credit it deserves for this breakthrough by Japanese researchers.
Oh, and: frist!
I was particularly put off to find that Bush out-and-out lied to say that there were many more lines of stem cells already extant than there actually were.
Using this logic, a criminal can state that he's responsible for toughening up of laws or new security measures. It smacks of, "Cheer up! We can always use you as a bad example."
Confident history?
BTW, beasts are something feminine: bête noire. Of course the e is silent -- written and spoken French don't have the same grammar...
Once again, life imitates the Colbert Report....
(Nice of the DI to fill in while the writers are on strike).
Indeed, had the president followed the crowd instead of leading it
To lead requires a goal, a destination, or a direction in mind.
Forcing everyone else to get behind you as you march in circles and lazy loops isn't leading, it's merely being at the forefront of the lost.
Who's this guy? Wesley J. Smith? It cannot get more ass licking-ish than this. And we make fun of North Korea for their "great ruler" cult.
I just feel sick!
ps: Oh, Wesley Smith from Discovery Institute :), it all makes sense now.
Yup, nice of Bush to increase the chocolate ration. Next, after his stong opposition to gay marriage, he will be hailed as the father of it. Gotta love history revisionists.
Oh boy! I get to play Mr. Language Man! You wrote:
"That scientists found ways to work around the Bush restrictions does not rebound to the credit of the man who threw up obstacles."
The correct word is "redound".
Having indulged me my moment of nitpicky fame, you may now return to productive discussion.
Isn't the goal cures and treatments for disease? Preferably, we'll stimulate stem cells in situ, and we'll settle for transplantable patient-specific cells. (Actually, for rapid access, we'll want to keep some cultured and at least nearly-ready to go.)
The results reported this week appear to be more accessible for everyone - not just the rich elite who are able to pay for or barter for eggs.
Look at the Takahashi, et. al., papers. There were no human embryos or human embryonic stem cells used.
On the other hand, Thomson's lab used both embryonic stem cells and fetal cells - doesn't look like he was "hobbled" at all.
Aren't we closer to the goal than we were or would be if labs were going all out to clone humans by SCNT?
Let's be clear: the breakthrough in reprogramming human skin cells would not have been possible without direct research on human embryonic stem cells.
What genes do you need to express to reprogram fibroblasts? Both groups examined expression data from hESC.
How do you recognize a reprogrammed cell? By the morphology and markers defined in human embryonic stem cells.
How do you know a reprogrammed cell is pluripotent? The assay was first worked out for human embryonal carcinoma cells (a testicular tumor), then adapted to human ES cells.
So the recent reprogramming papers largely copy the method discovered by Shinya Yamanaka for mouse cells. But they are dependent upon human ES research to know what outcomes to look for.
Oh dear Dr. Nuckols, the words you speak belie your wanton ignorance of ES cell biology....
"Preferably, we'll stimulate stem cells in situ, and we'll settle for transplantable patient-specific cells. (Actually, for rapid access, we'll want to keep some cultured and at least nearly-ready to go.)"
Really? Where are the stem cells- in an adult- with the same properties of ES cells? And no, the answer is NOT the mesenchyme, bone marrow or cord blood: These cells have all been flops by an large in therapy. Instead, we have seen recent reports that human ES cells are able to help repair failing hearts in rats. Your second statement is a mind boggler...
"Actually, for rapid access, we'll want to keep some cultured and at least nearly-ready to go."
Clearly you've also never actually worked with stem cells. Ready to go? What exactly does that mean? Taking an ES cell into a tissue specific somatic cell takes a long period of time (i.e., work on mouse ES cells has the development of 'cardiomyocytes' as taking anywhere from 5 days to 2 and half weeks, and that also assumes that a researcher is not looking for a specific type of cell, i.e., ventricular vs atrial myocyte or purkinje cell)and any research technician knows that the longer you keep cells in culture, the sicker and worse they become. They stop proliferating. They Apoptose. They randomly differentiate due to para- or auto-crine factors. Their DNA may mutate and the cells can become oncogenic despite the best efforts of a researcher. You also mistakingly assume we can form organs in vitro for therapy. Yes, Anthony Atala at Wake Forest has done incredible work with engineering bladders de novo, but what about other tissues? Can we grow a pancreas ex vivo? A spinal cord? How about heart valves?
"Look at the Takahashi, et. al., papers. There were no human embryos or human embryonic stem cells used."
A great quote regarding the infinitely-forward moving nature of science is that "We stand on the shoulders of those who came before us". Now let me ask you: were the Thomson or Yamanaka group never have used a human ES cell, how would they have known they would have suceeded? A good guess, perhaps some assumptions based on mouse behavior (Always a fantastic idea) and some luck? If they didn't know what they were trying to produce, how would they know whether they had suceeded? Hypotheticals aside, do you *honestly* believe that these groups would have suceeded without the use of human ES cells at some point in their research program?
"On the other hand, Thomson's lab used both embryonic stem cells and fetal cells - doesn't look like he was "hobbled" at all."
Bush's announcement of the restricted use of human ES cells:
late 2001/early 2002 (the date escapes me)
Thomson's Science paper: Late 2007.
5+ years. Within this time period, the field of RNA interference was formed and a nobel prize awarded for it in 2006 (Phys. or Med., Fire and Mello). Science moves at a breakneck pace. This amazing, undeniable fact is what drew me to a PhD program and keeps me in lab until 2 AM. I assure you with every cell in my body that Dr. Thomson could have made more strides in a shorter period of time without the restriction to small number of nearly useless human ES cell lines. If you fail to understand this, you clearly fail to understand what actually happens in the scientific community when diseases are studied and physiologic phenomenon delineated.
"Aren't we closer to the goal than we were or would be if labs were going all out to clone humans by SCNT?"
At my institution, there are over 350 labs. I don't know of a single one that is trying to 'clone a human' by SCNT or any other methods. As a physician, I trust that you are aware that a fetus can not develop outside the womb. Thus, to 'clone humans', a fertilized egg would have to be replanted into a pseudo pregnant woman. Again, there is no one who wants to do this. To claim SCNT is equivalent to cloning a human is on par with claiming that changing the oil on a car is equivalent to building a car from the ground up. It is deceptive, dishonest and intellectually bankrupt to make the SCNT = human cloning argument. Thankfully, in doing so you reveal your motivations to the world.
What I urge you to do is to actually speak to a scientist who is/has done research on or with ES cells. Read the literature. learn for yourself what has been done and more importantly, what remains to be worked out.
You do yourself, your organization and the public a tremendous disservice by willfully spouting of about a topic you clearly do not understand.
I had the same reaction when I read the news about the breakthrough - that perhaps if Shrub hadn't put so many obstacles in the way of stem cell research this breakthrough wouldn't have happened.
The thought turned my stomach, I admit.
Then I read the NYTimes article wherein James A. Thomson talked about how much he worried about using embryonic cells to begin with and I knew this discovery would have been made even if Shrub had been in favor of stem cell research from the beginning.
I do love scientists.
Jesse - there's no such thing as a "fertilized egg." I've got up to date embryology texts that refute the idea. And tons of on-line peer-reviewed references. I love references.
Your comment about "bench scientists" reveals that you've been immersed in academia too long.
But you're welcome back to LifeEthics.org, to continue the conversation.
Beverly Nuckols, MD, whatever the hell you think you're saying, you've missed the point.
GW's policies on science are jerk-knee reactions to things he and his administration don't understand.
They are anti-science. That researchers achieved some success in another line of research is not due to their policies but despite them.
Regardless of your personal opinion of the potential of either line of research, the troglodyte deserves no praise.
So --- humans are actually parthenogenetic, and women have managed to fool men about this for a few hundred thousand years? Amazing!
Irony overload.
ZZzzzipp Beep Boink
Izeye Ng crunch
Danger Will Robinson.
Oh, the pain.
Not too mention the fact that both of the Bush boys just embarrass the shit outa me. Oh, them pain.
Oh. The pain.
And Bush's opposition to expanded healthcare for children means that the kids will now be inspired to figure it out for themselves while saving millions of dollars for the wealthy top 2%.
Amazing.
Once an egg is fertilized, it becomes an embryo, a zygote. There might be a few hours where we could get an argument started among the real experts, but the recent IVF papers don't seem to have a problem with distinguishing embryos from oocytes.
But y'all seem more determined to make your political rants than to worry about terminology - I get it, this is recreation. However, don't you see the advantage in having all the well-armed Bubbas in the Nation believe in the right to life?
"They are anti-science."
Installing a different policy on science from the no-restrictions one you were hoping for doesn't make them anti-science.
"Installing a different policy on science from the no-restrictions one you were hoping for doesn't make them anti-science."
Just anti-science-that-they-superstitiously-don't-like,
which to any honest, rational person still means anti-science. I guess Bush isn't anti-gay marriage, either, he just supports policies other than the no-restrictions policies that gays were hoping for!
Also in the news, the Prime Minister of Israel announced that a 50 foot statue honoring Hitler will be erected in Jerusalem next April 20th. He announced the news at a press conference, stating "Without Hitler's heroic efforts and strong moral leadership, the nation of Israel would not be what it is today." Later in the program we will learn that up is down, war is peace, and water isn't wet.
Jesse - there's no such thing as a "fertilized egg."
Bwahahahaha, tell that to the people of Colorado who'll be voting on conferring personhood to a "fertilized egg" (not to mention, a placenta. Of course, speaking as a pro-placenta person myself, I can hardly wait for the day placentas get "inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law.").
However, don't you see the advantage in having all the well-armed Bubbas in the Nation believe in the right to life?
I guess nothing says recreational blog banter like making light of the domestic terrorism perpetrated by those who believe in forced pregnancy.
Jesse said:
If Nuckols doesn't believe you, maybe she'll listen to Dr. Thomson.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/health/chi-stemcell_21…
"But y'all seem more determined to make your political rants than to worry about terminology"
Ms. Nuckols, the hypocrisy in this statement nearly made my computer explode. In your initial post, you spewed more ignorance and political spin than Bill O'Rielly does in an entire week. I took you to task over each and every comment you made and the gem I posted above is your response? For shame; you give off the air of a learned medical professional yet there are likely undergraduates who understand this field far more than you do.
The fact remains that you are woefully ignorant not only of ESC (That's 'Embryonic Stem Cell', by the by) research but of all research in general. Given your comments I must assume that you are a curiosity-bankrupt physician, happily prescribing whatever the standard of care is to your patients, never wondering how aspirin or the flu vaccine or drug-coated stents were dreamed up and taken from a hypothesis to a treatment.
It is especially sad that you think there is some joke or something funny about Addgene or plasmids or vectors. Again, your comments betray your facade, Ms. Nuckol. My only hope is that you are merely a political shill and do not actually see patients for I shudder to think of what you would deem appropriate care.
You've got to admit that a "Plasmid cart" on Google is funny. It's just plain strange to see the ads for Addgene tout "Yamanaka StemCell Factors." and that there are several other lists of products mentioned in certain papers.
The drive for grants was bad enough. However, now, the object/obsession seems to be to find a patentable or at least, marketable, technique. There's also the spectacle modeled by Science this week: advancing the publishing date (of advance online publishing) for publicity purposes. Obviously, no one's learning from the retractions of the last few years.
I'm little more interested than most, because of my grand daughter's cord blood transplant from an anonymous little boy in Dec 2001 for Kostman's disease and bone marrow failure by 15 months old. She's healthy, 7 years old, and has healed a broken bone with those cells.
My patients are aware of and ask about this research - they've heard about the treatments for diabetes, heart disease, kidney and vascular disease. I received a note on my blog last month from the mother of a little boy with Type 1 diabetes who is getting cord blood transplants in the US and who doesn't need insulin shots anymore.
Look up Rao's report in Stem Cells on the Mesenchymal stem cell conference in Ohio a couple of months ago and the current and imminent commercial uses of those stem cells.
There's Regenexx in Colorado, where the MD's are utilizing research and techniques proven in race horses and dogs for a couple of years, now, to treat joint disease with bone marrow stem cells.
It's odd that Thomson criticizes the policy that has put his institution in charge of dispensing the funded hESC cell lines.
There's not a provable case that the Bush Administration policy hampered research. In the last 6 years, the basic research in early embryology - much of it done in animal models, the rest in the "funded" lines - has been done so that we have a better idea as to what Oct4 and the rest of "Yamanaka's stem cell factors" actually *do* in the function of the early cells. We've found cell lines in virtually all the organ and tissues of the body -- (even in post natal ovaries). The attempts to induce these stem cells led to even more knowledge that will pay off however we use stem cells in humans.
Confident history?
BTW, beasts are something feminine: bête noire. Of course the e is silent -- written and spoken French don't have the same grammar...