What became of all those eggs?

The Korean veterinarian, Woo Suk Hwang,paid for and otherwise procured hundreds - maybe a thousand - of human oocytes that were supposedly used in his now-debunked research to produce human cloned embryonic stem cells. (For history - see this AAAS press release from May which emphatically repeats the "unpaid donor" line)

What actually happened to those cells?

Another Roe

Roe Yung Hye, dean of research at Seoul National University, that is. Dr. Roe is the lead man cited by the New York Times as revealing that the University has determined that none of the 11 cloned human embryonic stem cells reported in Science this last June exist. They probably never did.

The NYT is also reporting that two of the female researchers on the team have received money from Hwang or his associates. The Washington Post reports that some of this money was delivered by the Korean spy agency, the National Intelligence Service. It seems that the government - or some powerful representatives of the Korean government - wanted to avoid the shame that the Nation would face.

Woo Suk Hwang, the Korean veterinarian and erst-while "cloning king," has filed a legal complaint with authorities that some of his reported human cloned embryo stem cell lines were switched by someone else - but he's also been accused by his own university of intentional fabrication of the report in the first place.

The Seoul National University committee charged with investigating their celebrity researcher has determined that Hwang had only produced 2 - not 11 - stem cell lines at the time that his report was published in the journal, Science.

As I post tonight, I've been watching an old Robert Mitchum movie, "Foreign Intrigue." The 1956 story about blackmail and murder, all tied up in money, nationalism, and secrecy is less far fetched than the cloning intrique of 2005.

Snips and snarls

Bioethics.net has a cute post today about the origins of Snuppy the Cloned Dog.

But, the editors - and Art Caplan, who is not, but might as well be an editor - can't resist doing what they were complaining about others doing.

On the same day as the note about Snuppy - and many more covering the disaster that is Scientific integrity this year but not too far removed in time from great support for the Korean veterinarian who may or may not have cloned people and dogs, Hwang - Caplan has a signed post attacking the credibility of Wesley Smith and the Discovery Institute. Seems a case of people in glass houses throwing sooty pots.

Jones didn't and can't "discredit" anything. He only ruled against one particular method and declared his opposition to motives.

The court system should be thought of as similar to the reporting on scientific research. We've had a very graphic lesson that first reports in the journals aren't the final word. And not all scientists have the highest integrity and motives. Judges are fallible and can be overturned (Glucksberg on the "right-to-die", Dred Scott on slavery are two cases that come to mind). This ruling will be reviewed.

Science and law should be arenas of ideas, not personalities and personal attacks.

While waiting for the review of the Dover school case, I'm going to look at the beauty of creation, or nature.

The fake science drinking game

A new drinking trend to substitute for the 'poktanju' (bombshot) culture has surfaced during year-end celebrations among working people. Dubbed the "Hwang Woo-suk poktanju", it involves creating 11 glasses of drinks, numbering them 2 to 12. Of these, no. two and three are made of 'fake' drinks such as water instead of beer.

The Korea Herald reports a new fad. I'm not sure about the socio-psychological meaning of drinking games, but scientific integrity is becoming an oxymoron.

Great news: Umbilical Cord funding passed Congress!

The Senate finally stopped holding the funding for umbilical cord blood banking and databanking hostage to embryonic stem cell research funding, after passage in the House in May of this year, and the President signed the Bill today.

Tom Harkin and the rest of the pro-clone-and-embryo-destruction crowd would rather have the embryonic stem cell research funding (Which unfortunately included "Republicans" Orin Hatch and Arlen Specter), but they're bound to eventually see that research funding is research funding. After all, human cloning is not doing so well in the rest of the world, with some of the disputed pictures from the Korean veterinarians' efforts showing up in an earlier publication, where they weren't labeled as cloned.

Irving Weissman, who has money and a job at stake in both adult and embryonic stem cells, says that the

My granddaughter was born with some unidentified genetic defect - the hemotologist couldn't even guess - and was unable to make enough white blood cells from birth at 31 weeks. Her top Absolute Nucleocyte Count was 1.8 - White Blood Cell count usually totaled under 2. Her platelets dropped regularly and, despite daily Nupogen and Epogen shots, her WBC and then red blood cell count fell. she got near-weekly bone marrow biopsies and blood tests, a few platelet transfusions and only one RBC transfusion. Before her first birthday, she began evaluation for a bone marrow transplant and even though no family members matched, she was lucky enough to have four non-related matches.

Then, she was offered a chance to be one of the first candidates for an umbilical cord blood "bone marrow" transplant, which she received at 15 months of age at Cook's Children's hospital in Fort Worth Texas.

Her donor was a boy, her new bone marrow karyotype is 46 XY. (She's the only person I actually know whose karyotype - two of them - I've seen) The match was about 70%, if I recall correctly.

She's incredibly healthy 4 years later. No need ever for anti-rejection drugs. She even had an open fracture when a boy at school closed a door on her finger - grew back pretty bone and finger tip (did you ever try to keep a cast clean and dry on a 5 year old?)

The bone marrow and umbilical cord transplants are, I believe, our best hope for the future of regenerative medicine research.The UBC stem cells are proving more and more pliable, and several different populations of multipotent stem cells have been produced from UBC and bone marrow sources. Much more than any hype or hope about embryonic creation and destruction.

It looks like most of the Korean stem cell reports were falsified and/or exaggerated. But, the traditional lines are being drawn by the elitists who would define human beings as those who are "persons," and those who are not.

Bioethics.net.com:

""Doerflinger and other critics of stem-cell research are quick to forget about the merits of the science or the needs of the sick and to use the Korean scandal to impugn what their moral compass unerringly tells them must be abhorrent -- seeking to take stem cells out of human embryos made from a human egg and DNA from a skin cell.""

It's disingenuous to say that the cloned human embryos in question are an egg and a skin cell. And the editors don't appear to be aware of their own biases and too quick to claim bias on the part of Mr. Doerflinger.

As one of those in favor of stem cells as long as you don't kill someone - even an embryonic someone - it seems to me that the only source of an internal honesty or integrity are either the respect for fellow humans or the fear of punishment and humiliation. From the base of respect for other humans it's logical that Mr. Doerflinger and I would not approve of creating and killing human embryos for their parts.

We've had years of arguing the status of the human embryo and each scandal is worse than the last. But the limits keep being pushed for for some terrible, sad story. The last limit is now the justification for going beyond the next.

In the meantime, the results have been stolen embryos (UCalIrving, another one of Schatten's bad relationships), IVF specialists who use their own sperm to "help" their clients, and more human individuals excluded from the protection given to the currently defined "human persons."

The re-definition of humans to "persons" is the first lie.

AROWS: Estrogen for everyone!

"I knew it! More 'scientific' fakery! I want my estrogen, and I want my estrogen, now!" So declared the spokeswoman of AROWS, shouted as she fanned her flushed face at the press conference held this morning. 'Post AROWSal women have been misled for the last time. We will demand to know what he knew and when he knew it!" (AROWS = Age Related Ovarian Wasting Syndrome - it's a joke, Readers.)

There's a report on that bastion of medical reporting, MSNBC.com, about the flaws in the Prempro study on women and heart disease. Of course the medicine combination was not enlightening on heart disease prevention in nature: it did not mimic nature.

The point is that some studies show helpful effects, some don't. For some reason women don't get their heart attacks until later than men, and we also have periodic changes in estrogen rather than testosterone. The take home should be: there hasn't been a decent study, yet.

"And your little dog, too!"

Snuppy could be a fake!

Money, sex (okay,gametes), and power.

The cloning and embryonic stem cell money fervor reminds me of the scandals when a preacher or priest is caught in sin. In the meantime, no one seems to understand that there might not have been any human cloned embryonic stem cells, and scientific credibility may never be the same.

For the last five years, we've been asked to place our hands on the radio and send in our money for the promise of a miracle cure. And now, it looks like the latest, loudest scientific missionary - the veterinarian, Wu Suk Hwang, has sinned big time.


Science is a religion for many in today's world. On the TV show Grey's Anatomy, at least one of the characters compared belief in a higher power with believing in Santa Claus and proclaimed her faith in Science and its miracles, rather than having faith in a higher Power. (Every one of the interns needs a good anti-depressant, in my opinion.)

The mascara is running over at Bioethics.com: the editors (and Arthur Caplan, who is not an editor, but acts like one)are crying over their own reputation, but stll can't post without somehow making snide remarks about Karl Rove, Leon Kass, and/or the protection of human life. Nigel Cameron, Wesley Smith and Richard Doerflinger have been sought out for quotes by the NYTimes, since they might have been right all along about the hype attached to embryonic stem cells.

Then, we get the daily "I have sinned!!! (but not that bad)" chest beatings by Hwang, et. al., and front row seats to schisms and heresy and flat out lies about cloned human embryonic stem cells:

The event that led to Dr. Hwang's downfall, after a month of sniping at certain puzzling aspects of his published work, was the posting of a pair of duplicate photos on two Korean Web sites.

One of the new duplicate photos appears in the June Science article about the 11 patients and a second in the Oct. 19 issue of a lesser-known journal, The Biology of Reproduction, where it was reported as being of a different kind of cell.

In the Science article, the cell colony was labeled as being the fifth of Dr. Hwang's human embryonic cell lines derived from a patient's cells, but in the Biology of Reproduction article it was designated as an ordinary embryonic cell line generated in the MizMedi hospital in Korea, presumably from surplus embryos created in a fertility clinic.

Critics cited the duplication as confirming suspicions that Dr. Hwang had never successfully cloned any adult human cell and that his Science photos might instead show just human embryonic cell lines derived in the usual way from fertility clinic embryos.

Dr. Roh's statements make that now seem exactly what happened.

Dr. Roh, the superintendent of MizMedi, was asked by The New York Times on Wednesday to say which type of cell was represented in the photos. Dr. Roh was the senior author of the article in Biology of Reproduction, which Dr. Hwang did not sign. Dr. Roh replied by e-mail that the photo had come from a large computer file of stem cell colonies and that a colleague had accidentally chosen one of the patient-derived colonies to illustrate the Biology of Reproduction article.

Dr. Roh had heard about the error just two hours earlier, he wrote in his e-mail message, and had already written to the editor of the journal requesting that the article be withdrawn immediately. "I really apologize again to have made a big mistake as a principal investigator," he wrote.

Embryonic stem cells from bone marrow

Thanks to a lead from FreeRepublic.com, here's another great story on adult stem cells - these mimic the cell markers of embryonic stem cells! And they have been induced to produce pancreas, kidney and nerve cells.


Now,

Back to the circus - Scientific integrity has never taken such a hit.

Will Hwang withdraw his paper on human stem cells?

Even Scientific American is reporting that Roh, one of the doctors who helped procure the embryos, is saying that the stem cells were fabricated.

Cloning blow up: A great summary

Richard Doerflinger has written a great summary of the issues and personalities surrounding the cloning implosion.

And, thanks to ProLifeBlogs, I found that another blogger called the scandal a "house of cards." Good links and info on Marlowe's Shade.

"Implosion" of Cloners

Think of a house of cards, and there's a strong wind blowing the fallen cards all over the place.

The work of Korean veterinarian, Dr. Woo Suk Hwang, the leader in cloning research until a couple of weeks ago, is under fire from his own former staff, colleagues and the press. Science, the Journal that published (see, "Korean team speeds up creation of cloned human stem cells") the report concerning the production of 11 human embryonic stem cell lines derived from cloned embryos, has been asked to retract the article (Sorry, subscription only - look at thte bottom of this post for quotes) by one of the co-authors and a pretty impressive list of names. One of the detractors is Ian Wilmut, who gained fame for cloning Dolly the sheep.

Personally, I'm concerned about what the blow up could mean for scientific research and reporting in general. The big question is, like so much of science these days, an echo of the political questions of "who knew, and when." More than likely prejudices for and against cloning, embryonic stem cells and eugenics played a large part in both the early enthusiastic acceptance of the first report and the fuss and bother we're going to see in the next year.

Now, add in the FDA, Merck and Vioxx.

Where is the scientific process in these dramas and how do we trust any thing we read if Science and a group of supposed leaders can be fooled? And were they really fooled?

Thanks to Bioethics.net for many of the links.

I do hope that Dr. Hwang gets well. He's been in and out of the hospital, reportedly with bleeding ulcers, and seeking solace at a Buddhist monastery.


From the letter to Science:

Human Embryonic Stem Cells
Ian Wilmut, Michael D. West, Robert Lanza, John D. Gearhart, Austin Smith, Alan Colman, Alan Trounson, Keith H. Campbell
". . . In addition to a willingness to facilitate the independent verification of published results, it may be helpful to institute an internet database to publish the DNA fingerprinting and microsatellite data on new lines to ensure against the cross-contamination of cell cultures or scientific misconduct."

"I want your organs"

As reported by the Daily Pennsylvanian, Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics, and faculty member in the Medical Ethics department,gave a talk at the University of Pennsylvania conference entitled, "'I Want Your Organs: How Should We Get Donors and Who Should Get Their Parts?"

Really? Couldn't they come up with a better, more professional title?

I'm sure that this was a fairly straightforward talk to faculty, residents and students (both undergraduates and med students) about organ donation and the supply of organs.

Just as this post got your attention with the headline, I'm sure that the title of the conference was intended to catch the attention of the intended audience.

It looks as though Dr. Caplan may favor the "assumed donor" programs of other countries, rather than our purposeful, consent required process in the US. I would argue against the implied or assumed consent for cadaver donation. I believe that any organ donation should require specific consent, at least from the loved ones who are left behind, if not by the donor himself.

I'm a big proponent of ethical organ donation. However, I am uncomfortable with sensationalizing the subject and the risk of "comodification" or marketing and trivializing of our bodies.

Whatever we are, we can measure and experience only through our bodies, which are more than interchangable parts. If there is to be any respect for one another, the body must be the target of that respect.

I would like to point out that organ donation is not an all or nothing act. If you are uncomfortable with "donating your face," make it known to your loved ones, write it down and your wishes should be honored.

Stem Cells: Bioethicist Hurlbut on Alternative Sources

Some of you may be familiar with teratomas and molar pregnancies from arguments with abortion advocates. These are often the focus of some "yes, but,,,," in the attempt to "prove" that the embryo is not a human being. These are the result of gametes that begin dividing and which can mimic some of the signs and symptoms of pregnancy in a woman's body, but which are never embryos.

One of my favorite columnists, Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review Online, has an interview with Dr. William B. Hurlbut concerning his ideas on alternative sources of stem cells and the nature of human personhood. Be sure and take a look at the conversation, and read to the bottom, where the dishonesty of the Korean cloning Veterinarian, Hwang, is discussed.

Altered Nuclear Transfer is a theoretical way to stimulate a construct that will grow embryonic stem cells without ever growing an embryo.

When I first heard about the proposition, I was one of those convinced that the technique would involve creating a disabled embryo for research purposes. The interview covers that controversy and confirms that he would not be a party to any unethical procedure. He is committed to the idea of proving the technique in animal models before any research with human DNA.

Essentially, the idea is to create a tumor or a culture which could be used instead of cloned or IVF embryos to study development and disease. As in cloning, donor DNA from a somatic cell would be used. However, the DNA would be altered before it is inserted into an oocyte or otherwise induced to divide and differentiate. The alteration would be to a gene - which gene is still unknown - that controls early embryonic development.



I've said it before: I'm convinced that all of this early research will lead to techniques for regenerative medicine in situ, using environmental stimulators and recruitment factors to allow each of us to heal our own bodies. We just have to hope that our influence and the honor of scientists - or their distaste for controversy and lack of funding - will keep the loss of nascent human lives to a minimum.

Pro-abortion lawyer argues in favor of parental notification

Jonathan Turley has an editorial in USAToday chiding pro-abortion activists for their opposition to parental involvement in a daughter's abortion.

Pro-choice advocates would make abortion the only absolute right in our Constitution, even though it was not fully recognized by the Supreme Court until 1973. Conversely, parental rights have been recognized since the founding of our Republic but are routinely dismissed when they collide with the almighty right to an abortion.

Mr. Turley does a great job discussing the nature of "absolute" rights and the all or nothing attitude of pro-abortion activists.

However, I would describe "rights" a bit differently. Rights are better thought of as "negative rights." It's not that I have an absolute right to freedom of speech, but that I have the right not to be silences - to expect you not to try to prevent me from speaking and to call on society to aide me if you do force your will on me to be quiet. By the same thinking, I don't have the right to live forever or take whatever my life needs, but I do have the right not to be killed. And to call on society to aid me if you try or to restrain you if you succeed in killing me. Many of us believe society should punish, too. (I'd rather think of this punishment as prevention of further harm, but I'm still working that one out - I'll probably have the answer when I'm 80 years old.)

Negative rights do not demand an action, except by legal representatives and those we hire. They are, in fact, limits on the actions of others where those rights would cause harm. To force involuntary action would be to make the other a slave.

In the case of Mr. Turley's example as to yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, those of us in the theater have the right not to be placed in harm's way. If there is a fire, we need to know. But if there is no fire, and we and our neighbors are falsely alarmed, risking panic and trampling, then we are placed in harm's way.

Gallup Abortion Poll

Editor and Publisher reported on last month's Gallup Poll on US attitudes and preferences concerning abortion. But, they skewed the results, saying

More than three-fourths of the respondents feel that abortion should be legal in varying circumstances. Thirty-nine percent of the respondents said that abortion should only be legal in a few circumstances.

The fact is that 74% would restrict abortion, at least in some circumstances. 39% who would restrict abortion in most circumstances, plus the 16% who would ban abortion outright and an additional 16% who would make abortion illegal, at least in some circumstances. It just depends on how you read the numbers, I guess.

At least E&P covered the poll. Not many others did.
There was very limited coverage of the November 2005 Gallup poll concerning the general US approval of limitations on abortion, with only slightly more attention to the numbers concerning parental consent and notification.

Unfortunately, the poll results themselves require subscription , and so, most people are dependent on media sources to see them. Well, here they are:


2005 Nov 11-13
Legal under any circumstances 26%
Legal under most circumstances 16%
Legal in only a few circumstances 39%
Illegal in all circumstances 16%
No Opinion 2%


In fact, those numbers have been very stable over the last 30 years, with approximately 50-55% choosing "under certain circumstances" every year, going as high as 61% in 1997. "Legal under any circumstances" has been consistently under 30%, except for the years 1990-1992, rising to 34% in June and July 1992.That was the only year that the "legal under circumstances dropped to 49%.

Last month's poll included a question about parental consent for minor girls, but did not ask about notification of parents (The focus of the Supreme Court testimony last week). That poll showed that 69% of those polled are in favor of consent, which is a higher duty than simply letting the parents know about the abortion.

Most U.S. adults think parents should not just be notified, but should have to give their permission, before a minor daughter has an abortion. For more than a decade, Gallup has found roughly 7 in 10 Americans favoring laws that require women under 18 to receive parental consent for any abortion. The latest poll, conducted Nov. 11-13, finds 69% in favor and 28% opposed to such laws.

and, in fact,

However, rather than being solidly opposed to parental consent, abortion rights advocates are somewhat closely divided on the issue. Nearly half of those who think all abortions should be legal favor parental consent laws; just 52% oppose them. The majority (58%) of those who think abortions should be legal in most circumstances say they favor such laws.

Clone lies - small and large

New updates on the problems with the South Korean cloning and embryonic stem cell program: missing scientists and accusations of fraud in reporting results and publishing credits.

Forbes online reports that the veterinarian who headed the cloning project is in seclusion at a Buddhist temple.

Besides accusations that the oocytes were aquired in questionable circumstances (donation for pay, concerns with informed consent, and abuse of Ph.D. candidates), now there are questions about the actual results.

Nature has a piece today in drug discovery @ nature.com on the multiple scandals, including questions about the patent credit given to one researcher, who was not even one of the co-authors:

Young Mo Koo, a bioethicist at Korea's University of Ulsan, says Hwang has not addressed enough questions about his involvement with the egg donors: There needs to be an investigation by an independent party.

For example, Hwang claims to have known nothing of the payments until a few days before his confession when Roh told him. Yet in April 2004 he told Nature that he had himself arranged many of the donors at the hospital concerned. Roh was awarded 40% of the patent resulting from the paper, on which he was not an author. He says he does not know why Hwang offered him so much but that it was not compensation for providing the eggs. I don't need any rewards, he says. Hwang has not disclosed his expenditures or budget for the project, saying only that all funds came from private sources.

The extent to which a junior member of his laboratory might have felt pressure to donate is also under debate. The student spoken to by Nature last April showed no signs of having been coerced by Hwang. During a 28-minute interview, she proudly described how her patriotism and concern for those with spinal injuries had inspired her to donate. Nature was unable to contact the other researcher, who is since thought to have moved to the United States. But according to Roh, she felt obliged to donate after making mistakes early in the experiment that wasted eggs and set the team back by months. I think it's a beautiful story, Roh told Nature, referring to both women's donations.

Can someone define "politically-motivated"?

A couple of weeks ago, I had a ton of fun with the Women's Bioethics Project. They released a report that was titled "God's Bioethics." (and still is tonight, on the front page and on the "news" page, but I keep expecting them to change that).

I received a comment from Linda McDonald Glenn, JD,LLM,, one of the Founding members, supporters and bloggers of the WBP.

Ms. McDonald thinks I over reacted about the "God's Bioethics" report:

was never intended to be politically-motivated, mean-spirited or divisive -- and like you, I'm not big on the "us" vs "them" labels. In fact, I see lots of ways that both conservatives and progressives could potentially work together on issues.

Okay, if it's not political, devisive, or even mean-spirited, why would Ms. Glenn emphasize political divisions, use words such as "overtly religious," etc.?

Perhaps the Women's Project should look at that information above about the Soros and RWJF money that seeded all those end of life and assisted suicide (which, are not all the same) organizations and bioethics centers at major universities - neither the money nor the organizations are "overtly religious" or "conservative."

Housekeeping, new links

I've added some links to the sidebar, changed the look of the blog and am trying to discover the way to widen the posting column. I've also edited the profile to be shorter. More "stuff" and less "about the stuff." (and it should make "jimmy" happy.)

Be sure and check out some of the new links.

Bioethics.com, run by the same people as the website for the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, has a new blog that is a great resource for up to date bioethics news. I'm so glad that they've started blogging.

Wesley J. Smith's blog is great reading.

I've also added links to two sites that review the history of bioethics. The Consortium on Law and Values in Human in Health, the Environment and the Life Sciences from the University of Minnesota has a Video Archive with seminars and lectures by the pushers and movers of Bioethics since the year 2000. Unfortunately, most of the featured speakers are pro-embryonic stem cells and cloning. (By the way, can you imagine a "pro-life" consortium that puts "Life Sciences" after the Environment?)

The UMN Center for Bioethics program is one of the oldest in the nation. Faculty includes Susan Wolfe, Ronald Cranford and Jeffry Kahn.

That second site, LifeTree.org, details the history of the "right to die" movement, including the support of the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation (millions to National Public telelvision, paid for supplements to the Hastings Report, and "educated" commercial television writers and producers about end of life care) and George Soros who gave well over 15 million dollars in seed money to various organizations that eventually became "Last Acts."

Both Soros and RWJF are responsible for startups of hospices and Bioethics centers at multiple universities and funded many of the legal actions. All that money puts a slightly different slant on The Women's Bioethics Project claims that the big money only goes to what they call "God's Bioethics."

Clones, lies and research

If the Korean veterinarian, Dr. Wu Suk Hwang, will not tell the truth about his procurement of oocytes, what won't he lie about?

From the December 2004 in Science article (sorry, subscription only) on the production of one cell line from over 200 human oocytes:

Fresh oocytes and cumulus cells were donated by healthy women for the express purpose of SCNT stem cell derivation for therapeutic cloning research and its applications. Before beginning any experiments, we obtained approval for this study from the Institutional Review Board on Human Subjects Research and Ethics Committees (Hanyang University Hospital, Seoul, Korea). Donors were fully aware of the scope of our study and signed an informed consent form (a summary of the informed consent form is available in the supporting online text); donors voluntarily donated oocytes and cumulus cells (including DNA) for therapeutic cloning research and its applications only, not for reproductive cloning; and there was no financial payment. A total of 242 oocytes were obtained from 16 volunteers (there were one or two donors for each trial) after ovarian stimulation:

I would like to see those consent forms.

Pay women to donate eggs?

Reading more on that last post on Ronald Green (scroll down, or click here for permanent link) from July 2005 July, 2005,

"What is the point of these bans against paying for eggs? A ban on payment for embryos makes sense. Embryos that are available for stem-cell research are spares remaining from in-vitro fertilization procedures. Whatever effort or expense went into them lies in the past. It also makes sense to prohibit the selling of sperm for research purposes. This is hardly an onerous or risky task.

"But eggs are another matter. Eggs should not be sold, but women who produce eggs for research should be compensated for the time and effort involved. They must undergo a series of painful injections with drugs to stimulate their ovaries and undergo a collection procedure that involves inserting a large needle through the vaginal wall into each ovary. The drugs can cause mood swings, and there are rare but life-threatening risks associated with them. Why would anybody do this without appropriate compensation?"

Hubris, clones, ethics déjà vu

Ronald M. Green joined Robert Lanza of Advanced Cell Technology had a letter to the editor in Nature last week, bemoaning the “fact” that the Koreans had won the “stem cell” “race.” (Correspondence: Bush's policy stopped US gaining stem-cell lead Nature 438, 422 (24 November 2005) (Sorry, subscription only)


Of all the people in the world, religion professor Ronald Green should know about cutting ethical corners for pay.

From the letter:

“Why did the South Koreans win this race despite our early lead?
“In our view, President George W. Bush's restrictive policy on funding stem-cell research was a major factor. SCNT research is expensive— a full research programme costs hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. At that time, ACT was a privately financed company, and from the summer of 2001 on, it was operating in an extremely hostile funding environment, with no hope of federal support. There is no reason to believe that ACT was a special case. Indeed, the stem-cell area as a whole has continued to encounter difficulties in garnering sufficient financial support.”

Talk about irony: complaints about the hostile environment encountered by an industry that’s riddled with questionable ethics for hire, from a man who is responsible for quite a bit of the suspicion. If only ACT had kept quiet about the bovine-human embryo until more was known. If only ACT had kept quiet about their own human cloned embryos until more was known.

If only ACT had kept quiet about the Korean “win” until more was known about their practices of buying oocytes and influencing Ph.D. candidates to donate.
If only Green and ACT could learn the difference between embryonic stem cells and ethical stem cells.

After abortion: 250% increased risk of death for mother

Decreased by half after birth, compared to women who weren't pregnant in the last year.

And none of the mainstream media outlets notice.

There is excellent coverage at RedState.org and Lifesitenews.org.

This new study is out of Finland. Which is a country which has socialized medicine and records allowing the researchers to correlate deaths and pregnancy, abortion.

In contrast, many states, including my home, Texas, have laws mandating information considering post-partum depression.

Try a Google news search. There's a chance there will be more coverage.

Do you want to know about your daughter's abortion?

Take a look at USAToday, today. An article on the Supreme Court's hearing about a Parental Notification Act from New Hampshire, contains quotes from one of the Texas Physician Resource Council's Board members, Linda Flower, MD, our Executive Chair.

The New Hampshire law only requires that a parent be notified - not even "consent." I can't imagine any doctor ever doing an appendectomy or removing a life-threatening mole without first obtaining the parent's permission, much less notification. But, no one has a "right" to have their appendix removed or to have a melanoma biopsied.

I'm always shocked when this issue comes up. Children's rights are limited by the necessity for their parents to care for them. That's why they aren't allowed to enter contracts. Other than for aides and remedies for sex, that is. While most States will not allow a girl to consent to sex, legally at the age of 14 or 15, they will allow her to seek contraceptives and even an abortion without even letting mom and dad know why she might look so pale or be tired.Go here for information on State's regulations on minors and contraception and abortion.

This is not "sexual health." This is child abuse.

Here's a link to another article, for more on the controversy.

In Vitro Scandal and Miracle Remembered

The story about the resignation of the cloning Korean Veterinarian, Dr. Hwang led me to google the scandal at the fertility clinic at University of California at Irvine that had caused Hwang's American associate, Gerald Schatten, trouble. There aren't as many stories as I thought I would find.

Here's some links
The miracle baby born 13 years after being frozen

A very sad story about a couple who never had children, but who may have two daughters "out there."

Early stories about the scandal - from 1995.

A very long article that covers all sorts of IVF and surrogacy scandals and mentions that the UCIrvine doc fled the country.

Actually 2 of the docs fled, and here's the story of the arrest of one.

Cloner Hwang resigned

The blog.bioethics.net has a piece on the resignation of the Veterinarian from Korea who has admitted that at least 2 of his research assistants (if PhD candidates, just consider them coerced). The link they give is from Forbes.

Unfortunately, they have another article suggesting that US funds for cloning research would cure this ill, too. That's not consistent with the scandals we read about every day. Let's see... didn't Schatten have another unethical associate in Irvine, California who was switching embryos and juggling eggs?

Interesting, no one's using euphemisms for "cloning."

Green and fresh eggs

From the JoongAng Daily (Korea), Dated September 22 (tomorrow's news, today!)

Roh Sung-il, the director of MizMedi Hospital, a fertility clinic in Seoul that provided eggs to Seoul National University Professor Hwang Woo-suk for the latter's stem cell research, admitted yesterday that he paid about 20 women 1.5 million won ($1,430) each for eggs that he then donated to Dr. Hwang. He added, however, that those transactions took place before laws forbidding them came into effect. He said Dr. Hwang did not know about his transactions with the women.

Human oocytes - and the risk of medication and invasive procedures - should cost money. Men have been paid for their sperm donations for years. I even heard about "compensation" for oocyte donation when I was inschool - and very, very poor, so $1000 looked tempting (in 1990). But, I knew that the oocytes, if fertilized, would be my children, and I couldn't bear with harming my own children. I definitely did not contemplate some of the uses that we know about, now.

The only question is why would a physician and supposedly reputable scientists lie, cheat, and break laws and then continue to lie about it?


Here are more news stories:
From The International Tribune Pacific-Asia

And here's a great editorial, speaking of farming, Albert Schweitzer, and stem cells, called. "Don't turn Hwang into Dr. Moreau."

Common Ground, again

I mentioned that I was in DC yesterday. For the last 3 1/2 years, I've been on the National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women, which is co-chaired by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This was the last meeting for this Committee, under the last Charter and Charge.

Several members of the Committee were surprised at the common ground we found between small government, pro-life, pro-family members and the Domestic Violence (DV) and Sexual Abuse (SA) community members. I wasn't: - of course (excuse me)- OF COURSE - we absolutely, positively, no ifs, ands or buts, will not tolerate the abuse of anyone at the hands of another. Not a single one of us have any sympathy or measuring stick that excuses violence against anyone, especially between people in the family, and in the most vulnerable and intimate moments and circumstances of our lives.

I've always been certain that the reason that I was appointed (besides the fact that I write a lot of letters) was because they couldn't find many in the domestic violence community who were pro-life and pro-family - in other words, grass roots Republican.

In my opinion the reason I stuck out is not because Republicans are too busy with fighting abortion and supporting the family that we ignore, miss, or support violence within the family and sexual abuse. Unfortunately, it's because the DV and SA communities are hostile to Republicans because of the Party's opposition to abortion. I've been subjected to attacks on my religion (that I never even mentioned), ignored, excluded, and laughed at when attempting to function in the SA and DV communities, if I let it be known that I'm pro-life.

Pro-life advocates are fighting abuse of women and children and not just on one front. Small government advocates believe that voluntary efforts outside of government are the answer to social problems. And DV and SA advocates are, by definition, fighting abuse and rescuing the vulnerable.

Common ground exists: we are rescuers. We all want to end violence against women, children, and men. We will not rest until the family and intimate relationships, and especially our children, are be free of abuse, coercion and violence. "Home," "dating," and "sex" should never be words associated with domination, violence, pain and shame.

Let's meet on Common Ground.

What's the connection for NYT and Plan B

I wish I were a better detective.
Tuesday, I had to spend a couple of hours in the Reagan National Airport in Washington, DC, so I did something I don't usually do: I read a real, dead-tree newspaper. The NYT flashed an above-the-fold front page article and an editorial on FDA regulation of a single brand name drug: Plan B. The front page article was similar to this one.

I'm sure that a lot of people appreciated education on the scientific facts (as far as we know them). I know that some have been happy about the education of women concerning the product. However I am sure that Barr Laboratories, abortionists and all sorts of sex abusers are even more grateful.

The simple fact is that facts don't tell us what the right thing to do is. We look at the facts and draw conclusions based on ethics, community standards, and sometimes gut feelings.

Wouldn't you think that the "Newspaper of Record" could look into something besides raw politics: men buy the drug where it's OTC. And the pregnancy rates and abortion rates don't go down in those areas.

Don't turn away

"Silent Rain Drops" gave me courage and support today, with a comment on my post on why Christians need to take our place in politics and for the wounded and innocent. Thank you!

ProLifeBlogs.com has more information about the far reaching effects of legalized abortion: Not only do actual people use their minds and hands to end the lives of the children who die in abortion, but those of us who live in this nation give our willing or unwilling support to not only abortion but the infringement of other rights and civil liberties. Directly due to the special protection of legalized, elective and interventional abortion.

The right of free speech and assembly is limited - certain expression is not allowed at "facility" entrances. People have been arrested for kneeling in prayer on public ground, because of their proximity to an abortion clinic. There are "bubbles" or floating areas of restricted speech and simply "being there" around these places.

And now, there is the creeping infringment on the right of conscience due to legalized abortion and only abortion - legalized slavery of people who choose to work in the "healing arts." Are you a pharmacist? Then you must carry certain drugs and you must be prepared to immediately sell those - and only those - drugs without fail. Nurses and doctors are having to choose between caring for women in their childbearing years and risking their license and livelihood if they refuse to participate in legalized, intentional, and elective interference in the natural life span of nascent human beings.

We can't say we aren't doing these things. The United States of America is a representative democracy. If it's happening with legal protection, I are at least allowing it -- if we turn away at the wrong time, we are causing it to happen.

Write a letter to your local paper each month. Call your representatives at the State and Federal levels. Tell them to protect the right not to be killed, the right not to be forced to act against your will, the right not to be silenced. Give a package of diapers to the local crisis pregnancy center. Give your time to the local family violence center or food bank.

Just don't turn away.

"My trust is shaken"

It's not as though I had much trust in the ethics of cloners, and hopefully we can continue to limit the destructive research in our country. If we can't trust the cloners to follow basic ethics standards (such as, the prohibition on buying and selling body parts and exploiting dependent students and employees, why are we even considering letting them bring the technology to the US?

The old saying is that if someone will lie about the small stuff, he'll lie about the big, important issues, too. And this is the man that Time magazine is honoring for his secrecy in cloning a dog.

Gerald Schatten, the US cloning expert from the University of Pittburg who has been collaborating with the veterinarian, Woo-suk Hwang, is quoted in the November 14th issue of a Korean newspaper as saying, "My trust is shaken. The title of the article calls Hwang "dog researcher." That same paper had an editorial, "Prove Cloning Is Clean,"

It cannot be stressed enough that procurring body parts from laboratory research assistance has at least the appearance of impropriety. If the charges prove true, how many of the 400 plus oocytes that the lab has used were unethically and illegally obtained?

Clone team split:Korean paper report

The Korea Times reports on the - evidently unfriendly - split between the US team and the veterinarian, Dr. Hwang, over charges that the Korean team violated ethics standards. The story is similar to the US reports, with a little disclaimer from one of Hwang's co-authors.

There's also mention that the rumors have been swirling around since mid-2004 that the human cloning was tainted by (mis)-using oocytes from a young woman who works in the lab. I guess that's how you get fresh material.

BTW, Time Magazine has named the cloning of the dog the top "invention" of the year, according to Reuters, UK.

The Lost Children

I know we've been having fun with the Women's Bioethics Project, but I'm going to get serious. And - warning to all who are easily offended - tonight I will fail my mission by talking about my religious motives. But, as long as you're here, you might as well read on and learn about the whole motive for this blog. Think of it as cultural sensity training.

This week, I was asked once again No, I wasn't asked. I was repeatedly reminded, by someone I believe to be a sincere Christian, that my true citizenship is in heaven, not this world, that the babies who are aborted are innocent and they will go to heaven, while their moms need to be saved. Paul's admonition to be all things to all people in order to win some for Christ was mentioned several times, and I was urged to just "Love them!" Well, I do love them. Out of love, there are some things I won't do, because they are unhealthy for the other people involved and unChristian and won't glorify God at all - and will actually interfer with my ability to be a good witness for Christ.

That good Christian didn't seem to believe that I love the people I'm thwarting - did not ask - and insisted that I explain why a Christian would support sidewalk counseling, push for legal and regulatory changes that restrict abortion and attempt to ban research dependent on the destruction of embryos, and even go so far as to study Bioethics. (Which is what put me in the position that I must comply with that insistence.)

So, I'm working on a paper to explain that I am also a citizen of a representative democracy where I am just as responsible for the acts carried out by the State as the non-Christian next door. I plan to explain about this blog, which is an attempt to reach non-Christians as well as Christians who don't feel welcomed at other pro-life sites.

Then I'll explain while it's true that unborn babies (if they have a soul) will go to heaven, so will children until the "age of accountibility." For that matter, it probably wouldn't make a difference to the ultimate fate of all those people who have lost all chance of coherence and consciousness. And that's pretty much the point of some psuedo-ethicists such as Tooley and Singer, who advocate for weighing the worth of human beings in reference to the happiness of a dog or chicken.

And, as a family doctor, if someone doesn't work to limit these actions, I will continue to have my ability to practice medicine literally threatened by people who believe that doctors have a duty to prescribe abortifacients, refer them to abortionists and unethical "fertility" specialists who practice pre-implantation diagnosis. I will have to withdraw from professional associations whose "ethics statements" and "standards of care" back the free access (by my hand and against my will) to "legal procedures" and who would lobby through those organizations to remove the age of consent - with it's "parental interference in the physician-patient relationship" - from my State laws.I will have to stand by why other professionals are made moral slaves by such as the Governor of Illinois.

In the near future, even Texas may have legalized Physician Assisted Suicide, embryonic stem cell experiments, cloning with State mandated killing of the human life, and even involuntary patient killing such as is now legal in the Netherlands.
And, if I renounce my citizenship in the representative democrocies of my State and Country, more hearts will be scarred over and hardened by participation and assistance in acts that I am sure will be just as heinous to future historians as past Christians' in regard to slavery, domestic violence and eugenics.

Which can't be good for the efforts to win hearts for Christ in the future.

Here's a couple of web sites with additional explanations about why a Christian should fight unethical laws and practices:
Christians in the Public Square
Why Should I Care?

Cash and Coercion for Clones

The Washington Post is reporting a major split among the world's leading cloned embryo stem cell researchers.It seems that the US expert, Gerald Schatten, is convinced that the veterinarian, Dr. Wu Suk Hwang, has not been honest about the ethics of obtaining human oocytes (eggs) for his cloned human embryos. Those cloned human embryos are then "disaggregated" or destroyed in order to attempt to culture "patient specific stem cells."
It is illegal in Korea, where the veterinarian has his laboratory, to pay for women to undergo the oocyte harvesting, whether the future purpose is to make an embryo by in vitro fertilization (IVF) that is destined for implantation in a woman for reproduction or for the purpose of making a cloned human embryo by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT or NT). Last week, one of the physicians associated with the veterinarian's lab was arrested on charges that he was involved in a scheme to buy and sell oocytes and embryos for women who wish to have a baby.
Now, we learn:

For many months after Hwang's 2004 publication, rumors had spread in scientific circles that the eggs Hwang used to achieve that landmark result had been taken from a junior scientist in his lab. That situation, if true, would be in violation of widely held ethics principles that preclude people in positions of authority from accepting egg donations from underlings. The rules are meant to prevent subtle -- or not-so-subtle -- acts of coercion.
Questions have also circulated as to whether the woman received illegal payments for her role.

Schatten said that Hwang had repeatedly denied the rumor and that he had believed Hwang until yesterday. "I now have information that leads me to believe he had misled me," Schatten said. "My trust has been shaken. I am sick at heart. I am not going to be able to collaborate with Woo Suk."

May I see a show of hands from those who are surprised that men who are willing to carry out cloning, repeated experiments on human embryos which includes creating those embryos with the express intention of killing them are not ethical?



Thanks to blog.bioethics.net for the heads up!

The anti-life, anti-religion bioethics agenda

The Women’s Bioethics Project (see yesterday’s post for the link to their home page)was kind enough to note the strength of conservative bioethics and to list of their weaknesses and future agenda in the anti-conservative, anti-religious “expose” they have called, “God’s Bioethics.” It's obvious that they think believing in God and having a "unified philosophical framework based on a concept of “human dignity” is somehow a bad thing.

“One of the conservatives’ strengths is that they approach bioethical issues from a unified philosophical framework based on a concept of “human dignity” from which they derive their position on any given bioethical issue.”

and,

“Conservatives have the opportunity to undermine progressive coalitions by portraying them as divided, confused, and serving special interests. They will be able to do this because many of the emerging issues bring progressive values into conflict (autonomy v. social justice, for example) and will divide potential progressive coalitions. We saw this play out in the media during the recent California Proposition 71 stem-cell initiative when progressive environmental and women’s groups were battling with the scientific community over issues of corporate accountability, access to new technologies, women’s health concerns, and appropriateness of using state funds to support scientific research when basic needs such as education and other social services remain under-funded. In this instance, the friction between progressives gave the conservative right additional ammunition for their anti-embryonic stem cell research position. We expect to see similar conflicts over technologies such as human genetic germline modification (“designer babies”) and reproductive cloning.”

What can I say but, "Thank you!"

God’s Bioethics Expose’ Exposed

The report from the Women’s Bioethics Project, entitled "Bioethics and Public Policy: Conservative Dominance in the Current Landscape," is listed as “God’s Bioethics” on the WBP website. While full of hyperbole and misrepresentation, the author and her sponsors are honest about their agenda and goal: they want all conservatives and those who are “overtly religious” people out of the business of doing bioethics, and they want to be the ones “affecting bioethics public policy” and “driving the bioethics agenda.” (See yesterday's post)

"To date, only extremely conservative and overtly religious groups have devoted substantial resources to affecting bioethics public policy. They, therefore, are actively driving the bioethics agenda."

A little research would have shown this statement to be patently untrue, even if the Women did not count tax money. (Maybe they assume that conservative religious people pay ‘substantial” taxes!).

George Soros, who is certainly not a conservative, is famous for his advocacy of eugenics and the assisted suicide agenda. There is an extensive review (and a short version, too) about the funding of “Better ends” at lifetree.org.

The author even re-used material from an old speech honoring the opening of the Humanist Center for Bioethics at the UN Plaza. All of which shows that some "substantial" money is backing a very unconservative anti-religious agenda.

Get in on the Bioethics God Bash

Talk about politically-motivated, mean-spirited and divisive: The Women's Bioethics Project has decided that they're ready to play with the really big boys, and decided to "expose" the super-secret Religious Rightwing Fundamentalist Cabal they're calling, "God's Bioethics." I'm sure they wouldn't mind getting attention and a piece of those resources while they're at it. Oh, and their spokesperson, Jonathan Moreno, is selling a book, too. The .pdf "expose'" is available to read on the WBP site.

Or you can go to the Press Release at Yahoo Finance to read the pertinent quotes from the "non-partisan" group, from their spokesperson, Jonathan Moreno, of The Great American Progressive Bioethics, who's also pushing a book on the WBP site:

"The rapid advance of biotechnology is quickly outpacing our ability as a society to absorb the effect it will have on our lives," said Kathryn Hinsch, founder of the Women's Bioethics Project and author of the report, "The institutions we have relied on for guidance on difficult moral issues -- whether organized religion, government, or the academy -- have failed to keep pace with science or societal implications underlying these issues. Because of this confusion, disarray, and public policy flux, the opportunity to influence the direction of public opinion is up for grabs. Essentially, whoever gets there first will frame the debate on these issues and will affect us all for decades to come."

To date, only extremely conservative and overtly religious groups have devoted substantial resources to pushing a broad bioethics agenda. "Bioethical issues ranging from stem cell research to the Terri Schiavo case are the battlefield for defining the kind of world we want to create," said Jonathan Moreno, bioethicist and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "The Women's Bioethics Project analysis is an important wake-up call to people who care about scientific progress and the ability to decide what is right for their own families. The time to engage in these issues is now."

I've already announced over on the blog.bioethics.net board, so I might as well put the announcement here, too.

I was first inspired to start my own bioethics center when the FDA and CDC decided that menopause was just a part of normal aging. Then, I was going to wait and see how well the Progressives and the WBP made out selling Dr. Moreno's books. But, if it's it's a rush, this seems the appropriate time:

Press Release - The immediate past president of the Age-Related Ovarian Wasting Syndrome school of bioethics announced her group's new activism. The flushed Post-AROWSal spokesperson, fanning herself with a notebook ripped from the hand of a reporter, declared, "We're your first wives and mothers: we know where the pill bottles are hidden. We demand a place in the Big Tote Bag of bioethics!"

Clone Dr caught selling embryos

Or, "How we will some day get our first cloned human neonate."

Once again, a scientist has shown that his judgment as to what is right and what he wants are the only limits on what he will do.

One of the researchers who works with the Korean veterinarian, Dr Wu Suk Hwang, in his experiments to produce embryonic stem cells, has been accused of helping to create embryos to sell. These are embryos created by the "usual" in vitro fertilization method, not cloned embryos, that are being sold. But why not cloned embryos? And why is it illegal to sell oocytes("eggs") to produce embryos for gestation, but perfectly fine to produce embryos for research?

How is it less coercive, more ethical to allow donation for research to cure disease than to allow donation for economic reasons? Where is tolerance and choice when a girl needs to earn a living? It seems ironic that men have sold their sperm without censure, but we women finally get a chance to earn money by selling our gametes and the rules suddenly change.

First of all, I admit that I have a different attitude than that of the cloners: It is much worse to kill embryos or to conduct research that depends on their destruction, whether cloned or IVF, than it is to implant them and give them a chance to live. The fundamental fact is that no human embryo should be created or used for any purpose except for the benefit of that human individual, himself. If there is no reasonable expectation of benefit to the human subject that is the embryo, then the action can never justify the means.

The case of the sympathetic entrepenurial cloner should not surprise anyone - if he's willing to kill, why not bend other rules?

The right to be - fill in the blank

Thanks to blog.bioethics.net for highlighting an article in today's New York Times:

The Right to Be a Father (or Not)
By PAM BELLUCK

BOSTON — Case study one: a pregnant woman wants an abortion. Her husband doesn't. Should he have a say?

Case study two: a woman wants to become pregnant with frozen embryos. Her ex-husband opposes the decision. Should he have a say?

The answer, legally, is no in the abortion case, and in the case of frozen embryos, almost always yes.

The point should not be the right of the mother or the father. Where are the rights of the child - the subject, if you will - to only be "created" for himself or herself?

No child should ever be in harms' way because his or her parents are debating elective abortion or because he or she was 'produced' and then frozen.

As far as the questions asked in the article: go back to the basics of medicine and law. Bodily integrity makes the woman the final consent to any procedure on her body (legal, moral or not). The embryos in the second question are independent of either body, and so they each have equal claim on the decision as to the future of the child. The only decision that should be contemplated is how to best protect the right not to be killed that is inalienable to these human organisms.

Thousands receive fake flu shots?

The Houston Chronicle has the best coverage of this story and it is a (free) subscription-only site. It's worth reading if you're interested in medical fraud cases with all sorts of twists and turns - wilder than anything I could have made up. I'm prejudiced, but I believe that this case points out just one reason why you need to see your family doctor for medical care.

And, perhaps this is why there's a push to increase the Federal government involvement in producing flu vaccines? Could we be facing a national defense issue?

Monday - Suspect thought flu vaccine was genuine
Tuesday - Bail denied
And, just to keep you interested here's a similar case from 2003, in Washington State.

Brief report from no-registration Akron, Ohio Beacon Journal here.


Summary of the news reports on the recent case: A man with passports from both Israel and Jordan who originally claimed to be a plastic surgeon from Israel and who has some undetermined connection with a home-health agency is charged with arranging a complicated scam to defraud Exxon-Mobile in Houston and, possibly, Medicare and nursing home patients by administering flu shots that he bought last month from two men he only knows as "Larry" and "Robert."

A woman who has a relative who knows someone at Exxon-Mobile and who works for a local family doctor worked out the deal with the health fair. The doctor says he never knew about the contract and has fired the woman.

A man who works for the suspect who allegedly drew up the shots into syringes told someone that he had pricked his own finger several times in the process, so the needles may not have been sterile.

And he promises not to leave the country if released on bail.

Stem cell volunteers overwhelm Korean center website

The Seoul, Korea World Stem Cell Hub (WSCH), led by the veterinarian/cloner, Dr. Wu Suk Hwang, announced yesterday that applications would be taken for volunteers to be subjects in cloning research on Parkinson's and paralysis. Although only 100 subjects are to be chosen, response was overwhelming - at least for the website.

3000 people presented at the Center, according to the Chosen (Korea) News. The website crashed (or was severely slow)after only 5 minutes, however. It's estimated that there were over 50,000 attempts to access the site.

Please note that the news reports and the WSCH spokespersons call the technique "cloning."

Hopefully, recent reports concerning adult stem cells, from brain tissue, bone marrow and umbilical cord cells will supplement - and replace - the hype and hope surrounding cloned embryonic stem cells for neurological disease.

When the People are Caesar

Just a little politics and a hint of religion, here - and reactive at that:

Much fuss and bother about the new nominee to the Supreme Court, as we as the unusual withdrawal of the last nominee. With not a few blaming all on the "Religious Right" or the "Extreme Right."

I'd like to point the not-so-right to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. "We the People" are the government.

The visible influence of the nomination of Justices to the Supreme Court by backers of the elected Administration is simply representative democracy is at work.

Two sources of insulin, one gets the press?

Reports this week from Nature Biotechnology (sorry, full access is subscription only) give hope for future stem cell treatments for insulin dependent diabetes by the production of beta islet cells found in the pancreas. Both concern the production of endoderm, the cell line layer in the embryo which develops into visceral organs and tissues such as the thymus, the lining of the intestines and lungs, and both the tissues found in the pancreas which produce digestive enzymes and the Islets of Langerhans, which regulate glucose.


The first article details the dedifferentiation and immortalization of human adult beta islet cells to stem cells that then can be induced to develop into functional human beta islet cells. The second article describes a protocol for the development of a line of “definitive” endoderm human embryonic stem cells (hESC) after identifying necessary triggers and markers.

Both articles are highly technical and name all sorts of enzymes and cultural requirements and proofs that the cells are what the experimenters say they are. Neither group produced cells that would be fit for implantation into human subjects. The first involves retroviruses and telomerase, the second. However, the first group of scientists was able to produce cells suitable for implantation into immune deficient diabetic mice. The mice were cured of their diabetes by the cells and the diabetes returned after the cells were removed. In contrast, the second group produced cells that remained immature and non-functional when implanted in mice.

Another big difference is that the second article received more notice in the press. I found only two articles on the mass production of beta islet cells by the ethical method, but there were at least 15 stories about the results of the hESC research. Could it be the opportunity to call for more embryo destruction that made the difference?


As I've said before, I'm convinced that the ultimate result will be regeneration at the site - with the stimulation of growth factors or some enzyme, not transplantation and certainly not the destruction of at least one embryo per cure.

In the meantime, let's continue to limit the number of embryos we create and kill, okay?

Progressivist Moreno Named to Institute of Medicine

Jonathan Moreno took time out from selling his book and meeting with fellow progressives and Democrats to be named to the Institute of Medicine.

The IOM is one arm of the National Academies of Science.

Just one more reason we don't want the National Academies to make policy, especially on life ethics including cloning, stem cells, and human research subjects.

Connection between fetal, embryonic stem cells

Ultimately, there is a connection: So called "patient specific stem cells." (also known as cloned stem cells)

Note that the children who receive the fetal stem cells for treatment of their Batten's disease will also require anti-rejection drugs.

Housekeeping

The editors at the American Journal of Bioethics blog posted a comment in response to my remarks about the influence of the "progressives" on the Powers That Be in bioethics.

The Editors wanted to make sure that I understood that one of the progressives, Art Caplan, does not edit the Journal. However, let's all note that he is listed as a member of their Editorial Board. (You say "id-eology," I say "eye-deology.")

Also, I've made some changes to the blog. Let me know if there are problems. Programs tend to do what you tell them, and I admit to having occasional translation problems.

A.C. Green on abstinence education

A.C. Green has a letter in response to Art Caplan's remarks concerning abstinence on the Abstinence Clearinghouse Blog.

I highly recommend a look at the website and that everyone read the letter.

Arrogant, Unethical,Unnecessary: Post-abortion stem cells

Stem Cell, Inc., one of Irving Weissman's biotech companies, has been given clearance by the FDA to begin phase 1 trials of one of the company's proprietary stem cell preps - stem cells for brain tissue derived from aborted humans. The Boston Globe article on the announcement is here.

Weissman and his cohorts know that there are other probable sources for treatment for Batten's disease - umbilical cord and bone marrow cells. Way back in 2003, we knew that human umbilical cord cells functioned to repair spinal cord injury. We read about bone marrow derived neural cells in 2004. In this mongth's Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, there's more - free content - on the promise of HUCB stem cells in repair of neural disorders.

And last year, we also read about umbilical cord stem cells that crossed the blood-brain barrier to repair injury after strokes.

Phase 1 research trials are usually trials of therapies that have shown promise in animals, but have high risk compared to benefits for the human subjects. Remember the phase 1 trials of fetal and embryonic tissues in patients with Parkinson's Disease that left half the patients worse off than controls and which caused ethics to be reinvented in order to allow surgeons to perform sham brain surgery? Or those gene therapies that ended up causing leukemia and death? (The children with immune deficiency and many other children and adults with leukemia are now being treated with umbilical cord stem cells - living years without anti-rejection drugs.)

Weissman, et. al., are using already doomed babies and babies with a deadly disease for the same reason - and to advance that reason - that they give to use frozen embryos: "they are/were going to die, anyway."


It is never right to do evil to good. We all know this, and it is the very basic knowledge that drives the choice of this particular experiment: it's a test case to prove that people in the US will give in, as they did on IVF, abortion, and "assisted suicide," out of concern for visible victims.

It is good that we have sympathy and concern. It's wrong when we fail to restrain the ghouls who call themselves scientists, doctors, and bioethicists. (Remember those sham brain surgeries?)

Human Dignity - Why not?

Reader "Jimmy" made a comment dissagreeing with my definition of "human dignity" in my 10/20/05 post. Here's that definition:

Humans are the only species debating "dignity" and "rights," so all of our children, out of respect for the dignity of the species, are deserving of being treated with the "Golden Rule," as though they have "human dignity."

I know there was some circularity in that definition, and it needs some work before I publish my book (grin). But, I still like the idea that human dignity is whatever it is that makes humans treat one another according to the Golden Rule. I would probably add that part of the Golden Rule - beneficience - is the Silver Rule or non-maleficence. "Do to others what you would have them do to you" - or, to put it another way, "Do good to others, but first, do no harm."

It's pretty significant, I believe, that humans are the only species capable of art,intentionally recorded history, and purposeful manipulation of our environment and each other. We have empathy for our fellow humans and even for non-humans. There must be some reason beyond shear power for us to reason rather than use what ever power we can muster against our neighbors.

What will we call this "something"? How will we explain to our children why they're not allowed to take whatever they want from the other kids if they're able, or hit the other kids, or (to borrow the Kantian language that Jimmy mentioned) use other human beings as means to our ends? For that matter, why not torture animals - why not pull the legs off grasshoppers? Why not use up all the natural resources today, and forget about tomorrow?

"I want" is not sufficient to explain any of these observations, and I don't believe that "I'm afraid," is any better. There is more than these in the way we nurture not only our own children, but we have concern for victims of Katrina and the sunami victims on the other side of the world.

That "something" is human dignity - or what gives human dignity its function for the protection of others and our environment.

And, yes, Jimmy, I would universalize human dignity.

Bioethics/Human Rights Declaration Unanimously Approved by UNESCO

The United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization has unanimously approved a declaration on Human Rights and bioethics.


The bulk of criticism about the Declaration has been about the ambiguity of the term, "human dignity." Humans are the only species debating "dignity" and "rights," so all of our children, out of respect for the dignity of the species, are deserving of being treated with the "Golden Rule," as though they have "human dignity." In the US, especially, we are governed under documents based on our Declaration of Independence, which states that we are created with certain rights - no one can give or take away our rights.

As to "rights," I prefer the explanation by Bastiat, in his Law.


From the UNESCO press release:

The first principle established by the Declaration is the respect of human dignity and human rights, with an emphasis on the following two points: “The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.” and “If the application of the principles of this Declaration is to be limited, it should be by law, including laws in the interests of public safety, for the investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, for the protection of public health or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Any such law needs to be consistent with international human rights law.”

In these days of global concern about avian flu, when our pharmaceutical companies can afford to conduct experiments in third world countries where poverty and lack of access to medical care can come close to coercion in themselves, and when we are called to recognize the plurality of morals and cultures, I believe that it is vital to treat each human life without discrimination.

Disease specific cell lines (NEJM)

Forget "cloning." Forget "somatic cell nuclear transfer." Forget "patient specific embryonic stem cells." This week's New England Journal of Medicine's "Perspective," Susan Okie, MD (subscription required) uses the term that Irving Weissman told us about years ago: the goal is "disease specific embryonic stem cell lines."

Korea is offering a chance at never ending production of cell lines for research and poison, cosmetic and pharmacology treatment testing. And all the scientists have to do is provide private or State (rather than Federal)funding, the eggs, the donors, and give the South Koreans control.

The subject of the opinion piece is the offer from Korea to help US researchers obtain their own disease specific hESC lines:

Now, Woo Suk Hwang, the South Korean veterinarian and stem-cell biologist whose laboratory leads the world in the use of this technique, is planning to offer researchers in the United States and other countries a chance to work with such cell lines without having to make them themselves. Hwang's plan provides a possible strategy for accelerating international progress in the field and avoiding some of the legal and regulatory complications of deriving the cell lines in this country. But will U.S. scientists, ethicists, and research institutions embrace the proposal?

At the time of this writing, officials in three countries — South Korea, the United States, and the United Kingdom — were preparing to announce on October 19 the establishment of the World Stem Cell Foundation, an international consortium to be headed by Hwang and based at Seoul National University in South Korea. Under the current scheme, the consortium would operate a small satellite laboratory in the San Francisco area and another in England, and each laboratory would be associated with a nearby in vitro fertilization facility where donor oocytes would be collected. Scientists from various countries who wished to use embryonic stem cells to study a disease could apply to have cell lines created for their projects. Clinical researchers in Seoul, in England, and in San Francisco would recruit women to donate eggs and patients to donate somatic cells, after obtaining approval from the relevant oversight committees at their institutions.

Dr. Okie explains that there are no legal restrictions in most States that would prevent the research:

Under the administration's policy, federal funds may not be used for research on human embryonic stem cells created through somatic-cell nuclear transfer — which means that even if stem-cell researchers have grants from other sources, they may not conduct such studies using laboratory space, equipment, or supplies that were paid for by the National Institutes of Health. Five states — California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island — have passed laws explicitly permitting scientists to make human embryonic stem-cell lines by somatic-cell nuclear transfer (sometimes called research cloning or therapeutic cloning). The governor of Illinois has legalized the procedure by executive order. In seven states — Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and South Dakota — research cloning is prohibited by law. Virginia may also prohibit the procedure, but the wording of its law is unclear. Only South Dakota explicitly forbids the importation of human embryonic stem cells derived elsewhere, so it appears that researchers in most states, provided that they did not use federal funds, could legally study cell lines obtained through the international consortium, according to LeRoy B. Walters of Georgetown University's Kennedy Institute of Ethics.

Raising the bar on moral slavery

Wisconsin Governor Doyle has made slaves out of every medical worker in the State. He believes that the conscience of all Wisconsin citizens should be smothered until the Legislature is able to get a law past the Governor's desk or risk being fired or sued.


Doyle vetoed a bill passed by that State's Legislature which would have protected medical personnel - doctors, nurses, techs, and students - who had a conscientious objection to procedures. (See my October 17th note, "Governor has no conscience.")


The Governor objects to the use of conscience in medical care, research, and biotechnology. His position is that if a given act is legal, even when the act is new and goes against tradition, there should be no protection for those who object.In effect, the Governor's position is that when new techniques and procedures are developed, no matter what, participation is required until it is made illegal.


The new law would have expanded protection that already exists for those who do not wish to participate in abortions and and sterilization to include removal of feeding tubes, participation in the future activities of the stem cell bank in that State, and all future legal medical or biotech procedures.

It is perfectly legal in the Wisconsin to create human embryos for any purpose at all as long as the scientist has legal possession of the eggs and sperm he needs. In fact, only a handful of States have any laws concerning embryo research at all. There are no laws against cloning in the US.


The governor forgets that slavery was once legal in the US, and that the Supreme Court in the Dred Scot decision, made all citizens of the US responsible for returning slaves to their masters. I wonder if the Governor will be happy to be compared to Justice Taney or those who opposed the underground railway?

Robert P. George for US Supreme Court (My Wish List)

Here's an article from the Daily Princtonian 'way back before the nomination of Harriet Miers. Professor Robert P. George of Princeton explained why it would be difficult for the President to nominate a known conservative. Especially one like Professor George who argues so logically for the protection of human life at all ages and who gives one of the best philosophical explanations as to why a human embryo is a human being.

Professor George is even able to give a one sentence definition of "living organism:"

The question is, ‘Does it have the [biological basis] for self-construction and self-organization, or is it a fundamentally disordered growth?’”

As Professor George, a member of the President's Bioethics Council, says, professors aren't likely to be nominated for the Supreme Court. Professors write opinions as part of their profession: so a professor nominated by President Bush would be treated in the same way that Robert Bork was treated in 1987.

Although his theory doesn't explain Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Governor has no conscience.

The Governor of Wisconsin has vetoed AB 207, that would have allowed medical workers (nurses, techs as well as physicians) to exercise their right to free expression of religion if asked to administer a lethal dose of medication or pull a feeding tube with the intent to kill a patient. The governor is quoted by the Associate Press’ Todd Richmond:
"Because it puts a doctor's political views ahead of the best
interests of patients, this legislation ought to be called
the 'unconscionable clause,"' Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, said in a
statement.

Someone needs to send the Governor a copy of that great Greek political Statement, called the Hippocratic Oath. And let him know that Hippocrates was neither Republican nor Democratic. But the Greek physician's First Principle, "First, do no harm," and his oath to give no deadly medicine even when asked have stood 2500 years. On the other hand, when societies cull and kill - and when they force one citizen to kill another - those societies become sick, fail and die.

Governor Doyle is the one who is allowing his own politics to over ride the interests of Wisconsins who voted for the Legislators who drafted and voted in favor of the law. And, it's not really about end of life care for him - it's all about abortion according to this article that hides the protection from assisting in euthanasia in the last two paragraphs:

Armacost said the bill was intended to allow health care providers to opt out of participating in procedures related to abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, the destruction of embryos in stem cell research and in vitro fertilization, and fetal tissue research.

She added that the bill would not have allowed doctors to withhold information from patients, but would have allowed them not to recommend or counsel to undergo any of the procedures.