ScienceDaily (How to show your social eugenics agenda)

ScienceDaily, a website that often carries news headlines and just about any press release anyone sends them, has topped themselves today with a blurb suggesting that same sex civil unions are a "600 year old tradition." We know that homosexuality has been around at least since Exodus was first related, and murder and lying are even older. That doesn't make them "traditions" or ScienceDaily a legitimate scientific source.

But it is a good excuse to review what is and what is not "science."

Science is the practice of observing, collecting and *processing* information about the natural world. Valid scientific subjects are subject to formal testing by experimentation based on a hypothesis and formal manipulation of conditions, with as few variables as possible. The "gold standard" for scientific evidence is that such experiments can be reproduced by other observers, in other labs, with the same results.

I haven't pulled out the Yellow Brick Award in months, but this wins that dubious honor. Scientists do not hide behind curtains, depend on smoke and mirrors and false images to fool the public, earn grant money, or make headlines. We don't rely on personalities or even tradition. Neither should a legitimate science news service loan their name and webspace to a cheap publicity stunt, no matter how much the editors wish to shock or engage in social experimentation. The American College of Pediatricians calls this sort of political activism "social eugenics." I call it an evolutionary dead end (at least for that website and its editors' credibility).

It certainly isn't science.

CIRM: Another one bites the dust

They just can't get good help - a scientist is leaving, just after the resignation of the temporary president of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine. Could it be that everyone who works for CIRM sees failure down the road?

From this week's Bioedge 263, a weekly newsletter on biotechnology out of Australia:

CALIFORNIA STEM CELL INSTITUTE SHAKEN BY RESIGNATION

Like Gulliver, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, has been pinned down by countless pygmies equipped with lawsuits. The lengthy delay in launching its ambitious US$3 billion research program, with a focus on embryonic stem cells, appears to be taking its toll. Its president, Zach Hall, resigned in April, and now its chief scientist, Arlene Chiu, has announced that she will be leaving. Several other executives have also left in recent months.

Wired.com bloggers are talking about the difficulty of finding a permanent president, after years of fignting litigation over the funding passed by the California voters:

Insiders suspect Chiu's resignation is at least partly related to frustration over the difficulty the agency has had in finding a permanent president. After an unsuccessful seven-month search for a permanent replacement for former president Zach Hall, CIRM hired Richard Murphy as interim president earlier this month.

UPDATE: Dale Carson, the communications director at CIRM just sent a statement from Zach Hall that makes it even more clear what a big loss Chiu is:

Persuading Dr. Arlene Chiu to come to CIRM from NIH was one of the most important accomplishments of my presidency. As the senior CIRM scientist during its first three years - a time of constrained resources, Arlene recruited, mentored and led the scientific team responsible for awarding the first $200 M in grants for stem cell research in California - a remarkable legacy. She has a deep understanding of stem cell research, expert knowledge of grants administration, and extraordinary personal qualities of integrity, grace and a passion for the mission of CIRM. Arlene has left her mark on the DNA of CIRM. She will be hard to replace.

-- 

Summary of Forensics Reports from New Orleans Hospital

The link to the experts’ reports in the case against Dr. Pou has been published by CNN.


I was worried that I was just reacting in defense of a fellow doctor, so I spent quite a bit of time reviewing and typing up a summary, in order to get as much of the case as clear as I could. The reports by Baden and Brescia convinced me that I was right to defend Pou.

A February, 2006 “All Things Considered” (National Public Radio) article that describes the conditions that led up to the charges. (The photograph above is from that article.) 2000 people were in the hospital after the hurricane. Some were patients and their families, some were from the surrounding area and trying to get to high ground. All had to be evacuated.

A Ms. McManus, the daughter of one of the patients described the attempted evacuation of one lady who died due to the efforts:

According to McManus, attempts were made to evacuate other patients from the seventh floor. She recalls seeing workers desperately trying to get one woman out of the hospital, only to see that the woman died in the process.

That article also describes Ms. McManus' evacuation at gun point by the local police.


I used Baden’s report for the order, with correlation from Brescia’s notes added (in italics) where he seemed to give additional information. These were incredibly sick patients, and there is at least some indication and documentation of pain, anxiety, worsening condition in each case. No one should be surprised that the patients died that last day. The worst thing that could be proven from the pathologist’s notes is that the documentation wasn't done by a lot of people, over several days. (Not surprising considering the conditions.)


1. Paraplegic admitted 7/13/05 to Chalmette hospital for fecal impaction and pitting edema of LE. Surgery was being considered before evacuation to New Orleans. There were no Physician’s notes in the charts after transfer to Life Care in NO. The nurse’s note 8/31 documented the evacuation order by verbal order from a Dr Thien. Someone called wife 8/31 to check on her safety (I can’t tell whether the patient made or received the call. BBN) Positive morphine and versed in tissues at autopsy. Body removed from hosp. 9/11, Autopsy 9/17.

Dr. Brescia noted that patient had a “mega colon,” "chronic ileus" and cirrhotic. It looks as though this patient was prescribed Ativan for anxiety before the last day, and there’s documentation about the patient being or complainig about being “hot” and “too big to move.”

2. Admitted to NO hospital for decubitis ulcers. CVA, Dementia, pernicious anemia, contractures, bed bound total care. Alert/Awake, but no verbalizing. Bilateral Above the Knee Amputation due to ulcers planned but not done. Dr. LaCorte made notes. 8/31 code blue, F 105, sinus tachycardia at 123. Aspiration pneumonia afterwards. “No c/o pain.” Body recovered 9/11. Autopsy showed gangrene of toes Rt. Foot. Cerebral atrophy, “prominent post mortem changes.” + Morphine and versed.

3. Transferred from Chalmet 8/22 with acute bronchitis, hyperkalemia, renal insufficiency. 8/25 notes improved function. Darvocet 8/24. Fentanyl 8/28. (Shows pain, BBN.) Recovery 9/11, Autopsy 9/18. moderate to advanced decomposition. Morphine in liver.

4. Nursing home resident admitted to NO Memorial from NO Methodist Hospital 7/1, 2005 with coffee ground emesis, sepsis and hypotension. 8/7 surgical treatment of cellulitis. 8/30 Dr. Cashman ordered evacuation. 8/31 Dr. Joubert ordered “prn MSO4 1-4 mgm ivp/im q 1 hr prn restlessness/agitation.” Joubert hadn’t seen patient. Body recovered 9/11 Autopsy 9/19, extensive decomposition. “Bronchopneumonic changes limited to the lower lung lobes and pyelonephritic changes were present in both kidneys.” (bilateral lower lobe pneumonia and bilateral kidney infection) + Morphine and versed.

Brescia’s notes on his patient # 1: Sepsis GI bleeds, DNR. Orders 8/5 Restraints, PEG, debridemet (sic). 8/7 penile cellulitis, Ativan prn agitation 104.8 temp. 8/26 “Outlook poor . . . hospice not unreasonable.” 8/27 last entry by MD “quiet vs. stable Antibiotics” 8/21 MS for agitation, “last seen alive.” “9/1 No lights, water toilet air, electricity. T 102 (squared) sponge bath.” (I’m not sure whether this last was from the records or Dr. Brescia’s opinions. BBN)

5. Admitted to NO with multiple infected decubitus ulcers and malnutrition 7/19. Lt Leg debridement 7/26, rt leg debridement 8/19, Rt. Below the knee amputation 8/26. Evac order 8/31. Body recovered 9/11, Autopsy 9/17. Moderate decomposition and bronchopneumonia rt lung. + Vicodan (sic), morphine, versed.

6. Nursing Home resident admitted to Chalmette 8/12 for treatment of decubitus ulcers. Evac to NO 8/27. History of Congestive Heart Failure, organic brain syndrome, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. 8/30 evac order. 8/31 fever 100.8. Body recovered 9/11, autopsy 9/21. + Morphine and versed.

7. Admitted to NO Memorial 8/2 and LifeCare 8/10 severe decubitus ulcers, H/o Arteriosclerotic heart disease, CVA hypertension and rectal surgery for cancer with a permanent colostomy. 8/22 inferior vena cava filter inserted Bilateral deep venous thrombosis. CT 8/25 showed osteomyelitis and abcess in pubic bone. Temp 104 9/29. Note 8/39 “no acute distress.” 8/31 signed order to evac. Unsigned order for morphine 1-4 mg every hour for restlessness/agitation Ativan 1-2 mg every hour for restlessness/agitation. Nurses note 8/31 Vicodan (sic) given for c/o of pain. Autopsy moderate to advance degree of decomposition and heart disease. No pulmonary embolism or other acute pathology. +morphine and versed. (note, no dates for recovery, autopsy)

Dr. Brescia’s notes have dates apparently crossed out, but documents temperatures, “uncomfortable,” “daughter refuses surgery,” “thick secretions,” ” yelling out,” “Doctor gave something to make ‘feel better’ x3 doses”

8. Admitted to Chalmette for treatment of pneumonia and sepsis. 8/25 transferred to Life Care Chalmette and 8/27 evac to LC NO. Treated for Arteriosclerotic heart diseas, congestive heart failure, hypertension and acute renal failure with last dialysis 8/26. 8/30 vital signs normal no note of pain. Autopsy moderate decomposition severe arteriosclerotic heart disease. +morphine and versed. (No dates for recovery, autopsy. BBN)

Dr. Brescia’s notes:
Oxygen, PEG, foley Coded during dialysis. Dialysis m/w/f Last note, “quiet vs. stable” Last nursing note 8/30/05 BP 128/56, 69, 22 awake, no distress.
“nl breathing no pain”per Dr. B(my question: ? With a respiratory rate of 22?BBN)
Autopsy – rt coronary 100% thrombosis.

9. Admitted to LC NO from Memorial NO 8/8 for decubitus ulcers, dehydration and malnutrition. Morphine 8/22. Order for morphine d/c’d 8/24, with Fentanyl patch and as needed Demerol. 8/30: vital signs normal, Demerol for pain. At 8 PM, temp 106.4 breathing agonal. Evac ordered. Autopsy severe arteriosclerotic heart disease. +fentanyl, demorol, morphine. “The presence of morphine in liver, brain, muscle and purge fluids demonstrate that the heart was beating and __ was alive with that injection was given.

Interview with Dr. Pou, New Orleans Physician

MSNBC has published an interview with Dr. Anna Pou, the Head and Neck surgeon, specializing in cancer, whose strength of character led her to stay with her patients after Hurricane Katrina destroyed the infrastructure and societal protections in New Orleans in 2005. The interview is a testament to the integrity of this woman and an indictment against Attorney General Foti of Louisiana, who tried to indict the doctor for sticking with patients when her own life was endangered. Rather than wait for a medical review, the AG criminalized what I believe might have been heroic actions on the part of the doctor.

How's that for an emotionally loaded and biased report? I don't believe that I would report it any other way.

The description of battlefield triage is cursory, as is the information on the problem of "double effect," when treatment of symptoms is known to, but not intended to, increase the risk of death. The doctor is very generous to the man who abused his power to attempt to indict her for murder and to the corporate medicine climate that left her and the people with her so alone.

I hope you'll take the time to read the interview. I was relieved to see a specific statement that Dr. Pou never intended to cause the death of the patients.

Expelled: movie to explore politics of science

Ben Stein on the movie, "Expelled,"

"Big Science in this area of biology has lost its way," says Stein. "Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are. Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-American, it's anti-science. It's anti-the whole concept of learning."

Don't be surprised if the same attacks and tactics are used against anyone involved with this movie. The point of the movie is not to prove or disprove evolution or intelligent design. The purpose is to report the personal attacks on anyone in academia who does not toe the line on evolution. Let me say that again: it's about the treatment of people, not the science.

For example, Stein meets Richard Sternberg, a double PhD biologist who allowed a peer-reviewed research paper describing the evidence for intelligence in the universe to be published in the scientific journal Proceedings. Not long after publication, officials from the National Center for Science Education and the Smithsonian Institution where Sternberg was a research fellow began a coordinated smear and intimidation campaign to get the promising young scientist expelled from his position. This attack on scientific freedom was so egregious that it prompted a congressional investigation.

On his journey, Stein meets other scientists such as astrobiologist Guillermo Gonzalez, who was denied tenure at Iowa State University in spite of his extraordinary record of achievement. Gonzalez made the mistake of documenting the design he has observed in the universe. There are others, such as Caroline Crocker, a brilliant biology teacher at George Mason University who was forced out of the university for briefly discussing problems with Darwinian theory and for telling the students that some scientists believe there is evidence of design in the universe. The list goes on and on.

Unlike some other documentary films, Expelled doesn't just talk to people representing one side of the story. The film confronts scientists such as Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, influential biologist and atheist blogger PZ Myers and Eugenie Scott, head of the National Center for Science Education. The creators of Expelled crossed the globe over a two-year period, interviewing scores of scientists, doctors, philosophers and public leaders. The result is a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.

Gen*ethix, an online Bioethics game, with errors

There's a bioethics "game" online, Gen*ethix. Evidently, the game was written in 2003 or 2004.

The player has his choice of three games. There's video and text explaining the premises and the opportunity to click on answers and choices and to type in your own opinion about the ethical dilemma posed by the game.

Unfortunately, there is an error in explaining stem cells from bone marrow. The statement is that the bone marrow stem cells only make blood cells.

Great news from the mom of a child with diabetes (cord blood)

There's a great comment today from the mom of a boy whose Type 1 or Juvenile Diabetes is being treated with cord blood:

Darla Lindenmayer said...

My son so far has been the oldest to participate in the cord blood trial. We are excited how well it is working. My son has gone from 5 shots a day to only one and that one is being weaned down. It also has cured him of his thyroid disease which he also was diagnosed with a few months after he was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes. We know the cord blood we collected is working somehow to change the molecular structure and increase his beta cell production. We hope and pray that this continues on. Dr. Haller is doing great research!!

Diabetes and thyroid disease tends to go together - more evidence for an autoimmune risk factor for Diabetes.

Thanks, Ms. Lindenmayer for giving us the update!

WhyVille - Virtual Biotech for Children

According to the San Antonio Express News, the Texas Workforce is helping to teach children to handle credit and the importance of developing vaccines:

n Texas, Whyville recently received grants totaling $440,000 from the Texas Workforce Commission to build Whyville Biotech and Whyville Advanced Manufacturing Center.

The site's designers created Whyville Biotech to teach kids how to develop vaccines against WhyPox, a flu-like epidemic that erupts each year. WhyPox causes kids' avatars — their virtual characters — to break out with red spots on their faces. Last fall, during real-world flu season, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention virtually vaccinated 134,000 kids in Whyville.

Through the Texas grant, kids also will learn about drug design and discovery, as well as new techniques in computational biology, Bower said.

Eventually, Whyville citizens will build biotechnology companies in Whyville, Bower said.

"From a work-force standpoint, this is huge," he said. "We have a 'cool' factor, but we're also doing something very useful for these industries."

An oldie but a goodie - new conversation

The November 2006 post, "Beyond Belief: the Institutional Delusion of Scientism" commenting on the Belief net symposium on science and religion has a new life - with comments.

Paul Booth has left a new comment on your post "Beyond Belief: the Institutional Delusion of Scien...":

"If you ask me (or read this far in the blog), a rational universe that is subject to measurements and study that yield consistant and ever sharper, more focused results in different labs and at different times does not preclude a Creator"

I dont think a single participant in the beyond belief conference would claim otherwise. Science does not claim disprove the existence of God. It does however demonstrate that 'God' as 'he / she / it' is conventionally conceived and depicted is incredibly unlikely. Science also is making inroads into understanding why we are likely to be susceptible to a belief in God.

Of course none of this affects me as a Jedi.

While "science" doesn't claim anything, the practitioners of science may, given a forum.

However, if they have no more proof - and don't expect to - if the who belief that there is nothing to believe in is a matter of faith, what's the difference between religion with a Creator and religion of science?

Science retracts another

There's good news and bad news.

The good news is that the scientific review process does work. Science is retracting (all of these Science and Nature articles are behind a paywall) an article that has been proven to include forged photographs, due to the questions about these photographs from other researchers. Although the actual research and premise of the research my have some validity, it needs to be replicated and validated in other labs, by other researchers.

The bad news, I'm afraid, is that the reason that the article came under scrutiny in the first place (and the reason we will hear about it over and over and over) is that the findings were hailed as further proof from a study of very early mouse embryology that the embryo is a unique organism from fertilization, since the immediate result of the first division showed different fates and different genetic markers.

There is nothing here to discount the fact that the zygote is an organism. In fact, the cdx2 marker is indeed found mostly at one end of the zygote and most of it ends up one of the cells after division. The article, "Your destiny from day one" in Nature.com (behind a paywall) covered the work by R.L. Gardner and Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz:

Nature 418, 14-15 (4 July 2002)
"Developmental biology: Your destiny, from day one"

by Helen Pearson

The mammalian body plan starts being laid down from the moment of conception, it has emerged. Helen Pearson considers the implications of a surprising shift in embryological thinking.

Your world was shaped in the first 24 hours after conception. Where your head and feet would sprout, and which side would form your back and which your belly, were being defined in the minutes and hours after sperm and egg united.

More proof has been produced in other research, there's some, here, and a review in this article by Robert P. George and Patrick Lee in the New Atlantis. From this year there's the report from M.-E. Torres-Padilla et al. [Nature 445, 214–218; (2007)] described this way in Nature (sorry, also subscription only):

Nature 445, 157 (11 January 2007) Published online 10 January 2007
"Developmental biology: Marked from the start"

Helen Dell

Not all cells in the early mammalian embryo are created equal. Even at the four-cell stage, embryonic cells that follow a particular pattern of division already have their developmental fate assigned to them. No cell will contribute exclusively to a specific cell type in the later embryo. But the progeny of some cells make a greater contribution to the 'inner cell mass' — the stem cells destined to become the fetus — and its surrounding 'trophectoderm', which forms extraembryonic structures such as the placenta. The progeny of other cells will make a greater contribution to other extraembryonic structures.

However, I'm afraid we should expect to see this scandal used against those of us who would protect embryonic human life.

Here's more on the Deb scandal from the Columbian Missourian

Hwang "blew it"

From Fowler's Health and Science Update comes another lesson in hubris and the old saying about tangled webs and deception:

Disgraced Korean Cloner Blew It: He Did Make History
A new report by a team of US researchers says the human embryonic stem cells generated in a now-discredited experiment in South Korea, actually were a first. When Woo Suk Hwang announced three years ago he had created the first human patient-specific ESC, he was hailed as a science hero.

He said he did it with a cloning technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer, a tricky process in which a nucleus is inserted into a cell. Last year he and other researchers were fired after it turned out they fabricated data. But now, Harvard scientists say analysis of Hwang’s embryos show they were in fact the first-ever human cells created by parthenogenesis, virgin birth. The multiplying cells were the result of an egg alone.

The kicker is the Korean team had apparently hit upon a technique that scientists say could have resulted in a major advance for stem cell research, and were years ahead of anyone else. Had they been truthful, Hwang and colleagues might still be heroes, and embryonic stem cell therapies would be that much closer to reality.

Doctors, faith and helping the poor

The Chicago Tribune published an article on a study concerning doctors who help the poor. I haven't read the actual article, yet, but I wonder how the "poor" are defined and question the definition of "religiosity" vs. spiritual.

For one thing, I'm not sure how, as a Family Physician, I would separate my patients into poor and not-so-poor. Currently, I work for other doctors, but their patients seem similar to the ones I cared for when I had my own practice, although the trend is away from Medicaid, which pays very little compared to Medicare and private insurance. (Medicaid pays less than the office overhead for the time it takes to see the patient.)

There seems to be a fair mix in the patients that come to our practices through the hospital call lists because they don't have a doctor. Also, I frequently hear that this patient or that has an agreement with the doc to pay what and when she or he can. I'm also reminded by the staff that the patient is "self-pay." These patients are "coded" or charged as little as we legally can without committing the felony offense of insurance or Medicare fraud. (The law says we can't charge less than we would charge a Medicare patient and we can't charge a "discounted" rate without risking charges of fraud. There is a little bit of lee-way, however, in calculating the risk, history necessary, etc.)

The study, based on a mail survey of more than 1,100 American physicians, found that 31 percent of doctors who described themselves as religious reported that they serve primarily poor or uninsured communities, compared with 35 percent of doctors who had no religious affiliation.

Those two figures were statistically equal, but other comparisons showed that doctors were more likely to treat underserved populations if they considered themselves highly spiritual, felt that their religious beliefs influenced their medical practice, or said they were raised in a family that encouraged service to the poor.

How do you determine "religious" if not by those who "considered themselves highly spiritual, felt that their religious beliefs influenced their medical practice?"

BTW, I've been away while studying for and taking my every-7-years American Board of Family Physicians National Boards. I won't know the results until mid-September, but at least there's no dead lines looming ahead of me for a while. Yeay!!!

Bioethics is biopolitics

Kathryn Hinsch, founder of the Women's Bioethics Project and the Women's Bioethics Blog recommended the questions and answers from an article by Joshua Perry published in the Journal of Legal Medicine. (It cost $32 to access - perhaps we ought to talk about open access in publishing.)

Perry notes that others have noted that bioethics has always been "biopolitics," it just took a while for the political angle to "arrest the attention of so many commentators."

In the introductory essay to the June 2006 issue of the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, Jeffrey P. Bishop and Fabrice Jotterand note: “Bioethics has always been a biopolitics and the political dimension is only now coming into relief for bioethicists.” Writing in the May-June 2006 issue of the Hastings Center Report, Jeffrey Kahn echoes this sentiment when he comments: “Bioethics has always been involved in policy issues and the politics surrounding them.” So, despite a history of political intersections, why has bioethics and its entanglement with politics only recently arrested the attention of so many commentators?

The attention shouldn't surprise anyone. Multiple events have worked together to increase public attention on bioethics questions. Along with the evolution of medical technology and expectations in the treatment of patients who once would have died, the backlash against Roe v. Wade juxtaposed with assisted reproductive techniques, the "right to die" movement alongside of the advance directive, there's also the emergence of the internet and instant communication that is both personal and impersonal.

Oh, and there was the creation of Dolly the cloned sheep and Hwang Wu Suk, the "rock star" cloner turned fake.

There's also the insular nature of the community of bioethics, which I believe actually limits the debate. Don't look for a single "anti-abortion" much less "pro-life" viewpoint in the lists of contributors at the Women's Bioethics Blog site or the editors and pseudoeditors who post at the blog of the American Journal Of Bioethics. I'm not sure there's a conservative on the lists, and can identify only 2 or 3 that self-identify as believers. William Saletan's much commented about article this month pointed me to Dan Callahan and other's comments on the politicization of bioethics, including the exclusion of conservatives and religious ethicists, and the notion of "Progressive Bioethics."

CALLAHAN: Just first a comment on John’s thesis. I would say my hardest struggle at the Hastings Center – I ran the place for 27 years; my hardest struggle was getting the secular philosophers to even allow a theologian, liberal or conservative, to even come to our meetings. Again and again I would say, what about so-and-so? No, no theologians. And the thing that was very striking, how many of the secular philosophers, particularly analytically trained, were extraordinarily hostile to religion. And I just fought year after year saying, let’s get some in and they just wouldn’t – I mean, I did it because I ran the place, but they were usually unhappy. (Laughter.)
But I have a question for Eric. This is an interesting political question. As many of you know, one of the sharper criticisms of Leon Kass’s council was that it did not take up questions of health policy and the whole problem of the uninsured. Now, interestingly enough, neither did NBAC take those up, but nobody dumped on them for not taking it up. But I was told that NBAC was told – instructed not to take up those issues, which if true was a gratuitously political command.

Eric Meslin answered that he never received any commands not to take up any issues, but he did relate an incident when he and NBAC Commissioner Jim Childress were told by National Institute of Health officials that the NIH was "concerned" that the NBAC would propose regulations that would slow research.

It wasn’t a threat. It wasn’t – it was, we were invited to dinner – box lunch. (Laughter.) I wasn’t very hungry at the end of it.

Nevertheless, I don't believe that there was much room for dissenters among the members of Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Who on the NBAC could be compared to Gazzaniga or Blackburn in the President's Bioethics Council?

And I didn't notice any objection to Alta Charo's politicization of her luncheon talk, using terms like "endarkenment" and personally attacking Wesley Smith, who was in the audience at that July 06 "Bioethics and Politics" conference in Albany.

Ethics, embryos, and e-rants

Kevin T Keith (His often profane blog, Sufficient Scruples, focusing on why it's wrong to be religious, pro-life or pro-abstinence is here) wonders (in 1700+ words) how scientists ever began to speak in terms of "ethical" and "unethical" about sources of stem cells at the Women's Bioethics Blog:

To emphasize that: the search for "ethical" stem cells has no importance whatsoever, other than the fact that it responds to objections raised by a certain segment of the religious right and grounded on their religous (sic)beliefs. There is no need for them otherwise, and they are less desirable therapeutically than the already-available alternative of actual embryonic stem cells. Such lines of research, and the diversion of time and resources they represent, have no point unless that religious objection is demonstrated to be a compelling moral claim.(Italics in the original)

Let's forget that embryos require that oocytes be harvested from women, risking their health or that embryonic stem cells from embryos created by in vitro fertilization can never be "patient-specific" until and if human cloning is perfected. Let's forget growing evidence that the differentiation of stem cells is dependent on local factors and conditions - the 'niche' in which the cells are found. And, along with Kevin, we can forget that there are in fact people who object to the destruction of human embryos without a religious objection.

Let's look at the question of applying the concept of ethics to research.

Kevin obviously has very strong feelings that there is a right side and a wrong in determining whether or not destructive embryonic research is "ethical."

Isn't the act of determining one position right and others find that position wrong making "ethical" or "moral" decisions?

Sam Harris at the Aspen Ideas Festival

Sam Harris, author of the books, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason and Letter to a Christian Nation, was given a forum at the Aspen Ideas Festival. I'm not sure how I ended up finding the video, "Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World," but I believe I was referred by one of the Science Blog forums. I can't remember which one, and, as far as I can tell, only one of these blogs is owned by a believer.

Which is probably how I got lost. There's a bit of a row, right now, concerning the derision of believers by "Pharyngula." (Which is surprising, since that seems to be his purpose in blogging.) I was once again struck by the idea that science and religion are incompatible, chased some links, and ended up watching a video from the Festival.

Mr. Harris spent his time at the Festival blurring the edges between “Christianity, Judaism, and Islam,” with a little Hinduism and Buddha thrown in to strengthen his point. There doesn’t seem to be any difference in his viewpoint, although he does grudgingly admit to a questioner that “moderate” Christians and Jews have been influenced by the belief in human rights and equality by secular, outside influences, while Muslims have remained isolated and so have not “evolved.”

Beyond the fallacy of treating all religions as one, Mr. Harris denies that atheism is a religion, using his second favorite technique, mockery and one liners designed to encourage his listeners to laugh with him. He mocks the Second Commandment: “Is this as good as it gets? . . . How about, ‘don’t deep fry all of your food?’” and mocks the idea that agnostics are a separate from believers and atheists by saying, “I haven’t met too many agnostics about Zeus.”

The biggest logical fallacy in which Harris engages is his statement that religions change from without, due to secular ideas about human rights. In fact, the Judeo-Christian tradition teaches that we are all created in the image of God.

While Christians have cited the fact that very young children naturally display concern for others and seem to understand the concepts of justice and beauty as proof of God, Mr. Harris believes that this actually disproves the “usefulness” of religion. While he admits that 70% of (I presume, U.S.) college graduates believe in the Biblical God, he strongly commends “peer review” in science.

His major point seems to be that “much of the Bible and Koran is life-destroying gibberish.” He dismisses the rest. While he insists that believers who promote their religions or teach their children to follow them are enabling religious fanatics who kill in the name of religion, shouldn’t Harris, who has been called an "Atheist Evangelist" take responsibility for enabling those who kill and enslave to suppress religion, as in China? Or the Western academic powers that be that harass, deny recommendations, employment and funding to those who fall out of favor, such as Richard Sternberg (see the review at Sternberg's site and at National Public Radio)?

Sam Harris, author of the books, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason and Letter to a Christian Nation, was given a forum at the Aspen Ideas Festival. I'm not sure how I ended up finding the video, "Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World,"but I believe I was referred by one of the Science Blog forums. I can't remember which one, and, as far as I can tell, only one is owned by a believer.

Harris spent his time at the Festival blurring the edges between “Christianity, Judaism, and Islam,” with a little Hinduism and Buddha thrown in to strengthen his point. There doesn’t seem to be any difference in his viewpoint, although he does grudgingly admit to a questioner that “moderate” Christians and Jews have been influenced by the belief in human rights and equality by secular, outside influences, while Muslims have remained isolated and so have not “evolved.”

Beyond the fallacy of treating all religions as one, Mr. Harris denies that atheism is a religion, using his second favorite technique, mockery and one liners designed to encourage his listeners to laugh with him. He mocks the Second Commandment: “Is this as good as it gets? . . . How about, ‘don’t deep fry all of your food?’” and mocks the idea that agnostics are a separate from believers and atheists by saying, “I haven’t met too many agnostics about Zeus.”

The biggest logical fallacy in which Harris engages is his statement that religions change from without, due to secular ideas about human rights. In fact, the Judeo-Christian tradition teaches that we are all created in the image of God.

While Christians have cited the fact that very young children naturally display concern for others and seem to understand the concepts of justice and beauty as proof of God, Mr. Harris believes that this actually disproves the “usefulness” of religion. While he admits that 70% of (I presume, U.S.) college graduates believe in the Biblical God, he strongly commends “peer review” in science.

His major point seems to be that “much of the Bible and Koran is life-destroying gibberish.” While he insists that believers who promote their religions or teach their children to follow them are enabling religious fanatics who kill in the name of religion, shouldn’t Harris, who has been called an "Atheist Evangelist" (and Dawkins and Hitchens, etc.) take responsibility for enabling those who kill and enslave to suppress religions, as in China? Or the Western academic powers that be that harass, deny recommendations, employment and funding to those who fall out of favor, such as Richard Sternberg (see the review at Sternberg's site and at National Public Radio)?

Saletan stirs up bioethics, blog

Wesley Smith's "Secondhand Smoke" and Science Blog's "Denialism Blog" both comment on William Saletan's latest Slate column, "Rights and Wrongs: Liberals, progressives, and biotechnology."

I have to admit, that while I find Saletan slightly disorganized at times, he manages to make quite a few people disagree with him, and does it so well.

You need to read the actual Saletan piece, as well as the comments on the two blogs.

For what it's worth, here's part of my contribution to the conversation at the "Denialism Blog," where Mark Hoofnagle, an MD/Ph.D student, proves that we shouldn't "mistake denialism for debate:"

You obviously feel very strongly that there's some quality in humanity that can be diminished, but you continue to mix "defining life" with a request to define the characteristics that you personally believe constitute "humanity" or a "person."

Let's begin from the assumption that whatever it is that you feel can be diminished in humanity or that can cause you moral repugnance doesn't come from a religious belief. Perhaps it's empathy, imagination or simple learning from the history of humanity.

There's a distinction between the cell produced by fertilization (a more accurate term than "conception"), parthenogenesis, or the various ways to reprogram somatic cells and other cells or groups of cells. It's the same organization and integrated functioning that is lost at whole brain death with current technology. That's why you work with embryos rather than gametes, and why Lee Silver's comment about teratomas is incorrect.

History tells us - this thread reinforces - that when we begin with one point of discrimination allowing intentional acts that disrupt the life span of an individual or groups of individuals, the lines of demarcation are "fuzzy."

By the way, is that "William" who posted a comment, the William, Saletan himself?

"Exaggerated resistance" (Or how not to report science)

Scientific American gives us several reasons to "resist" the information in its pages this month, the August, 2007 issue. Unfortunately, only the Table of Contents is free, but the problem is in the titles given "news" stories themselves.

Under the title, "Roots of Science Hatred," on page 29 we learn that people learn to trust their own experiences, causing us to have "exaggerated resistance" to scientific reports:

For instance, because objects fall down if not held up, kids may have trouble accepting
the world is round, reasoning that things on the other side should naturally fall off.
Intuitive notions concerning psychology also lead children to see everything as designed for some reason—for example, a cloud’s purpose might be to rain—which can lead to opposition to evolution. In reportingtheir work in the May 18 Science, the researchers also note that when both adults and kids obtain knowledge from others, they judge claims based on how much they trust the source of an assertion. It suggests that science will meet exaggerated resistance in societies where alternative views are championed by trustworthy authorities, such as political or religious figures. —Charles Q. Choi (emphasis is mine)

Yeah, and the exaggeration is all on our part, and due to "hate," "religion," and "politics," right?

Since SA can't be engaging in politics, then only someone inclined to hate science would notice the problem with the following headline on page 32: "SciAm Perspectives: Worse Than Gasoline: Liquid coal would produce roughly twice the global warming emissions of gasoline." Couldn't they have used the more correct and less political term, "green house gasses?"

Yes, I'll admit to being a human-caused-global-climate-change skeptic. I remember the '60's and early '70's, when we humans were told that we were the cause of global cooling. I believe it had something to do with clouds blocking the sun's radiation from warming the earth. I'm watching and waiting, although I've always believed in keeping my little micro-climate as clean as possible..


However, for a review of the current "consensus" on global climate change, those of you with access to SA can read "The Physical Science behind CLIMATE CHANGE" (all caps in the original), beginning on page 64.

Fashion, style, modern love and abortion

The New York Times editorial staff has once again descended to a new low. Perhaps their intent is to demean "modern love," pregnancy, and the "choice" of whether or not to abort a child. Today's "Fashion and Style - Modern Love" section presents us with "Would Our Two New Lives Include a Third?," the story about one woman's decision to forgo an abortion and have her baby. (The article is accompanied by the graphic, above, of a blind-folded woman and a pinata - in the shape of a baby.)

Thankfully, the author decided to "keep it," and convinced her husband that the child would not get in the way of their plans and life "Style."

Despite the final, mature decision by the couple, I was brought to tears by the essay that seemed to weigh the life of a child against his mother's and father's age, marital status, career plans, and politics. It struck me that, although the decision seemed to be the mother's choice, she felt pressure to defer to the decision of the father, even against what she reports as her own growing wish to protect her baby. Until I realized that the piece was published in the "Fashion and Style" section, under "modern love," I intended to write about the difficulty created by teaching that a child is a "choice" that can be weighed against careers and previous choices and that deliberations about that choice threatens marital unity much more than the actual changes a new baby brings with him.

The shallow treatment of the story by the NYT is a true reflection of the environment in which these two people were forced to make this "choice."

"Real-life male pregnancy would be revolutionary

Or, "gender in a blender."

Can someone give me a "duh"??

Jen Graves, of the (adults only) Seattle Stranger, has written a very long and informative essay on pregnancy, women, and men - especially the possibility of men becoming pregnant. Trust me, we have the technology.

As a matter of fact, Ms. Graves tells us that there have been over 200 ectopic, abdominal pregnancies in the last 20 years: where women (still) have had babies implant on their intestine or abdominal walls and both the babies and their mothers survived.

I am impressed that Ms. Graves calls her baby a baby (because he or she had a heatbeat - and I should write her and tell her that until 8 weeks, the child was an "embryo," not a "fetus" - but most of us call them "babies"), no matter how wrong it might seem to others from a political correctness factor. I can identify with her wish to make permanent and public her exclusive relation ship with her "partner," Patrick. I am so sorry that she lost her first pregnancy in the first month or so, that she mourns that baby, that people expect her (like all of us who have lost a baby before birth) to get over it and get pregnant (at least partly to replace the lost child).I hate it that her friend, Linda's baby ,Patrick, died so young of bacterial meningitis.

She shows her love and confusion and Patrick's incredible patience and insight by describing their conversations and text messaging over the possibility of his becoming pregnant with "her" child.

I'm seriously impressed with Patrick. Not because he considers or because he rejects the idea of having a child implanted within his abdominal cavity, taking female hormones and/or having a planned C-section. I'm impressed that he can bear the stress the whole conversation must place on his own gender identity that his "partner" wrote this article for publication and considers herself to more typically follow the pattern society expects of fathers than of women. (Yes, of course she implies that mothers are inferior and subservient to the role of motherhood.)
And I love "what if" stories.

However, the over all impression that I get - even though I want to give her all the credit I can for her grief - is that of a selfish, self-centered woman who should be neither mother or father with this attitude toward parenting. Being the polly-anna that I am - and with the deep seated belief that we humans are well suited - designed or evolved, if you will - to parent and love our children -- and with my very sexist idea that women are either naturally or "nurturally" susceptible to gushing over and eventually falling in love with small humans, I'm convinced that she would have more jealousy and resentment of Patrick's status as child-bearer than she could ever imagine.

Go read it - it's not much longer than my post!