Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's one of the major changes that Obama has brought about for the good of the country, new stem cell lines being approved for federally funded research.
Scientists can start using taxpayer dollars to do research with 13 batches of embryonic stem cells and the government says dozens more cell lines should be available soon, opening a new era for the potentially life-saving field.President Barack Obama lifted eight years of restrictions on these master cells last spring. But $21 million-and-counting in new projects were on hold until the National Institutes of Health determined which of hundreds of existing stem cell lines were ethically appropriate to use.
"This is the first down payment," Dr. Francis Collins, NIH's director, said Wednesday as he opened a master registry. "People are champing at the bit for the opportunity to get started."
And despite the hysterical overreaction from the religious right, not a single little clump of cells is going to die that would not otherwise have died anyway:
Federal law forbids using taxpayer money to create or destroy an embryo. All the stem cell lines involved in Wednesday's announcement were created from fertility clinic leftovers -- embryos that otherwise would have been thrown away -- using private money. NIH is reviewing the rest to see if they also meet ethics requirements for use in taxpayer-funded health research. Among the requirements: That the woman or couple who donated the original embryo did so voluntarily and were told of other options, such as donating to another infertile woman.
Every single one of these little blastocysts would have been flushed down the toilet and died. There was no option that would have saved them or created an actual baby from them. The only option was to flush them or use them for research. The only sane choice is to use them for research.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Chris Caprette | December 6, 2009 9:41 AM
Chris, I make it three words that cannot be associated with the religious wrong (good phrase by the way) "sane", "choice" and "research". The sentence would have to read.
"The only.. is to use them for..." now can anyone fill inthe blanks with appropriate alternative words?
Posted by: Matty | December 6, 2009 9:56 AM
Ed stated:
I am not attempting to go all pedantic on Ed's ass, just honestly wondering: Does Science, intellectually honest ethicists, or legal standards define these entities as 'dying' when we commit acts upon them that either stop their development as a singular entity or when we use them for purposes other than their development into a born human being?
If so, doesn't that make the human agent a killer and his conspirators also killers (which I use deliberately rather than murderers)? I never considered using the term 'dying' when describing our acting in a way that stops development of an embryo into a born human being.
While I don't closely monitor social conservatives on this issue, I'm well aware of the fact they constantly misuse words to buttress their anti-abortion rights arguments, e.g., aborting a 'baby' or a 'child'. So I'm sensitive to our using words that provide them with inapplicable ammunition.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 6, 2009 10:12 AM
Interesting that evangelical Collins has no problem with this. Just the Catholics and the crazier Protestants.
Michael Heath: They are, at the least, living cells. "Dying" does not seem an obviously inappropriate verb to use (notwithstanding it's emotive value to the fetus fetishists).
Posted by: Eamon Knight | December 6, 2009 10:22 AM
Michael Heath: I think people would reasonably call it "dying", yes. In the same sense as "your skin is covered with a layer of dead cells", or "antibiotics kill bacteria".
But I don't think we'd call a doctor a killer or a murderer for prescribing antibiotics, as a general rule.
Posted by: Michael Ralston | December 6, 2009 10:24 AM
Any living thing, even a single cell, can die. This has nothing to do with social conservatism, liberalism, whatever -- it's basic biology.
Posted by: bob koepp | December 6, 2009 10:25 AM
Richard Carrier has a post up about Obama's first year in office, which is quite interesting. I haven't yet followed the links contained within the post, so I don't know the exact nature of the claims, but it has been supposedly suggested that much more than is being reported in the MSM has been achieved in that time (some of which is quite important).
As a non-American, I am not overly concerned with these things, anyway, but I thought that others might wish to investigate whether some or all of the claims are worthy of being mentioned in a list of "achievements", particularly as many of them have supposedly either been overlooked or under-reported in the MSM.
Posted by: Damian | December 6, 2009 10:29 AM
Well, cells die. Preserved/wasted might be a better description, but I think Ed was intentionally highlighting the fact that death was the only other option (besides frozen stasis) for these cells. So even if one thinks of them as something like a proto-baby, the potential for human "life" does not truly exist.
Also, I think it's illegal to dump research waste in the toilet. They probably would have been incinerated as hazardous biological waste. But the toilet metaphor works just as well.
Posted by: Leni | December 6, 2009 10:35 AM
Woot! As soon as we get around to filling out the paperwork, our four remaining embryos might join this pool! Maybe one of those suckers will help cure a disease :)
I worked damn hard to make those embryos, so I'm thrilled they won't go to waste.
Posted by: Mara | December 6, 2009 11:06 AM
re #7
I wouldn't be surprised if there was more going on than is reported in the press. This administration seems to pay very little attention to the daily news cycles and is less inclined to lead via press release than any other administration in recent memory.
Posted by: gwangung | December 6, 2009 11:19 AM
@Michael Heath: anything living can die, and can thus be killed. Human embryonic cells are alive, so they can be killed. The whole "when life starts" argument is stupid as hell--life started only once, several billion years ago, and has been living continuously in every surviving lineage since. If it had ever stopped (which it would have to do in order to start again), that lineage would be extinct. The argument ought to be phrased in terms of when an embryo becomes legally and morally a "person" and thus has rights--and that, of course, is a trickier question.
Posted by: Uncephalized | December 6, 2009 11:42 AM
Thanks for the input everyone. Most of the feedback was very helpful in moving me to a position. However I did fail to properly describe and emphasize my primary point which was the relationship of 'dying' by an outside agency and our description of such an act as 'killing', making the agency a 'killer'.
Given the forum's response so far we're all killers in the technical sense, a point I already supported. However such a pedantic definition creates a very different paradigm than what we find in the public square when using the term dying. We generally don't define hunters or people who eat meat as killers for example in spite of their fitting the term as its used here given their being ultimately responsible for the death of an animal.
I started with an open-ended question regarding the prudency of our using the term 'dying'. I now think it's not helpful since it would lead to a false conflation that the agents supportive of the deaths of these embryos are killers in a sense that while technically true, is not at all consistent with how we describe 'killing' or 'killers' in the public square. Such usage is also helpful to the opponents of such research who want such comparisons while simultaneously and dishonestly filtering out worse killings they condone, e.g., war, hunting, treatment of domestic wildlife we eat, etc.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 6, 2009 12:12 PM
Unchephalized @ 11:
While your point is both arguable and a classic position of many pro-abortions rights advocates when specifically defending their abortion position, I think you extend this argument too far when it comes to our harvesting embryos that will be ultimately destroyed. I can't imagine much public support for our harvesting entities just prior to when the pro-choice movement, or current Superme Court precedent, argues a person "legally and morally" becomes a person.
I do not pretend to personally know where to argue that line should be drawn, but I would think it is morally well before the establishment of personhood as advocated by rational actors. I already advocate the line is after fertilization. If forced to draw a line I'd probably say 3 std. deviations prior to the expected time suffering is possible.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 6, 2009 12:24 PM
@ Michael Heath: Suffering can be mitigated.
Posted by: Leni | December 6, 2009 12:32 PM
Matty,
I think one could say that some of them "research" things like the founding of our nation but "choose" to falsly portray the views of this nation's founders.
Thanks for the compliment. I've wanted, since Reagan was POTUS to write a book called The Wrong Wing but I just haven't have the time to do the appropriate research to produce a book that wouldn't come off as a left-of-center overlong version of watered-down George Will.
Posted by: Chris Caprette | December 6, 2009 1:00 PM
Fundamentalist Christians opposing abortion doesn't make any sense at all in light of their beliefs about salvation. Almost all of them believe that a when a baby die, or when a fetus is aborted, its soul goes to Heaven. Thus there are 40 American million souls in Heaven today thanks directly to abortion.
But what if abortion was illegal? How many of those who grown up to be adults are born again and saved? While up to 80% of Americans call themselves Christians, fundamentalists would probably argue that only 20-40% are saved, given that liberals and even RINOs can't be a "true Christian." So banning abortion would have condemned up to 32 million souls to an eternity in Hell, thus making abortionists the greatest savers of souls in the history of the world. After all, what sane person wouldn't sacrifice a few short years of uncertain existence on Earth to be guaranteed an eternity of bliss in Heaven?
Posted by: tacitus | December 6, 2009 1:01 PM
There was a recent study that demonstrated that people's religious beliefs tend to mirror their own beliefs quite closely and when the latter changes, the former changes also.
This merely confirms what I have suspected for some time. That a person's political beliefs are more fundamental than their religious beliefs. I believe Collins is a liberal Christian (relatively speaking anyway) and in this case it's his liberal beliefs that inform his Christian beliefs, not the other way around.
Posted by: tacitus | December 6, 2009 1:06 PM
tacitus @ 16 - The most common rebuttals I've heard to your very logical point is:
God removes some of his protections when we communally "sin", e.g., society legalizing abortion, gay marriage, and porn (don't hear the latter much anymore but sure used to). Therefore, we'll see a net loss of souls when considering those of us not aborted being summated to those that are. (And no, of course they don't provide any empirical evidence of such in spite of how easy it would be to establish at least a theoretical framework to test the differential rates.)
The second is closely related to the first. That abortion coarsens society, which leads to less people amongst the living being saved.
I don't follow the abortion debate much nor have I read much regarding either sides' arguments. These are merely the most popular responses I've personally either read or heard verbally when this debate has come up around me and your point is made. I think the response is merely used to avoid your argument since these folks have no desire to modify their positions if it threatens their faith or prejudices.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 6, 2009 1:31 PM
This statement can be true under most presidents and congresses.
_________ can start using taxpayer dollars to do ________
Posted by: Juice | December 6, 2009 2:32 PM
Good news. It's sure to drive Glenn Beck and the Palinistas crazy.
Posted by: CHV | December 6, 2009 2:32 PM
@19:
True, but the thing to note here is that Obama removed a restriction that was allowing tax money to fund certain types of research and not other types of research. If we are going to fund research at all, it makes sense that we should fund the best, most promising research, and while I have some doubts about politicians' ability to determine what that is, putting unnecessary restrictions in the way was certainly not helping. While I think that involuntary taxation is (like all coercive acts) immoral and so should be ended entirely, I can't object when Obama is working to ensure that the tax money that the government is collecting anyway is spent as efficiently as possible.
Posted by: Miko | December 6, 2009 3:09 PM
A question. Is it technically correct to say that therapeutic use of stem cells results in the death of those cells? Don't stem divide, producing living daughter cells just as they do during embryonic development? My understanding is that the difference is not one of life versus death, but a difference in what the living stem cells become.
Posted by: Dr X | December 6, 2009 4:47 PM
Of course, that puts the kibosh on the whole free will argument since communal sin reduces the odds of your going to heaven through no fault of your own. Mind you, the whole generational curse thing already did that, so I guess it makes little difference.
Posted by: tacitus | December 6, 2009 5:53 PM
tacitus "But what if abortion was illegal? How many of those who grown up to be adults are born again and saved? While up to 80% of Americans call themselves Christians, fundamentalists would probably argue that only 20-40% are saved, given that liberals and even RINOs can't be a "true Christian." So banning abortion would have condemned up to 32 million souls to an eternity in Hell, thus making abortionists the greatest savers of souls in the history of the world. After all, what sane person wouldn't sacrifice a few short years of uncertain existence on Earth to be guaranteed an eternity of bliss in Heaven?"
It's not about what Man wants. It's about what God wants (that being some vaguely Calvinistic version of God and what He wants). By legalizing abortion, Man is getting in the way of His master plan, with His divine predestinating and whatnot. In effect, we've gamed the system, getting a bunch of souls that aren't predestinated, um, destinated.
You'd think that an omniscient deity would've seen this coming but, much like the "incident" with his two kids, He seems to lack omnicompetence.
"Of course, that puts the kibosh on the whole free will argument since communal sin reduces the odds of your going to heaven through no fault of your own. Mind you, the whole generational curse thing already did that, so I guess it makes little difference."
You're obviously forgetting the apologetics that patch over that hole (and in doing so, pulling the patch off a previously patched hole).
Michael Heath "(And no, of course they don't provide any empirical evidence of such in spite of how easy it would be to establish at least a theoretical framework to test the differential rates.)"
"Theoretical framework"? Pah! [insert passage from Romans] [insert passage from Psalms]. Take that! Who are you gonna believe, select passages from the KJV or your own lying eyes?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 6, 2009 7:06 PM
Eamon Knight said:
I came to say something to this effect. I still feel PZ was right to blast him based on what we knew about him when he got the position to head NIH, but if these are the sorts of results on which we can expect to judge him, it looks like Collins will work out just fine.
Posted by: FishyFred | December 6, 2009 8:38 PM
tacitus: It's not the first time that's been suggested here, and I responded to that very strange argument way back in May of last year. To sum up what I think is the problem with this argument, abortion removes the choice to follow God, and it cannot be so easily assumed that going to heaven without any choice in the matter is really intrinsically better than getting the chance to decide for oneself but perhaps not choosing correctly. (There are also other factors, but they don't affect the core of the argument too much.)
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | December 6, 2009 11:44 PM
There is virtually no choice for billions of people anyway. Over half the world's population grows up being indoctrinated into other faiths, or "incorrect" versions of Christianity so even if they are fully exposed to the message of Jesus (an uncertain process at best) they don't get much of a fair shake when it comes to choosing. Millions of Muslims are no doubt in no doubt of their faith and feel fully fulfilled in their walk of faith. (Wow, that's a mouthful of a sentence!) Then you are the millions of kids and teenagers who die without ever getting the chance of making a mature decision about anything.
I find this an remarkably odd statement. Fundamentalists waste no time in telling everyone that Hell is the very worst place you would ever want to end up. Why would anyone prefer to end up in Hell for eternity than Heaven? That just doesn't make any sense at all. Sure there a Christian teachers who say that, for those who reject God, being forced into Heaven would be worse, but to me that's merely a slight of hand aimed at reinforcing the notion that you have a real choice in the first place.
If you have been fed the wrong religion your whole life, or perhaps you have been lied to about Christianity, or even badly abused in the name of the Church, then it would be no surprise if you come to reject the Christian God as being something worthy of worship, through no fault of your own.
Assuming that one does find one's self before the Throne of Judgment when you die, and you are finally presented with the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and you find out you have been lied to your whole life, then why is it too late to make a free and good faith choice once that choice is made clear to you?
Yeah, there's always the "we cannot fathom the mind of God" (even though we are supposedly made in his own image) but given the utter arbitrariness of birth, life, and death in this world, simply skipping a meager four-score-years and going directly to Heaven seems like a winner to me.
(I am actually glad that the fundamentalists don't take the logical line on abortion, since we would see many more parents deciding to take matters into their own hands rather than risk their offspring being led astray and into damnation.)
Posted by: tacitus | December 7, 2009 2:01 AM
hey pz....
i thought the Morris Police Department was going to save you....
http://www.conspiracycafe.net/forum/index.php?/topic/25104-atheist-apocalypse/page__pid__117856__st__0&
atheist apocalypse...
Posted by: the apo | December 7, 2009 3:23 AM
tacitus, I can't respond point-by-point at the moment, but the question "Would you prefer to go to heaven or hell?" is quite irrelevant since you cannot have a choice one way or the other if you are simply aborted. This is also beside the point anyway, since most Christians simply do not accept the sort of consequentialist ethic that underlies this argument: that is, helping further a worthy goal is not ethical if the means for doing so is itself unethical. No dice, sorry.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | December 7, 2009 8:11 AM
Ed, I'd be grateful if you add the following to your spam filter.
I'm all for free discussion but if repeating exactly the same line in umpteen places none of which it is relevant to doesn't count as spam then what does.
Posted by: Matty | December 7, 2009 8:15 AM
Matty, thank you, I was about to say the same thing, I've seen that guy's crap all over scienceblogs and am quite sick of his bullshit. Modus, I'm so stealing "omnicompetence."
Michael, I'm not sure I totally follow what you're saying, but I've always found it kind of funny how I can go deer hunting and kill a living, intelligent, emotional creature (which is also delicious), and most people don't bat an eye. But stopping a human embryo from development is a sin, even one that literally can't feel pain, has no mental function other than what it needs to keep biological things running, etc. I know that human exceptionalism is a pretty common belief, but the justifications people make seem ridiculous to me, especially considering how much animal suffering goes into our daily lives. Maybe the biologist in me just thinks all animals are pretty cool, but the misanthropic part of me usually thinks, "as if we need another goddamn human on this planet." Anyway, I suppose for me, as long as all existing ethical considerations were followed, I personally wouldn't give a rat's ass if they were allowed to do research on any age embryo/fetus, as long as they mother wasn't being paid to abort or anything.
Posted by: Rob Monkey | December 7, 2009 8:46 AM