…and this is a 
President panders to anti-manimal lobby! Dr Moreau flees country in rage!
Category: Politics • Science
Posted on: February 1, 2006 10:31 AM, by PZ Myers
I didn't listen to the State of the Union Address last night, preferring to maintain my equanimity by attending a talk on quantum physics, but I knew I could trust my readers to email me with choice weird science bits. I'm getting a lot of "WTF?" email about this statement from Bush:
Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research, human cloning in all its forms, creating or implanting embryos for experiments, creating human-animal hybrids, and buying, selling or patenting human embryos.
It's pure political calculus. He throws away the mad scientist and pig-man vote, and wins the religious ignoramus vote…and we know which one has the majority here.
But guess what? Creating chimeras is legitimate and useful scientific research; it's really happening. Of course, it isn't with the intent of creating monstrous half-animal/half-human slaves or something evil like that, and scientists are well aware (or should be well aware) of the ethical concerns, and it's the topic of ongoing debate. Let's consider one recent example of such an experiment.
Down syndrome is a very common genetic disorder caused by the presence of an extra chromosome 21. That kind of genetic insult causes a constellation of problems: mild to moderate mental retardation, heart defects, and weakened immune systems, and various superficial abnormalities. It's also a viable defect, and produces walking, talking, interacting human beings who are loved by their friends and families, who would really like to be able to do something about those lifespan-reducing health problems. We would love to have an animal model of Down syndrome, so that, for example, we could figure out exactly what gene overdose is causing the immune system problems or the heart defects, and develop better treatments for them.
So what scientists have been doing is inserting human genes into mice, to produce similar genetic overdoses in their development. As I reported before, there have been partial insertions, but now a team of researchers has inserted a complete human chromosome 21 into mouse embryonic stem cells, and from those generated a line of aneuploid mice that have many of the symptoms of Down syndrome, including the heart defects. They also have problems in spatial learning and memory that have been traced back to defects in long-term potentiation in the central nervous system.
These mice are a tool to help us understand a debilitating human problem.
George W. Bush would like to make them illegal.
He's trusting that everyone will think he is banning monstrous crimes against nature, but what he's really doing is targeting the weak and the ill, blocking useful avenues of research that are specifically designed to help us understand human afflictions. His message isn't "We aren't going to let the mad scientists make monsters!", it's "We aren't going to let the doctors help those 'retards.'"
Once again, the ignorance and the bigotry of the religious right wins out over reason and humanitarianism. I think I know who the real pig-men are.
O'Doherty A, Ruf S, Mulligan C, Hildreth V, Errington ML, Cooke S, Sesay A, Modino S, Vanes L, Hernandez D, Linehan JM, Sharpe PT, Brandner S, Bliss TV, Henderson DJ, Nizetic D, Tybulewicz VL, Fisher EM. (2005) An aneuploid mouse strain carrying human chromosome 21 with Down syndrome phenotypes. Science 309(5743):2033-7.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
Manimals! Invertabroads! You must fight back
against the one who did this to you!
Posted by: David | February 1, 2006 10:40 AM
Just a side note: Down's Syndrome usually results in mild to moderate retardation, but severe and profound retardation can result as well. You just don't tend to see these people because they often end up spending their entire lives in a home.
I only mention this because it shouldn't be thought that all parents of Down's children are lucky enough to have walking, talking, interacting children.
Which only heightens the callousness of Bush's remarks, of course.
Posted by: jbark | February 1, 2006 10:59 AM
I didn't think my opinion of Bush could go any lower, but once again I misunderestimated how low it could go.
Posted by: David Wilford | February 1, 2006 11:02 AM
We need a progressive president, not a regressive one, like Bush. It wouldn't surprise me, if he supported burning scientists at the stake.
Posted by: Steve Sutton | February 1, 2006 11:13 AM
I am just shocked by this. He is against diabetics, burn victims, people with faulty organs, AIDS victims, cancer vicims as well as people with genetic disorders.
And he is against all those people, not because he knows anything about science, but because of a snip in his holy book and 1950's style comics.
And if the harm to actual people isn't enough, he is also destroying the future strength of the U.S. economy, of which Biotech is one of the few shining hopes.
Posted by: Frito | February 1, 2006 11:18 AM
Just to be a little fair to GWB, I can guess that what he means are attempts at human-ape crosses like those rumoured to have taken place in the Soviet Union, of course, what he *said* was something different.
Posted by: KeithB | February 1, 2006 11:23 AM
A human-chimp hybrid might become President one day. Oh, wait...
Posted by: derek | February 1, 2006 11:30 AM
I ignored last night's SotU address because if there's one thing I've learned about GWB after 5 years, it's that he says one thing and does another, or says one thing and means another ("Clear Skies", anyone?). There's not much point in paying attention to that comment, other than using it as a signpost that something else will need our attention in the future.
Posted by: TomS | February 1, 2006 11:34 AM
Great post, PZ. You should recraft it into a letter to the editor (personally I would only change the first paragraph, the rest is gold!) and shoot it out to every ARC chapter in America. I'd love to see it appear in the Grand Forks Herald because the disability support community is very strong here and very politically active.
Posted by: justawriter | February 1, 2006 11:34 AM
Here, here.
Of course Lubos Motl considers this a stroke of Bush's genius. Ignoramus is as ignoramus does...
Posted by: george | February 1, 2006 11:43 AM
Unless the scientific community polices itself better you will get more of this. Instead of saying people have legitimate ethical concerns that should be addressed rationally, they get dismissed as religious ignoramuses. What about the current Korean ESC scandal? We condescendingly say "Human embryos would never be abused in the name of scientific research." Bzzzt.
Note Dr. Francis Collins' comments in his 2003 Keynote before the ASA:
You can make the argument in a much more winsome manner that actually might change people's minds. Something like this:
"Because evolution is true we can use animal models to treat and cure human disease without destroying or hurting human life. For example, we can use mouse models to understand the nature of Down's Syndrome."
It is not the chimera that causes the ethical concerns but rather it is the destruction of human life. You address that concern and the proposals like what was discussed last night will slowly disappear.
Posted by: Rich Blinne | February 1, 2006 11:50 AM
Manimals! Invertabroads! You must fight back
against the one who did this to you!
Why? My only responsibilities are to eat and sleep. Eat and sleep and sleep. And eat... I need to find some time to fit mating in there.
Posted by: BronzeDog | February 1, 2006 12:00 PM
Rich, classifying an embryo as "human life" rather than what it is- POTENTIALLY human life (do you have any idea of the natural rate of spontaneous abortions, for example?)- is not an ethical position at all; merely a theological one, which is not at all the same thing.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | February 1, 2006 12:04 PM
What is the law? Not to spill blood, not to go on all fours, not to make chimerae. That is the law. Are we not men?
Posted by: Punc_E | February 1, 2006 12:08 PM
President panders to anti-manimal lobby!
Hey, if Georgie-Boy can save us from horrors like this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085898/
...I'm all for it!
;-)
Posted by: lt.kizhe | February 1, 2006 12:14 PM
The Island of Lost Souls is 100X better than the Brando version, where the only scary thing was Brando himself.
Posted by: Gerardo Camilo | February 1, 2006 12:24 PM
(Sorry, someone had to do it.)
Gratuitous bonus Oingo Boingo reference.
Posted by: arensb | February 1, 2006 12:25 PM
Steve - that is a really interesting point about the rate of spontaneous abortions. Actually it gives me an idea of a great way to highlight the fact that fertilised embryos are only potential human life, not actual human life - force the fringe lunatics (e.g., the modern GOP) to say whether or not women who suffer spontaneous abortions should be charged with involuntary manslaughter.
Posted by: SM | February 1, 2006 12:26 PM
Steve, that's precisely the kind of tone that should be avoided. So what if I or others come to an ethical conclusion based upon theological considerations? Do you know my life so well that you know that my wife had two miscarriages that we know of and a stillbirth?
If development is the basis for something being potential rather than actual life then a child is potential life because she is not at her full height. Both sides of this debate try to make science the arbiter here where it cannot be that. You have to bring in things from outside science in order to determine whether an embryo is human life or not. Some use religion. Others do not.
Realizing there is a diversity of opinion here and a diversity of how we come to our opinions, respectful, civil discourse does not demean or demonize the other side. If we spent more time listening and less time yelling at each other we would find out we have far more common ground than we realize. As it stands right now we have State of Dis-Union speeches where people stand in applause only on one side of the aisle or the other. Pathetic.
Posted by: Rich | February 1, 2006 12:35 PM
"As it stands right now we have State of Dis-Union speeches where people stand in applause only on one side of the aisle or the other. Pathetic."
Yes, and the blame for this can be laid squarely at the feet of scientists, bloggers, and concerned onlookers.
It has nothing to do with the wholesale embrace of demagoguery and dishonesty by right wing pundits, politicians, and writers.
If we'd all just been nicer Rush's show would have never got off the ground, Ann Coulter wouldn't have sold a couple million books, and Rick Santorum never would have been elected.
Posted by: jbark | February 1, 2006 12:46 PM
I couldn't bear to listen to MonkeyMan's screeching last night, but I will say that chimeras were the first thing I though of when I heard that part of the speech on the news this morning.
My girlfriend back in grad school created a mouse model of sickle-cell anemia, so I have a passing familiarity with the subject. Is giving a mouse the sickle-cell gene "creating a human/animal hybrid"? I imagine one could make that case.
If so, I weep for biomedical research. Given the political savvy of the folks in that field (way better than the physicists who doomed the SSC), I suspect they will get Congress to protect such research.
Posted by: Mr. Upright | February 1, 2006 12:52 PM
Yes, finally! Someone has stood up and refused to accept the possibilities of centaurs and mermaids!
Round up the old AD&D gang so we can build a great army to defeat these abominations, and someone get that Potter kid on the phone! I hear he's pretty good at handling this kind of thing.
Posted by: MoxieGrrrl | February 1, 2006 12:57 PM
There is about 10^-9 probability that the ethics of abortion will be hashed out and decided here.
Rich, if you believe an embryo is human life, than I have some practical questions for you. Let's say the mother has a life insurance policy covering all her dependent children. She conceives (within matrimony) and the resulting blastocyst fails to implant, a completely natural process. It is flushed out of her body by her feminine secretions and ends up in the wash or the toilet. No doubt this happens millions of times/day around the world. Should mom file a claim with her life insurance provider? Should there be a memorial service with a funeral? Should she be arrested for homicide? After all, the failure to implant might be her fault.
These practical considerations are completely ignored by those who oppose abortion.
Posted by: John P | February 1, 2006 12:58 PM
KeithB:
No. What he means is he's prepared to ban whatever his fundie backers tell him he has to ban. What he suggests is that he's banning something obviously repugnant and immoral. The main consequence is that scientists are prevented from doing their work and bioethicists are prevented from influencing policy based on the actual ethical issues. Meanwhile, Bush scores political points with his base and gets to insinuate that anyone who questions him is a backer of "attempts at human-ape crosses like those rumoured to have taken place in the Soviet Union." I see little evidence to suggest that Bush cares about any of this beyond the political implications.
Posted by: PaulC | February 1, 2006 1:00 PM
Rich, you make very good points. Your call for civility in discourse is commendable. Unfortunately, it seems to me that very few people in the neocon/religious right camp share your desires. Most assume a far more strident, rude tone.
You may counter that those of us in the secular/scientific/liberal camp seem to be rather uncivil as well, but I would say that this is a reflection of the vitriol encountered, rather than the actual tone many of us would normally assume.
This president, and his allies, constantly use issues like these to engender fear in their constituents, rather than debate. The 'talking points' that all the pundits use frame the debate so far out of the pale that it leaves the other side the burden of trying to bring the actual debate back into the realm of the real, all the while being assaulted by rude, uneducated, and often deliberately untruthful people.
The Evolution/Intelligent Design issue is the template for argument here.
Scientific issues are brought up by this president for only one reason: fear. George Bush would much rather talk about not wanting to create a race of gorilla/human super soldiers than the possible uses of this research in the quest for cures of illness because it's much more inflammitory. Don't you see? That's what he wants. He doesn't want discourse. He doesn't want unity. He wants America divided, with just enough on his side to stay in power. That way he and his corporate friends/sponsors/lackeys can continue to reap huge financial gains while the rest of us tear each other apart.
And I, for one, would much rather spend my time getting this country back towards a democratic republic, rather than the oligarchy it is rapidly becoming. Bu we rarely get that chance.
Yeharr
Posted by: balloon pirate | February 1, 2006 1:02 PM
Rich, did you actually LISTEN to Bush's speech?
The only way that Bush's War On Man-Animal Strawmen makes ANY sense is if you know -- as I had forgotten, until PZ reminded us -- that Bush loves to speak in code to his base, a code he hopes no one else knows. (The UK term for this sort of thing is "dog-whistle politics".)
Remember Bush's famous -- and seemingly inexplicable -- reference to the Dred Scott decision? That was Bush telling his Fundie base that he was against abortion and would work to ban it. Same here, except that it's more blatant: He's using a Michael-Crichton-like fantasy straw man to both scare the uninitiated AND to reassure the Fundies that he's going to outlaw stem-cell research.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | February 1, 2006 1:10 PM
derek says: A human-chimp hybrid might become President one day. Oh, wait...
I guess he's referring to this: http://www.bushorchimp.com/
Posted by: mark | February 1, 2006 1:17 PM
I think someone jsut needs to reassure Bush that these man-animal hybrids are created through laboratory cloning techniques, not through - uh - traditional methods.
Posted by: Bayesian Bouffant, FCD | February 1, 2006 1:18 PM
Posted by: Bayesian Bouffant, FCD | February 1, 2006 1:23 PM
Could it be possible there is an honest disagreement? The instant someone falsely calls me stupid or dishonest I stop listening. I don't think I'm unique here. The good thing about honest disagreements is that there is a possibility of resolution. I'm trying to help you be more persuasive as there is a lot of scientific research that need not be controversial that is becoming so. But, hey, who am I? Go ahead and throw those bombs! It's more important to feel good than be effective.
Posted by: Rich | February 1, 2006 1:25 PM
do you have any idea of the natural rate of spontaneous abortions, for example?
Yes. 75% spontaniously abort, in times of stress womens bodies release a stress hormone that damages male fetuses too, so there may be as much as 90% failure rate of males in such cases as well. Then there is the fact that some estimates, based on studies done on after birth and the like, than probably 8 or of 9 births start out as a pair of twins, one of which fails to develop. After screwing up the math several times, I finally came up with around a 14% birth rate of "possible" children, which might drop to 7-9% (at a guess) during stress, when the male children are more likely to be aborted. Guess the other 86-93% of children get an express ticket to heaven according to these lunitics...
On an aside.. Just read an article in the new issue of Discovery targetting the gene IGF2R as a mutation that appears to only have flawed copies in humans, and significantly effects the average IQ of an individual that has the mutation. Mice engineered to express only one functional copy are significantly slower at solving problems, like mazes. Makes one wonder what the result of doing a search on this gene in Bush's case would turn up... lol
Posted by: Kagehi | February 1, 2006 1:30 PM
Good job, Rich. I think you are making some great points.
As for: "Unfortunately, it seems to me that very few people in the neocon/religious right camp share your desires. Most assume a far more strident, rude tone.
You may counter that those of us in the secular/scientific/liberal camp seem to be rather uncivil as well, but I would say that this is a reflection of the vitriol encountered, rather than the actual tone many of us would normally assume."
It doesn't matter who started it and who started being nasty first. Take the high road. Be the hero. Sorry about the Dr. Phil speak, but just because one person calls you a mean name doesn't mean you counter with an even meaner name. I hope we are more mature than that...
Thanks, Rich!!!
Posted by: Anonymous | February 1, 2006 1:38 PM
Whew. Does Bush really mean to ban all human-nonhuman animal hybrids? Are porcine heart valves to be forbidden? What about cow or pig insulin and factor VIII? Is the hamster egg assay going to become illegal? Are transgenic cell cultures ok or not? What if an artificially constructed human gene or siRNA is added to animal cells (ie Ikaros VI)? Are humanized antibodies such as Ritoxin to be banned? How did that idiot even find out enough to realize that human-other animal hybrids exist?
Posted by: Dianne | February 1, 2006 1:41 PM
Could it be possible there is an honest disagreement? Yes, there is *honest* disagreement. Its between different groups of scientists and people in the general populous that are "informed" about the subject. Then there are the right wing fundimentalists, who are misinformed, promote the spread of that misinformation to others and think "honesty" is the same thing as, "God shares my opinion, so everything I say must be right, even when I lie about what other people are saying to convince people to believe me." You can't have a general disagreement with such a person, never mind an honest one.
Posted by: Kagehi | February 1, 2006 1:41 PM
Absolutely. I tell my Religious Right friends exactly the same thing. But, in this case I tell them that people who believe in evolution or who are advancing scientific research are good people who honestly want to advance truth and alleviate human suffering. Furthermore, I tell them that scientists don't like being lied about any more than these friends of mine do.
When I interact with people on both sides I am struck by the astonishment of why "they" (pick your side here) are so mean and why they think that "we" (pick your side here) are so evil.
Posted by: Rich | February 1, 2006 1:42 PM
Make that "You can't have a civil disagreement with such a person..."
Posted by: Kagehi | February 1, 2006 1:43 PM
derek says: A human-chimp hybrid might become President one day. Oh, wait...
I guess he's referring to this
(Oops--let's get the link to work)
Posted by: Anonymous | February 1, 2006 1:47 PM
God, schmod! I want my monkey-man!
-Bart Simpson
Posted by: The Disgruntled Chemist | February 1, 2006 1:57 PM
Rich- I call bullshit. You don't get to make serious ethical claims by mere assertion, or because your preacher told you so. They have to be defended by consistent argument. If embryos are human, then spontaneous abortions are probably the leading cause of death- the greatest plague on humanity. I don't see anybody acting as though they really believed that. Ergo, they don't truly believe it- the claim that an embryo is an actual human being is merely a form of words which people like you mouth in an attempt to provide an impressive-sounding defense of a position which is actually based on other, non-ethical and non-rational motives. Just as your call for "civility" is an attempt to extort a free pass for such irrationality. You won't get one from me.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | February 1, 2006 1:58 PM
I have to admit when Bush got to that sentence I had the same WTF reaction you all had. If it was code it was so secret that no one -- not even the Religious Right -- could decode it. This truly came out of nowhere. The best I can come up with is that the President thought that this was somehow consistent with pro-life base principles even though it is actually antithetical to them (as I explained previously). All of us, left, right, and center are grasping at straws trying to explain this. I am just glad I am not the administration spokesman defending this in congressional hearings (which BTW is reason why this will go nowhere).
Posted by: Anonymous | February 1, 2006 2:14 PM
There is indeed a scientifically-based argument to be made against laboratory (usually meaning eventually industrial) production of chimera, if only from the increased likelihood of interspecies pathogen transfer. Those interested in following this up might want to check out the Council for Responsible Genetics at http://www.gene-watch.org/ .
As for Dr. Moreau - well, obviously, he's French...
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | February 1, 2006 2:15 PM
Rich - do you believe women who have abortions should be tried for murder?...thekeez
Posted by: thekeez![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 1, 2006 2:19 PM
Phoenix Woman is exactly right when she points out that Shrub's manimal nonsense is just like the Dred Scott allusion, only more obvious. You might as well listen to a dog bark, as listen to the Shrub's vaporings. A dog with a set of Supremes and 10,000 nukes and minions to push the buttons. God help us.
I have to weigh in on Rich's discussion above. This is one of my pet peeves. "Both sides of this debate try to make science the arbiter here where it cannot be that. You have to bring in things from outside science in order to determine whether an embryo is human life or not.
You're exactly right that science cannot be the arbiter. I'm an evolutionary biologist, and reasonably clear on what science can and can't do. The point is that if there is no tangible, fact-based answer, then the only response has to be a matter of belief. Whether you call that belief religion, ethics, philosophy, or because-I-said-so, doesn't matter. It is a belief.
This country is based on people leaving each others beliefs in peace (and one look at the Middle East shows how wise a decision that was). You can live according to your beliefs and not have an abortion or not accept a cure based on stem cells or chimeras. I get to live according to my beliefs, too.
Fundamentalists are trying to make *me* live according to *their* beliefs. The equivalent would be if I forced them to have abortions. That is a recipe for disaster, and is what the Shrub does when he throws the power of his office behind one small set of beliefs. (More on this, and what it means to be a "potential human being" in a post I wrote a while back A choice or a child?)
Posted by: quixote | February 1, 2006 2:29 PM
You mean like the FDA instruction to physicians not to prescribe certain drugs to pregnant women because it might increase the spontaneous abortion rate? If it was believed otherwise only potential life was at risk. Oh and the tears I saw on women's faces because someone called their miscarriage not real life that was fake too. The belief may be wrong but I can guarantee that it is utterly sincere. If you want to convince people that they are wrong try another argument because lying about their motivation doesn't work. Likewise, I believe the President was wrong last night on the "manimal" issue but I don't presume to know his motivations.
I would like to qualify my position. Some spontaneous abortions are not human life, either real or potential. That's because they are genetically defective to the point that they don't develop. If that is what you mean then we don't have a disagreement. The issue with respect research is can we know a priori that it is impossible for a particular embryo to develop? If so, then I would have no objections to research on such embryos.
Posted by: Rich | February 1, 2006 2:45 PM
Rich,
I like some of your points and on others I think youa re lost.
' So what if I or others come to an ethical conclusion based upon theological considerations? Do you know my life so well that you know that my wife had two miscarriages that we know of and a stillbirth?'
I have also had the misfortune of a miscariage. My emotional experience doesn't have any valid impact on whether or not my argument is valid. If you come to an ethical conclusion based on theology it has an underpinning of the weakest nature. The worst form of irrational underpinning.
'If development is the basis for something being potential rather than actual life then a child is potential life because she is not at her full height.'
Thats just silly, she has been birthed, is fully functional and growing. Thats a weak analogy.
'The belief may be wrong but I can guarantee that it is utterly sincere. If you want to convince people that they are wrong try another argument because lying about their motivation doesn't work.'
I agree with you here. I think though it may confuse the hope of having a family and the resulting disappointment that comes with it not occuring after the initial joy on hearing about a successful pregnancy. For my part I was crushed after the miscarriage but not in the same way i would have been had my child been even a month old. My experience is one of disappointment. Not to say it is the same for all. But to me their is and was a difference. And to be truthful I never actually thought about it until now.
'Some spontaneous abortions are not human life, either real or potential. That's because they are genetically defective to the point that they don't develop. If that is what you mean then we don't have a disagreement.'
Your not being consistent here. It is still human life it you take the embryo as human. It is just damaged human life.
Posted by: GH | February 1, 2006 3:04 PM
Ah, your hemming and hawing indicates that there is indeed an exposed nerve here. But you are still nowhere near showing that you genuniely accept the logical consequences of the claim that an ambryo is a human being. For one thing, there's thekeez's question still waiting to be anawered. For another, there are MANY spontaneous abortions of non-defective embryos (it's hard to quantify how many- but why aren't you demanding research to find out?) and nobody is proposing an urgent "March of Dimes" program to stem this "plague".
An emotional reaction is not an ethical stance. Once upon a time, dissection of cadavers produced a similar response- should that have been permanently allowed to block the study of anatomy, so crucial to the development of modern medicine? Nobody will command respect by confusing a gut reaction with an ethical argument and then insisting that others should share that confusion. I certainly accept that you and others have the emotional reaction, but my response is, "so what?"
Examine your own position and those of others with real care and thought, instead of clinging to irrational responses and mindlessly calling for a "civility" that is merely a code word for allowing you a free pass to demand curbs on the rights of people who don't share your worldview.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | February 1, 2006 3:06 PM
I don't see the issue here. To me it didn't sound at all like Bush was saying you cannot do this. It sounded like he doesn't want scientists participating in studies that try to put a human torso on a cow's hind-quarters. That's what I get from his speech... Maybe I'm too naive and think that he's not being that specific, but I guess people will get upset if he doesn't spell out exactly what IS and ISN'T acceptable.
Posted by: Brett | February 1, 2006 3:20 PM
And here I was, all set to create Mansquito. You've foiled my plans for the last time, W!
Posted by: Nymphalidae | February 1, 2006 3:29 PM
yeah, but he doesn't really need to put a stop to mad scientists genetically engineering the minotaur because... who the hell's doing that
Posted by: jeff | February 1, 2006 3:29 PM
Bush was not as far out as a first reading would reveal. Check out these two articles:
Mother Jones
Gods and Monsters
Talking apes, flying pigs, superhumans with armadillo attributes, and other strange considerations of Dr. Stuart Newman's fight to patent a human/animal chimera
By Mark Dowie
January/February 2004 Issue
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_401.html
NYT Magazine
The Other Stem-Cell Debate
By JAMIE SHREEVE
Published: April 10, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/10/magazine/10CHIMERA.html
also at
http://www.udel.edu/anthro/ackerman/stemcell.pdf
Posted by: Jesse | February 1, 2006 3:30 PM
P.S. You've been Slashdotted. Congrats :)
Posted by: Nymphalidae | February 1, 2006 3:30 PM
Apparently I missed your final stab at Bush:
___________________________________
His message isn't "We aren't going to let the mad scientists make monsters!", it's "We aren't going to let the doctors help those 'retards.'"
Once again, the ignorance and the bigotry of the religious right wins out over reason and humanitarianism. I think I know who the real pig-men are.
___________________________________
Did you stop to think that just because you have some degree hanging on your wall, you may not have the itelligence to debate without reverting into a blathering idiot? It's worthwhile to talk about points until someone decides that they have to pervert Bush's message.
I am religous, and I am Conservative. I wear both labels proudly. I am willing to debate on a number of topics, but I usually drop out when someone starts using raspberries and stupid comments to back up their argument. You're making an unjust assumption based on your own personal dislike for our President. So, what exactly is your point? I guess it's easier for you to slander people with Downs Syndrome by mutating what Bush said and using the word "retard". It becomes very apparent that you were just itching to use such a foul term to describe a decent group of people in an effort to once again put words into the President's mouth.
I find that most times the Liberal left cannot debate without degrading into a derogatory, blathering heap. They must point out everyone else's faults in an effort to hide their own. So, what say you? Do you have anything that can justify what you said? Or are you going to stick by your indulgent ignorance?
Posted by: Brett | February 1, 2006 3:35 PM
I'm shocked to see so many people that are so hateful towards GWB that they would go so far as to say that his comments were anti-disabled people. My wife is diabetic and I have close friends with brothers and sisters stricken by down syndrom. I care greatly for these people and wish nothing but progress towards curing these terrible diseases.
GW's comments are simple and so is the law that he is referring to. The law that he is asking congress to support simply states that human embryos will not be alrered for genetic research, the long term result of which would be genetically altered human beings with implanted problems. Nothing in that law prohibits or is detrimental in any way to the research with animals or altering animal genetics to research human problems.
I urge you all to look at the law that he's talking about before you jump to conclusions about people. If not, you demonstrate the hypocracy, narrow-mindedness and lack of concern that you are so anxious to point out in others.
Posted by: Dissenter | February 1, 2006 3:35 PM
I don't care what it takes or what Third World Country I have to go to, George W. Bush is not going to stop me from getting what I want: a dorsal fin and hands made out of bald eagles.
Posted by: Kurt | February 1, 2006 3:38 PM
"It doesn't matter who started it and who started being nasty first. Take the high road."
This has nothing to do with who started it. It has to do with what works. The religious right has demonstrated that vinegar apparently works better than honey on these issues.
Lecturing one side to "play nice" while the other continues to engage in the most obnoxious and dishonest vitriol imaginable (from positions of real and actual power, I might add) is not really defensible.
Posted by: jbark | February 1, 2006 3:41 PM
Isn't that special. Not many people willing to get up and make that proclamation in public nowadays.
If you have an inability to understand irony coupled with a pathological need to believe everything Bush says and take everything he says at face value, that is your problem.
I leave it to you to come up with a better answer why he would make such a out-of-nowhere reference in his SOTU address.
Posted by: george cauldron | February 1, 2006 3:41 PM
I'm tired of shades of grey. I'm calling on religious and semi-religious boobs everywhere to put your money where your mouth is: if scientific research and the benefits achieved therefrom are evil, I challenge you to turn your back on all devil-derived technologies equally.
You can keep the Word, but anything more memetically complex should be the province of rationality.
Let's keep Peter Pan in Neverland and the government out of our labs.
Love,
Matthew Frederick Davis Hemming
Posted by: Matthew Frederick Davis Hemming | February 1, 2006 3:42 PM
"I am religous, and I am Conservative. I wear both labels proudly."
>"Isn't that special. Not many people willing to get up
> and make that proclamation in public nowadays".
I know. It must feel very lonely when you only control the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the most powerful nation in the world.
Some day maybe they'll make independent films and give ill-attended colloquia and get some REAL power!
Posted by: Anonymous | February 1, 2006 3:45 PM
"I am religous, and I am Conservative. I wear both labels proudly."
>"Isn't that special. Not many people willing to get up
> and make that proclamation in public nowadays".
I know. It must feel very lonely when you only control the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the most powerful nation in the world.
Some day maybe they'll make independent films and give ill-attended colloquia and get some REAL power!
Posted by: jbark | February 1, 2006 3:46 PM
Yeah look. I didn't read the entire speech, but I read some of your comments, and my suggestion is that you deal with the issue at hand: animal testing research etc, instead of how George W. Bush keeps you up at night because he doesn't agree with you. I can understand where Bush is coming from. If we somehow ended up living with a superior race using humans for testing, I can bet we'll fight to the death to stop it. What's the difference? Animals don't feel? They're defenceless? So are the "retards". Let's test them! I'm no scientist, but using animals isn't even an accurate testbed for humans. Anyway, I'm sure that's exactly what Bush meant: "We aren't going to let the doctors help those 'retards.'" He couldn't be trying to eradicate the mistreatment of animals. Of course not. I love how you guys know more about your own President than he does. Nice work. Keep it up.
Posted by: Danson | February 1, 2006 3:46 PM
Good Lord. A ban on *all* forms of human cloning would outlaw force-grown skin grafts.
Mr. President, why do you hate burn victims?
Posted by: Caledonian | February 1, 2006 3:48 PM
Unbelievable. So because Bush has ethical concerns with cloning and hybrids, that automatically makes him anti-Down's Syndrome and anti-scientific progress? I would expect such a silly assertion from some yahoo down the street from me, but not from such an educated man as yourself.
Posted by: Daniel Wesley | February 1, 2006 3:56 PM
Oo! Some of that withering, incisive satire we've come to fear so from the Conservative movement!
('Our own'? I didn't vote for him, and I take NO RESPONSIBILITY for him...)
So, I would guess your implied point here is that Bush is such an honest, straightforward man that we 'liberals' are fools for ever thinking that he doesn't mean what he says, or that he might ever be less than truthful. Is that it? No sale, but nice try.
But, hey, good luck with that.
Posted by: george cauldron | February 1, 2006 3:56 PM
Ah, the downside of getting slashdotted -- the clueless commenters.
Bush has stated he wants to prohibit various forms of biomedical research. He isn't saying we need to proceed with due care for the ethical issues -- he wants to shut it down. That makes him effectively anti-research, and specifically against a specific genre of research that is geared towards helping people with Down syndrome, to name one example. His blithering, his pandering, his knee-jerk obeisance to the demands of the ignorant religious right is not a conscientious objection to concerns about the misuse of human material in research.
And I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks a Republican president who tortured small animals as a child is concerned about animal rights is a truly self-deluded fool.
By the way, I'm liberal and I'm an atheist, and I'm proud of it -- and I'm not just following the crowd like some sheep when I say so. Check your persecution complex at the door, religious conservative. You look like an idiot when you whine like that.
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 1, 2006 4:06 PM
Assume for just a second that a fertilized egg does have the same moral status as a fully grown human being. When these practical considerations arise, wouldn't that simply mean that we need a change in how we do life insurance, or when we hold memorial services, or how we prosecute the law?
If the foetus is a person, then no amount of "practical considerations" can weigh against its moral status because they have no moral weight. "It's ok to kill a person because we can't figure out how to set up their life insurance policy"--it makes no sense to say such things.
At heart your argument must still rest on the assumption that a foetus is a nonperson, for whatever reason you have chosen. As Peter Singer pointed out, none of the arguments in favor of abortion do this successfully unless you redefine what a person is, and by his lights this would probably preclude the genetic testing performed using mice mentioned above.
It seems as though this may be a time when you don't get to eat that cake you have.
Posted by: Pete C. | February 1, 2006 4:07 PM
If "implanting embryos for experiments" is to be banned, does that mean that this law would have effectively prevented the development of in vitro fertilization?
For that matter, I presume that those who genuinely believe that embryos are worthy of the same ethical concern we give to adult humans vigorously oppose IVF, since it is routine practice to implant far more embryos than are expected to survive. And surely couples who go through multiple rounds of unsuccessful IVF are commiting serial manslaughter. It seems to me that the fact that so many religious folks seem to embrace IVF, and that we don't have laws against multiple implantations and the use of fertility drugs, suggests that even religious individuals don't view embryos as truly the equivalent of adult human persons.
Are you actually suggesting that Bush is now supporting the basic position of PETA, and will enshrine animal rights into law? I find that hugely unlikely.
Posted by: Tulse | February 1, 2006 4:13 PM
I assume PZ Myers was referring to me in his last comment. For the record, I may be religious, but I'm not a conservative. I have no emotional investment in Bush nor what he says. If he truly did say those avenues of research should be shut down, then he's wrong for doing so.
However, having said that, I still want to point out the faulty logic being used. If you're saying that Bush *implied* he is anti-Down's Syndrom or anti-science by his comments, that doesn't work. What if his intent is to fund alternative avenues of reasearch? Can you know every possible thing he is thinking? To make such a blanket conclusion with a limited statement is to expose a distinct lack of objectivity.
I am neither liberal nor conservative, but a staunch theist and proud if it myself. I don't follow any crowds either. :)
Posted by: Daniel Wesley | February 1, 2006 4:15 PM
You guys whine like mulemen. Look, it's the state of the union speech, not writ law. First of all, most of Bush's initiatives stated in these speaches never make it into legislation. Of course Bush means to remove the possibility bizzare manimal mutations. I doubt he means to limit said scientific research, and even if he did, do you really think such legislation would make it through both houses? Uh... no.
You're just looking for something to become enraged about. Frankly you're little better than the right-wing nut jobs (like bush). Have a little temperment, just a little perspective and common sense.
Posted by: Bill Barnes | February 1, 2006 4:19 PM
So that's your excuse? It's just the State of the Union speech, and Bush gets to say any ol' thing he wants, and no one gets to hold him accountable to it?
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 1, 2006 4:23 PM
No disagreement here. You can be sincere and sincerely wrong. What was discussed was a statement about whether my view -- right or wrong -- was sincerely held or not. I am not arguing that these issues not be rationally discussed rather I am asking