…and this is a 
The New Yorker has a very well written article on Francis Collins and the recent upset in stem cell research, but it feels terribly premature. It's a stage-setting piece to an act that hasn't been resolved yet.
The part about Collins is familiar ground for those of us who were peeved at his selection to be head of the NIH — he's a folksy evangelical Christian with a fabulous scientific CV. But it's the context that's most important.
Here's the deal: during the Bush years, many restrictions were imposed on embryonic stem cell research by a reactionary right-wing congress and executive. President Obama has been trying to move ahead and open up new avenues for research, but just recently got a bit of cold water splashed in his face by a judge who determined that the Dickey-Wicker amendment was being illegally neglected.
The Dickey-Wicker amendment is a relic of Gingrich-era scientific obstructionism. It prohibits the funding of research in which human embryos are created or destroyed; the Clinton administration developed a rather dodgy line of reasoning to get around it by arguing that human stem cells were not human embryos, therefore research on cells could be funded. Which is entirely true, but it's shaky because the intent of the legislators was to kill human embryonic stem cell research entirely, and taking advantage of the inability of Republican congressman to draft a scientifically complete description of the work they were prohibiting isn't exactly fair.
So, much as I deplore the decision, Judge Royce Lambeth was legally correct, I think, to pull the plug.
"The language of the statute reflects the unambiguous intent of Congress to enact a broad prohibition of funding research in which a human embryo is destroyed," he wrote. "This prohibition encompasses all 'research in which' an embryo is destroyed, not just the 'piece of research' in which the embryo is destroyed," as the Justice Department argued.
The problem is the anti-science Dickey-Wicker rider, which needs to be scrapped (rather than rhetorically sidestepped) in order for research to proceed. And that's where Francis Collins comes in, and, unfortunately, precisely where the New Yorker article stops.
Collins has the right goals: he's wrangling with congress to open up opportunities for more stem cell research. His opponent is the Christian pro-life contingent, and hey, look, Collins speaks their language — he's One of Them. Could that help? Will he get through to them and break the logjam? Stay tuned!
I'm a bit cynical. I think we're looking at a deep-seated ideological conflict, and that the right wing won't budge no matter how folksy and friendly and religiously copacetic Collins might be. But this is a case where, if Collins succeeds in battling the bureaucratic believers and overcoming the hurdles to stem cell research support, I will grudgingly admit that he was a politically astute choice for his position, despite my earlier contrary sentiments. I still think he's a dingbat, but maybe we need a few dingbats on the interface between science and politics.
Of course, if he fails…but let's hope he doesn't.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
August 30, 2010 10:19 AM
*Dickey Wicker*
*giggles*
....ermmmm....what was that you were saying again?
*giggling*
I'm sorry but I have the mind of a 12 year old, and you keep saying "Dickey-Wicker" and "Dickey-Wicker rider".
*giggling*
Imma leave this alone...sorry.
Posted by: daveau
|
August 30, 2010 10:20 AM
It depends on what you mean by embryos... /Clinton
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk
|
August 30, 2010 10:24 AM
'Allo 'Allo! I thought this was going to be about your dicky ticker.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/xaStVywarZ6R9nrlSjv4D8_6GGA0PWmf#765c4
|
August 30, 2010 10:25 AM
Antiochus:
I kept doing the same exact thing! Dickey-Wicker rider!
Forgive my ignorance, but is the goal of that to prohibit the funding of research in which embryos are created for the purpose of destroying them for the stem cell research? Or just that you can't create and/or destroy human embryos and receive funding? Because the "destroy" part I can see, but the "create" part is confusing me. But perhaps it's just too early in the morning...
Squigit
Posted by: Somite
|
August 30, 2010 10:28 AM
The solution of course is to vote out most republicans and blue dog democrats and bring in progressive politics but that is just crazy talk.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
August 30, 2010 10:30 AM
Yes, they prohibit the creation of human embryos. So, if you're doing research that involves using harvested human oocytes and fertilizing them with donor sperm to make a collection of fresh embryos for research, you are a naughty person and will get no money from the NIH.
Posted by: natural cynic
|
August 30, 2010 10:38 AM
C'mon PZ, can't you acmit that this is the case of teh Evvull Judishull Akktavizzum!!!11!!!
The real problem is in interpreting the will of Congress in an issue like this. The wording of the law was probably made somewhat ambiguous on purpose through horse-trading between Congress and Clinton. The wingnuts in congress would get what they wanted - a resolution that they could show the folks back home and Clinton got what he wanted - an unclear wording that he could work around.
Posted by: llewelly
|
August 30, 2010 10:39 AM
Thank you, PZ.
Posted by: Bostonian
|
August 30, 2010 10:44 AM
I think the Clinton quote daveau intended was "It depends on what the meaning of embryos embryos."
PZ is probably right - we get the government we collectively vote for, and this was a real law they made. The Republicans were, and are, concerned mostly with deregulation, religious posturing and executive branch witch-hunts. Coming soon to a government near you ...
Posted by: KG
|
August 30, 2010 10:46 AM
Why not? They have the political advantages of stupidity - genuinely not grasping inconvenient facts, being unable to recognise their own inconsistency, etc. - why should they not also get the disadvantages?
Posted by: hznfrst
|
August 30, 2010 10:47 AM
Will there be a Tally-Whacker rider to the Dickey-Wicker amendment? One can only hope...
Posted by: Katharine
|
August 30, 2010 10:47 AM
It kind of mystifies me as to why they don't source at least some of their cells from blastocysts made, er, naturally.
My mother works at the NIH and they had a giant bureaucratic clusterfuck trying to sort it out. Fuckin' politicians interfere with everything.
Posted by: MetzO'Magic
|
August 30, 2010 10:48 AM
My brain is having fun trying to wrap itself around the connotations invoked by 'Dickey-Wicker' too... but the one that's mostly coming through for me is:
sticky wicket
Posted by: gcedwards10
|
August 30, 2010 10:52 AM
Love you to death, PZ, but when you start opining on legal issues you really stray far beyond your area of competence.
To rule as he did, Lamberth had to (and did) find that the Dickey-Wicker language was unambiguous, i.e., that the only rational way to read it was the way he (and you) do. That's just absurd. You may think that the Clinton/Obama reading (which Congress never stepped in to correct over the years) is the better one, but it's hardly irrational.
Second, he also had to rule that the two adult-stem-cell researcher plaintiffs would be irreparably harmed if he didn't enjoin the Obama rule -- and he said that the fact that they would be subject to theoretically increased competition for federal funds was sufficient. Moreover, he said, this clearly outweighed the "speculative" harm that would be done to stem-cell research by enjoining the reg. Also absurd.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
August 30, 2010 10:53 AM
The act of obtaining naturally made blastocysts has a very specific name: it's an abortion. Don't be mystified about why that has no right wing friends.
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
August 30, 2010 10:57 AM
In the mean time, Japan and China are kicking our ass in stem-cell research.
A colleague of mine has a kid who had some condition that causes the blood-vessels in his retina to not form properly (too few blood-vessels). Went to Japan a few year back and received stem-cell treatment. Now instead of legally blind, he can see well enough to read.
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
August 30, 2010 11:01 AM
To #14
PZ did say that the ruling is legally sound. He's not faulting Lamberth.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
August 30, 2010 11:03 AM
I'm not saying I agree with the effect of Lambeth's decision. I am saying that the rider was made with an unambiguous intent of stopping stem cell research (you can't argue with that -- look at what the proponents were aiming to do), and that interpreting their way around the law was a dodgy thing to do, even if I approve of the effect of that.
The better solution is to kill the Dickey-Wicker amendment at the source.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
August 30, 2010 11:04 AM
Sorry can't share your optimism, PZ.
Collins will get nowhere with this. If "building a bridge" with the anti-science crowd was the thinking behind bringing him in, the result can only be disappointment.
Posted by: emote_control
|
August 30, 2010 11:09 AM
@16: Don't forget Canada. When you need a new eyeball in 20 years, you'll probably be getting one that was grown in Canada.
Posted by: Divalent
|
August 30, 2010 11:12 AM
"... taking advantage of the inability of Republican congressman to draft a scientifically complete description of the work they were prohibiting isn't exactly fair."
So it will be interesting to see how Scalia weighs in on this. He is very (VERY) big (at least when the outcome suits his purpose) on using plain language of a statute to determining what it means, thereby putting the burden on legislators to do it right.
None of this having judges after the fact try to divine what they meant from secondary sources and the legislative record. Particularly so when what (is claimed) to be prohibited could have been expressed in a simple declarative statement in the statute. (Such as "this statute applies to human embryos and stem cells.")
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
August 30, 2010 11:43 AM
#20
Pretty much everywhere else is pulling ahead at stem-cell research.
While we seems to be pulling ahead at figuring out new ways of killing people.
As one of my more apathetic friend always said (regarding stem-cell research).
"We can always pull a China on stem-cell research *sarcasm*."
Forget growing eye-ball, we can design a better eye-ball. One with adjustable 5x zoom with adaptive contrast, night-vision and IR scanner.
But first, robotic arms.
Posted by: richardrob
|
August 30, 2010 11:53 AM
I suspect if Collins does make this push, he'll lose most of his religious cred and clout. After all, no True Christian (TM) would support embryonic stem cell research.
gcedwards10 @ 14, I agree with you on the second point. The reasoning for the injunction completely ignores the harm the injunction itself does to those on the other side of the table. It's partisan hackery on the part Lamberth, and nothing more.
Posted by: jaranath
|
August 30, 2010 11:53 AM
I second natural cynic: Why isn't PZ railing against the horrible, evil judicial activism Judge Lambeth clearly demonstrates? He made a decision we don't like! What better proof of activism do you need?
I do agree with #14, though, that the second part of the decision seemed weird. I don't understand the logic of that at all...so WHAT if it might mean there's more competition for funding? Couldn't any company sue a competitor for being...well, a competitor, under that standard? Well, IANAL, and I don't understand the relevant laws there, however goofy that part of the decision may have been...
Posted by: daveau
|
August 30, 2010 12:06 PM
Bostonian@9-
No, dude; George Clinton. Not sure who you are quoting. ;-) I guess if I'm going to paraphrase, I should look up the original quote first.
Anyway, Collins will probably be true to his accommodationist roots. So we are likely to remain behind on stem cell research.
Posted by: vanbeverningk
|
August 30, 2010 12:06 PM
Am I reading this right? Are you arguing FOR having a few accommodationists in place, and have them do useful work by sucking up to the anti-science folks?
Posted by: jeffery.g.davis
|
August 30, 2010 1:37 PM
I love the hypocrisy of far right thought on science. EVERY industry flourishes under self control and self regulation . . . but we should probably much about with science on an almost non stop basis.
Posted by: stompsfrogs
|
August 30, 2010 1:46 PM
Close, jeffery.
Right-wingers want de-regulation for everything that doesn't come out of, or is in any way related to, a vagina. It's not all science, just the vagina related sciences.
Posted by: stompsfrogs
|
August 30, 2010 1:57 PM
I thought of a song (to the tune of "Accentuate the Positive):
You gotta de-regulate the industry,
eliminate bureaucracy,
and latch on to the hypocrisy,
don't mess with bi-partisanship.
Could use some help, but it's a start. Republican anthem ;-)
Posted by: Stushie
|
August 30, 2010 2:09 PM
Do we have to tie stem cell research with embryos? Can't we find alternative and more productive ways of getting stem cells and thus avoid all of this political pandering and legal maneuvering?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 30, 2010 2:14 PM
Where do you think totally undifferentiated stems cells come from? The stork?Posted by: ObSciGuy
|
August 30, 2010 2:18 PM
Not quite - he may be correct to let the case more forward, but I think he's still wrong about imposing the injunction. I elaborate somewhat here, but IMO he fails to meet the criteria he provides justifying an injunction.
Posted by: coffeeandsci
|
August 30, 2010 2:26 PM
A question for the legal issues people.
Is it possible to abort the Dickey-Wicker amendment?
I suppose yes, but from this side of the Pond I don't see what it will take to do so. Could you enlighten me?
Posted by: irenedelse
|
August 30, 2010 2:26 PM
@ #16, #20: Japan, China, Canada and Europe, of course. The laws on stem cell research are a bit more complicated here, because the European Union is really a collection of independant states, and the economy is not brilliant, but I bet we have room for research projects the USA doesn't want...
Posted by: Cat's Staff
|
August 30, 2010 2:49 PM
I think Judge Royce Lambeth should have recused himself....wasn't he an embryo once?
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter
|
August 30, 2010 3:29 PM
#15 PZ
Isn't refusing to use stem cells from abortions like refusing to harvest transplant organs from murder victims? Both die as a result of an "immoral" act (though currently, abortion is legal & not a crime). It strike me as one more instance that the anti-abortion crowd considers abortion more murder than murder.
Posted by: Andy Groves
|
August 30, 2010 3:30 PM
Daveau@25 wrote:
Anyway, Collins will probably be true to his accommodationist roots.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you mean he will try and water down NIH's commitment to human embryonic stem cell research, his public statements on the matter would suggest you are mistaken. For example, here is Collins' press release on the issue, from last Thursday:
I don't expect you to be up to speed on every aspect of NIH policy, but it would be nice if you could at least refrain from assuming the worst of Collins' role as NIH director on the basis of no evidence.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
August 30, 2010 3:39 PM
Yes, everything I've heard makes it sound like Collins is taking this as a personal challenge to bring about a rational stem cell policy. I don't have any doubts about his commitment, and I think his administrative skills may be exactly what is needed here, and like I say up top, even his bizarre evangelical Christian beliefs may be an asset in the political struggle. We may be seeing Collins in his niche.
I'm cynical, not because I doubt Collins' abilities, but because I don't see his right-wing opponents giving an inch on anything right now.
Posted by: Tulse
|
August 30, 2010 4:09 PM
But in this case, it is only because he doesn't hold the specific bizarre evangelical Christian belief at issue that he's even fighting.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
August 30, 2010 5:20 PM
I think Judge Royce Lambeth should have recused himself....wasn't he an embryo once?
IIRC, he actually did try and dismiss this case. He was overruled by another appeals court, and literally forced to hear it.
But in this case, it is only because he doesn't hold the specific bizarre evangelical Christian belief at issue that he's even fighting.
no, you have no evidence to conclude what his motivations are for going on this specific crusade, could be anything from political to personal to "he was ordered to". Having spoken at some length about the politics of NIH with a previous director, I'd say he's working hard on establishing support with the people he knows are important in maintaining his career at NIH. And regardless of the fact that fundies are useful squeaky wheels in many local and national political races, they really aren't at all important in that arena.
he has plenty of other bizarre xian beliefs that just don't conflict with his current action. We need to look behind the scenes at where he is and is NOT encouraging funding and research. I'd bet he is markedly "overlooking" areas involving cognitive research and psychology, for example. You simply won't see this being discussed in the media, since there is little interest in such things.
recall he is a firm believer in dualism, and that man is a specially created case (moral law argument).
Posted by: jaranath
|
August 30, 2010 5:36 PM
I have no idea what Collins' official or unofficial attitude toward cognitive research is, but I wouldn't be surprised if your guess is right, Ichthyic. I've thought for a long time now that there is going to be an epic religious freakout once they realize what's going on in that field...whenever that may be.
Posted by: Andy Groves
|
August 30, 2010 6:22 PM
I'd bet he is markedly "overlooking" areas involving cognitive research and psychology, for example. You simply won't see this being discussed in the media, since there is little interest in such things.
I have no idea what Collins' official or unofficial attitude toward cognitive research is, but I wouldn't be surprised if your guess is right
“Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.” - Peggy Noonan.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
August 30, 2010 7:05 PM
The big problem I have is that the Dickey-Wicker rider is unconstitutional. It is promoting a specific religious agenda (Every Sperm is Sacred). Not only is the government promoting a religious agenda but it is interfering with science against all interests of the community. What happened to our history of "little government"? Why is our government interfering in things which are really none of its business?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
August 30, 2010 7:10 PM
“Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.” - Peggy Noonan.
it's not much of a leap, if you've ever read his book, or checked out his writings on the "biologos" site.
Posted by: lasthussar
|
August 30, 2010 9:05 PM
Caveat - Background in Union rule books and wargaming* not law but...
Clinton would not have been on shaky ground. Did the administration comply with the law as written? If Yes, then the spirit of the law is irrelevent. You must interpret what the written law is, not what the framer intended.
This is the problem with your 1st (church/state part) and 2nd amendments. The framers knew what they meant, but the language is somewhat loose (incidently I would read 'the people' as the collective state, rather than the individual citizens. If taken as the right of individuals to bear arms then it is open to challenge as a number of people are banned from owning guns - mostly criminals. Consider the text
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
This makes impossible for federal prisoners to be denied access to weapons").
*Some wargamers make Rush et al look like true bi-partisans
Posted by: AlisonS
|
August 30, 2010 10:14 PM
Just a quibble with PZ on the use of "pro-life" to describe anti-abortion or anti-choice zealots. It is a major pet peeve of mine. It promotes their framing of the issue and I feel should never be used by the pro-choice community.
#20 We can only hope our current Canadian anti-science (think medical isotopes) government doesn't start messing around with stem cell issues.
Harper and his coterie of religious nut jobs will eviscerate research in this area too, if they ever get a majority.
Posted by: Tulse
|
August 30, 2010 10:31 PM
I have idea what is actually motivating him to protest publicly, but it is certain that it is only because his views are not those of standard evangelical Christians that he is saying anything public at all (presuming he is not a raging hypocrite). My point was simply to change the emphasis that PZ put on things: it is only because Collins is willing to publicly break with his co-religionists that he is of use in this instance. If he were actually a good evangelical, he would be silent. So I still don't see how his religious background is necessarily helpful in building bridges.
Posted by: Andy Groves
|
August 30, 2010 11:21 PM
I have idea what is actually motivating him to protest publicly, but it is certain that it is only because his views are not those of standard evangelical Christians that he is saying anything public at all
You need to be careful about what views you ascribe to "standard" or "good" evangelicals. Reality can be more nuanced. For example, a 2002 Pew poll found that 33% of white evangelicals were in favor of federal funding for stem cell research, 47% were against and 20% either expressed no opinion or said that their view depended on the particular circumstances.
Posted by: Tulse
|
August 30, 2010 11:46 PM
Thanks for the info, Andy -- I do find those results very surprising, and you are absolutely right that my characterization of evangelicals was too broad. I wonder whether a poll today would have similar findings in the current charged political climate, and how those numbers line up with opposition to abortion.
Posted by: Dorkman
|
August 31, 2010 1:12 AM
I still think he's a dingbat, but maybe we need a few dingbats on the interface between science and politics.
ACCOMMODATIONISM!!!1!
Posted by: Midnight Rambler
|
August 31, 2010 2:15 AM
Hypatia's Daughter @36:
Your mistake is in trying to use logic. Abortions are actually probably too late; embryonic stem cells are taken from embryos created in fertility clinics that are simply thrown away because they create more than are needed. So because there is no regulation of the creation or destruction of embryos, but they can't be used for research they're actually required to "waste" them.
Posted by: defides
|
August 31, 2010 2:51 AM
Don't worry, my American cousins industrious!
If you don't do the research, the English will do it for you!
And the Germans. And the Japanese. And the Taiwanese. And the Chinese. And the Koreans. And the Indians. And the Pakistanis...
Posted by: jaranath
|
August 31, 2010 9:55 AM
Andy: Yes, it's speculation in that I have no absolute knowledge of Collins' approach to the issue. But it's informed speculation, given the context of his evangelicalism and dualism. This research will seriously undermine a concept he has a strong emotional, religious attachment to. If he's realized that, it would be unsurprising if he shows less interest in the field.
Posted by: Acronym Jim
|
August 31, 2010 12:36 PM
Wouldn't the Dickey-Wicker* amendment also prevent funding research for more efficient and safe in vitro fertilization? For instance, the kind of research that might actually do away with the need to generate multiple embryos (and attendant destruction of extra embryos) in order to get one that actually implants and develops. If that's the case, it seems like the Dickey-Wicker amendment is also a bit of a sticky wicket.
*Proposition: Dickey-Wicker as a term for inadequately considered legislation or ruling which has ramifications beyond its original intent or serves to limit individual rights. I.e:
"What do you think of the Dredd Scott decision?"
"Oh, I think it's a bit of a Dickey-Wicker."
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
August 31, 2010 6:27 PM
Yes, it's speculation in that I have no absolute knowledge of Collins' approach to the issue. But it's informed speculation, given the context of his evangelicalism and dualism. This research will seriously undermine a concept he has a strong emotional, religious attachment to. If he's realized that, it would be unsurprising if he shows less interest in the field.
Sam Harris wrote about this. From his article on Project Reason’s website::
http://www.project-reason.org/archive/item/the_strange_case_of_francis_collins2/
sorry, I'm not ready to concede Collins isn't still a problem.