Now on ScienceBlogs: Live Organ Transplants

Seed Media Group

Reality is always more complicated than you think.

Profile

jake-head-shot.jpgJake Young is a MD/PhD student at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in NYC getting a PhD in Behavioral Neuroscience. He holds a BS and MS in Biological Sciences from Stanford University. If a volcano were to erupt Pompei-style in Central Park, his body would be preserved in a scoliotic posture over his lab desk. Archeaologists would later conclude that he spent most of his day training rats to perform tricks, until he went blind building electrical equipment by hand using a dissecting microscope. But, still, he died happy...because science is cool.

Pure Pedantry is a blog about science -- social sciences and otherwise -- as well as academic and scientific culture. No one can live on science alone, so I also like to dwell on pop culture, periodically explore the humanities, and indulge in other types of geeky goodness.

DISCLAIMERS: 1) Jake Young is not a licensed physician (yet). He is merely a medical student. The information published on this site is not intended for use in medical decision-making. Please seek advice from a licensed, medical professional before making any health decisions. 2) The opinions expressed are my own. They do not represent the views of SEED magazine or the educational establishments I currently attend or attended in the past.

Search

Archives

Blogroll


The Daily Read Science News Science Blogs Medicine Blogs Econ Blogs Papers to Read Comics Links to Pure Pedantry via

« On the parallels between science and the free market | Main | The Miracle of Copulating Late »

Scientists want to replace "cloning" with more confusing terms, raise approval

Category: CloningScience politics
Posted on: October 24, 2006 10:53 AM, by NotoriousLTP

New Scientist is reporting on a movement among some scientists to replace the word "cloning" with "somatic cell nuclear transfer":

Don't say cloning, say somatic cell nuclear transfer. That at least is the view of biologists who want the term to be used instead of "therapeutic cloning" to describe the technique that produces cloned embryos from which stem cells can then be isolated. This, they argue, will help to distinguish it from attempts to clone a human being.

But will it? Kathy Hudson and her colleagues at the Genetics and Public Policy Center in Washington DC asked more than 2000 Americans whether they approved of deriving stem cells from embryos produced by cloning. For half of the sample they used the term "SCNT" instead of "cloning", and this raised approval ratings from 29 per cent to 46 per cent, Hudson told a meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics in New Orleans last week.

SCNT would also be used in any attempt to clone a human being, so Hudson also asked about creating babies using SCNT. This too raised the approval rate from 10 per cent to 24 per cent - which is not what scientists had in mind.

Does anyone think changing the term we use will make public more comfortable with cloning?

I would argue that rather than actually making the public more comfortable with the procedure, the change in terms produces only an illusory consensus -- because a large portion of the public won't understand what the new term means. As soon as they do, they will go right back to either approving or disapproving as before.

This is exactly the same debate as the choice of whether to use the term "partial birth abortion" or "intact dilation and extraction." It doesn't matter if you call it "the happy fun time procedure." The debate of terms does not change the morally ambiguous nature of the procedure; it merely muddies the waters and prevents the public from understanding what is actually happening.

This poll can say what it likes, but replacing a one term with another doesn't change the ethical calculus. Instead of cloaking our actions in jargon, we should be strenuously arguing for the moral rightness of our actions. Instead of trying to reframe the debate with symbolism, we should be edifying the public with facts. If you want robust support of therapeutic cloning, don't use bullshit. Give the public the truth.

Share this: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

Comments

1

I couldn't agree more. How many times have you gotten an e-mail absolutely shredding the current US administration for its use of "doublespeak"--collateral damage, etc.? I can think of few actions more counterproductive to the honest and progressive engagement of the public with science than this attempt to cloak something obviously controversial with yet more "doublespeak". Scientists shouldn't be politicians. Don't act like them.

Posted by: Kara | October 24, 2006 12:54 PM

2

Hear hear.

Posted by: quitter | October 24, 2006 1:20 PM

3

This is exactly my beef with Lakoff and his followers. Good marketing is important to politics, but all those words actually refer to something, like it or not, and that something will be evaluated the same way no matter what we call it. Rose, name, smells, etc. If Romeo were not called Montague, his family would still be at war with the Capulets.

Posted by: Joshua | October 24, 2006 4:23 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM