Turns out he had a big article on this subject in the neoconservative New Atlantis fairly recently. As we've done before--very successfully--I'm going to pull out three numbered quotes and invite you to respond:
1. "It is true that Alzheimer's is not a promising candidate for stem cell therapies," says Dr. Stephen Minger of King's College London, "but it was not scientists who suggested it was--that was all politics in the U.S. driven by Nancy Reagan." But in the United States, Mrs. Reagan was backed by myriad scientific and patient advocacy groups who want public funding of ESC research, including the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and the Alzheimer's Association. These groups must have known about the scientific consensus against an ESC therapy for Alzheimer's, but they chose to ignore it. Dr. Ronald McKay, a stem cell scientist at the NIH, explained the discrepancy between political message and scientific fact in this way: "To start with, people need a fairy tale."2. The broader political lesson from the Korean scandal, and from scandalous behavior here in the United States, is that political leaders, patient advocacy groups, and all of us must stop hearing only what we want to hear about "miracle cures." We need to be aware of the human costs of this agenda here and now, not only its alleged "promise" down the road. Whatever one's views on the morality of research cloning and embryo destruction, we cannot have a serious debate if scientists and politicians continue to make grandiose claims unjustified by the evidence.
3. And what seems to happen over and over again is that the drive for results--for Nobel Prizes and miracle cures--tends to swallow up all countervailing values and erode all limits, as it did in South Korea. Even NBAC conceded in 1999 that "the derivation of stem cells from embryos remaining following infertility treatments is justifiable only if no less morally problematic alternatives are available for advancing the research." But NBAC and its allies ignored the evidence available even then that such "alternatives" might exist; and as stem cells from adult tissues and umbilical cord blood have saved thousands of lives and begun to treat dozens of conditions, they have only become more hardened against giving due attention to this progress.
Have at it.....By the way, here's a quote from Doerflinger that I totally agree with: "For science is nothing without an absolute commitment to the facts."
- Log in to post comments
Regarding point 2, Doerflinger is nearly correct. Grandiose claims do not help us understand the merits of a particular scientific approach, nor do they help set reasonable public expectations for the good or the bad that may come from it. In every other respect, the argument is a red herring. Scandalous behavior in modern science has more to do with protecting large grants, the loss of which dismembers labs, idles talented people, and erodes the prestige that often comes with the leadership of big programs. We shouldn't be surprised that scientists turn out to be humans too, with all of their shortcomings. We should take heart, however, that so far science polices itself pretty well. When truth is the goal, distorting the truth and then hiding the fact that you did so is very hard. While the public must always be prepared to pass judgement on the wisdom of what is possible, it too has a responsibility to the truth. Gradiose claims, be they from politicians, scientists, or uninformed detractors like Doerflinger, don't help.
Off the top of my head, no promises:
Before starting, let's get one thing straight: the only moral issue here has only forced-birth extremists on one side. The moral case against stem cells is exactly and only the case against destruction of days-old embryos, too young to have nerves, a heartbeat, feel pain, or anything remotely humanlike absent DNA; it is thus also the moral case against in vitro fertilization, since this kills so many equally-moral clusters of cells, and in fact it's exactly this process that provides most of the otherwise-dead embryos used for stem-cell research. The moral issue here is almost as small as a moral issue can possibly be: what would you do to a creature, already fated to die soon and guaranteed not to care whatever you do, to save countless human lives? Unless you believe that an undifferentiated cluster of 30 cells has a soul (in which case, get implanting those snowflake babies and protesting fertility treatments!), the entire question is less morally problematic than "would you step on an ant to save a person's life?"
I suppose the turnaround question here is simply "do you oppose in vitro fertilization?" Any answer short of a heartfelt "yes" would indicate hypocracy.
1) Indeed, stem cells don't offer an easy cure for Alzheimer's -- certainly not the kind of tailor-made-organ solutions you might find for juvenile diabetes. On the other hand, they offer an amazing avenue for basic research into any disease that might have a genetic component, and could be particularly helpful for diseases that manifest only late in life, so they do hold great promise for curing Alzheimer's, just not as a therapy.
2&3) Yes, there have been overly-grandiose claims of miracle cures from stem-cell supporters, but real understandings of the costs here trivialize this issue -- again, an ant for a life? -- and overestimation of the tiny tiny real moral downside here vastly dwarfs minor exaggeration of the moral upside of many lives saved. And I'd also refer you to this point while considering (3), since with the facts about adult stem cells' relative lack of utility, we're back to the moral question again.
Outside of these, let me just observe that "theraputic cloning," while a fine medical term, lacks something in the framing department. Call it "organ replication" or "organ xeroxing" or something -- half the unjustified squick on this issue comes from images of people being created, instead of just a heart or a liver.
Hey Chris,
One of my ostensible co-bloggers is working on a review of Ramesh Ponnuru's Party of Death. I helped him look at the chapter opposing Stem Cell Research.
Doerflinger is using the same quote that [Rick Weiss used in the NYTimes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29561-2004Jun9.html ] And no, it was not a wise choice of words by Dr. McKay. But at least Weiss included the next line:
"Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand."
Doerflinger is being very judicious in his use of words so as not to tell a blatant lie. Instead he is just misrepresenting the truth. Doerflinger uses the phrase "stem cell therapies" so that he can say that treating Alzheimer's with stem cells is unlikely. But the potential uses of ES cells are greater than just the injection of cells for regenerative medicine treatments. And some of these benefits are more tangible and immediate than potential regenerative medicine applications. Here is a great article that highlights this fact:
["The world's first pure nerve stem cells made from human embryonic stem cells has been created by scientists at the Universities of Edinburgh and Milan." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4155016.stm ]
"We may be able to create the disease in a dish. If we do that, we'll be able to better understand the disease and also to test drugs."
Our correspondent said the long-term aim of the Edinburgh research is for cells to be used to build replacement neural tissue for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's sufferers.
But he said the more immediate use for the artificially-created cells is to test out the effectiveness of new drugs.
Professor Austin Smith, who led the research at the University of Edinburgh, told the BBC: "We're already talking with the bio-technology and bio-pharmaceutical companies about taking these cells into screening systems for new drugs. Hopefully that will come to pass within two to three years.
"In terms of the possibility of using the cells for transplantation, that's a much more difficult and longer term thing and I think there we're talking more of the five to ten year range."
His comments in 2 and 3 remind me of this WaPo op-ed in which some of his colleagues from the PCOBE (George and Cohen publish in New Atlantis/First Things, journals that have published papers from the Discovery Institute as well) try to paint all ES cell researchers with Hwang Woo Suk's brush. (I got pissed and debunked all of these arguments here)
Basically they are trying to say that the field of ES research is making its proponents and the scientists who study it inherently dishonest because they're forcing themselves to live up to outrageous expectations. I think this is BS. Gene therapy was also over-hyped before failing to meet expectations, but it didn't lead scientists pursuing gene therapy to lie en masse by any stretch of the imagination. While the probability that things might be done in a rushed fashion, as occured with gene therapy trials, is a major danger, signs are the real problem is trials with adult stem cells being rushed as described by this recent JCI commentary. Further he whips out the old lie that adult stem cells are equivalent or better. No, they simply are not, it's total and complete BS, there is no evidence to support this, and the papers they cite are being misread or overinterpreted.
As a writer for New Atlantis and First Things though I think he's automatically discredited. Have you read some of the crap that's in these horrific religious bioethics journals? Articles from IDers? Bioethics as justified by scripture as the only source for moral guidance? Bleh. Check out the frightening BS Robert P. George has written for first things.
Back on topic, Doerflinger is making the argument that when we expect too much from scientists they'll lie in order to deliver on their promises. Bull-fucking-shit. We are not all Hwang Woo Suk's because we study ES cells, nor does hype mean we check our ethics at the door. Our dear "Secretariat of the pro-life office of the Catholic bishops conference" is trying to ascribe the acts of a single pathological liar to all scientists in an important and accelerating field. It is illogical, ad hominem, and completely unsupported by any evidence, it is also insulting and infuriating as an ES cell researcher to see such a stupid argument impugning our research ethics in such a fashion.
Anyway, he's just taking the same arguments from George and Cohen and recycling them, as conservatives seem to do once they've hit on a talking point. I'm pretty sure my response to the WaPo article systematically smooshed those stupid, dishonest and insulting arguments.
Oh man, number three is their old standby, "ASCs have a proven track record of success.... Embryonic Stem Cells have never cured a single patient".
I'll be writing a blog post about this some day, but what the hell, you have a chance to make this point before a larger audience than I will.
If that point about ASCs comes up, be sure to point out that ASCs were first used in an attempted transplant back in the 1900's. Bone marrow transplant by eating bone marrow, or course it didn't work but it was still a good experiment given the technology and state of knowledge at the time. ASCs were isolated in the 50's or 60's, not sure no time to look up, and the first successful bone marrow transplants occured according to this time line http://www.medhunters.com/articles/transplantTimelineBMT.html
ES cells were first isolated in 1998. We've already overcome most of the problems, such as HLA typing, with ASC transplantation so the time line for development of ESC therapies will be shorter.
If we had never begun using ASCs we would not have the therapies that today save thousands of lives every year. If we never begin using ESCs we will be denying ourselves treatments that could save thousands more lives.
Let's look at just one statement:
"Whatever one's views on the morality of research cloning and embryo destruction, we cannot have a serious debate if scientists and politicians continue to make grandiose claims unjustified by the evidence."
The above statement is nonsense. Politicians make grandiose claims and shade the truth. That's pretty much written into the job description. It's necessary to use the art of persuasion to get elected in a fragmented society. Likewise, scientists have to be political to get funding. Grantsmanship is not science, it's politics involving science.
Moreover, evidence is a result of research. Most good research problems don't have the answers staring at you before the research is started. The statement that claims by scientists are not suported by evidence reflects either his ignorance or dishonesty about the nature of research.
As we all know from the internet, intelligent discussion can take place in the noisiest environments. If he is unable to have a serious debate, it's his personal problem, not a broader issue. Frankly, I think he is playing a rhetorical game to rally the "true believers". I DON'T THINK IT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE A SCIENTIFIC DEBATE WITH A TRUE BELIEVER.
"We cannot have a serious debate if scientists and politicians continue to make grandiose claims unjustified by the evidence"
Who is this "we" he is talking about?
Certainly not "scientists".
Science is perfectly capable of dealing with scientifically unjustified claims with no help from religious leaders or anyone else (thank you very much). Such claims are inevitably dumped in the trash bin.
What science is not equipped to deal with, however, are unjustified religious claims like the following: "human embryonic stem cells are persons amd therefore inviolable."
I agree with _g's last point. All of Doerflinger's arguments are an obfuscation of his real assertion that a fertilized egg is a human being deserving of the rights and protections afforded to fully formed and conscious men and women. This is a religious position not a scientific one.
You don't "win" this kind of debate. All you can hope to do is show that this religious assertion is not scientific and show that the majority of people in our society do not hold this faith-based opinion of an embryo.
Once this point is clearly demonstrated it is easy to make a compelling case for the benefits of research utilizing this otherwise wasted resource.