Science and Ethics

The previous entry discusses the use of animal eggs instead of human eggs to clone human embryos for research.  The resulting embryos would be 99.9% human and .1% animal and would eventually be destroyed. 

How did we even get to the point where this even seems like a reasonable thing to do?  Well, it is a simple fact of reality that one unethical act often leads to another.  Here is the progression:

IVF creates excess embryos in a lab, which people then want to use for embryonic stem cells, but there are not enough so we need to make more.  So we think about cloning embryos to match a particular patient, but that takes human eggs.  There are not enough human eggs available, so lets use animal eggs or eggs from aborted baby girls instead.

At each step human life becomes more and more a commodity to be bought, sold and exploited.  And it isn't going to stop, unless we see the error at the top of the slope: making human beings in a dish is against the dignity of every human person and it takes human procreation and turns it into human manufacture.

From the incomparable Fr. Tad in his essay Recapturing the Soul of Bioethics:

Modern bioethics seems to be going through a kind of identity crisis. With ethicists available for hire, drug companies and biotech firms have easy access to "experts" who can provide them with the veneer of respectability if they decide to head in the direction of unethical science. Erwin Chargaff, a pioneer in the field of biochemistry, once quipped that, "Bioethics didn't become an issue until ethics started being breached. Bioethics is an excuse to allow everything that is unethical." One common approach to allowing the unethical is to claim that, "We have already made certain choices, and now we really must move on to the next step - we must yield to the inexorable progress of science." Rather than examining and rejecting certain poor choices that may have been made in prior years, and trying to regain lost ground, bioethicists today unwittingly continue to grease the slippery slopes by their lack of courage in disavowing some of the unethical practices they have aided and abetted in the past.

You would think that a pro-ACLU crowd would boo any suggestion of limiting intellectual debate and academic freedom.  Not so when it comes to Intelligent Design.  From The Discovery Institute:

On Wednesday, February 28, Bryan Fischer debated Kitzmiller plaintiffs' attorney of the ACLU, Witold “Vic” Walczak, over teaching intelligent design in schools. The debate was sponsored mostly by the ACLU. Mr. Fischer reports that the pro-ACLU crowd cheered supportively when Fischer read a statement by Darwinist biologist P.Z. Myers advocating academic intolerance towards proponents of ID. Fischer reported:

Perhaps the most telling moment came when I read this quote from evolutionary biologist Paul Myers of the University of Minnesota, telling us what he thinks should be done with intelligent design advocates:

The only appropriate response should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy, far-right politicians…I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It’s time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.

The pro-ACLU crowd actually clapped in approval in response. I suggested that evolutionists are now the new McCarthyites, conducting a new inquisition, with the intimidating question this time being, “Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the intelligent design community?”

(Bryan Fischer, “ID debate: scientific arguments go unanswered,” March 1, 2007)

Of course Fischer read aloud P.Z. Myers’ quote with the intention of shocking the "pro-ACLU crowd" because Fischer assumed that they would value academic freedom, tolerance, and civil discourse. Apparently Fischer’s assumption was wrong.

If you are a regular reader of this blog you will know that I often lament about the lack of ethical considerations in scientific circles.  It seems that as science becomes the new religion, researchers chafe more and more against any ethical restrictions.  The problem is that science is inherently amoral.  It has no internal compass with which to guide itself ethically. 

As a result Nancy Jones, an American Association for the Advancement of Science/National Institutes of Health (NIH) Science Policy Fellow and a faculty member at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and Gerald Koocher of Simmons College in Boston, Massachusetts, argue for a "Hippocratic Oath for Scientists":

Koocher's project focuses on honesty in research and attribution. Jones's extends to considering not only how people ought to do science but also how they ought to behave as citizens of the scientific community. In the article "A Code of Ethics for Life Scientists" published in the journal Science and Engineering Ethics, Jones proposes a "prototype" code that states both the "principles of the practice of science" and the "virtues of the scientist." The code distills "the implicit code of ethics within science," Jones told Science Careers in a telephone interview. She undertook to compare "the Hippocratic oath as a code with the codes of ethics of [scientific] professional organizations."

"I was a member of the American Society for Cell Biology, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Heart Association--and none of them had codes of ethics" for researchers, she says. When she submitted her article to "some of the mainline journals," they told her " 'that's a specialty issue. That should be in some specialty journal.' " But most scientists, she says, "won't get around to reading" those journals.

That's why a serious, open, and general discussion of ethics is badly needed, Jones believes. Koocher and his colleagues also want a large number of scientists to give explicit thought to ethical problems....

For Jones, however, the need for codified ethics goes beyond human subjects to the practice of research and the obligations of scientists in a variety of roles. In "a big cultural change" over recent decades, Jones says, "we have industrialized science," which has damaged the "community of science"--one of the six traditional cardinal principles identified in her proposed code. The remaining principles are objectivity, questioning certitude, research freedom, research reproducibility, and respect for research subjects. Scientists traditionally have aspired to an established set of virtues, she believes, including the duty "to serve and guard humanity, including its individual members"; accountability; excellence; respect; and altruism--which her article defines as a dedication to serving "the best interests of humanity and not self-interest, commercial interests, or the promotion of the interests of science."

The failure of senior scientists to observe the precepts of community, respect, and altruism, she believes, has deprived some young scientists of the opportunity to learn the rules and practices of ethical research and has undermined the situation of many early-career scientists in today's opportunity-starved research scene. A crucial aspect of the principle of community, for example, is the "responsibility for training and accrediting future scientists in the practice of science. Students of science should be trained in both the knowledge and the philosophy of scientific practice."

Hat Tip: Bioethics.com

To expand on my previous post about MIT professor James Sherley who was denied tenure, here is a quote from Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie that I think sums up the atmosphere in elite scientific circles:

"The behavior of the professorial elite at MIT seems to mimic those in the past who thought the world was flat and the Earth was the center of the universe.  The fact that researchers at Harvard University and Wake Forest University are proving Professor Sherley's assertions about the desirability of adult stem cells only makes his case stronger. There seems to be an obvious bias against adult stem cell research in general and of researchers of faith specifically. MIT is unquestionably guilty of the suppression of academic inquiry, but perhaps also of religious bigotry and institutional prejudice against a person of color with a moral conscience."

James Shirley is a professor of biological engineering at MIT.  He is also a very vocal opponent of embryo-destructive research and human cloning.  It is no surprise that he was denied tenure.  What is surprising is that according to Fox News, he is on a hunger strike stating that he was denied tenure because he is black.

I have to agree with Wesley J. Smith.  I doubt this is a race issue.  Shirley is a victim of the politicization of science.  He was denied tenure because of his high profile objections to cloning and destroying human embryos for parts.  There is a price to be paid for "braking ranks" in elite scientific circles.  If you don't insist that researchers need to break open embryos to get at the harvestable biological material inside, you had better watch out.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist the headline after reading this from The Catholic League about Dr. James Watson, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA:

NOBEL PRIZE WINNER IS MORE THAN ANTI-SEMITIC

In the January edition of Esquire, there is a comment by James D. Watson justifying anti-Semitism. Watson, who won the Nobel Prize for his co-discovery of DNA, offers as one of his musings a rhetorical question: “Should you be allowed to make an anti-Semitic remark?” To which he says, “Yes, because some anti-Semitism is justified.”

Catholic League president Bill Donohue responded as follows:

“The ADL’s response to Watson’s remark is, ‘Those are very strange comments coming from an individual like that.’ What is ‘very strange’ is not Watson’s comment, but the ADL’s puzzlement. Watson is a eugenicist who, like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, is a racist. Unlike Sanger, who was opposed to abortion, Watson is not only pro-abortion, he is on record recommending that handicapped infants be killed immediately after birth."

“In 2000, Watson told an audience at the University of California at Berkeley that African Americans are genetically prone to laziness, obesity and have more active sex drives than whites. This is the same man who thinks that we should change the legal definition of ‘person’ to infants older than three days: this way parents would be able to decide if their child should live or die."

 “Anyone remotely informed about the ‘population control’ fanatics knows that they have always pushed for a public-policy filter that would ‘weed out’ the ‘undesirables.’ To be specific, those who are below par in cognitive abilities or physical attributes, as well as those who belong to certain racial, religious or ethnic groups, should not enjoy equal rights; at the very least, their numbers should be restricted. Sound familiar?"

Arthur C. Brooks has written a new, and no doubt controversial book, titled Who Really Cares: the Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservativism.  Brooks shows that conservatives are more charitable than liberals.

Now, I try to stay out of the "liberal vs. conservative" game in this blog, because when it comes to cutting-edge biotechnology, all bets are off.  There are plenty of liberals who are against therapeutic cloning and plenty of conservatives who are for it.

So what does this book have to do with biotechnology?  I found this premise intriguing because of my recent challenge to those who want government funding of embryo-destructive research, many of whom are liberal.  Here is some of it again:

Now, I would like to turn the tables.  There is no federal ban on research on embryos.  It is legal to conduct therapeutic cloning in most states.  Companies and universities are free to create and destroy embryos all day long.

If you want to support embryo-destructive research, then reach for your checkbook and write a check.  You are free to do so.  I am sure lots of universities and private companies working with embryonic stem cells would be prefer to receive your donation than have to apply to the federal government for funds.  Your donation may even be tax deductible. 

I have been told that I need to respect the opinion that human embryos are just a mere clump of cells and full of promise for cures.  Well, respect is a two way street.  If you want embryonic stem cell research, then you pay for it.  Don't make me, and millions of people like me who find research on human embryos morally reprehensible, support it with our tax dollars.

According to Brooks, it looks like many liberals won't take up the challenge because they think funding the "greater good" is up to the government.  From BeliefNet:

The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.

But, you may argue that embryonic stem cell research doesn't really count as charity.  Yet Brooks found this phenomenon to extend beyond just giving to charity:

Still, [Brooks] says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.

Interesting, because the government is inefficient with funds.  I think conservative and liberal alike can agree that government is notoriously wasteful.  I am sure most researchers would prefer a private donation to a government hand-out.  Easier with a lot less paperwork.

And the problem with leaving it up to the government, is that the government isn't some far off entity with unlimited funds.  The government's money is my money.  They got it from me and you.  I would prefer to spend it wisely on causes that need it.  So, conservatives and liberals, if you support adult stem cell research, then generously give to it, your time or your money or both.  You will no doubt get more bang for your buck that way.

Hat Tip: Mike

England's Nuffield Council on Bioethics has called to deny intensive care support to infants born before 22 weeks, citing that it is extremely rare that these infants survive.

What is the Catholic view?  From Catholic Online:

Yet, while praising the rejection of active taking of all fetal and newborn life, the prelates questioned the ethics associated with predetermined procedures of denying medical treatment.

“We believe that every case should be judged on its merits,” Archbishop Smith and Bishop Butler said, agreeing with the British Medical Association.

“We would have concerns about any blanket recommendation regarding the treatment of babies born before 22 weeks,” they said on behalf of Catholic and Anglican bishops. “Decisions regarding treatment should always be made on an individual basis having regard to all the circumstances of the case.”

They quoted the joint Catholic-Anglican bishops’ 2004 testimony to the Select Committee of the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill in stressing that doctors do not have an obligation to prolong life by extraordinary means and that “treatment for a dying patient should be 'proportionate' to the therapeutic effect to be expected.” “Treatment may therefore be withheld or withdrawn, though such decisions should be guided by the principle that a pattern of care should never be adopted with the intention, purpose or aim of terminating the life or bringing about the death of a patient,” the statement said.

While I applaud the guidelines for rejecting any active euthanasia for infants, no matter how sick or disabled, the problem with the Nuffield guidlines that it would not allow premature babies to be evaluated on an individual basis.  By making a blanket policy, doctors maybe abandoning babies that will survive.  Just ask Victoria Lucas and Ammara Mohammed.

I have added Biopolitical Times to my Blogs of Interest.  It is the blog of the Center of Genetics and Society which is a progressive outfit.  While I am sure I will not agree with much of what the Biopolitical Times has to say, it is a well written and well-reasoned blog.  I look forward to reading more.  Check it out.

Hat Tip: Wesley J. Smith

From Zenit.org:

Science Can't Explain It All, Says Benedict XVI
Calls for an Openness to Philosophy and Theology

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 6, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI praised the extraordinary possibilities opened to humanity by science, but he cautioned that technology cannot explain everything.

The Pope expressed this today to members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, who are gathered in Rome for their plenary assembly. The theme of the assembly is "Predictability in Science: Accuracy and Limitations."

In his English-language discourse, the Holy Father said, "This increasing 'advance' of science, and especially its capacity to master nature through technology, has at times been linked to a corresponding 'retreat' of philosophy, of religion, and even of the Christian faith.

"Indeed, some have seen in the progress of modern science and technology one of the main causes of secularization and materialism: Why invoke God's control over these phenomena when science has shown itself capable of doing the same thing?"

"If we think, for example," he said, "of how modern science, by predicting natural phenomena, has contributed to the protection of the environment, the progress of developing nations, the fight against epidemics, and an increase in life expectancy, it becomes clear that there is no conflict between God's providence and human enterprise."

"Science, however, while giving generously, gives only what it is meant to give," Benedict XVI cautioned. "Man cannot place in science and technology so radical and unconditional a trust as to believe that scientific and technological progress can explain everything and completely fulfill all his existential and spiritual needs.

"Science cannot replace philosophy and revelation by giving an exhaustive answer to man's most radical questions: questions about the meaning of living and dying, about ultimate values, and about the nature of progress itself."

PZ Myers is a well known science blogger.  He is also an atheist with little patience for religious ideas.  In fact, he believes that "religion as a toxin that corrupts good minds."  So while I do not agree with much that PZ Myers has to say, I did like this quote from his interview at the Genetics and Health blog:

We’re already seeing unmistakable signs that opponents of change are trying to throttle back the pace of the research. I can sympathize — we do have to evaluate the impact of scientific advances on the social fabric, and bioethics is an important part of that assessment — but I also think that scientists have an obligation to provide a balancing tension to the more conservative elements of our society. It is our job to push forward, without regard for the artificial constraints of culture. It’s the bioethicist’s job to urge restraint and consideration for those wider issues.

I found something over at Wesley J. Smith's blog that has put words to something that I have felt for many years rumbling in the scientific community: "scientific despair".  Smith quotes an article by Eric Cohen where Cohen writes:

“Whenever I meet with scientists, I’m always struck by the optimism and despair.

Perhaps one reason the debate about embryonic stem cells has become so prominent is that it combines scientific optimism and scientific despair so completely: the optimistic search for cures, the discontent that nature yields remedies for her afflictions so slowly, the resentment at Bush-administration moralists for standing in the way of scientific progress for nonscientific reasons. The greatest animus among scientists is directed at religious believers, often defined as anyone who seeks limits on scientific freedom for ethical reasons the scientists themselves do not find compelling. The deans of major research centers feel like persecuted Galileos, yet they defend their turf in the most unscientific ways: treating the paralyzed as props in the campaign for research funding, promising cures based only on preliminary experiments, caricaturing every opponent as an irrational fanatic.

For it turns out that the methods of science cannot vindicate the ends of science, and the knowledge acquired by scientific methods cannot always justify the particular experiments used to acquire it. Yet scientists desperately want such vindication in the eyes their fellow citizens.”

This analysis is spot on.  It got me thinking and I realized something more.  The "scientific despair" comes from knowing that science cannot answer every question in the universe.  It can answer the "Why?, When?, How? and Can we?" questions.  But never the "Should we?" questions.  In my experience, many scientists are like impetuous adolescents.  They want total autonomy, but deep down they know that they need ethical guidance from outside of science.  They resent this and try to deny it.

I will never forget one conversation I had with a young man who was on his way to medical school.  We were both in our undergraduate science courses together and I had just gotten back from a year at Oxford studying English literature, philosophy and theology.  He told me those studies were a waste of time.  He found his philosophy courses to be a unnecessary distraction from his science curriculum.  He said, "Philosophy is a waste of time because no one can agree on anything.  Only science is 100%."

By ignoring his logic and critical thinking courses, this future doctor didn't even realize that science is NEVER 100%.  I found his attitude in many of my classmates, even at a Jesuit university.  I realized at that point that this country was graduating a class of researchers that sees little value in any subject outside of science. 

Here is the root of the despair.  Scientists cannot find answers to the ethical dilemmas in their data.  They know that they cannot guide themselves ethically, but at the same time many think that those who can, are experts in knowledge that is of no interest to them, and therefore no value.

I just finished The Island of Dr. Moreau by H.G. Wells.  It is a wonderful book that I highly recommend.  Dr. Moreau conducts some seriously unethical research on his island.  I found this passage to be very pertinent to this discussion.  I think it encapsulates some of the point I am trying to convey.  Moreau explains his research:

"You see, I went on with this research just the way it led me.  That is the only way I ever heard of research going.  I asked a question, devised some method of getting an answer, and got--a fresh qeustion.  Was this possible, or that possible?  You cannot imagine what this means to an investigator, what an intellectual passion grows upon him.  You cannot imagine the strange colourless delight of these intellectual desires...."

"To this day I have never troubled about the ethics of the matter.  The study of Nature makes a man at least as remorseless as Nature.  I have gone on, not heeding anything but the question I was pursuing..."

"So for twenty years altogether--counting nine years in England--I have been going on, and there is something in everything I do that defeats me, and makes me dissatisfied, challenages me to further effort.  Sometimes I rise above my level, sometimes I fall below it, but always I fall short of the things that I dream."

The Nuremberg Code that came out of the atrocities of experimentation in Nazi Germany clearly states, first and foremost, that it is unethical to experiment on any "human subject" without their consent.  Notice the language.  It doesn't say, "conscious human", or "self-aware human", or "human with central nervous system" or even "born human."  Just "human subject".  The human embryo, whether created by IVF or by cloning, is a complete human organism, and therefore a human subject.  It cannot give consent to be experimented on.  To do so would be to disregard the Nuremberg Code.  I have said many times: we allow experimentation on human embryos at our own peril.

You may ask why I would even care that an embryo is experimented on without consent?  It is not like an embryo knows it is being experimented on.  Setting my faith aside, I do so because, drawing a line in the sand now, will prevent the future experimentation on other human subjects that cannot speak for themselves.

And who would that be you ask?  Wesley J. Smith has the answer.  From the San Francisco Chronicle:

In the new novel "Hunters of Dune," biotechnologists of the future create "ghoulas" -- clones made from the dead -- in breeding contraptions known as "axlotl tanks." About 100 pages into the novel, the reader is shocked to learn that axlotl tanks are really unconscious women whose bodies have been expropriated to serve the greater good as so many gestating vats.

Happily, "Hunters of Dune" is science fiction. In the real world, we have a higher sense of morality and ethics. We would never use catastrophically disabled human beings so crassly. We understand that treating people as mere things violates the intrinsic dignity of the individual and the equal moral worth of all human life.

Well, most of us do.

Unfortunately, many bioethicists would feel right at home in a world in which unconscious people are converted into mere biological machines. Indeed, some of our most prominent bioethical and philosophical thinkers have published articles in the world's most respected medical and bioethical journals proposing that unconscious patients (those diagnosed as in a persistent vegetative state) be used both as vital organ donors and the subjects of human medical experimentation.  [my emphasis]

It is a coincidence that the idea of experimenting on the unconscious without their consent is gaining momentum at the same time there is a huge push for experimentation on human embryos?  I think not.  Read the whole article.  The details are very illuminating.

Wesley J. Smith has written a wonderful and important piece on something that has been driving me crazy for a long time now: science advocacy groups.  Specifically, he picks apart a new group, the Scientists and Engineers for America (SEA).  From the Weekly Standard:

WHEN CRITICS BEMOAN the politicization of science, they usually point a bitter finger at the Bush administration. Their condemnation should actually be aimed in the opposite direction. Increasingly, it is the scientists themselves--or better stated the leaders of the science sector--who are devolving science from the apolitical pursuit of knowledge into a distinctly ideological enterprise.

The creation of a new 527 advocacy PAC called Scientists and Engineers for America (SEA) is the latest example of this phenomenon. SEA claims to be entering the political fray because the nation's leaders "systematically ignore scientific evidence and analysis, put ideological interests ahead of scientific truths, suppress valid scientific evidence and harass and threaten scientists for speaking honestly about their research." But most of the problems SEA identifies on its website as supposedly threatening science are actually disputes about ethics, philosophy, or social theory--areas of human concern that are not within the scientific realm.

I find this very scary, very scary indeed.  Not because a bunch of scientists have created a political advocacy group, but because they pretend that their take on the "right or wrongness" of research is backed by science, which of course is hogwash:

The brouhaha over President Bush's federal funding limitations on embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) is a prime example of a dispute that SEA pretends is scientific, but which really centers on values and ethics. "Decisions concerning the future of biological research," the SEA Website asserts, "must always rely on the best available evidence and on transparent decision making processes. Researchers have a strong history of conducting thoughtful ethical reviews of their work and must continue to do so while resisting ideologically driven interference." In other words, the stem cell research community has determined what is ethical in the field and opinions to the contrary are presumptuous and should be disregarded as mere "ideologically driven interference."

But "the scientists" who SEA claims should have the primary say over these matters are just as ideological as those with whom they disagree.

SEA says it is okay to create and destroy embryos for harvestable biological material and anyone who disagrees with them is guilty of "ideologically driven interference."  But they refuse to see that they are also driven by ideology not science.  Show me an serious embryology text that says that science has proven beyond a doubt that is it ethical to create and destroy embryos for research.  There is none and there never will be.  They are entitled to their opinions but they should not pretend that they and those that are like-minded are the only ones capable of making "decisions concerning the future of biological research."  And finally, Smith writes:

A careful perusal of SEA's website reveals the organization's primary mission; vacuuming billions from public coffers into the science sector. In this sense, SEA is merely accelerating the ongoing metamorphosis of science into just another special interest willing to use all the political tools of the trade in order to gain increased access to the public trough.

In essense, when you think Scientists and Engineers for America, think gun lobby, tobacco lobby, and big oil lobby cause now there is a new player in Washington: the science lobby.

These days scientists are gods.  If they say embryonic stem cell research or cloning is ethical and should get our tax dollars, well they should know and who are we to say otherwise.

Yes, it is true that ESC researchers know more about ESCs than you and me.  It is true that researchers that are trying to perfect SCNT in humans know more about the ins and outs of cloning than you or me.

But do not think that because they know more about the science behind embryonic stem cells and cloning, that they are more qualified to make decisions about the ethics of embryonic stem cells and cloning than you or me.   Why?  Because science is inherently amoral.  Ethics, the "right or wrongness" of the research lies strictly outside the realm of science, outside their area of expertise.  Their ethics on ESCs and cloning is just that: "their ethics."  Never forget this.

Wesley J. Smith says it best:

Most of the debates we have over "science," aren't really scientific. They lie instead in the realms of values, ethics, philosophy, and religion. Take the embryonic stem cell debate, as just one example. This is primarily an ethical debate, whether federal taxpayers should pay for the destruction of and research upon embryos. That isn't a controversy science can answer scientifically. Science's contribution should be to describe honestly and candidly what is involved, what they hope to achieve, and the problems they face. Scientists are of course free to assert that destroying an embryo for research isn't unethical, and to lobby for funding, but those activities do not lie in the realm of science, and thus, should be given precisely as much and as little weight as anyone else's opinions about ethics and morality.

For those of you who read Mary Meets Dolly or any other conservative or religious blog and you do not agree with what we have to say, I have some friendly advice.  The ad hominem attack is getting really old. 

I distinctly remember learning about the ad hominem fallacy in Logic class.  But since many colleges and universities have replaced the Logic requirement with Statistics, I guess people have forgotten and I have been seeing ad hominem everywhere, and I mean EVERYWHERE!  In case you don't want to look up ad hominem, here is it from Dictionary.com:

ad hominem:

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason. 
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.  [my emphasis]

So here is the tip: (Listen carefully) Resorting to ad hominem is a DEAD GIVEAWAY THAT YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT. 

So next time you are tempted to reduce your argument for embryonic stem cell research, or cloning, or eugenic abortion to "You bible-thumping, know-nothing, a**holes are stupid!"  don't, cause the only person that will be looking stupid is you!

Mayor Bloomberg addressed the 2006 graduates of Johns Hopkins Medical School and said some seriously outrageous things.  Overall, the speech is so typically condescending to those of us who hold that human life is sacred and who are open to the possiblity that there is more to the universe than can be explained by Darwin's Origin of the Species.  Here are some snippets:

Each one of you has had two important principles deeply embedded in you through your association with this amazing institution: An unwavering allegiance to the power of science and a profound commitment to use that power to help people.  And this is a good thing, because now more than ever, these two fundamental concepts are being ignored, or are under attack.

Under attack?  Is anyone else getting tired of the hyperbole?  What science is under attack?  Last I checked it is still legal to clone embryos and destroy them for their parts in the U.S.  It is also legal to create animal-human hybrid embryos.  And I am not holding my breath that any of these unethical practices are going to become illegal.  Doesn't the good Mayor really mean that he is upset that we aren't all on board to write a check to these graduating doctors and scientists so they can perform whatever experiments they can cook up under the guise of the advancement of man-kind?  There is more:

Today, we are seeing hundreds of years of scientific discovery being challenged by people who simply disregard facts that don't happen to agree with their agendas.  Some call it "pseudo-science," others call it "faith-based science," but when you notice where this negligence tends to take place, you might as well call it "political science."

You can see "political science" at work with respect to stem cell research.  Despite its potential, the federal government has restricted funding for creating new cell lines - putting the burden of any future research squarely on the shoulders of the private sector.  Government's most basic responsibility, however, is the health and welfare of its people, so it has a duty to encourage appropriate scientific investigations that could possibly save the lives of millions.

So it is the anti-cloning, anti-embryo destructive research crowd that is engaging in "political science".  Is he serious?  I suppose calling the human embryo a "non-human ball of cells" and redefining cloning as the implantation of a cloned embryo, not the actual act of cloning through SCNT, doesn't count as "political science" in Bloomberg's book.  And he keeps going:

And it boggles the mind that nearly two centuries after Darwin, and 80 years after John Scopes was put on trial, this country is still debating the validity of evolution.  In Kansas, Mississippi, and elsewhere, school districts are now proposing to teach "intelligent design" - which is really just creationism by another name - in science classes alongside evolution.  Think about it!  This not only devalues science, it cheapens theology.  As well as condemning these students to an inferior education, it ultimately hurts their professional opportunities.

I am not a huge fan of Intelligent Design as science, but in no way do I think that subscribing to the ID school of thought is going to hurt anyone's "professional opportunites".  I have yet to meet any scientific colleague that doesn't believe in some kind of high power.  Believing that God created the universe hasn't affected my career even a little bit!  And honestly, is presenting the idea that the universe was somehow designed by an intelligent being in schools really something that is threatening the fabric of our society?  I can think of other things that Bloomberg advocates that are far more destructive than ID!  And finally, this takes the cake:

Hopkins' motto is Veritas vos liberabit - "the truth shall set you free" - not that "you shall be free to set the truth!"  I've always wondered which science those legislators who create their own truths pick when their families need life-saving medical treatment.

Reality check.  Isn't it the pro-cloning, pro-destructive embryo research bandwagon that is guilty of thinking they are "free to set the truth"?  They can redefine scientific terminology and substitute euphemisms when describing cloning and ESC research to confuse the public all day long.  I mean, take this quote from Dr. Michael West, an outspoken proponent of SCNT and ESC research:

A cloned embryo of less than 14 days or perhaps one that hasn't developed a brain is not human, but merely cellular life that can be owned and patented.

Not human? Owned and patented?  And this guy went to medical school and has a Ph.D.   Forgive me Bloomberg if I think it is the graduates that you are addressing that are the ones that think they are "free to set the truth"!  HT: blog.bioethics.net

I have known about the pressures of competition in the science arena since college, and I am glad that the light of day is illuminating the problems that this pressure is causing in the scientific community.  I am reading more and more reports about the misdeeds that are going on in labs around the country, due in large part to the intense competition.  From www.Physorg.com:

A new study suggests that the competitive nature of research fosters an environment where scientific misbehavior takes place far more often than the misconduct that makes headline news. And because scientific misbehavior involves more mundane decisions and actions, it may be easier for researchers to look the other way.

The study, just published in the premier edition of the Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, used focus groups and a Web-based survey to find out from researchers what kinds of behaviors they find most troubling, and how often they occur.

"We were a bit surprised when we first heard researchers reporting what they described as rather routine misbehaviors, but as our study went on we kept hearing the same stories, confirming that these kind of things are an everyday part of research," says co-author Raymond De Vries, Ph.D., associate professor of medical education and a member of the Bioethics Program at the University of Michigan.

I have written on this study before.  I decided to blog about this article on the same study because it points out things the article from Forbes.com did not, specifically the funding aspect:

"This paper, along with some others, shows that unbridled competition is not good, and we need to think of the conditions of science and to be more public in how we deal with these issues," concludes De Vries. "I also believe scientists across the country are dealing with these issues individually because they don't have any place to go with this information. We need to think about the way we fund science, the way we create new scientists, and work to create an environment that also promotes organizational justice." [my emphasis]

If this doesn't speak to the funding of cloning and stem cell research, I don't know what does.  I liken the whole embryo destructive and cloning research to the progressive decline of the quality of entertainment in the media.  Hollywood keeps pushing the limits of what is morally acceptable material for movies, T.V. etc. because of the intense competition in the entertainment industry.  The same goes for scientists hungry for recognition.  Whoever clones the first human embryo and then destroys it for its stem cells, has it made.  Work on adult stem cells just isn't as sexy.  The difference between Hollywood and science is that we can choose to fund Hollywood by deciding what movies we see or T.V. shows we watch.  Unfortunately, state by state, eventually Americans won't be able to choose whether their tax dollars will go to cloning and embryo-destructive research.

After bumping around in the biotech field for over a decade, I don't find this surprising at all.  But you might.  From Forbes.com:

If you think the average scientist ain't misbehavin', think again.

A new study has found that scientific misbehavior appears to be endemic and is occurring far more often than just the more egregious, media-hyped examples, such as faking research.

Not all scientific misconduct is these gross violations like falsifications, plagiarism and fabrication," said study lead author Raymond De Vries...

"Many scientists are worrying more about little things that go along with working in the lab," De Vries said, "like how do you interpret your data, how do you stick with the increasing number of rules in science, how do you deal with the increasingly intense competition for rewards that are staying more or less the same as we're producing more and more scientists?"

So what is going on in labs all over the country?  Here is a sample (with commentary):

One young scientist up for her master's degree was advised by an external examiner to "chop off the last two data points."

Happens all the time!

Another participant told of a famous scientist who wrote unflattering letters of recommendation for students he liked (so they would never leave his lab) and accolades for students he hated (so someone else would hire them).

You never want to be too irreplaceable lest your current employer stab you in the back as you are trying to walk out the door.  I have feared this tactic myself!

Other problems mentioned included manipulation of the peer review system, exploitation of junior colleagues, unreported conflicts of interest, stealing of ideas and withholding of data.

Stealing ideas is a big one.  We can be a very protective bunch to the point where we withhold pertinent information just in case it gets into the wrong hands.  And we are always on the look out for credit in any publication.

Here is the upshot. Guess what?  Scientists are people too.  If you wouldn't trust a business mogul with billions of tax dollars with little oversight, then chances are you shouldn't trust scientists either!

Great news from the National Catholic Bioethics Center:

Father Tad Pacholczyk, Director of Education at the NCBC, is the author of a column called Making Sense out of Bioethics that appears in various diocesan newspapers across the country.   After earning a Ph.D. in Neuroscience from Yale University, Fr. Tad did post-doctoral research at Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School. He subsequently studied in Rome where he did advanced studies in theology and in bioethics.

We are now making these articles available here at our website. Please share the link to this page with others that you know would benefit from Fr. Tad's concise explanations of the Church's position on these crucial issues.

Read Fr. Tad's essays here.  Off to read the series...

I know many bloggers are all over this, but I couldn't resist adding my two cents. 

The "over-population" argument never really held water for me.  Obviously, there is the Catholic teaching that reducing the human population through abortion and contraception is unethical. 

From a strictly (cold) biological stand point, I think all of the proposed efforts to fix "over-population" are futile.  If indeed we are over-populating our ecosystem, nature has a way of correcting these things all on her own.  The Black Plague which wiped out one-third of Europe's population in the middle ages is a good example. 

I have always feared that the Ebola virus that kills 9 out of 10 people (combined with easy world travel) would be the next plague that would leave the human population devastated, I just never thought that anyone would advocate using Ebola as a way to "solve over-population".  From World Net Daily:

What would happen if a world-renowned scientist and evolutionary ecologist told hundreds of his colleagues that 90 percent of the human race needed to be wiped out by exposure to Ebola or some other deadly virus?

Apparently, according to a scientist who claims to have witnessed such a remarkable event one month ago, the fiend would get a standing ovation and an award...

The speech Mims heard was delivered by Eric R. Pianka, a lizard expert from the University of Texas. It is recounted in detail in the latest issue of the Citizen Scientist.

"He then showed solutions for reducing the world's population in the form of a slide depicting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse," writes Mims. "War and famine would not do, he explained. Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved. Pianka then displayed a slide showing rows of human skulls, one of which had red lights flashing from its eye sockets. AIDS is not an efficient killer, he explained, because it is too slow. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world's population is airborne Ebola (Ebola reston), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. However, Professor Pianka did not mention that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs."

The U.S. has a problem.  Unlike other countries like Canada, and France and Germany, our politicians are so afraid of the science in the biotech industry and (uneducated) public opinion that they are unable to make any decisions.  The U.S. Congress has been debating cloning and embryonic stem cell research since 2002!

Kansas is no different.  From an AP story, Rep. Mary Pilcher Cook, R-Shawnee, proposed a bill to ban certain animal-human hybrids.  She brought this to Kansas legislators because:

Concerns about such hybrids, or "chimeras," are part of a larger debate over human cloning and medical research with embryonic stem cells. Pilcher Cook offered her ban as a substitute for a bill creating a new legislative committee on biosciences.

Some House members questioned whether any such research is being conducted in Kansas, but Pilcher Cook said her review of medical literature suggests it's happening elsewhere.

Here is what she proposed:

Pilcher Cook's proposal covered adding non-human cells to human embryos; fertilizing human eggs with animal sperm and vice versa; adding a human nucleus to a non-human cell or vice versa; and implanting a human embryo in an animal's womb or an animal embryo in a human womb...A first offense would be punished by up to five years and one month in prison and a fine of $1 million.

Sounds very reasonable to me.  I am guessing the majority of Americans would agree that the above mentioned research is unethical.  But Kansas legislators voted was 63-52 against the proposal in less than a half an hour.  Why?  Because the Kansas elect said they didn't know enough about the science and were afraid of hampering a growing biotech industry:

Critics said the issue needs more study so that legislators don't unintentionally hinder the state's efforts to nurture cutting-edge biosciences research and industry.

"This is not the way to go about a very controversial issue," said Rep. Carl Krehbiel, R-Moundridge, who proposed the procedural move that ended debate.

Two things: 1.  It is legislators job to know what is going on so they can vote on such proposed legislation and 2. Once again, is this research about cures or about competing biotech interests?  (Notice that lawmakers were concerned about hindering "industry" not "cures.")

Warning! Here comes a rant with questionable language.  I wish lawmakers at both the state and federal level would wake up, get some balls, stop sniffing the wind, get themselves some good books on stem cells and cloning and get educated so that they can do their jobs and make some decisions already!  They need to stop using the "the science is complicated" excuse for shirking what we pay them to do: make laws!

Rep. Cook said it best:

...Pilcher Cook said medical research is moving too quickly for legislators to delay, even if the debate conjures images of mythical creatures such as satyrs, centaurs and mermaids.

"It goes to the core of what it means to be human," she said. "There's a real danger in people not taking the issue seriously."

Amen!  Read the whole article here.

Reading this article on the SCNT debate in Missouri, this section popped out at me:

Steven Teitelbaum, a professor who supports the initiative petition that would protect stem-cell research in Missouri, said he believes that cells in a Petri dish are not persons. But science, he said, cannot answer the question.

“It depends on your religious tradition, your ethics, the feeling in your gut…” Teitelbaum said. “When does a soul come into the body, if at all? Clearly, no one knows that.”

Teitelbaum is correct that there is no way to scientifically prove when the soul enters the body.  And different religions hold differing beliefs.  We Catholics believe that we must respect the life of the embryo because a soul may be present from the moment of conception, the point at which a new human being begins.  (Surprisingly, many Catholics erroneously believe that an embryo created by SCNT could not have a soul.)

But, if he is correct that no one knows for sure, why would he automatically say it is okay to destroy life that we are unsure about?  Wouldn't logic dictate that if "science cannot answer that question" that science should err on the side of caution?

With all the of buzz over Cheney's hunting accident, I am reminded of my philosophy professor's favorite analogy:

You are hunting in the woods with buddies.  You hear a rustle behind you.  It could be a deer.  It could be one of your buddies.  It could be a person.  You just do not know.  Do you shoot? 

Why would scientists like Teitelbaum assume that "shooting" in the face of uncertainty is the correct action?

Sometimes you find something so succinct and so profound that you just have to blog about it.  Here is a quote from Dr. Beverly Nuckols from this entry in her Life Ethics blog:

It may seem that each day brings a new crisis for those of us who view human life as something to be valued and protected....   Cloning, harvesting of embryos for their stem cells, abortion, euthanasia and so-called "physician-assisted suicide" are all basically the same thing: the division of humans into those who will be protected by society and those who will not. Once we agree that our fundamental principle is that human life is to be protected from deliberate killing by others and that humans should not be used for the benefit of others without consent and benefit to the one being used, we can see that all the crises are actually only one crisis.