Clone the Truth

I have been woefully negligent of the Clone the Truth Campaign lately.  I apologize.  But Chip Bennett is on the case doing my job for me.

HJR11 is a proposed amendment to the Missouri Consitution that would do what last year's Amendment 2 said it does but doesn't: ban human cloning.

HJR11 would ban all somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) better known as cloning, in humans even for research purposes.  Amendment 2 only banned the implantation of a cloned embryo not the creation of a cloned embryo using SCNT.  (To say that cloning only occurs if a cloned embryo is implanted in a uterus is like saying that fertilization in IVF only occurs if the resulting embryo sees the inside of a womb.)

Here is Mr. Bennett's letter:

Dear Mr. Franck,

I am writing you to let you know that I responded on my web site to your
article "No House vote on stem cell bill" that appeared in today's print
edition of the Post-Dispatch, and online at stltoday.com.

I believe your coverage of HJR11 is inaccurate and biased in favor of
Amendment 2.

First, you state:

"A House committee killed legislation Monday designed to largely
invalidate a new constitutional amendment protecting stem cell research.
The 3-4 vote by the House Rules Committee all but ends efforts this
legislative session to overturn Amendment 2, which 51 percent of voters
approved in November."

This statement is patently false. The text of HJR11 in no way mentions
either Amendment 2 nor stem cell research. As I am confident that you
have researched the measure, I do not need to include its wording here.
The measure simply refers to the banning of human cloning - as defined
by genetics and biology.

This statement demonstrates not only a bias in favor of Amendment 2, but
also an understanding of the underlying issue that belies ignorance of
the deceptive tactics used by the proponents of the Amendment 2 ballot
measure.

Second, you state:

"Opponents of Amendment 2 had wanted lawmakers to send a ballot measure
to voters in November 2008. The proposed amendment would have asked the
public to ban all forms of human cloning, including when the research is
used solely to produce embryonic stem cells. Voters specifically
protected that form of research by passing Amendment 2 last year."

This statement is inaccurate. The result of of human cloning is NEVER
"solely...embryonic stem cells". This research - somatic cell nuclear
transfer - ALWAYS results in the production of a living embryo of the
same species as that of the gamete and somatic cell from which the
embryo was produced. Should SCNT of a human egg and somatic cell nucleus
ever succeed, the result will be a human embryo. Any stem cells
resulting from this process will and must come from the destruction of
that embryo. They cannot be produced apart from the embryo using SCNT.

The truth - as evidenced by Amendment 2 proponents' opposition to HJR11
- - is that Amendment 2 did not "strictly ban human cloning" but rather
constitutionally protected it as a means to produce embryos from which
to derive human embryonic stem cells. That Amendment 2 proponents
incessantly claimed that the amendment "strictly bans human cloning"
while all along this protection was the true intent of Amendment 2
demonstrates that Amendment 2 proponents knowingly and intentionally
attempted to deceive Missouri voters - and succeeded, by a slim 51-49 vote.

Your chosen phrasing of this article appears to demonstrate one of two
things: one, that you have blindly accepted the rhetoric of the
proponents of Amendment 2, or two, that you understand the reality of
the issue, and are willfully propagating that rhetoric. The former
implies journalistic negligence; the latter implies a lack of
journalistic impartiality.

I would appreciate either a response to these assertions, or else a
correction of the inaccuracies within this article.

My full response to the article is here:

http://www.chipbennett.net/wordpress/index.php/2007/05/post-dispatch-misleads-on-anti-cloning-measure/

Regards,

Chip Bennett

I apologize to my readers for the sporadic posting of late.  This time of year is very busy with 4 kids and I have had to trade my blogging hat for my Mom's taxi sign.  Be patient with me through the holidays.

I have also not been very active writing letters for the Clone the Truth campaign.  But I found this one right off the bat:

Dear Editor,

 

I am writing to inform you of an error in James Grubel's piece "Australia relaxes stem cell laws after emotive debate" dated December 6th as seen on www.alertnet.org.

 

Grubel's first sentence reads, "Australia will allow embryonic stem cells to be cloned for research after lawmakers on Wednesday defied conservative Prime Minister John Howard in an emotive parliamentary debate."  Actually, scientists clone embryos not embryonic stem cells.  It is from the cloned embryo that the embryonic stem cells would be extracted.  This is an important distinction.

 

Please refer to this excellent tutorial by Prineton's Dept. of Molecular Biology that clearly shows that therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer creates a cloned embryo from which embryonic stem cells are extracted:

 

http://www.molbio.princeton.edu/courses/mb427/2001/projects/09/transfertutorial.htm

 

Your readers need to make important decisions about therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell research.  That requires that they have the proper terminology so they can make informed decisions about these pressing issues.  Therefore, I ask that you print a correction.

 

Sincerely,

Rebecca Taylor

Not your run of the mill Clone the Truth letter, but since the article is about Missouri's Amendment 2, I felt it deserved an entry:

Dear Editor,

I am writing to point out misrepresentations in Mark Esser's "Stem cell: no simple division" as seen on www.columbiamissourian.com, dated Oct. 29, 2006.   Esser writes, "Others contend that stem cells are nascent human beings imbued with the same moral status as all other human beings and, as such, believe that the moral consequences of using stem cells outweigh any potential benefit."

First, there is no one that would assert that a stem cell is a nascent human being. A stem cell is just a cell, a subunit of an organism. An EMBRYO on the other hand is a complete organism made up of cells. The stem cells in the inner stem cell mass of a blastocyst (early embryo) are only pluripotent and could never be considered a complete human organism. By stating that those who oppose embryonic stem cell research think that a stem cell is nascent human life, you are grossly misstating their side of the debate.

Second, it is critical that the media begin to make the distinction between stem cells from embryos and stem cells from other sources like bone marrow and umbilical cords. As you know, the process of extracting embryonic stem cells destroys the embryo. Other sources of stem cells do not have this moral dilemma attached. When the media does not make the distinction, it confuses the public and is deterring donors of adult stem cells. It has been recently reported that the confusion in the public over adult versus embryonic stem cells is actually hurting the bone marrow donor program. Source:

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/couriernews/news/71358,3_1_EL25_A1STEMCELLS_S1.article

It is critical to the public's understanding of the debate that you get the facts and terminology entirely correct. I therefore ask that you print a correction.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Taylor

The Kansas City Star is at it again.  Different byline, same old euphemisms:

Dear Mr. Hoover,

I am writing to inform you of errors in terminology in your piece "Stem-cell supporters begin ballot campaign" as seen on www.Kansascity.com dated August 15, 2006.
 
You write, "The initiative, labeled Amendment 2, would protect all stem-cell research in Missouri that is now allowed under federal law, and it would prohibit any attempts to implant cloned cells into a woman’s uterus in an attempt to give birth to a baby."  Actually the laboratory technique in question is somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) which creates cloned embryos, not just cloned cells.  A cloned embryo is a complete organism and cells are defined as a subunits of an organism.  Implanting just any cells into a woman's uterus would not give rise to a baby.  That can only be accomplished by implanting a complete organism, in this case a cloned embryo. 
 
You also write, "The initiative follows failed legislative attempts for the past several years to ban the cloning of cells.."  Once again, SCNT does not "clone cells" it creates cloned embryos.  It is from the week-old cloned embryo that the embryonic stem cells are extracted.  There is a critical scientific difference between simple cells and an ordered and complete organism like an embryo.
 
Please see this tutorial on SCNT from Princeton's Dept. of Molecular Biology that clearly shows that SCNT creates an embryo, not just "cells":
 
http://www.molbio.princeton.edu/courses/mb427/2001/projects/09/transfertutorial.htm
 
It is critical that your readers understand this initiative so that they can make an informed decision at the ballot box.  That requires the proper scientific terminology.  I therefore ask that you print a correction.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Taylor
 

Kit Wagar is no stranger to the Clone the Truth campaign.  He is a correspondent for the Kansas City Star which, along with the New York Times, will shut down their paper before they admit that somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) creates a cloned embryo. 

Usually, I write to him at the Kansas City Star, and get a polite letter back from their reader's advocate who says he'll speak to Kit about my letter.  This time he is writing for the St. Louis Jewish Light Online, and I couldn't resist writing a Clone the Truth letter to a new set of editors:

Dear Editor,

I am writing to inform you of an inaccurate description in Kit Wagar's piece "Subtle approach made against stem cell work" dated May 12, 2006 as seen on Jewish Light Online.

Wagar writes, "The biggest target of opponents is a process known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, sometimes called therapeutic cloning. In SCNT, the nucleus of an egg cell is removed and replaced with the nucleus of a body cell. The cell eventually will grow into a ball of cells, including the early stem cells that have the potential to become every cell of the body." 

The phrase "ball of cells" is an inaccurate description of the product of SCNT.  SCNT creates a complete organism, specifically a cloned embryo.  Cells are defined as subunits of an organism.  Also, the cells extracted from the product of SCNT are called embryonic stem cells because they come from an embryo, not simply a "ball of cells."

James Thomson, embryonic stem cell pioneer, clearly states that the product of SCNT is an embryo in this interview from MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8303756/page/3/

Thomson responds to a question regarding using SCNT to just create stem cells and not embryos.  He states, "See, you’re trying to define it away, and it doesn’t work. If you create an embryo by nuclear transfer, and you give it to somebody who didn’t know where it came from, there would be no test you could do on that embryo to say where it came from. It is what it is.  It’s true that they have a much lower probability of giving rise to a child. … But by any reasonable definition, at least at some frequency, you’re creating an embryo. If you try to define it away, you’re being disingenuous."

Also, please see this excellent tutorial on SCNT by the Dept. of Molecular Biology at Princeton that clearly shows that SCNT creates a cloned embryo:

http://www.molbio.princeton.edu/courses/mb427/2001/projects/09/transfertutorial.htm

For your readers to make informed decisions on these issues they need the proper information.  That requires the use of scientifically correct terminology, not fuzzy euphemisms.  I therefore ask that you print a correction.

Sincerely,
Rebecca Taylor

It has been slim pickin's for Clone the Truth lately.  It seems every article I read, except ones from the Kansas City Star, concede that somatic cell nuclear transfer creates a cloned embryo at least somewhere in the story.  (If anyone finds one that doesn't, feel free to e-mail me the link and I will fire off a letter.)

Here is one from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Dear Editor,

I am writing to inform you of a critical omission in Jo Mannies's article "Social conservatives welcome Talent’s stem cell stance" dated 5/7/06 as seen on www.stltoday.com.

Mannies writes, "At issue is a procedure called somatic cell nuclear transfer, which involves an unfertilized human egg that has its nucleus replaced with that from another cell. No sperm is involved."  In somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) the nucleus of an egg is replaced with a nucleus from a somatic cell, but Mannies fails to identify that the product of SCNT is a cloned embryo.  This is a critical point and crucial part of the debate over this initiative. 

 

Please see this tutorial on SCNT from Princeton's Dept. of Molecular Biology that clearly shows that the product of SCNT is a cloned embryo:

 

http://www.molbio.princeton.edu/courses/mb427/2001/projects/09/transfertutorial.htm

 

It is critical that the voters in Missouri understand this initiative so that they can make an informed decision.  That requires the correct scientific descriptions of the techniques involved.  I therefore ask that in the future you include the fact that SCNT creates a cloned embryo in your reports.

 

Sincerely,

Rebecca Taylor

Once again from the Kansas City Star so I am surely not expecting a reply, but I had to write them a Clone the Truth letter anyway:

Dear Reader's Representative,

 

I am writing to inform you of errors in terminology in Kit Wagar's piece "Stem-cell ballot issue challenge is rejected" as seen on www.Kansascity.com dated March 29, 2006.

 

Wagar writes, "They argued that the summary was deceptive because the initiative would protect laboratory techniques for cloning cells..."  Actually the laboratory technique in question is somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) which creates cloned embryos, not just cloned cells.  A cloned embryo is a complete organism and a cell is defined as a subunit of an organism.  It is from the week-old cloned embryo that the embryonic stem cells are extracted. 

 

Wagar also writes, "Some voters might define a laboratory technique used to copy cells as human cloning."  Once again, SCNT does not "copy cells" it creates cloned embryos. 

 

Please see this tutorial on SCNT from Princeton's Dept. of Molecular Biology that clearly shows that SCNT creates an embryo, not just "cells":

 

http://www.molbio.princeton.edu/courses/mb427/2001/projects/09/transfertutorial.htm

 

It is critical that your readers understand this initiative so that they can make an informed decision at the ballot box.  That requires the proper scientific terminology.  I therefore ask that you print a correction.

 

Sincerely,

Rebecca Taylor

Jesuit education just isn't what it used to be:

Dear Editor,

 

I am writing to inform you of errors in the article "Senator Brownback Decries Embryonic Stem Cell Research" by Katie Toner 3/17/06 as seen on www.thehoya.com.

 

Ms. Toner writes, "Brownback said that scientific testimony has convinced him that life begins at conception, and that stem cells should therefore be granted many of the same legal rights as adults." 

 

Actually, I am sure Brownback did not say the "stem cells" should be granted the same rights as adults, but that human embryos should be protected.  Embryos are not simply stem cells.  It is from the embryo that embryonic stem cells are extracted destroying the embryo in the process.

 

Also, Toner writes, "He said that people have a responsibility to preserve the diversity and dignity of the population by maintaining the lives of all embryonic stem cells."  Once again it is not embryonic stem cells that Brownback advocates protecting.  Instead, it is the human embryo from which the stem cells are extracted.

 

For your readers to decide on issues like embryonic stem cell research, they need to have the proper information.  That requires the proper terminology.  I therefore request that you print a correction.

 

Sincerely,

Rebecca Taylor

I have been scouring the news looking for articles for Clone the Truth.  It has been a dry spell, as most news sources are getting the description of SCNT mostly right. 

I want to  commend one reporter that always gets it right.  Josh Flory from the Columbia Daily Tribune writes articles that are fair and technically accurate.  Here is an example of his work. 

I have already e-mailed him and thanked him for his attention to detail and unbiased reporting.  If you feel so inclined, click on his e-mail at the bottom of the article and let him know he does a great job.

The same AP story from the Seattle Post Intelligencer from Clone the Truth #12 popped up everywhere this morning including FoxNews, so I send out a bushel of letters and I got this one back from The San Diego Union-Tribune:

Rebecca,

 

I have deleted the apparently inaccurate portion of that sentence. For the Web site that is the best solution because by the time we would be able to contact the reporter and get a change the story would be beyond its cycle (lost its "newsworthiness" because it was old) on the Web.

________________________________________________
News Editor
SignOnSanDiego, Web site of The San Diego Union-Tribune

It is far from a full retraction, but I'll take it.  This is sad though.  Basically, the AP can say whatever it wants, no matter how inaccurate, and because it would be beyond its "cycle" no correction can be expected.

I hate to kick Seattle while they are down , but here is one for Clone the Truth from the Seattle Post Intelligencer.  This description of SCNT is so bad, it was hard to know where to begin.  As this was an AP story, I also sent a letter to AP.  Here it is:

Dear Editor,

 

I am writing to inform you of an error in the article "Stem-cell research divides GOP in Missouri" by Sam Hananel, dated 2/6/06 as seen on www.seattlepi.com.

 

Hananel describes somatic cell nuclear transfer or SCNT incorrectly.  He wrote, "Anti-abortion groups claim the procedure destroys human life because researchers grow cells using the altered nucleus of a human egg." 

This description of SCNT is not even close to accurate.  In SCNT, researchers remove the nucleus of an egg, replace it with the nucleus of a somatic cell, creating a cloned embryo, from which researchers extract the embryonic stem cells.  So it is from a cloned embryo that researchers extract stem cells, not from the "altered nucleus of a human egg."  Please see this animated tutorial on SCNT from Princeton's Dept. of Molecular Biology:

 

http://www.molbio.princeton.edu/courses/mb427/2001/projects/09/transfertutorial.htm

 

 

It is critical that your readers understand SCNT or therapeutic cloning so they can make informed decisions about this procedure at the state and federal level.  That requires the proper terminology.  I therefore ask that you print a correction.

 

Sincerely,

Rebecca Taylor

This blog has a reader, Anuket of Anuket's Crusade with whom I have been having a lively discussion started off by the Clone the Truth campaign.  He (I apologize if Anuket is a female) contends that if Clone the Truth was really about truth, I would be obliged to police half-truths and exaggerations on the pro-life side as well.  I have explained that Clone the Truth is not about policing sides, but about making sure that the media, which is supposed to be neutral, gets the scientific facts correct. 

Anuket sent me the following letter that he has submitted to the Clone the Truth campaign.  I put it here for two reasons: 1. His letter is in response to an opinion column and as far as I can see the opinion column in question has no factual errors, so it is not entirely appropriate for Clone the Truth, and 2. because I feel he makes a great point that deserves its own entry.  Here is his letter:

not sure how to get this into your "clone the truth" list... but here is my contribution. i wrote this letter to the editor of the columbia daily tribune in response to the letter you will find at this link:

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2006/Jan/20060128Comm004.asp

here is my response, which was originally longer, but they wrote and told me they wanted to print it and they have a limit of 250 words, so i had to edit it:


As is often the case when people speak out against embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) on the basis that it results in the destruction of a life, Mr. Bartholomew neglected to mention that the embryos in question come from IVF clinics.

This omission gives the false impression that these embryos were hijacked from a future of baby food and spit-up by supporters of ESCR. In reality, they were donated by the people who produced and bear responsibility for them.

People undergo IVF aware that they will probably produce more embryos than needed. They have three options when carrying out their responsibility to those embryos: donate them to another couple; donate them to research; or have the clinic destroy them. 

Does Mr. Bartholomew think that responsibility for deciding the fates of their embryos should rest with people other than those who produced them?

Moreover, those who oppose ESCR on the basis that it is wrong to destroy an embryo inevitably couch that destruction in the context of research. However, simply destroying an embryo destroys it, too, so if ESCR is forbidden, simple destruction must also be. This would force couples to donate to another couple, which could, in turn, subject them to forced parenthood, which has never been upheld in court.

However, if it is wrong to destroy an embryo, period, IVF itself would have to be banned, because even outside of the decisions couples make, 10-25% of embryos are lost just in the freezing,

Does Mr. Bartholomew support banning IVF?

Anuket, I don't know about Mr. Bartholomew, but I certaining do.  The Catholic Church has always been clear that IVF is unethical in part because of the moral conundrums surrounding what is to be done with all of the "left-over" embryos.  You are correct that support for IVF means a de facto support for research on embryos.  I like the following quote from Fr. Tad Pacholczyk, Ph.D., Director of Education of the National Catholic Bioethics Center:

"Many couples today are no longer troubled or beset by the moral dilemmas inherent in the technique [IVF].  They generally fail to see how they are acting against the meaning and order of their own marriage by allowing a third party, the laboratory technician, to impreganate the wife, albeit artificially, in the place of her husband.... These same couples may also not see the profound unacceptability of producing numerous extra embryos which are routinely consigned to a fate of suspended animation in the deep freeze, not to mention the worse fate which may await them at the hands of eager embryonic stem cell researchers." 

Boy the Kansas City Star has an agenda.  Without fail, everytime I read one of their articles it has errors.  Here is another one for Clone the Truth.  Here is my letter:

Dear Mr. Kraske,

 

I am writing to inform you of errors in terminology in your article "McCaskill backs stem-cell proposal" dated 1/26/06 as seen on KansasCity.com.

 

First, you wrote, "The stem-cell ballot initiative, sponsored by a group called the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, would amend the Missouri Constitution to protect laboratory techniques for cloning human cells to treat disease...The proposal includes criminal penalties for any attempt to implant cloned cells into a woman’s uterus."

Actually, researchers clone EMBRYOS from which embryonic stem cells are extracted to treat disease.  Also, it is not "cloned cells" that would be implanted into a women's uterus, it would be a cloned EMBRYO.

Please see this excellent tutorial on cloning or somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) from Princeton's Department of Molecular Biology that clearly shows that the product of SCNT is a cloned embryo: http://www.molbio.princeton.edu/courses/mb427/2001/projects/09/transfertutorial.htm

In addition, you wrote, "Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Claire McCaskill on Tuesday pledged support for a proposed ballot initiative that would protect research on early human stem cells in Missouri." 

 

The term "early stem cells" is not accurate.  "Early stem cells" is a euphemism.  The correct term is EMBRYONIC stem cells.  Please refer to this glossary of cloning terms from the National Academy of Sciences:

 http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/s0309076374c?OpenDocument

 

 "Early stem cell" is NOT listed as it is not a scientifically correct term.  McCaskill pledges support for EMBRYONIC stem cells defined by the National Academy of Sciences as:

"Embryonic stem (ES) cells - Primitive () cultured cells from the embryo that have the potential to become a wide variety of specialized cell types, (that is, are pluripotent). They are derived from the inner cell mass of the blastocyst."

For you readers in Missouri to thoroughly understand this initiative and make informed decisions they need to understand embryonic stem cell research and somatic cell nuclear transfer.  That requires the proper terminology.  Therefore, I ask that you print a correction.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Taylor

Another one for Clone the Truth.  This is getting so old...but I think this article takes the cake so far.  Again from Missouri and the Kansas City Star.  (You have got to read this one.  The whole "blastocyst" thing is incredible.) 

Anyone from Missouri?  They are getting tired of hearing from me so you have got to write your media and let them know they are incorrect.  Here is my letter:

Dear Ms. Wagar,

 

I am writing to inform you that your article titled, "Stem-cell court battle was just a preview" dates 1/21/06 as seen on Kansascity.com is very misleading.

 

You may not be aware that it is not only opponents of the stem cell research initiative in Missouri that "insist" that somatic cell nuclear transfer SCNT creates an embryo.  Many in the scientific community also insist that SCNT does in fact create an embryo.  Please see the following tutorial from the Dept. of Molecular Biology at Princeton that clearly shows that SCNT creates an embryo.

 

http://www.molbio.princeton.edu/courses/mb427/2001/projects/09/transfertutorial.htm

 

Also, James Thomson, an embryonic stem cell researcher, in the following interview also insists that SCNT creates an embryo.  Thomson states, "If you create an embryo by nuclear transfer, and you give it to somebody who didn’t know where it came from, there would be no test you could do on that embryo to say where it came from. It is what it is.  It’s true that they have a much lower probability of giving rise to a child. … But by any reasonable definition, at least at some frequency, you’re creating an embryo. If you try to define it away, you’re being disingenuous."  Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8303756/page/3/

 

Also you wrote in your article, "What is destroyed to get stem cells is a ball of 150 to 300 cells called a blastocyst. One witness testified that a blastocyst is smaller than the period at the end of this sentence." 

 A blastocyst IS an embryo.  From Websters dictionary: "blastocyst: The mammalian embryo in the post-morula stage in which a fluid-filled cavity, enclosed primarily by trophoblast, contains an inner cell mass which becomes the embryonic disc." Source: http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/english/Bl/Blastocyst.html

 

Your article implies that it is only the Catholic Church that teaches that SCNT creates an embryo, when that is clearly not true. 

 

It is important the the people of Missouri understand SCNT before they vote on this initiative.  They need to understand that it is not just Catholics that "insist" that SCNT creates a cloned embryo.   It is also many in the scientific community.  I therefore ask that you print a correction.

 

Sincerely,

Rebecca Taylor

Yet, another one for Clone the Truth.  Once again from Missouri.  Here is the article and here is my letter:

Dear Editors, 

I am writing to inform you of a error in terminology in Alan Scher Zagier's article titled, "Missouri court hears legal challenge to stem cell ballot measure," dated 1/19/06 as seen on KansasCity.com.

The article describes somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) as a procedure where "the nucleus of a human egg is replaced with the nucleus from a skin or nerve cell. The altered egg then is stimulated to grow in a lab dish, and researchers remove the resulting stem cells."

While it is true that scientists alter the egg, the product of SCNT is a cloned EMBRYO.  It is the embryo that grows in the lab dish and it is from the embryo (not the "altered egg") that "researchers remove the resulting stem cells."  Please see this tutorial on SCNT by Princeton's Dept. of Molecular Biology that clearly shows that SCNT creates an embryo:

http://www.molbio.princeton.edu/courses/mb427/2001/projects/09/transfertutorial.htm

It is important that readers in Missouri understand SCNT so that they can make informed decisions.  That requires the proper terminology.  I therefore ask that you print a correction.

Sincerely,
Rebecca Taylor

Readers from Iowa, Clone the Truth needs your help. Governor Tom Vilsack, wants to repeal Iowa's ban on SCNT or cloning.  He said this in his Condition of the State Address:

"We never dreamt that the treatments resulting from those research opportunities would ever develop so quickly, would ever develop lifesaving treatments, but they have," Vilsack said.

Here is the full article from the Iowa State Daily. 

Where do I begin?  I think I will quote Wesley J. Smith from his blog since he pointed out Vilsack's error:

THERE HAVE BEEN NO NEW TREATMENTS. THERE HAVE NEVER EVEN BEEN EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS TAKEN FROM CLONED EMBRYOS!

The Iowa State Daily is just as guilty because they did not challenge or correct the Governor.

I could write Tom Vilsack and the Iowa State Daily, but since I am not a constituent, my protests will likely fall on deaf ears.  This is why I need your help.  Please write to your Governor and the Iowa State Daily and inform them of the error.  And more importantly ask Vilsack to retract and that particular false statement.

Here is what I would write to Gov. Vilsack:

Dear Gov. Vilsack,

In your Condition of the State Address you made the following statement about somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) better known as cloning, "We never dreamt that the treatments resulting from those research opportunities would ever develop so quickly, would ever develop lifesaving treatments, but they have."

That is a false statement.  There have not only not been any "treatments" resulting from embryonic stem cell lines taken from cloned embryos created by SCNT, but there has never even been any embryonic stem cell lines taken from cloned embryos EVER.

It is critical that the people of Iowa have all the facts on SCNT and embryonic stem cell research, so that they can make informed decisions.  It is imperative that as their governor that you present the issue properly.  Cloning by SCNT is the same procedure that resulted in Dolly the sheep.  By lifting the ban on SCNT in Iowa, you may be opening the door for reproductive cloning or cloning to produce children.  The people of Iowa need to weigh the benefits and the consequences of such an action.  They can not do that if you mislead them with statements about treatments and scientific progress that do not exist. 

I therefore ask that you correct your false statement.

You can e-mail Gov. Vilsack at this address:

http://www.governor.state.ia.us/comments/capitol_correspond/index.html

Here is one for Clone the Truth.  It is from the wonderful continent of Australia.  Here is my letter:

Dear Editor,

I am writing to inform you of errors in your opinion article titled "Scientist's sins cast unfair shadow over cloning" dated 1/15/06 as seen on www.theage.com.au

Twice your article incorrectly identifies the product of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) also known as cloning, the technique that Dr. Hwang claimed to have used to create embryonic stem cells lines.

Your article states, "[Dr. Hwang] claimed to have created perfectly matched batches of cells - clones."  Actually, Dr. Hwang claimed to have cloned embryos, not "batches of cells." 

Also your article states, "His group had successfully generated cloned human blastocysts, the tiny balls of cells that can grow into embryos."  Actually the product of cloning IS an embryo, not a ball of cells that can grow into an embryo.  Please see this tutorial on cloning from Princeton's Dept. of Molecular Biology that clearly shows that somatic cell nuclear transfer creates an embryo:

http://www.molbio.princeton.edu/courses/mb427/2001/projects/09/transfertutorial.htm

It is important that your readers understand these technologies.  That requires the proper terminology.  Therefore I ask that you print a correction.

Sincerely,
Rebecca Taylor

Here is another one for the Clone the Truth campaign.  This one's from embattled Missouri.  Here is my letter:

Dear News Director,

There are several misrepresentations in your story "Cloning Scandal May Affect Mo. Stem-Cell Debate" dated 1/12/06 found on www.thekansascitychannel.com.

First, your story states,"But some people want to ban that work, claiming the research kills human embryos."

It is not just "some people" that claim that this research kills human embryos.  With the most common techniques, researchers cannot extract embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo.  So there is no debate over the fact that embryonic stem cell research destroys the embryo.  The debate is whether killing embryos for their stem cells is ethical.

Also, you refer to these stem cells as "early stem cells."  This is a euphemism.  The scientifically correct term is embryonic stem cells, because they are derived from embryos.

For your readers to properly decide on these issues they need all the information about this research.  Therefore, I ask that you please clarify the facts in your story.

Sincerely,
Rebecca Taylor

In my Clone the Truth campaign, I wrote to the NY Times.  I got an unsatisfactory response.  So I wrote them again as I mentioned in Clone the Truth #5.  Here is the lastest response from the New York Times:

Dear Ms. Taylor: 

         Therapeutic cloning does indeed call for treating a patient with tissues derived from his own cells: the whole purpose of the procedure is to obtain immunologically compatible tissue by cloning the patient's cells.
        The only other ingredient is the egg into which the patient's cell nucleus is transferred.  However, the transferred nucleus soon takes over all the functions of the cell so the resulting embryonic tissues are almost exclusively defined by the patient's genes.
        The embryonic stem cells created in nuclear transfer may indeed be considered a separate organism. But the point is irrelevant; the patient is still being treated with tissues derived from his own cells.

         I really think there is nothing more to be said about this.

 

Best,
Science Desk
New York Times

I have received this reply from the New York Times on my letter from Clone the Truth #4:

Dear Ms. Taylor:

        Thank you for your note about cloning, a word that is used in several different ways. Although its central meaning refers to making identical copies of some biological entity, it has now garnered more extensive meanings, as for instance in the well known phrase "therapeutic cloning."   This procedure refers to treating a patient with tissues derived from his own cells, not to cloning him, but the word is used because the first steps in the procedure are the same as those used to clone an animal. It was in this same sense that we used the phrase "cloning human cells."
 

Best,

--
Science Desk
New York Times

Dear Science Desk,

 

You are correct that cloning does refer to many processes in science.  Although, you are incorrect about therapeutic cloning.

 

Therapeutic cloning does not treat "a patient with tissues derived from his own cells" as you have stated.  Therapeutic cloning creates a cloned embryo which is a separate organism from the patient.  This new organism then provides stem cells to the patient.  Please see this interview with James Thomson, embryonic stem cell pioneer:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8303756/page/3/

 

Thomson clearly states that therapeutic cloning by nuclear transfer creates an embryo that is indistinguishable from any other embryo like those created in IVF.  Thompson states, "If you create an embryo by nuclear transfer, and you give it to somebody who didn’t know where it came from, there would be no test you could do on that embryo to say where it came from. It is what it is."

 

Your article was referring to cloning by nuclear transfer which creates a distinct organism separate from the patient.  Therefore the pateint would not be treated with "his own cells."  Therefore, I will ask again that you please print a correction.

 

Sincerely,

Rebecca Taylor

Progress...

It seems that when you point out a scientific error, the editors are quick to correct it.  I was just informed that because of my comment this article has been corrected.

http://www.scidev.net/content/news/eng/scientists-caught-in-a-crisis-of-objectives.cfm

It used to read, "Hwang is accused of faking results showing that he had cloned embryonic stem cells."

It now reads, "Hwang is accused of faking results showing that he had cultivated embryonic stem cells from cloned human embryos."

Holding the news accountable it starting to get fun!

Here is a New York Times article for Clone the Truth. (From Wesley J. Smith's blog)

Here is my letter to the editors since Mr. Wade didn't provide an e-mail address:

Dear NY Times editors,

I writing to inform you of an error in Nicholas Wade's article titled "Researcher Faked Evidence of Human Cloning, Koreans Report" dated 1/10/06.

 

Several times Mr. Wade states that Dr. Hwang cloned "cells."  Specifically, he wrote, "With Dr. Hwang's professional implosion, the goal of cloning human cells is once again open." 

 

Actually, the goal is to clone EMBRYOS not cells.  Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) the technique Hwang claimed to have used, produces cloned EMBRYOS from which embryonic stem cells are harvested.

 

Please see this tutorial from Princeton's Dept. of Molecular Biology:

 

http://www.molbio.princeton.edu/courses/mb427/2001/projects/09/transfertutorial.htm

 

For your readers form opinions on these important issues, they need to be properly informed.  That requires using the proper terminology.  Therefore, I ask that you print a correction.

 

Thank-you,

 

Rebecca Taylor

Here is another article for Clone the Truth:

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/health/article_1074618.php?url=www.monstersandcritics.com/mycommenter/commenter.php

There is a hugh scientific error in the above article.  The author writes, "the procedure could also be used on humans, using stem cells from a patient's own DNA and transplanting them back into the patient."

Actually, the stem cells don't come from a "patient's own DNA" they come from the patient's CLONE.  The UCSF researchers propose CLONING the patient and creating a cloned embryo that has a corrected gene.  Then they would destroy the cloned embryo to harvest the stem cells.

For a tutorial on how cloning works see this site from Princeton's Dept. of
Molecular Biology:

http://www.molbio.princeton.edu/courses/mb427/2001/projects/09/transfertutorial.htm

The Galveston County Daily News just informed me that they will print my letter to them correcting the use of the term "fertilized egg" instead of "embryo." 

Hey this Clone the Truth thing might actually work!?!?!?!