Speaking of wisdom being vindicated

Charles Krauthammer - Stem Cell Vindication - washingtonpost.com:

"'If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough.' -- James A. Thomson

A decade ago, Thomson was the first to isolate human embryonic stem cells. Last week, he (and Japan's Shinya Yamanaka) announced one of the great scientific breakthroughs since the discovery of the great scientific breakthroughs since the discovery of DNA: an embryo-free way to produce genetically matched stem cells.

Even a scientist who cares not a whit about the morality of embryo destruction will adopt this technique because it is so simple and powerful. The embryonic stem cell debate is over.

Which allows a bit of reflection on the storm that has raged ever since the August 2001 announcement of President Bush's stem cell policy. The verdict is clear: Rarely has a president -- so vilified for a moral stance -- been so thoroughly vindicated.

Why? Precisely because he took a moral stance. Precisely because, to borrow Thomson's phrase, Bush was made "a little bit uncomfortable" by the implications of embryonic experimentation. Precisely because he therefore decided that some moral line had to be drawn.

In doing so, he invited unrelenting demagoguery by an unholy trinity of Democratic politicians, research scientists and patient advocates who insisted that anyone who would put any restriction on the destruction of human embryos could be acting only for reasons of cynical politics rooted in dogmatic religiosity -- a "moral ayatollah," as Sen. Tom Harkin so scornfully put it. "

And there's more . . .

Romney and his stem cells device

I inadvertently came across an op/ed from the Mitt Romney campaign today and it struck a bad note with me. Mitt Romney on Stem Cells on National Review Online. Romney's piece is intended--I would surmise, as a means for Romney to demonstrate his ability to see beyond politics (and the subset of that, "be above the DC/Federal/Partisan game"). It also can serve to signal to the casual reader/voter/thinker--who also happens to be "socially Conservative," that Romney has this issue on his mind. This last use is valuable because Romney asserts that his "conversion" on the abortion issue (a couple years ago) happened in the context of this debate while he was Governor of Massachusetts.

But I have some problems with what Romney writes. First, Romney implies that people on both sides of the stem cell debate are extreme:

Opposing advocates (ed.: that's an interesting phrase--"opposing advocates"; in any event that's folks like me) told me that the pluripotency of stem cells — their ability to become a very wide variety of different cell types — would not be of great therapeutic value, and that other sources of tissues and cells could serve the same purpose. But they ignored the unique role pluripotent cells could play in basic science.

Uh, not exactly; no one on my side of the debate was ignoring anything, it's just that someone whose position on this is based on the principle that innocent human life--regardless of the stage, is sacred does not feel compelled to accept embryonic harvesting (and certainly not taxpayer funding of such) just because there is some advantage to humans at other stages of development; and the argument is even less compelling when such advantage is merely potentially advantageous.

Next, Romney seems to say that it's about time that everyone began to adopt his prescient position on the issue. Writing in light of (and in reference to) medical discoveries only coming to light in the last few months, Romney implies that his position has always been based on an understanding that adult stem cells contained the same pluripotency (so to speak) as embryonic stem cells:

Couldn’t the strongest part of each side’s argument — the utility of pluripotent cells on the one hand and the importance of protecting human life on the other — be brought together? I studied the issue for many months, and entered into conversation with experts from across the nation who were looking for consensus solutions, like Stanford’s Dr. William Hurlbut. In the end, I became persuaded that the stem-cell debate was grounded in a false premise, and that the way through it was around it: by the use of scientific techniques that could produce the equivalent of embryonic stem cells but without cloning, creating, harming, or destroying developing human lives.

A number of such techniques have begun to emerge in recent years, and as last week’s exciting scientific publications showed, some of the world’s best stem-cell scientists are hard at work bringing them to fruition.(emphasis added)

Frankly, the difference between now and then is that some people were willing to destroy human embryos for research and others said, we have to find another way. These new developments merely make the principled position easier to swallow.

Romney correctly points out that these developments change the dynamic of the debate and that Democrats--for apparently political and certainly intolerant reasons, aren't interested in fighting the stem cell battle on these new terms. After all, it is easier to demagogue the issue and characterize Conservatives as anti-science, fanatically-pro-life, and compassionless on the old terrain. But Romney's corollary theses are insulting to me.

I doubt Romney contemplated that this latest communications tactic on the stem cell issue could be a slight to "social Conservatives"; however, Romney's op/ed is only slightly more generous (toward Religious Conservatives) than the Democrats' treatment of the issue. That's unfortunate.

The politics of embryonic stem-cell research

Since it's in the news of late (isn't the Dems First 100 Hours exciting!?), here's a great article (from Slate Magazine) about the issue of embryonic stem-cell research and how the issue excites Democrats in ways other than you would expect.

More for the science-denying Left to ignore . . .

("Adult Stem Cell Research Far Ahead of Embryonic" - NYTimes.com):

For all the emotional debate that began about a decade ago on allowing the use of embryonic stem cells, it's adult stem cells that are in human testing today. An extensive review of stem cell projects and interviews with two dozen experts reveal a wide range of potential treatments.

D'Oh: Harkin and stem-cell research

From an FRC Action newsletter today:

Dear Senator Harkin,
We tuned in to the Senate debate over the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, in which you attempted to argue the futility of adult stem cell research. Using the story of a 12 year-old diabetic girl as an example, you talked passionately about the injustice of children who are forced to "inject [themselves] with insulin 120 times a month." You were quick to say, "Scientists have known about adult stem cells for 40 years and they still haven't brought about a cure for juvenile diabetes." Referring to your young friend, you said, "If adult stem cells could provide a cure for juvenile diabetes, she'd gladly take it."

Well, Senator Harkin, it just so happens that scientists have treated Type 1 diabetes with adult stem cells. While you and your colleagues were busy arguing that embryonic stem cell research is the only avenue for success, scientists were announcing another revolutionary victory using pro-life alternatives. In a breakthrough trial, 93% of young patients using adult stem cell therapy were able to stop taking insulin because their bodies began to produce the hormone naturally again. As the co-author, Dr. Richard Burt, said, "It's the first time in the history of Type 1 diabetes where people have gone with no treatment whatsoever... no medications at all, with normal blood sugars." In 13 cases, the patients didn't need insulin injections up to three years after their treatment ended.

But don't take our word for it. Details of this progress, which you hinted was impossible under President Bush's current policies, are published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Although Dr. Burt is American, he was forced to move the trials to Brazil because doctors and leaders like you weren't interested in his approach.

Plausible deniability (or outright ideological ignorance) is par for the course in the Stem-cell research debate . . . but this is a particularly poignant example. Unfortunately, such blind faith by those who support embryonic harvesting is noteworthy, but they're ignoring obvious potential of uncontroversial stem-cell research and selling a bill of goods to desperate and sick Americans. Not cool.

Senator, is it concern about the slippery slope of acknowledging that these embryos are human and living?

Keeping abreast of the stem cell debate . . .

Bridgett over at My Beautiful Wickedness (via the new Music City Bloggers) links to an interesting report from Britain about using adult stem cells to grow breast tissue. ("The breast industry"). I probably wouldn't have posted about Bridgett's post if she hadn't taken an illegitimate swipe at Religious Conservatives:

"Ok. So. Whee. Big boobs for everyone. Could the same time and money maybe have gone into researching how to prevent those incidences of breast cancer and reducing the need for mastectomies? How much you want to bet that there will be a stem cell waiver from the folks who have utterly opposed it on religious grounds — a sort of “compassionate use” (or as I’ll be referring to it, the Dolly Exemption)."

Bridgett, like many casual observers (or culture war bombthrowers) apparently misunderstands the difference between adult stem cells and those stem cells belonging to embryonic humans.

By the way, (and not that anyone on the other side of the debate cares about this fact) the competition between medical breakthroughs from embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells is embarrassingly lopsided.

Of pro-life epiphanies

This NH article, focusing on neighboring-ex-governor Romney raises a good point about a given candidate's ability to woo voters. Changing one's mind on an issue is certainly understandable, but I think it's fair (not to mention wise) to look beyond a candidate's rhetoric.

Pro-life leaders divided on Romney: "Five New Hampshire pro-life leaders split in their opinion on the sincerity of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's abortion epiphany.

. . . .

Karen Testerman, president of the pro-life Cornerstone Policy Research group, said of Romney, "Everybody has an ability to change their opinions because they get more information. But there is some flawed logic when he says he is against embryonic stem cell research but yet is willing to support abortions for cases of rape and incest. Why is a life at seven days more precious than a life at 14 or 20 weeks?"

Testerman said that McCain "has a good voting record," but she said he does not excite pro-life activists, and overall, "He doesn't seem to be getting the spark, based on the event attendance I've seen."

She named Brownback and Huckabee as "100 percent" pro-life."

Fred Thompson is likely to face these same questions. Intellectual integrity or consistency bolsters a person's credibility in my opinion. Too many candidates try to finesse a controversial issue--too often it works when they're merely hoping to appear resolute and principled and serious.

Harvesting embryos: "Promise" is subjective . . .

Judge Roils Stem-Cell Research - WSJ.com:

WASHINGTON—A U.S. judge blocked the federal government from funding research involving human embryonic stem cells, a surprise blow to one of the most promising yet controversial areas of current scientific research.
. . . .
Stem cells are the building blocks of the body's tissues and organs. Those derived from embryos can develop into any type of tissue and are considered especially promising for research into diseases such as diabetes and heart disease.
. . . .

Many scientists (not to mention ethicists) disagree. And of there's private funding and California's funding. And adult stem cells are well worth the investment. Sorry to deny you this largely symbolic prize . . .

Mittamorphosis

I thought I checked my messages all weekend, but somehow I missed my invite to meet Mitt while he was in Middle Tennessee. Oh well, accidents happen.

In any event, the '08 Presidential nomination campaign has already started so I'm planning to do a great deal of deep thinking* about folks like Mitt Romney in the coming week or so.

Terry Frank is predicting that Mitt isn't the likely GOP nominee, and I tend to agree. Why? Because of this startling Boston Globe story about Romney's morph from trying to bump aging Liberal warhorse Kennedy out of office to trying to right-elbow out moderate Republicans to garner the support of social Conservatives.
The article opens as follows:

In Governor Mitt Romney's metamorphosis from social moderate to self-styled conservative presidential candidate, Nov. 9, 2004, stands out as a seminal date.

On that day, Romney and two aides met in his State House office with renowned Harvard University stem cell researcher Douglas A. Melton. In Romney's retelling, Melton coolly explained how his work relied on cloning human embryos.

" I sat down with a researcher. And he said, 'Look, you don't have to think about this stem cell research as a moral issue, because we kill the embryos after 14 days,' " Romney recalled on " The Charlie Rose Show " last June, characterizing the meeting as a watershed moment for him. "That struck me as he said that."

Melton remembers the session differently.

"Governor Romney has mischaracterized my position; we didn't discuss killing or anything related to it," he said in a statement last week. "I explained my work to him, told him about my deeply held respect for life, and explained that my work focuses on improving the lives of those suffering from debilitating diseases."

This article exemplifies how difficult it would be to get elected, much less govern, as a Conservative in such a Liberal state. I like the willing naivete of the Globe writer is casting the differing views of the consultation/conversation as contradictory. After all, the reporter implies, Dr. Melton said he has a "deeply held respect for life."

But the article also exemplifies Romney's ability to convincingly articulate his testimony about "seeing the light." To be clear, I think those compelling arguments are there for the making, and I'm glad to see this candidate willing to make them. But I have to say that I wonder how contemplative or sincere Romney is if these rudimentary principles dawned on him only after he set his sights on the GOP nomination for president? The same thing goes for his morphing views on abortion and homosexualism.

And Romney is presenting himself, wittingly or not, as someone who is very impressionable: on embryonic stem cell harvesting, he is disturbed by a harvester's dispassionate discussion about ending human life, on abortion he states, "I have learned and grown from the exposure to the thousands of good-hearted people who are working to change the [abortion] culture in our country."

I may end up backing him in a general election, but he's got some convincing to do. I urge you to read the whole article if you consider yourself a social conservative.


More soon on the impact that Romney's religious beliefs could have on his candidacy . . .




*A Deep Thought I just read: "I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it."

Whether gov't should fund embryo destruction

I've opined in the past on the issue of embryonic stem cell research, and particularly federal funding of it.

Supporters of the practice dismiss questions about the free market implications of "needing" federal funding for a practice that is purportedly so promising. My friend Sean Braisted asserts that funding for research represents a market failure . . . I didn't really have an answer for that, though I perceived I was less inclined to believe in market failures than Sean.

Well, today I came across this article ("The Rise of Stem Cell Research") in Reason magazine that bolsters the free-market argument:

"It is a truism among academic researchers and many economists that Federal funding is necessary for basic research and that such funding is perpetually inadequate. However, a 2001 study by Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development researchers found that in fact that higher spending by industry on R&D correlates nicely with higher economic growth rates. In contrast to the academic truisms about the need for Federal funding, the study found that “business‑performed R&D … drives the positive association between total R&D intensity and output growth.”"

Speaking of warring with science . . .

This occurred to me the other day, in an unfortunately sardonic response to news that scientists may have found a way to harvest stem cells without destroying humans: (Investor's Business Daily: "Stemming Politics")

"With the president sure to veto a bill expanding embryonic stem cell research, a new breakthrough should make the whole issue moot. But it won't stop Congress and presidential candidates from playing politics."

Dobson endorsement of Huckabee is huge

Although people like Mitt Romney are now arguing that it is time to unite behind John McCain for the GOP nomination, news today (here) that James Dobson has given his personal endorsement to former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee demonstrates that at least some Religious Conservatives plan to contend for the steering wheel of the GOP. This is interesting because it throws down the gauntlet for the many Evangelical Republicans who have yet to cast a ballot. This is huge.

Though Dobson stated earlier in the week that he did not intend to support a McCain candidacy,* endorsing Huckabee is a whole 'nother level of fuel for the "Not McCain" movement. I don't think that people like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham are likely to rally around Huckabee, but I don't think that matters many people who fit into the "Religious Conservative" category. If nothing else, this can perhaps motivate McCain to pay attention to the largest single voting bloc in the GOP. This is huge.










*In a letter released on the Laura Ingraham show, Dobson wrote:

"I am deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, voted for embryonic stem-cell research to kill nascent human beings, opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, has little regard for freedom of speech, organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters in judicial hearings, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.

"I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has sounded at times more like a member of the other party. McCain actually considered leaving the GOP caucus in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry’s running mate in 2004. McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does NOT make the medicine go down. I cannot, and will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.

"But what a sad and melancholy decision this is for me and many other conservatives. Should Sen. McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can't vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life. These decisions are my personal views and do not represent the organization with which I am affiliated. They do reflect my deeply held convictions about the institution of the family, about moral and spiritual beliefs, and about the welfare of our country." (emphasis added)

This is huge.

"Political" Science on the Hill

I'm hearing a lot of late about how Religious Conservatives elevate a creed over reason or science or basic human goodness. The subject of human harvesting (aka embryonic stem cell research) is a splendid example of Left-wing hypocrisy.

Here's a great article on the subject Political Science on the Hill, and one more reason to question the "scientific" pronouncements of the Left.

Rudy's tough row (and maybe mine)

For a couple of reasons I was not thrilled to see this article (here) about Rudy Giuliani's preliminary steps to seek the GOP nomination . . . first, I had hoped (though not nearly as much as my wife) to give politics somewhat of a rest and second, it brings to light a potentially bloody intra-party struggle over who will be the 2008 GOP standard bearer.

As the article states,

The former mayor is a moderate who supports gun control, same-sex civil unions, embryonic stem-cell research and abortion rights - stands that would put him at odds with the majority of the GOP conservative base.

Couple these Liberal stances with Giuliani's Libertine lifestyle (well, in relation to most Republican voters), and I thought up until very recently that Giuliani's candidacy was a non-starter. But considering that Hillary may be the Democrat nominee, Giuliani--as the Republican nominee, would certainly be the more Conservative choice, and some voting blocs (I'm thinking the folks at BCR and silk-stocking Republicans) won't let his "moderateness" on these issues keep them from supporting him.

Giuliani is off-the-charts gifted as a leader, but I'm just not sure that he can ride the tough-on-foreign-and-domestic-enemies horse through a GOP primary. First, he wouldn't stand out enough; second, he would have to overtly argue "electability" as a "part B" response to his answer on almost every issue.

Lastly, if Rudy became the nominee, I think Democrat politics of personal destruction would take the lustre off of his current public image. An uninspired base plus a plurality of hard-core Dems (in today's polarized electorate) is not a winning combination. And I'm hoping I won't be faced with having to support my second choice after another "spirited" GOP primary.

Bad news for Pro-aborts

This report is bad news for pro-aborts: "Researchers announced today that they reprogrammed skin cells to function like embryonic stem cells without destroying fertilized human eggs, work that may one day help resolve ethical obstacles in the field."

In defense of James Dobson

It is en vogue (even for many Conservatives) to criticize James Dobson--for Conservatives it is usually a "distancing" that occurs. But this article fairly defends Dr. Dobson's recent comparisons of embryonic stem-cell research to the work of Nazi researchers on Jewish prisoners.