Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Time for Some Truth on Stem-Cells   [David Freddoso]

I just clicked through to the blogger claiming that Ramesh had "quoted himself out of context" in his debate with Kevin Drum. The question is whether anyone will continue demanding money for embryo-destroying research if the new breakthrough pans out. Ramesh, gentleman that he is, insists that he is not questioning the integrity of the advocates of embryonic stem-cell research.

My question: What integrity?

Now I have nothing against Drum, BadIdea blog, or any of the journalists or private citizens who have supported this research, or who hold any specific position on it. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not questioning their integrity at all. I hold them harmless.

But those "officially" involved in the embryonic research debate have been lying so consistently for so long that their lack of integrity is hardly questionable: the politicians especially, and the referendum campaigners and yes, even some of the scientists. If we really are at the end of the debate over embryonic research, we should look back and ask why they had to lie so much if their position was supposedly so strong. Given what they have said in the past, who knows what they'll start saying now?

On what other issue — this side of big tobacco — can you find so many scientists who will just flatly lie about science? Here's a nice sample of the rubbish they have been spreading in states all over the country:

University of Nebraska Medical Center professors James Turpen and David Crouse, however, do not consider the product of somatic cell nuclear transfer to be an embryo - because it does not involve fertilization of an egg by a sperm to create a unique new being.

"What they (proponents of a cloning ban) are trying to do is redefine an embryo," said Turpen, a professor of genetics, cell biology and anatomy who teaches embryology at UNMC.

These are scientists? It follows from their claim that Dolly isn't a sheep. Simply disgraceful. Speaking of disgrace, remember Hwang Woo-Suk, the famous embryonic research scientist? His lies about progress in embryonic research gave hope to millions expecting cures, and he was even honored by Time. He was then exposed as a fraud and all of his research was discredited. And then there were the scientists who shamefully lent their good names to Proposition 71 — more on that below.

Front and center among the "advocates" I mean to impugn are the numerous politicians who claim that cloning isn't cloning, embryos aren't embryos, non-existent cures already exist, and cures perhaps 10 or 20 years away will arrive soon. These are not debatable points, such as whether or not an embryo deserves a certain kind of treatment — these are outright lies about science and about reality, intended to mislead people. At the very least they represent a culpable level of ignorance in public officials who should have studied the issue instead of just listening to their contributors. Or maybe just some Democrats looking for a good campaign issue — embryonic research was supposed to be their silver bullet, after all.

Gov. Jon Corzine recently asserted that by borrowing $450 million for embryonic research, he would save New Jersey's economy $73 billion dollars! If that claim does not demonstrate a lack of integrity, what does? (More to the point, how many contractors were hoping to get their piece of that $450 million before voters ruined their plans?)

Then there's California's Proposition 71 of 2004, to borrow $3 billion (with a b) for cloning research and to enshrine a right to do it in the state constitution. The proposition's boosters — many of them scientists — lied about the royalties the state could expect from the anticipated cures. Assuming that they can read, they knowingly lied about what dieases embryonic stem-cells showed promise in curing — for example, Alzheimers and juvenile diabetes. They lied about whether they were doing human cloning. They lied about whether they were banning human cloning.

All these lies plus a $35 million "investment" got them a $3 billion return from the taxpayers of a deeply indebted state whose bond rating had recently been teetering on junk status. Ten percent of the money — $300 million — was earmarked in the proposition for real estate purchases and the hiring of "real estate experts." (By the way, Robert Klein, who headed the campaign, is a developer, as were several of its contributors.)

And although there was no research money directly involved in the subsequent Missouri and Iowa actions, state funding was anticipated, and the pattern of lies was similar. In Missouri, they even misled a judge, asserting that what everyone has always called "cloning" — the same process that produced Dolly — is not, in fact, cloning. They were thus allowed to keep their misleading ballot language.

Again, I am not impugning the integrity of people with a certain opinion on this issue, but rather the official, public advocates of this stuff. So many of them have been so disingenuous for so long that the case against them as a whole is damning. Perhaps history will give them the opprobrium they deserve.

There is, as Drum correctly notes, good reason to think that even these people will change their tune based on the new development — they almost have to. But if some of us have doubts about their integrity or sincerity, I think we're more than entitled to them.

11/21 06:43 PMShare