When conservatives won’t take ‘yes’ for an answer

August 24, 2006

I foolishly believed this kind of breakthrough would change the debate over [tag]stem-cell[/tag] [tag]research[/tag]. Alas, no such luck.

Biologists have developed a technique for establishing colonies of human embryonic stem cells from an early human embryo without destroying it. This method, if confirmed in other laboratories, would seem to remove the principal objection to the research.

It could also redirect and intensify the emotional political debate over current limits on federal financing for research on human embryonic stem cells, which give rise to the cells and tissues of the body and which scientists and patient advocate groups see as a potential source for treatments for diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and diabetes.

As far as I’m concerned, there’s absolutely nothing morally or ethically dubious about conducting research on excess [tag]embryos[/tag] that are going to be discarded anyway, but this technique nevertheless appears to address the “problem” for conservative critics. As Mark Kleiman explained, “It’s possible to extract a single cell from a zygote without [tag]killing[/tag] the zygote; IVF clinics already do that to test for genetic abnormalities, and the resulting children don’t seem to be any worse off than those who develop from untouched zygotes. Now it turns out that a stem cell line can be developed from such an extracted cell.”

Great news, right? All of the benefits of the medical research without the “homicidal” concerns. “There is no rational reason left to oppose this research,” Dr. Robert Lanza, vice president of Advanced Cell Technology and leader of the research team, told the NYT.

Unfortunately, as we’ve seen before in this policy debate, conservatives aren’t terribly concerned about “rational reasons.”

…Emily Lawrimore, a [tag]White House[/tag] spokeswoman, suggested that the new procedure would not satisfy the objections of Mr. [tag]Bush[/tag], who vetoed legislation in July that would have expanded federally financed embryonic stem cell research. Though Ms. Lawrimore called it encouraging that scientists were moving away from destroying embryos, she said: “Any use of human embryos for research purposes raises serious ethical questions. This technique does not resolve those concerns.”

Look, this isn’t going to work as a policy argument. I remember during the frequently-surreal Senate debate over the president’s policy, the principal argument offered by opponents of the research is that the embryos would be “killed.” They didn’t mind if the embryos were thrown away in fertility clinics, but funding research on the embryos is morally untenable, they said.

Now the administration believes any use of embryos in medical research is wrong — even research that doesn’t “kill” anything.

This argument seems to take the notion of embryos-as-people to the logical limit. Practically speaking, the Bush administration seems to believe the research could move forward if embryos consented directly. Maybe scientists should start working on little, itty-bitty consent forms.

Or maybe not. Trying to appease unreasonable, irrational concerns that stand in the way of life-saving medical techniques is a waste of time. As the LA Times noted today, scientists should probably stop trying.

Laboratory advances that make stem cell research politically popular are welcome. But as Advanced Cell Technology has demonstrated, scientists have already gone to great lengths to answer political objections to their work. It’s more important to focus stem cell research on saving lives, not on appeasing a minority of religious [tag]conservatives[/tag].

Some people just can’t take “yes” for an answer.

Good message, CB. This is exactly why religion should be separate from government and even a small bit of religion can “reek” havoc on governance. It’s already difficult to come to consensus without introducing the irrational into it.

  • CB, you said “[t]rying to appease unreasonable, irrational concerns that stand in the way of life-saving medical techniques is a waste of time.”

    I suppose these conservatives are the same ones who oppose giving blood transfusions to wounded soldiers and accident victims.

  • Over the years, religious conservatives have reacted to medical advances with knee-jerk objections to organ transplants (including the first heart transplants), the first uses of anaesthetics during surgery and also during childbirth, vaccinations (from the original vaccintation against smallpox to modern objections to HPV vaccination), each and every contraceptive ever invented, and even umbrellas (because they consititute a rejection of god’s gift of rain, despite the fact that they help prevent colds). Perhaps it is about time that everyone who isn’t a fundaloon to adopt the practice of reflexively rejecting conservative religious concerns unless they can bring something truly relevant to the discussion.

  • Here’s a suggestion; why don’t you pitch it to conservatives as a clever way to make more Republicans? Tell them you can put that fat prick Cheney in a tobacco press, and squeeze enough stem cells out of him to build 10 strong young men with their conservative values already DNA-stamped into their essential makeup. The vast majority of Americans, ESPECIALLY conservatives, couldn’t recognize a lie if it came out in a blinding-white T-shirt with “LIE” written on the front, and headed down the aisle to accept the Screen Actors Guild award for best portrayal of a lie. Among those who can, there is apparently no penalty for lying.

    Judging from the previous post, this thread was headed in a serious and pensive direction, and if so, I hope I didn’t derail it. I just can’t be serious this early.

  • …Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, suggested that the new procedure would not satisfy the objections of Mr. Bush, who vetoed legislation in July that would have expanded federally financed embryonic stem cell research. Though Ms. Lawrimore called it encouraging that scientists were moving away from destroying embryos, she said: “Any use of human embryos for research purposes raises serious ethical questions. This technique does not resolve those concerns.”

    Okay, suppose it was discovered that baby piss was a unique cure for cancer. Would it be okay to harvest it, if it meant we were using little critters for medical purposes without their informed consent? I love that these people hold even the tiniest components of human life sacred. Their morality is absolutely inspiring. Benedicat vos Omnipotens Deus.

  • What this illustrates is the real objection at the heart of the pro-life conservative argument: that motherhood is the only acceptable role for sexually active women in society, which must be reinforced at every opportunity. Any policy to that end, no matter how half-baked, penalizing, or entirely without merit, (i.e. a greater concern for the welfare of children, restricting/banning abortion, threatening increase of “sex-cults”, etc.) is embraced with righteousness.

  • “Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, suggested that the new procedure would not satisfy the objections of Mr. Bush,”

    Perhaps that’s because no one can figure out exactly what Boy George II’s objections really are. He allows federal funding on some cell lines, but not on later ones. He objects to destroying embryos that are doomed to destruction. Now, these embryos could actually be implanted with the hope of becoming children (not good odds, by the way) and the parents, hoping to avoid hereditary illnesses, ask that the stem cell extraction and line development proceed, and Boy George II still objects. Or at least Ms Lawrimore does.

    Beat this like a drum Democrats. Rally America against mindless Theocratic Reactionism.

  • Now the administration believes any use of embryos in medical research is wrong — even research that doesn’t “kill” anything.

    You haven’t demonstrated to my satisfaction that this won’t lead to the creation of an army of slave clones.

    Signed,
    A. Wingnut

  • Actually, Ms. Lawrimore’s argument doesn’t really even take the “embryos as people” line to it’s logical limit. If embryos are people, using embryos for research purposes shouldn’t be any more problematic than using other people for research. There’s plenty of research conducted on young infants who are unable to directly consent. The logical implication of Lawrimore’s argument would seem to be that use of any person for research purposes is objectionable.

  • “You haven’t demonstrated to my satisfaction that this won’t lead to the creation of an army of slave clones.” – Steve M.

    Music industry stars know all about armies of slave clones. I think they’re called “groupies”. 😉

    Be that as it may, God knows we could all use our own army of slave clones just to make it through the day. Well, maybe not an army. A couple squads would probably be enough, or a platoon if you have a really big yard.

    No more than that, though. That would just be wrong, you know?

  • All we can hope for is that god forbid bush or one of his family need some cure derived from stem cell reserch in the future and he or his are denied treatment for his deeds and beliefs.

  • I think what Emily meant to say was that finding cures is not the agenda of big pharma and is therefore the not a priority of the Bush Administration.

    But thanks to big pharma, I can get a four hour erection and regrow lost hair. Go progress! 😐

  • #6. Interesting, and scary, read. At a recent meeting of members of mainline Protestant faiths (we are social justice activists), one of the group members said several times what a horrible mistake it was when the book of Revelation was voted to be included in the Bible. Then again, maybe it was on purpose? Something I need to research? My understanding is that the rapture movement started in the 1800s.

    Re stem cell research: I say we call these hypocrits on their BS. This research has the possibility of helping a great many people. The benefit to society trumps their petty objections (to “kill” a blastocyst that is going to be thrown away anyway? to “kill” a cell that is extracted and yet the original blastocyst is not harmed).

    Many months back I listened to a Republican House member, who is also a scientist (don’t remember his name but he’s in his 60s), speak on the floor of the House about how he is against using blastocysts for research, yet there was this promising new technique of extracting just one cell, and if this could be done, he would have no objection to establishing a cell line from this one cell. Sounded like a reasonable position to me. I’ll bet that House member is po’ed about now.

  • We’re no longer struggling with different points of view or even ideologies. We’re up against some form of walking insanity.

  • #14 doubtful makes a good point. There was an bit from NPR today about the lack of research on new anti-biotics. Apparantly (they said) all the Pharmacuical money goes into drugs for chronic conditions (high blood pressure and cholesteral, for instance) where the companies can keep taking money from you. Anti-biotics are good for ten days, max, then you are off them. Not profitable at all.

    Same with stem-cell cures. Not profitable at all.

    Wasn’t that the plot line for Johnny Menomic?

  • My apologies in advance for anyone who thinks the following commentary sounds a bit too “NascarMan-ish,” but I was explaining the “Real Men Don’t Eat Quiche” thing to my son earlier today—and something clicked inside. I think this could do some damage to what little base the GOP has left….
    *********************************************************************
    “President Bush’s position on stemcell research is a clear and present danger to the long-term health and well-being of the People of the United States. It is a threat to every man, woman, and child, regardless of religion or political persuasion.
    *
    President Bush’s position on stemcell research will kill a conservative just as easily as it will kill an extremist liberal, and it will kill a Bible-based Christian just as easily as it will kill an Islamofascist, or a Secular-Humanist, or an Atheist.
    *
    President Bush’s position on stemcell research will kill more people who drive pickup trucks and watch Nascar than it will people who drive expensive imported sports cars and watch imported television programs from Europe.
    *
    But the dirtiest part of all this is that the Republican Congress wants to let President Bush do this to the American People. Not just “you,” but to your children—and their children—and even their grandchildren.
    *
    Brought to you by the “Real Americans Don’t Vote Republican Any More” Campaign….

  • “Real Americans Don’t Vote Republican Any More” – Steve

    Did they ever? Since when did Real Americans believe that corporate CEOs should be paid 250x what their workers are paid?

    etc.

    • Comments are closed.