Fox News' Herridge misinformed on whether new method can supplant stem cell research
On the June 7 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News homeland defense correspondent Catherine Herridge reported that opponents of a bill that would ease restrictions on federally funded embryonic stem cell research cited alternative methods, such as a new technique in the experimental stage, in which scientists were able to use skin cells from mice to develop cells that have regenerative properties similar to that of a mouse's embryonic stem cell.
But in doing so, Herridge failed to note that the technique's developers have asserted that that it will be "awhile" before they know whether or not the process can be applied to human cells. In a June 6 press release, the scientists stated that "all these results are preliminary and proof of principle. It will be awhile before we know what can and can't be done in humans." They also noted that human embryonic stem cells "remain the gold standard" and that "it would simply be premature and irresponsible to claim that we no longer need [human] eggs for embryonic stem cell research."
Herridge reported:
HERRIDGE: On the House floor, critics said embryonic stem cell research was overblown. Other avenues are more promising.
REP. DAVE WELDON (R-FL): Embryonic stem cells have never moved beyond animal research because embryonic stem cells have never been shown to be safe. Embryonic stem cells form tumors when you put them in animals.
HERRIDGE: Throughout the debate, both Republicans and Democrats pointed to new discoveries announced this week by the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Scientists there created embryonic stem cells without embryos through experiments on mice skin cells.
On June 7, The Washington Post reported on the new technique:
Acutely aware that their new work could undermine that key political goal, the scientists cautioned that their success with mouse cells does not guarantee quick success with human cells. They called for Congress to pass the bill, which would give federally funded researchers access to embryos slated for destruction at fertility clinics.
"A human is not a mouse, so a lot more work has to be done," said Marius Wernig, who led one team with Rudolf Jaenisch of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Mass.
Indeed, Jaenisch stated in a June 6 Whitehead Institute press release:
"[A]ll these results are preliminary and proof of principle. It will be awhile before we know what can and can't be done in humans. Human embryonic stem cells remain the gold standard for pluripotent cells, and it is a necessity to continue studying embryonic stem cells throughout traditional means."
Weldon's statement that "[e]mbryonic stem cells form tumors when you put them in animals," echoes a distortion that Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) advanced on April 11. According to an April 12 Post article, Brownback, an opponent of embryonic stem cell research, claimed that "embryonic stem cells are forming tumors." But as the Post went on to note: "[Brownback's claim] ignored the fact that no scientist today talks of putting embryonic stem cells directly into patients. Rather, they are growing the cells into more stable cells that do not form tumors but retain their therapeutic potential."
From the June 7 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
HUME: OK, Major, thank you. While newspaper headlines were touting a significant breakthrough in stem-cell research, House Democrats today won passage of a bill easing restrictions on using taxpayer money for embryonic stem cell research, but the measure failed to gain enough votes to overcome a certain veto by the president. National correspondent Catherine Herridge reports.
[begin video clip]
HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): On this vote, the yeas are 247; the nays are 176. The bill is passed.
HERRIDGE: The vote in favor of expanding federal funding for embryonic stem cell research came after two hours of heated debate on the House floor.
REP. MIKE PENCE (R-IN): And liberals in this Congress are not content simply to have embryonic stem cell research legal in all 50 states. They want pro-life Americans like me to get our wallets out and finance it, and I'm not having that.
HERRIDGE: Congresswoman Diana DeGette [CO], whose daughter suffers from diabetes, shepherded the bill through the House for Democrats. On the floor, she and other lawmakers anticipated what many expect will be the president's second veto on the issue.
DeGETTE: The Senate gets it. The public gets it. The House gets it. Why doesn't the president of the United States get it?
HERRIDGE: The bill would allow federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells derived from human embryos, which would otherwise be destroyed. These human embryos would come from fertility clinics and couples who no longer want them to conceive a child.
REP. CHRISTOPHER SMITH (R-NJ): You're talking about spare embryos now, but if it ever did work, especially when we have an ethical alternative that does work, but if it ever did work, it would mean requiring the killing of millions of embryos.
HERRIDGE: Leading up to this debate, Republicans successfully blocked a separate bill by Democrats. Although it banned human cloning for reproductive purposes, critics claimed it was really a backdoor effort to allow cloning for other reasons, such as embryonic stem-cell research.
On the House floor, critics said embryonic stem cell research was overblown. Other avenues are more promising.
WELDON: Embryonic stem cells have never moved beyond animal research because embryonic stem cells have never been shown to be safe. Embryonic stem cells form tumors when you put them in animals.
HERRIDGE: Throughout the debate, both Republicans and Democrats pointed to new discoveries announced this week by the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Scientists there created embryonic stem cells without embryos through experiments on mice skin cells.
REP. MICHAEL BURGESS (R-TX): And science is resolving and providing answers to this ethical dilemma.
DeGETTE: It's true embryonic stem cell research is relatively new. However, these other sources that our opponents tout are even newer and have provided no evidence and no hope for cures.
[end video clip]
HERRIDGE: Neither the House nor the Senate has the votes necessary to override a presidential veto. In a strongly worded statement from the White House, the president said if the bill were to become law, quote, "American taxpayers would, for the first time in our history, be compelled to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos," and for that reason alone, the president will veto the bill -- Brit.
FOX LIES
Americans Die
liberals deny, baby's die
Conservatives deny, soldiers die.
After reading this article, I have to say conservatives are beyond clueless:
http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_159222541.html
But it doesn't surprise me that they'd think this was a weapon worth investigating...
Great article Snoop. I'm glad to see our tax dollars being spent for the forces of good.
If the research pans out, maybe they can test it on the students and faculty at Pat Robertson's Regent University.
Oh, that would be true irony, turning the forces of anti-gayness into flaming faggots!
I believe the amount of teststerone as a impryo determines sexual orientation. Why not create a pasivity hormone. The best way to make a hormone is just don't pay her, which might be rediculous but so is the concept behind this article. I bet if you put enough preperation H on bush he would disapear. He is after all a pain in the but.
That's like something from Get Smart.
HERRIDGE: On the House floor, critics said embryonic stem cell research was overblown. Other avenues are more promising.
If she were a legitimate reporter, covering the news in a fair, accurate, and balanced way, it would be okay for her to have said what she said above only if she then followed it with
Those critics are not accurately portraying the facts of embryonic stem cell research. There are no indications that the research has been overblown, and there is no evidence that other avenues are more promising. There are other avenues, of course, but no evidence that those other avenues will be more promising. Scientists in the field believe that ESCR has the best chance of providing stunning results, and they want all avenues to be pursued.
She didn't add that part. She's not a news journalist though. She's a FoxNews reporter.
or she could have added
THERE ARE NUMEROUS PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS ALREADY DOING THIS RESEARCH SO DONATE YOUR MONEY THERE AND QUIT DEPENDING ON THE GOVERNMENT TO FUND EVERYTHING.
For her to do so would be activism, not journalism. But then, I guess that would be par for the course on Fox Nothing Channel.
Government funding made the internet possible, and thus, your ability to post a comment here is possible.
After the free market brought us Black Tuesday, government funded programs played a huge role in bringing the economy back to life.
After a stroke and the resulting medical bills wiped out my grandfather's life savings, the government funding that he contributed to during his working career and the government benefits he earned during his service in WWII makes it possible for him to live in a wheelchair and watch his great grandchildren grow up.
After my brother was discharged from the military due to mental health issues which he believes were a result of his experience in Operation Desert Storm, government funding is making it possible for him to go to college so that he can become a highly-skilled member of the American workforce.
Sounds like a family that supports the government taking over every aspect of our lives. I think I'll pass on government intrusion into every aspect of my life. Unless I get to dictate what religion they teach me and my grandkids. If government can't make moral decisions I don't want them involved in day to day decisions for my family. I guess I'm not a liberal...thank God!
This is what it "sounds like" based solely on what I said? Normally, I don't call people names in this forum, but it "sounds like" you're an absolute moron.
Check out Friday's "CNN's Koppel" thread, and I think your suspicions will be largely confirmed. I honestly believe he is undermedicated.
Yeah, check that one out. Still you have no answer for the questions, do you?
Have you been there? I have.
Ok, in your opinion...was that a human hand in the picture or an elephant hand or a monkey hand? Open-mind seems to think it was a monkey hand even though I posted an after-he-was-born picture that showed the hand did in fact grow on a human.
No. The discussion was about human life and when it begins. I didn't say anything like what you are suggesting. I think you have a little bit of difficulty with comprehension and a great deal of difficulty with logic and critical thinking.
For that matter I think we were both talking past each other at times and not communicating very well. As I stated before, we should have started with agreed upon definitions and gone from there.
We know the developmental stages of an embryo/fetus. That is just a picture of a fetal arm. It doesn't really make a point about anything.
Your "brain activity" argument is more interesting. I am sure that monkeys have brain waves at the same gestational period, does that mean you would object to monkey abortions? How about cow abortions? If monkey fetuses have brain activity, does that mean they are human life?
The same 'leap' is made here. You start by saying that fetus's aren't human until birth. Then go on to say that brain waves don't prove what is human. It's obvious that a human hand from a human body possessing human brain waves will be human, yet you compare them to animals and the slaughter of them as equal to the slaughter of humans.
No. Our argument went a bit far afield. I do not deny that the arm is from a human fetus. The real thing that I was trying to get at is that we really need to start with definitions. What is life? When does it begin? What is Human? These are the things we need to agree upon before we start claiming proof of anything.
I can see that my remarks may have been confusing. We were talking past each other. Let's not continue with that.
The reason for the comparison is that you do not approve of "slaughtering humans", but you may approve of slaughtering animals, but you have not provided any real distinction between humans and other animal characteristics. That is why definitions are important. Without them, we are just going to continue to talk past each other.
What is life? A living organism is life. Agree?
When does it begin? I believe at the moment of conception. You stated the same.
What is human? Is that question necassary? Well, unless there is some bestiality (sp?) involved there is no doubt what is and what is not human. Agree?
No. First of all, your definition is cyclical. You define "life" using the word "living". Besides, organisms aren't the definition of life, they have life. Other things can be scientifically argued to have life too that aren't necessarily organisms like viruses.
Yes, but I thought we were discussing this in the form of a proof. Proof is a scientific standard. We cannot inject our own beliefs as a substitute for what science tells us or cannot tell us.
No. Why aren't a sperm and an egg as important as a fertilized zygote. They are both an important part of the human life-cycle as well. Is a sperm human life? Is an egg? Do we need to save every one of them? Is masturbation murder? Is ovulation without implantation murder as well? What distinguishes these things scientifically from a fertilized zygote if you use that reasoning?
What is life? Ok, let's go with the explanation found at dictionary.com:
" the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. "
Will this one work?
It doesn't seem sufficient in a scientific context. Scientists debate whether such a definition would include sperm, which definitely appear to be observably alive by almost every standard except reproduction. I won't even try to argue that sperms create humans to reproduce themselves.
This is an unresolved question in science as far as I am concerned. I don't think it can even be resolved definitively.
When does it begin? It appears I can agree that the previous defination will support this question, also. Do you agree?
What is human? A human sperm is a human sperm (same with egg), neither are supported by the defination of life until they successfully join together, at that point a human life begins. When a human sperm and egg join there is not a possibility that the result will be a monkey. The only possibility is that it will be a human. Do you agree?
No. Does life begin with the sperm, egg, fertilization, the entry of the soul (which science has no real way of determining). Science does not appear to give us a clue as to this. We are moving into the areas that are largely defined by opinion and not scientific fact.
We seem to be going in circles here. Well, you do, anyway. I offered a defination of alive for you. You said NO, because my defination was cyclical. Then I offered a defination from a dictionary. You said NO, because it doesn't include the cyclical explanation. Which is it? Better yet, what is your defination of alive? Let's try to go from a different angle.
BTW, let's leave 'soul' out of this discussion since that is a condition dependant on religious beliefs, not scientific knowns. OK?
I disagree. I think the point has been made. The scientific opinion on the subject is not at all definitive even on the most basic points.
Yes. It was cyclical because you defined "life" by referring to the word itself with the use of "living" as well as the problem of defining "organism" as life.
No. I said "no" because your lay definition failed under a reasonable scientific context. I pointed to something that scientists argue is alive and is observably alive by anyone, but oddly fails the definition. This difficulty is not your fault. If you go to any scientific debate about this issue, you can see how problematic it can get.
I don't need a definition. I am saying such definitions are problematic, which I have demonstrated. You are the one who claims such things are indeed provable.
You're right about that. I regretted it after I posted. I was going to write a post to apologize. Sorry.
being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. "
How is this problematic? Let's break it down...
growth through metabolism: the human fetus does, in fact, grow through metabolism.
reproduction: during the growth process, does the fetus grow bone cells? Then those bone cells reproduce to produce more bone cells? Same with every organ found within the body.
power of adaption to environment through changes originating internally: What does the fetus breath? What does the fetus eat? How does the fetus excrete? Don't all of these funtions change according to the environment the fetus is in during it's creation?
I see no problem calling a fetus a living human being. Or a human being that is alive. Or a human with life present.
Scientists have a problem agreeing on the cause/correction of global warming. Why would we expect an agreement on human life? Considering the implications involved?
A big part of what was problematic is what you just edited out of your previous definition:
"the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms"
Are you arguing that sperm is inorganic or a dead organism?
If sperm isn't alive, how does it move? How does it find an egg? How does it seem to survive for a long time in a favorable environment?
The problem is that if we take it that a sperm is alive, which is observably supportable and argued by some scientists and it is human as well, because it is a part of human reproduction like a fetus is, then a sperm is "human life" by definition. Any sperm that dies before implantation in an ovum is then "murder" by your own reasoning.
The problem is that human reproduction is an inefficient and wasteful business. Many fetuses do not make it to term even if they are wanted. Such absolutism like your argument leads to absurd conclusions like "every sperm is sacred". If you do not hold that "every sperm is sacred", which I am guessing you don't, then picking a particular time like the formation of the sperm or egg creation, conception, zygote, embryo, birth as the absolute beginning of life, just seems arbitrary. It is so arbitrary, I don't want the state to even be involved in that decision at all.
I have said just about all that needs to be said on this. It has been fun. Take care.
If sperm isn't alive, how does it move? How does it find an egg? How does it seem to survive for a long time in a favorable environment?
I'm not trying to claim the sperm is a living being. It is a living cell, but I'm not saying it is a live human. To fit the defination of life, it has to metabolise, reproduce and adapt. It doesn't do any of those, so it doesn't fit the defination of life. When the egg and sperm join then all three are met and it can be considered life.
The problem is that if we take it that a sperm is alive, which is observably supportable and argued by some scientists and it is human as well, because it is a part of human reproduction like a fetus is, then a sperm is "human life" by definition.
I don't think we can say that any more than we can say the cancer tissue being removed from a body is alive and therefor it is human life. I think you're taking individual cells and labeling them life just because they come from the human body. I don't think that is correct.
Scientists disagree amongst themselves that a sperm is a dead thing. It does everything, but reproduce itself. I dare you to look at a swimming sperm and tell me it is dead.
Yes. But it is arguable that both the egg and the sperm were human and alive as well. They are both a part of the human reproductive process. Should they be necessarily protected to the same degree an embryo or a fetus should? Why or why not?
That is just a picture of a fetal arm. It doesn't really make a point about anything.
No, it is not "just" a picture of a fetal arm. It is a picture of a human fetal arm sticking out of a human woman. To insinuate that it isn't human is insinuating it may be any of the animals you mention later. So, yes, my point is that the fetus inside of a woman IS human at any given age of developement.
First of all, I did not insinuate anything. I may have been unclear, which I have admitted to above. I can understand your confusion. What more do you want me to say?
I agree it is a human fetal arm. I do not agree that it "proves" anything at all.
I agree it is a human fetal arm. I do not agree that it "proves" anything at all.
Ok, we agree that it is a live human fetal arm. I think it does prove that life is present inside the womb. Therefore abortion is murdering life. Of course if there is life threatening danger to the woman then murder would be an incorrect word.
Therefore abortion is murdering life.
I should say; murdering human life.
My personal belief is that physical human life begins at conception although I have demonstrated it can be argued that it is even earlier.
I am glad we cleared up some confusion from the other day about this.
I do not believe we receive our soul until birth. I don't personally regard abortion as "murder" on that basis.
Calling it "murder" is also needlessly inflamatory and a bit presumptuous in my opinion. Using the same rationale, it seems we could say the same about masturbation or maybe even women's periods.
I don't believe in enforcing such opinions on other people who may believe differently than you or I. It is always best to trust the people to do the right thing and not have the state enforce its own opinion when the science is not definitive.
I don't believe in enforcing such opinions on other people who may believe differently than you or I. It is always best to trust the people to do the right thing and not have the state enforce its own opinion when the science is not definitive.
And, that would be why there are no laws against beastiality? Or against consensual child molestation? You may not "believe in enforcing such opinions", but there are times it needs to be done. It just so happens that some people feel murdering unborn human life isn't as bad as molesting little children. So, the laws changed to allow one immorality, while forbidding the other.
There is no doubt that the science IS definitive and everyone knows when 'life' begins. However many choose to change the meaning of the word to fit their needs and moral standards. Someday, they will use the same process to get child molestation legalized.
As OpenMind says, it's not about what the species is. That doesn't mean anything, obviously, in defining what constitutes a "human being". Nobody's suggesting the fetus is of another damn species.
Even if you imagine you scored some point with "that's a human hand", there are several completely bizarre comments on your part elsewhere in the thread. That's what I was referring to, not that section in particular.
To me that sounds like a family that has served and built this country. Are you trying to say that we should deny seniors Social Security benefits?
Are you saying that we should deny our wounded veterans benefits?
How un-American of you.
And where in any of these posts that you responded to is there any mention of denying you or your family the right to practice any religion you choose?
Are you trying to say that we should deny seniors Social Security benefits? Are you saying that we should deny our wounded veterans benefits?
I did not say either. "How un-American" of you to put words in my mouth saying that I said things I did not. Another liberal tactic when they can't win an arguement??
Kind of like what you just did above with regards to our argument the other day?
Straw man alert. Only by being incredibly brainwashed could anyone claim that funding someone's college is somehow taking over every aspect of their life.
Talk about strawman alerts! When did I say that? Are you and worrierking the same person? Both of you claim statements that were not said. Why would you do that?
By my count, Pete mentioned two substantive facts in his posts: his father's veterans' and Social Security benefits earned by a period of wartime military service and a lifetime of work, and his brother's higher education support earned by military service during war. You previously disavowed these facts as the basis for your statement about a family that supports government intrusion. What then were you "responding" to in Pete's posts?
You previously disavowed these facts as the basis for your statement about a family that supports government intrusion.
How did I disavow those facts? I stated I do not want to have government intruding into my life. I stated some families may want that. How does that disavow anything?
"I stated some families may want [to have government intruding into their lives]"--autopsych
Where did you ever concede that? Please refer to the quote and datestamp. I must have missed it.
You're right. I said "a family" not some.