Ignoring researcher's caveat, WSJ's Henninger claimed stem-cell controversy "[b]asically [...] is over"
SUMMARY: On Fox News' The Journal Editorial Report, Wall Street Journal deputy editorial page editor Daniel Henninger discussed the announcement that American and Japanese research teams discovered, in the words of the senior American scientist, a "new way to trick skin cells into acting like embryos" by "reprogram[ming] skin cells into multipurpose stem cells without harming embryos." Henninger said: "Basically, the controversy is over. And I think, in retrospect, we should say something on behalf of, say, [President] George Bush, who vetoed that stem-cell bill." However, the senior American scientist wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that the new developments "[f]ar from vindicat[e]" the Bush administration's policy "of withholding federal funds from many of those working to develop potentially lifesaving embryonic stem cells."
On the December 8 edition of Fox News' The Journal Editorial Report, host and Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul Gigot and deputy editorial page editor Daniel Henninger discussed a November 20 announcement that American and Japanese research teams discovered, in the words of the senior American scientist, a "new way to trick skin cells into acting like embryos" by "reprogram[ming] skin cells into multipurpose stem cells without harming embryos." After Gigot asserted that the announcement was a "stem-cell breakthrough we can all agree on," Henninger claimed, "Basically, the controversy is over. And I think in retrospect we should say something on behalf of, say, [President] George Bush, who vetoed that stem-cell bill," referring to Bush's repeated vetoes of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which would have expanded federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. Henninger continued, saying that "science, in its brilliance, came up with a solution. In this case, all's well that ends well -- we hope." However, James A. Thomson, the senior American scientist involved in the stem-cell discovery, wrote in a December 3 Washington Post op-ed with Alan I. Leshner, the executive publisher of the journal Science, that the research is still at "square one" and that scientists are still "uncertain at this early stage whether souped-up skin cells hold the same promise as their embryonic cousins do." Thomson and Leshner added that the new developments "[f]ar from vindicat[e]" the Bush administration's policy "of withholding federal funds from many of those working to develop potentially lifesaving embryonic stem cells."
From Thomson and Leshner's December 3 op-ed:
A new way to trick skin cells into acting like embryos changes both everything and nothing at all. Being able to reprogram skin cells into multipurpose stem cells without harming embryos launches an exciting new line of research. It's important to remember, though, that we're at square one, uncertain at this early stage whether souped-up skin cells hold the same promise as their embryonic cousins do.
Far from vindicating the current U.S. policy of withholding federal funds from many of those working to develop potentially lifesaving embryonic stem cells, recent papers in the journals Science and Cell described a breakthrough achieved despite political restrictions. In fact, work by both the U.S. and Japanese teams that reprogrammed skin cells depended entirely on previous embryonic stem cell research.
Thomson and Leshner further asserted that Bush's policy on embryonic stem-cell research has created a "stigma" that "surely has discouraged some talented young Americans from pursuing stem cell research." After stating that they hoped Congress would overturn Bush's veto on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, Thomson and Leshner concluded, "Further delays in pursuing the clearly viable option of embryonic stem cells will result in an irretrievable loss of time, especially if the new approach fails to prove itself."
Additionally, the New York Times editorial board noted in a December 6 post on its blog that in a November 20 teleconference with reporters, Thomson "estimated that the political controversy and the President's restrictions on federal funding have actually set the field back four to five years, mostly because the stigma discouraged scientists from working on embryonic stem cells." In a November 21 article on the new technique, the Times further reported that both Thomson and Dr. Shinya Yamanaka, who conducted related research in Japan, "caution, though, that they still must confirm that the reprogrammed human skin cells really are the same as stem cells they get from embryos." The article further reported that "while those studies are under way, Dr. Thomson and others say, it would be premature to abandon research with stem cells taken from human embryos."
As Media Matters for America has documented, other news outlets and media figures have characterized the new research on stem cells as a victory for the Bush administration without noting Thomson's caveats:
- The Politico's Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei wrote that unnamed "Bush advisers are considering ways to call attention to scientists' announcement, which the White House believes was lost in Thanksgiving week, about discoveries that could lead to the creation of stem cells without embryos -- a vindication, in the view of Bush's aides, of his reservations about approving broader federal funding of embryonic stem cell research." Allen and VandeHei did not identify any of the Bush aides quoted, writing only that the aides are "intimately involved in crafting next year's [White House] strategy," and that they "asked for anonymity to discuss internal planning."
- On the November 25 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol asserted that the scientific technique, if it performed as claimed, would end the debate over embryonic stem-cell research.
- In a November 21 New York Times "News Analysis" examining the political significance of the announcement, Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote: "The findings have put people on both sides of the stem cell divide on nearly equal political footing." She wrote that Bush "has steadfastly maintained that scientists would come up with an alternative method of developing embryonic stem cells, one that did not involve killing embryos," adding, "[N]ow that scientists in Japan and Wisconsin have apparently achieved what Mr. Bush envisioned, the White House is saying, 'I told you so.' "
From the December 8 edition of Fox News' The Journal Editorial Report:
GIGOT: Winners and losers, picks and pans, "Hits and Misses." It's our way of calling attention to the best and the worst of the week.
Item one, a stem-cell breakthrough we can all agree on. Dan?
HENNINGER: Yeah, you'll recall, Paul, there has been no more bitterly fought political controversy than that over stem-cell research -- the promises it would provide cures for Parkinson's, Lou Gehrig's disease and such. The problem has been that you had to harvest the stem cells from embryonic cells, creating an ethical firestorm. Well, just recently both Japanese and American researchers have discovered that they can harvest these from adult cells. Basically, the controversy is over. And I think, in retrospect, we should say something on behalf of, say, George Bush, who vetoed that stem-cell bill. They were described as Neanderthal knuckle-draggers. I think the politics here operated in good faith, and that science, in its brilliance, came up with a solution. In this case, all's well that ends well -- we hope.
GIGOT: All right. Good, Dan. Thanks.
More wishful thinking on the part of the far right.
"And I think, in retrospect, we should say something on behalf of, say, George Bush, who vetoed that stem-cell bill."
Ha! So he's not only ignoring the details of the new research, but adding "All Hail Bush, who was way ahead of those stoopid scientists!"
Good stuff, WSJ.
From MMFA's article, it looks to me like Dr. Thompson is stepping out of his scientist mode and into his political advocacy mode.
Forgive me if, but even granting that Thompson is speaking from the heart, I find his prognostications that we've fallen five years behind and declaration that promising researchers have gone on to other research are simply opinions that cannot be measured and in addition are politically motivated to try to garner Congressional support to override Bush's veto of the Stem Cell Research and Enhancement Act.
I'm curious what you read that leads you to believe that Thomson is acting politically instead of in the interest of science.
More importantly, if the interest of science is facing a political challenge, then he has no valid alternative. Who is it who made this a political controversy?
Brab,
Science is always facing a challenge. My point is that while this man may be an exceptional scientist, that does not mean his political pronouncements carry and greater weight than say yours or mine. Granted he had a forum and expressed his political opinion, but he has a vested interest in getting more Federal Funding.
I don't begrudge him expressing himself, I just find his political comments unsupportable. Perhaps scientists are going into other fields, but he offers no proof. How does he know how many years behind in research we are? That statement can neither be proven true or false. It is unsupportable.
I think it bears repeating that there is no ban on private research embryonic stem cell research. Also there is support for ESCR at the federal level which seeks a compromise between those that feel an embryo is a human being and those that don't.
You're not answering the questions. What is it in what he says that makes it political and not scientific? And if there's a political opposition to scientific research, then what exactly is he supposed to say that you wouldn't consider to be political? I'd like some answers to those questions, otherwise your take seems extraordinarily biased.
Of course what he's saying is an estimate, and may not be verifiable. So what? If I'm working on a construction crew and half of the team doesn't show up, I can estimate how many extra hours it's going to take. Whether it's verifiable or not, I know it's a problem. Unless you can show how what he's saying is somehow unlikely or illogical, then you have no reason to assume that he's exaggerating or whatever else.
The only reason I see for your view is that you don't like what he's saying. I'm willing to hear something to the contrary.
Brab,
It seems obvious to me that he is lobbying for more research dollars for embryonic stem cell research by his comments about losing researchers to other fields and falling years behind. I thought that was obvious.
Like I said, he's entitled to his opinion and entitled to expressing his view to reporters, so I have no problems with that either.
With regards to your example. Construction engineers can estimate, based on passed experience, the amount of time it takes to build a building, given the resources available. However your analogy does not transfer to research.
One cannot accurately estimate how many years behind one country lags in research when arguing for the possibilities of new discoveries.It is only a guess. Heck, he could have said, unless ESCR get additional funding we are 10 years or even 20 years behind other countries. Wouldn't each example be as valid as 5 years? What he is not saying is that a new discovery tomorrow could wipe out whatever gap he estimated.
My point is that this scientist has a political bias to try to generate further funding for research in this area so I am skeptical. I don't know, he could very well profit by his advocacy. In my mine, he is hardly neutral. I believe he is trying to frighten people into believing we need to open up federal dollars to unlimited ESCR. I simply am pointing out his statements are unsupported and hardly scientific.
On a related note:
Here's the scoop: As originally reported late last year in the medical journal Blood, Dr. Catherine M. Verfaillie and other researchers at the Stem Cell Institute, University of Minnesota, have discovered a way to coax an adult cell found in the bone marrow to exhibit many of the attributes that supposedly make embryonic stem cells irreplaceable to the development future "miracle" medical therapies. While there is still much research to be done, "multi–potent adult progenitor cells" (MAPCs) appear to be versatile, that is, capable of transforming into different types of tissues. (In a culture dish, the cells can be coaxed into becoming muscle, cartilage, bone, liver, or different types of neurons in the brain.) They are also malleable, meaning they can do so relatively easily. They also exhibit the "immortality" valued in embryonic cells, that is to say, they seem capable of being transformed into cell lines that can be maintained indefinitely. At the same time, these adult cells do not appear to present the acute danger associated with embryonic stem cells: the tendency to grow uncontrollably causing tumors or even cancers.
see: [link to www.lifeissues.net]
ps. I must think phonetically. I should have said in the third paragraph, " Construction engineers can estimate, based on PAST experience..."
Sorry for my abysmal spelling.
5th paragraph should read, "in my mind" not "in my mine". *sigh*
Nothing about what you're saying makes this "political" on his part though. If politicians are taking acts to restrict his work, then of course anything he says in regards to that is "political". That's hardly a valid criticism. As for saying his comments are not scientific, I have no idea what you're basing that on. Just because you don't have his personal experience that's required to make an estimate doesn't mean that it's random. Try to understand that there are people who know more than you and I do, and so just because you can't see things exactly the way they do doesn't mean that it's because of some ulterior motive. He may profit from funding, and maybe it's the most viable method of research. You're engaging in irresponsible guesswork. If his methods are inferior, and he's just trying to profit, then I'm sure there are any number of competing scientists who will be thrilled to explain that.
What I notice in this piece is that Thomson finds the new technology exciting, but at the same time it's not fully fleshed out yet. Until we know that the performance meets up to the promise, then it's ridiculous to abandon what's already known to work for research. And what's more, if the new technology works, Thomson may just be able to work in that field as well, so he loses nothing by it. There may be no motive except to keep the research moving along, in order to find cures faster.
Isn't that just as likely as assuming mercenary motives, honestly?
Well - YEAH! Of course the opinion is intended to promote an override! That makes the opinion not a whit less valid, not a bit less reflective of the movement of stem-cell research to other countries, and not an iota less representative of the reality of US stem-cell activity lagging the rest of the world - especially those countries who are the beneficiaries of Bungle's idiocy.
"declaration that promising researchers have gone on to other research are simply opinions that cannot be measured"
For a scientist in the field of stem cell research, that should be fairly easy to verify - scientists talk among themselves all the time, and a researcher who decides to change fields would likely be quite open about his/her reasons.
If claiming victory temporarilly muffles their pieholes on this issue at Faux News, they are welcome to it - and give credit to whoever they want. Thankfully it's only a matter of months before we'll have an administration in office willing to advance science rather than stifle it.
And the Wall Street Journal's days of being a factual news source are basically over.
The WSJ is just wrong, I knew once Murdoch bought it , the decline would be steady.
Talk about slow, isn't this old news? They must have missed the bus.
Charles Krauthammer had a similar op-ed piece about two weeks ago. To the far (and not-so-far) right, stem cell researchers are now brilliant. I wonder if the rightwingers feel the same about climate researchers who are convinced that human-generated CO2 and other greenhouse gases are causing the planet to warm up? Of course not - the jury is still out on climate research and it would be premature to take any action to mitigate anthropogenic global warming that might have a negative impact on the economy. But, preliminary research on stem cells can be embraced without question.
The concerns from stem cell researchers that the latest breakthrough is far from being a panacea have been expressed in numerous papers and scientific journals. In the study in questions, the researchers turned on used a retrovirus to insert four genes that reprogrammed the adult skin cells to act like embryonic stem cells. It is far from clear that those are the only four genes required to obtain fully functional stem cells, and there is concern that the inserted genes could trigger the stem cells to divide out of control and cause tumors, or cancer.
You just don't get it. Bush, ever the forward thinker, saved those poor snowflake babies from a life doomed to helping humanity so they could fulfill their destinies as martyrs in the incinerator. You are letting your Bush Derangement Syndrome keep you from seeing that impeccable logic.
The debate is over. The embryonic stem cell scam has been exposed. There is no more need to murder babies "in the name of science."
Thomson had to temper the report of the findings in order to avoid having pro-abortion hit squads come after him and his family.
"Murder babies"? "Pro-abortion hit squads"?
Embryos aren't babies. There's no "abortion" involved. There is no such thing as "pro-abortion". And I've never heard of any organized crime efforts for whatever cause you're attributing that title to.
Outside of being completely insane, great post.
I have the solution to the whole abortion/stem cell debate. The next time the Republicans get control of the Senate and the House, we pass a law that every time a "fetus" is aborted, we kill a puppy on live television. And it will be perfectly ok, because "it's not a person." And just to be moral about it, we'll give it local anesthetic.
I'd like to see the liberal backlash from that.
How about the dems pass a law where every time the republicans take an animal off the endangered species list, or allow pollution to go unchecked, or allow energy exploration in sensitive ecosystems, they are forced to kill a puppy on national tv. I mean its only people we care about, right?
Or better yet, how about every time the republicans refuse to allow sex education or access to birth control, they must adopt a baby on national tv. I mean we care about people after they're born, right?
Strangler,
After reading your post, I would be willing to bet my next paycheck on the fact that you have never read the actual journal article in question and would not be able to even understand what it is they did in their research.
I suspect that when The Stranger reads anything, he or she moves their lips....
There is no more need to murder babies "in the name of science."
And you'll be adopting how many?
Working on #3
Pearlene,
This is a very weak argument. Lets turn it around. Lets say you are for abortions, how many have you performed?
Obviously, one does not have to adopt babies if one is against abortion as it does not make their position any less valid than one who is in favor of abortion does not have to go around killing abandoned children or contributing to Planned Parenthood for their view to also be valid.
Actually, that's not quite right. The two choices have different outcomes, so you can't say that those arguments are the same. If abortions were outlawed, then there would be more unwanted children. That's an issue society would have to deal with, most likely with more orphanages unless individuals picked up the slack.
But on the other side, there's no social problem to be addressed. And since nobody wants more abortions, it's absurd to say that someone who supports that choice should have to perform them in order to have that position.
Besides that, we're talking about frozen embryos here, not babies. Not even embryos that are naturally proceeding to become babies. What are there, about 400,000 of those out there? If every one of those were to be fleshed out into actual people, then someone's going to have to adopt them.
Brab,
I see your point even if I don't agree. :-)
My argument is with Pearlene's logic. One could easily have also countered with, "How many have you adopted?" The number of adoptions really doesn't validate one's argument either way.
If it did, then Stranger having adopted two and going for three completely validates his opinion and Pearlene now has to concede.
For some strange reason, I don't think that's going to happen. :-)
The same argument thrown back at Pearlene doesn't really work either. If Stranger thinks that 400,000 frozen embryos are babies and wants to "save" them, that's his problem. There's no societal need at hand here (unlike AIDS, when Huckabee said it was Hollywood's job to fund it - that was a societal need). Why should she have to fix a problem that's not her problem?
Did you see Stranger's post above? Some crap about pro-abortion hit squads? Please tell me that you think he's got some credibility. LOL
Brab,
I think you are arguing for argument's sake, (which is okay.) However, I feel you are not addressing my points at all. So I'm done.
Yes, stranger used some hyperbole. Not uncommon around here.
ps. I tip my hat to Stranger for adopting those children! For that he should be commended. Right Pearlene? :-)
I addressed what you said. You said the same argument Pearlene used could be used right back at her and I explained why that wasn't the case. If you have a countering arguement , then make it, but don't pretend that I didn't address your point.
I think claiming that "pro-abortion" forces are sending out hit squads to kill people who disagree with them is a little more than hyperbole, but if that's a typical right-wing viewpoint then that says it all.
Wow. Either your being incredibly sarcastic or someone forgot to take their meds.
What? You don't believe that the whole thing is an elaborate scam so that scientists can take enjoyment in killing embryos? And that if they can't do that, the pro-abortion mafia will kill grown adults instead?
What could be more obvious?
I'm some of the left leaning "scientists" relish destroying these human embryos..and they are human, they're not going to transmogrify into puppies or anything, so it is murder.
The point that went completely over your head is that the whole embryonic stem cell "debate" has been put to rest. Adult stem cells have been proven to have efficacy in scores of therapies and treatments . Embyonic stem cells...ZERO!!
Now that the unproven embryonic stem cells can be replicated w/o murdering babies, the argument for murdering babies " in the name of science" because of their "possible potential" has be nullified.
Face it...the argument for embryonic stem cell research was nothing more than a lame excuse for the pro-abortion crowd to keep killing babies.
Man, with your first post, I was willing to bet a paycheck. Now with this post, I am on the verge of betting the whole retirement account that you know absolutely nothing about the science of stem cell research in general, and this study in particular.
Its amazing that you feel so comfortable posting such hate-filled, irrational comments about a subject that you clearly know nothing about. Come back to us when you've boned up on the actual science, or if you are physically incapable of understanding it (which I tend to lean towards), that keep your word-hole shut and let the grown-ups talk.
Put up or shut up, Skippy.
Prove me wrong. With your first two posts, all the evidence is on my side on this one. It's like you're giving me 1000 to 1 odds here.
Ok, this is just one of thousands of hits that come up when you google embryonic vs. stem cell efficacy..and they all say the same.
Will I get everything in one lump sum or do you plan on making payments to me?
If you give me a way to contact you, I will give you my mailing address.
ooops...here it is;
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm
I tried your google search and found that most of them do say the same thing. Groups opposed to ESC research claim that adult stem cells can treat or cure 65 diseases. All scientific sources agree that statement is misleading at best, and that there are 9 areas in which ASC's are proven to work. They are also all in agreement that ESC research shows huge potential to treat or cure a large number of diseases, many of which cannot be cured by ASC's.
Now its your turn: google embryonic stem cell potential and read anything from a reputable scientific source, including the hit at the top of the list from NIH. You will see that there is huge potential for ESC's and that the current limitation on lines is very much hurting the research. Now I ask you what I asked Glenn. Does it make you feel better that these blastocysts are being destroyed in fertility clinics rather than being used for research?
Actually the list is in the 70's. True, not all are outright cures. Many of them are treatments for the alleviation of symptoms.
Embryonic is still ZERO. They are far too promitive. There are horror stories that seem to be straight out of sci-fi movies you will not hear from the media. There was even an instance in China where a Parkinsons patient was injected with embryonic stem cells...and he died.
When an autopsy was performed, a tumor at the site of the injection was found that contained hair, bone and skin.
The statement about the potential for embryonic stem clls is nothing but a feint intending to keep the stupid and the pro-abortionists happy.
Treatments and cures using ECS is still ZERO
Then make that your argument. Scientists should pursue what works, and that's all anyone is arguing for. The actual potential, effectiveness and risk of each process is what counts, not some bizarre conflation of frozen embryos with babies. Science is the issue, so keep it to science and don't inject moral concerns where they don't belong.
So, since you know so much about stem cell research, tell me exactly what therapies or treatments embryonic stem cells are used for?...or even have possibilities for?
I'll wait.
They're still not babies. The argument isn't that they're going to turn into dogs, the argument is that they're not going to naturally turn into anything. They're eggs. They're frozen. They're unused and unclaimed, they have no emotional attachment to anyone. They have no status as people, and no legal rights, so it can't possibly be construed as "murder". Unless you believe that God is angry that we're destroying eggs in order to cure actual living people, you don't have a whole lot to hyperventilate over here.
I give him 4 stars, and an offer to help him visit any one of them. Maybe he'll stay there.
Marvin the Martian owes me a favor, and its for a good cause.
I think that both sides have been shameful in terms of playing politics with this issue.
On my political side, I still crinch when I think of John Edwards almost guaranteeing that Christopher Reeves would walk becuase he and Kerry would OK stem cell research. This was a dishonest overselling of what stem cell research could accomplish.
And I thought that the Republicans were playing to their religious base when they blocked federal funding.
In this topic I have to say that Hanninger is right in terms of the debate being over POLITICALLY. And at this point, considering how this issue has been tossed around like a football by both sides, I'm actually glad that the debate is ending.
oops - "crinch" should be "cringe" -
As in: When I saw "crinch" it made me "cringe".
"Christopher Reeve just passed away. And America just lost a great champion for this cause. Somebody who is a powerful voice for the need to do stem cell research and change the lives of people like him, who have gone through the tragedy. Well, if we can do the work that we can do in this country -- the work we will do when John Kerry is president -- people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."
Edwards never said that Reeve himself would walk, obviously. "People like Christopher Reeve are going to walk". Unless that's clearly outside the potential of the research, then it's not dishonest.
If they can do the same level of research and it shuts the religious right up, I'm all for it. If it's less effective, then that sacrifice shouldn't be made. Hopefully it's just as effective, so that the work can get done.
I get your point - but if you look at the quote you will see that Edwards is basically promising that if the Kerry is elected as Pres., then people like Reeves will walk again.
Isn't that a little bit of "rhetorical overkill"?
He could have said that people could walk again with this research. Obviously nobody knows exactly what's going to happen, so it's turning a potential into a definite promise. That much is true.
“If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough. I thought long and hard about whether I would do it,” -Dr. Thomson.
Oh, and have any of you hear about adult stem cells...I'm guessing not. They do everything embryonic stem cells do, only more.
They do everything embryonic stem cells do, only more.
That statement is not true at all. Adult stem cells can lead to great things, but they have many limitations on the types of cells they can become and the types of diseases they can treat or eventually cure. Embryonic stem cells show much more promise and are much more versatile. Why do you think the scientists in question even bothered to try and change adult stem cells into embryonic-type cells in the first place?
I'm assuming that you posted the quote from Dr. Thomson to show that you are against the destruction of blastocysts for research. If that is true, I must ask how you feel about the millions that are destroyed as a byproduct of fertility treatments.
To show the world that the claims by the pro-abortionists regarding embryonic stem cells are ridiculous.
Name a cell...any cell.
and that the current limitation on lines is very much hurting the research.
What limitation might that be?
And you claim to have won the bet.