Stem-cell research breakthroughs: How soon will it take before the secular left shifts their “pro-science” arguments?

Joseph Bottum writes a must-read piece today for the Wall Street Journal in which he discusses the breakthroughs we’ve seen recently on the non-embryonic stem cell research front, and how that could re-shape the secular left’s views on the importance of science in finding cures for diseases. In essence, he predicts, since we’re seeing so many positive results from scientists without having to use embryos, that the left’s arguments will shift to one of a more cautious nature on what scientists say about stem cell research.

Which reminds me: I got a big kick out of reading some of the comments from liberals in my prior thread on stem cell research. This one, by ST reader ibfamous, is a prime example of the sentiment I’ve seen expressed by the left not only here on the topic of non-embryonic stem cell breakthroughs, but at other blogs as well:

Jay K is right, no one on the left is distraught by scientific advancements that can lead to a higher quality of life (remember how you love to tell us that science is our god). This is even a wonderful thing for those who don’t believe in the science but who use it daily without ever noticing (best not look at those prescriptions too closely, it might interfere with your reality)â€¦

It’s funny on several levels: First it wrongly assumes that conservatives are against scientific research for cures, which is just flat out silly. The truth is that conservatives have never been “anti-science” – they’re simply anti-embryonic stem cell research. That’s a big difference – but don’t expect the left to acknowledge that. It’s much easier to demagogue hell out of important moral issues for political gain rather than to directly address the fundamentals of the issue in question.

Secondly, I find it quite odd that the left, as exemplified by ibfamous’ comment, tries to claim everytime a non-embryonic stem cell breakthrough is announced that they’ve “never” been against those types of scientific research, because they “support cures.” This is something that the casual observer likely misses in the translation, because the left routinely frames the embryonic stem cell research issue in an “us versus them” light, with them being the only ones who “support cures” for the sick whereas conservatives “do not” – even though liberals know that conservatives support other types of stem cell research – like on bone marrow, peripheral blood, and umbilical cord research, for example. Not only that, but the left would give the casual observer the impression that the only way we are going to cure diseases is via embryonic stem cell research, which is why we must increase funding for it “NOW!!!” The sense of urgency the left always gives the issue leaves the average Joe with the impression that if he doesn’t support embryonic stem cell research, then people with Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s will never be cured.

To be sure, I don’t think the left hates the fact that non-embryonic stem cell research breakthroughs are happening, but I do believe they’re not happy about the fact that it lessens the urgency they’ve put on trying to advance embryonic stem cell research, because at some point it could very well likely become one less issue the left can demagogue the right about. This is why they are wary of stories that are reported about scientific breakthroughs that don’t involve embroyos, and quick to downplay their significance.

Also, from ibfamous:

The alchemist is also correct; you don’t drop one avenue just because you have another promising path. In science any path can dead-end without notice.

This is naive. If we were talking about finding different ways to fuel an automobile, it’d be one thing, but we’re not. In the case of embryonic stem-cell research, we are talking about the very integrity of human life in its earliest stages. There are ways to completely avoid compromising that integrity, ways that are coming to light more and more each day. Simply put: It shouldn’t take destroying a human life in order to save another. And we’re finding out, thank goodness, that that’s not necessary – as the left has tried to assert for years it is – after all.

Hat tip: ST reader Sev

17 Responses to "Stem-cell research breakthroughs: How soon will it take before the secular left shifts their “pro-science” arguments?"

camojack says:

November 29, 2007 at 1:29 am

Yes…and they always characterize the Republicans as being against any and all stem cell research funding, not just the embryonic variety…
Wizbang says:

November 29, 2007 at 1:35 am

Tuesday through Wednesday Round Up

Let’s start off with a little humor. Funny video (Via Newsbusters) And on to the goings on around other blogs No More Advertising (Via TCV) RJ Reynolds to stop all…
benning says:

November 29, 2007 at 5:23 am

We’re still waiting to hear why ESC seem to lead to cancers while non-ESC don’t seem to. The Left doesn’t seem to care how many patients contract cancer due to the use of ESC, as long as the research, and the destruction of human embryos, continues.
alchemist says:

November 29, 2007 at 9:35 am

So, I’m really trying not to blog right now, but I keep getting pulled back in. I’m an addict

So, a coworker who’s got a masters in biology has been closely following this debate at “scienceblogs”. I posted them on the other post last night, but since that post is ending, I thought I would repost them here. This writer knows the science, and thus argue this issue better than I can.

Stem Cell Breakthrough

What does it take to turn stem cell into a cure?

The first is a general explanation of the breakthrough, and the current problems (and also how Japanese researchers used embryonic cell stem research to make the current breakthroughs on adult stem cells). The second is thorough explanation of how adult stem cells are generated by modern technology, and the current problems facing even the simplest use of stem cells. They are very technical, but the big picture is illustrated nicely. Please read them. We may not agree on the politics, but at least we can come to some agreement on the science.

And yes, Adult stem cells seem to create cancer too.

Benning: Do you have a link to the actual papers that discuss ESC creating cancer, I can’t seem to find the actual scientific paper… I’ll ask this blogger as well…
Baklava says:

November 29, 2007 at 11:18 am

alchemist foolishly writes, “So, a coworker who’s got a masters in biology….”

So what?

There are those who are in the computer field for 19 just as I’ve been for 19 years who think differently than I do and think the government should put a computer on every child’s desk in class. I disagree completely and think that would be a WASTE of money.

Hands out of my pockets alchemist!!
Baklava says:

November 29, 2007 at 12:06 pm

Actually for the good of children everywhere I want to pass a 3 billion dollar bond that pays my company money to put computers on every child’s desk in school.

Don’t you tell ME that wouldn’t be good for America and good for the children. I have 19 years in computers and many certifications….

Now give me your money!
alchemist says:

November 29, 2007 at 12:16 pm

You know, one day in Iraq could basically fund a year of stem cell research. Just noticing that it’s not as expensive as you claim.

And computers for every kid would be great! Maybe we can make a deal with the $200 dollar laptop people! I’ll help you write up the bill if you want?
Sister Toldjah says:

November 29, 2007 at 12:26 pm

alchemist, instead of rehashing an argument from another thread, why not address the points I made in this one, especially the point about the integrity of human life?
alchemist says:

November 29, 2007 at 12:45 pm

Yeah, the integrity of human life is a big complicated deal, and one I think we’re never going to see eye to eye on. I’ve basically accepted that we won’t agree on that point, and basically have decided to talk about how science works (or how science research works)in general.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m really excited about the adult stem cell thing. It’s nifty-cool. And the idea that adult cell could somehow circumvent the ‘sanctity of life’ issue is a breath of fresh air.

But that someday is a long way away. To be frank, these breakthroughs from adult stem cells occurred because Japan is willing to fund embryonic stem cell research. Without that research, this breakthrough doesn’t occur.

So the issue still comes down to: Is the future of medicine worth working on a limited number of embryos for research?
1) What does “limited” mean?
2) Is it worth studying embryos that will be discarded anyway?
3)Is any loss of embryo life worth it?

And I just don’t think we’ll agree on any of these 3 points. I don’t think anything I say, or you say, will change that.

At this point, I’m just trying to make sure that our understanding of the science is the same. That much is a pretty good start. And those articles are the best primer course in understanding what’s really going on.
Sister Toldjah says:

November 29, 2007 at 1:10 pm

Yeah, the integrity of human life is a big complicated deal, and one I think we’re never going to see eye to eye on. I’ve basically accepted that we won’t agree on that point, and basically have decided to talk about how science works (or how science research works)in general.

What exactly is it that you disagree with regarding my comments about the integrity of human life in its earliest stages?
Baklava says:

November 29, 2007 at 1:25 pm

alchemist smugly writes, “At this point, I’m just trying to make sure that our understanding of the science is the same. ”

Are we dumb? stum cull reserch good. Wepubican bad.

In liberals eyes, taxpayers need to fund this and every other project no matter the evidence of administrative costs on every “program” being so high that it is highly evident that many programs should be stricken from the government yet they are expanded and conservatives are branded as “not caring”.

National Defense IS prescribed by the constitution as a job for the federal government. Yet over the last 30 years federal spending on National defense has gone from 49% of the budget to 19%.

As for federal government spending, I look at the following priorities:
1)the Constitution
2)common sense
3)respect for individual rights and life.

Where do you base your government spending decisions?

Communism/Socialism/Utopian leanings?
mdmdc says:

November 29, 2007 at 3:43 pm

Re: Baklava (11/29/2007 – 1:25 pm)

As for federal government spending, I look at the following priorities:
1)the Constitution
2)common sense
3)respect for individual rights and life.

Where do you base your government spending decisions?

First, it’s just kind of silly to assign to “liberals,” as you do earlier in your post, the need to “fund this and every other project …” when you then finish with your priorities for federal government spending. Plenty of responsibility on all sides for government spending well outside of your priorities, though I admit I am a liberal and therefore don’t subscribe to them.

In this specific case, embryonic stem cell research is/would be largely funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH); not mentioned in the Constitution, by the way, so I guess we just shouldn’t do it, right?.

Why should the NIH be funded by the federal government? Because the results of its research are very long term in the vast majority of cases; private companies can’t afford/won’t decide to make significant investments in this type of long term research because it doesn’t result in short term profits. If not private companies, who? Well, the federal government. And the benefits are that we as a nation (and a world) gain the knowledge that will lead to further cures/prevention techniques/whatever; the researchers/institutions who receive this federal funding and discover these things then transfer the technology to private companies who develop it, turn it into profits, save lives, and contribute to the national economy.
alchemist says:

November 29, 2007 at 6:03 pm

Sister Toldjah, I don’t disagree with anything you wrote per se, but from your writings I gather that you believe in life at conception. I gather that you believe that ESC is equal to a human life, and that any tampering with them is … (sacrligeous, euthanasia, ?) … not worth the benefits of research. (obviously, I’m not you, so I’m unsure if this is a good enough description)

While I’ve never spent alot of time thinking about it, I don’t equate human life with cells in a petri dish. Therefore, I am less concerned about the integrity of embryonic life. Now, I would rather they (the researchers) started in mice and mokeys (simply because it’s less controversial) but I’m not bothered by the idea of embryonic stem cell research.
I believe embryonic stem cells are the only way we can truly learn more about how stem cells work, and are essential to further research (and possibly, someday in the distant future, stem-cell based cares)
I understand that we don’t see eye to eye on this issue, and will not anytime in the near future.

Baklava: I don’t think any less of you. I don’t believe the republican party is “sabotaging cures” or anything like that. I think those that disagree with stem cell research believe that embryonic life is sacred, and I’m not going to attack someone for believing that. I will take some time to point out what I think are incorrect arguments, like the argument that this adult stem cell breakthrough was made wihout help from embryonic stem cells. On the contrary, these researchers used test results from ESC to make their breakthrough.

I gather that you (baklava) also think that ALL federally funded research is a waste of money. On that we also disagree, but that is an entirely seperate conversation, and I don’t have time to tackle both right now.

I also think that “common sense” is very hard to define in the real world, and that we might completely disagree on what constitutes common sense. But I think we would both agree that the goverment hasn’t used common sense in a loooong time.

Getting back to the issue at hand, I think we’ve come to this empasse, and I don’t think there’s any way to cross it.

I’m not sure what else there is to say?
Sister Toldjah says:

November 29, 2007 at 6:22 pm

Sister Toldjah, I don’t disagree with anything you wrote per se, but from your writings I gather that you believe in life at conception. I gather that you believe that ESC is equal to a human life, and that any tampering with them is â€¦ (sacrligeous, euthanasia, ?) â€¦ not worth the benefits of research. (obviously, I’m not you, so I’m unsure if this is a good enough description)

I don’t base my opinions of ESC on religion. My arguments are secular in nature.

While I’ve never spent alot of time thinking about it,

And that’s the problem in a nutshell, because if you spent as much time thinking about what an embryo actually was rather than trying to justify destroying them in the name of “cures” then maybe you’d see it the same way that I do.

I don’t equate human life with cells in a petri dish.

What we’re talking about here is no more mere “cells” in a petri dish than a shark is a mere “fish” in the sea. That you would describe an embryo as a mere “cell” is stunning to me, considering the knowledge you seem to have as to the nature of ESCR in general.

Therefore, I am less concerned about the integrity of embryonic life.

Well, yeah, it’s easy to justify supporting ESC when you view an embryo as nothing more than a mere “cell.” This argument reminds me of the arguments I’ve read on PVS patients, and one of the strongest ones I’ve read concerned terminology and the way its used in the medical community to downplay issues of great moral significance. Like the use of the term “PVS” – once you start thinking of someone as a vegetable rather than a human being, it’s much easier to justify pulling the plug on that person. I’m not trying to get into an argument about PVS patients, but instead bringing up the similarities in the terminologies and how plays on words have significant impact on how things are viewed and (mis)interpreted.
Severian says:

November 29, 2007 at 6:36 pm

You know, one day in Iraq could basically fund a year of stem cell research. Just noticing that it’s not as expensive as you claim.

This is hands down one of the most asinine arguments liberals keep spouting. How’s this one compare:

You know, one days worth of “entitlement” payments to our welfare state could fund (insert important issue here).

How’s that grab you? We spend far more on our entitlement state than we do on the military and warfare. But noooo, giving stuff to people, including illegals, is obviously so important we can’t even consider slowing down the rate of growth of such spending let alone reducing it. Bah.
Baklava says:

November 29, 2007 at 6:58 pm

alchemist wrote, “I gather that you (baklava) also think that ALL federally funded research is a waste of money.”

I wouldn’t put it in that absolute. For instance, if the federal government needed to spend money on the Manhattan project to find a way to keep us free from the Japanese empire or Germany, I find that would be acceptable.

Our taxpayer dollars should not be stripped from our pockets for R & D generally. Most (90%+) of R&D is done in the private sector and it should be kept that way. The company with the best product (or cheapest sometimes) – or let’s put it this way – the one the public wants wins.

In the quest for supply to meet the demand, health companies have been creating drugs, finding cures, working on new ways to meet the demand with a supply for the people. The federal government nor state governments can do that any more efficiently than a profit motivated company who is trying to meet demand with a supply. And the more LEFTISTS who do not understand why our country is so great put down the profit system of capitalism, the more they scare me and make me want to vote for a Steve Forbes or Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson and less for a Democrat.

Capitalism defined BTW = The people choosing who gets what resources.

As opposed to the government choosing who gets what resources in socialism.

Capitalism makes for more prosperity and less poor people every time. Our poor have more living space and amenities that the average European.

alchemist writes, I’m not sure what else there is to say?”

I respect life now.
I respect capitalism now.
I will remove this issue from political discourse.

Any one of those 3 things will be fine. Repeat them often and you’ll do fine.
mdmdc says:

November 30, 2007 at 9:11 am

Baklava — you’ve really got the wrong idea about federal government support for R&D, I think. First off, the private sector does not fund 90% of the nation’s R&D — according to the National Science Foundation, which does yearly studies of this sort, in FY 2006, the U.S. invested about $342 billion in R&D. Of that amount, industry funded 65%, while the federal government funded 28%. (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf07317/)

Again, the reason this is a good thing for the federal government to be doing is because the basic research (the really long-term, non-product oriented work that is nonetheless what industry spends its R&D (mostly development) money turning into products)) is too risky for industry to undertake in a major way. But because it is so necessary for American innovation, the federal government must pick up the tab. This is shown in the breakdown of the above R&D funding information. Of the $342 billion, about $63.6 billion is for basic, long-term research. Of that amount, industry only provides 16%, while the federal government provides 60%.

Comments are closed.