"Expelled" Producers make silly, ironic mistake

The producers of the movie "Expelled" owe PZ Meyersa lifetime pass to the movie. And they really need to attend and pass a logic class.

Dr. Myers, a scientist who researches cephalopods, and one of the men interviewed for the movie, was escorted by security from a free event that included a preview of the movie. However, the producers allowed Myer's wife, daughter, and her fiance to enter and view the movie, accompanied by Richard Dawkins.

The producers should be ashamed of themselves. They advertised the event, inviting people to register to see the movie. They did not send out notices that "everyone except x, y, and pz, may see the movie."

And to skip over Red-A Atheist-wanna-be Myers for the original, Dawkins, is just plain dumb. Dawkins has posted his review of the movie, here. (I haven't read it yet.)

Here's the real-time "Pharyngula" blog post about the incident - from PZ Myer's blog (he ran over to the Apple computer store to post on his blog) and there's a follow up post, here.

The entire conversation about the movie has left the original topic of academic prejudice against believers or even doubters, the near topic of the truth about Creation and evolution. The little boys are throwing mud pies and calling each other "dummie." I can't help but believe that the move to expel Myers from the showing was just a power play on the part of some would-be producer intern.

The Producers had a chance to frame the publicity from a PJ Myers appearance (along with that other guy) at their movie. ("Look who's coming to see the movie" will now become "Expelled from Expelled" and "Evidence that "Expelled" is not too bright." and "Myers is a saint.")

Here's the LifeEthics blog conversation that's been going on since October, and which also has a notice about the incident with Myers, Dawkins and the Producers and bouncers. Here's the Christianity Today review, and here's the New York Times. I guess that if all the Producers wanted was publicity, their strategy worked.

Some Bloggers shouldn't reproduce

They shouldn't reproduce their thoughts in writing, that is.

Take a look at the comments on "Laws, conscience, medicine and bloggers," for a perfect example of "they just don't get it."

Freedom of conscience is part of the Washington State law. The Governor threatened to replace the members of the State Pharmacy Board if they voted against an invalid law. The pharmacists do not have to dispense over the counter medications.

All sorts of red herrings have been raised to defend the law, including accusations that someone might refuse to prescribe medicines for HIV patients and insulin for diabetics.

This is also a good example of my editorial style. You would be shocked by some of the answers I've typed and erased.

ScienceDaily (How to show your social eugenics agenda)

ScienceDaily, a website that often carries news headlines and just about any press release anyone sends them, has topped themselves today with a blurb suggesting that same sex civil unions are a "600 year old tradition." We know that homosexuality has been around at least since Exodus was first related, and murder and lying are even older. That doesn't make them "traditions" or ScienceDaily a legitimate scientific source.

But it is a good excuse to review what is and what is not "science."

Science is the practice of observing, collecting and *processing* information about the natural world. Valid scientific subjects are subject to formal testing by experimentation based on a hypothesis and formal manipulation of conditions, with as few variables as possible. The "gold standard" for scientific evidence is that such experiments can be reproduced by other observers, in other labs, with the same results.

I haven't pulled out the Yellow Brick Award in months, but this wins that dubious honor. Scientists do not hide behind curtains, depend on smoke and mirrors and false images to fool the public, earn grant money, or make headlines. We don't rely on personalities or even tradition. Neither should a legitimate science news service loan their name and webspace to a cheap publicity stunt, no matter how much the editors wish to shock or engage in social experimentation. The American College of Pediatricians calls this sort of political activism "social eugenics." I call it an evolutionary dead end (at least for that website and its editors' credibility).

It certainly isn't science.

Animal Farm: Trojan Pigs and Devolution of Standards

Correction, here: Another blogger The same poster that found it necessary to rant that Fox and CBS wouldn't advertise condoms on the Bioethics.net Blog also posted on the Women's Bioethics Blog. Blog.bioethics.net has been "down" since I posted yesterday - Coincidence? (Update June 21 - they still haven't posted my post.)

There's a link to the commercial, which I have to admit, has some humor to it.

So many puns, so little time.

Trojan could have appropriately used horses, but chose pigs to represent men. Perhaps -if I can use Alexandra's word - it's due to the devolution that produced the same low standards that makes them think a men's room condom dispenser could change a woman's mind about having sex with a pig. Yeah, when "pigs fly."

Alexandra comments on the hypocrisy of TV networks that would deny anyone "sexual pleasure with a condom."

Come on! As the commercial shows, the vending machine is in the bathroom at the club. With product placement like that (for the condoms as well as the men and women) what difference is a commercial going to make to the rate of "unintended teen pregnancy"?

I know, I know. There's actual bioethics news out there. Wesley Smith has posted on ACT's claim to have finally done the experiment they said they did, before. There's Ian Wilmut's plea for human-animal hybrids, not to mention his being named "feature editor" for the new website, "Nature Reports Stem Cells." And there's even "Skinny Water."

Can't resist ending with a line from one of my favorite pigs: "That's all folks!"

"Duty to Die" (A Bioethics "Target" if there ever was one)

If the person has lost her moral agency/personhood as I argue, then the person who deserved reward is no longer present to receive it. It is the new moral entity, having done nothing, that receives the reward for what someone else did.

Seriously! "Someone else?"


Yesterday, I discussed the first of two "Target Articles" in this month's American Journal of Bioethics. The second Target Article, "A Kantian Moral Duty for the Soon-to-be Demented to Commit Suicide" by Dennis R. Cooley,Ph.D, seems a good demonstration of what happens when elitist minds forgo ethical boundaries in order to provoke discussion.

Cooley bases his essay on the discussion by Kant of personhood, moral agents, and a duty to one's life and self as an end in itself:

Kantian arguments for morally obligatory suicide are
extremely rare. Many believe that Kant thought suicide
was absolutely prohibited conduct, mostly on the grounds
that no agent could consistently will the generalized form
of any suicide maxim based on self-love as a law of nature.
Therefore, according to this interpretation, Kant would
never require someone to kill herself for any reason. However,
there is a plausible interpretation of Kant’s views
that states, under certain conditions, not only is the person
permitted to kill herself; she is required to do so
as a duty to herself qua moral agent. In situations in
which the agent cannot keep both her physical and moral
lives, killing her body preserves her moral life and dignity
as a person. I will first develop the Kantian suicide
duty to the self and then focus on why it pertains to
dementia patients before they lose their moral status as
persons.
...the example most closely related to dementia patients’
loss of moral agency is that of a man bitten by a rabid dog.
As in the case of the patients, the ill man is not responsible
for becoming ill. However, even though he is innocent
of any wrongdoing related to the illness, Kant states that
the man has a duty to take “his life lest he harm others as
well in his madness” (Kant 1797 [1996], 178). There are only
two choices—each of which is bad—open to the rabid individual:
suicide and madness/loss of personhood. For the
latter, the agent not only loses his humanity by becoming
the physical equivalent of a rabid dog, he poses a threat to
others, which in turn could cause them to lose their humanity
if they are also infected. Suicide, on the other hand, is a
duty he has to himself as a being with human dignity. Although
it is likely to cause harm to others due to the loss of
the individual, if performed with the right mental states and
reasons, the taking of his physical life preserves his moral
agency. He chooses to remain a person, instead of allowing
himself to be degraded by having a moral status lower than
that of a rabid dog.

The good news is that all of the Open Peer Comments object (with one, Ackerman, calling Cooley "elitist"), and it appears that Cooley, himself, believes that he only wrote the essay to provoke discussion. In his "Reply" to the Peer Comments, Cooley (who teaches philosophy and ethics at the North Dakota State University) explains his purpose behind writing the essay, as well as implying that he doesn't accept Kant's assertions:

I knew when writing “A Kantian Moral Duty for the Soon to Be Demented to Commit Suicide” that it would cause a great deal of consternation too (sic) many. First, my interpretation of Kant was heavily influenced by Korsgaard’s double-level theory so well explicated in her “The Right to Lie: Kant on Dealing with Evil (1998).” Second, and most importantly, any challenge to central beliefs on morality, especially when it involves vulnerable populations, always will have this effect. However, I take Mill seriously when he states that:

the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind (Mill [1972], 88).

The goal is to understand what others think and argue, and then incorporate the useful parts into a fuller understanding of death duties.

......The position I consider only applies to people when they have dementia causing disease and their full self-hood with its inherent duties to themselves. The need now is to discuss the issue until some practical solutions that respects all those affected are found.

Actually, no, Dr. Cooley, we have no such need.

Billions and Billions of stem cells (or ACT kills more mice needlessly)

Once again, ACT is hyping research that duplicates work already done using non-embryonic stem cell research. The only thing new is the possibility that they have come up with a way to make "Billions" of the plastic cells.

Ok, maybe we learned something from Advanced Cell Technology's Robert Lanza's latest human embryonic stem cell report published on line (free) prior to print in Nature Methods, "Generation of functional hemangioblasts from human embryonic stem cells." Perhaps the method of growing the cells without animal or human serum will prove useful.

This time, ACT is hyping their development of "hemangioblasts," the stem cells that become blood cells and the cells that make up the blood vessels, and the big claim is that the researchers at Advanced Cell Technology have a technique for making "billions and billions" of cells. Their own introduction explains that the group has not developed a new line of cells or proven anything new as far as vascular repair goes:

Although progenitor cells have recently been discovered that can enter the circulation in response to vascular injury and ischemia (1–5), defining and isolating these cells has proven problematic. Circulating bone marrow–derived cells have also been shown to be important in normal physiologic maintenance and repair of the body’s vasculature (6,7) with approximately 1–3% of endothelial cells at any one time being bone marrow–derived. Furthermore, the entire hematopoietic system has been hypothesized to originate from a transient population of hemangioblasts restricted to embryogenesis (8,9). But recent evidence suggests that hemangioblasts or more mature endothelial progenitors may also exist in adult tissues and umbilical cord blood (2–4,10,11).More direct proof for their existence was provided when the in vitro equivalent of the hemangioblast was isolated using a mouse embryonic stem cell differentiation system (12,13). Recently a human hemangioblast cell population derived from hES cells was also identified using a procedure that consisted of serum-free differentiation in a mixture of cytokines followed by expansion in serum-containing medium (14). To date, large-scale generation or functional assessment of hemangioblasts has not been achieved in any of these systems. Here we show that large numbers of what appear to be a distinct population of progenitor cells with both hematopoietic and vascular potential can be efficiently and reproducibly generated from hES cells using a simple two-step procedure with different supplements under fully serum-free conditions.

Here's those references, please note the titles:

1. Rafii, S. & Lyden, D. Therapeutic stem and progenitor cell transplantation for organ vascularization and regeneration. Nat. Med. 9, 702–712 (2003).
2. Grant, M.B. et al. Adult hematopoietic stem cells provide functional hemangioblast activity during retinal eovascularization. Nat. Med. 8, 607–612 (2002).
3. Bailey, A.S. et al. Transplanted adult hematopoietic stems cells differentiate into functional endothelial cells. Blood 103, 13–19 (2004).
4. Cogle, C.R. et al. Adult human hematopoietic cells provide functional hemangioblast activity. Blood 103, 133–135 (2004).
5. Otani, A. et al. Bone marrow-derived stem cells target retinal astrocytes and can promote or inhibit retinal angiogenesis. Nat. Med. 8, 1004–1010 (2002).
6. Crosby, J.R. et al. Endothelial cells of hematopoietic origin make a significant contribution to adult blood vessel formation. Circ. Res. 87, 728–730 (2000).
7. Hill, J.M. et al. Circulating endothelial progenitor cells, vascular function, and cardiovascular risk. N. Engl. J. Med. 348, 593–600 (2003).
8. Wagner, R.C. Endothelial cell embryology and growth. Adv. Microcirc. 9, 45–75 (1980).
9. Park, C., Ma, Y.D. & Choi, K. Evidence for the hemangioblast. Exp. Hematol. 33, 965–970 (2005).
10. Loges, S. et al. Identification of the adult human hemangioblast. Stem Cells Dev. 13, 229–242 (2004).
11. Pelosi, E. et al. Identification of the hemangioblast in postnatal life. Blood 100, 3203–3208 (2002).
12. Choi, K., Kennedy, M., Kazarov, A., Papadimitriou, J.C. & Keller, G. A common precursor for hematopoietic and endothelial cells. Development 125, 725–732 (1998).
13. Kennedy, M. et al. A common precursor for primitive erythropoiesis and definitive haematopoiesis. Nature 386, 488–493 (1997).
(Emphasis is mine)

As I said, the main claim in the article is that the ACT researchers made a large number of hemangioblasts, and set about proving that they were, indeed, hemangioblasts, through experiments on mice, which all had induced injuries and which were sacrificed for autopsy.

However, what do we read in the tabloids science mags?

From Scientific American.
"New Recipe for Powerful Stem Cells Promises Greater Insight."

Other groups had discovered hemangioblasts in mouse and human embryonic cells as well as in adult human bone marrow and umbilical cord blood. But they were unable to harvest them in large enough numbers to evaluate the cells' healing properties.

And from Technology Review, "Stem Cells Repair Blood Vessels: A new method to boost growth of blood vessels with stem cells could improve cell therapies for diabetes and heart disease."

And last, but not least, from Reuters, UK, "Embryonic stem cells can repair eyes, company says."

"For example, we injected the cells into mice with damaged retinas due to diabetes or other eye injury. The cells (labeled green) migrated to the injured eye, and incorporated and lit-up the entire damaged vasculature. The cells are really smart, and amazingly, knew not to do anything in uninjured eyes."

The researchers killed the mice to check the cells' progress, so they do not know the long-term effects.

What none of the articles mention is the ongoing studies using non-embryonic stem cells to do what ACT claims its embryonic stem cells will do.

There was this report in the American Journal of Pathology in 2006 and this one from 2004, published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation about using a patient's own bone marrow cells to repair eye injury. Both used mouse models.

There is also the Austin, Texas trial that I reported on last week, which is using donor bone marrow cells. And there are several studies, including one using the patient's own stem cells to treat "Critical Ischemic Limb," at Houston, Texas' Stem Cell Center at St. Luke's Hospital.

It appears that this is just one more example of hype and hope about cells that have already been studied - and even used in humans - when someone (ACT, too often) claims to have a new study proving that they have generated human embryonic stem cells of some sort or other and to have "cured" some disease. (in mice, if at all.)

Bloggers on "Loaded Lanquage"

The blogger, Nick Anthis, a graduate of Texas A&M and a Ph.D student and Rhodes scholar currently studying at Oxford, occasionally posts at his blog, Scientific Activist ("Reporting from the Crossroads of Science and Politics"). On his "About" page he warns us that "enemies of science" should "Beware!"

As part of his campaign against his "enemies," has a post from May 8, 2007 that notes "Loaded Language in Media Coverage of Embryonic Stem Cells." He accuses the New York Times(!) author, Pam Belluck, and her fellow science reporters of being "pawns of the conservative movement."

But not to worry, he gives Ms. Belluck the exact wording he would prefer:

Instead, the author could write that "President Bush objects to the necessity of what he calls the destruction of human embryos" or that "President Bush objects to the use of human embryos."

However, the commenters on the blog don't appreciate any other viewpoint, especially a clarification of whether or not "destruction of embryos" is an accurate description of the process of harvesting embryonic stem cells. That being said, surely they would benefit from hearing from us.

If you have a minute, stop by and say hello to Mr. Anthis and friends at Scientific Activist.

Edit: 05/12/07 - another broken link.

Progressives vs. Conservatives (rubber, glue)

What did I tell you? I forgot to tell you what the "Progressives" fuss was about and to link to the actual articles. Which meant that I didn't review the actual critiques of the report by the President's Domestic Policy Council (covered here, last week).

Jonathan Moreno and Sam Berger of the Center for American Progress' Bioethics Project wrote "Alternative Sources of Stem Cell Truth: White House Misrepresents Potential of Alternative Sources of Pluripotent Stem Cells" on January 11th. Ramesh Ponnuru critiqued their critique in "Selling Alternatives Short: Good news for humanity is bad news to some" at the National Review OnLine. Moreno and Berger wrote a rebuttal, "Shouting Semantics Over Science."

It's easy to dismiss the fussin' as political differences or competition between rival publications (although I doubt that NRO has much to worry about). However, what is at stake is the very basis of ethics, itself: the primary philosophical questions "who am I, why am I here, what should I do?"

There's also the secondary question, "how can I keep that other guy from killing me?"

Some of us believe that it is never ethical or permissible to destroy human embryos, even if it means that we never obtain the treatments that Moreno and Berger mention in their first article. Moreno and Berger believe that research should not be hampered by concerns for human embryos, even though every single possible therapy that they mention is just as likely to come from non-destructive therapy. (anyone who doubts that there is already research supporting non-destructive sources for each and every line M & B mention can try PubMed, review this blog, or email me for the address where they can send their self-addressed stamped envelope and payment for the hard copies of the pertinent research.)

It's true that I agree with Ponnuru,

Again and again, this duo treats readers to double standards. Alternative approaches can be dismissed whenever promising findings haven’t been reproduced; but findings favorable to embryonic stem-cell research are taken to the bank, whether or not they’re reproduced. The long-term potential for embryo-destructive research is emphasized; the failure of alternative approaches to produce immediate results is held against them. Data is cherry-picked to show that the absence of taxpayer funding for embryo-destructive research has hurt American competitiveness; contrary evidence is ignored.

One of the great fake bits of data in this debate — the “400,000 excess embryos stored in fertility clinics” — makes a return appearance. To repeat: We know that number from a study that also showed that fewer than three percent of those embryos would be available for research.

Let's face it, the goal of all stem cell research is to manage functioning tissue, organs, and cells. These are made by adult stem cells. The embryonic stem cells and even the fetal/amniotic/placental stem cells are more primitive or intermediate forms of stem cells similar to the the Multipotent Adult Progenitor Cells (MPACs), not the specific stem cells or stem cell lines that are desirable for in vivo use. Animal models, umbilical cord, amniotic/placental, and MPACs, along with our experience with actual adult stem cells should be sufficient, without killing human embryos, without creating new embryos for destruction, and without cloning or creating animal-human hybrids.


Besides, the true goal should not be the ability to implant actual cells and organs, except in dire emergencies - what we really want is to be able to regenerate our heart, brain, kidney, pancreas and skin cells in place, as we lose or injure them.



HT to Jivin' Jehosaphat

Biased bioethicist's slip is showing

Every time I note someone else's editorial or grammatical mistakes, I (later, of course) find that I've made some glaring mistake of my own in that comment. I'll try to avoid that here, but read closely, just in case.

Nevertheless, . . .

Bioethics.net, the blog of the editors (and pseudoeditors) of the American Journal of Bioethics, a couple of especially snide, petty and biased comments, today.

If you could identify with anyone called a "mouth breathing Pentecostal," don't read the first (which I believe is a rant from authored by Art Caplan) concerning the ensoulment of cloned humans (my previous discussion is here) unless you can brush off the insult. (However, perhaps someone who does read it could tell me how the editors and pseudoeditors (e&p) could believe that Ben Franklin "wouldn't have allowed a column as dumb as Answer Fella to exist in the first place.")

In my own snide, petty manner, I'm copying the slip up of the e&p before they repair it further:

Well, listening was New Republic National Review Senior Analyst Ramesh Ponnuru, and you can watch what Berger and Moreno do to his analysis of their piece on the CAP site linked above. No point quoting it, I'm just not capable of typing even one more time either the work by or the critique of the New Republic/Weekly Standard on stem cells.

Note the strike-out on the first "New Republic," but, as yet, none at the second.

I've asked the e&p to explain the difference between their own "progressive" (read: "prochoice, pro-embryo destruction, and - with rare exceptions - non-believers) editorial relationships and the conservatives' (read: "prolife and believers - again, with rare exceptions - in a Creator") relationship with like-minded publications.

In contrast to the frequent and incestuous association of the "progressives" with the very organizations they're supposed to be reviewing, of course.

"It's a matter of taste."

Bioethics.com has posted a YouTube video from the Ali G show with Dr. Edmund Pelligrino (identified as from "Georgetown University, Papal Advisor Medical Ethics"), Richard Fischer ("American Institute of Homeopathy), Dr. John Freeman ("Johns Hopkins Medical School") and Louis Brescht ("Catholic Medical Association"). The segment can also be viewed here, identified as "Ali G - Medical Ethics."

For more information, you may want to read this article at the American Enterprise Institute that explains how one man escaped the same fate.

I'm incredibly impressed with the way the men who find themselves in an obviously ridiculous position behaved. No one was angry, no one was condescending, and they seem to be trying to teach, almost kind.

Now, I have to figure out whether my posting all this information about the circumstances as well as the links makes me as gullible as the men that were fooled by Sacha Baron Cohen. Especially since I have to admit that, although I thought I recognized the interviewer as the same man who plays "Barat," but know I didn't have a clue who "Ali G" was until I googled the name.