Do you find a lot of the latest work to be essentially work-arounds for getting embryonic stem cells‚—like the reprogramming of adult skin cells?
I'm pro-science, so I welcome all of these different types of stem cell research. I think we have moved, not away from embryonic stem cell research, but we have moved to a richer research environment, which was probably likely to happen anyway. The mistake that the press and politicians have made is characterizing this as either/or.
When they reprogrammed the adult stem cells, after giving credit to George Bush for the scientific discovery, there was a researcher comparing this advance to the Wright Brothers' discovery of the airplane. So, there's been a lot of hyperbole around this, and the one who is the most compelling talking about this is [National Institutes of Health director Elias] Zerhouni, who says all of these types of research support each other and we need to not be making political decisions picking one over the other.
I agree with that. But, we also need to have some kind of ethical review. It shocks people when I tell them we don't have any ethical review over what's going on in stem cell research on a national basis. I'm actually getting ready to introduce new legislation with Mike Castle, which will not just reverse the president's executive order but will also give support at the NIH for ethical cell-based research, and it will create federal, ethical oversight. So, that, to me, is going to be the exciting advance that I hope we'll make after the next election.
With so little actually proven in the field of stem cells, do you feel that you are arguing based on hype and potential rather than results?
I think one of the dangers that politicians make—and other commentators—is hyping the potential of one type of research, saying, "Well, my child would be cured if we only had more stem cell research." That's not how science works.
When I talk to the researchers, they say that over the middle term—rather than the short term or the long term—the great potential in curing a lot of these diseases, like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, nerve regeneration, is the ability to reprogram cells [so] that they can grow into new cells that will cure those diseases. Whether those come from adult stem cells, reprogrammed adult stem cells, whatever, they say that is the real frontier in bioscience.
Are right wing legislators acting as agents for the religious right or are they acting of their own will?
I think some of the leaders behind these antiscience arguments really do believe these things. I think the vast majority are really making a political calculation, and I think the political calculation they're making is: "I don't want to anger the religious right, so I'll just go along with this because I think my constituents think this anyway."
I say on page 21 of the introduction: "What in god's name are these people doing? Why does the religious right try to limit scientific advances when they relate to human reproduction? I've come to believe that the most extreme (and, frequently, the most influential) right wing advocates seek a country that comports with their view of the Bible. If it was up to them, they would not only outlaw abortion altogether, but all forms of birth control except the rhythm method and abstinence."
I can't think of any other explanation why they would so thoroughly politicize every aspect of sex and reproduction. I think they want to have a society where it's really God's will whatever happens. That's all well and good within their own families; they can structure their family that way. But, when you're talking about public policy, it's a very big waste of money and it's very dangerous to public health. Teen pregnancy went up last year for the first time in many, many years.
See what we're tweeting about
19 Comments
Add CommentCome on, you copy editors. Hands aren't bells. People wring their hands, not ring their hands. (Second to last answer.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, what an incredibly one-sided article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCareful, Scientific American - your bias is showing.
Umm, that was an interview not an article genius
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am glad Rep. DeGette has spoken out against the politicization of the science of sex and reproduction by the religious right. Government should neither regulate nor subsidize any kind of science for any reason, but President Bush's veto against stem cell research was an egregious example of religion's increasingly successful attempts to erase the separation of church and state.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe issue about stem cells research is so delicate because many hope in future possible applications. However, if a cleaner research branch performed as well it would surely be preferred, even by todays advocates of stem cells research. In the face of necessity, who is strong enough to hold on until a solution comprehensively acceptable is found? Sciences negative side effects will ultimately get domesticated through a wisdom package including issues about both science and human dignity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGet a dictionary, brainiac.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRep. DeGette was interviewed for Nikhil Swaminathan's article.
DeGette is being dishonest in couching this debate as the "pro-science heroes" vs. the "antiscience conspiracy." The debate is not about supporting or opposing science; it's about an ethical debate surrounding a particular area of research. Shame on SciAm for perpetuating this dishonesty! http://www.leavethelightson.info/2008/08/scientific-american-interviews-diana.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat's annoying here, is that no one seems to understand that the bush administration and the "right wingers," don't give a flying bat's hind end about issues, they _use_ them as cattle prods to control the sheeple. George W. is a known well shall we say friend to the non heterosexual as an intimate partner...you can verify that by searching on his name and the title Lips, but he and his used homosexuality as an issue to move things, cause a reaction amongst the emotionally younger in mind voters in order to sway an electoral populance..........bush doesn't have a moral stance, I doubt that he's had a moral thought....but you know that. Do yourselves a favor and learn the difference between having a position and "using others positions" as an emotional whip. Demagogurey is a live and well and being used as a political tool by former CIA officers embedded in the political systems, SEE: Jimmy Carter, Paris, Iran Contra, Russian, October Surprise, Robert M. Gates, George H.W. Bush, William Casey....it's called treason.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdear occam since when is the truth biased....wanna dance? Do you know the difference between empirics and opinion? What a socratic dialogue implies? How many articles would show up if you searched on: bush funding Al Queada ??? what do the Nazis have to do with the bush family? How is Allen Dulles connected with the Bush family??? Who is Prescott Bush??? Or for that matter what does the CIA drug trafficking have to do with Dick Cheney, CentGas, George H.W. Bush, Zalmay Khalizad, Harmid Karzai, and Condolezza Rice???? Can you say......treason?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBravo! The Bush administration is so anti-science that they are an embarrassment to the rest of the civilized world. When government restricts scientific research for their own twisted agenda they need to be challenged at every turn. Degette should be commended for her efforts. Thank you SciAm for running the interview.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLucid13: Get a grip. This is not an issue of pro-science v. anti-science. That's a mischaracterization by DeGette. I wrote in detail about this dishonesty here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMIScharacterization, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..........that's what I would have said was the normal position of those of YOUR ILK. DeGette seems to be a straight shooter.....the bush administration???? KIlled many IRAQI or Afghani or Panamanian or Salvadoran or Ecuadoran or Colombian or Peruvian or Palestinian or Kurdish babies today.....morally upright???? How's about MORALLY BANKRUPT with some propaganda news casts......and the RELIGIOUS RIGHT......just keep sending that money in to prove that Jesus loves you....like that's what Jesus wants is televangelists with greasy hair making money....off of him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you interview a politician, you get political comments. No surprise there. But DeGette is correct in saying that a narrow religious view has taken control of the Republican "base", a view based on a literal reading of ancient scripture without the intellectual effort of understanding the tribal context in which it was written. So we have people, some of them in government, who think their salvation hinges on insisting that the universe is a few thousand years old and that we all have an obligation to criminalize anything that would interfere with cranking out as many babies as we can. They are afraid to think more deeply than that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think Degette expresses not so much the "politician's" comments, but those of a woman and mother, who wants cures to be realized for our children, without science being politicized.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat struck me was this comment: "I think that if the majority of Americans stood up and said, "I am going to elect politicians who care about science in public policy and who vote that way," we would have much better public policy relating to science. "
It is with that in mind that I am currently running for US Congress myself:
http://www.FayeforCongress.com
Perhaps I'm dreaming, but I think that science should be politically neutral because it is empirically-based knowledge. Unfortunately, it's not because scientific research can lead to politically unpalatable conclusions that affect the balance of power in a society (Witness global warming and stem cells as just two examples). In short, if the laws of physics say that a hammer will fall at 32 ft/sec squared on Earth, it doesn't mater if you are liberal, conservative, Democrat or Republican. It will hurt when it lands on your head.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen the US will fall behind in this field, it is as simple as that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe right always shouts BIAS BIAS BIAS whenever something can logically explain the fallacies of their 'because i said so' type positions. Don't worry Sci-Am, nothing's more biased than the right wing rhetoric claiminb bias.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother liberal hating to be disagreed with always the rightwing how about leftwing dems. tyhe worlds best liars
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAways the same from the liberial left the worlds best liars Blame the right wing what the left wing who has more failed programs and more gov. and more gov. and if you disagree you ae rightwing what ever the weekly term give the worl ma break fade away
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this