 |
 |
This post is about detecting spin in the coverage of ESC research rather than any specific Parkinson's therapy or question, so if that doesn't interest you, please don't' feel obligated to read it. Below is a Boston Globe article about the same subject as the Post article, "Lab Techniques May Offer Solution, etc." Out of curiosity, I read them both, and discovered a bit of hypocrisy on Kass' part, as well as major discrepancies between the articles. The Post article is arguably less balanced than the Globe article, and a little research revealed that it is also inaccurate. The hypocrisy comes in what Kass does not say rather than what he does say. We are often warned by those who oppose ESCR that "there are no guarantees" that it will yield anything, and that even it it does, it won't be for years (see Kass' article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16510-2004Oct7.html for an example of the latter.) Setting aside for the moment the facts that there are *never* g! uarantees with *any* medical research, and that it takes years for almost *any* medical research to bear fruit, and just looking at these two proposals (because contrary to what the Post article says, there has been no research into either of these ideas as yet), it seems odd to me that the absence of any guarantees in these two cases doesn't seem to pose a problem to their supporters. Likewise, the fact that research hasn't even begun on either proposal, which would indicate to me a timespan of years before either can be said to work (or not), also seems not to raise any concerns in the minds of their supporters, including Kass. It also seems odd to me that these ideas are getting press - I may be wrong, but I don't think it is standard procedure for ideas for research studies to be covered in the press. Results, yes, but totally untested *ideas?* It is also interesting to note the differences between the two articles - most notably, that in the Globe article, "neither [of the alter! natives] has yet been attempted," and later, "Hurlbut had not yet demonstrated it is even possible to create something that would generate the equivalent of embryonic stem cells without being considered an embryo." In contrast, the Post article says "Both strategies have been under development for at least two years," but later refers to the Hurlbut idea as a "concept," and as something he "proposes," neither of which sounds like something one would say about ongoing research. Moreover, a cursory look into the paper presented by Zucker and Landry reveals that they have done no research, as yet. The whole paper is a proposal, not a report on study results. http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/114/9/1184The other thing I find interesting is the level of concern, regarding feasibility, dangers, financial cost, and opportunity cost (possibly taking funding away from ESCR) pointed out in each article. While the Globe article points out 7 areas of concern (on both the pro and anti-ESCR sides), the Post article only cites one, as yet not fully formed concern. I did a brief search on articles by each author, and all i can say for sure about the authors is that the Globe's Cook has focused more on stem cells than the Post's Brown has, including a lengthy article on Hurlbut''s idea on 11/21. It is possible that Cook is simply better informed on the subject. However, given that the Post published Kass' article "Playing Politics with the Sick," (link above) which contains quite a few significant omissions and disingenuous statements that are extremely misleading to those who are uninformed and unaware of the omissions, it is likely that t! here is more than the author's particular bias at play here. http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2004/12/04/stem_cell_alternatives_gain_key_support/Stem cell alternatives gain key support By Gareth Cook, Globe Staff | December 4, 2004 WASHINGTON -- Dr. Leon R. Kass, the chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, said yesterday he supports two new proposals that could allow scientists to create human embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos. Both proposals, presented yesterday at the first meeting of the council since the presidential election, suggest ways biologists might be able to generate the scientifically promising cells without triggering the objections that have made the research a target of the anti-abortion movement and have prompted President Bush to restrict federal funding for the work. The proposals still face a range of ethical and scientific hurdles, and neither has yet been attempted, but they received a positive reception from the council, which has generally taken a cautious approach to new biological research. Kass, a conservative philosopher appointed by Bush to head the council, said that after studying the ideas closely, he believes they hold promise for ending the divisive political battle. ''I think these are two extremely interesting, very creative proposals," Kass said yesterday. The council did not vote on the ideas and has no power over federal policy, but it is a high-profile public venue for addressing controversies over cloning, life extension, and other frontiers of biological research. Kass's endorsement would probably give the ideas a boost in a highly politicized environment. Though embryonic stem cells are considered scientifically promising for their power to transform into any type of cell in the body, their use has attracted deep opposition because obtaining them requires destroying a human embryo while it is a ball of about 200 cells. Because of this, on Aug. 9, 2001, Bush declared that the federal government will not fund research involving human embryonic stem cells created after that date, saying he did not want the government to pay for the destruction of more human embryos. ''We would take seriously any proposal that would permit stem cell research without violating this important principle," said a White House official yesterday. The official, who asked not to be identified, said the Bush administration would follow the proposals. The two ideas considered by the council represent different ways to obtain embryonic stem cells without destroying an embryo. One, crafted by council member Dr. William Hurlbut, a conservative bioethicist at Stanford University, would engineer a human egg so that it creates cells equivalent to human embryonic stem cells but never develops into an actual embryo. The other idea, presented by two Columbia University professors, proposes devising standards for declaring an embryo ''dead." If it is ethically acceptable to allow organ donation from patients who have been declared brain dead, they reason, then it should be acceptable to remove cells from an embryo that has been declared dead. The Columbia idea was published last month in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. The Hurlbut proposal was reported in the Globe last month and is beginning to trigger heated debate in the political sphere. That debate has revealed politically surprising divides among conservatives: On Thursday, the Family Research Council issued a statement condemning Hurlbut's idea, despite the fact that Hurlbut shares their conviction that destroying human embryos is tantamount to murder. A spokesperson for Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas and a powerful political force in the opposition to research using human embryos, said he saw little promise in the proposal. But Representative Dave Weldon, Republican of Florida and another important foe of embryo research, struck a more moderate tone. In a statement sent the Globe, Weldon said the proposal ''is an interesting theoretical proposal" and merits more study. Weldon and council members, however, cautioned that Hurlbut had not yet demonstrated it is even possible to create something that would generate the equivalent of embryonic stem cells without being considered an embryo. In the discussion at the council yesterday, some members also raised ethical objections to Hurlbut's idea. The proposal depends on cloning technology, which currently requires hundreds of donated human eggs to produce a single embryonic stem cell; such donations can pose some risk to the women donors. There are also concerns about genetically engineering human egg cells -- so called ''germ line engineering" -- because it involves modifying the human genome. The other idea was presented yesterday by Dr. Donald W. Landry and Dr. Howard A. Zucker, who are not council members. It relies on the fact that some embryos created for fertility treatment simply ''arrest," or stop dividing. These embryos are typically discarded -- but the Columbia scientists say that some of their individual cells may remain viable. The scientists argue that biologists could examine very early embryos that have failed to divide for two full days. Perhaps, they suggest, biologists can find clear chemical differences between these embryos and healthy embryos and this chemical signature could be used to determine that the embryo is dead. If it contains viable cells, then the cells could be extracted without harming a live embryo. There are scientific obstacles to this idea. No one knows whether a ''dead" embryo would contain viable cells that could yield stem cells. Any such cells would be harvested when the embryo had not yet reached the point at which stem cells are normally derived. Douglas Powers, scientific director of the fertility clinic Boston IVF, also said in a phone interview that it might be difficult to find a biochemical test that could convincingly determine if an embryo is dead. ''It is an interesting proposal, and I really commend them for advancing the debate," said Powers. ''But I suspect it is not practical." For both proposals, though, there are experiments that scientists could begin now in animals to determine how practical the approaches are. Kass cautioned that his support of the ideas depends on the results of this initial research and said he hoped scientists would pursue the ideas. Dr. Evan Snyder, a professor and director of the stem-cell and regeneration program at the Burnham Institute in La Jolla, Calif., has said that he is interested in doing experiments suggested by Hurlbut's proposal. But Michael S. Gazzaniga, a Dartmouth College neuroscientist who serves on the council and supports current methods of deriving human embryonic stem cells, said at the council meeting that he fears resources poured into these lines of work could draw resources away from important work that can be done now -- a sentiment echoed by a number of other biologists. And one prominent foe of embryo research said the proposals could cloud the debate, distracting the public from the fundamental moral questions of tampering with early human gestation. ''There are political considerations," said David Prentice, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council. ''Do we even want to get into this discussion?" Gareth Cook can be reached at [log in to unmask] © Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.