Smith doesn't bother to mention this when he's telling us we should give up on ES research and focus only on AS work.

One more. Wesley Smith has written another article, Of Stem Cells and Fairy Tales" (I concede that Smith probably is an expert in fairy tales), in which he castigates the press and scientists for propagating the "myth" that embryonic stem cell research could help correct Alzheimer's disease, suggesting that they are just preying on a grieving widow, Nancy Reagan.

Now it is true that ES research is not going to lead directly to a cure; if scientists had been suggesting that we could have used ES cells and therapeutic cloning to grow poor old Ronnie a brand new brain in a petri dish, Smith would have a case. Of course, that is not what has been proposed. Scientists have been clear that a simple stem cell transplant, as could be done for Parkinson's, is not the kind of strategy that is likely to pay off. The real work would involve:

• Using stem cells to develop models in culture that could be used to investigate the disease and experiment on treatments.
• Using stem cells to analyze the causes of the disease; there is some evidence that it may have its roots in embryonic development.
• The utility of basic research with stem cells is to determine the mechanisms that cause pluripotent cells to differentiate into more restricted fates, such as neurons. This is exactly the kind of information we'll need to figure out how to coax brain cells into recovery, if that is possible.
• And one never knows...maybe it will be possible to restore cognitive function with ES transplants.

Just as a general principle, we don't know what strategy will have the greatest payoff in long term research on a disease that we understand so poorly as Alzheimer's. Smith's attitude is that since we don't know something right now, we should therefore immediately close the door on future research in the field. That's just further evidence that the gang at the Discovery Institute has no clue how science works, and are really driven by a backwards-looking, ignorant, anti-science agenda.

1. Great post. I just linked to it from my blog..... It also gives me good ammo for the characters who are telling me that Adult Stem cells produce results - and people get cured from products of adult stem cells - and there isn't anything like that for Embryonic cells.
   #: Posted by Eva Young  on  06/14  at  04:24 PM
2. Exactly right. The key of the research is that we can learn more about how one cell type becomes all of the others. Even in the fairly well-settled field of hematopoietic stem cells there's debate about how the exact transitions occur. The less well-established the field, the worse it is.
   
   There is some place for transplantation, though, at least in some cases. I recall a small talk by a researcher visiting my old deptartment at University of Rochester (and this is when I was still new to science, and so, of course, I have no reference, so take this with as many grains fo salt as you find appropriate) that described some limited success is repairing spinal cord injuries in rats using transplantaion. Additionally, I know that the has been a fair amount of research into ameliorating the cognitive damage caused by chemotherapy using neural precursor cell transplants.
   #: Posted by Reagan  on  06/14  at  06:03 PM
3. I'm a little disappointed that Smith didn't try to make the positive case for limiting stem cell research. It would have been fun to see him advocate that we throw unused embryos in the trash rather than try to culture them. But I guess it's easier to attack strawmen than to defend such a stupid policy.
   #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  08:18 AM
4. While Smith is guilty of promoting a slanted picture of ES research, there are many ES researchers who have overhyped its potential, as well. I also think that you are just as guilty of giving a misleading impression of Smith's argument when you put (in quotes) "Yes, there are problems. SO WE MUST IMMEDIATELY STOP ALL RESEARCH ON THE SUBJECT!" I don't think Smith is saying that all research into ES should be stopped - his point is that federal funding should not go beyond the current status instituted by Bush in 2001. (Maybe he thinks there should be no federal funding on ES research, but even that is not saying that it should be banned.) There are many different levels of funding and regulation - it's not a simple ban-all-research or full-speed-ahead choice.
   
   I find the dismissive attitude many of those who are in favor of ES research and/or therapeutic cloning exhibit towards those who are opposed to it for various reasons to be extremely irritating. We're talking about whether to use taxpayer money to pay for this research, not whether it should be banned outright. Scientists and other research proponents should be more cognizant of the fact that they don't have a 'right' to use taxpayer's money for whatever they want. As the following quote from the first article shows, those in favor of these types of research are not always consistent or honest in their arguments, either:
   
   

   Wilmut's complaint is part of an intense public-relations campaign intended to pressure federal and state governments to publicly fund human cloning. Yet only three years ago, during the great stem-cell debate of 2001, biotech advocates assured a wary nation that they only wanted taxpayers to pay for embryonic-stem-cell research (ESCR) that would be strictly limited to using embryos leftover from in-vitro-fertilization treatments.

   #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  03:28 PM
5. No, that really is the goal of these people at the Discovery Institute: they want to stop ALL research that uses embryos. I recommend you read this other short article by Chris Mooney -- the current Bush restrictions are bogus, and really do unreasonably constrict research.
   
   As for your quote, I should have mentioned that. Another dishonest thing Smith was doing is lying about the goals of stem cell research. "Human cloning" is NOT of interest to any of the scientists I've talked to -- therapeutic cloning is a whole 'nother thing. Smith was constantly using uninformed and misleading language to imply that they were interested in the kind of reproductive cloning that has been done in livestock. Those are completely different things, as the researchers know. Smith treats them as the same. He's either very uninformed, or he is lying.
   #: Posted by PZ Myers  on  06/15  at  03:35 PM
6. Not to pour fuel on the fire, but....
   
   Mike, in order for science to advance in this country, the funding of scientific reasearch projects cannot be under the control of political whims. A system like the NIH is designed to, under ideal circumstances, provide funding to thoseprojects deemed most likely to provide a benefit to human health. The criteria for deciding it? Asking other scientists. That is what the peer review of grant proposals is all about.
   
   Now, we can't reasonably expect the public (or even politicians) to be qualified to make these decisions (nor, actually, can we expact every scientist to be able to provide commentary on any other scientist's work, instead experts in one field review grants in that field, etc.), they simply don't have the background. At the same time saying "Hey! That's MY MONEY! And I don't think you should spend it on X" isn't valid either. There are a few reasons for that, but I'll highlight two:
   
   -As I said before, the public at large isn't usually expert on these matters, and so if they can't be expected to choose which projects rae worthy of funding, neither can they decide which are not worthy of funding
   
   -More importantly, it no longer is the "taxpayer's money". It just isn't. Once you pay it to the government in taxes, it's theirs to spend. Can you try and influence it via elections? Of course. But how many people do you think don't want their money spent on welfare? Or Medicaid? Or tanks and guns and atomic weapons? We live in a republic, and we elect people to make these decisions for us. If we don't like it, we can choose new representatives, but giving the public at large veto power over any government spending is a bad idea.
   
   I could go on about WHY, exactly, scientific discovery is so important to fund, but I think this is long enough, so I'll wrap up.
   #: Posted by Reagan  on  06/15  at  07:00 PM
7. PZ, I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make - even a complete ban on federal funding of ES research would not ban the research entirely. People like Doug Melton and John Gerheart are doing research right now on human ES using non-federal money. I understand the argument that lack of NIH money means the research will not proceed as quickly as it would otherwise, but that is not the same thing as it not proceeding at all.
   
   Reagan,
   
   I'm a research scientist - I understand how research funding works. And I also understand why we have the system we do, and that we generally do a reasonable job insulating research priorities from what you call political whims (though it is not as nearly as pristine as you make it sound - scientists have political agendas, too). I think it is a mistake to call objections to ES research a political whim, however (this is true whether one supports it or objects to it). When people are asked if they support funding of research that requires the destruction of embryos, they say no well over 50% of the time. Most of the people that object to this do so for one of two reasons: either they think it is morally wrong to destroy an intact human embryo for research, or they object to producing a cloned human baby and are fearful that if research on embryos is allowed that it will increase the chances of cloned babies being produced. These are not just political whims - they are fundamental questions about life and how one defines a human being. One does not have to be an expert in embryology in order to be able to make moral distinctions about when human life begins and when it should be protected. Many, if not most, of the people who object to research that results in the destruction of embryos reject it regardless of the results. That is, even if we had cures available now from ES research, many people would still reject federal funding of it on principle. As I said, even if you have no qualms about this research, it is irresponsible to simply dismiss others' concerns about it as being irrational or unworthy of consideration.
   
   I think you are conflating two different issues with the tax money situation. You are correct that we elect representatives, and a chief executive, to make decisions about how our money should be used. But those representatives generally act in accordance with their constituent's wishes (broadly speaking), especially on issues people think are important. A bill to ban all forms of human cloning, including 'therapeutic' cloning, has twice passed the House, which indicates there is fairly widespread objection to this particular research. I also have not seen widespread dissent from Bush's ES policy - the complaints seem to come equally from those who want no restrictions, and those who want no federal funding of the research. It would seem that most of the population is satisfied with his middle-of-the-road approach.
   
   Furthermore, it is still taxpayer money. We of course have to make concessions to others in our pluralistic society. My point was, if more than half the public objects (strongly, for many) to their tax money being used to fund research that destroys embryos, why is it not a reasonable concession on your part to say that federal money can only be spent on cell lines that have already been destroyed (yes, it was an arbitrary date, but it's a compromise, and sometimes compromises are messy), and that any other research has to be paid for out of private funds?
   #: Posted by  on  06/15  at  07:55 PM
8. I think Mike has some good points. Which is why it is important for scientists to be able to justify their research programs on two levels: 1) to their fellow scientists, and 2) to the public at large.
   
   Most non-scientists are a bit awed when I tell them what I do. I am sure (or at least I hope) that is the experience of most scientists in the United States. We live in a society which values, to some extent, science, scientific innovation, and technology. However for those of us who want a more accountable government it means that we, as beneficiaries of the American peoples' largess also need to be accountable.
   
   I believe however that with regard to the ES issue that it is only a matter of time before more and more of the public become more familiar with the ethical and scientific reasons for doing ES work. I predict that within 5 years ES will be completely legal and federally funded.
   
   Best,
   #: Posted by Sean D. Hurley  on  06/15  at  09:03 PM
9. I didn't intend to say that the funding process was completely unemcumbered by political views and such, my point was that it's supposed to be insulated from that, and at least to some extent it works.
   
   My problem, I suppose, with making the concessions you suggest is this. If scientists don't do whatever they can to convince both the public and lawmakers that the this work should be funded then
   
   1) American work on the subject will grind, effectively, to a stand still. Will there be some labs still working on it? Of course. But the burden of not being able to use any federal funds for anything being used to work with the ES cells means that the researchers effectively need to set up a second lab. Only the most well funded are going to be able to do this, meaning only a handful of labs in America will be advancing the science.
   
   2) By agreeing to this, it moves one step closer to a complete ban. And that is exactly what people like the DI want. The point is not just that they want to prevent the government from funding it, they want to pass laws banning it completely.
   
   I have other, less philisophical, issues (like the fact that the amount of embryos being destroyed for IVF could be used to help ES cell research, and how absurd it is that no one is saying that IVF shouldn't be done, yet these embryos can't be used), but those two are my largest.
   #: Posted by Reagan  on  06/16  at  06:28 AM

10. If scientists don't do whatever they can to convince both the public and lawmakers that the this work should be funded

    
    
    I didn't say that scientists shouldn't advocate for funding the research, I'm saying that they need to do the hard work of persuading people of its importance and address moral objections to it, not just dismiss such objections as irrational ranting by uninformed boobs, which is what many scientists have a tendency to do. Treating those whose money you want to use to fund your research as irrelevant is not a good way to convince them to let you proceed with what you want to do. It could be that Sean is correct. But many scientists consider it an affront that they have to wait 5 months, let alone 5 years. Or that they might never be allowed to use federal funds to do ES research.
    
    

    I have other, less philisophical, issues (like the fact that the amount of embryos being destroyed for IVF could be used to help ES cell research, and how absurd it is that no one is saying that IVF shouldn't be done, yet these embryos can't be used), but those two are my largest.

    
    
    I don't want to get into an extended debate about the ethics of IVF, cloning, and ES research, but I'll make two comments to this.
    
    1) My understanding is that not very many IVF embryos are destroyed, and not very many are donated to research (on the order of a few percent, I think). The vast majority of IVF embryos are frozen. The argument in favor of them being used for research is that most of them are unlikely to be implanted, and thus will ultimately be destroyed and/or unusable for implantation. There are lots of subtleties here, but the main point I want to make is that the majority of parents feel ambivalent about what to do with those embryos (which were originally created for the purpose of producing children). Perhaps they can be persuaded to donate them to research, but this is an indication that these entities (extracorporeal embryos) are not viewed by most people as simple tissue that can be used in whatever manner we desire.
    
    2) IVF has been a sort of under-the-radar kind of thing for the last 25 years or so. Most people do not object to the use of technology to help couples conceive a child, but the IVF industry has been largely unregulated. Until recently, I don't think more than a handful of people were aware that there are hundreds of thousands of embryos sitting around in liquid N2. I think the debates about cloning and ES research are causing more people to focus on IVF now. I don't know what will come of all this, but it seems likely that at a minimum IVF will become more regulated in the future.
    #: Posted by  on  06/16  at  08:15 AM
11. Read the articles by Smith, and tell me who is dismissing objections. I'm willing to call an uninformed boob an uninformed boob, and Smith meets all the criteria.
    
    Then read the articles that he cites (selectively and misleadingly). What you'll see are scientists making careful analyses of the promises of stem cell research.
    #: Posted by PZ Myers  on  06/16  at  08:25 AM
12. "I'm willing to call an uninformed boob an uninformed boob, and Smith meets all the criteria."
    
    So am I. Well, at least I'd call them uninformed. I don't know whether Smith meets all the criteria or not (being dishonest or misleading is not the same thing as being uninformed), but even if he does, that doesn't mean everyone who objects to ES research is one, which is frequently what is implied by those in favor of it.
    
    

    That's just further evidence that the gang at the Discovery Institute has no clue how science works, and are really driven by a backwards-looking, ignorant, anti-science agenda.

    
    
    You applied this description specifically to the Discovery Institute, and there may be some truth to it, but do you think it applies to all who object to ES research?
    #: Posted by  on  06/16  at  10:56 AM
13. Of course not. There are valid ethical concerns, and I certainly don't object to honest debate over them. The specific problem here is that the essays by Smith are not honest, he misrepresents the ideas of the scientific community, and he's got an ulterior religious agenda that he and his fellow Fellows labor strenuously to conceal.
    #: Posted by PZ Myers  on  06/16  at  11:06 AM
14. <object to honest debate over them. The specific problem here is that the essays by Smith are not honest, he misrepresents the ideas of the scientific community, and he's got an ulterior religious agenda that he and his fellow Fellows labor strenuously to conceal.</blockquote>
    
    All right, then, no more argument from me. I'll just comment that some scientists aren't always honest about their intentions and/or conflicts of interest (for example, Irving Weissman serving on an advisory panel when he has financial interests involved), and that some of the advocates for ES research who are not scientists are not honest, and also misrepresent the science. And scientists are not always as agressive about countering these statements as they should be.
    #: Posted by  on  06/16  at  01:12 PM
15. --If you question the levels to which Smith is informed and honest, then you have to judge proponents of embryonic stem-cell research with equal scrutiny. Christopher Reeve has repeatedly sat before Congress and stated that his "only hope" is embryonic cells and that adult stem cells are a mere pipedream. Work being done by THE FOUNDATION NAMED AFTER HIM directly refutes that. Adult stem cells, in areas such as Parkinson's disease and sickle-cell anemia, is already assisting people, whereas embryonic stem cells still do not.
    
    --Frozen embryos should neither be destroyed for research nor discarded; they are human beings, scientifically speaking, and must be treated as such. The fact that so many say that they're "only going to be thrown away anyway" should give us all pause and cause us to reconsider the current inefficient, inhumane status of in vitro fertilization. We must cease speaking of embryonic human beings as "surplus" or "extra" or "leftover" entities as though they're recyclable aluminum cans.
    
    --All human cloning is reproductive, including the euphemistically named "therapeutic" cloning; it's just a matter of whether the resulting clone will be implanted and allowed to continue living or destroyed for his or her stem cells.
    #: Posted by  on  06/27  at  07:01 PM
16. You wanna piss me off? Go ahead. Tell me that a blastocyst is a human being "scientifically speaking", that we ought to preserve all the embryos generated by fertility treatments, and redefine technical terms in inappropriate ways to suit your rhetorical needs—all truly ignorant ideas that have nothing to do with biology and everything to do with religious ideology.
    
    Oh, gosh. I guess you've already done that.
    #: Posted by PZ Myers  on  06/27  at  07:20 PM
17. Odd. I made absolutely no mention of God or religion. That's quite an assumptive leap you made there. You ARE a scientist, correct?
    
    As I've seen from reading the previous posts and those elsewhere on your site, you, like so many others, wish to oversimplify that into a religion vs. science debate, that of the Flat-Earth Society Luddites against the free-thinking, enlightened individuals such as yourself. You think that anyone who disagrees with you must be a religious zealot engaging in rhetoric, eh? That's rather sad.
    #: Posted by  on  06/28  at  04:30 PM
18. Well, not to make any wild guesses, but I'd bet that PZ made the logical leap that you were religious based on the phrasing of your post, not a knee-jerk reaction. Saying that a frozen embryo is a human being "scientifically speaking" and that all cloning was reproductive are two pretty big hallmarks of that point of view. The referring to the embryo as him/her instead of "it" is another hint.
    
    Simply speaking in terms of science versus religion may be an oversimplification, but who, primarily, are the oppoents of this research?
    
    And I have to ask. Was he wrong in making that "assumptive leap"?
    #: Posted by Reagan  on  06/28  at  04:50 PM