The furor over embryonic stem cell research has ZERO to do with legitimate science.

You forgot to quote this one:

"Is it necessary to destroy an embryo to obtain embryonic stem cells?

Yes.

The embryos are destroyed in the sense that once they are used to derive embryonic stem cells, they no longer have the capacity to produce a baby if transplanted into a uterus.

Critics of embryonic stem-cell research say destruction of an embryo is murder. Whether it is or not is a social and ethical question, not a scientific one."

That last statement is one we encounter too infrequently.

"The furor over embryonic stem cell research has ZERO to do with legitimate science."

Depends if you mean "legitimate" in the moral or practical sense.

In the practical sense, there's a lot of "legitimate" science being done with human ES cells, and it's never safe to bet against technological progress (I have the same objection, for example, to anti-SDI claims that a missile shield is impossible). It is true that no clinically useful treatments have yet come from human ES cell research, but the field is only a few years old. Gene therapy approaches are only now making inroads in clinical trials, and that idea is in its third decade.

All of which begs the moral sense of the question. Presuming a pro-life moral ground, no human ES cell research would constitute "legitimate" science, and that's one case where I agree with the current administration, regardless of any "practical" successes.

M: ZERO. As with global warming, the controversy is all about politics. The media coverage of the embryonic stem cell issue is full of distortions, exaggerations, and outright falsehoods. It would be easy to attribute this to the incompetence and scientific illiteracy of the media, but I have seen & heard far too much of the same from prominent scientists who should know better, but are letting their own political biases overwhelm their scientific judgment. Science will suffer for this, I guarantee it.

"M: ZERO. As with global warming, the controversy is all about politics."

I humbly submit that, based on the above statements, you know nothing of the subject. I've seen, and even had to evaluate, the data. As morally distasteful as it might be, the advances being made are real. Whether they are _useful_ or not is another question. Projections for the ultimate utility of human ES cell research can be rather fanciful, but if you cared to make a bet, I'd be willing to lay down money, if it weren't for moral objections to the whole enterprise.

The global warming trend over the past several centuries is equally real. Denials of this are approaching the level of young-earth creationism. The real controversy involves the degree to which human activity contributes to the effect, where, as you say, most of the arguments are politically based.

M: Don't patronize me with your "humbly" nonsense. I humbly submit that you know nothing of my knowledge of the subject. And you know damn well that "global warming" is equivalent to "anthropogenic climate change" in the public debate.

Tell me if in your opinion this an accurate or responsible statement to make: "A stem cell is a cell that can multiply and give rise to many different progeny cells. If it can give rise to virtually all the cells of the body, it is called an embryonic stem cell."

This is a quote from David Baltimore, who I humbly submit should know better than this. And I humbly submit that rhetoric such as this is very, very bad for legitimate science.

It's possible to get fetal cells from the bloodstreams of pregnant women.

b:

You're right: I know nothing of your knowledge of the subject. At the same time, you have shown none.

Embryonic stem cells can give rise to all cells of the body. This has been proven for mouse ES cells - inject them into a blastocyst, and they will contribute to all cells of the mouse body. The same proof does not yet exist for human ES cell lines, and I wouldn't want anyone to prove it, quite frankly, but published reports exist for the derivation of a large subset of known cell types from those lines, and the human ES cell lines were derived in the same fashion that mouse ES cell lines are commonly derived. So at what point does Baltimore's statement approach the level of "rhetoric?" Are you claiming that human ES cells don't exist?

" And you know damn well that "global warming" is equivalent to "anthropogenic climate change" in the public debate."

But I have no way of knowing that you are making the same conflation, and based on your ES cell statements, it's worth asking if you are.

So you think that the defining characteristic of an "embryonic stem cell" is that "it can give rise to virtually all the cells of the body"? So any cell (from any source) that satisfies that test is an "embryonic stem cell"? Really?

At present, it's a good definition. Name another cell that can do the same thing, and I'll reconsider.

Wow. I am speechless, I must say. So if I were to say that we aren't speaking the same language, apparently it would be literally true. I was thinking it in a figurative sense, since if you'll reread my posts never once do I even address the scientific merits of stem cell research of any type (hence my confusion over your line "based on your ES cell statements"--show me one, please). My whole argument is over the debate that is obscured by a fog of incompetency (from many journalists) and dishonesty (from many scientists). I suppose this will just have to end with a reiteration of my point that the Orwellian rhetoric that you endorse will be very, very bad for legitimate science.

b:

It's true that a number of scientists, especially those directly involved with human ES cell research, have exaggerated the current state of their field in some of their public statements. It is also true that the media has taken these statements and further exaggerated them. And I agree with you that all of this will be "bad" for science in the long run.

Exaggerations aside, however, it is nevertheless true that embryonic stem cells can give rise to all tissue types in the body, and that they are the only cells currently known to do so (adult stem cells only give rise to subsets). Thus you mystify me when you take issue with the Baltimore comment you quote, which seems entirely innocuous and hardly "Orwellian." Surely you could have found a more offensive quote, one where a noted scientist claims that cures for multiple diseases are "just around the corner" if only we pump more money into human ES cell research?

Regardless of exaggerated claims of what ES cell researchers can do now or might do in the near future, plenty of "legitimate" science (again, in the purely practical sense) has already been done. I know of studies that have produced muscle cells, neurons, glial cells, skin cells, cardiac muscle cells and several kinds of blood cells, including erythrocytes. These studies aren't political phantoms, subject to right-wing or left-wing interpretation. They _are_ subject to moral approbation, where the debate (or the furor) properly lies.

I assume that b's point is that the most salient fact about embryonic stem cells is that they come from embryos and that to gloss that over is Orwellian.

At least David understands my point. Making up one's own definition for commonly understood terms in order to manipulate debate is the very definition of Orwellian.

I see. You want Baltimore to say "If it can give rise to virtually all the cells of the body, and it was ripped from a living human embryo, we call it an embryonic stem cell." Or at least some anesthetized version of same.

I somehow doubt that the omission of the "embryo" part of "embryonic stem cell" in the Baltimore quote we are now over-parsing was intentional. From the practical perspective, Baltimore doesn't care where the cells came from, only what they can do, and so naturally he will stress that aspect. You want him to engage in a moral debate at every turn, when what he wants to do is discuss the capabilities of the cells. If that's "Orwellian," I think it's bending the term a bit, but so be it.

My apologies for misunderstanding the original thrust of your comments.