Ted Carnahan

Seminarian and Technologist

4 Responses to “Michael J. Fox and stem cells”

• Nate
  October 30th, 2006 21:45
  1

  From the amendment (not the summary), section 2-1:
  No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.

  I believe that makes it fairly clear. I do notice there is no link provided in your blog about what SCNT actually is, or does. Wikipedia provides a fairly balanced take on the controversy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_cell_nuclear_transfer

  From what I read, you are using the word cloning in two different ways - one definition is purely scientific, i.e. creating a cell which contains DNA from another organism. The other definition you use is the “Oh, no, the sky is falling, they’re making People, playing God, and eating babies” definition of cloning. It is interesting that you pick on the definition of cloning in the Amendment - which definition of cloning is it that you’re arguing against, anyway? Surely you are not arguing against the scientifically invaluable process of creating DNA-identical cells. I would think that having the NOT “scientifically accurate”, but popularly accepted form of cloning Banned in the Amendment would soothe you.

  This amendment specifically allows the ‘first step’ (Wikipedia) to cloning an entire organism - SCNT, and specifically disallows the rest of the steps required to get an organism that will develop to term. Incidentally, this is remarkably close to what the AAMC advocates (http://www.aamc.org/advocacy/library/research/res0003.htm). The Association of American Medical Colleges.

  So, Ted, I’m forced to ask, is it really the ballot summary that is misleading people, or is it the group of people criticizing the Amendment based on vague uncited fears that SCNT leads directly to a walking, talking identical twin?

  I do think it’s a bit low to highlight half of Fox’s statement. Let’s highlight the other half of his sentence: “…and that’s why I didn’t put myself up for it distinctly.” It seems to me Fox is supporting stem cell research more than any given Amendment. And would you blame him - it is generally accepted that stem cell research could very possibly hold some hope for providing a renewable, non-rejectable source of replacement cells and tissues, which could provide relief to many serious diseases, including Parkinson’s. (NIH - http://shorl.com/foprejyvubodo) Which Fox has.

  I’ve gone on a bit longer than I expected, but in summary, it seems to me we’re nit picking a good Amendment. The real debate (when human personhood begins - http://www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem.htm) is going on without us at the moment, because we’re too busy arguing about an Amendment which is about as neutral a political act as you see in current day politics.

• Nate
  October 30th, 2006 23:30
  2

  Unfortunately, I read your other post on Amendment 2 after responding to this one. It contains the heart of your opinion, which means I am commenting somewhat out of place. Oops. I’m writing another (long) comment on it, now.

• Ted Carnahan
  October 31st, 2006 22:52
  3

  I think both kinds of cloning are wrong, because they are functionally identical. Whether “therapeutic” cloning or “reproductive” cloning, both processes create a genetically distinct viable human embryo. In therapeutic cloning, this embryo is destroyed for research - the destruction of a human life. In reproductive cloning, this embryo is implanted in a mother’s womb. Only reproductive cloning is banned by Amendment 2 - therapeutic cloning is encouraged by it through it’s promotion of SCNT.

  The ballot summary is misleading because it does not tell people that it specifically enables a process that causes the destruction of human embryos. That’s why Judge James Smart on the MO Appels court says “The ballot summary [of Amendment 2] will tend to mislead those who are philosophically opposed to all nuclear transfer… nuclear transfer is cloning.” I’m glad that Amendment 2 bans reproductive cloning - but that’s not the point. Incidentally, reproductive cloning has almost nothing at all to do with stem cell research - that it is even included in the Amendment is misleading.

  I didn’t highlight the rest of Fox’s statement, but you’ve got to give me credit for including it. Additionally, I don’t think that the rest of Fox’s statement is all that heart warming either. “..and that’s why I didn’t put myself up for it distinctly.” Garbage. He went on TV and said “stem cell research is important to people all across America” and “vote for Claire McCaskill” (paraphrased), and if that doesn’t equal putting himself up for it distinctly, I don’t know what does.

  Finally, I acknowledge and agree that stem cell research is likely to treat and cure many diseases. But the undeniable fact is that so far there are no treatments or research involving embryonic stem cells which are not possible (and universally at least as effective) using adult stem cells. There is no excuse for destroying human embryos, save convenience.

• An alternative to embryonic stem cells » Ted Carnahan
  November 20th, 2007 14:09
  4

  [...] You may remember back in the last election I opposed Missouri Amendment 2 because it authorized human cloning and destroyed embryos. Supporters even put Michael J. Fox on television, declaring that embryonic stem cells were the only hope to cure his Parkinson’s disease. But as the First Things article above suggests, support for embryonic stem cell research was not pro-science, it was pro-abortion. [...]

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website