This apparent scientific breakthrough in the use of non-embryonic stem cells puts me in the mind of the Democratic wedge issues of yore. Embryonic stem cells, of course, were supposed to cure America of its affection for the religious right. But do you remember how for several years debates about health care policy in the United States were dominated by the push for a Patients' Bill of Rights? For 2008, all of the Democrats seem determined to go forward with almost frighteningly non-trivial agendas, so we may not see the likes of these issues again for several years, so start savoring stem cells now in case this research pays off and the whole controversy goes away.
« Tuesday Ellipses in Song Title Blogging | Main | Challenging Lantos »
All Tomorrow's Wedge Issues
20 Nov 2007 12:48 pm
Comments (19)
What costume will the poor girl wear?
I think Matt is taking the occasion of today's announced stem cell breakthrough to lament the potential demise of a Democratic wedge issue, even though it probably never was one to begin with. But the prose is so garbled who the hell knows.
so start savoring stem cells now
Simmer with leeks, diced pancetta, mushrooms, tarragon, rosemary, a little heavy cream, some white wine and minced garlic. Be sure to scrape the bottom of the pan a couple of times while stirring, to get the carmelized bits. Salt and pepper to taste.
Given the history of non-blastocyst-derived stem cell "breakthroughs," are you willing to bet your life that this one will pan out? 'Cause that is what we're doing.
Maybe this diffuses the controversy, but if so it is purely due to semantics. The research team successfully managed to convert adult stem cells to a pluripotent state. The usual name for a pluripotent stem cell is embryo. A pluripotent stem cell with the DNA of a living adult is a clone.
So we've avoided using embryos or clones by means of cloning an adult human by turning his cells into embryos. This has always been the farce behind the clamor for adult stem-cell research vis a vis embryonic stem cells.
I suspect that this will not long go unnoticed.
What?
Hmmm ... so we're attempting to create stem cells through artificial means when the real thing is readily available. Awesome.
To pretend that this will stop the controversy is being pretty naive I think. Rationally (assuming it's a viable process), it should stop the conversation dead in it's tracks. We're not dealing with rationality though.
I've heard of plenipotentiaries, but...pluripotentiaries? Totally awesome but potentially very troubling...
The thing is, Democrats don't do wedge issues. Like Rodney King, having been beaten severely we ask "Can't we all just get along?"
And Republicans are never troubled by the facts. In Washington State a few druggists are refusing to dispense Plan B because they think it causes abortions, while in fact it prevents conceptions.
In a better world the state would yank their licenses when they displayed such ignorance of the drugs they are supposed to dispense. In the world we live in state legislators will try to find some way to get along with these boobs.
We're just too damn nice.
You want to take stem cells off the table, teach them to grow into hair follicles. Should be easier than building whole organs, it's easy to monetize, and no one's ever going to stand up against the cure for male pattern baldness.
Dan F.: If these work, they're orders of magnitude better than 'the real thing', since they'd be a perfect genetic match to the person who's getting the therapy.
"Hmmm ... so we're attempting to create stem cells through artificial means when the real thing is readily available. Awesome"
Except, of course, that the real thing is generally not imunilogically matched to the patient, meaning embryonic stem cell therapy was going to require life-long immune suppressive therapy, just like any transplant operation.
While a stem cell generated from your own skin cells will be an imunilogical match to you, and thus will not require heroic means to prevent rejection.
Embyronic stem cells never had a lot of clinical potential, because of that little rejection problem. But research into them was absolutely necessary to achieve this sort of breakthrough.
Matt's phrasing and grammar make my brain turn the color of a television, tuned to a dead channel.
What costume will the poor girl wear?
Hand me down cells from who knows where.
this reads like some really deep poetry.
anyway, i was thinking about this this afternoon when i saw some stem-cell opponents on cnn who were positively giddy over this "milestone."
how is this any different than... well, say we're trying to make electricity. we got natural gas and we got coal. say bush is dead-set against coal for some reason, and his supporters say "but we got this natural gas stuff! problem solved!" with each improvement in natural gas technology, the supporters claim victory.
meanwhile, there aren't any advances in coal technology that would have been made. isn't that the same principle here? we've closed off another avenue of research, and don't know what possible innovations could be made.
Matt: Embryonic stem cells, of course, were supposed to cure America of its affection for the religious right.
I don't know where he got that notion. This is the sort of hand-waving Matt does constantly. Who actually ever thought that was true? Anybody?
Richard,
I think it wasn't that it was to "cure" America of its affection for the religious right, but used as a wedge issue against it.
For instance, if I remember correctly it was thought that Claire McCaskill won in Missouri because of a late push using the stem cell issue.
Re: Given the history of non-blastocyst-derived stem cell "breakthroughs," are you willing to bet your life that this one will pan out?
Given the history of stem cell research period I am very skeptical of any claims on this matter. Much is always promised, but thus far absolutely nothing had been delivered. I sometimes think stem cells will be biotech's version of nuclear fusion, a miraculous new age always just around the corner.
For instance, if I remember correctly it was thought that Claire McCaskill won in Missouri because of a late push using the stem cell issue.
That's backwards - McCaskill won because of a push by the other side using the stem cell issue.
Comments closed December 04, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Where angels fear to tread...given Matt's legendary powers to mangle grammar and misspell, say things backward, and continue to bob up in the verbal millrace like a rubber ducky, what is he saying here?
An "almost frighteningly non-trivial agenda"? This has got to be one of the few times that a qualifier becomes a declarative.
As for me, I'm totally baffled. Who will be first to parse the Delphic utterance?
Posted by serial catowner | November 20, 2007 1:23 PM