Stem Cells: Flip-Flop, then Distortion
"John McCain...opposed stem cell research.."
Obama radio ad
.."McCain once opposed funding for embryonic stem cell research, but later changed his views.... he voted last year to lift the ban on federal funding for such research...."
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, September 25, 2008, page 8A
When a candidate switches from position A to position B, he can rightly be accused of "flip-flopping" on the issue. Indeed, one of the most devastating attacks on Senator John Kerry during the 2004 campaign was a videotape Kerry himself explaining why he voted both for and against an appropriation for the Iraq War.
Since no one has perfect information or perfect judgment, there is nothing intrinsically wrong in changing one's position in the light of new information or even new arguments. If a candidate does this often, and the changes appear to be motivated by political considerations (rather than the merits of the case), it makes sense to hold "waffling" or "flip-flopping" against that candidate. Such switches of stance are "fair game" for political ads.
My problem with the Obama ad quoted above is that it leaves the audience with the incorrect impression that McCain is against stem cell research right now, not that he opposed it in the past and favors it now. To leave that impression is basically dishonest, and should be condemned.
The Republican Party is deeply split on the question of embryonic stem cell research; the bill McCain voted for was passed, and then vetoed by President Bush. The 2008 Republican Platform clearly opposes federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, and Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin is also on record against it It is entirely fair to publicize these facts, even though McCain openly disagrees with his own party's platform. After all, the platform represents the views of the majority of Republican delegates, who presumably represent the rank-and-file of the party, rather than those of any one person, even the nominee.
McCain has also flip-flopped on a number of other issues, such as the Bush Tax Cuts (he voted No, now favors them) and amnesty for illegal aliens (the McCain-Kennedy Bill backs amnesty, now McCain opposes it). Point these switches out, and let the people decide if the candidate was right or wrong to change his stance. But do not blame your opponent for holding position A when you know he has switched to B.
Obama radio ad
.."McCain once opposed funding for embryonic stem cell research, but later changed his views.... he voted last year to lift the ban on federal funding for such research...."
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, September 25, 2008, page 8A
When a candidate switches from position A to position B, he can rightly be accused of "flip-flopping" on the issue. Indeed, one of the most devastating attacks on Senator John Kerry during the 2004 campaign was a videotape Kerry himself explaining why he voted both for and against an appropriation for the Iraq War.
Since no one has perfect information or perfect judgment, there is nothing intrinsically wrong in changing one's position in the light of new information or even new arguments. If a candidate does this often, and the changes appear to be motivated by political considerations (rather than the merits of the case), it makes sense to hold "waffling" or "flip-flopping" against that candidate. Such switches of stance are "fair game" for political ads.
My problem with the Obama ad quoted above is that it leaves the audience with the incorrect impression that McCain is against stem cell research right now, not that he opposed it in the past and favors it now. To leave that impression is basically dishonest, and should be condemned.
The Republican Party is deeply split on the question of embryonic stem cell research; the bill McCain voted for was passed, and then vetoed by President Bush. The 2008 Republican Platform clearly opposes federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, and Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin is also on record against it It is entirely fair to publicize these facts, even though McCain openly disagrees with his own party's platform. After all, the platform represents the views of the majority of Republican delegates, who presumably represent the rank-and-file of the party, rather than those of any one person, even the nominee.
McCain has also flip-flopped on a number of other issues, such as the Bush Tax Cuts (he voted No, now favors them) and amnesty for illegal aliens (the McCain-Kennedy Bill backs amnesty, now McCain opposes it). Point these switches out, and let the people decide if the candidate was right or wrong to change his stance. But do not blame your opponent for holding position A when you know he has switched to B.
Labels: McCain, stem cell research
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 1:22 PM
1 Comments:
This is all a moot point because it has been shown by Jaime Thompson of UW and others that we can turn somatic cells into stem cells. That is we no longer have to kill embryos to get stem cells and this is the only reason why the Republicans including Palin are against stem cell research. That is, they are not against stem cell reseacrh they are against killing human embryos.
Below is one of many articles that describe this process.
Science News Share Discovery Could Help Reprogram Adult Cells To Embryonic Stem Cell-like State
ScienceDaily (Feb. 15, 2008) — Harvard Stem Cell Institute (HSCI) and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) researchers have taken a major step toward eventually being able to reprogram adult cells to an embryonic stem cell-like state without the use of viruses or cancer-causing genes.
In a paper released online today by the journal Cell Stem Cell, Konrad Hochedlinger and colleagues report that they have discovered how long adult cells need to be exposed to reprogramming factors before they convert to an embryonic-like state, and have “defined the sequence of events that occur during reprogramming.”
This work on adult mouse skin cells should help researchers narrow the field of candidate chemicals and proteins that might be used to safely turn these processes on and off. This is particularly important because at this stage in the study of these induced pluripotent (iPS) cells, researchers are using cancer-causing genes to initiate the process, and are using retroviruses, which can activate cancer genes, to insert the genes into the target cells. As long as the work involves the use of either oncogenes or retroviruses, it would not be possible to use these converted cells in patients.
Up to this point, the reprogramming process has been a virtual black box - scientists have been able to turn back the developmental clock on adult skin cells by introducing four genes into the cells, but they have not known what steps were occurring during the process.
Harvard Stem Cell Institute Co-Director Doug Melton called the work “an impressive and thoughtful study” that "marks an important first step in finding ways to create pluripotent stem cells from adult cells without the need for viruses or oncogenes.”
Hochedlinger, an assistant professor in Harvard’s new inter-school Department of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology, and a leader in the study of iPS cells, is, like others, converting adult cells to an embryonic-like state, using four genes to bring about the conversion.
In this new Cell Stem Cell paper, he and his colleagues at MGH’s Cancer Center and Center for Regenerative Medicine “have engineered new viral systems to introduce this into skin cells. With this new viral system we were able to control the behavior of these four genes."
When working with adult skin cells, he explains, “skin cell markers are turned off very early, in the first two or three days, and after eight or nine days,” the point at which the cells become independent of the viruses used to insert the genes now used for reprogramming, “other pluripotency genes are activated. This is the first framework for zooming in on this process, and will allow us to ask what’s happening at day five, day six, and so on.”
“The importance of this finding is that it will tell us how long we need to throw chemicals or proteins on the cells for the programming to be effective,” Hochedlinger said. “It could have been that these viruses are only necessary for two days, or three weeks,” he continued, adding that “if you know a certain chemical, or protein, becomes dangerous after 10 days, but you’ll only need to use it for eight days, you have learned something important.
“The other message,” he said, “is that we found molecular cornerstones of the reprogramming process. Using a series of surface markers we’ve defined the sequence of events that occurs during the reprogramming. Up to this point it was unknown what the sequence of events occurring was. But using these markers, we have been able to define what happens during reprogramming."
The research was supported by the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, Konrad Hochedlinger's NIH Director’s New Innovator Award, the Kimmel Foundation and the V Foundation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adapted from materials provided by Harvard University.
Post a Comment
<< Home