There was one part of a Rasmussen poll about President Barack Obama’s decision to expand stem cell research that destroys embryos that I found particularly interesting:
Seventy-nine percent (79%) of voters say they have followed the issue of stem cell research at least somewhat closely, including 40% who say they have followed it very closely. Just four percent (4%) say they haven’t followed it at all.
Now, I assume former President Bill Clinton would be one of the people who considers himself fairly well versed in the issue. He was, in fact, interviewed as an expert on the matter this week on CNN. President Clinton, a Rhodes scholar, is no dummy. He was the leader of the United States when the ethical debates over experiments on human embryos began. He made policy decisions relating to the issue.
And yet, it appears, he has no idea that the embryos in question are humans just a few days old. He repeatedly — repeatedly — states that the embryos have not been fertilized. He believes, apparently, that human embryos are unfertilized eggs. That makes no scientific sense, of course, but it shows a remarkable ignorance about what is going on with embryonic stem cell research.
Here’s the relevant portion of the transcript in which he was interviewed by medical doctor Sanjay Gupta:
GUPTA: Let’s talk about something you talked a lot about in the early part of your presidency, stem cells. There was an order today providing federal money for embryonic stem cell research. First of all, let me just ask you, as someone who studied this, is this going to always be as divisive an issue as it is now? Is this going to be the abortion of the next generation? Or are people going to come around?
CLINTON: I think — the answer is I think that we’ll work it through. If — particularly if it’s done right. If it’s obvious that we’re not taking embryos that can — that under any conceivable scenario would be used for a process that would allow them to be fertilized and become little babies, and I think if it’s obvious that we’re not talking about some science fiction cloning of human beings, then I think the American people will support this… .
GUPTA: Any reservations?
CLINTON: I don’t know that I have any reservations, but I was — he has apparently decided to leave to the relevant professional committees the definition of which frozen embryos are basically going to be discarded, because they’re not going to be fertilized. I believe the American people believe it’s a pro-life decision to use an embryo that’s frozen and never going to be fertilized for embryonic stem cell research, especially since now, not withstanding some promising developments, most of the scientists in this field and the doctors will tell you they don’t know of any other source as good as embryonic stem cells for all the various things that need to be researched.
But those committees need to be really careful to make sure if they don’t want a big storm to be stirred up here, that any of the embryos that are used clearly have been placed beyond the pale of being fertilized before their use. There are a large number of embryos that we know are never going to be fertilized, where the people who are in control of them have made that clear. The research ought to be confined to those.
Sanjay’s response to all of this breathtaking misinformation and ignorance was not to correct President Clinton or to point out that he was gravely mistaken about the issue, but, rather, to say, “Thank you, Mr. President.” Perhaps he could have asked, “If we were talking about humans who are only a few days old, would you feel differently?” And then explain that that’s precisely what we’re talking about.
Now, if President Clinton doesn’t understand the science behind this debate, I’m pretty sure that those 79 percent of poll respondents don’t either.
I know the media are capable of correcting elected officials — I’ve seen them do it frequently. If, say, President George W. Bush said something scientifically indefensible, I imagine we would not only have seen a correction but many reports and stories.
In the micro sense, this medical doctor-journalist should have pointed out that President Clinton’s claims were not matched by reality. In the macro sense, if this doesn’t point out that Americans are largely ignorant of the underlying ethical issues at play, I don’t know what would. (Here’s much more about how well the American public understands embryonic stem cell research.) It seems the media — so interested in SCIENCE, as we were repeatedly reminded this week — would have an interest in correcting this major mis, uh, misconception.
What possible interest would they have in failing to do so?
 | Posted at 11:54 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (67) |
March 13, 2009, at 12:15 pm
I’ve been waiting for this to show up elsewhere in the MSM. I’m still waiting…
It’s hard to know which is more astonishing, Clinton’s scientific ignorance or Gupta’s journalistic incompetence.
But I do have a question. Does this mean that Clinton really opposes embryonic stem cell research? Once he figures out what in the world it is, of course.
March 13, 2009, at 12:19 pm
That’s precisely why the follow-up questions should have been asked. It seems he’s saying, “this stem cell research is okay because it’s not like it’s an actual human embryo we’re talking about.”
What happens when he finds out it is. Does he change his mind? Is he really opposed to what President Obama authorized?
Journalistic incompetence indeed.
And why there aren’t 40 stories using this as a hook to explain the SCIENCE behind embryos is beyond me.
March 13, 2009, at 12:22 pm
His remarks make more sense if you substitute the word “transferred” or “implanted” for “fertilized,” which seems pretty clean from the transcript. We’ve probably all interviewed sources who use the wrong word — and that seems to be what’s going on here.
Clinton did hit the nail on the head: it’s perfectly legal now to create extra embryos during IVF and either toss them in the freezer or in the trash bin. So what do you do with those embryos. It’s not easy to argue that it’s more prolife to toss embryos in the trash or to leave them in the freezer than to use them for research.
March 13, 2009, at 12:29 pm
Actually, Bob, that doesn’t make it make more sense.
For instance, how does this line make more sense even if you change what he said?
“we’re not taking embryos that can — that under any conceivable scenario would be used for a process that would allow them to be fertilized and become little babies”
Other than there being about a billion, uh, conceivable scenarios where they could be used for a process that would allow them to become little babies?
Embryos who are on ice at fertility clinics can all, by definition, conceivably get born.
Reworking his words does not improve the logic or science one bit.
Still, the journalist could have asked him if that’s what he meant (and then the same other cautions would apply — once he realized these embryos COULD be implanted and born, would that change his mind, etc., etc.).
March 13, 2009, at 12:34 pm
Bob,
It’s actually quite clear from the transcript that Clinton doesn’t understand that embryos are fertilized. There can’t be any serious dispute about that. Substituting “transferred” or “implanted” would make even less sense, if that is possible. Are you suggesting that he was saying that he’s opposed to conducting stem cell research inside a woman’s uterus after it’s been implanted there? Or suggesting that we inject the whole woman containing the embyro into someone’s spinal cord?
March 13, 2009, at 12:42 pm
This was an hilarious interview, made all the funnier by the fact that the former (reputed) top-runner for Surgeon General never once corrected him. I’m assuming that a brain surgeon (when he has time to actually work on anyone’s brains with all his travel and self-promotion is a mystery to me) would know the differences between fertilization and implantation, embryo and egg. I could be wrong - I’ve had to explain those differences to fellow grad. students before (but I have an unfair advantage since I focus on reproductive physiology). I keep thinking that surely Clinton meant to say implanted - hard to tell from the interview, though.
March 13, 2009, at 12:47 pm
You think?
It would make Clinton look bad, and we can’t have that. After all, he’s on our team.
March 13, 2009, at 12:49 pm
No, Bob, it is not easy to argue. Not easy at all, especially if we take ‘pro-life’ to refer not to any kind of inherent dignity conferred upon us qua human but to some utilitarian calculation such as ‘the greatest quantity of life for the greatest number’. That’s why Dignitatis Personae states that the thousands of abandoned embryos frozen in fertility clinics represent “a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved.”
But it is nevertheless possible to argue that allowing them to die at least minimally acknowledges their humanity by refusing to treat them any further as means to ends of our own devising and that it at least forces us to regard as a problem the tragic mess we have created. ‘Farming’ them for parts does neither.
March 13, 2009, at 1:04 pm
Mollie,
On second thought, attributing confusion to Clinton may be giving him too much credit. It is conceivable that he knows good and well what is involved in this research and he is simply trying to muddy the waters. It’s been done before. I suppose it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is, a better question—I always thought—than he was given credit for.
At any rate, this is why a follow-up question should have been asked.
March 13, 2009, at 1:09 pm
Mollie:
It makes perfect sense if you use transferred or implanted—which are the terms used in IVF for placing an embryo into a woman’s uterus. There are embryos, which because of their parent’s choices, will be discarded—into the trash or thawed from the freezer. They won’t be implanted or transferred because the parent have decided against it. (I’m not saying BTW, that’s right) But the reality is that embryo get trashed all the time.
That’s the point Clinton makes here:
“But those committees need to be really careful to make sure if they don’t want a big storm to be stirred up here, that any of the embryos that are used clearly have been placed beyond the pale of being fertilized before their use. There are a large number of embryos that we know are never going to be fertilized, where the people who are in control of them have made that clear. The research ought to be confined to those.”
So he’s saying that research should be limited to embryos where the parents have said, these embyros will be discarded.
So the moral discussion is about what to do with those embryos — put them in the trash or use them for research? Clinton, and about any embryonic stem cell researcher I’ve talked would say research is preferable to the trash.
The parents could make another decision and I’ve talked to several parents that have donated their embryos or adopted embryos. Still, in that case, the odds are that only 12% of frozen embryos will result in a live birth.
Should Gupta have interrupted Clinton? Yes.
Is Clinton an idiot when it comes to science. No.
Did Clinton make a significant point: Yes.
The next fight on this is going to involve those who want to create new embryos specifically for research. That what the NY Times advocated this week, and what Clinto is warning about.
March 13, 2009, at 1:21 pm
I don’t say this to make myself look educated. But I am always astounded by what my countrymen do not know. Here is a former president who doesn’t know the basics of biology or a major policy issue. How can the republic survive? And the journalist was horrible. Total sycophant.
March 13, 2009, at 1:35 pm
MattK I think this country should see this for what it is. A public official that is blatantly distorting fact to serve his cause. How can the republic survive?
March 13, 2009, at 1:37 pm
I completely agree that Gupta should have at least clarified what Clinton meant. But as hard as it is, I want to give even someone notorious for twisting words the same benefit of the doubt I’d want. Presumably, as ignorant as he might be about the topic, Clinton at least knows the difference between an egg and an embryo.
I think the real semantic uncertainty is between word “could” and “would”. Clinton may think that these embryos “could” no longer be implanted as they’re no longer biologically viable, which of course is scientifically incorrect.
Or, more likely but more problematic, he may think that they “would” (his word used) never have a remote chance of actually seeing the light of day, and therefore should be used for research rather than being discarded or interminably frozen. Which is controversial at best, morally reprehensible (my opinion) at worst.
March 13, 2009, at 1:45 pm
We’ve got three choices.
1) Clinton is a knucklehead when it comes to science.
2) Clinton is part of vast left wing conspiracy to kill embryos.
3) Clinton used the wrong word.
Three seems more likely. Any journalism who’s spend more than a few weeks on the jobs knows that people, even really smart people, misspeak all the time.
Three is also most likely because of what Clinton says here:
“But those committees need to be really careful to make sure if they don’t want a big storm to be stirred up here, that any of the embryos that are used clearly have been placed beyond the pale of being fertilized before their use. There are a large number of embryos that we know are never going to be fertilized, where the people who are in control of them have made that clear. The research ought to be confined to those.”
In the IVF process, parents decide what to do with the embryos—and often it’s to have them discarded. Clinton’s talking about what to do with those embryos.
It’s a warning: Limit research to only those embryos whose parents have decided their fate.
Clinton’s remarks fly in the face of a recent editorial at the NY Times, which advocated for creating new embryos specifically for research.
Clinton is warning against this.
March 13, 2009, at 1:48 pm
This touches, in a weird way, on a longstanding pet peeve of mine: The effort by many who support legal abortion to redefine “conception” to mean “implantation” rather than “fertilization.”
It is because of this effort that we have things like so-called “emergency contraception,” which isn’t really contraception, because one of its built-in purposes is to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. I am convinced that quite a number of people have been deceived by things billed as “contraception” that really act after fertilization has occurred.
In this case, it appears President Clinton may have been baited by the switch, but switched the wrong term.
March 13, 2009, at 1:51 pm
I’m with Bob on this. Assuming Clinton used the wrong word, his argument is completely logical and rational and consistent with the current science. To be sure, he’s not singing off the anti-abortion movement’s hymnal or the positioning of the science used by Mollie, but that doesn’t make him wrong.
March 13, 2009, at 1:52 pm
I know this is a VERY hot button issue with you Mollie. The level of science knowledge in the US is VERY, VERY low so I’m not at all surprised about lack of knowledge in such a specialized area. For example, a bare majority even knows how long it takes for the Earth to revolve around the sun: http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/science_literacy_american_adults_flunk_basic_science_says_survey
And that is beyond sad since that is not even a question about science but knowledge of basic facts about the world. I doubt that the grade on http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/SciLit.html would be higher than an F on average.
I do think that a good reporter would have caught Clinton’s mistake, but many are not good reporters in spite of being on TV since they often don’t listen to what people say. I’m surprised when someone actually asks followup questions based on answer rather than going down a checklist of questions or because they’re using a question to promote a point-of-view and are uninterested in what the person says.
I doubt Gupta is trained in journalism so I’m not sure about his personal motivation nor whether or not he even noticed the mistake.
March 13, 2009, at 2:13 pm
Joe and Bob,
You’re saying that if we change what he said so that he’s talking about, say, human embryos being “transferred” or “implanted” that would make sense?
Hunh?
But it wouldn’t. Those human embryos in question are what is euphemistically called “spares” — meaning that they CAN be transferred or implanted.
It makes no more sense at all.
Please explain.
Also, come on people — stop assuming motivations with Clinton. To say he’s deliberately misleading is not putting the best construction on things.
He is saying something incorrect. We can not know *why* he is saying something incorrect.
March 13, 2009, at 2:16 pm
I know Gupta isn’t a trained journalist. Neither am I. Still, even if he lacks the journalistic instincts to do what’s right here, why aren’t other reporters using this as a hook to explain the SCIENCE behind the issue?
I think it’s unfair that the mainstream media pushed this horrible meme that pro-lifers are unscientific and those who are all gung-ho about killing embryos aren’t. But to do that when one of the leading people in the debate — President Clinton — apparently is no poster child for science? That’s disgustingly unfair.
Hot button topic or no (I would hope experimentation on humans in their earliest days of existence would be a hot-button topic for everyone, pro or anti …).
March 13, 2009, at 2:28 pm
Under the current practice, we don’t put these extra embryos out for “use” on some sort of embryo Craigslist. When the client decides not to have any more implanted, they are discarded. Sure, under some scenario where an embryo market is created, your nit would be properly picked. But that’s not the current reality a was referring to.
March 13, 2009, at 2:37 pm
But that’s not what Clinton said. He said, and I quote:
“we’re not taking embryos that can — that under any conceivable scenario would be used for a process that would allow them to be fertilized and become little babies”
And, of course, there are near limitless conceivable scenarios where these embryos could be implanted.
They could be implanted in me, for instance. Or billions of other women. He wasn’t saying, “realistically speaking, these are going to be discarded.” He said they COULD NOT become babies under ANY conceivable scenarios.
That’s scientifically illiterate.
March 13, 2009, at 2:43 pm
That statement implies an assumption about what it means to be a human being. From a theological frame-of-reference, one’s belief about when ensoulment occurs could impact whether or you think a fetus is a ‘human’.
Just for one example. I assume that, like so many theological points, other Jews would disagree but it’s worth noting this example:
http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/Forum/abortion/background/judaism1.html#IV
March 13, 2009, at 2:45 pm
Jerry,
But I explicitly DID NOT say human being.
There is no way to say, scientifically, that a human organism a few days old is not human.
No need to get into ensoulment or original sin.
After all, not everyone believes two year olds or 82 year olds have souls, but we are all, generally speaking, troubled by experiments on them all the same.
March 13, 2009, at 2:48 pm
Mollie:
Let me try to explain.
In the IVF process, the parents decide the fate of the embryos. They are in control.
So-called “spare” embryos cannot be implanted or used for research or frozen or tossed in the garbage or anything else without the consent of the parents involved.
Once the parents decided that the embryos can’t be used for reproduction attempts- the official term from the CDC is “an ART cycle” (art (assisted reproductive technology)—then that’s it. Their fate is sealed.
that’s what Clinton appears to be referring to:
“There are a large number of embryos that we know are never going to be fertilized, where the people who are in control of them have made that clear. The research ought to be confined to those.”
March 13, 2009, at 2:50 pm
Bob,
Sure, it works for the last one, I guess. Too bad there are the other examples where it works not at all.
I suppose we are to ignore those?
March 13, 2009, at 3:06 pm
Is it conceivable there will be any embryo Craigslist where the creators of the left over embryos will give the away of sell them? Is it conceivable that the IVF industry will force women to implant all the harvested embryos, creating thousands of octomoms? If not, then Clinton’s comments are rational.
March 13, 2009, at 3:08 pm
Joe,
Conceivable means capable of being imagined.
And yes, all of those things are capable of being imagined. So are many less extreme things.
So, I guess we agree, Clinton’s comments don’t make sense.
March 13, 2009, at 3:21 pm
The most straightforward explanation is almost always the most plausible. Clinton is a politician, and an excellent one at that. The interviewer wanted to be employed by Obama, who is on the same political team as Clinton.
This isn’t that difficult. It’s politics.
March 13, 2009, at 3:21 pm
“Also, come on people — stop assuming motivations with Clinton. To say he’s deliberately misleading is not putting the best construction on things.”
At the risk of making ‘further’ unwarranted assumptions, I gather that I am the ‘people’ in question here. But I would appreciate the courtesy of the same close reading afforded to Clinton. I did not say Clinton was deliberately misdleading. I said—rather flippantly I will admit and I hereby consider myself chastized—that the attribution of confusion may be giving him too much credit and that it was conceivable that he was intentionally misleading. I am not alleging deception. I do not know his motivations. I did not claim to know, and there is probably no way to know for sure, so I am not putting ANY definitive ‘construction’ on things. But the entire discussion proceeds on the assumption that either a) his baffling remarks were a slip of the tongue when he really meant something more coherent or b) he is genuinely confused and really doesn’t know what an embryo is. I am merely pointing out the truth: that a and b do not exhaust the world of possible alternatives.
March 13, 2009, at 3:22 pm
Joe, a mere generation ago, the concept of pets was “inconceivable” to the vast majority of Chinese. Animals were merely food and/or labor. Now, they’re beginning to approach the American concept, where there are Craigslist markets for “spare” kittens and puppies.
Values change. Though considering ethical trends on pro-life issues in this country, it doesn’t appear promising for human embryos.
March 13, 2009, at 3:27 pm
For just one second, let’s abandon the concept of researching embryonic stem cells for “the potential to advance our general knowledge for the future” and also “the religious morality debate”.
I know this is a huge request but bear with me. Let’s only assess the wisdom of lifting the ban on funding for embryonic stem cell research under the “pretense” that scientists, the government, the FDA and the AMA are actually interested in embryonic research for the development of treatments for deadly and debilitating diseases.
We have to start with the reality expressed by
Dr James Thomson, father of embryonic research when he said: “…embryonic stem cells are not being used in any clinical applications yet, while alternatives such as adult stem cells figure in scores of therapies.” and “Ten or 20 years from now…there will be transplantation- based therapies (from ESC) , but even if there was none, and it was a complete failure, this technology is extraordinarily important”
Then consider: “The iPS (induced pluripotent stem cells) discovery even prompted Ian Wilmut, who led the team that cloned Dolly the sheep, to abandon his license to attempt human cloning, saying that the researchers “may have achieved what no politician could: an end to the embryonic stem cell debate.”
And, just several days ago, Dr. Bernadine Healy, director of the National Institutes of Health under the first President Bush, wrote in U.S. News & World Report that these recent developments “reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells … are obsolete.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/10/AR2009031002842.html
These are not “religious freaks” (as the pro ESC like to refer to them), these are not even “pro adult stem cell advocates”; these are the top minds in embryonic research deciding, based solely on the scientific research potential of ESC that “embryonic research for treatments has little to no life left in it”.
And yet, the critics of ASC argue onward while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the huge advancements around the world that adult stem cells have made in therapeutic treatments. http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/category/victories-success-stories/
Embryonic…Adult…Induced Pluripotent… Which one(s) will be the victor(s) in the stem cell wars (for treatments)? Let’s address these points briefly.
While Embryonic stem cells (ESC) were previously thought to be more powerful than Adult Stem Cells (ASC) because they can become any cell in the body (pluripotency), new studies on ASC are showing that they can become virtually anything. Scientists recently turned Skin cells into ASC into Neuron-ASC. http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/researchers-make-nerve-cells-from-new-stem-cells-science-reuters/
A decade of ESC research around the world has resulted in no human treatments & because the ESC continue to divide beyond the scientist’s control, they can turn into tumors. ESC also require immunosuppressive drugs, which one of the most common forms of ASC (autologous) used in treatment do not.
Over the same decade of research, adult stem cell treatments have given thousands improved health, extended lives, helped paraplegics to walk… http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/spinal-cord-injury-sci-stem-cell-trials-japan-plays-catch-up/
Gave a man with AIDs 2 years (so far) free of symptoms… http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/?s=aids+symptom+2+years
Successfully improved MS & Cerebral Palsy patients, the list goes on and on… http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/category/victories-success-stories/
ASC are already helping improve & extend the lives of patients with dozens of “incurable” diseases,” 73 diseases when you count only US published scientific papers & well over 100 if you read all of the papers from outside the USA.
Additionally, Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPSC) are ASC modified to be able to become any cell in the human body & seem to have all of the benefits of ESC with significantly less of a rejection issue; not to mention without the political & religious controversy. http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/embryonic-stem-cell-alternative-has-another-advance-ips-cells-yield-nerve-cells/
And iPSC don’t have the tumor and cancer potential that ESC do either: http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/cancer-threat-removed-from-stem-cells-scientists-say-los-angeles-times/
Even the NIH is jumping into the ASC research and treatment pool. http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/nih-says-adult-stem-cells-are-ready-for-the-prime-time-yah-baby/
Why is there still so much focus on ESC when both ASC & iPSC seem capable of achieving everything ESC can do with a fraction of the obstacles?
The world is treating thousands successfully with ASC. We are 8 years behind most of the stem cell research in the world and focused on the dead end road (for treatments) of embryonic stem cells?
We CAN and SHOULD do what it takes to develop treatments for the multitude of dying and debilitated patients NOW.
March 13, 2009, at 3:27 pm
OK, maybe Clinton is just confused, but it wouldn’t be the first time the he lied to all who might hear. I don’t think I’d go to him for advice on science, morality, or buying a used car.
March 13, 2009, at 3:30 pm
Michael,
Point taken.
March 13, 2009, at 3:32 pm
Mollie:
It works for all of Clinton’s remarks. There’s three examples in the segment of the transcript you quoted. All work if you substitute implanted or transferred. You’re a journalist, you know that people, even the most polished politician, misspeak all the times.
Chris:
You’re right. The most straightforward explanation is that he misspoke.
March 13, 2009, at 3:39 pm
Mollie,
Thanks. And thanks for this thread. Good stuff.
There’s some interesting stuff brewing on Catholic-Jewish relations you might want to check out. I trust you’ve seen the Jerusalem Post piece linked over at First Things.
March 13, 2009, at 3:39 pm
Bob,
You’re saying that if you change what Clinton said from:
“we’re not taking embryos that can — that under any conceivable scenario would be used for a process that would allow them to be fertilized and become little babies”
to
“we’re not taking embryos that can — that under any conceivable scenario would be used for a process that would allow them to be implanted and become little babies”
that this makes sense and is clearly what he meant?
Is it ‘capable of being imagined’ that these spare embryos would be implanted? Yes, without question, that is capable of being imagined. They could, conceivably, be implanted in the mother. They could, conceivably, be implanted in women who are willing to adopt them. They could, conceivably, be implanted in any other of the billions of women on earth. People with particularly good imaginations could conceive of all sorts of other things.
So unless we also give Clinton a “do-over” on both the fertilization and conceivable comments, I’m not sure if your point stands.
Also, it requires an awful lot of assumptions and doesn’t change the fact that the journalist should have asked him for some major league clarifications.
March 13, 2009, at 5:37 pm
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘fertilize’ is.”
March 13, 2009, at 5:47 pm
Right, Bob. A skilled politician with a history of masterful use of the spoken word misspoke. Repeatedly. And a recent candidate for Surgeon General who knows better simply missed the mistakes. Repeatedly.
Innocent mistakes all around. Certainly the most straightforward explanation, especially in D.C., where politics rarely plays a role in the statements or actions of anyone.
March 13, 2009, at 5:47 pm
Mollie:
We obviously disagree. It takes more assumptions to think that Clinton doesn’t understand basic biology that to say he misspoke. He summed up by saying that research should be confined only to embryos whose parents have decided not to use them for reproduction, which is a common argument for embryonic stem cell researchers and supporters.
He does seem to be drawing a line —that no embryos should be created for research.
In any case, he
March 13, 2009, at 5:55 pm
[…] to quote so much, the whole column is a must read. Especially with so much pervasive and uncorrected ignorance on the issue. And confusing too, if this report is true that Wednesday’s omnibus budget […]
March 13, 2009, at 6:40 pm
When I first came across that interview yesterday I googled “fertilized embryo” and got so many hits that I doubted my own understanding of the meaning of the word embryo. It definitely seems that Bill C. is in plentiful company in his ignorance or misuse of these terms.
March 13, 2009, at 7:24 pm
And noone in the MSM wants to talk slippery slope—although they do repeatedly on all their pet issues. As examples of the greased slope Obama and co. is providing look at Yale philosopher Peter Singer who was immediately on the radio saying that if you can kill a human embryo, kill a human fetus—then America should adopt what he is pushing—allowing parents to exterminate a human child of theirs (up to about 6 months old or maybe a little more) if the child does not meet their standards of perfection. (Life unworthy of life I think the Nazis called imperfect humans).
And further along the slope liberals are liberally greasing—a group of American medical researchers have come out in favor of releasing and utilizing the so-called “research” (torture really) of Nazi doctors done in such places as Auschwitz. Apparently the alleged possible insights and progress of the worst of the worst inhuman
research is also beloved by many embryo research promoters.
But try to find this factual information in the MSM as it goes its “slobbering” way embracing almost everything under the label of “science” or “liberal.”
March 13, 2009, at 7:41 pm
versus
I don’t see any difference between ‘human’ and ‘human being’.
March 13, 2009, at 7:57 pm
Jerry,
I guess technically they both could be used to describe a human embryo of a few days of age. I have found that people tend to use human being as an indication of personhood.
And that’s a non-biological argument that I think is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Humans, when they are a few days old, are called human embryos. I think that designation lasts through the first two months or so. Then we move on to fetus, etc. I think embryo simply means growing from within or something like that. It’s used for all animals that grow within the womb.
Anyway, personhood is a debate “above my pay grade.” But this other stuff is pretty basic science.
March 13, 2009, at 8:21 pm
I think what Mollie means to say (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that the word “human”, when used as an adjective, does not necessarily denote personhood; it simply indicates that the organism/entity/cell in question pertains or relates to the human species and not some other species. In the same way, you could use the phrase “human kidney” without meaning that the kidney is a person. In that sense, it is obvious to say that these embryos are human embryos (and not, say, bovine embryos). But in the phrase “human being”, the idea of personhood is implicit.
March 13, 2009, at 8:24 pm
Unbelievable…. a Rhodes Scholar and a Physician…..
Isn’t there a TV show titled, “Are You Smarter Than a Fifth-Grader?”
Apparently these two jokers aren’t.
March 14, 2009, at 12:28 am
Mollie,
I think you’re using a sort of dictinoary, literal definition of the word “concievable” as “capable of being concieved or thought” when Clinton was using a more figurative or non-literal definition of “concievable” as “really not gonna happen anytime soon.” I know this is a big issue with you (you always mention that this research “destroys embryos” in like the first sentence or two of your posts) but take a deep breath and realize that what Bob is saying is really the most sensible explanation of Clinton’s statement. Words change over time. The word “concievable” has come to have a sort of figurative meaning that is different from its literal meaning. It’s used to emphasize that something is extremely unlikely to happen. As exhibit A, I would refer you to the movie “The Princess Bride” where Inigo gets a laugh by referring to the literal meaning of the word, while Fezzig (sp?) is using it metaphorically, and rather ridiculously. Perhaps this is even the beginning of the use of this word in a figurative sense? I don’t know, but it certainly has come to have that meaning.
Does this excuse Gupta for not nailing down what Clinton said? Of course not. But it doesn’t make Clinton the uninformed hack you seem to want to portray him as.
March 14, 2009, at 2:14 am
I think it’s hilarious that we would be using The Princess Bride to defend Clinton’s situation here.
To refresh:
Anyway, I have to admit I’m getting a humongous kick out of everyone suggesting that we assume that Clinton didn’t meant fertilization and didn’t mean conceivable when he said fertilization and conceivable.
It’s fun.
March 14, 2009, at 2:40 am
Ethical discussion: a slip of the tongue?…
Get Religion and Touchstone have each directed attention toward a recent interview former president Bill Clinton gave on the subject of embryonic stem cell research in the wake of President Obama’s changes to embryonic stem cell research funding….
March 14, 2009, at 9:51 am
I find that many of the questions on this website - ‘why did journalist so and so do this or that?’ - are giving the journalist in question the benefit of the doubt. The obvious alternative answer is always: ‘Because they are using their craft to deliberately twist and manipulate data and information in order to advance a particular agenda.’ Asking the question is allowing the possibility of a kinder, gentler explanation. So when we ask ‘why did Clinton repeatedly say this in such a way, and why didn’t Gupta call him on it?’, it seems to me to be giving them the benefit of the doubt. After all, there is another explanation that is far more damning than ‘Clinton didn’t know what he is talking about.’
March 14, 2009, at 1:53 pm
In the 1960s there was a physics for non-science majors course at Cornell that was informally known in the department as “Physics for Poets.” There’s now a comparable course at UCal Berkeley explicitly called “Physics for Future Presidents.”
Perhaps we need a course called “Biology for Ex-Presidents.”
March 14, 2009, at 2:50 pm
Three cheers for Mollie’s work on this thread, I say.
March 14, 2009, at 2:54 pm
Under what possible rationale could be asserted that the embryonic human being is less a human being than the fetal human being or the infant human being or the adult human being.
Unlike an ova or sperm, the embryo is not not the part of another human being.
Note: “human being” is used here as a noun. The being, person or not, is a unique live human organism that is self-organizing and self-developing toward the next stage of development as he does at each stage of development. At no point between conception and adulthood has the maturing individual switched species or switched its epigenetic primordia from that of a developing human being. This is so for the teenaged human being, as it is for the infant human being, as it is for the fetal human being, as it is for the just-conceived embryonic human being. One’s age does not remove one from membership in the human race.
March 14, 2009, at 3:42 pm
Chairm, under the same rationale that accepts abortion: That human personhood begins at birth.
I’m not trying to convince you or turn this into a debate on the point. I’m answering your question.
March 14, 2009, at 3:51 pm
How is it that the majority of American disagree with the opinions of a few but that few are so absolute in their own logic that everybody else is uneducated, ignorant and in total denial. Such intolerance is not Christian and part of the reason polls are suggesting a significant decline in organized evangelical religion.
March 14, 2009, at 5:05 pm
Dave, sure, but what is the rationale? I am asking people in general.
It seems to be a philosophic assertion that contradicts the scientific evidence.
Or maybe it is just a subjective feeling, rather than something formed on a principled basis.
This is what is so irritating about the people who say they favor embryonic stem cell research. They accuse those with whom the disagree but their own assertions appear to point their accusation back at themselves.
March 14, 2009, at 5:08 pm
Mollie,
Not everyone’s suggesting that Clinton misspoke, only like three posters. And besides, I’m not suggesting that he didn’t mean concievable, I’m suggesting that he meant concievable in a different way than you mean it. It’s called polysemy, and it’s pretty darn common. You can keep up your outrage if you want, or you can try to understand what the former president meant. While he certainly didn’t express himself very articulately here, it takes some rather strong obtuseness to come to the conclusion you’ve reached.
Again, the “journalist” in question should have done a better job of pulling out Clinton’s meaning, but the public also has to take some initiative and make a good faith effort to understant what people are saying, instead of playing “gotcha” politics.
March 14, 2009, at 5:09 pm
I should add that whatever one might think of President GWB’s decision on this matter, he did faithfully describe both sides of the controvsey and he explained his principled basis very clearly. President Obama made superficial remarks on this very substantive issue — and then patted himself on the back for sorting it all out by prioritizing science and reason. Very dissappointing, and not just for his decision, but for his superficiality on all points.
March 14, 2009, at 7:14 pm
“the same rationale that accepts abortion: That human personhood begins at birth.”
I’m pretty sure most of even the staunchest pro-abortion-rights adherents would admit that personhood (and its accompanying protections) begin at least a couple months before the baby actually exits the womb.
“Viability” is a more commonly accepted criteria, but there of course the lines are continually being blurred (i.e. moved back).
March 14, 2009, at 9:41 pm
Chairm (#56), this is not the venue for the discussion you seek. In fact it’s not even the venue for the discussion we are having, but I have no interest in getting further out of line.
March 15, 2009, at 6:29 pm
Dave, I’ve asked about the rationale that would backup Clinton’s remarks.
The science does matter. Accurately describing the science matters very much.
Suppose you took every intance of Clinton’s use of the term, fertilized, and substituted, implanted.
Gupta set the table for Clinton by describing the former President as some who “talked a lot about [stem cells] […] as someone who studied this”.
The question was biased toward Clinton’s view of how to encourage people to “come around” to agreeing with the use of embryonic stem cells for reasearch.
Clinton used confused terminology because the rationale is purposefully confusing. Not that Clinton was confused, but that the rational upon which he claims to have no reservations is confused. It got that way because the idea has been to focus on the hoped-for results of research and experimentation rather than to focus on the embryonic human being.
When it comes to cloning, the product is a human embryo, as in sexual reproduction (i.e. the fusion of sperm and ovum) but, in a narrow reductionist technical sense, does not produce a zygote. But that is a trivial distinction because almost immediately the cloned individual is recognized, through scientific eyes, as a human organism already in the embryonic stage of development.
But this distinction between sexual reproduction and cloning does highlight the significance of “fertilization” as the main distinguishing feature of the process, rather than of the product — i.e. an embryonic human being.
Clinton confusedly injected “fertilizaton” into his rhetoric in which he deliberately tried to seperate embryonic stem cell research from cloning.
Clinton said, “we’re not talking about some science fiction cloning of human beings, then I think the American people will support this.”
So, politically, stand against cloning. If he means this, then, he would oppose both cloning to produce children AND cloning to produce embryonic human beings for research and experimentation.
Trouble is, he favors the latter.
So his his rhetoric is designed to be confusing so as to disguise the thinness of the rationale. Does Clinton really believe the rationale or is he a salesman selling his catalogue of options? I think he is more the saleman using the assumptive close.
If we replaced. fertilized, with, implanted, then, this meaning becomes more clear, not less so.
CLINTON: I think — the answer is I think that we’ll work it through. [Translation: we can get this past the public].
If — particularly if it’s done right. [Translation: if we use the confused rhetoric]. If it’s obvious that we’re not taking embryos that can — that under any conceivable scenario would be used for a process that would allow them to be [IMPLANTED] and become little babies, and I think if it’s obvious that we’re not talking about some science fiction cloning of human beings, then I think the American people will support this.
* * *
Okay, so he is talking about some significant distinction between implanted and unimplanted embryonic human beings. He is not here talking about the difference between cloning and sexual reproduction, obviously.
* * *
CLINTON: I think they’ll support it because we want to solve [stuff] We want a whole range of other things. [Translation: the end justifies the means.]
* * *
Clinton indicated that he had no reservations.
CLINTON: [President Obama] has apparently decided to leave to the relevant professional committees the definition of which frozen embryos are basically going to be discarded, because they’re not going to be IMPLANTED. I believe the American people believe it’s a pro-life decision to use an embryo that’s frozen and never going to be IMPLANTED for embryonic stem cell research.
* * *
Right, so if he is in favor of using ONLY frozen embryos which would otherwise be discarded, then, the cloning versus sexual reproduction distinction is not relevant here, either. But that is not the limitation that is actually being pressed forward. By treating the embryonic human being as sub-human, frozen or not, wanted or unwanted, Clinton’s rhetoric opens the door to a much wider pool of human embryos.
* * *
CLINTON: But those committees need to be really careful to make sure if they don’t want a big storm to be stirred up here, that any of the embryos that are used clearly have been placed beyond the pale of being IMPLANTED before their use. There are a large number of embryos that we know are never going to be IMPLANTED, where the people who are in control of them have made that clear. The research ought to be confined to those.
[Translation: Open the door just a little but in so doing destroy the basis for any ethical objections for opening the door fully. That’s how to handle this politically.]
CLINTON: But there are values involved that we all ought to feel free to discuss in all scientific research. And that is the one thing that I think these committees need to make it clear that they’re not going to fool with any embryos where there’s any possibility, even if it’s somewhat remote, that they could be IMPLANTED and become human beings.
[Translation: the committees will frame the science politically to enable research and experimentation on embryonic human beings.]
* * *
So, if Clinton meant implanted, rather than fertilized, can anyone explain the rationale in some other way? Or are we to believe that Clinton is entirely clueless — and Gupta as well for not asking for clarification?
March 15, 2009, at 7:30 pm
Hoosier wrote:
“you always mention that this research “destroys embryos” in like the first sentence or two of your posts”
I don’t get why this is a problem. Embryonic stem cell research destroys embryos. That’s what it does. It uses and destroys human embryos. That’s why it’s controversial. That’s why some people think it’s gravely immoral. Are we supposed to hide this fact? Are we supposed to ‘euphemize’ it?
March 15, 2009, at 7:39 pm
Chairm (#61), I wish you would quit addressing me at the beginning of your posts. You and I are not having a discuission on the topics you want to discuss.
I am not even interested in your analysis of Clinton’s words. I think he’s fundamentally ignorant. You think he’s fundamentally deceptive. We both might be right. But it doesn’t interest me in the least.
You asked a general questions about what a general person’s rationale might be to allow embryonic stem cell medicine. I gave you an answer to that, because you can take the teacher out of the classroom but you can’t take the classroom out of the teacher.
Now you want to use an imaginary discussion with me as an excuse to get on your soapbox about embryos and/or Clinton. I am not hard-wired to engage in that. Please go troll someone else’s blog.
March 15, 2009, at 7:52 pm
To various commenters,
Just a reminder that we are interested in journalism here. If your comment isn’t focused on journalism, it’s probably not well-suited to the purposes of this blog.
March 15, 2009, at 7:56 pm
I responded to you, Dave, by I also did say, “I am asking people in general” and “can anyone explain the rationale in some other way?”
That’s what I actually said.
And, if Gupta was serving as a competent journalist, he might have asked Clinton the same basic questions.
March 16, 2009, at 3:56 am
Clinton was on CNN one month ago and said the same thing. This time he referred to embryonic stem cells (which of course means he is referring to live embryos) but he described them as functioning as both 1) ova as well as 2) sperm:
1) “frozen embryonic stem cells” … “to be fertilized”
2) “to actually fertilize eggs”
This is a good clue that cloning is also part of his confused language and confused rationale.
Clinton went on to say that he thought the controversy was about “raiding stem cell banks”.
Adding yet more confusion, he ambiguously said, “these stem cells were going to be used to actually fertilize eggs and have babies”.
It is not clear he meant that the raiders would make the babies or if he meant that the stem cell banks were intended for babymaking.
Could he have meant that implanted embryos were the source of “these stem cells”? That is, the banks were stocked by the practice of selective abortion in the IVF / ARTs procedures?
That might be Gupta’s confusion also since in his book, Chasing Life, he wrote:
“In the United States, we still only talk about the possibility of stem cell treatments. Here in Russia, where abortions outnumber live births two to one, fetuses and their stem cells are in abundant supply, and they are being used at an ever-quickening pace.”
* * *
This goes to show the confused rationale uses confused rhetoric. And that this MUST produce these confused utterances from someone as supposedly well-informed as former President Clinton and someone with the media profile of Gupta, who is one of the most prominent faces in the delivery of science news. Gupta serves as the chief medical correspondent on CNN, “The Most Trusted Name in News”.
So, sure, this presents a huge opportunity for news outlets to work on the problem of clarity and, if necessary, to find the stories within the controversey over the terminology itself. There are plenty of angles.
The terminology appears to be chosen for manipulative purposes and that’s a red flag for any reporter, surely, regardless of the subject matter.
The other worthy story is how the major news outlets have been very biased in their use of both the confused language and the confused rationale behind the political promotion of embryonic stem cell research.
Doesn’t the competitive impulse drive news gathering and reporting anymore?
* * *
See:
Interview with Bill Clinton
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0902/17/lkl.01.html
Chasing Life
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/Story?id=3020670
March 16, 2009, at 1:12 pm
Interesting development in Georgia, from WP:
“In Georgia, the bill that passed the Senate would prevent a couple who decided they no longer wanted to try to become pregnant from being able to dispose of their frozen embryos kept at a fertility clinic.
The House bill would allow for embryos that are currently in cryopreservation to be adopted as children under normal child adoption laws rather than as property under contract or property laws. Georgia would become the first state to allow such adoptions.”