How do you use your literacy? Picture 1

How do you use your literacy? Article 3

Obama Carefully Crafts Cynical Cloning Contradiction

By Terence P. Jeffrey

President Obama has shown himself to be a master of what I have called carefully crafted self-contradictions--statements intended to convey one impression to casual listeners but that on close examination turn out to mean quite the opposite.

Obama's announcement that he was reversing President Bush's policy of denying federal funding to stem-cell research that requires killing human embryos included what may be the most cynical of all Obama's carefully crafted self-contradictions.

This one was designed to build political cover for promoting research that clones human beings for the specific purpose of killing them.

Cloning Door Not Closed

The headline and lead paragraph of an Associated Press story conveyed exactly the impression Obama desired to create. The headline read:"Obama Calls cloning 'Dangerous, Profoundly Wrong.'" The lead paragraph said: "President Barack Obama says human cloning is 'dangerous, profoundly wrong' and has no place in society."

But this headline and lead are false. Obama said no such thing.

What Obama did say--according to the official transcript of his remarks on the White House Website--is this: "And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong and has no place in our society, or any society."

Note that he did not close the door to human cloning, period. He simply closed the door on "the use" of human cloning for one purpose. He left the door open to "the use" of human cloning for other purposes.

The one "use" of human cloning Obama claims he is closing the door to is "human reproduction."

Cloning Equals Reproduction

But this is self evidently absurd: If you allow human cloning for any purpose, you are allowing it for human reproduction. That is what human cloning does even in a more literal sense than sexual reproduction. When a man and woman create an embryo the old-fashioned way, that embryo shares genes from both mother and father. The child is not a reproduction of either. It is an individual. But if a scientist clones a human embryo, he is making a genetically exact "reproduction" of the person cloned. Even Merriam-Webster defines "clone" as "to make a copy of."

When you "make a copy of a human being, you are inescapably engaging in human reproduction.

So, why would a Harvard-educated lawyer like Obama say something that is so intellectually indefensible on its face? Because the policy he is advancing is itself indefensible.

Obama's carefully crafted cloning self contradiction fits perfectly within the duplicitous argument underlying a longstanding bill pushed in Congress by promoters of "embryonic stem-cell research," a bill that would specifically legalize cloning human embryos so they can be killed for their stemcells.

In the last Congress, this bill (S.812) was sponsored by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. It is titled the "Human Cloning Ban and Stem-Cell Research Protection Act."

This bill does not "close the door" on human cloning any more than Obama does.

What the bill would do is legally redefine "human cloning" so that whether "human cloning" takes place is not determined by whether you create a human being who is an exact genetic copy of someone else, but where you put that human being after you have created him or her.

"The term 'human cloning,'" the bill says, "means implanting or attempting to implant the product of a nuclear transplantation into a uterus or the functional equivalent of a uterus."

But why should lawmakers care if somebody, somewhere, sometime implants "the product of a nuclear transplantation" into a machine designed to be "the functional equivalent of a uterus?" Only because "the product of a nuclear transplantation" is in fact a cloned human embryo--and if that cloned human embryo is implanted in a uterus or "functional equivalent of a uterus" it might not die--the fate the bill mandates for it at 14 days--but might instead progress through further stages of human development and grow as old as, say, Orrin Hatch or Dianne Feinstein or Barack Obama, all of whom once enjoyed the formerly universal human experience of implantation in a uterus.

In a March 8, 2007, Senate floor speech introducing the bill, Feinstein accidentally revealed the political rationale behind the duplicitous language of clone-to-kill advocates.

"Despite disagreements over various types of biomedical research, there is near unanimous agreement that scientists should not create human clones," she said. "That's why this legislation will make it a crime to clone a human being, or attempt to clone a human being by implanting cells that result from nuclear transplantation in the uterus."

But, then, why make it a crime for the scientist? By Feinstein's logic, only a uterus can make a clone.

Jeffrey, Terence P. "Obama Carefully Crafts Cynical Cloning Contradiction." Human Events. 16 Mar 2009

How do you use your literacy? Article 2

Stem Cell Dissent Roils States

By Stephanie Simon

• Even where voters have moved to support the embryonic research, opposition is fierce.

Nine months ago, Missouri voters became the first in the nation to pass a constitutional amendment protecting embryonic stem cell research.

Ever since, opponents have been working feverishly to overturn it.

They have not yet succeeded in criminalizing the research--though they hope to accomplish that in the next election. But they have created so much uncertainty and mistrust that scientists who just last fall viewed Missouri as a beacon won't even consider moving here now.

Unable to recruit top scientists, despite cutting-edge labs and an endowment of $2 billion, the Stowers Institute for Medical Research last week canceled plans for a major expansion in Kansas City. The research institute also moved a large chunk of its endowment to Delaware, calling the political climate in Missouri too hostile for investment.

"It's like Amendment 2 never passed," said Bill Duncan, president of a scientific consortium seeking to build a biotech hub here. "I won't say we're undaunted," Duncan added glumly. "Because we're not."

The reversal in Missouri has been striking. But the state is far from unique.

Embryonic stem cell research has quickly become one of the hottest, and most divisive, topics in state legislatures nationwide. More than 100 bills on the subject have been introduced in the last seven months alone. That leads to some surreal situations: In Florida this spring, a state Senate committee simultaneously passed bills permitting and prohibiting state funding for embryonic research. (Both failed to advance.)

Even states that moved decisively to support embryonic research remain roiled by dissent.

Last fall, Connecticut began sending state funds to scientists for embryonic research. Within two months, conservative lawmakers had introduced a bill to outlaw the work. Similar maneuvers took place in Maryland and Illinois after state funding was committed.

And in California, voters no sooner approved $3 billion in bonds to fund embryonic research than the plan was challenged in court. The legal battle stalled the initiative for more than two years; bond funds began flowing to researchers just in the last few months.

In all four states, embryonic stem-cell supporters eventually won. But few expect the debate to end there.

"The stem-cell issue comes up on a regular basis in every state of the union, and every time it comes up, it pits two very entrenched, very dogged sides against each other," said Patrick Kelly, a vice president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a national trade group.

Except in California, where the bond issue provides a steady stream of funds, most state money for embryonic research is appropriated annually, as part of the budget process. That means there are plenty of opportunities for those who oppose the work to try to cut funds. Even in more liberal states, grants may dwindle when the budget is tight--or the political heat is on.

"There's a lot of pressure to cut off funding," said Sigrid Fry-Revere, who directs bioethics studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank."It's happening all over the country."

Embryonic stem cell research typically begins with cloning.* Scientists insert the genetic material from an adult human cell into a human egg that's been emptied of its own DNA. The cloned cell is then nurtured in the lab for several days, until it grows into a blastocyst, a microscopic clump of cells that could theoretically develop into a fetus if attached to a uterine wall.

At this stage, researchers destroy the embryo to extract its stem cells--which are valued because they are enormously flexible, capable of turning into any organ, bone or muscle in the human body.

Opponents say such research is immoral because it involves creating, then killing, human life in the name of scientific advancement. Proponents, however, say the blastocyst is not equivalent to a human being; they believe embryonic cells have great potential to cure a wide range of diseases, such as Parkinson's, diabetes and Alzheimer's.

President Bush has made limited funds available for research on embryonic cell lines that were created years ago. He will not permit federal money to be used to create or destroy new embryos.

Six states ban most or all embryonic research of this type: Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota and South Dakota. Seven states subsidize the emerging science: California has by far the most vigorous and well-funded grant program; New York recently approved a significant subsidy as well; Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and Wisconsin offer more modest support.

In Missouri, the constitutional amendment did not provide any tax dollars for the research. The intent was simply to assure scientists that they would not be fined or prosecuted for embryonic cloning, so long as the blastocysts were not grown beyond 14 days or implanted into a uterus.

Local billionaires James and Virginia Stowers--who financed the Stowers Institute with a fortune made in mutual-fund management--poured $30 million into promoting Amendment 2. That made it the most expensive campaign in state history.

The amendment passed by fewer than 51,000 votes, or about two percentage points.

The tight margin galvanized opponents. Within weeks, conservative lawmakers had introduced a measure to ban the very research protected by the amendment. That effort failed. But others have succeeded.

This spring, the legislature scratched plans to build an $85- million science center at the University of Missouri. The stated reason: Concern that the labs might one day be used for embryonic research--even though the university's president explicitly stated they would not.

To make sure that embryonic projects would not get funding, lawmakers banned a state science research fund from spending any money on human health--grants will only go to projects involving plants and animals.

Meanwhile, activists are discussing a petition drive to put an embryo-cloning ban on the ballot in 2008: "We're exploring however we can to get this back before the voters," said Pam Fichter, president of Missouri Right to Life.

The political tumult has demoralized Kevin Eggan, an assistant biology professor at Harvard who was seriously considering bringing his embryonic stem-cell lab to the Stowers Institute. Eggan grew up in the Midwest and said he'd like to return; plus, he said, "the Stowers is the Taj Mahal of science." After the November election, he thought he might take the leap. Now, he's sure he won't.

"Anyone who does the kind of work I do," said Eggan, "would never consider going there now."

Simon, Stephanie. "Stem Cell Dissent Roils States." Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, CA). Aug. 1 2007