Reprogramming, not embryos, is the fast track to cures

An extremely significant medical breakthrough, reported many places, including the New York Times:

Biologists at Harvard have converted cells from a mouse’s pancreas into the insulin-producing cells that are destroyed in diabetes, suggesting that the natural barriers between the body’s cell types may not be as immutable as supposed.

"Money" second paragraph quote:

This and other recent experiments raise the possibility that a patient’s healthy cells might be transformed into the type lost to a disease far more simply and cheaply than in the cumbersome proposals involving stem cells.

Pause. When was the last time you can remember a mainstream article admitting that stem cell proposals are "cumbersome"? I thought they were the be-all & end-all of medical technology? And embryonic stem cell treatments are often even more cumbersome than adult stem cell therapies.

I'm not trying to make an argument against embryonic stem cell research because they are "cumbersome", sometimes cumbersome solutions are the only ones available. No, I'm saying that, pragmatically, it makes more sense to pursue reprogramming techniques like the one described above.

And no embryos have to die.

Report: Does incense make you high?

Of course not, but that doesn't prevent scientists from issuing research papers with titles such as this (I'm not making this up): "Incensole Acetate, an Incense Component, Elicits Psychoactivity by Activating TRPV3 Channels in the Brain."

MSN's Health & Fitness gives us the popular treatment:

... Frankincense—the incense traditionally burned in religious ceremonies—can act on the brain to lower anxiety and diminish depression.

Researchers from Johns Hopkins University and Hebrew University administered incensole acetate, a component of frankincense, to lab mice and learned that it lit up areas of their little mouse brains that control emotion, including nerve circuits affecting anxiety and depression.

Now, as soon as the author strays from the science his commentary gets fairly useless very quickly.

I wonder, however, if these sorts of findings could be used as backdoor argument to convince liberal parishes and liturgy commissions to allow incense back into the celebration of Mass? Hmm....

Picture: Large Hadron Collider a Modern Marvel

I'm in a science/picture mood today. If you don't know about the Large Hadron Collider, it's amazing.

Better picture here. NYTimes story here. Gizmodo article here.

Report: "Religious Delusion Hampers Nanotechnology"

If that headline had you scratching your head, it should.

Science Daily reports:

Addressing scientists Feb. 15, 2008 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Dietram Scheufele, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of life sciences communication, presented new survey results that show religion exerts far more influence on public views of technology in the United States than in Europe.

In a sample of 1,015 adult Americans, only 29.5 percent of respondents agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable.

Europeans however, do not look so ascance at the technology:

In European surveys that posed identical questions about nanotechnology to people in the United Kingdom and continental Europe, significantly higher percentages of people accepted the moral validity of the technology. In the United Kingdom, 54.1 percent found nanotechnology to be morally acceptable. In Germany, 62.7 percent had no moral qualms about nanotechnology, and in France 72.1 percent of survey respondents saw no problems with the technology.

Now, here's where things get interesting. Why, do the authors claim, is there a disparity?

The answer, Scheufele believes, is religion: "The United States is a country where religion plays an important role in peoples' lives. The importance of religion in these different countries that shows up in data set after data set parallels exactly the differences we're seeing in terms of moral views. European countries have a much more secular perspective."

The catch for Americans with strong religious convictions, Scheufele believes, is that nanotechnology, biotechnology and stem cell research are lumped together as means to enhance human qualities. In short, researchers are viewed as "playing God" when they create materials that do not occur in nature, especially where nanotechnology and biotechnology intertwine, says Scheufele.

Wow. "Nanotechnology, biotechnology and stem cell research are lumped together."

Let's be clear for a moment. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with nanotechnology, properly termed. And certainly putting it in the same category as "stem cell research" is wrong. The only thing these two things share in common is being microscopic.

If these findings are true, it highlights a distressing reality that educated Catholics have to face: evangelicals and fundamentalists who constittue the so-called "moral majority" in America are an embarassment to us all when they evidence such poor critical thinking skills.

Just look at one example of the criticism this news has provoked:

Hmm. Nanotech could most likely cure cancer, extend life, solve the renewable energy dilemma, and lead to drastically reduced poverty, among other things. Guess who’s against it?

That’s right folks, let’s keep life on earth backward and miserable so we can keep focused on that oh-so-precious afterlife.

The idiocracy is in full-swing in the US of A.

It would be easier to answer this sort of charicature if folks educated themselves before answering surveys.

A more pointed criticism, this from a Wall Street Journal blog:

If you don’t have a super-fast, super-small computer in a few years, blame the moral majority. It turns out that most Americans find nanotechnology, the scientific field most likely to produce such a breakthrough, morally unacceptable.

Frankly, I think that's drastically over-valuing the effect of the "moral majority" lobby. Also, it's a huge generalization, but one that brings out the untenable nature of claiming nanotechnology is "immoral".

Now, don't get me wrong, I'd like to find out how the survey questions were phrased. If the question was along the lines of "do you think nanotechnology has the potential to be abused"? Than sure, that's something one could defensibly argue. As is normally the case, the devil is in the details.

And I truly don't want to think that Americans would rule-out nanotechnology for such poor reasons.

From the original article in Science Daily, a further claim:

The moral qualms people of faith express about nanotechnology is not a question of ignorance of the technology, says Scheufele, explaining that survey respondents are well-informed about nanotechnology and its potential benefits.

"They still oppose it," he says. "They are rejecting it based on religious beliefs. The issue isn't about informing these people. They are informed."

The new study has critical implications for how experts explain the technology and its applications, Scheufele says. It means the scientific community needs to do a far better job of placing the technology in context and in understanding the attitudes of the American public.

This at least gives the respondents a bit more benefit of the doubt. Far more likely than the "nanotechnology reminds me of stem cell research and is therefore wrong" argument is something along the lines of "nanotechnology represents a deep alteration of nature and so must be explored with caution." I agree with that.

There's another dimension to take into consideration - the fusion of nanotechnology and biotechnology. The human application of nanotechnology, for instance, could pose ethical dilemmas. But such is true for all medical procedures, interventions and treatments. What one should not confuse however, is the moral quality of the technology, and the moral quality of the use of that technology. They are separate questions.

Bottom line, there is no reason to rule out nanotechnology because it is technology, or because it is "nano."

So, what should we take from this survey, and its subsequent reporting?

• Many Americans are uneasy about nanotechnology for "religious" reasons
• Those reasons are either not understood or not well presented by the survey takers
• People continually looking for an excuse to blame things on "fundamentalists", have found one
• Two tasks must be taken up: a) educating those who try to take "mental short cuts" about the distinction between technology and the uses of technology b) educating those who charicature "religious reasoning" about the essential role of prudence in scientific discovery and research.

Oddly enough: "Nanotechnology is currently used in 85 personal care products. " - Cosmetic Design

California scientists create clones, earn swift Vatican rebuke

Associated Press:

Scientists in California say they have produced embryos that are clones of two men, a potential step toward developing scientifically valuable stem cells.

...

"I found it difficult to determine what was substantially new," said Doug Melton of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. He said the "next big advance will be to create a human embryonic stem cell line" from cloned embryos. "This has yet to be achieved."

Dr. George Daley of the Harvard institute and Children's Hospital Boston called the new report interesting but agreed that "the real splash" will be when somebody creates stem cell lines from cloned human embryos.

"It's only a matter of time before some group succeeds," Daley said.

CWNews covers Bp. Sgreccia's response:

Reports of the first successful human cloning have drawn a quick protest from the Vatican.

Responding to a claim that the California-based Stemagen Corporation had produced a cloned human embryo, Bishop Elio Sgreccia said that such as step would be "the worst type of exploitation of a human being."

Speaking on Vatican Radio, Bishop Sgreccia, the president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said that human cloning would "rank among the most morally illicit acts" possible.

...

Samuel Wood, the chief executive of Stemagen, said that his company's research was aimed exclusively at stimulating medical research. Wood-- whose skin cells were combined with an ovum in the cloning process-- said that he is opposed to any research that would allow the cloned embryos to be born. "It's unethical and it's illegal, and we hope no one else does it either," he said.

The reported success of the Stemagen cloning experiment has not yet been confirmed by other scientists.

I've said before and I'll say again, it would certainly be helpful in these situations if the Catholic response to these announcements was more than "this is unethical" and went onto explain the exact reasons - however briefly - why cloning is wrong. There is an answer and it deserves to be communicated.

Related links:

• Catholic Culture: Human Cloning
• Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, U.S. Catholic Bishops' Conference: Human Cloning
• Sr. Terese Auer: Cloning, A Catholic Moral Evaluation

Report: "Human/animal hybrid embryos will be created 'within months'"

UK Times:

Experiments to create Britain’s first embryos that merge human and animal material will begin within months after a Government watchdog today approved two research teams to carry out the controversial work.

Scientists at King’s College London and the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne will now inject human DNA into empty eggs from cows, to create embryos known as cytoplasmic hybrids that are 99.9 per cent human in genetic terms.

Related:

• Bioethics essay: "Human-Animal Hybrids and the Catholic Response"
• Sep 06: Pres. of Pont. Acad. for Life reacts to UK hybrids
• Sep 03: Human-animal chimeras given go-ahead in the UK
• June 27: Stem cells and Chimeras/Embryos; Legislation and Papal/Episcopal witness

Amazing: Incredible Comet's Dust Cloud Bigger than the Sun!

A comet that has delighted backyard astronomers in recent weeks after an unexpected eruption has now grown larger than the sun.

The sun remains by far the most massive object in the solar system, with an extended influence of particles that reaches all the planets. But the comparatively tiny Comet Holmes has released so much gas and dust that its extended atmosphere, or coma, is larger than the diameter of the sun. The comparison is clear in a new image (click image for full-size):

"It continues to expand and is now the largest single object in the solar system," according to astronomers at the University of Hawaii.

The coma's diameter on Nov. 9 was 869,900 miles (1.4 million kilometers), based on measurements by Rachel Stevenson, Jan Kleyna and Pedro Lacerda of the University of Hawaii Institute for Astronomy. They used observations from the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope. The sun's diameter, stated differently by various sources and usually rounded to the nearest 100, is about 864,900 miles (1.392 million kilometers).

Holmes is still visible to the naked eye as a fuzzy star anytime after dark, high in the northeast sky. You can find it by using this sky map. It is faintly visible from cities, and from dark country locations is truly remarkable. [Read the full text here.]

Sensationalism aside, it's still pretty darn cool.

"Holy See hosting conference on formation and evolution of galaxies" - CNA

CNA reports:

The Vatican Astronomical Observatory is hosting an international conference on the formation and evolution of the galaxies, with more than 210 scientists participating from 26 countries, including Germany, France, Italy, the United States, Australia, Canada, Holland and Japan.

The conference, which began October 1 and ends October 5, will center on those galaxies in which the part that is in the form of a disc predominates. In addition there will be discussions about large conglomerates made up of stars, interstellar dust and gases.

Too cool. I just love it. How the reporters will be scratching their heads. I can see it now: "Church .... science?! Astronomy .... Church?!". Try fitting this story into your pre-conceived categories.

BettNet on statistics showing greenhouse gas pollutions down

More grist for the (hopefully energy-efficient/minimal-waste-producing) mill:

"To sum up: Even as population grew, American industry grew, the amount of energy consumed grew, and the amount Americans used their cars grew, greenhouse gas emissions went down. Despite everything that environmental extremists tell us we need to do to “save the environment” from the “human-caused” catastrophe of global warming, the reality is that it’s already being done without the draconian measures they suggest are necessary." [More...]

Embryonic stem cell breakthrough?

You may have seen the headline, "Embryonic stem cells can repair eyes, company says..."

AMDG notes some things in the article, and catalogues all the "might's, maybe's and probabaly's" that the scientists must include, even as they promise spectacular results.

[A few of my comments in brackets]:

Stem cells made from human embryos can home in on damaged eyes, hearts and arteries of mice and rats, and appear to start repairs, a U.S. company said on Monday.

[notice the verb "make", human embryos are material for production. Like one would "make" cookies out of dough.]

... companies working with private funding, such as the over-the-counter listed ACT, may do as they please [regarding embryonic stem cell lines].

Working with embryonic stem cells is not easy. For medical uses, researchers would like to partly differentiate them -- start them down the road toward becoming a specific cell or tissue type.

[This is a euphamism for "letting the embryo develop as it would normally." Starting down the road toward becoming a specific cell or tissue type is what embryos naturally do as they mature. In other words, they let the embryo live long enough to start creating "pluripotent" (or more specified) stem cells and then take those cells, in most cases killing the embryo in the process.]

... The researchers killed the mice to check the cells' progress, so they do not know the long-term effects.

[Not to iterject, but I'm sure they intend to let some mice live before they begin human testing. embryonic stem cells, when operated upon, often become cancerous because cancer means the cell's normal activities have been compromised.]

They want to begin human testing by the end of next year.

Update: And in the same vein, eugenics takes another timid step forward in Britain.

The first casualty? Squinting!