Science in America

The October issue of Discover magazine had a series of articles about the state of science education in America written by various well-known scientists and experts in the educational system (a great read if you haven’t seen it yet). This month, I turned to the letters to the editor section of the magazine to find the responses from the magazine’s readership. Most were pretty much what I expected, “Thank you for publishing…”, ” No wonder we are losing the lead…”. Then I came to a letter in which the writer expressed dismay at a comment written by Lisa Randall. The letter, I believe, strikes at the heart of the disconnect that is felt between scientists and a good proportion of the American public.

Here is Lisa Randall’s “disturbing” statement:

“It is incredible that in this advanced nation we let beliefs impede scientific research.”

The critic states:

“I suspect that what she is really saying is that research should not be impeded by those whose beliefs differ from hers.”

Again we are defeated by words. The word “belief” has several different meanings depending upon the context. It can be as lax as an opinion, or as stringent as a conviction based upon assessment of evidence. In Lisa Randall’s case, she was certainly using the word in the former sense, but unfortunately was interpreted as being one of the many pretentious scientists who “view [themselves] as superior to everyone else.” (critics words)

Scientists are people like anyone else, but when it comes to scientific research facts and evidence are the driving factors. Science thrives on differences of opinion. There is a diversity of opinions within science, but those are actually very well informed interpretations of available evidence. When we let something other than evidence determine the course of science we have lost the ability to truly be scientifically objective, and let facts speak for themselves.

That said, it is important to keep discourse open. Science does not know everything, and it surely has enough skeletons in it’s closet to warrant help in the ethics department. Yet, we need to watch who is pushing certain agendas in the guise of ethics.

For example, the latest development in the stem cell debacle has brought out all sorts of “experts” in the name of scientific advancement. I think I received 10 separate press releases from different special interest groups (mainly conservative christian organizations against the use of “embryonic” stem cells), each of which touted the research as THE answer to our stem cell conundrum.

One op-ed in the LA Times went so far as to suggest the things that our government should do immediately based on the research findings.

“We can now put this sorry history behind us and get on with promising medical research that is supported by all sides. Here’s what we need to do:

First, the stem cell research community should follow Wilmut’s lead and put human embryo cloning on the back burner. At the same time, Congress and the president should expedite federal funding to expand research using the newly announced techniques. In the event that they prove inadequate, embryo cloning can be revisited.

Next, Congress and the president should move quickly to enact a federal ban on reproductive cloning and to support calls for an international ban. The sheer notoriety that reproductive cloning offers will be impossible for rogue scientists to resist.

Finally, Congress and the president should realize that cloning is only the tip of the human biotech iceberg. Techniques are under development that would enable creation of designer babies, genetically modified athletes, artificial life forms that can mutate and reproduce, and more. We need federal laws and regulations allowing genetic technology to be used for socially benign and beneficent purposes, while precluding its use for objectionable purposes.

There is no reason, especially now, why we cannot find common ground on such consequential issues. The stakes are huge and time is short.”

–Richard Hayes, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society

Mr. Hayes is wrapping his biased rhetoric in the guise of moderation by appealing to the wish that we all have for everybody to just get along. However, his suggestions are not moderate in the slightest.

First, he suggests all but doing away with “human embryo cloning”, and maybe looking into it again someday if this new line of research doesn’t pan out. Uh, yea that would be real smart. Why not continue all avenues of research in parallel until they die out naturally? That way the public wouldn’t necessarily be waiting as long for promised returns. And, what if this new method doesn’t turn out to be the best answer for everything. It is possible that “human embryo cloning” might be good for some things this new method is not. We don’t know yet. Let’s not put all our eggs in one basket.

Second, ummm… rogue scientists? notoriety? Get your head out of the comic book aisle and take a look around. This is a battle of terminology that should not be decided yet. How about we keep the conversation open for a while longer.

Third, who said anything about genetic modification? Stop using the platform to advance your highly conservative views, rather than addressing the issue. Is genetic modification of atheletes or babies, or even artificial life forms really objectionable? In all possible cases? Or, are you just afraid of the gray goo? There is always going to be potential doom looming on the horizon as we progress scientifically, but I must admit that I think it would be neat to watch atheletes compete on a completely new playing field, leaping hundreds of feet in a single bound because of an alteration to the actin-myosin complex, or to know that I had successfully turned off or even deleted a gene for disease in my gestating child, or that nuclear waste would never be a problem again because an artificial life-form was created to metabolize it.

To be fair, yes, what scientists have done is amazing. However, it was only two scientific papers showing proof of concept. Two labs can now successfully get skin cells to forget that they are skin cells and think that they are embryos. Oh, wait, did I say that? Yup, sure did. This is all a war of words surrounding cellular processes. The thing that we all need to remember is that we need cells that think they are part of a blastocyst, or early stage embryo. That’s the only reason the cells can be convinced to be pluripotent in the first place. So, no matter which way you cut it, the cells involved in this research, whether through reproductive blastocysts or somatic-cell nuclear transfer or through this new method of somatic-cell reprogramming, are pretty similar.

Are they viable? We don’t know. It would be unethical to allow a reprogrammed skin cell to advance past the blastocyst stage, wouldn’t it? But, I’m getting tired of the fine slicing of hairs in this particular debate.

Why does no one use the word blastocyst? Because it is not inflammatory enough. Blastocyst doesn’t garner the same attention as EMBRYO. It is unfortunate that language is the bane of science, but maybe one day science education in America will progress to a point that it no longer will be.

Filed under Science & Politics | Comments (3)