Science

There is a really interesting letter in this weeks New Scientist:

From Caroline Herzenberg

I must disagree with the sentiment expressed in the headline “Nothing but the truth” on Robert Matthews’s article. After a lifetime in science and of wholehearted commitment to protecting intellectual integrity, I have come to the conclusion that in the world outside science, cold facts alone are not enough.

Truth travels slowly, and falsehood moves fast. Additional techniques must be used by scientists in struggling against propaganda, and I recommend ridicule. Here in the US we are contending with huge amounts of propaganda from very powerful institutions, including corporations and our own government, as Dan Hind has already set out (19 January, p 46).

This propaganda generates and publicises falsehoods at a greater rate than any well-intentioned individual or limited group of individuals could possibly research and examine on the timescale of an effective counter-argument. Of course we must present the evidence and the facts, but this response will be too little and too late when the propaganda is being churned out by well-funded political or corporate noise machines working around the clock.

I suggest an immediate response of publicly ridiculing the most obvious lies and propaganda, followed promptly by a detailed response that is as thorough, thoughtful and accurate as possible.

Chicago, Illinois, US

This is very germane to the misinformation and misunderstanding about the The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. As Herzenberg outlines falsehoods travel fast whilst the truth is slow to catch up. Thankfully in the current debate the truth is getting out there. There was an excellent interview with UK Health Secretary Alan Johnson on BBC News 24 where he rejected the scaremongering that is being put about. Bishops and others, who are either lying or who don’t know what the actual Bill will allow, are talking about animal-human hybrids as if we are going to have actual cross species animals produced. It’s not anything like that. What is being proposed is taking an animal egg cell, removing the nucleus with its DNA and other nuclear contents, and putting a nucleus from a human cell (such as a skin cell) in its place.[1] Chemical treatment will then be used to encourage the hybrid cells to divide. They will be allowed to develop until a morula or Blastocyst is formed. These will have about 100 cells. Some of these will be stem cells that can be harvested and used for research into how they differentiate into different types during foetal development. For example, research such as how they are programmed during development to form nerve or neural cells. This is directly relevant to diseases such as Alzheimer’s and nerve damage injuries.

The most the hybrid cells will be allowed to develop is the stage where they comprise a few hundred cells. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less. The technique likely wouldn’t be needed if there was a better supply of stem cells from the human embryos that are discarded after IVF treatments. But I expect you’ll find that the Bishops are opposed to that as well. Indeed, they’ll likely be opposed to any work and progress in this area.

Muddying the debate, the way the opponents are, is a low, despicable act of wilful lying or ignorance. The latter is curable by application of knowledge. The former is power for the course for the catholic church. Why expect them to change after hundreds of years of opposing scientific progress in many areas.

One of the main threats to this Bill, and scientific progress in general, is the lack of knowledge about science in the general populace. A lack of knowledge that the the opponents of reason feed on and exploit. It is up to those of us who are for reason and the betterment of humanity and the other animals on this planet, (for humans are just another animal after all), to work to ensure that the truth is held up in opposition to the falsehoods. Indeed, given that the speed of truth is slower than falsehood, we need to look for ways to speed it up. As Herzenberg suggests, ridicule followed by a detailed reasoned argument would seem to be a viable tactic. Other tactics will be needed, as part of the overall strategy of raising public understanding of science. We need more professional, amateur and ad-hoc science communicators who are equipped to counter the lies and misinformation wherever it arises. For my part I’m planning to do this MSc in Science and Society to formalise my knowledge of science communication.

[1] Not all the DNA will be removed from the animal egg cell. Its mitochondria will still have their own DNA. Human cells have mitochondria with separate DNA also. Indeed mitochondria where formally independent bacterial organisms that entered into a symbiotic relationship with a common ancestor of what evolved into the first multi-cellular life on Earth. So, in a certain respect, we are already hybrids!

Update: Lord Winston has said that the Catholic Bishops are lying about this issue:

But Lord Winston told The Daily Telegraph: “His statements are lying. They are misleading and I’m afraid that when the Church, for good motives, tells untruths, it brings discredit upon itself.”

“I have huge respect for the Catholic Church, which does great good, but it will be destroying its probity with overblown statements of this kind.”

The Seinfeld TV show had a bit about not double dipping. Here it is from YouTube:

Giggle. One of the best shows ever. It seems that this has inspired a study to see if double dipping is unhygienic. Read about it over at the Nature Journal blogs.

This will be interesting if it happens. The tracking system that looks for asteroids and near-Earth objects that could hit Earth, has found an asteroid that might hit Mars on 30th January 2008. Current data gives the odds of it hitting Mars as 1 in 75. Further measurements will narrow it down. Could provide a nice show and a peak under the surface of Mars due to the crater it would leave. Here’s hoping it does hit. And near one of the Mars rovers. More details at New Scientist.

Update: New data puts the chances of this impacting Mars as 1 in 25, or 4%. Though still small the odds are getting better.

There has been a lot of hoopla and news coverage recently about the results, from teams in Japan and the USA, who used chemical manipulation to produce cells that resemble stem cells. Many groups that oppose the use of embryos in research have proclaimed that the new results mean that there is no longer any valid reasons for using stem cells derived from embryos. They are mistaken for several reasons (ignoring the fact that they opposed the research using embryos anyway).

The results from the latest research do not equate to a medical breakthrough (as some have claimed). What has been published are the results of research on using transcription factors to reprogram skin cells into a state that resemble a stem cell. However both groups used viruses as the vector to introduce the genes to produce the transcription factors into the cells. It’s very unlikely that virally modified cells will be permitted for use in human trials and treatments. So the current research will not be directly translatable into human treatments. More work will be required to find other ways to introduce the transcription factors. Also the fact that the resultant cells resemble stem cells does not mean that they are stem cells. There could be biochemical limitations and side effects that have still to be discovered.

Talk of the end of research using embryonic stem cells is premature. We need to pursue all lines of research, including using embryonic stem cells. Given that many embryos are left over after human fertilisation, and that these will be discarded anyway, then I can’t see what the problem is with using them for research. If we accept the processes that produce the embryos (and we should) then simply discarding the unused ones when they could be used for research is just daft.

All avenues of research need to be kept open and funded in this area. We don’t know which technique will prove to be the best. As Einstein once said:

If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research, would it?

To paraphrase. If we knew the best outcome then we could pick the research line that leads to it. But we don’t, so we have to research on all fronts. And that includes using embryonic stem cells and other techniques like nuclear transfer and animal/human hybrid cells. Plus any other techniques that researchers haven’t thought off yet.