Category Archives: Biology

Chicago Diversion : Environmental Threat and Economic Opportunity?

Posted on by

In 1885 Chicago built a diversion to carry waste water to the Mississippi out from Lake Michigan. This led to a number of locks and such that supersede the Great Lakes Compact and the Boundary Waters Treaty that govern water usage in the Great Lakes basin due to a SCOTUS decision from around the 1890s (I already returned the library book – The Great Lakes Water Wars).

Since this time, there have been major diversions that have gone into the Great Lakes – notably the one developed during WWII in Ontario that feeds into Thunder Bay. The rule of thumb has been that if it remains inside the basin there isn’t much to worry about, but if it is outside the basin (excepting Chicago due to an antiquated SCOTUS decision), it is not approved.

For those unfamiliar with how the Great Lakes basin governance works, it takes the agreement of all the governors of the states or the executives of the provinces to allow a diversion if it is under a certain volume. If it exceeds that volume, the Boundary Waters Treaty comes into play – as does the updated Compact – and all the executives in both the Great Lakes States and Provinces must approve with subsequent approval in Ottawa and D.C. (Yeah, how long do you think that would take?)

Anyway, the Chicago Diversion has continued to add more and more suburbs outside the basin by staying within their overall volume allowance from an over 100 year old SCOTUS decision that SCOTUS just decided it would not re-hear. For whatever reason, Michigan’s case to cut off the links that allow for the carp to enter the lakes (and genetic materials have already been found on top of the fences) despite the likelihood of them destroying both fishing and tourism interests in an already weakened economic area.

Now, the main diversion and overall waterways surrounding Chicago are antiquated. Would it not make sense to use Federal monies to not only prevent the carp from invading international waters (Canada is still the USA’s largest trading partner); but, also, to engender a major infrastructure project in one of the areas of the country suffering from massive unemployment by updating an over 100 year old water system?

Or, are Chicago and federal politicians so corrupt and short-sighted that they cannot see this will turn into a major international incident if not headed off at the pass?

Beware the Worry Troll

Posted on by

The Worry Troll is a common creature who thrives on reporting and exagerrating risks. Their favorite habitats include The New York Times, West Coast Think Tanks, and Ethics Departments of Universities. These are people who truly believe they know better than anyone else what is good for everybody.

Worry Trolls are almost invariably wrong.

Now, they may have facts to back their arguments – but they always refuse to acknowledge that people and situations are individual. They want to control what you can do and how you can do it. They are always frightened little people who fear progress.

Here is how you tell the difference between a worry troll and someone sane with concerns. The sane with concerns perrson is not going to holler about the need for “regulation!” No, the sane person will ask the question – “What happens if you don’t take whatever into consideration?” The sane person wants dialogue without stopping progress. The sane person wants the right to access the information without restricting the other.

Worry trolls thrive on the ideas of regulation and restricting the rights of others. The problem with regulations? They never benefit the populace. They benefit the wealthy and power seekers.

I may be uneasy with genetically modified food – but I don’t want to stop the research or use thereof. I do want labeling so I can decide for myself. I don’t want anyone telling me – or anyone else – what I can or cannot do in regards to me or my property without proving that that restriction is such a benefit to society that any and all benefit to me (or anyone else) outweighs the restriction.

In what areas do you find the most worry trolls?

  • Privacy
  • Reproductive Medicine (Bioethicists who sound more like eugenicists than ethicists.)
  • Religion – on anything, really
  • Gun Control
  • The Drug War Defenders
  • The Terrorism War Defenders
  • Gay marriage opponents
  • GMO opponents (It’s fine to demand labeling, not fine to want all of it to end.)
  • Stranger Danger people – people (including children) are most likely to be hurt by somone they know, ask any cop!
  • Economic Doomsayers (the real problem? Unequal contracts being upheld – not the same thing as deregulation.)
  • etc.

Now, I for one would rather have liberty than safety. To want safety more than liberty? You don’t deserve liberty and are a shame to the Founding Fathers and Mothers of the United States.

Where do you find the most worry-trolls?

Nadya Suleman / Doud / Gutierrez Octuplets You Are An Insult to Infertility Patients

Posted on by

No, you are an abomination and an aberration. You, in your selfishness, have endangered reproductive rights to millions of couples fighting to have just one or two children. I honestly have nothing but disdain for you, and pity for your children.

Some may say I am harsh in this, I don’t think so. It is women like this spoiled little brat who make reasonable men and women who wish to be parents look like wild-eyed maniacs.

Nadya Suleman you have done nothing but given worry-trolls and fear-mongerers another story to use in their arsenal against legitimate patients. You are absolutely a disturbed person. Nothing will convince me otherwise. Nothing. If the state of California leaves you unsupervised with your children I will forever know that the social work system there is broken beyond repair.

Who is this doctor? Who would, in a woman who supposedly had successful previous IVFs and is under 35 transfer – not implant – more than one embryo? Both ASRM and SART say no more than two at a time in a patient like this creature. You are supposed to be practicing sound medicine. There are times when it is appropriate to put more than 2 or 3 embryos in – but this person does not fit any of those criteria. She was a one embryo candidate from everything we have seen in the press. Of course, for all we know, it is all lies.

To all the doctors out there who are using the word “implant,” you and I know damn well you can’t implant an embryo. You transfer it in hopes it implants itself. Language matters and careless use of language will backfire. Do not give the lunatic “right-to-lifers” more ammunition. Believe me, if they ever get their way in regards to abortion, they will come after all reproductive technology.

Any woman who has more than one transferred who cannot face selective reduction has no business using IVF. I may sound harsh, but it is a reality that disaster can strike. You start with this technology and you have to be ready to deal wisely with its ramifications. Carrying octuplets is neither wise nor sane.

I am livid. A part of me wants to start a campaign of sending her boxes of dirty shoes – soles up – from the infertility community. But, I won’t do that as it would be petty. I knew what it meant – the whole meaning – when Bush got the shoe thrown at him. I also know you never leave your shoes soles up in an Arabic household.

This woman should be pilloried, but never used as an example. She is an aberration.

If your political creatures start making noises about regulations and legislation over this aberrant abomination, tell them the truth – this woman was insane and her doctor was incredibly irresponsible and should probably lose his license. This, of course, assumes the clinic used was even in the USA. It may not have been.

Though, a part of me wonders about someone with three last names in a short time (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090131/ap_on_re_us/octuplets) and such a checkered past. Was medical fraud involved? Will we know anytime soon? I can think of several fraudulent scenarios in this. None look kindly on this woman.

Medical Industry and Legal Industry Reforms a Must – It’s all about insurance (Part 3)

Posted on by

One of the big problems the medical industry has is the unholy alliance the AMA had with the insurance industry “back in the day.” The medical insurers created an industry where they got a pool of monies to play with while (hopefully) rarely paying out to doctors, hospitals, etc.

Well, at first, the doctors and hospitals learned to use the system to finance their lifestyles – and research. It wasn’t all about making doctors rich, by the way. Most physicians really are about helping people. (There are exceptions, but a lot of that comes from the way medical schools beat up medical students.)

Well, time went on and some physicians who probably should not have been practicing – self-policing does not work in any industry – damaged patients in some horrendous ways. Malpractice lawyers are not the demons so many want to make them out to be. Most went after doctors who really were negligent – at first. This is where insurance came in.

The insurers saw an opportunity. They were already making money from the patients seeing doctors. Why not start making money from patients suing doctors? They started selling malpractice insurance. This created a spiral where people did not recognize the money for malpractice being paid out wasn’t just coming from physicians. Nope, it was coming from the overall insurance pool.

Lawyers, patients, and doctors, have been victimized by the insurance companies coming and going. And, all three have been foolish enough to believe that the other one is to blame.

How do we solve this problem?

  • First, acknowledge that some physicians should not be practicing medicine. There are doctors that all the doctors and nurses around them know should no longer be seeing patients. There is a culture that protects them. I always advise anyone looking for a specialist to ask a nurse where she (or her family) is going to have the same thing treated.
  • Second, recognize that lawyers and the court system – as currently configured – is not equipped to deal with these cases. This includes returning to the Medieval practice of really using a “jury of your peers.” Peers were those in the same profession or class who either knew the person or “best practices” and could make an informed judgment. (I would like to see patent cases be moved to such a form as well, but that is a separate rant on the over indulgence of industry.)
  • Third, create real policing of medical practice by people who are qualified to evaluate whether something is neglect, malicious, or just a mistake. This includes criminalizing certain types of medical malpractice. (This is something that should be rare, but just because someone is a doctor does not mean they are exempt from criminal neglect or maliciousness. Nurses and other medical practitioners should be included in this.)
  • Fourth, create a fund, as part of the health care package, that is used to compensate via treatment and necessary lifestyle adjustments for those things that are medical mistakes. This is one of the few areas where anything reasonable should be compensated. Especially damage to reproductive organs due to botched appendectomies, misuse of drugs, etc., for the funding of reproductive technology. It should also be used for required equipment and nursing care.

The real problems?

  • Doctors who believe they can do no wrong – or that everyone is out to get them.
  • Doctors who believe patients and lawyers are their enemies.
  • Lawyers who think they understand what it means to be dealing with life and death decisions in a matter of seconds.
  • The vested interests of the insurance companies who are currently the only winners in this game.

Until people understand that the insurance companies are the real issue here, well, we aren’t going to solve the real problem.

Staying Positive When All Is Negative

Posted on by

Everyone who deals with a chronic illness, infertility or any traumatic event, deals with the problem of getting worn down from the constant stress of it all.  Some things are in our control, some things are not.  Sometimes the things we think we can control are really outside of our control.

This gets further complicated when dealing with support communities – whether online or in real life.  People, being people, sometimes get hurt by the oddest things.  No one meant to be hurtful or mean, but it happens. Lord knows, I have hurt people unintentionally.  Probably, I have hurt more people than I thought I have. Once you take on the task of supporting others – tacitly or not – you end up creating new stresses for your yourself.  Language selection can actually cause all kinds of problems.

Some communities do not like the words outsiders use to describe them while others embrace those words.  Many words that should not be emotionally charged are due to cultural considerations.  In the USA, words like retarded have accumulated a morass of meaning that have nothing to do with what the word originally meant. Any group has to decide how to define itself with or without the emotionally charged words that society has already assigned it.  This is not so easy.

No matter what choices are made, someone is going to take objection.

Mel, over at Stirrup Queens, for instance, has an abbreviation list for those who are dealing with infertility, child loss,  adoption, and parenting after infertility.  She chose to use the term TTC – a standard from the old Usenet News days that is widely used on bulletin boards – to describe the beginning journey.  Many people started to object as this did not include those who had conceived but never given birth, those who lost an infant, and those who skipped medical interventions for adoption.  Now, there is a discussion about what would be the right abbreviation.  Poor Mel is feeling bad about this and actually changed her blog entry to TTP – Trying To Parent – rather than TTC (Trying To Conceive).  She also felt bad for making a simple mistake – saying every IVF cycle leads to conception.  That is not true, many, many are canceled/fail before that point.

So, what is Mel doing?  She is trying to come up with the perfect term.  The thing is, the variety of human experience surrounding just this one trauma is so diverse that there is no perfect term.  There are a variety of terms that are needed to communicate.  It is a veritable language of its own.  But, even these small disagreements tend to cement the community as a community.  Even bringing up how we can each best support the other in their unique circumstances.

“I got corned,” is a refrain we hear on the Avoiding Corn list quite often.  It seems as if society is out to kill us.  Literally.  Items that used to be safe suddenly have hidden corn ingredients.  If someone who has a corn allergy sees the word sorbitol, he or she knows to run, not walk the other way.  It does not help that some physicians do not even believe in a corn allergy.  (I have the paperwork from testing plus ER visits to prove my corn allergy.)

Of course, moods are not lightened in the corn allergy community when we hear of new and unique uses of corn.  But, then we remember that because we have to watch everything we eat and come into contact with, in some ways, we are healthier despite ourselves and our allergy.  Unfortunately, often, the information of what is causing our issues comes too late to avoid severe damage to our bodies.  Allergies, left untreated, can cause all kinds of health problems.

Then there are those in the “disabled community” that have added challenges of living an alternative lifestyle.  One such blogger is Liz at BadgerBag.  She has opened her life up to those of us on the Internet to share her trials and her triumphs – and like all of us, her prideful folly.  It sometimes feels a bit voyeuristic to read her most excellent blog, but it shows what determination to be true to one’s self can mean.

Recently, a knitting blogger, Becka, at The Knitting Wounded found out that she has breast cancer.  At first she was going to pack it in and crawl into a corner.  Then she decided to keep on knitting and blogging as a distraction.  Her posts may not be as frequent – or may be more frequent – but she is going to do what she has to do.

Now, this post may come across as rather negative to some of you, but that is not the intent.  It is to show that no matter how negative the circumstance people persevere, somehow, some way, until they can’t anymore.

I think that is something positive.  And I think that if people have the strength to argue  over terminology; whether or not something is or is not a real concern; or, what the appropriate behavior is to be, then maybe, just maybe, something positive is going on after all from that seeming slight or surrender.

The Clone Age: Adventures in the New World of Reproductive Technology

Posted on by

I wanted to like The Clone Age: Adventures in the New World of Reproductive Technology by Lori B. Andrews, I really did. Some of what Lori Andrews says is intelligent, but she allows her misunderstanding of basic science to get in the way. Of course, the majority of attorneys have no scientific training, so this does not surprise me. I was just disappointed.

Ms. Andrews started her career in US reproductive medical law with supporting surrogacy. She found herself representing a variety of men and women trying to have children. Surrogates – except for some high-profile media cases – were very likely to be doing this for altruistic reasons. Seeking no more than compensation for their actual medical expenses, these women see themselves as helping those who want to have what these women so love having – a family. Despite some feminists trying to argue that these women were exploited, there were no signs of this with reputable surrogacy agencies.


The Clone Age

This was not the beginning of 3rd party reproduction. Donor sperm has been around for around 100 years and there are a myriad of historical perspectives on the legal issues that ensued. In some places using it was equivalent to adultery – in most jurisdictions the marital bond provided legal parentage no matter the actual biological parentage. These laws could not easily be translated to relate to surrogacy and a patchwork of laws now hold sway in the USA.

My own state of Michigan was – and is – one of the most backwards. (I, personally, blame the undue influence of the Catholic Church and Dutch Reformed Church in the state’s legislative body.) Things have been improving, but not by much. Michigan, unfortunately, was the scene of one of the more egregious surrogacy fiascos resulting in a woman who was not psychologically equipped to deal with being a traditional surrogate being a surrogate. Of course, most of the law surrounds traditional surrogacy with no acknowledgement that carrying a child does not automatically mean that you have provided the primary genetic material (an oocyte) to create the child. Gestational surrogates opened up a whole new kettle of fish.

Ms. Andrews was comfortable with traditional surrogacy, but not comfortable with egg donation or gestational surrogacy in the same way. She shows an underlying hostility towards others using egg donation due to her perception of extreme danger for the donor. (Pregnancy is still more dangerous than controlled ovarian stimulation, statistically speaking.) Of course, math illiteracy is endemic to attorneys and politicians – not to mention the entire general population, educated or not. She outright fears any kind of cloning.

This is where she completely loses me. I do not fear reproductive cloning. And so many people feel they must cut off cloning at that point no matter what.

Of course, Ms. Andrews argues that the problem is with the idea of cloning in total. I have to wonder what happened to her that she fears cloning since experiment after experiment has shown clones are not exact replicas of their genetic parent. Of course, I am used to hanging out with clones knowing too many identical twins who are nothing alike. (They actually run in my family.) It is hard to fear something you have been living with without incident.

Now, if she is talking about due diligence in research, that is something separate. I am all for proper scientific rigor being used to ensure the safety and efficacy of any new procedure. She, however, has decided there can be no benefit of this.

One of the things that bothers me most about the book is the lack of empathy she shows. She kind of admits this when she mentions that she had expected to have trouble having her child since she had been immersed in reproductive medicine for quite awhile. Surgeons, being surgeons – even when they are OB/Gyns – gave her a hard time during her pregnancy which probably alienated her further from them. (Every profession has a weak point they are known for, surgeons have egos that are dwarfed only by the emerging emergency medicine subspecialty. OB/Gyns just happen to be the “nice” surgeons.)

Interestingly, she predicted with great foreboding the development of pleuripotent stem cells from non-embryonic tissue. She actually seems to tend towards considering a blastocyst a person. This is patently absurd to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of biology.

Now, she does make some good points. One of which is the privatization of the genome. She mistakenly states that the US has never limited patent applications. This is simply not true.

The U.S. Patent Office used to actually forbid the patenting of animals and humans – until Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was the devil himself, as far as I’m concerned. He is the father of the destruction of the Republic. I didn’t like him when he was elected and he did everything I thought he would do. GWB is the natural extension of his policies. Under Reagan, suddenly, previously unpatentable farm patents were being granted. Now, granted, plant patents have always been granted.

If you ever get the chance you should go to your local patent center and take a look at some of the older plant patents. They are gorgeous.

Now, here is the thing, discoveries of facts are not supposed to be patentable. So patenting the genome should be challenged. Unfortunately, the attorneys and magistrates involved are not educated enough to deal with the nuances of science. Those making the decisions are normally people who went out of their way to avoid taking math or science classes!

On page 213 is where she lost me totally:

But we do not usually look to ten-year-old children for assessment of the morality of an issue. . . the fact that many adults still feel the “yuck factor” when thinking about the issue of fetal ovarian transplantation indicates that the concept is not a comfortable one.

I would argue that a 10 year old child would have a stronger grasp of the science than the average Congress Critter or attorney. And, since I would think the maturity of a 10 year old beats the maturity of many politicians I have dealt with (think 2 to 3 year-old “me-me-me-me” mentality), I can’t give credence to the idea that this is some sort of standard. Think about it. Even grown men get squeamish when dealing with women’s cycles. Should they be making any laws dictating what is done to a woman in regards to that cycle?

Another part that made me want to shake the woman silly was her diatribe about how it was all about cloning men. Um… She was in Dubai! Arabic culture is very misogynistic. The truth in the West is that despite most of the physicians in the research being men (not all) the majority of the research monies have been private endowments by women for women suffering from various forms of infertility.

Think about that: Women are the primary financial supporters of infertility treatment.

It bothers me that this woman has such a strong influence on the legal landscape worldwide. She portrays herself as the go-to gal for a variety of governments. I have no reason to disbelieve this. I don’t think those without science education or knowledge should be allowed to dictate the debate.

Most people refuse to educate themselves about something if they find it “icky,” and I think this woman finds cloning icky. It isn’t. There are very real problems in the current cloning technology that we do not yet know how to fix – especially those involving cell aging and death. But, at the same time cloning research is finding those issues, aging research is working on stopping cell aging. Does she even mention this? Nope.

I was very disappointed that a seeming friend to the infertility community is really a frenemy. One who poses as a friend only to sabotage hope and future advancement. This woman would stop many of the people I know from being parents due to her undue concentration on statistical aberrations such as a case where an IVF child died at the hands of his father.

Study after study has shown that children who are born to parents who had to go to the lengths of IVF (and one day I will blog just how involved that is), are perceived as more cared for even by the child. The rate of abuse in the general population makes even the most horrendous cases of abuse in IVF to shame. I know, I worked in that part of law enforcement and know people who are still involved. It really does argue for a license to be a parent.

It is telling that one Texas Reproductive Endocrinologist informed Ms. Andrews that she would never pass his clinic’s psychological evaluation to become a patient.

One last entertaining item that shows how little this woman understands of human nature is when speaking of an 18 to 21 year old man whose parents wanted to preserve his seed and create a grandchild, actually says “But is it really feasible that their son would have wanted to spread his seed across Wisconsin?” (p 232). The male of most mammalian species is quite promiscuous. Humans are not an exception. Now, yes, there is a “squee” factor to posthumous conception, but, if it is right for some couple to preserver their line, it isn’t going to stop just because some lawyer says so.

If you want to know your frenemy, read the The Clone Age: Adventures in the New World of Reproductive Technology. Otherwise, consider it just more anti-reproductive technology tripe and anti-cloning nonsense.

Starting a Project to Help the Lay Public Understand the Maze of Infertility Treatments (And Why It Takes Over One’s Life)

Posted on by

I have had many friends who have dealt with this and being a librarian by training, and an analyst by profession, I have a bit of a need to create charts and use cases on what is going on.

There doesn’t seem to be a good way to explain how many stops and go’s there are in the process. So, I thought I would start flowcharting the baby steps of finding out how to treat infertility.

The next post will be Step 1: What Happens When Not Pregnant After Trying?

This is something that I hope the infertility community can help with by giving feedback and such. I am hoping to include statistics, etc. and, perhaps, eventually publishing these in a friendly “hand to the idiot friend/family/doctor/boss/acquaintance” that needs to know and can’t stop being stupid. My goal is to have this finished by next year’s National Infertility Awareness Week.

Sometimes, emotions don’t really mean much if there isn’t a good understanding of the facts behind this. I am doing this with infertility first because there is a real dearth of support – and even hostility – for those suffering this disease. Make no mistake, it is a disease.

So, please comment constructively! And, I know there are a few physicians, nurses, and statisticians lurking out there that I want to beg for help in making this as accurate and useful as possible.

Take the King Corn Challenge

Posted on by

As you might have guessed from some of my previous blog entries, I am allergic to corn – among other foods. The Avoiding Corn Forum has been abuzz with anticipation for the DVD release of the movie King Corn. None of us have been able to go see it because of the popcorn in the theaters. You see, some of us are so allergic that even aerosolized corn can cause a deadly reaction. I’m among them. In my case, it isn’t just diacetyl. Well, it seems the movie has inspired one group of bloggers to try and live corn-free:

http://www.culinate.com/mix/king_corn_challenge

Unfortunately, my cynical self and my husband immediately burst out laughing on seeing this. We thought, “You have NO idea what you are getting into!”

Then, I rethought this. This is a rare opportunity to bring to light some of the very real hidden problems in our food supply. Things those of us in the food allergic community – especially the non-Top 8 food allergens – have been dealing with. You see, FAAN and the FDA have been no help for a very long time to those of us with the rarer food allergies. But we aren’t bitter…

Anyway, I am inviting all of my readers to join in this attempt. And I am even going to give you a few reasons why.

National Infertility Awareness WeekThis week is National Infertility Awareness Week. 1 in 8 couples suffer from infertility. What has this to do with corn? There are some very preliminary studies showing that corn may disrupt the estrous cycle in mammals – including humans:

And, at least one of the chemicals in the make-up of corn is extremely stable – zearalenone – and it is also a known endocrine disruptor:

Granted, this research is quite preliminary, but the implications that it contributes not only to fertility issues but also to breast and other reproductive cancers is quite frightening.

American Diabetes Awareness MonthOf course, the obesity “epidemic” has a lot of play right now. The thing is, maybe there is something wrong with our diets that we are not in control of. This month is American Diabetes Month. Do I really need to list the study after study that High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is implicated in causing the genes that are responsible for diabetes to be triggered? Dietitians lobbied the lawmakers who allowed it into the food chain during the 1970s and 1980s to no avail. Big Food got its way.

1in 3 suffer from diabetes1 in 3 people will develop Type II diabetes, a.k.a. Diabetes Mellitus. I know that it runs on every side of my own family. I have only 2 relatives who did not develop some form of Type II – and they both had high blood pressure. Weirdly, the ones who did have diabetes did not… but that isn’t really relevant.

The truth is that our food supply is a dumping ground for corn and corn by-products due to the way the Farm Bill has developed over the years. You see, if you grow fruits and vegetables you lose money. If you grow grasses or cotton, you win. (Corn, wheat, and most grains are grasses.) You may want to use Google to find out more. This is being debated on such blogs as FarmPolicy.com.

Of course, ADM and Monsanto are always winners in the game. They price out family farmers and actively work to create new markets for corn by-products. Monsanto, if you remember, was found guilty by the European Union of suppressing studies showing that genetically modified potatoes, soy, and corn contribute to malnutrition.

I am not against genetically modified food, per se, but, please, the current record of testing is a little bit lacking.

So, I’m not asking you to eat locally (that would be easier), I’m asking, do you think you are up to the challenge of eating corn-free? Is your health worth it? A varied diet is better, and, if you have a question of what is corn-free and what isn’t, I’ll be more than happy to help!

Stem Cell Now

Posted on by

Stem Cell Now: From the Experiment That Shook the World to the New Politics of Life by Christopher Thomas Scott is a layman’s take on the science of stem cells. The book is, overall, a good overview of stem cell research and where it is taking us, but there are some flaws that could have been avoided with greater fact-checking.

One thing that Mr. Scott does extremely well is avoid writing in a sensationalistic manner about what is a true hot button issue of our time. For some reason, ignorant people are allowed to comment on something that is far beyond their understanding. In reading even this rudimentary book, it becomes clear that if you do not understand basic cellular biology – what some people did have in high school – you cannot in any way comprehend stem cells. (In my opinion, if this is the case, you should NOT have a seat at the discussions surrounding this. Of course, this would exclude most scientists, let alone politicians and laypeople.)

Stem Cell Now: From the Experiment That Shook the World to the New Politics of Life lays out the advances in both embryonic and adult stem cell research. It includes discussions of the various types of stem cells found in both the embryo and the adult lines. There are major differences between the types of stem cells, and there are many false starts in this area of research for both main types of stem cells.

Worrisome bits of Stem Cell Now: From the Experiment That Shook the World to the New Politics of Life include generalizations surrounding the IVF procedure wherein he actually claims there are always embryos left over in any IVF stimulation cycle – this is just not true. A significant number of couples never even get to transfer due to such things as no eggs being stimulated, no eggs being retrieved, fertilization failing, etc. We hear more about the extra blastocysts due to the media focusing on the 20% of successful cycles vs. the 80% of unsuccessful cycles.

Despite the inaccuracies – including those due to the publication date being 2006 in this very fast moving field – this book gets a recommendation from me due to the accessible way in which it discusses both the science and the political / ethical arguments surrounding stem cell research.

The author is very careful to avoid taking sides in discussing the political and ethical arguments. He presents each side without sensationalism. He even points out that the politicians (not scientists) decided that reproductive cloning is just wrong. (Personally, I do not agree with this assessment. With proper protections, cloning is just fine since metagenetics and other environmental factors would differentiate the clone from the parent. And, no, cloning a whole human for parts would never be acceptable.)

In reading Stem Cell Now: From the Experiment That Shook the World to the New Politics of Life, it becomes very clear that the USA is fast becoming – if not already – a third world nation in regards to biological scientific endeavor. Due to the undue influence of a handful of radical religious rubes, there are people who actually believe that an unfertilized egg is a human being! The utter lack of education behind such a statement boggles the mind.

Stem Cell Now : From the Experiment That Shook the World to the New Politics of LifeAlso, what is blatantly obvious is that countries, such as South Korea, will be the Meccas of post-modern medicine because of their bleeding edge research. Despite some major scandals, they are still plugging away on creating actual cures for diseases that have none currently. In Spain, they are already trialing stem cell therapies for spinal cord injury.

Note: Personally, I find any argument against stem cell research specious unless you are speaking of crossing the species barrier. My only concern with that is that proper work be done to prevent development of new zoonotic diseases. Or, even, the sudden mutation of a non-zoonotic disease to a zoonotic disease.

If you want to know more about stem cell research and need a good starting point – with the assumption that you actually have some idea what DNA, RNA, etc. are (A PBS Nature viewing education would be adequate), Stem Cell Now: From the Experiment That Shook the World to the New Politics of Life is a good starting point.