Blogs and Stories
The Right Embraces Al Gore
Peter Klaunzer / AP Photo; Darren Hauck / Getty Images
The former vice president is shaking up abortion politics by funding stem cell research that doesn't involve embryos. That's creating some strange new bedfellows
PLUS: Neurobiologist Maureen L. Condic fact-checks 11 stem cell arguments and asks, does research really need human embryos?
The letter began: “As a scientist, I must say that you are an idiot.”
Granted, this is not a sentiment unique to a single scientist. My mailbox runneth over. But this fellow’s critique requires a response in light of recent events.
Scientifically speaking, toldja so.
Republicans, who have staked out pro-life territory as their own, are in the curious position of having to applaud the king of global warming. Talk about inconvenient truths.
The dear fellow was referring to a syndicated column I wrote back in March in which I praised the virtues of induced pluripotent adult stem cells. (iPS to you.) Which, by the way, I had written with much guidance from other scientists who hail, for example, from such barren intellectual lands as Stanford University. I didn’t make it up, in other words.
But no matter. Despite mounting evidence that iPS cells show great promise and can mimic the qualities that have made embryonic stem cells so appealing, scientists disagree on which method is preferable. I would be lying if I said that these disagreements do not include some monetary considerations, but never mind that for now.
What brings me back so soon to these treacherous seas (I promise not to pursue this metaphor despite the irresistible tug of recent pirate tales) can be summed up in two words: Al Gore.
Yes, the global-warming, Nobel Peace Prize-winning Al Gore. That one. The man who might have been president, were it not for a few hanging chads, has just announced that he will participate in a $20 million biotech venture to pursue induced pluripotent stem-cell technology. That strange sound you hear is the collective gasp of pro-life conservatives who would rather un-impeach Bill Clinton than embrace “Algorithm,” as he’s affectionately known in the right reaches of the politisphere.
“I just think it’s a very important breakthrough that is filled with promise and hope,” said Gore, a partner in the venture-capital firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, which is backing the research.
Indeed it is. And life is rich in new alliances, as well as irony. Recently, the Democratic Party attracted one of the principal funders of California’s Proposition 8 opposing gay marriage. Now Republicans, who have staked out pro-life territory as their own, are in the curious position of having to applaud the king of global warming. Talk about inconvenient truths.
“Dear, dear,” said the bedfellow to the stranger.
In an email to friends spreading news of Gore’s sudden brilliance, an advocate of adult stem-cell research wrote in the subject line: “OK, now I have to rethink the whole stem-cell thing.”
If Al Gore says it’s right, in other words, might we be wrong?
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
'Mom, Dad—I Need $96K'
Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group and author of Save the Males.
The Passion of Mark Sanford
Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group and author of Save the Males.
Sanford May Have to Take a Hike, After All
Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group and author of Save the Males.
I don't necessarily agree with Kathleen Parker in a lot of things. But I read up on this recently and it seems to be a hopeful alternative to avoiding the controversial embryonic stem cell.
I don't agree with Parker on a lot of things either . . . for instance her decision to throw Sarah Palin under the bus just so that she can be the liberal elite media's favorite darling for a few days. But she's definitely right on this one!
Both embryonic and adult stem cells should be looked at. "Pro-life" has to be one of the dumbest and most anti-societal policy stance made up by people with an agenda
Come on man, you are acting just as bad as the right wing tools. You can mock the fact that after voting in huge amounts of 'pro-life' politicians they have not yet reached square one, a draft of a bill in congress with a few sponsors to ban abortion. You cam mock the fact that its gonna take al gore and a democratic president to end the embryonic stem cell problem.
But what you can't mock the fact that they believe that embryos are worth protecting and that harvesting eggs (also needed in the process of therapeutic cloning) is not a pretty business no matter what your religious affiliation is.
I have a feeling that "embrace" is a bit strong.
OK .. WHICH option is CHEAPER to research ...
If the embryonic method is cheaper, I say have at it ...
If the iPS is cheaper, I say let's adopt that instead ...
IF they both cost the same to research, why not try both and anyone that gives us the EARLIEST results, we adopt ...
Reasonable Right ???
My understanding after talking to a medical whiz (non religous in case that makes him any more credible to you) is that the implementation of iPSCs would be much cheaper even if the research costs are debatable.
More importantly consider this: there is a good chance Bush wouldn't have been reelected if it wasn't for one issue voters flocking to him because of stem cells. Think of how much that cost us!
My point is that people feeling strongly about harvesting eggs, cloning humans and then destroying them is not a negligible aspect even if you do not agree that its comparable to murder.
Anyone who doesn't see value in avoiding the debate and pursuing this avenue, please leave your credibility and reason at the door. Whether you think the debate is justified or not, which ultimately is just a reflection on which side you are on, it will hinder the research. Let's invest in adult stem cells and start seeing some real progress, real results.
So, when will see the Al Gore documentary for iPS? Seeing he has made this issue his business, as he did climate change, it seems reasonable to expect a documentary boost his business venture.
I wanted Gore in 2000, as our Commander in Chief, but that was not to be... Opportunist in Chief seems to have been his true calling.
Debate is good, as is scientific research, so pursue both with vigor. I can't help but be cynical - not of iPS but of Al Gore. However, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
-CDT
Outgoing high-level politicians usually get enormous sums of money just for sitting on boards of corporations, or they hit the public speaking circuit, where they're paid lavishly.
Al Gore has lined his pocket while managing to actually do some good. So this is apparently a really bad thing, but Bush trotting around the globe giving speeches, while we read about his torture program, this is okay?
Nobody has to like Al Gore, but either be fair to him or admit you're a hypocrite.
Connie47,
You have missed the point - you poor thing. I have not mentioned Bush, nor endorsed his past or current activities. I have not declared making money a "really bad thing." I never said I don't like Al Gore - I said I am cynical.
Your entire response to mine is a nonstarter, i.e., your comments have no relationship to my post, which is, indeed, not fair. Your charge of hypocrisy indicates a lack of understanding on your part, and an absurdity of mind.
-CDT
Sigh.
hASCR and hESCR are complimentary, not competitive.
Note that Gore is not saying we should abandon hESCR.
Any scientist worth their salt knows this.
The reason that there are currently more potentially lucrative results from hASCR at the moment is because hASCR has been government funded right from 2006 when Johns Hopkins solved the mouse-feeder cell contamination problem and ALL stem lines were either grown or regrown from that point.
But basic research in hESCR was NOT funded while hASCR was.
Try not to be crudely manipulated by your low information base, Ms. Parker.
Differentiated cell clumps in terminal cryo-stasis are simply not "human life".
Early studies with both embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells are showing that adult stem cells are much more promising. Why? Rejection issues. Most adult stem cell research involves autologous cells--meaning that the cells are taken from the patient's own body. Hence, there are no rejection problems. Embryonic stem cells (unless taken from your clone) will usually have rejection problems.
Most of you have no clear understanding of this issue. Embryonic stem cells have been used for research throughout the Bush administration.The former President simply put a limit on the number of ESC used for research with federal funding. This, in case you somehow have failed to figure it out, does nothing to stop privately funded research on ESC lines. Most private firms, however, decided years ago, that adult stem cell lines were just as, if not more useful. Nothing significant has ever come of ESC research, while ASC have yielded results. DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Why would anyone encourage pursuing destroying the wholly unique individuals, no matter their form, if it is not necessary?
Because it legitimizes and reenforces the notion that life does not begin until it can survive outside the womb. (by the way it can't, even then. If you leave an infant on a table, as in botched late term abortions, long enough it will die.) Someone has an agenda here, and it is not pro-lifers. I'm glad Mr. Gore is bold enough to recognize and admit the truth. Maybe the rest of you will stop taking a stand on an issue you have long failed to understand. Even former President Clinton was ignorant enough to spout out that ESC lines were not fertilized (he repeated this several times) in an interview with Sanjay Gupta, who never corrected him. And you thought Bush was dumb?
Why end human life if you don't need to? Respect for life goes beyond embryos, beyond abortion. Making that which is human seem less than human is a road you should not tread on lightly, as there will always be one more step, one last extension. Pro-lifers and the right wing are always portrayed as ignorant, blind and racist, but most of us know the facts, not just the bs Planned Parenthood, who profits from abortion on demand and will go to any length, including covering up statutory rape to continue doing so. It's sad to see that an organization like this can damn near commit genocide (check the statistics on minority, especially Af. Amer. abortions) and perpetuate the myth that they are doing some sort of service. Most of you will dismiss this post and continue to believe all the propaganda like good little sheep, I know this. Still, I hope just a few will bother to consider the other side, look into the facts, as Mr. Gore has on this issue of ASC research and make an informed decision.
If they can make it (iSP) work.... go for it.
Embryonic stem cell research is more trouble then it is worth if they have a viable alternative. Even if it is cheaper... in the long run, look at the political cost... it's huge. If they aren't allowed to continue the research continually... with the change of every adminstration... the cost is huge.
perdidochas...
Early studies with both embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells are showing that adult stem cells are much more promising.
Sure, for anti-rejection issues, but we cannot do disease modelling with hASCR like we can with hESCR. Also relative telomere length in hESC lines leads to greater line longevitity which is essential for the study of genetic anti-scenescence (anti-aging) therapy. I am say we need to DO BOTH. They are complimentary, not compeititve.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
If only her fellow Republicans could write so thoughtfully on such an issue.
I have never fully formed an opinion on any kind of stem cell research because I have never though I fully understood it. But I have had a hard time expressing my views amongst Democratic cohorts because I am made uneasy by the very thing that makes Parker and Gore uneasy. Though I am pro-choice, I have just never been able to resolve the embryonic stem cell issue. Leave it to Gore to once again be a hero on what should be a non-political issue.
Thanks for bringing it to my attention Parker and TDB.
Please NOTE Ms. Parker, that your token "pro-life" psuedo-scientist did NOT refute EITHER of the two reasons I claim that it is neccessary to DO BOTH.
Anti-scenescence therapy and disease modelling.
Would you like to play again?
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.