Federal Judiciary

Truth, Propaganda, or Both? -- By: Letters

By Letters

I was rather stunned to read Kevin Williamson?s puzzling review of Lines That Divide, the documentary about the embryonic-stem-cell research (ESCR) debate. I had nothing to do with the production of the DVD, but I was interviewed for it, am a talking head in it, and have seen it twice, and I can join with Ramesh Ponnuru in saying with confidence that Williamson got some very big things wrong:

First: The person saying the other side was ignorant about stem-cell research was a proponent of ESCR. He ?begged? opponents to learn the facts; once they did, he claimed, they would support embryonic-stem-cell research. At no time does the DVD claim that the pro side is ignorant or uneducated.

Second: Williamson has his science wrong. At no time does the DVD discuss ?leftover embryos? with regard to the use of eggs in cloning. Indeed, leftover embryos aren?t used in cloning. Rather, the nucleus of a somatic cell, such as a skin cell, is inserted into an egg whose nucleus has been removed, hence the term somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). This procedure was explained accurately in Lines That Divide, in the course of debunking propaganda by pro-cloners that SCNT merely makes stem cells.

Third: The film does not overstate the danger of egg donation for women. The potential complications include infection, disability, infertility, and even death. Since perfecting cloning will require tens of thousands of attempts -- one egg per attempt -- and if therapeutic cloning is ever used in regenerative medical treatments, millions of eggs will be required, it is reasonable to ask where all the eggs would come from.

Fourth: The human/animal hybrid issue refers to trying to make human embryos through SCNT using animal eggs -- something that is already being attempted in the U.K. It is also worth nothing that Senator Brownback?s legislation to outlaw that method here has been derided in the media and among biotechnology advocates.

Fifth: At no time that I can recall did the film state that there are no scientific uses for embryonic stem cells. I believe the entire discussion of the issue had to do with the lack of human treatments yet derived from embryonic stem cells, in contrast to the tremendous advances that have been made in the adult-stem-cell arena.

Sixth: Williamson is wrong when he writes that we have only been asked to pay a ?specific? ethical price, not ?any price,? for ESCR. No sooner had President Obama removed the Bush funding restrictions than the New York Times, many science journals, and others began agitating for the end of the Dickey/Wicker amendment, which forbids federal funding for embryo-destructive research, and arguing that the feds should fund human-cloning research. We have even seen arguments in favor of fetal farming published by a prominent bioethicist in the Huffington Post, an awful proposal that was explicitly legalized several years ago in New Jersey. Williamson seems to believe that this debate is only about leftover embryos. It isn?t. It never has been.

I could go on. I urge everyone to take a look at Lines That Divide for themselves rather than believe Williamson?s review. It presents arguments by advocates on both sides of the issue. It is accurate scientifically. Yes, it has a perspective. But propaganda? No way.

We have been asked to evaluate particular sets of moral constraints, and asked whether we are willing to pay a specific price, in particular the destruction of unwanted embryos created for in vitro fertilization procedures -- which are very likely to be destroyed in any case -- and of the clones created from them.

First, the jury is still out on the surplus-embryo debate. Of the roughly 500,000 frozen embryos in the U.S., it is still not clear how many are actually surplus, as opposed to being frozen for couples who may still implant them or choose to donate them to embryo-adoption agencies. And of the embryos that may be donated for research, how many will survive the thawing process and be of any use to the researcher is another unknown. Remember, the best embryos are implanted into the mother?s womb, while those deemed of lower quality get frozen.

Second, clones are not created out of surplus embryos; human eggs are needed for cloning research. Human cloning is the end game of these great stem-cell debates, not surplus or leftover embryos. Which is why Lines That Divide ?repeatedly asks? whether there will there be moral restraints; where we will draw these ethical lines; and who gets to decide where or if lines will be drawn at all.

Williamson also says Lines That Divide argues that embryonic-stem-cell research is ?devoid of scientific value.? This is a categorically false statement. We argue that it is unethical to develop cures and treatments using embryos, and we allow our opponents to advance their ?we have to do it all? position as it relates to stem-cell and human-cloning research, but we call out their propaganda -- for instance, their insistence that therapeutic/research cloning isn?t cloning, since it doesn?t involve implanting a human cloned embryo. And we point out alternative advances in finding cures, ranging from adult stem cells and altered nuclear transfer to the latest breakthroughs in induced pluripotent stem cells, while using a ?30-minute infomercial for miracle cures derived from adult stem cells? to support our claims with real, peer-reviewed evidence.

Viewer reactions show just how important case studies and real patient testimonies are in making our case in the public square. Audience after audience has remarked on two things. First, they are stunned about the progress being made today, now, across the world, in treating patients with adult stem cells (often the patient?s own stem cells!), and how woefully underreported it has been in the media; and second, when they discover what ?egg donation? really entails, they are appalled that young women are being targeted and exploited for their eggs.

Williamson never backs up his claim that ?risks of certain drugs and procedures are exaggerated, as is the vulnerability of the women who undergo egg-harvesting procedures for money; and many facts and arguments are given without sufficient context.? In fact, this issue has done so much in bringing together pro-choice and pro-life people because of the very real health risks (which, again, are well documented in the scientific literature) and the attendant exploitation of young women. Why else would the U.N. call upon its member nations to ban all forms of human cloning? Partly because of their concerns that poor women would be at risk of exploitation when offered money in exchange for their eggs. Why did the European Parliament issue a resolution ?on the trade in human egg cells?? Because of women who had been exploited in Eastern European countries.

Finally, Williamson writes that ?Americans are excruciatingly well informed about what an abortion entails,? and they are still for it, so why would Americans care about an embryo in a dish? But Americans are not excruciatingly well informed, not by a long shot, and there is much competition in the public square, our marketplace of ideas. As one who became pro-life at the age of 40, I?m living proof that with the facts -- with the truth, not propaganda -- we can better inform Americans, better care for the moral worth of all human organisms, and hopefully minimize the lines that divide us.

Jennifer Lahl
National Director
Center for Bioethics and Culture Network

KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON RESPONDS: I wrote about Lines That Divide as a work of cinema, not as a work of scientific exposition. Believing as I do that a scientific debate among a nurse, a lawyer, and a part-time movie critic is not apt to shed much light (even less than discussing a film with someone who has not seen it), I likewise will confine my remarks here to my criticism of the film as a film.

Both Mr. Smith and Ms. Lahl are stung by my use of the word ?propaganda,? but ere our pixels fade to black it must be witnessed of their work that things are not otherwise but thus: ?Propaganda? is the word with which to describe Lines That Divide. Like the much-abused ?rhetoric,? it has an air of disreputability -- but both the by-my-Webster?s definition of the word and its dodgy connotations fit the film; the dictionary and I both must be indifferent to Mr. Smith?s and Ms. Lahl?s feelings about the word. Likewise, Ms. Lahl takes the time to write that she feels patronized by my assertion that the film was made by people of some intelligence and good intent. I might as easily have written that it was made with clumsiness and poor taste, which also would be accurate, but I have in my criticism of the film attempted to achieve a balance and proportionality that the film itself did not.

Indeed, the emotional tenor of their response to my criticism is of a piece with the emotional incontinence of the film itself, with its horror-show music cues and its parade of horribles, Frankenstein?s monster together with mutants from The Island of Dr. Moreau, its lingering shots of suppurating wounds and weeping faces.

The film is unbalanced -- so unbalanced in its presentation of the evidence, in truth, that any reasonably reflective viewer must suspect that he is not being dealt with quite honestly, and thereby be repulsed. The film will not serve to improve discourse on the subject and does not appear to be intended to do so. On that subject, I will note that while Mr. Smith writes that I misrepresent the film in arguing that it invests too much hope in what may be achieved by education, Ms. Lahl writes that she, with her Pauline midlife conversion to the pro-life cause, is ?living proof that with the facts -- with the truth, not propaganda -- we can better inform Americans, better care for the moral worth of all human organisms,? &c. And so, at Ms. Lahl?s invitation, I repeat that, in a society whose mothers, physicians, and judges conspire to spectacularly butcher so many millions of our unborn young, it plainly is not a lack of visceral evidence that leads very many Americans to dismiss the value of certain human lives; it is barbarism.

But it is not yet a barbarism that recognizes no moral constraints on science, contra Mr. Smith?s assertions and the film?s. Dr. Mengele is not at present on the American scene.

Mr. Smith asks readers of my review to watch the film for themselves and to form their own judgments, while Ms. Lahl writes that, having seen my work, she thought: ?With friends like this, who needs enemies?? I had precisely those two thoughts on viewing Lines That Divide, the virtues and defects of which will no doubt be as plain to others as they are to me.

Full post as published by Bench Memos - National Review Online on August 25, 2009 (boomark / email).