White House Falsely Claims New Stem Cell Study ‘Has Not Been Reviewed By Scientists and Bio-Ethicists Yet’
White House Falsely Claims New Stem Cell Study ‘Has Not Been Reviewed By Scientists and Bio-Ethicists Yet’
Today, a new study was published that shows embryonic stem cells lines can be created without the destruction of human embryos. Previously, the White House has said they oppose the creation of new stem cell lines because it involved the destruction of embryos.
In today’s New York Times, White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore said “Any use of human embryos for research purposes raises serious ethical questions. This technique does not resolve those concerns.†This afternoon, the White House changed their story. Here’s Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino:
QUESTION: Any decision to perhaps revisit the President’s position on federal funding for stem cell research, in light of this new development that was published yesterday in the journal Nature?
PERINO: …This study today reported in Nature Magazine has not been reviewed by scientists and bio-ethicists yet, but it is one that the President believes deserves a good look. He is encouraged that there are scientists who are continuing to look for innovative ways to do stem cell research that would not involve the destruction of embryos. And so he is going to listen to folks after they have a chance to review the study, but it does hold some promise that they would be able to do that type of research without destruction of a human embryo.
This is false. ThinkProgress spoke with bioethicist Ronald Green, who is an ethics advisor to Robert Lanza, an author of the study. Green said that in order to be published in Nature, the paper went through a rigourous peer review process, which lasted nearly three months.
The study was also reviewed by bioethicts. It was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Advisory Board of Advanced Cell Technology. Also an independent review board was constituted to scrutinize the study, as required by Massachusetts law.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
75 Responses to “White House Falsely Claims New Stem Cell Study ‘Has Not Been Reviewed By Scientists and Bio-Ethicists Yet’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Oh please! Another blow-off job by Snowjob!
August 24th, 2006 at 2:54 pmPathological.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:55 pmnext step in the rhtetoric is that there is no scientific consensus; as Colbert said, he believes Wednesday what he believed on Monday, despite what happened on Tuesday.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:56 pmman it's a really slow news day..... :(
August 24th, 2006 at 2:58 pm" has not been reviewed by scientists and bio-ethicists yet"
Translation: "has not been reviewed by a hand-picked group of religious zealots yet"
August 24th, 2006 at 3:05 pmWhats another lie? Oh course the lazy news medai will only
August 24th, 2006 at 3:07 pmreport what the white house says, checking facts is just
too much work these days.
Peer review has never been scientifically proven as a way to determine the quality of research. Typically 3 people review a submitted article. If it gets refused, another 3 people may review upon its resubmission. It's a very nonscientific and often politically motivated process (just look how long it took scientists to publish papers showing bacteria as the main cause for stomach ulcers and not stress-well over a decade).
That being said, this is definitely worth investigating and probably would require a few more years of study to see if others reach similar conclusions.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:08 pmFor the white house to believe that something published in NATURE hasn't been reviewed by scientists or "bioethicists" is perhaps one of the most ridiculous lies I've ever heard. But this only highlights the Bush administrations war on Science. NATURE is perhaps the pre-eminient general science journal in the WORLD. It doesn't get accepted there if it hasn't been rigorously reviewed. Ridiculous yet predictable.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:08 pmSomewhat germaine, but this probably wasn't done for the article today since it would have been submitted 6 months ago...
From wikipedia on peer review:
In June 2006, Nature launched an experiment in parallel open peer review - some papers that have been submitted to the regular confidential process will also be available for open, identified public comment on the web.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:17 pmFraud can happen in Nature too, despite peer review
An example is the case of Jan Hendrik Schön, in which a total of fifteen papers were accepted for publication in the top ranked journals Nature and Science following the usual peer review process. All fifteen were found to be fraudulent and were subsequently withdrawn. The fraud was eventually detected, not by peer review, but after publication when other groups tried and failed to reproduce the results of the paper
August 24th, 2006 at 3:18 pmA premier peer reviewed journal not reviewing the research they publish anymore?
I guess now is a good time for me to submit my Intelligent Design research.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:28 pmPeer review has never been scientifically proven as a way to determine the quality of research.
It's like democracy, the worst form of government except for all the other forms that have been tried. And in any case, what's your standard of "scientific proof"?
August 24th, 2006 at 3:33 pmI guess now is a good time for me to submit my Intelligent Design research.
Comment by G.W.SuperChrist
Videotaping the Flintstones?
August 24th, 2006 at 3:37 pmWhat idiots. #7 seems to be saying that science has never been scientifically proven. #10 says this could be fraud. Guess what, this technique has been used for years to test for genetic diseases, and the embryos carried to term as perfectly healthy babies. Was that fraudelent also?
What morons. They just hate science, liberals, and anything that might prove them wrong about anything.
And if it's in nature, it's been reviewed. Maybe not by Bush's hand-picked "bio-ethicists" -- you know the ones who say immunizing girls against cervical cancer is immoral?
August 24th, 2006 at 3:39 pmOf course the WH is going to resist this - it's another deflation of their irrational argument.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:43 pmThe religious wackos haven't decided it's OK; the politicos don't want to offend them; and Bush is relying on his gut to do his thinking - it's less taxing on his brain.
RSA,
There are no scientific papers that show improved quality as a result of peer review. In theory its a good idea. What has been shown through numerous studies is publication bias favoring certain findings and the of blocking of alternative or dissenting scientific opinions.
My problem w/ TP on this particular topic is they are reading into this too literal. It has been reviewed by scientists and bioethicists...my guess is about 6-10 people, of which half may at best actually have 'expertise' in this area and hardly represents the scientific community at large.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:44 pmOf course he meant to say that it has not been reviewed by THEIR scientists and THEIR bio-ethicists yet.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:48 pmMike P,
My guess would be more than 6-10 people, althought that's just a guess.
Also:
There are no scientific papers that show improved quality as a result of peer review.
No one but you is arguing quality control of the peer review process. That's more or less irrelevant here, especially considering the source. We are talking about getting fedearl backing to push forward potential proofs that stem cells can do big things for the medical field.
I'm starting to get REALLY tired of the constant obfusication of otherwise simple issues by the lock-step gang.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:52 pm#14
Considering I'm a peer reviewer for two medical journals and a scientist to boot with a background in genetics, I obviously believe in science and the scientific method...the peer review process however has never gone through the scientific method effectively. There are flaws in the system that people choose to ignore and assume that since something is peer reviewed that it is true. Fraud has hit journals as prestigious as Nature on publications that have made it through peer review.
I agree that this paper, having read it, seems pretty solid scientifically...just don't hang your hat on the peer review process when it has done probably more to stifle science than to support it. We all have our biases, most choose to recognize and try to put them aside...but some don't.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:53 pmFraud can happen in Nature too, despite peer review
The fraud was eventually detected, not by peer review, but after publication when other groups tried and failed to reproduce the results of the paper
Comment by mikep — August 24, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
Peer review is a process that does not end at publication.
Fabricated results can not be spotted prepublication... it is not until the methods are published that others in the scientific community can replicate and therefore validate the results... eventually the process weeds out frauds.
The point is - this research will now go through the post publication process of review... if its results are then validated by others in the scientific community... Georgie Boy has no reasonable leg to stand on here... not that that has ever stopped him before.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:54 pmjust don’t hang your hat on the peer review process when it has done probably more to stifle science than to support it.
I'm merely pointing out why people have a hard time taking you seriously.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:55 pm#20, This article has only gone through peer review until it was published...thus probably only 6-10 people have even read this article prior to its publication. Peer review is critical to TP's argument with Bush and his cronies since that is the only way this scientific paper really has been reviewed critically. IRB only supports that the study has merits and shown that it won't bring harm.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:59 pmToo bad we don't have this kind of reflection on foreign policy.
August 24th, 2006 at 4:01 pmMy last post on this
From a Nature editorial on peer-review
"However, the final conclusion of that study is not that peer review is useless, but that better data is needed to verify that peer review is 'doing its job'."
August 24th, 2006 at 4:07 pmCow exicuted for having 5 legged calf, masterbating monkeys hanged, waste one drop of sperm and it's murder.....OH PLEASE..........
August 24th, 2006 at 4:13 pmMipep,
I agree with your points, despite the fact that you nave no more evidence for your claims than I do for mine.
The bigger point I am trying to make is that we can't know if it's worth it until we TRY it. And if this works, then we can go forward without ANY 'moral objections'. What do we have to lose? Since it's not 'killing' anything, why not try it, peer review or not?
Can you give me one salient objection to going forward with this that isn't peer review related? It really seems that you are grasping at straws, desperately attempting to attach logic to the illogical.
August 24th, 2006 at 4:18 pmSo, then your arguement is that you don't do that good of a job at perr reviewing?
August 24th, 2006 at 4:25 pmmikep,
Bush said that it hasn't been peer reviewed. If it has been peer reviewed by 6-10 people as you say then IT HAS BEEN PEER REVIEWED AND BUSH IS LYING AGAIN.
August 24th, 2006 at 4:28 pmYes and "some people" think the world is flat and is 5000 years old. We know all about strawmen and the fact that Bush is under the impression that a "lot of people" are having serious debates about a lot of things. But, it doesn't make it true
August 24th, 2006 at 4:30 pmReally, if this administration doesn't even understand nor care to check on the facts with regard to the scientific process involved, then we definitely need a new administration. This is so blatantly an example of idealistic politics over rational discussion to the point of gross misrepresentation, that we need a regime change. It isn't incompetence. It's lack of caring. There's very little difference between their playing fast and loose with the facts about Iran and their playing fast and loose with these facts. This case is just far simpler to grasp.
August 24th, 2006 at 4:30 pmFACTS and SCIENCE mean nothing to Bushco.
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH si stheir motto.
"I think there's a revolt coming from grassroots America. I think they're tired of being deceived."
August 24th, 2006 at 4:38 pm- General Wes Clark
Uh, to be published in Nature it has to be reviewed by scientists. It's called peer review. DUH!
August 24th, 2006 at 4:41 pmI find it hypocritical that the only time a Republican is for stem cell research is when it effects them directly, like Nancy Reagan. Then all of a sudden they understand. If Ronnie didn't get alzheimer's you can bet that she would be against it.
August 24th, 2006 at 4:48 pmThese sickos are in denial of reality. I have heard things from Republicans like:
"there are no books that actually detail the evolution of one species in to another. Such a thing has never been demonstrated anywhere."-Mark Noonan at http://blogsforbush.com
and
"A baby is not part of a woman's body. A baby is not conjoined to the mother." -Amy Proctor at http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/ talking about fetal development.
August 24th, 2006 at 4:53 pmOh, I'd like to point out that while being peer reviewed means that technically it was reviewed by scientists, that doesn't mean that the paper is flawless.
Peer review is there to catch mistakes and inconsistencies or oversights, not to detect fraud.
It's also a political process. You can request reviewers that are not your competitors and you can also request a reviewer whose ass you have subtly kissed in your paper.
Ah! Science.
August 24th, 2006 at 4:55 pmNow that scientists have decided that Pluto is no longer a planet, I'm sure Republicans will say that "activist scientists" are trying to discredit God.
August 24th, 2006 at 5:03 pmI'm dismayed that people are missing the larger point. There is a possibility of doing research in a way that doesn't affect the sensibilities of the President. Meaning that by all reasoning, these research teams should qualify for federal funding.
August 24th, 2006 at 5:05 pmRemember this one said to the Wright Bros......"If GOD wanted man to fly,he would have given him WINGS!'.....OH PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEE
August 24th, 2006 at 5:05 pm#24 The study you cite on peer review was itself peer reviewed, so how can you trust it?
/sarcasm
August 24th, 2006 at 5:05 pm#42 Absolutely. Now we can do the research and put the embryos back in freezer storage where the President wants them, and where the religious nutballs can pretend they won't be destroyed.
August 24th, 2006 at 5:17 pm[...] I thought maybe they were jumping the gun here, and was not surprised to find this article by Think Progress telling all on the White House’s false claims that the study has not been academically reviewed. If G Bush’s goons had bothered to check their facts they would know that in order to be published in the magazine it originally appeared in, Nature, the study went through a ‘a rigourous peer review process’ over three months. But who likes these ‘facts’ things anyway? [...]
August 24th, 2006 at 5:36 pmWhen a paper goes through peer review, it is sent to the experts in particular field of study. These scientists thoroughly rip the paper apart and look for contradictions and misconceptions and over representing the data. They don't do the experiments so there would be no way to detect fraud. I could generate fraudulent data with statistics and pretty graphs showing the brain regenerative properties of playing tic-tac-toe for 2 hours a day by Alzheimer's patients and a control group of school children. Most scientist relish ripping a paper apart and are very critical, reducing the amount of publishable material. If it got published in Nature (Nature, Science and Cell are the big 3), then it's probably going to stand on its merit. But this work was clearly funded by Satan and should be disregarded.
August 24th, 2006 at 5:43 pmThe larger point isn't about the peer review process, that is a red herring, mikep. I've served as a peer reviewer for eight sceintific journals over the past year. Never once do I wonder if the data is faked or fradualent. How could I know? If I suggested it to the editorial staff without proof of some sort, I wouldn't be reviewing any more papers (which is an idea since it takes so much time). What am I to do, redo all the experiments? No. Peer review is the best we have. It is one thing to criticise (and fun) but you have to offer an alternative method, which is what the open review of Nature's peer review is about.
The larger point is that this adminstration likes to say things like "it hasn't been reviewed by scientists" which means it hasn't been reviewed by THEIR scientists so they don't have a political spin on it yet, so they just lie, or worse, they are so ignorant and suspicious of science (ie reality) that they dismiss it out of hand. I'm afraid I'm beginning to believe the latter is true. Those of us in basic science are getting mighty worried about the politicalization of science.
August 24th, 2006 at 5:45 pmAnd if it was at Nature, the first round is an editorial board decision to send it out. I'd say 90-95% of all papers submitted to Nature never make it past this stage. And, depending upon the subject and the relevance of the paper, it might only go out to 3 to 5 people for a review, then come back to the board for a decision. So, at least in my field, 6 -10 people don't read it. But you can guarantee that pretty much EVERYONE worth their salt as a scientist will read it once it comes out. That's when the fun starts and the debate begins.
August 24th, 2006 at 5:52 pm"bio-ethicists"??? WTF???
Where's the university that offers that as a major?
What's the curriculum like? Are the tests hard?
What's the demand for properly accredited 'bio-ethicists' these days?
...America is doomed. The rest of the world is laughing at us.
August 24th, 2006 at 6:03 pmIn other words priests for the church of Republican.
August 24th, 2006 at 6:10 pmBush lies again, and 35% of the country doesn't care.
August 24th, 2006 at 6:24 pmHow do you know when a republican is lying? They reference ethics.
August 24th, 2006 at 6:24 pm#56 their lips are moving?
August 24th, 2006 at 7:21 pmA review by the decider is always enough.
August 24th, 2006 at 7:25 pmGeorge is the "super pig".
Let's face people , these bushies are motivated by the religious freaks , the taliban of this country who hate science and advancement of human nature like their 9th century brethens everywhere in the world . I do not know why the bushies wants war with them . They should join , Iran and their surrogates , the taliban and el quaida.
August 24th, 2006 at 8:20 pmIt's basically the party of MBA's and a cat killing doctor vs. the party of science.
August 24th, 2006 at 8:42 pmPeer review has never been scientifically proven as a way to determine the quality of research. Typically 3 people review a submitted article. If it gets refused, another 3 people may review upon its resubmission. It’s a very nonscientific and often politically motivated process
Comment by mikep — August 24, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
I think this comment from mikep is interesting and deserves a second look, especially in light of his diligent attempts to discredit peer review (his feeble claims to the contrary notwithstanding). Notice how he says that peer review isn't "scientifically proven as a way to determine the quality of research", because apparently the peer review process itself has not been subjected to scientific scrutiny. Yet, despite the alleged absence of any such scrutiny, mikep is perfectly comfortable declaring that peer review is "a very nonscientific and often politically motivated process," a conclusion that he seems to base entirely on having reviewed for two journals. A little bit of a contradiction there, if you ask me.
I think what mikep says about peer review is at the very least uninformed, if not outright obfuscation. Having myself published over fifty peer reviewed articles and book chapters, and having reviewed at least a hundred papers by other scientists, and having handled editorial duties for over a hundred papers (in which I select the reviewers, evaluate the reviews, and determine acceptance), I can say that the peer review process significantly strengthens the quality of published research. Yes, it can get political, but a good editor acts as an umpire or judge, not just a rubber stamp. I am certain that peer review has raised the quality of my published papers, in some cases significantly. I am also certain that the process has made me a better scientist. And when the review process at one journal gets hopelessly tainted because of politics, there is always the chance to submit to another journal. One way or another good research gets published, and one way or another bad research is identified and disregarded. Peer review is the first filter in this process, and it is reasonably effective at weeding out a lot of the garbage. There is no practical alternative. So mikep is really wasting his breath on a problem that doesn't exist.
Which makes me wonder, why is mikep so eager to dismiss the peer review process, especially with regard to this controversial research in stem cell embryonics? Although mikep cloaks his words as a bland commentary on the peer review process, it sure looks like there is a hidden agenda here.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:14 pmThe maladministration lies because it can. No one in the MSM has the balls to stand up and say, "You're all a big pack of scum-sucking LIARS! Now STFU and get yourself measured for your orange jumpsuit."
Cheers,
August 24th, 2006 at 10:18 pmFWIW, whether peer review works (which it does, for the most part) is irrelevant to the question of whether the White House lied about it's not being peer reviewed.
Cheers,
August 24th, 2006 at 10:29 pmFWIW, whether peer review works (which it does, for the most part) is irrelevant to the question of whether the White House lied about it’s not being peer reviewed.
Comment by Arne Langsetmo — August 24, 2006 @ 10:29 pm
Yeah, and that's why I think mikep is obfuscating. You and I and everyone else here says the administration lied about the paper not being reviewed, which the administration certainly did lie about, and mikep posts eight comments trying to change the subject to "well, yeah, but peer review doesn't really work anyway...."
August 24th, 2006 at 10:38 pmReligious nuts have been the single most determining factor in retarding human knowledge, technology and science.
Notice that shortly after one of the first countries to be formed with that prohibits mingling religious authority with federal authority, that technology and medicine leaped forward in bounds?
Doesn't anyone wonder why mankind existed on this planet for so many thousands of years, with nothing but the most rudementary of technologies and medicines? Then suddenly, just after America was formed, suddenly science and medicine began taking leaps and bounds forward. Oh sure it was still hampered, and it is to this day.
But woudn't everyone like to see how fast science and medicine advance as soon as we take the last bastion of religous fanaticism away?
The right wing.
Their last hold out in America.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:43 pmI hate conservatives. All thier beliefs are fascist. We must stop them from having any sort of control at all. They are fools!
August 24th, 2006 at 10:51 pmThey are liars!
August 24th, 2006 at 10:52 pmWhose the craziest: Mel Gibson, George Allen, or Pat Buchanan? Visit my blog to find out.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:01 pmMel, George and Pat.
The new Stooges.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:18 pmThe once small square peg of stories based on information of convenience did actually fit in the round-hole of reality. Since the cube of misinformation has expanded exponentially to behemoth proportions,
August 24th, 2006 at 11:57 pmanything resembling true fact gets more far fetch with each following comment. Once the first big lie got out of the bag, everything else that followed has been more gargantuan than the previous one. Ultimately they will insure the snaring of their own trappings. I can't imagine the shield of mystery that will follow the day of embarrassing discovery. Who will become expendable then? Will the media become an instant blanket of military stealth? Check back next month for the continued unraveling.
...more distractions from Iraq, the so called "war on terror", and Bush's failed foreign policy
August 25th, 2006 at 5:23 am[...] White House Falsely Claims New Stem Cell Study Has Not Been …Think Progress, DC - 19 hours agoToday, a new study was published that shows embryonic stem cells lines can be created without the destruction of human embryos. … [...]
August 25th, 2006 at 11:05 amMaybe if the scientists "recant", then Bush can spare them from being beheaded as heretics, and just confine them to house arrest for the rest of their lives.
August 25th, 2006 at 11:54 am"This study today reported in Nature Magazine has not been reviewed by scientists and bio-ethicists yet "
That statement is so internally contradictory as to be vaulting solidly into the Orwellian. Make no mistake ladies and gents, the current republican party/administration will tear down everything that good American's value about this country to stay in office, and there are plenty of people out there who follow the politics of the soundbite. How else can you explain Bush still having a popularity in the 30s, and liars like McCain and Lieberman and idiots like Allen and Inhofe being able to stay in office.
It's a real shame that half of Americans are stupider than average. : )
August 25th, 2006 at 12:37 pmThey may mean that the process hasn't been repeatedly tested or examined, and not just the paper. By the way, I love the comment above about "I hate conservatives... fascists..." Makes me really respect his open-mindedness and cultural sensitivity.
August 25th, 2006 at 4:50 pmNow that the "we can't save life by destroying (microscopic) life" argument has gone up in smoke, what is left for BushCo? "To be honest with yall, we just really are not that concerned with saving your life??"
August 25th, 2006 at 4:52 pm[...] http://www.freetheplant.com/2006/08/24/czech-it-out-marijuana-isnt-the-problem-drug-laws-are/ http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060824/NEWS01/608240332/1002/NEWS http://www.boingboing.net/2006/08/24/report_my_6yearold_w.html http://bugguide.net/node/view/30113/bgpage?take2 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/24/white-house-falsely-claims-new-stem-cell-study-has-not-been-reviewed-by-scientists-and-bio-ethicists-yet/ http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913013 [...]
August 25th, 2006 at 7:11 pmHow afraid are the suits at the HMOs over stem cell research? Maybe they can make money from it maybe not. That is not a position any responsible manager would want to be in. Jr's power comes from the alignment of the social (ultraconservative) and economic (really big money). Stem cells hits both these groups, so there will never be a 'rational' reason to go forward.
August 25th, 2006 at 8:19 pm[...] Unfortunately, huge factors like “ego” and “pride” are blinding the White House, causing them to lie about the study to save face. Via ThinkProgress: In today’s New York Times, White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore said “Any use of human embryos for research purposes raises serious ethical questions. This technique does not resolve those concerns.†This afternoon, the White House changed their story. Here’s Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino: QUESTION: Any decision to perhaps revisit the President’s position on federal funding for stem cell research, in light of this new development that was published yesterday in the journal Nature? [...]
August 25th, 2006 at 11:02 pmIs this President Bush a part of the human race and if so does he have a brain.Im completely embarrased by this idiot that in my opinion has no feelings at all for any person with medical conditions that stem cell research gives hope to.I hope this guy thinks before he speaks from now on.
August 25th, 2006 at 11:31 pm[...] Today, a new study was published that shows embryonic stem cells lines can be created without the destruction of human embryos.The White House said that the study “has not been reviewed by scientists and bio-ethicists yet.” Actually, the paper went through a rigorous scientific peer review and was scrutinized by bio-ethicists. read more | digg story Digg this [...]
September 8th, 2006 at 3:09 amcervical position
In addition, birth control pills are known to worsen insulin resistance
March 14th, 2008 at 10:07 pmMy Cracks and Serials
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 29th, 2008 at 2:20 am