Apropos of our recent discussion of pro ESCR advocates corrupting science by redefining the term embryo so as to make those in Petri dishes essentially nonentities: Nature editorialized against that form of scientific corruption 2005. It bears restating. From “Playing the Name Game” (NATURE|Vol 436|7 July 2005) in the wake of a meeting in which the strategy of denying that a pre-implanted embryo is really an embryo:.
It is true that embryo is an emotive term, but there is little scientific justification for redefining it. Whether taken from a fertility clinic or made through cloning, a blastocyst embryo has the potential to become a fully functional organism. And appearing to deny that fact will not fool die-hard opponents of this research. If anything, it will simply open up scientists to the accusation that they are trying to distance themselves from difficult moral issues by changing the terms of the debate.
(Note that a blastocyst is an embryo. It is the scientific term for the embryo at about one week’s development. I have actually heard scientists testify, “It isn’t an embryo, it’s only a blastocyst.”)
But I digress: Like I’ve been saying–unless Nature is also inaccurate and bases its scientific conclusions on religious precepts.
September 22nd, 2010 | 9:18 pm
I do commend NATURE for refusing to “redefine” the term “embryo”, although one could argue that its refusal is analogous to a cardiology journal refusing to redefine the human heart as a pumper of blood, that is, it’s not exactly engaging in heroism here.
I would dispute two of its claims, however: how is the term “embryo”, emotional? It’s no more “emotional” than the term “neuron”, or “myofiber”.
Also, its claim, that, “a blastocyst embryo has the potential to become a fully functional organism”. No, it IS a “fully functional organism”, at its particular stage of development. This ma seem like splitting hairs, but it’s important, because my guess is, this statement was a nod to the prochoicers, who want validation for their view that the embryo, is not “fully” human.
at any rate, it’s at least marginally comforting that a prestigous journal, at least has the guts to stick to science, and not cave in to political pressure (even though my guess is, the majority of NATURE’S editors, if not all of them, accept the prochoice dogma.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 22nd, 2010 at 10:04 pm
Right you are, Bret!
September 22nd, 2010 | 10:28 pm
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7047/full/436002b.html
Here’s a link to the editorial in Nature.
from the editorial: “…stem-cell biologists should stick to debating the merits and ethics of their work using clear and simple language. They have a strong case to make that will not be helped by playing semantic games in an effort to evade scrutiny.”
Speaking of semantics. Do you also agree with the editorial that the stem cell researchers are “playing semantic games” rather than “corrupting science”?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 23rd, 2010 at 12:11 am
I think when a scientists denies a scientific fact to win a political debate it corrupts science.
September 23rd, 2010 | 1:50 am
I agree with Jeffery on this one. Redefining a scientific term does not necessarily represent a “corruption of science” if no false claims are made about the properties of the object being renamed and if we are all clear about how the terms are being used. Arguments about whether a fertilised egg “is an embryo” are questions about terminology and semantics and not about anything which may be verified experimentally or by observation.
From the closing paragraph of the Nature editorial:
September 23rd, 2010 | 9:28 am
As long as they refer to their work as ESCR, I don’t think you can make much of a case for word weaseling here. People know what the “E” stands for.
They may be trying to distinguish between the stage of embryo they’re working with, the blastocyst, and the kind of embryo anti-abortion folks prefer to depict, which is much farther along and baby-like in appearance. That wouldn’t be emotional manipulation, that would be an attempt to counter the emotional manipulation of the anti-ESCR folks.
September 23rd, 2010 | 11:38 am
From a scientist friend: “Wes, to add clarity, you might in the future mention that blastocyst is a structural description, defining something by its shape not its broader ontology or biological character.”
September 24th, 2010 | 1:51 am
Raven, the problem arises, when the motivation, to change words, is political, rather than empirically based. If the decision, to change words is based on science, then I’m all for it. The problem arises, when scientists, try to smuggle their own political preferences, into science. This is unethical.
Obviously, every person (even scientists!)has a right, to hold whatever views, they wish, politically. what they don’t have a right to do, is try and sway the political debate, one way, or the other, by implying that “science” is on their side, politically, if it isn’t.
Nomenclature, should be chosen, on the basis of description, ideally. And when scientific nomenclature is chosen, in order to alter, unfairly, politics, not only is the particular science corrupted, but the long term consequences, in terms of people lacking trust in scientists, could be at risk.
September 24th, 2010 | 8:27 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Stand In The Gap, Julian Hawksworth, Stem Cell Blogs, tom serona and others. tom serona said: Nature Argued Against Redefining Embryo in 2005 » Secondhand Smoke …: Apropos of our recent discussion of pro ES… http://bit.ly/aq6Rns [...]
September 24th, 2010 | 3:52 pm
Bret, I’m not defending any politically motivated changes of scientific terminology. I’m saying that such changes, if they are not accompanied by false claims about the properties of the renamed object or the results of scientific research do not represent a “corruption of science” – though they might represent a pattern of behaviour we would seek to discourage.
A researcher who claims that a fertilised egg is not an embryo may simply be expressing the terminological conventions of his subspecialty (the NAS definition, for instance, describes the human organism as an embryo from the point of implantation) and even though he might be picking and choosing his definitions to get around legal regulations, he is not necessarily perverting any scientific facts.
On the other hand, if a scientist were to claim that embryos are not genetically human or that they feel pain (or that “a dolphin is a fish”) this would represent either a “corruption of science” or plain ignorance.
September 25th, 2010 | 1:47 am
Raven, thanks for your response. Whether one agrees with your positions, or not, one must always acknowledge that you’re admirably logical, and fair.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact