Professor Harbour to me:
"From: Harbour@vision.wustl.edu
Subject: RE: please authenticate
Date: October 23, 2006 12:18:57 PM CDT
To: nsdempsey@gmail.com
"But don't confuse me for just an ill-informed blog ranter."
Actually, this is exactly what I was thinking.
The materials in this message are private and may contain Protected Healthcare Information. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender via telephone or return mail."
Me to Professor Harbour:
"From: nsdempsey@gmail.com
Subject: Re: please authenticate
Date: October 23, 2006 6:59:33 PM CDT
To: Harbour@vision.wustl.edu
Professor,
If you prefer to keep me ill-informed, that's certainly your prerogative. As it is mine to be perturbed by claims regarding freedom of speech violations at a university I know and love without any warrant behind the claim. I have many questions, but if you do not feel like answering the one I posed, I see little sense in sending any others.
Regards,
Nathaniel"
4 comments:
I find it interesting that you post the privacy notice with each of his emails, and then wonder why he may be pissed. His claim to a lack of politicicism (?) in his first email was probably sent to a number of friends and personal acquaintences with whom he generally does not discuss politics, and was not intended for mass syndication.
In the end, you got him. Well done. I doubt you'll receve a response at all, as he's been attacked. If your purpose of this exercise was declaring yourself victor, you've succeeded only by silencing the opposition. If, however, you were truely attempting to see the professors point of view, I think you went about it wrong, ultimately will not be enlightened to his pain, and therefore failed.
If your point is that there isn't a pain there and that's why he's silent, well, without acknowlegment, how can you claim to have changed anything? He's still gonna vote against the ammendment.
For someone who generally isn't political, expecting he'd step up to defend his position is a high one. How is he to explain that his feeling of being silenced by the opposition comes from writing an oppinion email to friends and being blasted by a "talking head" non-acquaintence associated with his employer from the opposing ideology. That could be a little discouraging.
blarg. It's early. Brain not processing yet...
Anonymous, that's certainly a fair point. Were this to be some sort of professional journalistic endeavor where I was investigating every aspect of the Missouri stem cell debate with objective thoroughness, perhaps my tactics would have been different. (That's one reason I linked to the Missouri Cures website; if you want detailed, carefully researched information, look there.)
But tactics are exactly my point. This email was not sent as a personal email to a few close friends. It was sent from the professor's business account. This is important for at least two reasons. First, Professor Harbour wants to associate the credibility of his employment with all of his claims (not just those that have to do with the particular scientific inquiries with which he is familiar; there is no indict anywhere on my blog of his scientific expertise). Second, it demonstrates the ridiculousness of suggesting that the contents of the email are in anyway private. They were intended to be read, and more specifically, intendend to change people's minds. In fact, before the professor knew I disagreed with his position, he gave me explicit permission to distribute it. Isn't that interesting that he would only have a problem with me publishing it if I oppose the commentary in the email? What is the difference between such an email and a paper found online or in the library? I went the extra effort of contacting him to make sure he really sent the email. I asked for input if anyone knew the professor, and I don't block people making comments if anyone wants to respond.
Now let's be real here. This ain't no paper I'm running here. It's my personal journal, with thoughts and experiences I run into over the course of my week. The number of people who read posts can probably be counted on one hand. I'm actually kind of flattered that you give me so much credit. I ran into an insidious charge, namely, that Wash U and other ostensibly liberal universities were violating the free speech of their faculty. If true, I would be a staunch ally of professors wishing to bring this issue to light; however, Professor Harbour made no plea in the email (or since) for assistance in changing this atmosphere that supposedly has muted so many voices.
This has nothing to do with how political a person is. If I sent something from my work account implying my work did something wrong, I better be ready to back up my claim. Perhaps the professor has a lack of technological experience, that's possible (although a little disturbing for a med school professor). But it is ridiculous to think that you can put things like that in writing and think that no one will challenge you on it.
Perhaps it's because I do know the professor's view that I have no problem directly challenging it. I have close friends who strongly oppose using embryos for research and anything more generally that gets between an egg, a sperm, and a uterus. The implications in this email need to be challenged. I haven't even written a detailed critique of it; I've barely scratched the surface so far.
There's one other point I would make at this time. The professor didn't write a critique of Amendment 2. He wrote a critique of four straw-man arguments he says are reasons proponents give to vote yes, then writes a response to those reasons. He also throws in some additional commentary, on everything from financing of media buys to freedom of speech violations. If anything, I am critiquing the idea that expertise (medical, scientific, or otherwise) provides additional credibility to one's opinion of this issue, whether for or against the particular Missouri ballot initiative. That's certainly what Professor Harbour implies; I'm in the trenches, I know people's voices are being muted. Trust me, I'm a doctor.
I think everything should be questioned, particularly on issues like this. Undergrads defending a senior thesis are questioned more fervently than what I wrote in my post.
too much text?
get the facts here: http://www.missouricures.com/documents/set_record_straight.pdf
Like you, I too received a copy of this email and wanted to find out more about this guy. I also attend school here as a graduate student, but in Developmental Biology, so this hits close to home. Having gotten to know many of the faculty here and being familiar with the mindset of the institution, I was shocked when I read Harbour's email. Had I (and hundreds of expert
researchers with a staggering collective IQ) missed some loophole or backdoor clause in this legislation that would allow the cloning of human beings??
In my 10 years in the advanced sciences at Wash U, I have yet to meet one single researcher, ever, who has supported anything but an outright ban on human cloning. When I say "human cloning" in this context, I mean it in the most common sensical, non-legalese way that we all imagine - taking DNA from a person, putting it into an empty, unfertilized egg, and growing it into a whole human being, exactly as was done with Dolly the sheep.
Very importantly, the last step in that process is the critical one, and here is where Harbour makes the same flimsy semantic arguments I've heard mimicked all over the radio about what "human cloning" is and isn't (and which is why I believe he has ulterior motivations - he should know better). If you do not take the next step of putting this now complete and ready-to-divide egg
into the womb of a woman, it will NEVER grow into a human being. As far as I am aware, there is no system available for growing ANY mammal to term without the egg at some point being implanted into a uterine wall. Many of the complicated "dance steps" taken by these early embryonic cells are coordinated by signals from the mother's uterus. That is why, to prevent human cloning as I've described it and as most people imagine it, it is completely sufficient to say (copied directly from Prop2):
(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.
(2) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating.
These two lines completely rule out any and all possibility of the human cloning that I described earlier (making a new, complete human from another human's DNA).
What the people who have been trying to distort and confuse the public have been saying is that transferring ANY DNA to an egg is human cloning. From a strictly definitional standpoint, they're right. In science, cloning is considered to be ANY process that copies and propagates a specific piece of DNA. When I run a PCR reaction (a common technique for making more DNA in a tube), I'm cloning human DNA. When I pluck a single bacterial colony from an agar plate and then grow it up to millions of genetically-identical bacteria in broth, I've "cloned" the bacteria (which coincidentally have human DNA in them, so I'm once again cloning human DNA). I clone things all the time - most biology labs do and have been for over 50 years. That is why the second clause was put into the amendment, to distinguish the cloning of entire human beings from the cloning of their cells or DNA.
Yet somehow, even after repeated attempts to correct their "mistake" in understanding, opponents of Prop2 continue to use the word "cloning" only in the context of "human cloning" as I defined it previously (ie. growing up a whole new person from a single cell). Harbour feigns ignorance with the best of them, and I cannot believe that he accidentally "forgot" the numerous applications to which the term cloning applies besides somatic cell nuclear transfer.
For example:
Harbour says, "When scientists talk about cloning, SCNT is exactly what they are talking about. SCNT is the medical dictionary definition of cloning. The amendment proponents claim that SCNT is not cloning unless the cell is placed into a woman's womb, but that has never been the medical definition of cloning. That is like saying that a nuclear bomb is not a weapon unless it
is dropped on people. The potential for harm and abuse is great, even if one does not intend to act on this potential! The fact is that this amendment not only allows human cloning, it creates a uniquely protected right to perform human cloning!"
Wow, after reading this again, he really is trying to pull a snow job. I will reserve my opinion, for now, of a medical doctor who so casually distorts the facts for the very patients he professes to care so much about. The stench of (religious? paid off?) extremism grows stronger.
THE TRUTH = When scientists talk about cloning, they could be talking about numerous techniques, as I've mentioned. That is why it is so important to keep scientific discussions in context. Does Dr. Harbour also think that nuclear power plants are just bombs in energy-supplying form?? I suppose he is also against the distribution of all lead and steel, since they are the key
components of bullets and guns. Unless he is the dumbest physician on this campus, he knows full well that an egg without a womb will never grow into a human. His purposefully misleading argument leaves no doubt that he is being disengenuous about his motives. Let me reiterate directly from the text of the proposition:
(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.
(2) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating.
There are no loopholes or fine print negating or excepting these two lines later in the text. The entire proposition is 4 pages long in big, bold letters - there's nowhere to hide. There's no 2 point type at the bottom saying "Except for biotech companies, who can clone humans and buy as many eggs as they want, woohoo!". There's no tricky definitions, as much as the proposition's opponents would love you to believe there are. The only thing the proposition does is "...ensure that Missouri patients have access to stem cell therapies and cures, that Missouri researchers can conduct stem cell research in the state, and that all such research is conducted safely and ethically, any stem cell research permitted under federal law may be conducted in Missouri, and any stem cell therapies and cures permitted under federal law may be provided to patients in Missouri...", as stated on the first page of the amendment.
As stated verbatim in item number 1 of the proposition's summary, "The research and cures protected by Amendment 2 are already allowed under federal and state law. Amendment 2 simply prevents any unfair state bans."
That's it, folks.
It puts us on the same page as the federal government. And that's all. Kinda boring really. Which is why you would need to invent lots of incredible lies and wild exagerations to fight it. You might ask yourself (as I have myself), "Why would these people go to so much trouble just to keep us from getting what everyone else in the country is getting?". Very good question.... very good. And the only answers I can come up with scare the hell out of me.
Ok, I've got to get back to my research on my adult stem cells... oh wait, it seems that Dr. Harbour copy/pasted the entire (psycho) party line in his email. I guess I better address the rest of it. How's that next part go? Oh yea... he says adult stem cells are as good as embryonic ones.
What impresses me most about this statement is all the time it must have taken him to conduct side-by-side experiments using both adult and embryonic stem cells. I mean, man, it must have taken him like 200 years! I can't wait to read the paper summarizing all of that research - if you'd just hand it out now, you could save us all a lot of time and energy. Especially considering
the fact that access to embryonic stem cells is restricted (you weren't breaking the law during your groundbreaking experiments, were you Dr. Harbour?), the federal government doesn't fund research on any but a select few lines of embryonic stem cells, and given your statement that "there is no evidence that embryonic stem cells have cured any disease". You surely must have been working nights to rule out any and every possibility that embryonic stem cells had therapeutic potential. Maybe you should tackle cancer next...
In fact, many researchers here are hesitant to invest too heavily in stem cell studies for fear that legislation (like the kind that extremists propose every year in Jeff City, banning almost all biological research, yet which we rarely hear about) banning their use will be passed and they will lose their funding. In the last 4 months I know of 3 researchers who have left Washington University and gone to work at institutions where they can receive private or state-sponsored funding for their work. All 3 of these researchers were heavily recruited to come to Wash U and now they're leaving. I cringe when I imagine how researchers in other states must see us... and
no, we don't do lab work in overalls.
As a final note on this point, yes, adult stem cell research is important and needs to continue (I like my job, too!), but you need to start listening at conferences if you don't think there's any future in embryonic stem cell research, Dr. Harbour. As a physician, I don't know how you can look yourself in the mirror after making such a blatantly misleading statement about a cell line who's potential hasn't even begun to be investigated. I guess if guys like you get their way, they never will be...
All right, I just have time to debunk Dr. Harbour's last misconstrual of the facts (he can take up his "freedom of speech violations" with Wash U, which recently let 25+ students camp in front of their registration offices for over a month in protest of campus employee's wages - which they raised. Those fascists!). He says "...the widespread use of SCNT for medical research and treatment will unquestionably jeopardize the health of women...". Ah, finally! A topic that some solid medical evidence from a respectable peer-reviewed journal will shed some light on. Let me just find that one article.... the one on egg donation ruining your health..... it's right...... over..... here..... somewhere..... um..... hmmmm.....
You would think that a Distinguished Professor would have data and studies substantiating their
claims flowing out the wazoo. And you're right. They would. If they were being honest. But Dr. Harbour is not being honest. You could even say he's being dishonest (we used to call it lying when I was a kid).
I, however, like to be honest, even when it doesn't help my argument. Take away my integrity and I'd just be another extremist trying to cloud the waters, spewing out whatever distortions I thought would play upon your fears and confuse you. And I'm not about that. I'm more about people knowing the REAL & WHOLE TRUTH and then making up their own minds. If I thought that today every Missouri voter knew exactly what Proposition 2 was about, I wouldn't be writing this. And I wouldn't even be upset if it were defeated. Hey, if people know exactly what they're voting for and they collectively decide that they're not interested in advanced medicine, more power to em.
There are nomadic tribes all around the world that have been getting by just fine with that approach for thousands of years (except the ones that got wiped out by disease).
So, in the interest of revealing the truth, I will tell you that there can be complications from egg donation. To read it for yourself (like I did), you can find in depth information about egg donation at this Stanford website:
http://www.stanford.edu/class/siw198q/websites/eggdonor/procedures.html
Basically, a small percentage of women can experience side effects ranging from dehydration to (very rarely) kidney failure. Apparently the drugs they give you to stimulate ovulation don't make you feel too hot, either. Additionally, a minor surgical procedure is performed to remove the eggs and, as with any surgery (including wisdom tooth extraction or laser eye surgery), there are risks involved. I encourage you to read more, should you be interested.
So, Dr. Harbour has a legitimate concern for poor and underpriviledged women and doesn't want to see them taken advantage of by.... by... hmmm, who will be taking advantage of them again?
Oh, right, the pharmacuetical company "egg farms" that just can't wait to gobble up millions and millions of our precious eggs.
Well that's just strange. I could have sworn that I read somewhere that women won't be allowed to sell their eggs.... some piece of legislation somewhere.... like in Proposition 2!
To quote the summary, "Amendment 2 prohibits using a sperm and egg to create a human embryo solely for the purpose of stem cell research. It strictly bans buying or selling human eggs or embryos. It also requires that any human eggs or leftover fertility clinic embryos used for stem cell research
and cures must be voluntarily donated with fully informed consent, and without any profits or fees.
The medical procedures involved when a woman donates her eggs for SCNT stem cell research are the same procedures that have been used safely and effectively for 25 years at fertility clinics. Moreover, Amendment 2 makes it clear that all stem cell research or treatments must comply with all general federal and state laws regarding the health, safety, rights and privacy of patients."
Look at that, they threw in another line on banning human cloning just in case you missed the sentence in the preceeding paragraph.
And whadya know, I learned something, too... the process of removing eggs for stem cell research is the exact same one as that used for in vitro fertilization! Twenty-five years, huh? You'd think Dr. Harbour would have sent like a million emails by now, warning the poor unfortunate women of thew orld about his "greatest concern". Maybe he just figured out how to use the internet? After all, it doesn't sound like he's very up to date on current technology....
I hope that this long-winded post has been useful to anyone who reads it. My only goal is to get the facts out there through the whirlwind of BS. I highly encourage everyone to do their own research and I've provide links to a good place to get started (free of charge) - here are the top 10 myths about Proposition 2, adeptly debunked:
http://www.missouricures.com/documents/set_record_straight.pdf
Nathaniel, thank you for reading this and letting me post it on your site... I will check back soon for your response.
-S
S, it's always interesting hearing different perspectives. I think I see things pretty much the way you do, although I'm not as familiar with the specifics. The general concept though of things like human cloning requiring implantation in the womb, I think, are pretty straightforward. To me, this is akin to arguing we should ban birth control or in vitro fertilization.
And I am just amazed at how clear the restrictions are in the amendment, yet the blatant fear mongering about what might happen in the future dominates the opposition. Uh oh, better not drive to work today, I might get in a car accident!
Actually, that's not fair. Cars are much more dangerous than embryonic stem cell research allowed by this initiative.
Post a Comment