I’ve been hacking on lefty anti-science for a while now, so in the interests of keeping things level, I have just stumbled across the following. The National Review columnist has a bee in his bonnet over the fact that, quote:
researchers injected mice with an immunotoxin to destroy a part of their brains–the hippocampus–that’s associated with learning, memory, and spatial reasoning. Then the researchers replaced those damaged cells with cells derived from human embryos. The cells proliferated and the lab chimeras recovered their ability to navigate a water maze.
For the Rochester study, researchers implanted newborn mice with nascent human glial cells, which help support and nourish neurons in the brain. Six months later, the human parts had elbowed out the mouse equivalents, and the animals had enhanced ability to solve a simple maze ;and learn conditioned cues. These protocols might run afoul of the anti-hybrid laws,
Another reason these anti-hybrid laws are moronic. Let’s skip over the fact that chimeras are not “The Island of Doctor Moreau” or anything like it but valuable tools in taking on disease. You might expect the National Review to be upset about this example of intrusive, over-regulatory Big Government, right? Well, not exactly:
The truth is, I think many scientists oppose any permanent and meaningful restraints–on themselves and each other. If I am right, society will have to forcefully take matters into its own hands.
Two exit questions: Can you guess what would be said by the NR if a lefty was talking about “permanent and meaningful restraints” on, say, the financial industry (or whatever) and if not, “society will have to forcefully take matters into its own hands”? Come to think of it, didn’t National Review columnist Mark Steyn blast the cumbersome and stupid regulations on medical research as a reason why were no longer able to “just take a disease and so permanently clobber it, it is resigned to the history books”?
UPDATE: Surprise me, the author is a member of the Discovery Institute.
