1

Aw, shucks. You're not so bad yourself.

2

Joe,

Weissman argues that stem cells derived from nuclear cell transfer can legitimately be used for derivation of cell lines, because the entities produced by this technique "have little or no chance to implant and produce a newborn in any species tested to date." This claim is remarkably similar to one made by William Hurlbut that you reviewed favorably on December 9, 2004. Weissman's coining of the term "pseudozygote" for the products of nuclear transfer seems to be synonymous with "biological artifact" as you used the term.

That seems like a much more important point than the rather minor issue of whether the fact that Dolly has mitochondrial DNA from the enucleated oocyte means that she isn't really a clone. Whether we use the term "clone" or not, has no bearing on the moral question of whether these embryos or "pseudozygotes" or "biological artifacts" should be sacrificed. After all, "clone" is accurately applied to many entities that are definitely not organisms. Short stretches of DNA can be "cloned," for instance.

Have you changed your opinion on the question of "biological artifacts?"

3

Nick,

Weissman argues that stem cells derived from nuclear cell transfer can legitimately be used for derivation of cell lines, because the entities produced by this technique "have little or no chance to implant and produce a newborn in any species tested to date." This claim is remarkably similar to one made by William Hurlbut that you reviewed favorably on December 9, 2004. Weissman's coining of the term "pseudozygote" for the products of nuclear transfer seems to be synonymous with "biological artifact" as you used the term.

That’s a great question. And my answer is that “no”, a “pseudozygote” is not the same as a biological artifact. While there is still some ethical questions about Hurlbut’s proposal, the entity that is created is analogous to a hydatidiform mole not an embryo.

A “pseudozygote”, on the other hand, is simply a zygote with a Greek prefix. The reason it may not be able to produce a newborn is because the damage that occurs in the creating process and has little to do with the nature of the organism itself.

That seems like a much more important point than the rather minor issue of whether the fact that Dolly has mitochondrial DNA from the enucleated oocyte means that she isn't really a clone.

I agree. In fact, I don’t know where he came up with that nonsense or how it slipped by the peer review process.

Whether we use the term "clone" or not, has no bearing on the moral question of whether these embryos or "pseudozygotes" or "biological artifacts" should be sacrificed. After all, "clone" is accurately applied to many entities that are definitely not organisms. Short stretches of DNA can be "cloned," for instance.

True, “cloning” is simply a fancy word for making a copy. But what Weissman is talking about requires cloning embryos (aka, human beings) and not strands of DNA.

4

"Weissman argues that stem cells derived from nuclear cell transfer can legitimately be used for derivation of cell lines, because the entities produced by this technique "have little or no chance to implant and produce a newborn in any species tested to date.""

So basically what he is arguing is that we should create humans that we know in advance will have little or no chance of survival and kill them before their impending doom and use them for research. Nice.

5

Was Dolly the Sheep Really a Clone? -- In the latest embarrassment for the peer-review process, the Journal of the American Medical Association has an unbelievably sloppy article in which Irving Weissman invents new terms (pseudozygote?) and tries to claim that the creation of cloned stem cells should not be considered "cloned" stem cells. OMFSerge from Imago Dei mercilessly dismantles the political snow-job and shows why the scientific community needs to do a better job of policing their own journals.

As I pointed out at Imago Dei, Weissman is correct. Organisms produced by somatic-cell nuclear transfer have mitochondrial DNA from the egg donor and nuclear (chromosomal) DNA from the nucleus donor, and thus are not genetically identical to either one. It is conventional to call these organisms "clones" because the nuclear DNA is the stuff that's most important and it all comes from one source, but the organisms still are not completely genetically identical to a single parent, which is the definition of clone as used to refer to the many clones that occur in nature (plant rootings, fungi, etc.). This question of terminology isn't really the point of Weissman's article, which OMFSerge seems to badly misunderstand, but on this point he's correct.

It's also true that he invents new terms. So? He uses "pseudozygote" to refer to the fact that an SCNT-derived egg cell is not an egg cell fertilized by a sperm cell and containing chromosomal DNA from both - which is what a zygote is. It's also a minor point, but here again Weissman is correct.

And as for the peer-review process, as I pointed out to Serge, and is obvious from the article itself, this is not a peer-reviewed article. It is a survey of current research, written for clinicians (practicing doctors), not researchers, to educate them about research that may have clinical applications in the future. JAMA is a peer-reviwed journal, but not everything in it is peer-reviewed; like most such journals, it publishes editorials, review articles, "brief notes", essays, and general explanatory pieces without reivew - only reports of original research are reviewed. Publication of non-reviewed pieces in such a journal does not indicate expert approval of the research methodology (in this case, there isn't any) or the author's point of view.

In fact, you have often attacked the notion of peer review. But you have several times cited as deficiencies in peer review articles that were not subject to peer review: Elizabeth Blackburn's editorial on the President's Council Report - an editorial, not a research article); William Dembski's Design Inference (you note it was cited in a reviewed article, but that has nothing to do with being reviewed, and that it was "peer-reviewed (and published) as part of a Cambridge monograph series" - but publication as a book is not publication as a peer-reviewed research report - to be sure, acceptance by the editorial board of this series is a significant accomplishment, but it does not imply endorsement of Dembski's research [in fact, the book does not report any research, it simply tries to suggest ways in which "intelligent design" research could possibly, maybe, someday, be done by someone]; that is why book publication, even by a distinguished scientific press, is always looked down on in the research world, precisely because it is not a peer-reviewed process).

Over and over, you mention "peer review", with reference to scientific journals, while making it obvious you don't know what it is. You seem to be parroting the Bush administration's War on Science by suggesting that what scientists know and believe is unrelated to what's scientifically true. And yet, in the few cases in which you cite peer-reviwed publication favorably, it is either not actually peer review (Dembski), or it is fraudulent (creationist Stephen Meyer's stealthy publication, kept secret from his colleagues on the journal editoral board, of an "intelligent design" article in a taxonomy journal, after "peer review" by a review board of his personal choosing whom he will not identify).

Imago Dei's attacks - focused on just two paragraphs of a 7-page survey article - are both factually inaccurate and rather hysterical. He does not seem to understand what Weissman is saying, and then implies Weissman is engaged in some sort of underhanded conspiracy in saying it. In fact, it's OMFSerge who is confused. Your endorsement of his factually false "dismantling" of what he does not understand does not help either him or you - and your continued attacks on scientific knowledge in defense of the scientifically illiterate does not strengthen any case you try to make on those grounds.

6

Joe,

Thanks for the link to the GOD or NOT carnival.

7

Kevin,

It's also true that he invents new terms. So?

You’re kidding, right? Why does a new term need to be invented if not to bypass the political implications of using the commonly accepted terminology?

He uses "pseudozygote" to refer to the fact that an SCNT-derived egg cell is not an egg cell fertilized by a sperm cell and containing chromosomal DNA from both - which is what a zygote is. It's also a minor point, but here again Weissman is correct.

Yes, Weisman is correct that a “pseudozygote” is a “zygote produced by the cloning process.” Why does he not admit that?

And as for the peer-review process, as I pointed out to Serge, and is obvious from the article itself, this is not a peer-reviewed article. It is a survey of current research, written for clinicians (practicing doctors), not researchers, to educate them about research that may have clinical applications in the future.

So inaccurate information in a peer-reviewed journal is excusable as long as it is not in the “peer-reviewed” section? Do you think the general public is made aware of such hair-splitting distinctions when the material from JAMA is quoted in the media?

In fact, you have often attacked the notion of peer review.

I don’t attack the notion of peer review—an invaluable process—but the way that it is often perceived as an adequate means of determining what is scientifically acceptable.
…but that has nothing to do with being reviewed, and that it was "peer-reviewed (and published) as part of a Cambridge monograph series" - but publication as a book is not publication as a peer-reviewed research report

You are completely wrong on this point. To clarify what we are talking about, peer review is the scholarly process used in the publication of manuscripts to determine what it worthy of publications. Dembski’s monograph was subjected to more thorough scrutiny than most articles in scientific journals. For you to dismiss this aspect of the peer-review process shows a complete unfamiliarity with the way the process works.

- to be sure, acceptance by the editorial board of this series is a significant accomplishment, but it does not imply endorsement of Dembski's research

Of course it doesn’t. Just because something has been subjected to the peer-reviewed process does not mean that the work is endorsed by the reviewers.

Over and over, you mention "peer review", with reference to scientific journals, while making it obvious you don't know what it is.
That’s ironic. I was going to say the exact same thing about you. ; )

You seem to be parroting the Bush administration's Science by suggesting that what scientists know and believe is unrelated to what's scientifically true.

Um, yeah, that goes without saying unless you define “scientifically true” as whatever scientists claim to “know and believe.” I always thought you were part of the “reality-based community”, though, and so I would have thought that “scientifically true” would be “that which corresponds to reality.”

And yet, in the few cases in which you cite peer-reviwed publication favorably, it is either not actually peer review (Dembski), or it is fraudulent (creationist Stephen Meyer's stealthy publication, kept secret from his colleagues on the journal editoral board, of an "intelligent design" article in a taxonomy journal, after "peer review" by a review board of his personal choosing whom he will not identify).

Again, you show a complete lack of understanding about the peer review process. The fact that you would pass along those tired arguments shows that you are unclear on the concept.

He does not seem to understand what Weissman is saying, and then implies Weissman is engaged in some sort of underhanded conspiracy in saying it.

C’mon, Kevin. You know enough about bioethics to know that the way Weissman is using the terms is a political move and have nothing to do with the way such language is normally used.

In fact, it's OMFSerge who is confused. Your endorsement of his factually false "dismantling" of what he does not understand does not help either him or you - and your continued attacks on scientific knowledge in defense of the scientifically illiterate does not strengthen any case you try to make on those grounds.

Please, I don’t even think you can really believe what you are saying. Weissman’s errors are so blatant and his attempt to redefine commonly used terminology is so obvious that you are doing nothing but making yourself look foolish by defending it.

8

Joe
A “pseudozygote”, on the other hand, is simply a zygote with a Greek prefix. The reason it may not be able to produce a newborn is because the damage that occurs in the creating process and has little to do with the nature of the organism itself.

I think you'll find that the current thinking attributes the failure of the product of nuclear transfer to develop properly to retention of imprinting in the transferred nucleus. It's not exactly damage that causes the problem, but rather retaining something of the nature of the donor cell. In any event, there's probably no point in revisiting our argument over Hurlbut's proposal. Suffice it to say that I still think Hurlbut's proposed methods produce a damaged embryo, not something analagous to a hydatidiform mole. And I don't see any distinction between Hurlbut's and Weissman's arguments.

I agree. In fact, I don’t know where he came up with that nonsense or how it slipped by the peer review process.

Probably because it was a minor point that has little relevance to the thrust of his argument. The morally important term in "cloned embryo" is "embryo" not "cloned." Thus, it is his argument that nuclear transfer rarely produces a viable organism that is significant, not whether he takes a narrow view on the use of the term "clone" The latter is just a minor bit of pedantry.

Macht:
So basically what he is arguing is that we should create humans that we know in advance will have little or no chance of survival and kill them before their impending doom and use them for research. Nice.

Pretty much. Just like Hurlbut. Don't you think that's more important to argue against than ranting about whether "clone" should include organisms that inherit nuclear but not mitochondrial DNA from the parent?

9

Joe,

In the latest embarrassment for the peer-review process, the Journal of the American Medical Association has an unbelievably sloppy article in which Irving Weissman invents new terms (pseudozygote?) and tries to claim that the creation of cloned stem cells should not be considered "cloned" stem cells. OMFSerge from Imago Dei mercilessly dismantles the political snow-job and shows why the scientific community needs to do a better job of policing their own journals.

Joe, did you read the Weissman article?