The Daily Background

One of the techniques that right-wing science-deniers love to use is citing ‘actual, real, bona fide scientists’ who disagree with the consensus of the rest of the scientific community. This lends credence to the science-deniers arguments because regular people think “oh, so and so is a scientist, so there must be some debate about this, and [global warming/evolution/embryonic stem cell research/the earth isn’t flat] isn’t for sure.

Incidentally, you might remember when I exposed a supposed two “scientists” as employees of ExxonMobil a little while ago. I think it’s kind of a fun read, if you haven’t read it yet. Then again I wrote it so decide for yourself. The current issue of TIME Magazine dispells the myth that scientists are split on the value of embryonic stem cell research:

Scientists who are having surprising success with adult stem cells find their progress being used by activists to argue that embryo research is not just immoral but also unnecessary. But to those in the field, the only answer is to press ahead on all fronts. “There are camps for adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells,” says Douglas Melton, a co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. “But these camps only exist in the political arena. There is no disagreement among scientists over the need to aggressively pursue both in order to solve important medical problems.”

Hmm, maybe that’s the reason that the White House couldn’t find a single scientist to tow their line that embryonic stem cell research shows less promise than adult stem cell research, as the Chicago Tribune reported on July 19th:

… Rove waded into deeply contentious scientific territory, telling the Denver Post’s editorial board that researchers have found “far more promise from adult stem cells than from embryonic stem cells.”

[…]
White House spokesman Ken Lisaius on Tuesday could not provide the name of a stem cell researcher who shares Rove’s views on the superior promise of adult stem cells.

Of course it won’t be long until a bunch of new anti-embryonic stem cell “scientists” who are paid by right-wing groups appear, just like Exxon funds anti-global warming “scientists.” The Trib notes that the right-wing rush to sound scientific and credible:

One of the only published scientists arguing that adult stem cells are better is David Prentice, a former professor of life sciences at Indiana State University and now a fellow at the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy group.

So is this anti-stem cell research “scientist” who is now paid by the right-wing “Family Research Council” (a conservative Christian group that opposes medical and scientific research on a vaccination for HPV, thinks homosexuality is a disease and opposes laws against hate crimes) well respected in the field of stem cell research? No. Not at all, in fact. His fellow scientists (real scientists, no quotes this time) have no respect for him whatsoever, and got together to write a letter to a prominent industry journal denouncing the claims that the Family Research Council pays him to make, and saying they “mislead laypeople and cruelly deceive patients.”

“Prentice not only misrepresents existing adult stem cell treatments but also frequently distorts the nature and content of the references he cites”

There you have it. No doubt right-wing groups like the Family Research Council will continue to prop up these anti-stem cell research “scientists” just like ExxonMobil and other oil companies prop up their global warming-denying “scientists.” It’s all just meant to confuse people like us who aren’t scientists though, so don’t fall for it.

Filed under: War on Science, Z-TDB Blog