Christine O'Donnell criticized by former aides

[Liability]

And yet she is supposedly the candidate for fiscal responsibility

Because recognizing that at least the Middle East doesn't revel in sexist porn (like, oh, many of us do) and recognizing that some scientists are already working on genetic engineering experiments that involve human brain cells being grown inside the skulls of mice means she can't be fiscally responsible.

A really typical "liberal" point there.

leftwingshitflinger, your post was truly dumber than your usual fare that time. Moron.

Her house is in foreclosure. She spent more than she makes.

Typical Regressive hypocrite.

Why do we have laws for the protection of debtors and for protection from creditors?

Because sometimes, one is unemployed or badly under-employed. Sometimes folks make poor economic decisions.

So if you are saying that her personal failings make her a poor candidate, you are at least basing your pre-judgment on something tangible; your opposition could almost be interpreted as bordering on rational.

I may not even totally disagree with you. She might not have been the right person for the job. But she's already better than her the outgoing incumbent. And if a liberal WITH a (D) after his name gets the Senate seat, that's really not that much different in practical terms than giving the seat back to a liberal RINO piece of shit who happens -- only by pretense -- not to have the (D) after his name.

If Republicans want to win primaries, they have now been advised, "business as usual" is no longer such a sure shot path to their desired outcomes. It may take some time. But eventually, the Republicans, in order to win PRIMARIES, may have to put-up candidates who actually have some conservative credentials and some honest fidelity to the Constitutional principle of LIMITED government.

 

[Toro]

Ignore them Christine, you babe! You'll be nominating Sarah for President at the GOP convention in 12!

 

[rightwinger]

Well, she's in good company. Both her and the Republican running for Gov in Georgia took out homeloans they couldn't afford and either face foreclosure or sold in a firesale to avoid foreclosure.

Then we have some nice quotes from Mrs. O'Donnell such as:


Paradise! If only our values about women and sex were more in line with the Middle East!


Coockoo for CocoPuffs is not just a saying anymore.

And yet she is supposedly the candidate for fiscal responsibility

Because recognizing that at least the Middle East doesn't revel in sexist porn (like, oh, many of us do) and recognizing that some scientists are already working on genetic engineering experiments that involve human brain cells being grown inside the skulls of mice means she can't be fiscally responsible.

A really typical "liberal" point there.

leftwingshitflinger, your post was truly dumber than your usual fare that time. Moron.

You left out the part where O'Donnell doesn't believe in Evolution.....a real paradigm of the new GOP

 

[Political Junky]

Has Christine explained her story about those mice with fully functioning human brains?

 

[geauxtohell]

Really?

March 06, 2005
Stanford Prof Plans Mouse With Human Brain Cells
<snip>
FuturePundit: Stanford Prof Plans Mouse With Human Brain Cells

I know science isn't your gig but:

Human Brain Cells =/= "fully functioning human brains".

 

[Political Junky]

Really?

March 06, 2005
Stanford Prof Plans Mouse With Human Brain Cells
<snip>
FuturePundit: Stanford Prof Plans Mouse With Human Brain Cells

I know science isn't your gig but:

Human Brain Cells =/= "fully functioning human brains".

O'Donnell In 2007: Scientists Have Created Mice With Human Brains! | TPMDC
We previously noted that O'Donnell had attacked her primary opponent, Congressman Mike Castle, based on his support for stem-cell research. But it turns out that her interest in the subject goes back much further. As Little Green Footballs has spotted, O'Donnell appeared in 2007 on The O'Reilly Factor, to speak out against such research in response to the cloning of some monkeys. Then came her warning on human-mouse hybrids.

"They are -- they are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they're already into this experiment."
It's possible that O'Donnell was misremembering this 2005 report on scientists who successfully grew human brain cells within mice -- which is not the same as an actual functioning human brain, but a demonstration that human brain cells can be made from stem cells.

 

[geauxtohell]

Really?

I know science isn't your gig but:

Human Brain Cells =/= "fully functioning human brains".

O'Donnell In 2007: Scientists Have Created Mice With Human Brains! | TPMDC
We previously noted that O'Donnell had attacked her primary opponent, Congressman Mike Castle, based on his support for stem-cell research. But it turns out that her interest in the subject goes back much further. As Little Green Footballs has spotted, O'Donnell appeared in 2007 on The O'Reilly Factor, to speak out against such research in response to the cloning of some monkeys. Then came her warning on human-mouse hybrids.

"They are -- they are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they're already into this experiment."
It's possible that O'Donnell was misremembering this 2005 report on scientists who successfully grew human brain cells within mice -- which is not the same as an actual functioning human brain, but a demonstration that human brain cells can be made from stem cells.

Cross breeding humans and mice to make any viable form of life or tissue?

What a fucking dumb ass.

No wonder she doesn't accept evolution. She's completely scientifically illiterate.

 

[8537]

* * * *

American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they're already into this experiment.

Coockoo for CocoPuffs is not just a saying anymore.

Really?

March 06, 2005
Stanford Prof Plans Mouse With Human Brain Cells

Adult stem cell researcher Irving Weissman, M.D. of the Stanford School of Medicine wants to develop mice that have a lot of human neurons in their brains.

So Stanford asked where it should draw the line. It is the first university in the nation to tackle the philosophical question: When does a chimera stop being an animal and start becoming a person, suggesting that research should end? The report foreshadows the release of guidelines on stem-cell research, including chimeras, by the National Academy of Sciences this spring.

``We concluded that if we see any signs of human brain structures . . . or if the mouse shows human-like behaviors, like improved memory or problem-solving, it's time to stop,'' said law and genetics Professor Henry T. Greely, director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences and leader of the committee.

``We think if he takes appropriate caution -- including stopping at each step along the way, to see what's happening -- the research is ethical,'' he said.

What I find especially interesting about this report is the reticence to see animals made smarter. What is their motivation for this restriction? Is it that they do not want lab animals made intelligent because then experimentation on them would become too much like experimentation on sentient humans?

Or do they object more generally to modification of other species to make them become as smart as humans? If the latter, what are their reasons for opposing this move? Certainly one can think of reasons to oppose such a development. The human race could find its existence threatened if we genetically engineered some predator species to be as smart as we are. Imagine smart lions and tigers with no empathy for the human species hunting us down to eat. For that matter, imagine genetically engineered human psychopaths with no empathy for the human species. They already occur naturally in smaller numbers. Will some people ever choose to use biotechnology to produce offspring with little or no empathy?

Or is the objection to making smart mice with human neurons just the creepiness factor? Are the committee members either creeped out by that notion or afraid the public will be? In the longer run discoveries of which genetic variations raise intelligence will point to ways to increase the intelligence of mice without the need to use human neurons. Higher intelligence will be achievable in mice by use of genetic engineering to change the sequences of existing mouse genes.

Weissman's motivation here is that he wants better animal models of human diseases. He is not initially aiming to create mice that have 100% human nerve cell brains. He just needs enough human neuronal cells in the brains of a mouse model to recreate manifestations of human neurological disorders such as Lou Gehrig's disease (a.k.a. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis or ALS), schizophrenia, stroke, and other neurological disorders. The ability to replicate human diseases outside of humans is an enormously valuable approach to investigating the mechanism that cause diseases and to test potential therapeutic approaches for treating and curing diseases.

For some interesting insights and an overview of the state of stem cell research see Weissman's July 14, 2004 testimony on adult stem cell research to the US Senatoe Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation.

On the subject of cross-species hybrids the US Patent Office has just rejected an attempt to patent the idea of creating a human-animal chimera hybrid.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected the claim, saying the hybrid -- designed for use in medical research but not yet created -- would be too closely related to a human to be patentable.

Paradoxically, the rejection was a victory of sorts for the inventor, Stuart Newman of New York Medical College in Valhalla, N.Y. An opponent of patents on living things, he had no intention of making the creatures. His goal was to set a legal precedent that would keep others from profiting from any similar "inventions."

Newman does not want to see people create chimeras. So he is trying to reduce the business incentive for doing so. However, I do not believe the question of whether to create chimeras is going to be decided based on expected return on investment. Some potential projects hold sufficient allure that even absent a large chance of profit there are wealthy people who will attempt them once attempts to do so become cheap enough. For examples of this phenomenon look at the groups (some of them driven by spiritual beliefs) that are trying to clone humans. Or how about people who build airplanes and other devices for the challenge and for the fame that sometimes results.

I think the development of smarter animals and the development of chimeras are both inevitable. These developments can be delayed by regulations and restrictions on government funding. But the expense and difficulty of attempting these efforts will eventually drop to the point that the barriers in the way of attempts to do these things will fall so low that they will happen. The streets find their own uses for technology.

Update: Michael J. Fox is helping to get the broad public ready for future talking mice.

Supporters of stem cell research at Stanford University include the actor Michael J Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's disease. Fox provided the voice for Stuart Little, Hollywood's version of the "human mouse'', who talks, has human parents and lives in a New York apartment.

I picture a Back To The Future sequel where talking mice go along for a ride in a Delorean.

Update II: Also see my previous post Human-Mouse Hybrid Creation Debated.
By Randall Parker at 2005 March 06 03:34 PM Biotech Hybrids

FuturePundit: Stanford Prof Plans Mouse With Human Brain Cells

Yes, Liability, Really! Notice the comment from batshit crazy:

ARE cross-breeding humans and animals

really.

 

[Dr.House]

Damn...

You libs only dig your own fucking nutbags?

Kookcinich ran for President and if he won the nom I'd bet 90% of you would vote for him....

It's not like this woman is Alvin Greene batshit crazy....lol

 

[Liability]

Really?

March 06, 2005
Stanford Prof Plans Mouse With Human Brain Cells
<snip>
FuturePundit: Stanford Prof Plans Mouse With Human Brain Cells

I know science isn't your gig but:

Human Brain Cells =/= "fully functioning human brains".

I realize logic isn't your bag, but I never said they were the same, dopey. I merely noted (correctly) that what she said was not as bat-shit crazy as certain liberals here pretended it was.

I also haven't suggested that she's a scientist or that her somewhat informal expressions amount to evidence that she even understands what she's said.

But she clearly can't be accused of being bat shit crazy (at least not if an honest basis for such an accusation is the measure of such things) .

 

[Liability]

* * * *


Coockoo for CocoPuffs is not just a saying anymore.

Really?



FuturePundit: Stanford Prof Plans Mouse With Human Brain Cells

Yes, Liability, Really! Notice the comment from batshit crazy:

ARE cross-breeding humans and animals

really.

No, 8537 (or whatever number you're using this week), NOT really.

What Christine said is, of course, technically inaccurate. Naturally, we aren't really talking about "cross-breeding." But at least there is some actual scientific research taking place that makes her incomplete and erroneous understanding of the scientific topic close enough to the mark to make her statement understandable.

Notice, too, that because of such "research" even a scientist expressed some concern about the prospect of mice eventually gaining some sort of higher intelligence because of the genetic engineering.

``We concluded that if we see any signs of human brain structures . . . or if the mouse shows human-like behaviors, like improved memory or problem-solving, it's time to stop,'' said law and genetics Professor Henry T. Greely, director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences and leader of the committee.

``We think if he takes appropriate caution -- including stopping at each step along the way, to see what's happening -- the research is ethical,'' he said.

Or did you -- in your arrogance -- gloss over that part?

 

[geauxtohell]

Really?



FuturePundit: Stanford Prof Plans Mouse With Human Brain Cells

Yes, Liability, Really! Notice the comment from batshit crazy:



really.

No, 8537 (or whatever number you're using this week), NOT really.

What Christine said is, of course, technically inaccurate. Naturally, we aren't really talking about "cross-breeding." But at least there is some actual scientific research taking place that makes her incomplete and erroneous understanding of the scientific topic close enough to the mark to make her statement understandable.

Notice, too, that because of such "research" even a scientist expressed some concern about the prospect of mice eventually gaining some sort of higher intelligence because of the genetic engineering.

``We concluded that if we see any signs of human brain structures . . . or if the mouse shows human-like behaviors, like improved memory or problem-solving, it's time to stop,'' said law and genetics Professor Henry T. Greely, director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences and leader of the committee.

``We think if he takes appropriate caution -- including stopping at each step along the way, to see what's happening -- the research is ethical,'' he said.

Or did you -- in your arrogance -- gloss over that part?

It's not understandable. It's completely idiotic.

We have been growing human ears on mice via genomics for over a decade now.

If this woman doesn't understand that human's and mice can't interbreed, she's a moron.

Although that's less disturbing than if she thinks the above scientific experiment to use mice to generate human tissue is in any way "unethical".

 

[geauxtohell]

Damn...

You libs only dig your own fucking nutbags?

Kookcinich ran for President and if he won the nom I'd bet 90% of you would vote for him....

It's not like this woman is Alvin Greene batshit crazy....lol

She's not crazy, she's completely fucking scientifically illiterate.

The kind of loon that House loves to mock.

 

[geauxtohell]

Really?

I know science isn't your gig but:

Human Brain Cells =/= "fully functioning human brains".

I realize logic isn't your bag, but I never said they were the same, dopey. I merely noted (correctly) that what she said was not as bat-shit crazy as certain liberals here pretended it was.

I also haven't suggested that she's a scientist or that her somewhat informal expressions amount to evidence that she even understands what she's said.

But she clearly can't be accused of being bat shit crazy (at least not if an honest basis for such an accusation is the measure of such things) .

You don't have to be a scientist to know that mice and humans can't interbreed.

You basically have to make it past 7th grade science.

 

[Charles_Main]

I know science isn't your gig but:

Human Brain Cells =/= "fully functioning human brains".

I realize logic isn't your bag, but I never said they were the same, dopey. I merely noted (correctly) that what she said was not as bat-shit crazy as certain liberals here pretended it was.

I also haven't suggested that she's a scientist or that her somewhat informal expressions amount to evidence that she even understands what she's said.

But she clearly can't be accused of being bat shit crazy (at least not if an honest basis for such an accusation is the measure of such things) .

You don't have to be a scientist to know that mice and humans can't interbreed.

You basically have to make it past 7th grade science.

They sure can not breed. But is it completely impossible to think that science could find some way to give mice Human traits?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Really?



FuturePundit: Stanford Prof Plans Mouse With Human Brain Cells

Yes, Liability, Really! Notice the comment from batshit crazy:



really.

No, 8537 (or whatever number you're using this week), NOT really.

What Christine said is, of course, technically inaccurate. Naturally, we aren't really talking about "cross-breeding." But at least there is some actual scientific research taking place that makes her incomplete and erroneous understanding of the scientific topic close enough to the mark to make her statement understandable.

Notice, too, that because of such "research" even a scientist expressed some concern about the prospect of mice eventually gaining some sort of higher intelligence because of the genetic engineering.

``We concluded that if we see any signs of human brain structures . . . or if the mouse shows human-like behaviors, like improved memory or problem-solving, it's time to stop,'' said law and genetics Professor Henry T. Greely, director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences and leader of the committee.

``We think if he takes appropriate caution -- including stopping at each step along the way, to see what's happening -- the research is ethical,'' he said.

Or did you -- in your arrogance -- gloss over that part?

We've been growing human cancer tumors in mice for decades, to test new drugs. Are you against that as well?

 

[Liability]

Yes, Liability, Really! Notice the comment from batshit crazy:



really.

No, 8537 (or whatever number you're using this week), NOT really.

What Christine said is, of course, technically inaccurate. Naturally, we aren't really talking about "cross-breeding." But at least there is some actual scientific research taking place that makes her incomplete and erroneous understanding of the scientific topic close enough to the mark to make her statement understandable.

Notice, too, that because of such "research" even a scientist expressed some concern about the prospect of mice eventually gaining some sort of higher intelligence because of the genetic engineering.

``We concluded that if we see any signs of human brain structures . . . or if the mouse shows human-like behaviors, like improved memory or problem-solving, it's time to stop,'' said law and genetics Professor Henry T. Greely, director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences and leader of the committee.

``We think if he takes appropriate caution -- including stopping at each step along the way, to see what's happening -- the research is ethical,'' he said.

Or did you -- in your arrogance -- gloss over that part?

It's not understandable. It's completely idiotic.

We have been growing human ears on mice via genomics for over a decade now.

If this woman doesn't understand that human's and mice can't interbreed, she's a moron.

Although that's less disturbing than if she thinks the above scientific experiment to use mice to generate human tissue is in any way "unethical".

Actually, your view was contradicted in the article.

While -- again -- her understanding of the science is clearly misguided, there is still a basis for her expressions of concern.

Adult stem cell researcher Irving Weissman, M.D. of the Stanford School of Medicine wants to develop mice that have a lot of human neurons in their brains.

So Stanford asked where it should draw the line. It is the first university in the nation to tackle the philosophical question: When does a chimera stop being an animal and start becoming a person, suggesting that research should end? The report foreshadows the release of guidelines on stem-cell research, including chimeras, by the National Academy of Sciences this spring.

``We concluded that if we see any signs of human brain structures . . . or if the mouse shows human-like behaviors, like improved memory or problem-solving, it's time to stop,'' said law and genetics Professor Henry T. Greely, director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences and leader of the committee.

``We think if he takes appropriate caution -- including stopping at each step along the way, to see what's happening -- the research is ethical,'' he said.

What I find especially interesting about this report is the reticence to see animals made smarter. What is their motivation for this restriction? Is it that they do not want lab animals made intelligent because then experimentation on them would become too much like experimentation on sentient humans?

Or do they object more generally to modification of other species to make them become as smart as humans? If the latter, what are their reasons for opposing this move? Certainly one can think of reasons to oppose such a development. The human race could find its existence threatened if we genetically engineered some predator species to be as smart as we are. Imagine smart lions and tigers with no empathy for the human species hunting us down to eat. For that matter, imagine genetically engineered human psychopaths with no empathy for the human species. They already occur naturally in smaller numbers. Will some people ever choose to use biotechnology to produce offspring with little or no empathy?

Or is the objection to making smart mice with human neurons just the creepiness factor? Are the committee members either creeped out by that notion or afraid the public will be? In the longer run discoveries of which genetic variations raise intelligence will point to ways to increase the intelligence of mice without the need to use human neurons. Higher intelligence will be achievable in mice by use of genetic engineering to change the sequences of existing mouse genes.

So, your ruminations notwithstanding, what she said was not idiotic. There is a difference between an incomplete understanding of science and idiocy. But she's very close to the mark on being concerned with the issues in a more general fashion.

And just to be blunt: There is a world of difference between growing a human ear on the back of a mouse (which has already happened and which does not involve helping the mouse to "hear" diddly dog) and engineering the genes of mice so that their very brains start acquiring functioning HUMAN neurons and USING them.

 

[Liability]

Yes, Liability, Really! Notice the comment from batshit crazy:



really.

No, 8537 (or whatever number you're using this week), NOT really.

What Christine said is, of course, technically inaccurate. Naturally, we aren't really talking about "cross-breeding." But at least there is some actual scientific research taking place that makes her incomplete and erroneous understanding of the scientific topic close enough to the mark to make her statement understandable.

Notice, too, that because of such "research" even a scientist expressed some concern about the prospect of mice eventually gaining some sort of higher intelligence because of the genetic engineering.

``We concluded that if we see any signs of human brain structures . . . or if the mouse shows human-like behaviors, like improved memory or problem-solving, it's time to stop,'' said law and genetics Professor Henry T. Greely, director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences and leader of the committee.

``We think if he takes appropriate caution -- including stopping at each step along the way, to see what's happening -- the research is ethical,'' he said.

Or did you -- in your arrogance -- gloss over that part?

We've been growing human cancer tumors in mice for decades, to test new drugs. Are you against that as well?

Hey dickless! You are still utterly lacking the ability to actually track a conversation I see. Poor you.

Feel obligated, you dishonest asswipe liberoidal hack, to go back and find anything I said which says that I am opposed to the scientific research that is underway involving human neurons in mice brains, you shit-muncher. I cannot be opposed to "X" "too" if I haven't expressed opposition to the matter under discussion, you fucking idiot.

 

[The T]

No, 8537 (or whatever number you're using this week), NOT really.

What Christine said is, of course, technically inaccurate. Naturally, we aren't really talking about "cross-breeding." But at least there is some actual scientific research taking place that makes her incomplete and erroneous understanding of the scientific topic close enough to the mark to make her statement understandable.

Notice, too, that because of such "research" even a scientist expressed some concern about the prospect of mice eventually gaining some sort of higher intelligence because of the genetic engineering.

Or did you -- in your arrogance -- gloss over that part?

It's not understandable. It's completely idiotic.

We have been growing human ears on mice via genomics for over a decade now.

If this woman doesn't understand that human's and mice can't interbreed, she's a moron.

Although that's less disturbing than if she thinks the above scientific experiment to use mice to generate human tissue is in any way "unethical".

Actually, your view was contradicted in the article.

While -- again -- her understanding of the science is clearly misguided, there is still a basis for her expressions of concern.

Adult stem cell researcher Irving Weissman, M.D. of the Stanford School of Medicine wants to develop mice that have a lot of human neurons in their brains.

So Stanford asked where it should draw the line. It is the first university in the nation to tackle the philosophical question: When does a chimera stop being an animal and start becoming a person, suggesting that research should end? The report foreshadows the release of guidelines on stem-cell research, including chimeras, by the National Academy of Sciences this spring.

``We concluded that if we see any signs of human brain structures . . . or if the mouse shows human-like behaviors, like improved memory or problem-solving, it's time to stop,'' said law and genetics Professor Henry T. Greely, director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences and leader of the committee.

``We think if he takes appropriate caution -- including stopping at each step along the way, to see what's happening -- the research is ethical,'' he said.

What I find especially interesting about this report is the reticence to see animals made smarter. What is their motivation for this restriction? Is it that they do not want lab animals made intelligent because then experimentation on them would become too much like experimentation on sentient humans?

Or do they object more generally to modification of other species to make them become as smart as humans? If the latter, what are their reasons for opposing this move? Certainly one can think of reasons to oppose such a development. The human race could find its existence threatened if we genetically engineered some predator species to be as smart as we are. Imagine smart lions and tigers with no empathy for the human species hunting us down to eat. For that matter, imagine genetically engineered human psychopaths with no empathy for the human species. They already occur naturally in smaller numbers. Will some people ever choose to use biotechnology to produce offspring with little or no empathy?

Or is the objection to making smart mice with human neurons just the creepiness factor? Are the committee members either creeped out by that notion or afraid the public will be? In the longer run discoveries of which genetic variations raise intelligence will point to ways to increase the intelligence of mice without the need to use human neurons. Higher intelligence will be achievable in mice by use of genetic engineering to change the sequences of existing mouse genes.

So, your ruminations notwithstanding, what she said was not idiotic. There is a difference between an incomplete understanding of science and idiocy. But she's very close to the mark on being concerned with the issues in a more general fashion.

And just to be blunt: There is a world of difference between growing a human ear on the back of a mouse (which has already happened and which does not involve helping the mouse to "hear" diddly dog) and engineering the genes of mice so that their very brains start acquiring functioning HUMAN neurons and USING them.

And it could be that she against Humans playing God...and tinkering where they don't belong because it could very well be perverted into something sinister...

Just a thought. I see nothing wrong in her objections at all.

 

[The T]

The real issue of this is simply that the Republican Old Guard had their asses handed to them by the people of Deleware...despite what the woman thinks, says or does.

This is a diversion.

And it's also served notice to the Left that even their precious seats that are generally regarded as BLUE...actually belong to the people Not a party...and anything can happen with the present mood of the citizens of this Republic.

Massechussetts and Kennedy's old seat ring a bell?