Can ManBearPig be far behind?

Remember back in 2006, when Wonkette made fun of President Bush for randomly condemning "human-animal hybrids" in his State of the Union address? ("OMG HUMAN-ANIMAL HYBRIDS! BUSH SAYS NO TO WEREWOLVES. HEAR THAT CONGRESS? The man is taking a stand. To repeat: Hybrid cars: Good. Hybrid human-animals: Bad.")

Well, maybe ol' Dubya was on to something. If you missed the headline earlier this evening Drudge...

Here's the story:

A team has grown hybrid embryos after injecting human DNA into eggs taken from cows' ovaries, which had most of their genetic material removed.

The embryos survived for three days and are intended to provide a limitless supply of stem cells to develop therapies for diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and spinal cord injuries, overcoming a worldwide shortfall in human embryos.

Opponents decry the hybrid embryos as "monstrous." Hmm. Half man, half cow, half monster? It's ManCowHilldog!

Comments

[Andrew]

Mike, what's this all about? And while you're at it, what's this discussion about autism being caused by vaccines? We need our resident biological sciences genius to assuage our concerns!

[Mike]

So, the link Brendan provided basically says that these embryos were created in the idea of being able to harvest stem cells from them, potentially indefinately if cell lines were created. The 99% genetically human, I assume (though it's not specified) is due to the fact that the embryo was created by moving a human nucleus into a cow egg. The nucleus is where the vast majority of your genetic information is, but not quite all of it. Most eukaryotic cells have mitochondria, which are small self-replicating structures which provide a lot of energy to the cell. They also contain some of their own genetic material, and they have only ever been observed to be transferred via the egg. (Human sperm have 4 mitochondria--it's how they have the energy to swim--but when the sperm fertilizes an egg the sperm's mitochondria are either not injected into the egg, or else the egg destroys them.) 99% isn't really an accurate figure, but the general point is that the vast majority of the genetic information is in the nucleus, but not quite all of it is.

As for vaccines causing autism: no. They do not. The NYTimes ran a pretty good op-ed contribution on this subject a few days ago. The vaccine court was initially created, and funded with a small tax on all vaccines, to provide compensating to any individual who was able to show a preponderance of evidence that the vaccination caused a medical problem. This was to prevent vaccine claims from going through the normal courts, largely because of principles of public health: if 1 out of 10,000 people vaccinated against polio were to develop polio from the vaccine, or to suffer some massive allergic reaction or brain damage, it would definitely be in the nation's interest to have undertaken the massive polio vaccinations which essentially eliminated the disease in this country. However, if the vaccine manufacturers were themselves financially liable for the polio cases, they'd be far less inclined to call that an acceptable level of risk--vaccinate 100,000,000 people, and you're looking at 10,000 victims.

That's been changed, recently, to a standard of "biologically plausible" mechanism by which the vaccination might have possibly led to the illness. Worse than that, judges have begun substituting their own decisions about what is biologically plausible even if it's in direct opposition to published research papers showing that that mechanism does not occur.

The really problems here are, sadly, understandable emotions and a faulty post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. The basic argument most anti-vaccine autism advocates make goes something like this: 1) My child was perfectly healthy. 2) I took him/her in for a vaccination or set of vaccinations. 3) (S)He screamed immediately and for a long time afterwards. 4) Over the next couple of months, (s)he became gradually more withdrawn, colder, less communicative, and colder. 5) Vaccines use mercury compounds as stabilizing agents. 6) Mercury is toxic to neurons, particularly in developing children. 7) Therefore, the vaccine caused my child's autism, vaccinations should be halted, and I should be financially compensated.

The parents are upset, the timing suggests a connection to many people, and the mercury argument makes it sound reasonable. But the science simply doesn't support it. A lot of vaccines simply happen to be given several months before most children who develop autism begin to show signs of it. Large scale studies of the safety of the mercury compounds in vaccines have failed to show any statistically significant link to autism. Children who aren't vaccinated are just as likely to become autistic, although they often aren't diagnosed as early as children who are vaccinated, but the cause of that is that children being vaccinated are 1) more likely to see doctors on a regular basis than those who aren't, and 2) are more likely to have parents wealthy and educated enough to be on the lookout for autism.

Bottom line: just because the parents of autistic children are sympathetic figures doesn't mean that they're right. And just because a small community of activists are loud in their belief about the danger of something doesn't mean that thing is actually dangerous. It's horrible that some children turn from being happy, normal children into distressing cases of severe autism, and it's also terrible that for years the parents of these children were often blamed for causing the condition by being cold and unloving. That doesn't change the fact that it's wrong to choose emotion over fact when deciding the legal merits of cases like these. There is NOT a preponderance of evidence that vaccinations cause autism, and thus the vaccine courts should simply not be awarding compensation to parents who claim that they do.

[Andrew]

Is there anything behind the assertion that rates of autism in children is increasing (see previously linked CNN article), and what are the plausible explanations for that?

[Scientizzle]

I'm glad Mike has given a good overview of both topics. I read with dismay almost every time the vaccine-autism thing is covered by the media; in some sort of PC bullshit "balanced reporting", they give roughly equal space to the claims of fringe antivaccination groups against the weight of the entire medical science field (that has duly addressed and dismissed the relevant hypotheses with several large, high-quality studies refuting the claims of these groups).

Naturally, Jenny McCarthy--that paragon of scientific thought--gets far more face-time in the media with her wholly unreliable anecdotal evidence than the overwhelming scientific consensus...and the rate of vaccination is falling as the media stokes the controversy, likely contributing to far greater health risks: outbreaks of normally-controlled and potentially deadly childhood diseases (measles, etc.) are on the rise as parents are flooded with misinformation and fear-mongering.

[Scientizzle]

To address Andrew's 2nd question: rates of autism appear to be increasing, but there's no real evidence that the incidence of autism has actually risen.

The numbers are distorted for a few reasons...autism is more widely recognized and diagnosed simply because health professionals and parents are increasingly aware of the symptoms. Furthermore, the actual diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorders has been recently expanded to include a greater number of relevant manifestations of the disorder.

These two things have combined to create an artificial inflation in the number of autism diagnoses, but controlled data analysis indicates no substantial change in the actual incidence.

[Bart Simpson]

God..Schmod. I want my monkey man.

[Al Gore]

Naturally, Jenny McCarthy--that paragon of scientific thought--gets far more face-time in the media with her wholly unreliable anecdotal evidence than the overwhelming scientific consensus

DAMMIT! Why didn't I realize this all along? All I need is Jenny McCarthy, then everyone will finally believe in global warming...

;)

[La Rev]

Drudge has never been this super serial in his life.

[Scientizzle]

Al, it's true...your Powerpoint presentation would have gathered a lot more attention a lot earlier if you had included a nekkid Playmate...

[Al Gore's Libido]

She can warm my globes anytime.

And then we can do the Horizontal Al Gore Macarena.

[CORNHUSKERS 94 95 & 97]

I cant stop thinking of that Seinfeld episode where Kramer thinks he sees pig man.

lol