Human Nature: Science, Technology, and Life.

Obama's 15 Seconds

The most interesting moment in President Obama's Tuesday night press conference is something you won't pick up from the transcript. You have to watch the video. Forty-six minutes in, John Ward of the Washington Times asks Obama about stem cells. Obama replies:

[I]t is very important for us to have strong moral guidelines, ethical guidelines, when it comes to stem cell research or anything that touches on, you know, the issues of possible cloning or issues related to, you know, the human life sciences. I think those issues are all critical, and I've said so before. I wrestle with it on stem cell; I wrestle with it on issues like abortion.

What the transcript doesn't convey is that after saying "anything that touches on," it takes Obama a full 15 seconds of stumbling, stalling, and groping before he finds the phrase "human life sciences."

Obama, unlike President Bush, knows his way around the English language. He doesn't stumble, stall, or grope for lack of words. He does it because he was about to say something but decided not to say it. The giveaway here is that he eventually settles on the phrase "human life sciences," which I've never heard before from a politician. Supporters of embryonic stem-cell research talk about "life sciences." Opponents talk about "human life." Neither side likes to focus on the other's magic word: human for pro-lifers or sciences for research proponents.

I think Obama settled on "human life sciences" because he was originally going to say "anything that touches on human life." And he decided at the last minute that he'd better not say that, because that would buy into the other side's framing of the issue and get him into trouble. The human-life frame, planted by Ward, was clearly in Obama's head, as evidenced by his next sentence: "I wrestle with it on stem cell; I wrestle with it on issues like abortion." But strategically, you're not supposed to accept the other side's frame. Once you group stem-cell research with abortion, you're giving away the fight. You're supposed to group stem-cell research with the Bush administration's deceptions about abstinence and global warming. It's all part of the "Republican war on science." So, after his 15 seconds of groping, Obama splits the difference and comes up with the phrase "human life sciences."

We saw the same thing two weeks ago, when Obama lifted the ban on federal funding of stem-cell research using destroyed human embryos. Most research proponents, including his own aides, stuck to the "science" message and didn't mention moral objections. But Obama did mention them. His remarks sounded a lot like what he has said about abortion and other social issues: acknowledging moral disagreement while striving for consensus or at least compromise.

On Tuesday, after Obama's initial answer, Ward asked a follow-up: "Do you think that scientific consensus is enough to tell us what we can and cannot do?" Obama replied: "No. I think there's—there's always an ethical and a moral element that has to be—be a part of this."

Obama, like the rest of us, is grappling with how to think about biotechnology. We're all familiar with social, financial, public-safety, and health-care issues. But this is a new kind of issue: It's moral, economic, and life-and-death. To some of us, it's about life sciences. To others, it's about embryonic human life. It took Obama 15 seconds to put the two perspectives together in words. If it takes him eight years to put them together in practice, that'll be one hell of an achievement.

Grow Your Own Pacemaker

By inserting genes into rat heart cells growing in a dish, they were able to create a beating pattern that was faster and more regular than had been seen before. ... [Their first step was] to load up a common cold virus with a pacemaker gene, and then used the virus to successfully infect heart cells in a dish. The infected cells ended up with the gene and began making a pacing current they had lacked. Next the scientists tried the technique in dogs with slow hearts. The gene transfer worked. Parts of the dogs' hearts that had been beating 25 to 40 times per minute were restored to a normal 60 beats per minute. ... [Later] they stitched pacemaker genes into adult stem cells, using a technique that doesn't require viruses, and then injected the altered cells into the heart. ... [W]hen the researchers tested the pacemaker stem cells in dogs for six weeks, the cells behaved just as they hoped. As a precaution, the researchers showed that they could turn off a cellular pacemaker if it becomes hyperactive with a drug ...

This is a great illustration of the point I was trying to make two weeks ago about the superiority of flesh-based technology. First we had flesh but no pacemakers. If your heart lost it rhythm, you had no backup. Now we have electronic pacemakers. They solve the problem of unreliable flesh, but they introduce the problems of electronics. Inserting them requires surgery. Their batteries are finite, and, as we learned from the Medtronic fiasco, their wires can fail. Worse, like other electronic devices, they can be hacked -- in this case, with potentially lethal results.

The long-term solution is flesh. Unlike electronics, flesh can be grown inside your body, avoiding the need for surgery. It's self-correcting, self-repairing, and self-renewing in a way that electronics aren't. And there isn't an easy way to hack somebody else's genes -- at least, not yet. For the same reason, we do need a way to remotely reset your biological pacemaker if it runs out of control. That's where the aforementioned drug comes in. But if you're in the pacemaker market, you had that problem already.

Oransky ends with a wonderful quote from Cohen: "Just like Lasik is a better solution than eyeglasses, a biological pacemaker would be a better solution than an electronic one." Having written about Lasik before, I like the analogy. At the time, I saw Lasik as a potential enhancement of human powers, with athletes boosting their vision beyond 20/20. But as Cohen points out, you can also look at it the other way: Instead of outfitting you with gizmos we've come to think of as normal -- glasses or contacts -- we just fix your flesh. Sometimes the most effective technology is also the most natural.