Customer Reviews

Sex, Science, and Stem Cells: Inside the Right Wing Assault on Reason

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

I could not put this book down. I found this work by Diana DeGette to be an excellent, clearly written easy to read view of specific aspects of the workings of Congress and the Senate. In particular Diana DeGette provides the reader with a solid insight to the realities and challenges associated with passing legislation and driving intelligent discussion using facts and logic within government circles. In so doing she exposes the extent to which these processes are hampered by opinion driven and uninformed personal world views. Also she demonstrates through easy to follow examples, the extent to which extremist special interest groups hamper changes which the average rational person will see as purely benevolent.

No doubt her specific subject matter will be controversial particularly in the U.S. as she focuses on sex and reproductive issues. Her approach however, is reason and fact based and oriented to achieving changes for the greater good. To be honest I was horrified to learn the extent to which America and indirectly the rest of the world is manipulated by a relative small number of people and organizations who have at the top of their priorities imposing their personal values on the rest of us and here's the thing, they do this regardless of what the facts show and the extent to which their views negatively impact the lives of literally millions of people.

Diana DeGette's approach is to narrate a personal journey describing the surprising impact her professional accomplishments have made on her personal life, how she has dealt with them and with some of "life's curve balls" specifically when her daughter was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes and the impact that made to her motivations.

If you consider yourself a rational person, i.e. someone who can be swayed by facts.
If you want to learn more about what really goes on in congress and the process of creating bills for improving peoples lives.
If you would like a solid insight into the biases of Congress people, Senators and the even The President.
If you are generally interested in the specific subject matter, birth control, abortion, HIV/AIDS, sex education, religion and government.
Then this book is for you.

If you have already made up your mind.
If you are not interested in facts and the result of scientific studies if they do not support your established opinions.
If you are interested in the welfare of people only if you can also control their world view, religion and or and the way they choose to live their lives.
Then this book in not for you.

Congresswoman Diana DeGette has written an interesting, lively book on the fight between the right wing and the left on issues such as stem cell research, abstinence-only programs and the availability of Plan B to women in the military. Make no mistake, her book is not a balanced view of the facts, it is a passionately written expose told exclusively from her point of view in the fight, but what a point of view it is.

From the view of an insider, this book is full of fascinating stories of just how things get done in congress and at times it is amusing, others frustrating. It reads much like a biography, starting with Ms. Degette's turn in the Colorado legislature and follows her up to early 2008, detailing her struggles and views along the way.

Whether you agree or not with her opinions (particularly on cloning), this books is a great look at the inside world of congress, including a different side of the "snowflake babies veto" (I always did wonder what that was about), and answers questions about why the Bush administration continued to uphold the stem cell research ban despite public support to the contrary. Some would argue that Ms. Degette has written a book to champion her own efforts in congress, and I would say: of course she has. She has been pushing her causes for years and of course her book is going to support her opinion on the cause. However, if you take the time to check out the details of her book, despite not including sources (which is why I didn't give this book 5 stars), you can easily verify the scientific facts that she cites and the congressional records that she sources.

Overall, I would recommend this book to anyone. It probably won't convince you otherwise if you strongly feel that her opinion is wrong, but it will give anyone a view into the workings of our government that will stay in your mind long after you have put the book down.

Diana DeGette is my congresswoman, so I felt motivated to buy and read her book. I wanted to understand her views on stem cell research, and I wanted to learn more about her as a person and a politician.

This is a very emotional book. Representative DeGette is frustrated, angry, and embarrassed. She's frustrated with anyone who doesn't agree with her "common sense" views on anything related to human sexuality and reproduction, she's angry at the religious right for all the victories they have achieved against her, and she's embarrassed that her country is not like liberal Western Europe, where most women are on the pill, and people engage in free love and have abortions all the time and no one is the least bit bothered by it.

So, it's an emotional book, but it's also a very personal book, and this is perhaps the book's saving grace. This isn't so much a book about government policies relating to embryonic stem cell research; it's really a book about Diana DeGette. It's a memoir. Here is the story of a gifted and talented woman who worked her way through college and law school, built a law practice, and then took a risk and entered politics. This book will interest anyone studying the late-20th century politics and government of Denver and Colorado, a political history that DeGette helped create.

Readers will find a big disconnect between the introduction and the rest of the book. The introduction is strident and desultory; the balance of the book is measured and coherent. I think Diana DeGette wrote the introduction herself and Daniel Paisner, her credited ghostwriter, wrote the rest. Still, the entire work effectively conveys DeGette's overwhelming frustration with people who think differently than her. I think she wants her political legacy to be that of a hero for women's causes, but Catholics and other annoying "anti-choice" types keep getting in her way.

Other reviewers have already pointed out that the book presents figures and research findings without proper citations or attribution, and this is true but not a major flaw. For me personally, the book's major disconnect relates to research in general. DeGette consistently portrays herself as a proponent of embryonic stem cell research, and she effectively lists and explains the importance and value of such research. But is she really a research proponent? I work at the only public university in her district, and I don't know of a single thing she's done to support research at this university or research anywhere of any kind except government-funded stem cell research. So she's not really a supporter of research, judging by her lack of support for research in Denver at least.

In the end, DeGette's book is a pretty good, ghostwritten memoir, a political rant, and a case study of feminist political activism

Denver Congresswoman Diana DeGette says teen-age pregnancies are up this year for the first time in many years. Sex-education programs that stress abstinence correlate with a high pregnancy rate - significantly higher than comprehensive programs that teach sexual physiology, birth control, and how to prevent disease. Unfortunately, the sexual repression ethic sometimes overwhelms common sense in our school boards. This brings us to the Congressional attitude about sex - any open discussion about it sends them into hiding.

Fortunately, with a popular issue such as stem cell research, Congress is braver. Led by Representation DeGette, Congress overwhelmingly passed stem cell research bills two years in a row, only to have them vetoed by the president. The anti-science bias of the Bush administration has struck frequently. To be generous, he probably is not specifically anti-science, but his religious and business agendas so consistently clash with mainstream scientific findings, he looks anti-science.

His administration opposes financing birth control, including condoms, but pays for Viagra. Bush appointed two people to direct the Office Family Planning who oppose birth control (can you imagine that?). Other Bush appointees killed easy access to the morning-after pill and the human papilloma virus vaccine - the prevention for cervical cancer. He approved $15 billion for the fight against HIV worldwide, but the vast majority of the money goes to Christian organizations that preach abstinence and will not distribute condoms. Go figure.

Unfortunately, it is difficult for a Republican politician to be moderate about this (or any other) party issue. If they oppose the fundamentalist part of the party, they run the risk of being seen as disloyal. In the typical example of party discipline, an extreme right-wing, well-funded candidate shows up in their district to run against them.

DeGette's book advocates sensible science-based policies relating to sex and reproduction, presenting what happens when religion is allowed to trump science in govenment. Very few of our legislators have a science background. Most of them have been educated in the humanities - a good thing, but not helpful in evaluating scientific issues. For a more comprehensive treatise on just how anti-science Bush has been, see Chris Mooney's "The Republican War on Science."

The book has a good development of the current status
of stem cell research, the problems and opportunities
available as we move forward. In December, 1994,
an Executive Order set boundaries on creating human
embryos. According to Harriet Rabb-General Counsel,
stem cells aren't within the statutory exclusionary
definition of an embroyo.

Scientists can create plurpotent cells which are
scientifically engineered stem cells for diabetes patients.
President George Bush discussed new treatments with
moral boundaries aimed at keeping the research on
ethical and moral high ground. The idea of cloning
raises red flags .

This is an excellent volume for readers interested
in stem cell issues and current research.

I've been reading about issues in bioethics for years, and the title of this book (before I noticed the subtitle) was what got me to pick it up and check it out. I'm quite interested in the ethical issues (and resultant political controversies) surrounding hESC (human embryonic stem cell) research, abortion, and birth control which has contragestive effects (i.e., birth control which prevents a zygote from implanting in the uterine lining). This last is a thorny issue because those on the right, who maintain that a pregnancy begins at conception, classify these methods as abortifacients. On the other hand, those on the left have adopted a different definition which classifies pregnancy as beginning at implantation, and therefore they call these forms of birth control emergency 'contraception'. As another reviewer pointed out, the author seemed (astonishingly) to accuse her political opponents of making up the word 'abortifacient' - which is the term for substances which can cause an abortion and which is a pretty common word in the context of reproductive pharmacology. (The drug RU486 is an abortifacient, but before abortion was as easy to procure as it is today, unwanted pregnancies were often ended with herbal abortifacients. Ophelia refers to this in Hamlet.) It's ironic that she makes this blunder in a book whose thesis is that she is scientifically well-informed, whereas her opponents are ignorant.)

I can't fault her too much for not addressing the important question of replacing hESC research funding with iPSC (induced pluripotent stem cell- which are produced without the use of embryos) funding, because the major breakthrough only was made about ten months prior to her book release. Incorporating the new results and changes in how we think about stem cell research might have required rewriting the entire book. Of course, even at the time when she was writing the book it was clear that in terms of actual treatment of illness, it was adult stem cells and not embryonic ones which were providing treatments. Embryonic stem cells were/are so important because of potential treatments or cures which might be produced using them. To point out that iPSC research is now seen as possibly even more promising than hESC research (when her whole charge was that the supporting the destruction of embryos is justified by its unique promise of future treatments) would have blown a hole in her argument. This is particularly true given that the new method of producing stem cells is one whose funding has been championed as an alternative by those who oppose research which destroys human embryos. (It's too bad for her that she hadn't published a year earlier.)

The review from the 'Daily Camera' is laughable. What this most decidedly is NOT is "a probing philosophical work".

She portrays the ethical controversies as merely a situation in which she and like minded people who are scientifically literate are doing what any rational well-informed person would choose to do, whereas her opponents are either ignorant, or too ideologically extreme, or naive believers in religious and superstitious nonsense (or some combination of these) and cannot see that they are preventing society from advancing into new frontiers of knowledge and health. She completely ignores the fact that her opponents are a coalition motivated by a variety of values (granted- many of them values associated with their chosen faith) who take positions which actually are rational and logically consistent, but which follow from different ethical and philosophical beliefs than those she begins with.

For example, providing emergency contraception to those who may want it, and thereby preventing unwanted pregnancies and unnecessary abortions sounds like a reasonable thing to do, but that is all premised on a particular set of assumptions (like what 'contraception' is, how you define 'pregnancy'- and most fundamentally, what is a 'human being'.) It does not sound reasonable to say that after years of abiding by the compromise language of the Hyde Amendment (which prohibits federal money from being spent on abortions), those in congress who oppose abortion because they believe it kills a human being should get the government involved in providing abortifacients in order to prevent surgical abortions. From the first point of view, one is proposing the use of contraception to prevent a set of circumstances which might require an unpleasant and guilt-inducing medical procedure. From the second point of view one is being asked to weaken a policy which was designed to prevent the killing of innocent human beings based on the argument that killing with chemicals is acceptable where surgical killing is unacceptable.

The author doesn't actually address the bioethical arguments at all, but disposes of them by advocating her side and pretending that there is no other side. This is the sort of political point scoring that makes everyone hate bloviators on FOX News and MSNBC. Then again. if you only hate the former, and you like the latter, you may actually enjoy this Pelosi and Planned Parenthood endorsed portrayal of the progressive Democrats in the House fighting the good fight against the "right wing anti-choicers" during the G. W. Bush administration. Of course, if that's what you like, you'd be just as well served if you went and read some back issues of The Nation.

Stem Cell research can bring many benefits to humanity, but many stand against it for religious reasons, including the Bush Administration. "Sex, Science, and Stem Cells: Inside the Right Wing Assault on Reason" is an argument that the right wing of American Politics is blinded by religion and is therefore preventing reason and medical science's advance through lack of support and wrongful bans. DeGette has been involved in Congress for more than fifteen years, and makes her case and tells her story of frustration. "Sex, Science, Stem Cells" is a great read for those who seek to best understand the Bush Administration's religious policies.

What was Congresswoman Degette's purpose in writing this book? After reading it, it's difficult to tell. If it is a narrative of congressional action regarding reproductive issues, it's a pretty dull read. If it is an apologetic work attempting to convince people of the merits of her pro-choice cause, there is too much name-calling. If it is a legal or scientific treatise discussing the legal background for reproductive legislation or advances in stem-cell research, there are, unfortunately, NO references or supporting documents. As best as I can determine, she wrote this as a catharsis for her frustration in being unable to pass her favored legislation.

She begins by describing her steps to congress, and the challenges her family went through with a daughter with type-1 diabetes. This section is probably the best part of the book, giving readers a chance to connect and sympathize with the author.

When she begins to discuss the difficulties in passing reproductive and stem-cell legislation, the book runs into trouble. In this book, there are no reasonable opponents, or thoughtful disagreements. Conservatives are "ultra-conservatives", "anti-science", "anti-choice" and "religious extremists". She tends to use words for their emotional content rather than their meaning. She appears to be unable to see any merit to her opponents' arguments.

Perhaps the worst part of this book is her characterization of her position being the rational and scientific one. If this was true, I would expect to see references pointing to supporting documents buttressing her assertions. Unfortunately she supplies only naked statements such as "87 percent of us" believe we should engage in embryonic stem cell research.

Even worse than the lack of support, or even context for her statements, are the outright errors in science and history. She claims that the term abortifacient is not a legal or medical term, but was made up by anti-choice forces to demonize certain drugs, apparently missing the fact that the term comes from the Hippocratic Oath. She tries to differentiate between Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT), used for procuring embryonic stem cells (ESCs) for research and therapy, and reproductive cloning. However, SCNT is the starting point for both therapeutic and reproductive cloning. The only difference is in therapeutic uses, the clone produced is killed and harvested for stem cells, while the reproductive clones are allowed to live. She tells of a discussion in 1998 with Congresswoman Nita Lowey decrying the fact that health insurance companies were covering Viagra, but not prescription contraceptives. However, Viagra had only been approved for human use in March of that year, and went on sale sometime later. There were few to no health insurance policies that would cover it at that time, let alone any mandates for Viagra coverage.

I can think of very few reasons to recommend this book. If you are already pro-choice, your position will be built up, but unfortunately with erroneous information. If you are pro-life, the content-free emotion words will harden your attitude against pro-abortion activists. If you are on the fence, the book likely won't hold your interest.

The book contains so many gross scientific inaccuracies that it doesn't pass muster. Although she sanctimoniously condemns conservatives for being duplicitous and anti-science, she has used her position and authority to produce a tome whose assertions about stem cell research are either terribly ill-informed or monstrous hypocrisy. Perhaps it should be better classified as fiction.

For a more expansive assessment, read Yuval Levin's "Blinded by Science" article in the August (2008) online version of National Review.