Irving News Comments,
71 Articles at

Dr. Irving's professional activities include teaching positions at Georgetown University, Catholic University of America, and The Dominican House of Studies. She represented the Catholic Medical Association of the United States, and the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, at the Scientific Conference in Mexico City, Mexico, October 28, 1999 and presented a paper on "The Dignity and Status of the Human Embryo". Dr. Irving is a former career-appointed bench research biochemist/biologist (NIH, NCI, Bethesda, MD), an M.A. and Ph.D. philosopher (Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.), and Professor of the History of Philosophy, and of Medical Ethics.

See also: Dr. Irving's original articles at this site.



Who qualifies as a 'real expert' when it comes to coronavirus?

Academics "stay in their lanes" when commenting on the pandemic. Whether for narcissistic, or self-delusional, or devious reasons, major crises such as the one we are currently in re the Coronavirus pandemic always "justify" such non-experts to come out of the woodwork and "instruct" the rest of us as to what to think and what should be done about it. Academics should face more scrutiny and accountability by officials, the public and the media as well, and be legally required to "stay in their lanes" -- or face fines and jail time as their duly deserved consequences.

Date posted: 2020-04-04

Irving Comments on Recent Human Cloning Article (CNA)

A recent experiment cloning human embryos for potential stem cell use did little to advance a medical breakthrough and violated human life, Catholic experts said in reaction to the news. (The following comment was posted on CNA by Dr. Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.)

Date posted: 2011-10-11

Comments: "Adult stem cells said to 'forget' retooling; Embryonic alternative [iPS stem cell research] suffers setback"

Summary: The article indicates once again that scientifically iPS cells would not constitute that final "ethical alternative". There are also a number of ethical concerns that continue to plague iPS stem cell research. Referring to iPS stem cells as "adult" stem cells is very misleading. Further, iPS research, as well as most other similar types of research, require the use of "biological materials" that are derived originally from human embryos and human fetuses and then used throughout these experiments.

Date posted: 2010-07-20

Irving Comments: Dr. Stojkovic and IVF Serbia

Dr. Miodrag Stojkovic's efforts to bring IVF to Serbia should be closely scrutinized by the government and by the people for any possible violations of a woman's informed consent.

Date posted: 2008-01-26

Problems With "Conception To Natural Death"

Although it was valid many years ago, we can no longer use the phrase "from conception/fertilization to natural death". Why? Because as all parties fully know and understand by now, not all human beings begin to exist at "fertilization" or "conception" (sexual reproduction). Many human beings begin to exist asexually, through quite a number of different kinds of cloning, and different kinds of genetic engineering and other artificial reproductive technologies. THIS IS NOT NEW INFORMATION OR SCIENCE.

Date posted: 2007-12-20

Comments: Big BIO Commends Ohio Governor for Advancing Stem Cell Research

They have deftly organized the clueless governors of the various states, convincing them of much sought after financial windfalls (so they can get elected again). They have carefully identified and mercilessly lobbyed vulnerable members of state and national legislatures who themselves or whose family members have a disease, and promised them as well as patient advocate groups miraculous cures. They have co-opted "fiscal conservatives" to such an extent that the "free market" has now been morphed into the "libertine market" -- anything goes, as long as Big Money is made. ANYTHING.

Date posted: 2005-07-20

Comments: "A Voice of Balance in Stem Cell Program" [California Prop. 71]

There are some things that can be "balanced" - like public opinion and mathematical formulas - and some things that can't be "balanced" - like the objective scientific facts. .. Why is it OK to flat-out falsify the science in order to get public support, but not OK to lie to prospective patients about how long it will take before such techniques achieve their goals - "if at all"?

Date posted: 2005-07-19

Comments: Weissman Plays "Religion" Card; Scare Tactics With Russian "Ghosts"

The gist of the article is clearly to undermine good science and medicine - and government -- by trying to debunk the scientific credibility of those who oppose his research by playing the "Religion Card", to scare the public - and the Russians - with Ghosts of Stalin and the arms race, and to promote the same voluntary regulations as those achieved at Asilomar by his old Nobel mentor Paul Berg. In other words, fake the science, destroy the credibility of your opponents, fool the public, and shove their Freedom of Scientific Inquiry down their democratic and pluralistic throats. Big BioTech uber alles!

Date posted: 2005-07-17

Moral "Selectivity" in Scientific/Medical Fraud Issues

It should be obvious to everyone why scientific and medical integrity is so important. But why is it then that people are willing to address the blatant scientific and medical fraud in some areas, but not in others? The time is long passed to internationally expose, condemn, and deal strictly with the massive, in-your-face, and dangerous scientific and medical fraud so prevalent in human embryology and human molecular genetics that has consumed bioethicists/ethicists, researchers, clinicians, and the drug industries involved in the human embryo research, human cloning, human stem cell research issues for decades now. Scientific fraud is scientific fraud -- regardless of the area of science or medicine in which it is perpetuated -- and the damaging consequences to individuals and society are just as devastating. Often not realized is that sooner or later issues in one area of science and medicine are transferred to other issues in other areas -- and hence the fraud too is transferred as well.

Date posted: 2005-06-11

Comments: "Catholic" Bioethicist Thomas Shannon's "Implications of the Papal Allocution on Feeding Tubes"

Proportionalism is essentially a kind of utilitarianism, a moral relativism -- a deconstruction of Thomistic natural law ethics (part of the traditional philosophical basis for the Church's moral teachings). For adherents, there are absolutely no moral absolutes. Only the circumstances and the intentions of the human agent are morally relevant - to be "weighed and measured" as "risks and benefits". As expected, society trumps the individual, "consensus" of the majority makes anything "ethical", and "Papal allocutions" are there only to be ridiculed. During the "birth" of bioethics in 1978, there were a number of major figures from several different denominations who were afforded "a seat at the table" by the new bioethics. ..The blending of the "proportionalism" of Jesuit Richard McCormick (of "pre-embryo" fame) and Charles Curran -- contemporaries of Dr. Shannon -- was perfectly suited for blending with the "new" utilitarianism of bioethics. Hence was "born" the hybrid "Catholic Bioethics".

Date posted: 2005-04-16

Comments: "Inamori Foundation To Establish International Center for Ethics and Excellence at Case"

Time is running out. If there was ever a time for understanding "bioethics" for what it really is -- not what one wishes it to be -- this is it. .. There are literally dozens of different kinds of "ethics". .. [N]one of them are in any way "neutral". The newest kid on the ethics block is "bioethics", and one of the first major settings for "bioethics" was Case Western Reserve. .. [B]ioethics' ancient roots are of gnostic (pantheistic) origin. This is why the good of the "individual" in this pantheism is relegated to -- and relative to -- the good of the larger overall "society". .. One of the Founders of bioethics, Dr. Tom Beauchamp (Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University) was quick to incorporate "bioethics" into "business ethics" (and in the "ethics" of many other academic fields and professions as well). Many of his "business ethics" textbooks have been used for years in colleges, universities, companies and organizations around the world.

Date posted: 2005-04-12

Comments: "Catholic on bioethics panel says he favors cloning for stem cells"

The "scientific" claims made in the article below are so absurd, profuse, and so blatantly fly in the face of internationally accepted scientific facts that it could only be construed as pure propaganda constructed solely to advance a research agenda that would otherwise be abhorrent to the public... One quite seriously has to ask where in the world the President's Bioethics Council gets these "experts" -- and why. Don't they ever do their homework? Or would that be counter-productive to more pressing policy goals?

Date posted: 2005-03-26

Comments: "Schiavo doctor a right-to-death activist"

Dr. Cranford is a lot more than just a neurologist, a "medical ethicist", and a pioneer in euthanasia and right-to-die issues. What the article fails to identify is that he is also a BIOETHICIST. If you don't understand that and what that means, then you don't know who you are really fighting... It continues to amaze me on a daily basis why people do not know how and why bioethics suddenly came on the national scene, why it is not synonymous with "ethics" in general, and how its "ethical principles" often arrive at such preposterous and counter-intuitive conclusions.

Date posted: 2005-03-25

Comments: "Divide Undercuts [Conservative] Clone-Ban Effort"

Note in this article the fact that IVF "research" has been given an absolute green light to do any and all kinds of research that are IVF-related for decades now, and the acknowledgement that this routinely involves producing new living human embryos by in vitro fertilization for the express purpose of using them in purely destructive IVF research studies. But what the article doesn't mention is that this IVF research also involves a whole lot more than just fertilizing human embryos in vitro. ... [I]t also involves research involving the production of "research embryos" using just about every kind of human cloning and human genetic engineering technique to date. Such "research embryos" are then used as "infertility treatments" for unsuspecting infertile IVF clinic patients.

Date posted: 2005-03-20

Comments: "Britain to defy UN over therapeutic cloning ban"

Britain -- like so many other countries at the U.N. -- keeps getting away with such unethical research because it has always based it on the fake and mythological "pre-embryo" (or its "substitutes") -- even though the term has been formally rejected for years now by the international Terminologia Embryologica Nomenclature Committee(formerly,Nomina Embryologica Committee), consisting of 20-23 academically credentialed human embryologists from around the world. There is no such thing as a "pre-embryo" -- but who's caring?

Date posted: 2005-03-14

Comments: You don't Need A Sperm! (February 2005)

Apparently this physician is not aware of the long known scientific fact that human beings can be reproduced both sexually (involving an oocyte and a sperm during fertilization) and a-sexually (e.g., as the immediate product of many different cloning procedures). Almost all of us have seen human twins and triplets at one time or another. With naturally occurring monozygotic human twinning that occurs naturally in utero, one of the twins begins to exist at fertilization (i.e., sexual reproductive process that does involve a sperm). However, the other twin (or triplet) begins to exist by blastomere separation or by blastocyst splitting. These are a-sexual human reproductive processes that do not involve a sperm, but rather are naturally occurring forms of human cloning. Should we then conclude that because a sperm was not involved, one of a pair of human twins, or two of human triplets, are not human beings?

Date posted: 2005-02-05

Comments: "UNESCO Develops Universal Norms in Bioethics, Women Under-Represented"

It is hardly the "voice of women" that is under-represented at the UNESCO table, but rather the "voice of the vulnerable" -- the most vulnerable human members of the national and international communities -- e.g., the unborn (both in vivo and in vitro), the elderly, the mentally ill and retarded, the terminally ill, the physically handicapped, etc. The arbitrary bioethics principles of "autonomy", "justice", and "beneficence" (as defined in the Belmont Report) systematically deny human dignity and human rights to these most vulnerable of human beings who are not "autonomous", a fact especially blatantly obvious in the Feminist Bioethics literature. ... What we are simply witnessing is the Feminist Bioethicists' dutiful alignment with those promoting the other Bioethics agendas. ... When will these Feminists ever learn to be truly independent from Bioethics which is making such a mockery of their true beliefs, their integrity and their credibility? When will they realize that they are simply being used by Bioethics (mostly men) to advance all of these anti-women and anti-family policies? ... There is nothing "universal", "neutral", or "ethical" about "Universal Bioethics Norms".

Date posted: 2005-01-29

Comments: The Elephant in the Closet:

As incredulous and arrogant as it is, today the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) actually "celebrated" the 25th anniversary of the formal "birth of bioethics" established by the Belmont Report(1978), formally honoring those Commissioners and Staff involved. ... Yet few people still seem to realize that this legislative "feat" was originally accomplished through the Congressional mandates of the 1974 National Research Act. This Act mandated that then-Secretary Casper Weinberg of DHEW (now DHHS) appoint a "commission" to "identify the ethical principles" the U.S. government should use in issues relating to the use of "human subjects". Weinberg then appointed 11 people to the National Commission to make this auspicious decision, many of whom were honored today in this "celebration" at DHHS.

Date posted: 2004-12-15

Comments: IVF's Solution to Multiple Pregnancies: "Embryo Self-Selection"

"Blastocyst self-selection" is now seen as the IVF industry's new miraculous solution to multiple pregnancies. iinstead of implanting multiple human embryos in the woman s uterus when they are about 3 days old, the trick is to allow them to continue to develop to the 5-7 day blastocyst stage. In the process, the best human embryos will have survived the longer culture period; the weaker ones will die off. As IVF specialist Michael Tucker bluntly puts it, Simply put, this self selection can be viewed as survival of the fittest ".

Date posted: 2004-12-07

Comments: "Costly Cloning Isn't a Cure-All",

So "The Great Human Embryonic Stem Cell Fairy Tale" is beginning to unravel. It is only going to make a few private biomedical researchers and drug company CEO's mega-rich. It is not really about stem cell research to produce miracle cures for sick patients, but about human cloning in order to study the processes of diseases. That is, disabled human beings' living human embryos, human organisms (not just cells or balls of cells ) -- must be purposefully produced en masse by the vats-full by cloning sick patients body cells in order to study these diseases for future therapies that won't work either for the same reasons. And is there nothing wrong with pseudo-cloning (parthenogenesis), or with hemi-cloning (pronuclei transfer used already in some IVF treatments )? This residual confusion is an indication that many still do not understand that the scientific issue is human genetic engineering. Regardless of the definitions proposed, regardless of the techniques used, any method or process that produces new living human beings for research fodder is unethical and should be clearly and specifically prohibited by law. The Great Fairy Tale still continues, using different disguises.

Date posted: 2004-12-07

Comments: "Kaiser: Moderate Republicans Support Bill for Increased Federal Funding of HESCR"

Big BioTech has now deceptively and successfully engineered the term "stem cell research" to include stem cells derived from CLONED human embryos without the public realizing it -- hence the "increased public support". ... One reason why Kaiser might be interested in all of this is that various kinds of human cloning have been proposed by IVF researchers as "infertility treatments" -- indeed, have already been used. Does Kaiser really understand this?

Date posted: 2004-11-16

Comments: California Court Rejects False Science in Proposition 71.

The other part of the story is that, quite deceptively, the term "human embryonic stem cells" used in Proposition 71 also includes human embryonic stem cells derived a-sexually from cloned human embryos -- i.e., human embryos that have been cloned by "nuclear transfer" for the purpose of deriving stem cells from them. The organization below understood this and was sued by proponents of Proposition 71. The California Court rejected the proponents argument, agreeing that "nuclear transfer" is cloning regardless of the purpose or intention of the researchers. See the Affidavit filed on behalf of the DPTFR by scientist Dr. Stuart Newman who supported this accurate scientific claim.

Date posted: 2004-11-01

Comments: Stem cell research: No 'voodoo magic'. But maybe a miracle.

If the following research announcement is true and accurate, then it is very good news. ... This would mean that it is not necessary to clone a sick patient's cell, thereby reproducting a new human embryo, allow it to develop to the blastocyst stage, and then kill it. No embryo is ever involved. Isn't it interesting what an intellectually honest scientist can accomplish?

Date posted: 2004-10-31

Comments: "Rivals charge Prop. 71 conflict; Stem cell researcher in 'yes' ads could get rich, they contend"

It's not just the massive financial conflicts of interests that should concern California voters (and the rest of us). It is also the fabrication of science and its applications to patients and women. Weissman, the National Academy of Sciences (which had Weissman chair their committees and reports on human cloning and human embryonic stem cell research), and the NIH use false "science" as the basis for their support for "stem cell research". No academically credentialed Ph.D. human embryologist has ever been part of these or related decisions.

Date posted: 2004-10-20

Comments: "British team takes first step to cloning human embryos"

"Nuclear transplantation" is human cloning. ... Using "eggs" (oocytes) as the source of the nucleus is germ line cloning for eugenic purposes. ... The "stem cells" ultimately derived from human embryos cloned would cause rejection reactions in the patients. ... Genetically disabled human beings will be cloned, and then killed. ... Using oocytes of "awful quality" hardly engenders confidence in the use of any stem cells derived. ... Great Britain still hangs on desperately to their "pre-embryo" myth, thus women are precluded from giving legally or ethically valid informed consent. ... Hopefully Great Britain has clearly and unambiguously assured any patients that they will have competent and free follow-up medical care should they experience any physical or psychological harm (or death) because of the injection of such "stem cells" for their "therapies".

Date posted: 2004-10-20

Comments: "IVF Doctor Guilty of Misconduct"

Rather than acknowledge scientific fraud and medical malpractice and the damaging consequences they cause, all we see here are excuses of "stress" and "mental states", and complaints about the "lack of care" for doctors who find themselves in such situations -- i.e, EXPOSED. What about their professional responsibilities and accountabilities for their actions? What about the integrity of science, of medicine, of professional journals, of colleague "co-authors", of professional participants at professional conferences? What about the infertile women who are tricked into such studies? What about the masses of infertility patients who would have had this scientific fraud APPLIED TO THEM in the clinical setting by other IVF professionals had it not been caught?

Date posted: 2004-10-20

My mother was a fetal ovary

Imagine the scenario 20 years from now when a woman or a man will have to explain to their partners and children that neither their mothers nor their fathers were ever born, but rather that they came from "reconstructed" oocytes and artificial gametes concocted by some IVF technician! That also means that the children and grandchildren of these asexually reproduced men and women have no grandparents or great-grandparents! Not just the natural "family", but the entire natural "family tree" will disappear. I wonder what will take its place?

Date posted: 2004-09-29

Dolly scientists' human clone bid

The "rationale" behind the British amendment that allows Wilmut to clone human beings is exactly the same "rationale" behind Irving Weissman's California Stem Cell Initiative (Proposition 71), as well as the two reports on human cloning and HESCR he chaired for the National Academy of Sciences, and the Stearn Congressional cloning "ban". That is, they claim that the immediate product of nuclear transplantation is JUST A CELL, not an ORGANISM (i.e., a human BEING).

Date posted: 2004-09-28

American Medical Association Endorses "Pre-Embryo Splitting" [Human Cloning] as Ethical

"Despite the formal scientific rejection of the term "pre-embryo", and despite the scientific fact that "embryo splitting" -- or "twinning" -- is a cloning technique, the American Medical Association has endorsed "human pre-embryo splitting" -- i.e., human cloning -- as "ethical". Note that this form of human cloning is closely associated with In Vitro Fertilization clinics. Scientific references: (1) There is no such thing as a "pre-embryo"; (2) "Embryo-splitting", or "twinning" is a human cloning technique."

Date posted: 2004-09-11

Re "Review: Blueprint for the Earth" - and Junk Physicists

A true story: What a small world! A couple of months ago I had a very "interesting" debate with the physicist / genetic engineer whose new book is critically reviewed below. He was seated next to me at a formal judicial conference dinner I was attending with my husband, and was to speak to the conference the next day as a scientific "expert." He would help the District Court and Appellate Circuit Court judges identify "junk science" used in the courtrooms. Neither of us knew each other. What was his speech going to be about? Oh, the "junk science" currently being used in the human cloning and human embryonic stem cell research debates! Good grief. Without loosing a beat, he immediately tried to convince me that human cloning was terrific, could cure all those diseases, etc. -- but for the "crazies"! When I asked him who the "crazies" were, he responded immediately with deep disdain, "like, those crazy prolifers!

Date posted: 2004-09-05

FDA Mulls Child Stimulant Ethics

[Note: How soon we forget! My thesis as a biochemistry major involved the infamous "twin" experiments of Nazi "scientist" Mengele, where one twin was used as the "control", and the other twin was experimented on. Thus it is startling to me to see that only 60 years later, the research community seems to have forgotten those massive and horrific abuses of human subjects, and is now "confused" as to the "ethics" involved in research involving children as "controls" (see article below). The extraordinarily harsh ethical lessons learned back then that resulted in the Nuremberg Code are now merely snickered at by many researchers, but perhaps that Code should be revisited -- especially given the immense number of human subjects that will be statistically required to participate internationally in the nano/bio/info/cogno "Future" looming before us."

Date posted: 2004-09-03

"Fake Science and Scary Ethics of Cloning"

As a former bench researcher (NIH) I find the depth and degree of corruption now pervading the research and pharmaceutical agendas appalling. The ultimate question that people must ask is, if the scientists and pharmaceutical companies are so willing to blatantly lie to them for so long about THIS issue, why wouldn't they be just as willing to lie to them about the science in ANY issue - as long as it can be "ethically justified" for some "greater good" -- like money?

Date posted: 2004-08-24

A prescription for full disclosure: The results of clinical trials of many drugs are going unreported or unnoticed, which flies in the fact of science and may even harm patients

The medical scientific community has failed to self-regulate. Those who conduct clinical trials have become subservient to the drug companies that pay them. The scientific community and drug manufacturers must be held legally responsible. They must disclose the entire clinical trial data set -- not just selectively report positive findings.

Date posted: 2004-08-16

Cambodia's Premier Halts Planned Trials of AIDS Drug

Some research using human patients just shouldn't be done -- regardless of any "risk/benefit" ratio. Amazingly, even though the use of placebos is still highly debatable even among researchers, it continues to be used anyway. In "bioethics" -- the ethics used by NIH and its IRBs, etc., (below) -- the use of placebos is "ethical" because, in their utilitarian view of ethics, the benefits "outweigh" the risks. Or to put it another way, there is no research that is absolutely right or wrong. It all depends on whether or not the "benefits" outweigh the "risks" -- even if innocent human beings are made much sicker, or even die. Or put another way, the life and health of human patients in clinical trials are not absolutes for these researchers!

Date posted: 2004-08-11

California Republicans Oppose Bond Money for Stem Cell Research

The California "Stem Cell" Initiative is one of the worst hoaxes being played on the people of California. Some of the proposed research is admittedly "stem cell research" of the usual kind (i.e., stem cells derived from sexually produced IVF embryos). But some of it is clearly and unambiguously human cloning. ... So they simply redefined the product of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) as JUST "cells" --IF the "purpose" is to do research rather than to implant (aka, "therapeutic cloning"). No organism -- i.e., the human being -- is produced, they claim; gone; disappeared -- yet another in a long string of "pre-embryo substitutes" perpetuated by these big biotech "researchers". Even the cloned human "embryo" or blastocyst is redefined by them as "just a ball of cells". Voila! Just "stem CELL research"; no "cloning" involved!

Date posted: 2004-08-08

Historic Roots of Human Genetic Engineering:

From time to time it is worth slowing down long enough to get at least some sort of an historical grip on the rush of current bioethics dilemmas engulfing us. Often, at least, it helps "put a name and a face" on things, as well as put them in perspective.

Date posted: 2004-07-11

Analysis: State of Louisiana "Total Bans" on Human Cloning: Beard HB-803 and Lentini SB-873 (June 2004)

oving fast and furiously - and confusedly - in the State Capitol of Louisiana these days. The last two weeks have seen all manner of "different" Bills proposed that would appear to be "total bans" on human cloning. When one version of a Bill didn't work, then the next version was worked up and re-proposed with truly miraculous speed. The version now going to the Governor for her signature is the combined Beard/Lentini "total cloning ban" - House Bill 803 (Beard) and Senate Bill 873 (Lentini).

Date posted: 2004-06-06

Two Human Cloning "Bans" in Louisiana Would Allow Extensive Human Cloning and Human Genetic Engineering

Two different human cloning "bans" currently pending in the State of Louisiana would unfortunately allow extensive human cloning and genetic engineering of human beings.

Date posted: 2004-05-19

'My Foetus' Perpetuates Lack of Informed Consent

Women have a legal right to be informed of this accurate scientific information so that they can make a truly "informed decision".

Date posted: 2004-04-24

Delaware State Cloning "Ban": Loopholes Form Blueprints for Human Genetic Engineering

In the frantic rush to get a total ban on all human "cloning", are legislators being blind-sided with loopholes that effectively guarantee the legalization of something even more ominous -- human genetic engineering? The issue of human genetic engineering is barely being publicly discussed, yet techniques to accomplish it are being expanded exponentially in both the private and the governmental research sectors, while the public focuses only on the narrower issue of human cloning. Indeed, by defining the term "cloning" itself too narrowly, much legislation permits most other kinds of human cloning, as well as human genetic engineering, to slip beneath the radar.

Date posted: 2004-04-14

South Dakota "Abortion Bill" Trades Off One Lethal Bill For Another

The South Dakota "Abortion Bill" erroneously scientifically defines "a human being" as beginning ONLY "at fertilization" -- despite claims to the contrary. If this Bill were to pass, it would turn this false science into LAW. It would essentially constitute a new "Roe" for all human lives reproduced asexually -- both in vivo and in vitro.

Date posted: 2004-03-09

Maryland State "Prolife" Cloning Bills Won't Ban Human Cloning

It is my sincere professional opinion that Bill S-472 would require drastic measures by way of amendments and revisions before it could possibly serve the State of Maryland in the manner in which it proposes - i.e., as a Bill to prohibit human cloning. Please note that the scientific references given in the endnotes are in concert with the scientific experts in the field -- The International Nomina Embryologica Committee, which professionally requires specific scientific definitions for use in human embryology.

Date posted: 2004-03-07

"'But enough word games', Ms. Wershler: MAPs Maim and Kill"

With unabashed and utter disregard for the health and lives of both women and children - not to mention the objective scientific and medical facts -- Ms. Wershler shamelessly and desperately tries to discredit pharmacist Dr. Maria Bizecki and recent rulings by reframing the "morning-after" pill (MAP) debates solely in terms of "prolife agendas", "religious rights", and "tolerance". Why? Because that's the only route left to her and a failing industry. Enough is enough. People are far better informed about the basic science, and can no longer be fooled or manipulated. Those who persist in trying to massively misinform the public should be held to accountability - for a change.

Date posted: 2004-02-18

Irving: Caution Needed on South Dakota "Abortion Bill" - HB-1191

Aside from the "pros" and "cons" of this South Dakota "abortion bill" as listed in the article below, there is another fatal flaw, I would respectfully suggest, that should be of great concern to all those who want to protect all innocent human life. The South Dakota bill defines ALL human beings as beginning at fertilization. This is scientifically absurd and incorrect, and could lead to one bad bill (S. Dakota HB-1191) being substituted for another bad bill (Roe vs Wade) -- and another 50 years to undo it.

Date posted: 2004-02-09

South Dakota Senate Bill Allows Both "Therapeutic" and "Reproductive" Human Cloning

Because Bill SB-184 uses erroneous scientific definitions and contains numerous "loopholes", and because the Bill does not specifically address certain kinds of cloning techniques and/or human cloning materials, the Bill is not a "total ban" on many kinds of human cloning - even for "reproductive" purposes. The following analysis identifies at least 9 reasons why.

Date posted: 2004-02-03

Commentary on ex-NIH Director Bernadine Healy, the FDA, and the "morning-after" pill

If this glowing if not pathetic support for the morning-after pill by always controversial Doctor Bernadine Healy is any indication, the FDA will again by-pass genuine scientific evidence, and rule that these dangerous pills may be sold over-the-counter. Citing heady stories of (her) heroes like Planned Parenthood's Margaret Sanger, Healy negligently delivers appalling "medical" advice to naive "young girls", all along manufacturing fake science that she uses to rally them around her. When are our public service "heroes" ever going to be called to legal account for their unprofessional public dissemination of fake science used for purely political personal gain, and for the horrific damage caused by it to the unsuspecting public? The politicization of science has truly hit epidemic proportions.

Date posted: 2004-01-24

Scientific references: cloning by "twinning" (embryo splitting", Jan. 2004)

In perhaps an effort to panic the public into grudgingly agreeing to allow partial bans on human cloning to pass legislative bodies that supposedly (but don't) ban "reproductive" cloning but allow "therapeutic" (or "research") cloning, there has been a flood of articles in the last week expressing "outrage" over Dr. Zavos' recent claims in Great Britain that he has successfully implanted cloned embryos into women's uterus. But is the "outrage" really about violating women's rights by impregnating them with experimental cloned human embryos, or is it really a PR effort to rush defective legislation through?

Date posted: 2004-01-19

"Cloning and the First Fool -- Demand Proof"

Unfortunately, proponents of "total bans" can give absolutely ZERO scientific proof to support their false claims that these are "total bans" -- other than the beliefs of "their scientists" -- none of whom are human embryologists, have ever even taken a single course in human embryology, or can PROVE what they scientifically claim if you press them hard enough.

Date posted: 2004-01-18

Nebraska "Prolife" Human Cloning "Ban" Won't Ban Any Cloning

Could it be that some Nebraska Senators are "now wavering in their support" because they finally understand that their "prolife" human cloning "ban", like the federal bill on which it is explicitly based, won't ban ANY human cloning, including the cloning of human beings by means of the somatic cell nuclear transfer technique (only one of many cloning techniques)?

Date posted: 2004-01-17

President's Bioethics Council IVF Report Caves in to Fertility Industry

Imagine that in the year 2004 the term "embryo" is now considered as "politically divisive language". It leaves one breathless to see how far our culture has come to caving in to political correctness -- without the least consideration as to the destructive and lethal consequences not only to these "embryos" but to adult members of our society at large. What kind of fools do we now suffer ourselves?

Date posted: 2004-01-17

"Pro Life" Federal Cloning "Ban" Can't Help New Jersey

The New Jersey state assembly on Monday by a 41-31 vote passed what pro-life advocates are calling one of the most radical human cloning legalization bills ever proposed. If the bill is signed by the governor, as is expected, it will be legal in New Jersey to implant cloned human embryos into wombs, allow the baby to grow for nine months, and then destroy the unborn child for research.

Date posted: 2003-12-23

FDA: New drug application 21-045, Levonorgestrel ( Plan B , and Preven ), ("emergency contraceptives") and (their possible abortifacient effects)

The scientific experts who are the experts on the issue of when a human being begins to exist, and on subsequent early human development from fertilization on, are human embryologists. Although many attempt to cast even the scientific issue in "subjective" terms, it needs to be realized that in the science of human embryology these scientific experts are professionally required to follow definitions of terms according to an International Nomina Embryologica Committee (INEC).

Date posted: 2003-12-13

Speaking Out About The Costa Rican Cloning "Bust" At The United Nations

One thing clearly needs to be decided. "Either support should be given to a bill that is truly a 'total ban' on all human cloning, or else support should be given to a bill that is only a 'partial ban' on human cloning." If a bill purports to be a 'total ban' on all human cloning, but is really just a 'partial ban', then the public needs and has the right to know that fact. This is not about a "perfect" bill, or about "incrementalism". It is about stating the truth about a bill that is purported to be a 'total ban' but in reality is only a 'partial' ban on human cloning.

Date posted: 2003-11-28

'Experts' Teaching Scandals and Catholic 'Confusion'

It is painful and difficult for many to try to point out substantial errors in Church teachings that are daily being spun and processed through the media, and none of us relishes it. Yet, precisely because so much error on the official teachings of the Church is now being publicly processed around the globe it is approaching what the Church itself refers to as "scandal", and unfortunately it seems incumbent on those who observe such errors in doctrine to likewise point it out whenever possible through the media as well.

Date posted: 2003-11-19

Massive Confusion Re Church Teachings on Euthanasia by Pastors

At this point in the Terri Schiavo case, most people remain very confused as to what the official teachings of the Catholic Church really are with regard to euthanasia. Compounding this problem has been previous questionable testimony by Fr. Murphy misrepresenting the Church's teachings before the Florida court.

Date posted: 2003-11-17

Costa Rican Cloning Proposal to United Nations Won't Ban All Cloning

The recent proposal on human cloning submitted by Costa Rica and about 40 other nations for consideration by the United Nations for it's human cloning treaty deserves some serious reconsideration, as the proposal would not support a "total ban on all human cloning." In the following commentary I have emphasized those phrases in the Costa Rican proposal that need quick attention, as the issue is being debated this week at the United Nations.

Date posted: 2003-09-30

Cloning Secrets Prove Elusive; Despite Successes, Creation Seems Hit And Miss

To justify this research it is necessary for the authors to: as usual, frame the issue only in terms of "therapeutic" and "reproductive", rather than admit that there are many cloning techniques available to be used in addition to SCNT; deny the objective reality of the cloned (or uncloned) human embryo as a fully existing human being whose embryonic "stem cells" are to be mined; resort to the ole "pre-embryo" trick to assuage consciences; and redefine as "normal" what is in fact empirically "abnormal". A whole lot of redefining going on here -- just to confuse you! (DNI)

Date posted: 2003-09-15

Social and Ethical Issues in Nanotechnology: Lessons from Biotechnology and Other High Technologies

If society wants to have a seat at the biotechnology table, it must be a well-informed society, and one using the accurate scientific facts. To that end, this Biotechology Law Report is well worth reading. Issues addressed include: the urgent need for informed public input; the ever-present problem of laws not keeping up with science and technology; the use of nanotechnology to clone living human beings; and the failure of administrations, technocrats, politicians, scientists, technology companies, the military and academia due to their inherent conflict of interests which foster secrecy and false scientific data.

Date posted: 2003-08-25

Arkansas Human Cloning Ban Goes Into Effect

This article announces that the Arkansas Human Cloning Ban has gone into effect. However, there is great concern that this bill, along with numerous other bills that purport to be "total cloning bans" are seriously defective, and would therefore ban no human cloning -- either cloning by means of somatic cell nuclear transfer, or cloning by means of many other human cloning techniques (e.g., germ line cell nuclear transfer, twinning, pronuclei transfer, etc.). The following commentary, along with quite extensive direct quotations and references, is an effort to clarify the issue for those concerned. I hope these comments can be helpful. -- Dr. Dianne Irving, Ph.D.

Date posted: 2003-07-09

Dolly lab to create 'virgin birth' embryos

Please note the convergence of scientific and ethical issues concerning the use of the early human embryo in research with the use of adult human subjects in research -- especially research concerning artificial reproductive technologies (ART).

Date posted: 2003-06-11

South Carolina House Passes Pro-Life Human Cloning Ban

As I have recently indicated with previous analyses of the recent Wisconsin and Louisiana human cloning "bans", a number of bills purporting to be "total bans" on human cloning have been appearing that are not really "total bans", despite their appearances. To date I have found 10 state cloning "bans" that fail to be "total bans" for similar reason. The following is a brief analysis of the recent human cloning "ban" passed in South Carolina.

Date posted: 2003-06-07

Florida Bill banning human cloning allows some medical research

Oddly enough, the just-amended legislative "ban" of all human cloning in Florida Bill SB1726 would NOT have banned ANY human cloning any way.

Date posted: 2003-05-09

400,000 Human Embryos Frozen in U.S. Number at Fertility Clinics Is Far Greater Than Previous Estimates, Survey Finds

Why should we be surprised? Moral relativism and the free (libertine) market have always made great bedfellows. For those familiar with the early history of IVF and bioethics, the situation in which we find ourselves today was inevitable. At the same time that bioethicists were redefining early human embryos and fetuses as not human being or not human persons .....

Date posted: 2003-05-08

Conn. Supreme Court: Fetus Is Body Part

Once false science is incorporated into a law or regulation it ceases to be science anymore and becomes instead "stare decisis" -- or, legal precedent. [DNI]

Date posted: 2003-05-07

Wisconsin cloning "ban": Why it bans nothing

Many people are unknowingly supporting faulty legislation. Since the scientific problems and concerns with these bills seem to have a lot in common, it would be instructive to indicate at least some of these, using the Wisconsin bill simply as an example.

Date posted: 2003-05-05

Louisiana House Committee Approves Comprehensive Cloning Ban

A number of bills purporting to be"total bans" on human cloning have been appearing that are not really "total bans", despite their appearances. A recent news article which claims that the cloning bill just passed by the Louisiana legislature is such a "total ban". Here is a copy of the current Louisiana cloning "ban", along with Dr. Irving's comments.

Date posted: 2003-05-03

Pennsylvania Researchers Turn Stem Cells to Egg Cells

[Comment: If nothing else, this research has exposed not only the fake science that has been flooding the free (libertine) market place on these issues for years now, but also the fake dissident "Catholicism" (on both the right and on the left) that has always accompanied it, as well as the fake cloning "bans" currently being propagated on all sides of the political aisle -- and so successfully perpetrated through the Hallowed Halls of Bioethics and of Congress. The latest application of this fraud as revealed in this New York Times article represents the "joyous" revisiting of Humanae Vitae. A nice package......

Date posted: 2003-05-03

Scientific References: totipotency, twinning

Scientific references to document comments made by Dr. Dianne N. Irving, Ph.D. The references cover (1) Germ Line Cells are Totipotent, (2) Germ Line Cells Are Diploid, (3) (ICM) Cells of Blasotcyst Are Totipotent, (4) Cells of Early Human Embryo Are Totipotent; Twinning, (5) "Twinning" Most Genetically Accurate Form of Cloning, (6) References From IVF Textbooks and IVF Clinic Web Sites

Date posted: 2003-05-02

Requested Individual Testimony on Canadian Bill C-13

Having reviewed this Bill thoroughly, it is clear to me that C-13 is identical to the former Bill C-56. I will list here only the major concerns and problems I have with this Bill.

Date posted: 2002-12-09

Legally Valid Informed Consent

Obviously, "informed consent" requires that full, accurate and truthful information be disseminated to all concerned decision makers. But valid "informed consent" must also include disseminating the correct and accurate scientific information about "what" these early human embryos are -- even before discussing the ethical and public policy issues surrounding their use as sources of stem cells.

Date posted: 2002-11-01

Hentoff's Aim at Singer Misses Mark

Nat Hentoff wrote a very important piece on Peter Singer and his new appointment as tenured bioethics professor and Director of the Center for Human Values at Princeton University in theWashington Post(Sept.11, 1999) which deserves recognition and comment. ...It isnot justdisabled, or even severely disabled, human infants that Singer would render as non-persons, as Hentoff has stated it. It isallhuman infants. ... Quoting directly from today's PBS interview with Singer: "Killing a newborn baby whether able-bodied or not-- I think, is never equivalent to killing a being who wants to go on living." ... Abortion, infanticide, human embryo research, contraception, the use of abortifacients, prenatal diagnosis, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, germ-line gene therapy , curing terrible diseases, etc. -- these are all simply onlythe means by which to breed the perfect society.

Date posted: 1999-09-12