Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Christine O'Donnell on human mice, lying to Nazis, and the women of Middle Earth

I've long belittled Delaware for contributing little to the nation other than traffic jams and toll booths. But if the First State sends Christine O'Donnell to Washington, all will be forgiven.

She has been the Republican Senate nominee for mere hours, but already those investigating her past have come up with enough curiosities to fill a wing at the Smithsonian.

Three years before she discovered that her opponents were lurking in the bushes, it turns out O'Donnell was a "Republican strategist," volunteering her scientific expertise on Fox News's O'Reilly Factor. It was there, as part of a debate on stem cell research on Nov. 15, 2007, that she broke the news to Bill O'Reilly that there are mice with human brains:

O'REILLY: Everybody knows that scientists have enough knowledge to clone a human being if they wanted to.

O'DONNELL: Right.

O'REILLY: But they're not, at least not that we know of. And now they're in the monkey realm. And I don't understand, if that's the possibility that people might be cured, why the objection. Because I never buy the slippery slope....

O'DONNELL: By their own admission these groups admitted that the report that said, "Hey, yay, we cloned a monkey. Now we're using this to start cloning humans." We have to...

O'REILLY: Let them admit anything they want. But they won't do that here in the United States unless all craziness is going on.

O'DONNELL: 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.

And if you don't believe her, just ask Mickey and Minnie.

***

We know that O'Donnell was telling the truth about the mice with human brains. We know this because, several years earlier during an appearance on Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, she made clear that she would never lie -- not even to a Nazi to protect Jews from being captured:

O'DONNELL: A lie, whether it be a lie or an exaggeration, is disrespect to whoever you're exaggerating or lying to, because it's not respecting reality.

MAHER: Quite the opposite, it can be respect.

COMEDIAN EDDIE IZZARD: What if someone comes to you in the middle of the Second World War and says, 'do you have any Jewish people in your house?' and you do have them. That would be a lie. That would be disrespectful to Hitler....

O'DONNELL: I believe if I were in that situation, God would provide a way to do the right thing righteously. I believe that!

MAHER: God is not there. Hitler's there and you're there.

O'DONNELL: You never have to practice deception. God always provides a way out.

God works in mysterious ways. That's why he gave human brains to mice.

***

O'Donnell was not idle between her time on Bill Maher (in 1998) and Bill O'Reilly in 2007. In 2003, she gave a speech to the Heritage Foundation about -- wait for it -- the portrayal of women in J.R.R. Tolkien's 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy.

At the time, O'Donnell was described as "director of communications for the Intercollegiate Studies Institute." She spoke about how Tolkien properly wrote about the importance of "you know, the role of supporting your man," but the movie version rejected this feminine portrayal because the "softer side was offensive to women."

By Dana Milbank  | September 17, 2010; 12:13 AM ET
Categories:  Sketchiest moments  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Get me to the Church of Body Modification on time
Next: Lady Gaga's latest video -- it's no Alejandro

Comments

And here really lies the rights problem.

Who would really want someone with as little ability to disseminate critical facts and reach conclusions to run a government and balance a budget (she cant even balance her own)?

There is no credibility here. She such an extremist she wont allow herself to have "lust" even though its meant she has no kids which she wants. Make sense? No. She just takes ideas to exteme levels of stupidity and parses it as morality. Please.....

Posted by: Chops2 | September 17, 2010 12:54 AM | Report abuse

Wow, I learned something new! There are mice running around with human brains. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1214_051214_stem_cell.html)Maybe we can let them run the country while we run on the treadmill.

Posted by: PriRon | September 17, 2010 1:45 AM | Report abuse

SIGN OF THE APOCALYPSE
Christine O'Donnell is way too nuts to be let out in public without a keeper, much less be elected to the U.S. Senate!
If people of Delaware sends her to represent them in Washington, they should have their statehood revoked!!
Does she really believe that there are such things as "human mice"?
DQHODU

Posted by: DQHODU | September 17, 2010 1:56 AM | Report abuse

What a lunatic! Hopefully they will elect the (in his words) Bearded Marxist, Coons! That's MUCH more sane!

Posted by: jarrodmon | September 17, 2010 2:10 AM | Report abuse

Do a tiny bit of homework, and you will find far crazier things said in the past two months. She is not even viable for fux news, let alone the most serious and august lawmaking body on earth. Can you see her, or angle, or toomey, or rand paul actually having to debate or propose something serious in the senate? It would be like one of those embarassing jaw on the floor moments when you feel bad for the person who has just made such a fool of themselves and you just don't quite know how to respond because it is at once so bizzarre and so humiliating for the person.

I once had a kid ask me "how do we know Eurpoe is really there?" That would be about the intellectual lever we could expect from odonnell, toomey, angle or paul - or really any of the tea baggers.

Posted by: John1263 | September 17, 2010 6:17 AM | Report abuse

She's right! That's exactly how Karl Rove was created.

Posted by: bdunn1 | September 17, 2010 6:34 AM | Report abuse

If Ms. O'Donnell is so vehement about the lack of respect that lying - under any circumstance - shows, WHY did she lie about herself on her resume, on her website and on numerous programs and in interviews?

Can we say HYPOCRITE?

Posted by: carolineC1 | September 17, 2010 7:48 AM | Report abuse

She's right you know. Just look at Stuart Little if you need more proof. And what about Ed, the talking horse? It must be something they're putting in their tea.

Posted by: msjn1 | September 17, 2010 7:50 AM | Report abuse

Why do conservative always fall for people who have no credentials, yet claim to have all the answers. This woman has had no apparent employment in her lifetime, has not been married, has no children, can't balance a checkbook, and yet the tea folks believe she has all the answers. Just like palin, a ditzy blonde with brown hair. Actaully, she gives ditzy blondes a bad name.

Posted by: mikel7 | September 17, 2010 8:02 AM | Report abuse


Milbank, Why don't you do a check to see if there has been research on Humans and mice. You probably did and wouldn't print it. Well, here is an excerpt from a National Geographic article on such research:

"And at Stanford University in California an experiment might be done later this year to create mice with human brains.

Scientists feel that, the more humanlike the animal, the better research model it makes for testing drugs or possibly growing "spare parts," such as livers, to transplant into humans."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0125_050125_chimeras.html

Here's another one from the National Institute of Health, you know the Federal Government:

"Related articles Based on Weissman's previous experiment, he also expected that the human cells would appear at low concentrations in other parts of the mouse's brain. ..."

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2220020/

Also, what is wrong with O'Donnell turning to God if faced with a dilemma, i.e., being faced with Nazis asking if she were hiding Jews during WWII?

There are no atheists in foxholes.

The GOP started a smear campaign on O'Donnell which evidently didn't work.

Now that she's won the nomination, you liberals are smearing her with the same false and/or out of context information.

Keep it up, she made $1 million in donations overnight after the GOP had at first said they wouldn't fund her campaign.
After, they were flooded with emails citing their bitterness, they had a change of heart.

Anyway, she is much better than her Democratic opponent Coons who is a self-declared Marxist.

O'Donnell is the only choice for Delaware voters if they want to stop Obama's disastrous agenda.

Posted by: janet8 | September 17, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse


Milbank, Why don't you do a check to see if there has been research on Humans and mice. You probably did and wouldn't print it. Well, here is an excerpt from a National Geographic article on such research:

"And at Stanford University in California an experiment might be done later this year to create mice with human brains.

Scientists feel that, the more humanlike the animal, the better research model it makes for testing drugs or possibly growing "spare parts," such as livers, to transplant into humans."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0125_050125_chimeras.html

Here's another one from the National Institute of Health, you know the Federal Government:

"Related articles Based on Weissman's previous experiment, he also expected that the human cells would appear at low concentrations in other parts of the mouse's brain. ..."

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2220020/

Also, what is wrong with O'Donnell turning to God if faced with a dilemma, i.e., being faced with Nazis asking if she were hiding Jews during WWII?

There are no atheists in foxholes.

The GOP started a smear campaign on O'Donnell which evidently didn't work.

Now that she's won the nomination, you liberals are smearing her with the same false and/or out of context information.

Keep it up, she made $1 million in donations overnight after the GOP had at first said they wouldn't fund her campaign.
After, they were flooded with emails citing their bitterness, they had a change of heart.

Anyway, she is much better than her Democratic opponent Coons who is a self-declared Marxist.

O'Donnell is the only choice for Delaware voters if they want to stop Obama's disastrous agenda.

Posted by: janet8 | September 17, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

"Alaska officials on Wednesday ruled that Alaska governor and former GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin must pay back taxes to the IRS.The exact amount the governor must pay is not yet known, but the Associated Press estimates she owes taxes on more than $17,000 in per-diem expenses.State employees who live more than 50 miles away from Alaska's capital, Juneau, are entitled to state aid in the form of per-diem payments. Juneau is approximately 600 miles from Palin's home town of Wasilla, making the governor eligible for the payments. But before she accepted the vice presidential nomination, Palin charged the state for over 300 nights spent in her Wasilla home, not the governor's mansion in Juneau. Her expenses usually amounted to $60 per day..."February 18, 2009 5:46 PM CBSnews.com


That's right palin, forget integrity, and cheating. tell Odonell to hide behind fox tv. That's what you did.

Posted by: MILLER123 | September 17, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse

This is it! This is the best you could come up with? Democrats know they're in a lot of trouble!!!!

Posted by: debbieh1 | September 17, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Anyway, she is much better than her Democratic opponent Coons who is a self-declared Marxist.

Posted by: janet8 | September 17, 2010 8:28 AM

---------------------------------------------------------

False, and low.

Desperate to come up with something to counter O'Donnell's inevitably bad press, Republican operatives have dug up an article Coons wrote 25 years ago, when he was 21, in his college newspaper about his move toward the (moderate) left. He jokingly and self-depricatingly titled it "Chris Coons: The Making of a Bearded Marxist," using hyperbole that would be obvious to anyone who bothered to read the article.

Obviously, partisan hacks couldn't care less what Coons was actually saying; if there's anything that can sound incendiary out of context, they'll run with it. Case in point: pretending a joking title to a quarter-century-old article from a college student somehow reveals the politics of a man better than decade-long track record as an elected official.

The real insult is to the voters: does the GOP think Delawareans are stupid enough to believe this smear?

Posted by: Akger117 | September 17, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

big deal, everyone knows human rats have been around for years.

Posted by: earthling | September 17, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

miller123: Why don't you tell the whole story on Palin's back taxes. The question on her taxes arose during the McCain campaign and this is what actually happened:

These issues were raised during the national campaign and as result of the national campaign the governor ASKED us to look into this. So it was a result of that, said Kreitzer who is the Department of Administration Commissioner.

So Palin ASKED for the Commissioner to check it out for her.

So Palin has more integrity than Obama or any of the Democrats and a lot of other Republicans, too.

You liberals keep throwing half-truths and/or lies about these Republican women.

Looks like liberals and RINO's are afraid of the Republican women.

Posted by: janet8 | September 17, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

She makes Sarah Palin look learned intelligent. I can't wait for Katie Curic'a interview.

Posted by: sarvenk63 | September 17, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

This is it! This is the best you could come up with? Democrats know they're in a lot of trouble!!!!

Posted by: debbieh1
_________________________
no, that's not it at all. the article is just about the lunatic statements she has made. The DE GOP didn't want anything to do with her because local folks know she's unqualified to run for dogcatcher. She's run many times (and lied about carrying counties) without success. She illegally used campaign funds for personal living expenses while out of work. Has mortage, student loan and checkbood troubles, and her employment (get this, for a supposed limited government tea party type) seems to be living off government grants.

all that AND she's a lunatic.

Posted by: JoeT1 | September 17, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

I don't know about mice with human brains, but there can be little doubt when reading these comments that there are humans with the brains of mice.

Posted by: lostinthemiddle | September 17, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: janet8

Looks like liberals and RINO's are afraid of the Republican women.
+++++++
Same old tripe -- if anyone dares to question or criticize Palin, Bachman and the like, "lierals" are araid of them. But I tell you what, Delaware voters have reason to be concerned that a woman who confuses Pinky and the Brain with real life could be their senator.

Posted by: Sandydayl | September 17, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Ms O'Donnell is absolutely right! One look at Mitch McConnell confirms her conclusion that government scientists are replicating human rodents.

Posted by: jaxas70 | September 17, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

O'DONNELL: 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.

Here, ladies and gentleman, is a perfect example of how reason fails those who would support the unsupportable. Ms O'Donnell has very clearly stated that scientific companies are coming up with mice "with fully functioning brains."

To support this "slightly inconceivable" assertion, and counter those that would laugh derisively at such nonsense, Janet8 responds with this gem: "Here's another one from the National Institute of Health, you know the Federal Government:

"Related articles Based on Weissman's previous experiment, he also expected that the human cells would appear at low concentrations in other parts of the mouse's brain. ..."

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2220020/

So, janet8, please explain how "low concentrations of human cells" is equivalent to "fully functioning human brains". Not that I'm suggesting you're an expert in even slightly functioning human brains, but you did make the assertion. I doubt that I'm alone in wondering how you can defend such an incontrovertibly intellectually dishonest position. Or do you really believe the NIH has created mice who can quote Shakespeare while cooking tortellini?

Posted by: lostinthemiddle | September 17, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Surely we mis-heard O'Donnell! I am sure she said or meant to say: "There are humans running around with mice brains. I am one of them."

Posted by: AlFergsen | September 17, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Akger117 wrote:

False, and low.

Desperate to come up with something to counter O'Donnell's inevitably bad press, Republican operatives have dug up an article Coons wrote 25 years ago, when he was 21, in his college newspaper about his move toward the (moderate) left. He jokingly and self-depricatingly titled it "Chris Coons: The Making of a Bearded Marxist," using hyperbole that would be obvious to anyone who bothered to read the article.

---------------------------

So what if he wrote that years ago? They were Coons' words.

I did another search of him being a progressive (code word for socialist) and you should see all the times he is referred to as a progressive Democrat. Coons has a pollyanna wish for complete nuclear disarmament in the world. With rogue nations getting their hands on nuclear weapons' capability, that is a fools' folly. The reason the US was feared (I use past-tense since Obama has weakened our strength in the eyes of the world) was because of our nuclear capabilities.

Harry Reid refers to Coons as "my pet."

That in itself should raise a red flag for those thinking of voting for Coons.

And what about the partisan liberal hacks trashing O'Donnell when she was stating the truth about scientific experiments on humans and mice?

That's OK if the liberals are doing it. Hypocrites.

And BTW, it's the liberals, progressives, RINO's and Democratic politicians who are desperate.

Posted by: janet8 | September 17, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

It is amusing how the supporters of these demagogues crawl back into the woodwork when one directly challenges them to argue with facts and reason. It is almost like they are allergic to reality.

Posted by: lostinthemiddle | September 17, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

She spouts the usual chritian right (catholic) tripe. In Texas she'd be a moderate.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/the_top_ten_christine_odonnell_quotes.php#mor

Posted by: Boomslang | September 17, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

"And what about the partisan liberal hacks trashing O'Donnell when she was stating the truth about scientific experiments on humans and mice?"

Ok, now Janet8, you say O'Donnell was stating the truth. She said there are "mice with fully functioning human brains".
Except there are no mice with fully functioning human brains. She lied. Now you are lying, too. Aren't you even slightly ashamed of yourself for not having the integrity to admit O'Donnell was not stating the truth? You should be.

Posted by: lostinthemiddle | September 17, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Chris Coons did not write that he was a bearded Marxist.

He wrote that he returned from a working trip to Africa a changed person, one who had been quite complacently conservative, to one who better understood the impact of poverty.

His friends JOKED with him that Americans who went to Africa came back as "bearded Marxists."

This is akin to me going away for college in New England and coming back to my conservative hometown, where my high school buddies joke that those who go to NE universities come back as "bed wetting pinko commie liberals".

If I recounted this story years later, some of you dunderheads would take to the internet claiming I was a self-professed bed-wetting pinko commie liberal.

Subtle distinctions - heck, hit-you-over-the-head distinctions, are beyond the comprehension of some of you.

Posted by: hitpoints | September 17, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

There have been stories and even pictures of "Christine O'Donnell," but it is clear that this is not a real person. No one could be as ignorant as this "person" is portrayed to be. Anyone that dumb would be dragging her knuckles on the ground and hooting like a chimp.

Then again, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin seem to be real. Perhaps cross-species brains are possible. Newt (get it - "Newt") Gingrich appears to have a brain that is missing a conscience. He has admitted that how he lives - wife three and counting - and how he advises others to live are two very different concepts. There is something reptilian about that.

Posted by: phal4875 | September 17, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

I wonder who are the real fools here the people who would take anything Bill Mauer says as fact are pretty lame themselves.
We have all had idealistic ideas about what is the right thing to do about telling the truth or what should guide our beliefs so we shouldn't be so quick to judge her. As far as Mauer talking about God not being there he evidently does not know my God or he would know God is always with you.
The loud lunitic's voices can be heard all around us and it is time we realize this country was founded on simple people who believed in individual freedoms and not the rule of the elitists who think they know what is best and we should all just shut up and listen to them. I say power to the people.

Posted by: jerry110 | September 17, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

lostinthemiddle wrote:

"...So, janet8, please explain how "low concentrations of human cells" is equivalent to "fully functioning human brains". Not that I'm suggesting you're an expert in even slightly functioning human brains..."
--------------------------------

I see you didn't quote this part of my comments from National Geographic:

"And at Stanford University in California an experiment might be done later this year to create mice with human brains."

But you miss my point, which is Milbank and the rest of the liberals and RINO's make it seem like her comment is unfathomable. It isn't since there are experiments ongoing. I found one from 2003.

Posted by: janet8 | September 17, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

I think she probably represents the electorate quite well. You know, morons.

I think I'll just cut out the middleman and vote for Jesus. Although he'd probably get labeled a "socialist" by the GOP and have bricks thrown through his windows.

Posted by: Please_Fix_VAs_Roads | September 17, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Jerry110, I have no quarrels with your religion or beliefs, nor with O'Donnells. I do, however take issue with someone who claims that there are mice with fully functioning human brains and also asserts she never lies or engages in hyperbole. Since there are no mice with fully functioning human brains, it is irrefutable that O'Donnell does indeed lie and engage in hyperbole. This has absolutely nothing to do with Bill Maher, other than he provided the soapbox for O'Donnell to make such easily disproven assertions.

Posted by: lostinthemiddle | September 17, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Mice with human brains have been posting comments to WaPO for years.

Posted by: newrussianguy | September 17, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

someone better check janet8 for a tail and beady eyes....

Posted by: Observer691 | September 17, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

"And at Stanford University in California an experiment might be done later this year to create mice with human brains.

Scientists feel that, the more humanlike the animal, the better research model it makes for testing drugs or possibly growing "spare parts," such as livers, to transplant into humans."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0125_050125_chimeras.html"
_________________________________________

I see you didn't quote this part of my comments from National Geographic:

"And at Stanford University in California an experiment might be done later this year to create mice with human brains."

But you miss my point, which is Milbank and the rest of the liberals and RINO's make it seem like her comment is unfathomable. It isn't since there are experiments ongoing. I found one from 2003.

Posted by: janet8 | September 17, 2010 11:29 AM |
________________________________________

In 2005 National Geographic stated that later that year, in 2005 mind you, there might be an experiment to create mice with human brains. It is now 2010 and no such experiment has been published, no such goal has been achieved, no such thing has ever happened. Further, it was not ever the goal of these once-planned endeavours to pursue a rodent with a "fully functioning human brain".

In short, Janet, I did not miss your point. Your point is to defend a lie by someone who you support politically because you lack the maturity to concede your candidate is dishonest. Once again I will repeat O'Donnell's statement, not that I believe you have it in you to admit what she said was untrue, but because I enjoy watching the diehards jump through hoops to avoid being confronted with what they do not wish to see... "American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. "

Posted by: lostinthemiddle | September 17, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Weissman proposed to transplant human brain stem cells into the fetal mice, just before their own neurons died. His hope was to produce a living mouse with a functioning brain made up of mouse glial cells and human-derived neurons. This mouse could then be used to study human neurons in vivo in a laboratory animal, similar to the way the SCID-hu mouse, which he had helped developed in the late 1980s, allowed the study of the human immune system inside laboratory mice.
______________________________________

Note, janet8, that there is no mention of "fully functioning human brains.

Do you understand the difference between Weissman's actual goal and "fully functioning human brains.
We are having so much fun ridiculing O'Donnell's remarks because they are completely, incontrovertibly ABSURD!

Anyone unable to admit that has some serious growing up to do.

Posted by: lostinthemiddle | September 17, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

"O'DONNELL: You never have to practice deception. God always provides a way out."

This is a poor answer from a biblical perspective, considering the question posed to her. There is an example of someone lying, Rahab in Joshua, to protect innocent life and she was deemed righteous as it was an act of trust/faith. She is even in the wall of faith in Hebrews 11.

Posted by: JoelkCruz | September 17, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

mikel7: because if they had credentials they'd be "elites", and the last thing we would be want to be would be to be "elitists", y'know.

Posted by: steve1231 | September 17, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

http://bioethics.net/journal/j_articles.php?aid=1239

This is the source of the quote about Dr. Weissman above.

Posted by: lostinthemiddle | September 17, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

I am sorry that the education system failed O'Donnel, and obviously Janet8. It's clear they missed out on reading for facts and drawing conclusions. Good Golly, for the umpteenth time: just because someone you "follow" says it, doesn't make it true.

We don't don't fear anyone, just the impression idiots, no matter what party or gender can have on others who are unwilling to think for themselves. Think of it this way - it's all about the money (they can make for themselves.)

(oh, and I guess I'll never hide out at O'Donnell's house from anyone - even if my life depended on it.)

Posted by: anonymouslurker | September 17, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

anonymouslurker wrote:

I am sorry that the education system failed O'Donnel, and obviously Janet8. It's clear they missed out on reading for facts and drawing conclusions. Good Golly, for the umpteenth time: just because someone you "follow" says it, doesn't make it true.

-----------------------

Instead of belittling those who oppose your views, why not back up your comment with facts?

Posted by: janet8 | September 17, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

As for the mice with human brains, has anyone notified PETA? Let's hope that the republican ticket for president will be Sarah Palin for President and O'Donnell for V.P.

Posted by: RunnerGirl1 | September 17, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

This wacko rails against self-pleasure as if she's stirred the soup herself.

More "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" Glenn Beck Christianity.

Let's hope the teabaggers nominate more of these lunatics so the independents will vote Democratic.

Posted by: areyousaying | September 17, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

lostinthemiddle:

This is from the Salk Institute, 2005:

"Now, research at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies indicates for the first time that hESCs mature into fully functional adult brain cells and integrate into the existing nervous system when these human cells are injected in the developing brains of two-week-old mouse embryos. This novel finding paves the way for a new approach to the study of neurodegenerative disorders and has the potential to speed up the testing of therapeutic drugs to treat these diseases."

I have found numerous articles and papers on this and that was done in a short time.

Maybe O'Donnell should have added the word "cell" to her statement, but I doubt that would have made a difference to liberals bent on undermining her.

And liberals defend the lies of Obama.

Talk of hypocrites.

Posted by: janet8 | September 17, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

I think a mouse with human brain is far less scary than a human with a mouse brain, sitting the US Senate.

Posted by: AuntMuriel | September 17, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Her conscience can't abide protecting Anne Frank, but it can abide her saying she went to Princeton?

Posted by: angelas1 | September 17, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

PriRon and anyone else who erroneously used this article to make whatever statement they feel they needed to make.

Actually read the National Geographic Article. Don't use a portion of it to make a hideous case against this commentary.

The National Geographic Article is fascinating. The Mice's brain that was injected with the stem cells contain human elements mingled with the mice's own cells. The important thing to realize is that scientists are hoping to cure those individuals with neurological maladies by using the mice's brains in the scientific process. The hope is that researchers will be able to help human beings without actually harming humans in the process. .

People think before you speak or write something. Of course that is the point of Dana's sketch of O Donnell. Myself I want someone with intelligence who has the ability to comprehend what he/she reads to be voted into office.

Posted by: eashley12 | September 17, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Lmao. This is the gift that just keeps giving...

Janet8, do you, or do you not understand what "mice with fully functioning human brains" means?

Do you know what a fully functioning brains is?

Do you understand that a fully functioning human brain would have three to four hundred times the mass of an entire mouse, be able to comprehend and communicate utilizing modern languages, have the ability to perform complex coordination, have a sense of self, etc.? This is not only beyond the ability of current science, it is apparently beyond the ability of God.
I have also found numerous articles, every single one of which refutes O'Donnell and your assertions emphatically, unequivically, and with absolutely no ambiguity. There are no mice with fully functioning human brains and there never will be!!!!!
You can dodge the facts all you want. You've been at it all morning with nothing to show for it but a chorus of reasonable voices laughing at your inability to perceive how ridiculous your crusade to convince people that O'Donnell's statement is anything but science fiction. We are not belittling you; you're accomplishing that all on your own. It is not the fault of liberals that you can't discern fact from fiction. It isn't Obama's fault either.

Posted by: lostinthemiddle | September 17, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

lostinthemiddle: You are lost!

In my last comment to you I stated in the Salk study there were fully functioning brain cells.

And giving her the benefit of a doubt that maybe she was referring to the fully functionally brain CELL experiment.

You either can't comprehend what I wrote or deliberately try to twist what I write.

I think YOU are the gift that keeps on giving.

Posted by: janet8 | September 17, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

I see. It is called giving someone the benefit of the doubt when you change what they said to something else, is it? Were you giving Dr. Gage from the Salk Institute "the benefit of the doubt" when you changed the results of his research from fully functional adult brain cells to fully functioning human brain cells? The cells from the Salk research you refer to in your previous post grew into fully functioning MOUSE brain cells. So, even giving O'Donnell what you call "the benefit of the doubt", she would still be completely wrong.

Nice try, though.

Oh, and don't bother with that link to the Salk research, I read that already.

http://www.salk.edu/news/pressrelease_details.php?press_id=159
FTR, "hESCs" are human embryonic stem cells.
Although the hESCs implanted in the mouse embryos had the capacity to mature into fully integrated members of the animals' brains, they rarely did. Far less than 0.1 percent of their brain cells were of human origin, and those few had taken on the size and shape of their neighbors. "This illustrate that injecting human stem cells into mouse brains doesn't restructure the brain," explains Gage.

There is no need for anyone to "twist what you write" and anyone with an even moderately functioning human brain can comprehend what you've written - someone you support can say even the most demonstrably absurd things and you'll defend them, and when confronted with said demonstrable absurdity you will simply pretend that your candidate said something else entirely. Should you be called out for these tactics, you'll immediately blame rinos, liberals, and President Obama for your behavior because taking responsibility for your own words is not something you're capable of.
I'm so glad you find me a gift. Do feel free to keep attempting to defend the indefensible and I promise to keep gifting you with the cold, hard reality you struggle so hard to ignore.

Posted by: lostinthemiddle | September 17, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

janet8's remarks are a perfect example of what is missing in the critical faculties of O'Donnell and her followers. janet8 cites this statement from a National Geographic article as proof that O'Donnell was correct in claiming that scientists have created mice with "completely functional human brains":

"And at Stanford University in California an experiment might be done later this year to create mice with human brains."

First of all the citation is second hand without attribution. It is an example of hearsay, and for good reason this kind of evidence is excluded from court rooms because it is so often wrong.

Second, it is a hypothetical. The operative phrase is "...experiment might be done..." That is, no experiment has been done. The statement is that the experiment might be done. What are the conditions that must be met before the experiment will be done? We do not know. No information is provided in the article. More than likely it involves the article author's inability to understand what the scientists at Stanford actually said in that creating mice with "fully functional human brains" is totally infeasible at this time.

And that brings us to the final difficulty with janet8 and O'Donnell's critical faculties. Even if we were to grant that some scientist somewhere was creating mice with brains that had some attributes of humans, there would be a big difference between these mice and mice with "fully functioning" human brains. To conflate the two is to paint with such a large brush that it makes the picture produced unrecognizable.

If attributions in the National Geographic article had been cited, then a person with normal functioning critical abilities would have, before citing the article as evidence, gone to the original sources to check what is actually going on at Stanford. Any layman with reasonably accurate knowledge of the present state of cellular engineering knows that this kind of technology is probably not in the offing and probably is ultimately infeasible for existential reasons. You know like the mouse body weighing a few ounces and the human brain weighing 10 pounds.

Posted by: GaryLawrence | September 17, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Why do conservative always fall for people who have no credentials, yet claim to have all the answers. Posted by: mikel7

---------------------------

Because it's the same people who blindly believe there is a merciful God watching over us. If you believe that, you'll believe anything.

Posted by: Send_in_the_clowns | September 17, 2010 9:43 PM | Report abuse

Judging by this forum, republicans really are stupid.

Posted by: therev1 | September 18, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

The truth will come out soon enough and the voters of Delaware will decide. I would ask the media to to as thorough a search on OBAMA and his past as they are doing on O'Donnell. The media motive here is to destroy not to create as they have done to the immaculate one. His past surely is showing. At least I did not vote for him. You did. Live with it.

Posted by: charlietexas | September 18, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

When are O'DOnnell and Bachman going to run for President and Vice President!!!!
O'Donnell is the epitome of the Repugnican Party, say anything.....do nothing for the people....only your handlers...that's the Repugnican Way

Posted by: rosenfan1 | September 18, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

charlietexas- The media did do a pretty thorough job looking through Obama's past. The thing is they found very little in his past to be controversial. That's how I know who Jeremiah Wright is. You see, Obama had to defend himself against words that were spoken by another man. Not what Obama said, but what Wright said. Here, we have O'Donnell canceling interviews left and right because she knows that she is going to be asked to defend or retract what she said. Not what somebody else said. Obama didn't run and hide when the tapes of Jeremiah Wright came out. Why is O'Donnell? And why are you defending her and blaming him? What in Obama's past is showing?

Posted by: vdc138 | September 18, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

In defense of Ms. O’Donnell, I quote from the PNAS article linked below: “Our results show that human embryonic stem cells implanted in the brain ventricles of embryonic mice can differentiate into functional neural lineages and generate mature, active human neurons that successfully integrate into the adult mouse forebrain.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1317971/
The article makes for some disturbing scientific reading. It describes how the pregnant female rats are anesthetized, their embryos removed, the embryos are injected with human embryonic stem cells (hESC) and put back into the female. Pups are later born by normal vaginal delivery, some grown to the 18-month stage and then decapitated. You can make fun of her all you want, but she is speaking the truth and trying to make American taxpayers aware of this controversial experimentation being done in the name of research with our tax dollars. I am hopeful in that so many of you are upset by her mere accusations that such “research” could even exist. They also transplanted hESCs into chicks, monkeys, mice/rats, and gerbils (ref #17-29 in the article).

Posted by: cefromde | September 18, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

O'Donnell has been watching too much Pinky and The Brain.

Posted by: larballoon | September 18, 2010 9:24 PM | Report abuse

That 1980's cartoon from England, Dangermouse, featured a mouse with a fully functioning human like brain.
And he wore an eyepatch.

Posted by: edlharris | September 19, 2010 3:15 AM | Report abuse

cefromde, your attempt to defend the absurdity that there are mice with fully functioning human brains is rather sad. First of all, your claims were already thoroughly refuted above. Secondly, you conclude that O'Donnell has spoken the truth despite finding no evidence to support your conclusion. This is exactly what GaryLawrence means when he talks about "what is missing in the critical faculties". The research you make reference to happened prior to or during the year 2005. The results, as I mention in one of my posts above, showed that
Although the hESCs implanted in the mouse embryos had the capacity to mature into fully integrated members of the animals' brains, they rarely did. Far less than 0.1 percent of their brain cells were of human origin, and those few had taken on the size and shape of their neighbors. "This illustrate that injecting human stem cells into mouse brains doesn't restructure the brain," explains Gage.

There are no mice with human brains. There are no mice with human cells in their brains. There once were mice who had Human Embryonic Stem Cells injected into their brains. A very tiny percentage of those cells survived and transformed into mature MOUSE brain cells. They did not become human brain cells; they did not produce human brains. They failed even, according to the head of the study Dr. Gage, to restructure the mouse brain in any way. That conclusion ended any optimism that this type of research would provide a means for study degenerative neurological disorders such as Alzheimers; thus ending this type of research.

I understand science is anathema to the conservative Christian, and that, amongst yourselves, dire misrepresentaion of science is a very succesful tactic. When you try to convince the rest of the population, though, that your ignorant fear of scientific study is reality, you just succeed in making yourselves look hysterical and uneducated.

Posted by: lostinthemiddle | September 19, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Well, there may be some truth to this story, but I think she has it backwards. I think what she meant to say was that she is the result of a scientific experiment whereby they put the brain of a mouse in a human. It is cute, I have to give her that, but for the love of the God she so righteously turns to, do you really want a cloned Palin mouse brain to represent you Delaware? I think we need to investigate this mouse-brain insertion into mildly attractive women thing that these evil scientists have been perpetrating. I used to think Dr.'s Frankenstein, Moreau and Jekyll were fictional. I am not so sure now. See, put a mouse brain in a few cute women, have them run for Congress and no one will suspect we have this great plan to take over the world! The mouse brains will do what we say, the ignorant unthinking public will vote for cute idiots, Quayle and Bush proved that, and we take over the world! I think there was a Vincent Price movie about that! Oh my GOD!!!! Does anyone know how it ended??? Can you still rent it ??? I am hoping that the movie ended with a large group of the citizens of Delaware grabbing their pitchforks and storming the castle! That's what I'm thinkin' . Delaware saves the day! Take that you evil cloning monsters!

Posted by: lindalee23 | September 19, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

She is still smarter than the dude in SC running for senate as a democrat.

Posted by: ryanNdc | September 19, 2010 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Ms. O'Donnell has said some odd things in her diverse past, but she's not far off the truth on her mice comment. Nat-Geo did a piece on this a couple of years before her statement on O'Reilly:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1214_051214_stem_cell.html
She mis-stated a little in the rush of O'Reilly's show however, in that "Researchers in California have created living mice with functioning human stem cells in their brains."
Apparently she was more on top of the issue than most of the people who posted here, just messed up one point.
No one in the Senate has ever done that - yeah, right.
Since the topic of the discussion was stem-cell research, her statement was mostly accurate.

Posted by: DaveinVT | September 20, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

As a son of Holocaust survivors, I can say, with total confidance in my belief, that Christine O'Donnell would be the first - THE VERY FIRST - to enter the gas chambers if a Nazi-like group emerged and ordered anyone with an Irish name to appear for "relocation to the east" to an unspecified location and "take a shower." After all, why would they lie to her? Lying is deceitful!

It absolutely astonishes me that anyone with her views on not lying to Nazis on hiding Jews, partaking of witchcraft rituals - involving the use of blood, no less - would be the Republican nominee of the "First State" of Delware is beyond my comprehension.

I am reminded of that incredibly funny scene from Saturday Night Live where Tina Fay and Amy Pohler are playing Sarah Palin and Hilary Clinton, respectively, shortly after the real Palin was nominated for Vice President and Clinton, of course, lost the nomination to Obama. The two are sharing a podium where they are, ostensibly, celebrating the rise of women to positions of political power. While Palin preens before the cameras, "Clinton" says with a growing, maniacal shrill of realization, "We're fortunate to live in a country where anybody can be president...Anybody!...ANYBODY!!!...ANYBODY!!!!!!"

Posted by: lenagabe1 | September 20, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

You see the difference in her 'mis-stated' comment belies not just inaccuracy but the basic lack of intelligence to understand what she has obviously been trained to comment on. That has been the problem with most of the groomed imbeciles that have come down the pike. George Bush once said, "I think it was in the Rose Garden where I issued this brilliant statement: If I had a magic wand -- but the president doesn't have a magic wand. You just can't say, 'low gas.'" Dan Quayle once said , We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a *part* of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a *part* of Europe. Sarah Palin once came up with this brilliant verbal exchange with Katie Couric , Katie Couric: "What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?"
Sarah Palin: "Well, let's see. There's --of course --in the great history of America rulings there have been rulings, there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are -- those issues, again, like Roe v Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know -- going through the history of America, there would be others but--"
Couric: "Can you think of any?"
Palin: "Well, I could think of -- of any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a Vice President, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today." --unable to name any Supreme Court decisions other than Roe v. Wade, CBS News interview, Oct. 1, 2008
And now we have the brilliant O'Donnell. Wow! Hard to figure that the Republican party which used to be, though I rarely agreed with them, a party of at least reputable, intelligent thinkers, men and women who were simply conservative not idiots for the most part, have come down to being highjacked by a bunch of ranting fanatics who have rarely, if ever, cracked open a book, certainly not any history books. Is this what they have become? It is embarrassing. Oh, I am not saying they cannot get elected. The above mentioned are sad cases of our public decline in the thinking department. Personally, I want someone to represent me that is at least as smart as I am, preferably SMARTER than I am. That would be why I would follow someone's lead. I tend not to follow the mumbler or an obvious illiterate when literacy is needed in the job. Thinking is needed in these jobs. Maybe that is what we have forgotten. We have become so ethnocentric that we think we own the world. No one can harm us, no one can beat us. Well, I am telling you this is a dangerous game. Imagine Palin if there was a terrorist attack? I guess the cute little sayings, the 'got ya;'s' and the ' how ya doin's' and the 'Gosh darn I love America' rhetoric just doesn't make you feel safe does it? Now, imagine O'Donnell in charge of YOUR checkbook? Watch out Delaware.

Posted by: lindalee23 | September 20, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Geneticist Fred Gage injected embryonic human cells into two-week-old fetal mice as they developed in the womb. When the mice matured, some human stem cells survived and became functional components of the mice's brains and nervous systems.

Less than one-tenth of one percent of the test mice's brain cells are human.

"When we characterized these cells two months later, we found that [they] had the [form and structure] and characteristics of mouse cells," said Gage, co-director of the genetics laboratory at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego.

"It is truly amazing that these human stem cells, although they are very immature, can still … respond to different cues in their environment and can fit right in with their mouse neighbors."

"This illustrates that injecting human stem cells into mouse brains doesn't restructure the brain," Gage added.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1214_051214_stem_cell.html

Posted by: sbhat3 | September 21, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Geneticist Fred Gage injected embryonic human cells into two-week-old fetal mice as they developed in the womb. When the mice matured, some human stem cells survived and became functional components of the mice's brains and nervous systems.

Less than one-tenth of one percent of the test mice's brain cells are human.

"When we characterized these cells two months later, we found that [they] had the [form and structure] and characteristics of mouse cells," said Gage, co-director of the genetics laboratory at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego.

"It is truly amazing that these human stem cells, although they are very immature, can still … respond to different cues in their environment and can fit right in with their mouse neighbors."

"This illustrates that injecting human stem cells into mouse brains doesn't restructure the brain," Gage added.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1214_051214_stem_cell.html

Miss O'Donell is clearly misinterpreting what has been said in this article or...may be does not want to understand

Posted by: sbhat3 | September 21, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

This is actually (almost) real. While there was no crossbreeding, human stem cells have been injected into the brains of mice five years ago, so..yes, there are mice running around with human brain cells in their heads, as reported by the National Geographic website on December 14th...

...and the Washington Post on December 13th.

So Dana? Why did you neglect to do even the most basic research before launching into an opinionated attack on what you thought was a ludicrous claim? The first google page of a "Mice with human brains" search uncovered the Post's own article about this story, as well as three other related articles.

How much do they pay you NOT to do your job?

And @ O'Donnell....wow, you really need to learn how to read. You did exaggerate, grossly, perhaps it was the word "Stem Cell" that put you into an emo-rage across the mediascape...

Or maybe, you made the claim seem stupid and overblown so people would rush to ridicule you, then these real articles would come out to justify your claim? Clever, but wth? What kind of drama-lama politics is this? Just because it has been working in the recent past doesn't mean it will continue to. People are catching on. Everything you do and say is being kept in these nice, easily searched digital files on the internet. In other words...WE SEE WHAT YOU ARE DOING! This might be a good time to stop assuming everyone is an idiot and just say it straight, instead of trying to be clever.

Posted by: VoidAnnoyed | September 21, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

I don't know about mice with human brains, but Ms O'Donnell's very existence suggests that perhaps one experiment involving a human with a mouse brain has escaped from the lab.

Posted by: jonathanjerald | September 21, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

I must refute the posting by “lostinthemiddle” and clarify his/her misinterpretation of the facts in the referenced study. I would encourage “lost” and others on this forum to actually read the study I linked in my previous post.
This study was published because it was a success – in PNAS, no less, which is a highly-respected trade journal. The reference to the hESCs not restructuring the brain refers to the physical structure (i.e., the human cells did not change the size or shape of the mouse brain) and is evidence of “success” in that human neural cells function in the pre-existing cellular architecture of mice brains. This study was successful in producing a live and functioning mouse-human chimeric nervous system, regardless of which percent is human vs. mouse. Even if you read only the ABSTRACT and DISCUSSION, you will understand that there are, indeed, mice (and monkeys and chicks and gerbils) implanted with human brain cells and these human cells form synaptic connections with other species.
To make the slippery-slope argument, the DISCUSSION portion of the study makes reference to “ethically controversial blastocyst transplantation. “ I would call it ethically repugnant, not controversial, to even consider the transplantation of an entire human blastocyst into a non-human animal. We have to decide as a society – and not have scientists or government dictate – as to what type of research is acceptable and where we are willing to have our tax dollars spent. I am not “anti-science” or “uneducated” – quite the contrary. This discussion is valuable and timely, considering that Pilosi is pushing to rescind the Dickey-Wicker amendment. Since 1995, this policy rider has been placed on every appropriations bill funding the activities of the National Institutes of Health. It bans federal funding for any research which would destroy or bring harm to a human embryo. Most of us have been touched by disease -- ourselves, our friends, our relatives – and want cures. My personal view is that we should not destroy live human embryos for research, whether they were created as a result of infertility treatment or created intentionally through IVF or SCNT (cloning) for research; hESCs should not be bought and sold; and our tax dollars should not be used for any of this controversial experimentation. That’s my personal opinion, and you are perfectly entitled to have your own. But it’s a discussion that should be had. Obama unilaterally expanded federal funding on this research with a sweep of the pen and that is currently being challenged in court, with bans being enacted then lifted. In Delaware, a vote FOR Christine O’Donnell for U.S. Senate in November would insure that my tax dollars are not used for embryo-destructive research. I cannot say the same thing for her opponent.

Posted by: cefromde | September 22, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company