"The Great Stem Cell Coverup"
I have a piece in the newly released Weekly Standard about "embryonic stem cell mantra," and the lack of coverage about adult stem cell research advances. I think it requires a subscription to access, but here is the link (which may be generally accessible later).
For those who can't get the article, here is a very abridged summary. I begin, "IT HAS BEEN REPEATED so often that it is now a mantra: 'Embryonic stem cells offer the most promise for finding cures' for degenerative diseases and conditions such as Parkinson's disease and spinal cord injury. But saying something ten thousand times doesn't make it true. Indeed, the embryonic stem cell mantra has yet to be demonstrated scientifically.
"More than that, the actual data published to date in peer-reviewed science journals tell a far different story. While there have certainly been successes in embryonic stem cell experiments in animal studies--many of them hyped to the hilt in mainstream media reports--the numbers pale in comparison with the many research advances being made with adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells, which are already being used in human patients."
I describe two such adult stem cell studies as examples; one involving the progress of MS being apparently stopped by blood stem cells and the other the Carlos Lima paper reporting on his pilot program using olfactory mucosa to treat spinal cord injury. I write, "If Lima had used embryonic stem cells to help human patients recover some sensation after spinal cord injury, the headline in the New York Times would have been printed two inches high in red ink," and note that the media usually ignores these studies while hyping any embryonic advance.
"There is a reason for the news blackout about the many encouraging advances in adult stem cell science," I opine. "Worried that adult/umbilical cord blood research successes might tip public support away from embryonic research, proponents of federal funding for embryonic stem cell studies, aided by a compliant press, have mounted a vigorous campaign to downplay adult stem cell research."
I then defend David Prentice, who was the subject of an unfair attack in Science by promoters of human cloning and ESCR. I point out that by these advocates' own standard, that research advances don't really count unless they are in regular clinical practice and fully approved by the FDA, "embryonic stem cell-boosting scientists and their boosters in the media had better stop chanting the embryonic stem cell mantra," since they have zero results that would qualify.
Here is my conclusion: "Embryonic stem cells have not treated a single human patient, and only time can tell whether they ever will. Highlighting the progress of adult/umbilical cord blood stem cells...is a legitimate part of the public discourse. Indeed, the unfair attack on Prentice for educating the public about the potential of adult stem cells may indicate that these scientist/political advocates know where the true best hope for regenerative medical treatments is likely to be found."
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 11:08 AM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
I'll say it again: those of us who understand this issue have been FAR too polite and patient up to this point. There comes a time when you have to stop clearing your throat waiting for the media to listen, and to start taking over.
An editorial in my local newspaper claimed that "As nearly three out of four Americans have concluded, stem-cell research is too promising not to be pursued vigorously, and with suitable federal support." I wondered how the writer could know that. I found two outfits backing polls with stem-cell findings. One, the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, pointed readers toward a poll question in May. It was close to a carny barker's appeal to the Lake Wobegon rubes to ogle the dancing girls:
Question V1
I’m going to read you a brief description of embryonic stem cell research, and then get your reaction. Embryonic stem cells are special cells that can develop into every type of cell in the human body. The stem cells are extracted from embryonic cells produced in fertility clinics and then frozen days after fertilization. If a couple decides that the fertilized eggs are no longer needed, they can choose to donate the embryos for research or the clinic will throw the embryos away. Scientists have had success in initial research with embryonic stem cells and believe that they can be developed into cures for diseases such as cancer, Parkinson’s, heart disease, juvenile diabetes, and spinal cord injuries.
There ought to be a law: anyone releasing a poll for public attention ought to also reveal all the poll's questions. And leading statements, such as the one that preceded the question, ought to be barred.
Alfed J. Lemire
8 Blair St.
Worcester, Ma 01602-1430
I erred in my earlier comment. I failed to copy over the question that followed the leading statement:
Having heard this description, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose medical research that uses stem cells from human embryos?
What do people know when they respond and how can one credit whatever response that question got, giving the words that preceded it?
Alfred Lemire
The polls depend on how the question is asked. IF the poll question mentions that ESCR destroys embryos, support is lower. If it mentions using IVF embryos that are going to be destroyed anyway, support is higher.
Majorities oppose human cloning for any reason, which is where all of this is really heading. Which, of course, is why the biotech propagandists now insist that SCNT isn't cloning. Except in the UK, where is is widely accepted, where they admit that SCNT is cloning.
Science is becoming post modern, you see. Too often, it isn't about facts anymore. It is about narratives and political agendas.
Post a Comment
<< Home