Right Minded Online

The AP has a story out on negative side-effects resulting from injecting fetal stem cells into a child with a deadly brain disease. I am familiar with embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells, but had to do some digging to find out exactly where fetal stem cells come from, or, more precisely, if they are extracted from aborted fetuses. As it turns out, they are derived from fetuses that are miscarried or aborted, which, of course, raises just as many ethical red flags as embryonic stem cells.

A family desperate to save a child from a lethal brain disease sought highly experimental injections of fetal stem cells—injections that triggered tumors in the boys brain and spinal cord, Israeli scientists reported Tuesday.

Scientists are furiously trying to harness different types of stem cells—the building blocks for other cells in the body—to regrow damaged tissues and thus treat devastating diseases. But for all the promise, researchers have long warned that they must learn to control newly injected stem cells so they dont grow where they shouldnt, and small studies in people are only just beginning.

Report: Fetal stem cells trigger tumors in ill boy.

The Japanese have figured out a way to harvest adult stem-cells from wisdom teeth.

There are three major scientific areas of study that have become so politicized that truth has been obfuscated in favor of political expediency.

The first such area of study is creation vs. evolution. Those who espouse evolution have been successful in having their theories labeled as “science,” whereas advocates of creation have been relegated to the back seat of religious zealotry. And if one attempts to refute evolution, even on purely scientific grounds, he is summarily dismissed as being “anti-science.”

The second such area of study is global warming. The science behind global warming has been replaced with religious-like zeal, and, like the previous example, those who attempt to refute global warming, even on scientific grounds, are called “deniers” and are similarly labeled “anti-science.”

The third scientific area of study that has become politicized is stem-cell research, where embryonic stem-cell (ESC) research has become all the rage, while adult stem-cell (ASC) research receives scant attention.

The irony is that ASC’s, as of last November, have provided the medical community with 73 individual therapies, helping those who suffer from cancer, leukemia, anemia, inherited genetic disorder, heart disease, spinal cord injuries, and diabetes, to name a few.

At the same time, ESC researchers have given us exactly zero therapies. No clinical trials. No diseases being treated. No patients talking about how ESC’s changed their lives. Nothing.

Yet, by the way ESC research is touted by the media and liberal politicians, you would think we were on the brink of solving all human suffering.

While those who advocate the exclusive pursuance of ASC research aren’t necessarily referred to as deniers or labeled anti-science, we are accused of standing in the way of potential medical breakthroughs, while nothing could be further from the truth.

For example, scientists in Japan and researchers at the University of Wisconsin were recently able to transform human skin cells into embryonic-like stem cells. Jennifer Lahl, national director of the Center for Bioethics and Culture, remarked “We don’t have to create embryos. We don’t have to clone embryos. We don’t have to destroy human embryos.”

Despite this breakthrough, advocates of ESC research continue to pursue federal and state funding, often against the wishes of taxpayers.

Since ESC research, like so many of the things liberals pursue, has resulted in nothing but failure, private funding has largely drifted over to ASC research, owing to its numerous successes and real-world applications.

Proponents of ESC research like to point to the fact that ESC’s are flexible, meaning that they can change into every cell type of the body. What the media don’t tell you is that ASC’s are flexible, too. Researchers often refer to this ability to specialize into every cell type as “pluripotency.”

For example, baby teeth are a rich source of adult (non-embryonic) stem cells. Stem cells from dental pulp can differentiate into neural, fat, and tooth-forming cells.

Adult stem cells taken from the blood can differentiate into liver and nerve cells.

Bone marrow stem cells can make significant amounts of new lung tissue.

Cord blood cells, a type of adult stem cells that come from the umbilical cords of newborns, contain mesenchymal stem cells, which can change into skeletal muscle cells.

Nasal stem cells can develop into heart, liver, kidney, muscle, brain, and nerve cells.

The complete list goes on for quite a while.

Given this information, why does the political left continue to pursue government-funding for carving up human embryos given its track record of failure, while shrugging off the results provided by ASC research?

It all comes down to abortion. Abortion is the sacrament of the Democrat Party. And step one to maintaining abortion rights is to dehumanize the unborn. By advancing the lie that dissecting human embryos might provide life-saving treatments for the most ravaging diseases, abortion-rights advocates create the perception that the benefits of snuffing out potential human life is of no ethical concern given the benefits. Unfortunately for ESC researchers, the only benefits being provided come from ASC’s, which do not require the destruction of human life.

In other words, the left is far more committed to abortion rights than medical science.

Although the politicization of stem-cell research isn’t necessarily inhibiting the successes being reaped by ASC researchers, the ethical concerns cannot be ignored. Aside from the ethical dilemma associated with destroying human embryos, there is also the ethical dilemma of spreading false hope among those with diseases that ESC research is supposed to cure.

Consider the ridiculous claim made by John Edwards during the last presidential campaign that “We will stop juvenile diabetes, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and other debilitating diseases…. When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.”

Shame on those who would play on the hopes of disease sufferers in order to get a vote. It’s what happens when truth is sacrificed for political expediency. Indeed, ignorance is perhaps the most expensive “commodity” that exists. There’s a lot of ignorance when it comes to stem-cell research, and if liberal politicians are ever given their way, it will be mighty expensive for taxpayers…and the unborn.

Actor Ben Stein tells us:

Intelligent design theory, or ID, is opening new doors of scientific research, particularly in cancer and other disease research, according to its adherents, but a new movie, “Expelled” starring Ben Stein explores how an “elitist scientific establishment” is apparently muzzling and smearing scientists who publicly discuss ID.

The First Amendment is under brutal attack in the scientific community, Ben Stein, a former presidential speechwriter-turned-actor and commentator, says in the film, which opens in theaters on Feb. 12.

“I always assumed scientists were free to ask any question, pursue any line of inquiry without fear or reprisal,” he says. “But recently, I’ve been alarmed to discover that this is not the case.”

In an exclusive interview with Cybercast News Service – with audio clips below – Stein contends that rigid Darwinists are silencing their critics in academia, which the film explores, and discusses how ID ideas are helping in cancer research and similar work.

Yet the ID research that could potentially produce medical breakthroughs, says Stein, is also being undermined by Darwinian scientists who don’t want ID research viewed as legitimate.

This, of course, is strikingly similar to stem-cell research. Adult stem-cell (ASC) research is getting all the results in the medical field, but liberals keep pushing embryonic stem-cell (ESC) research. Private money for ESC research is drying up because of its lack of results, and so the left is pushing hard for taxpayer funding of ESC research. Why? It’s all about abortion. Darwinism is the religion of the left. It’s the creation story for the godless. And abortion is the sacrament. The number one objective of the Democrat Party is to keep abortion legal at all cost. The most effective way to do that is to continue to deny the humanity of the unborn. And ESC research, which involves carving up human embryos, enables that denial of humanity.

It appears that scientists in Japan and researchers at the University of Wisconsin have transformed human skin cells into embryonic-like stem cells. Jennifer Lahl, national director of the Center for Bioethics and Culture, remarked “We don’t have to create embryos. We don’t have to clone embryos. We don’t have to destroy human embryos.”

In addition, there are now 73 adult stem-cell therapies, compared to zero of the embryonic variety. So all this means an end to embryonic stem-cell research, right? Not on your life. Embryonic stem-cell research isn’t about finding cures for diseases. If it were, then we would have abandoned that avenue long ago and put all our chips on adult stem-cell research. Embryonic stem-cell research is all about keeping abortion legal, because carving up human embryos under the guise of “medical research” helps abortion advocates dehumanize the unborn, which is step one in maintaining abortion rights.

Additional link: What the Media Won’t Tell You About Stem Cell Research

If you recall, Democrat senate candidates in a least three states (Maryland, Missouri, and Virginia) relied on actor Michael J. Fox to do their bidding for them. In his campaign commercial on behalf of Democrat Ben Cardin, for example, Fox, who suffers from Parkinson’s, issued the following plea:

“Stem-cell research offers hope to millions of Americans with diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s. But George Bush and Michael Steele would put limits on the most promising stem-cell research. Fortunately, Marylanders have a chance to vote for Ben Cardin. Cardin fully supports life-saving stem-cell research. It’s why I support Ben Cardin, and with so much at stake, I respectfully ask you to do the same.”

The implication was clear: Republicans are standing in the way of cures for these diseases. A vote for the Democrats is a vote for these cures. It was much like the campaign promise that vice-presidential candidate John Edwards made back in 2004: “We will stop juvenile diabetes, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and other debilitating diseases…. When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.”

The problem with Congressional Democrats and stem-cell research is that they often don’t differentiate between the two types: adult stem-cells (ASC’s) and embryonic stem-cells (ESC’s). ASC’s are found in a variety of tissues in human beings of all ages, and are even plentiful in umbilical cord blood and placentas. Deriving ESC’s, on the other hand, typically requires carving up human embryos. In other words, obtaining ASC’s does not require the destruction of human life. Obtaining ESC’s usually does.

There have been a myriad of medical advancements in the field of ASC research. Mary L. Davenport, an ob/gyn and Fellow of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, published an article in “The American Thinker” last October 25 that she titled “The Unconscionable Claims of Michael J. Fox.” She writes:

“The plain fact is that embryonic stem cell research is proving to be a bust. There are currently 72 therapies showing human benefits using adult stem cells and zero using embryonic stem cells. Scientifically-minded readers can review this medical journal article on the status of adult stem cell research. Adult stem cell therapies are already being advertised and promoted while no such treatments are even remotely in prospect for embryonic stem cell research.”

Since that article was written, scientists from Wake Forest and Harvard have revealed yet another breakthrough by using ASC’s derived from amniotic fluid to create muscle, bone, fat, blood vessel, nerve, and liver cells.

It is completely false that Republicans oppose stem-cell research. Those of us who oppose ESC research do so because it typically involves destroying human life, and oppose federal funding because, in 26 years of ESC research, it has yet to provide one therapy showing human benefits, with none even on the horizon.

On the other hand, there is whole-hearted support of ASC research on the right because it provides a myriad of practical medical applications while presenting no ethical concerns.

Congressional Democrats remain unshaken in their support of expanded federal funding for ESC research. In fact, when the Wake Forest/Harvard researchers announced their success, Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-CO) retorted “I do think that the study is fantastic news and [I] welcome it, but it’s not a substitute for embryonic stem cell research.”

ESC research has provided nothing but failure, yet Democrats herald the promises such research holds while downplaying the remarkable advances that have already been realized through ASC research, which illustrates the pitfall of politicizing science.

It boils down to one thing. Democrats who cling to ESC research do so in order to protect abortion, which is the sacrament of the Democratic Party. Step one to maintaining (or expanding) abortion rights is to dehumanize the unborn, which ESC research helps them to do. If Democrats ever let go of ESC research, especially for ethical reasons, then there goes abortion.

Let’s go back to Fox’s claim that “George Bush…would put limits on the most promising stem-cell research.” In 2001, President Bush became the first U.S. president to actually open federal funding for ESC research, which he did for a limited number of existing stem-cell lines.

Demand for taxpayer-funded ESC research is even greater now, because ESC research has proven such a failure that most of the private money used for stem-cell research is being directed to ASC’s. With private money for ESC research having dried up due to its lack of success, researchers are demanding that funding for their futile endeavors now come from the taxpayers, and have turned to the Democratic Party in order to make that happen.

The Tennessean ran an editorial today advocating expanded taxpayer-funded embryonic stem-cell research. I’m not going to carve up the whole thing, because I’ve said it all before, but there are a few errors that do need to be cleaned up. First, the Tennessean:

As the U.S. House of Representatives moved last week toward lifting a ban on funding of new embryonic stem-cell research, a new study created a stir.

A study of stem cells drawn from the amniotic fluid of pregnant women showed great promise for medical research that did not result in destruction of embryonic cells.

Stem-cells derived from amniotic fluid do not qualify as embryonic stem-cells. They would fall under the category of “adult stem-cells” since they are not derived from human embryos.

Tennessean: “Nearly six years after President Bush imposed a ban on federal funding based on moral grounds, the controversy has never been greater.”

Not only did President Bush NOT impose a ban on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, he became the first U.S. president to actually open up federal funding for that type of research.

Tennessean: “House Democratic leaders voted Thursday to lift the funding ban….”

No! House Democrats voted to EXPAND existing federal funding.

Tennessean: “Study of the 71 embryonic stem-cell lines in place before the funding ban has now dwindled to about 22, as some lines are contaminated and cannot be replicated.”

A White House press release notes that:

The Eligible Lines Are Not Contaminated, And Are Very Widely Used By Researchers. The use of mouse cells is standard scientific practice. As the FDA has indicated, the resulting stem cell lines can be carefully screened to ensure they are safe for use in any future clinical trials. Drug and biological products are routinely co-cultured with animal cells with no adverse consequences for the millions of people who have benefited from them. The FDA has proven itself time and again to be fully capable of ensuring the safety and efficacy of such products.

Tom Okarma, CEO Of The Stem Cell Company Geron: “So the stuff you hear published that all of those lines are irrevocably contaminated with mouse materials and could never be used in people – hogwash. If you know how to grow them, they’re fine.” (Steven Edwards, “Scrutinizing A Stem Cell Trial,” Wired News, 3/29/06)

Finally, the Tennessean notes that:

As to whether the Wake Forest-Harvard study means amniotic cell research can ever replace embryonic stem-cell research, Magnuson replied, “Absolutely not, and possibly never.” It is not known whether amniotic cells can replicate every type of cell.

First, the Wake Forest/Harvard study revealed that adult stem-cells derived from amniotic fluid have been used to create muscle, bone, fat, blood vessel, nerve and liver cells.

Second, Mary L. Davenport, an obstetrician/gynecologist and Fellow of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology wrote in The American Thinker last October that:

The plain fact is that embryonic stem cell research is proving to be a bust. There are currently 72 therapies showing human benefits using adult stem cells and zero using embryonic stem cells. Scientifically-minded readers can review this medical journal article on the status of adult stem cell research. Adult stem cell therapies are already being advertised and promoted while no such treatments are even remotely in prospect for embryonic stem cell research.

But I guess the Tennessean shouldn’t let failure get in the way of a good political argument.

During last Tuesday’s program, the Maha Rushie dissected the left’s pooh-poohing the revelation that stem-cell researchers have found that amniotic fluid contains adult stem cells in abundance. (Adult stem-cells are the kinds that don’t require researchers to carve up human embryos. The left therefore doesn’t like adult stem cells.) The news prompted Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO) to remark “I do think that the study is fantastic news and [I] welcome it, but it’s not a substitute for embryonic stem cell research. This research is going on around the world, and has been for seven or eight years.” (Actually, embryonic stem-cell research began in 1981.)

I doubt that she welcomes it. Right now, the score of adult stem-cells vs. embryonic stem-cells is some large number to zero. Every victory for adult stem-cells leaves the embryonic kind even farther in the dust. So why does the left cling to comething that has been proven to be such an utter and complete failure? To protect it’s holy sacrament: abortion.

As Rush noted during his program back on October 24, 2006, after the Michael J. Fox advertisements had broken:

The Democrats politicized spinal paralysis and spinal injuries in the 2004 campaign, and now they are politicizing Parkinson’s disease, and they’ve done that, and it’s all about stem cell research, and of course embryonic stem cell research. Any bit of information or research that shows progress in either of these areas that does not involve stem cell, embryonic stem cell research, is rejected by the left. Now, why is this? What is so d***** important about embryonic stem cell research? Why not adult stem cells? Why not research on umbilical cord blood cells that can be extracted from the blood in the umbilical cord? Because you can’t take abortion out of this mix. Just because it’s not being talked about in this campaign, do not be lulled and fooled into thinking that abortion does not remain the sacrament of the Democratic Party and its religion. It is the thing that they will never once compromise on, and they think that anything that stands in the way of embryonic stem cell research is going to be an obstacle to having abortions, and the converse is true.

I could not have said it any better.

The BBC ran a shocking news story two days ago, “Ukraine babies in stem cell probe.”

Healthy new-born babies may have been killed in Ukraine to feed a flourishing international trade in stem cells, evidence obtained by the BBC suggests.

Disturbing video footage of post-mortem examinations on dismembered tiny bodies raises serious questions about what happened to them.

Ukraine has become the self-styled stem cell capital of the world.

There is a trade in stem cells from aborted foetuses, amid unproven claims they can help fight many diseases.

But now there are claims that stem cells are also being harvested from live babies.

Wall of silence

The BBC has spoken to mothers from the city of Kharkiv who say they gave birth to healthy babies, only to have them taken by maternity staff.

Thank you, BBC, for having the courage to run this story. Usually, the mainstream press is sympathetic to embryonic stem cell research (which it sometimes lumps under the general “stem cell research” in order to paint opponents as extremists). Certainly, the BBC report, if substantiated, points to the ultimate end for which opponents of embryonic stem cell research raise ethical concerns in the first place — that if are willing to dismember human embryos in the earliest stages now, we might one day be willing to dismember unborn human beings that are fully developed in order to harvest their spare parts.

Mary L. Davenport, an obstetrician/gynecologist and Fellow of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has an article at The American Thinker that completely and irrefutably takes apart the dishonest argument made by Michael J. Fox that “Stem cell research offers hope to millions of Americans with diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s….” Here’s Dr. Davenport:

The plain fact is that embryonic stem cell research is proving to be a bust. There are currently 72 therapies showing human benefits using adult stem cells and zero using embryonic stem cells. Scientifically-minded readers can review this medical journal article on the status of adult stem cell research. Adult stem cell therapies are already being advertised and promoted while no such treatments are even remotely in prospect for embryonic stem cell research.

The mainstream press has exhibited profound ignorance on the nature of Michael J. Fox’s advertisement and the subject of stem cell research itself in its coverage, as illustrated by a Reuters piece written yesterday, “Actor Fox sparks debate, support for stem cells,” which typifies the shallowness of the media coverage of this controversy.

Reuters: “A poll released late on Wednesday showed that U.S. voters’ support for stem cell research jumped 5 percentage points after they viewed a television ad in which Fox — whose body shook with spasms from Parkinson’s — states his support for candidates who favor the research.”

Fact: There are two types of stem cell research: embryonic and adult. It is disingenuous to lump the two together. The type of stem cell research that Fox is advocating is embryonic. Again, Dr. Davenport writes “Adult stem cell therapies are already being advertised and promoted while no such treatments are even remotely in prospect for embryonic stem cell research.”

The issue that started it all is Missouri’s Constitutional Amendment 2, the “Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative.” In a nutshell, the amendment would “ensure that Missouri patients have access to stem cell therapies and cures, that Missouri researchers can conduct stem cell research in the state, and that all such research is conducted safely and ethically, any stem cell research permitted under federal law may be conducted in Missouri, and any stem cell therapies and cures permitted under federal law may be provided to patients in Missouri, subject to the requirements of federal law….”

In other words, Missouri’s Constitutional Amendment 2 would make legal that which is already legal under federal law. All the material that deals with stem cell research is meaningless. The real teeth of this amendment deals with human cloning, which is curiously absent from the amendment’s title.

Voting against the amendment — and Senator Jim Talent opposes it — would not ban any form of stem cell research in Missouri, because that’s not the way it’s worded. Voting for the amendment would have the effect of tying stem cell research in Missouri to whatever is allowed under federal law. Either way, nothing about stem cell research in Missouri changes.

As I said before, this deceptive amendment has everything to do with human cloning.

Voters in the state on Nov. 7 will decide whether to approve that 2,000-word proposal, a plan that has been billed as a “cloning ban” by its supporters. However, the document itself shows the only human cloning it bans is the actual production of a living human being from a clone, and it actually enshrines in the state constitution the right to clone human embryos for “research” purposes.

Reuters: “In the leadup to the November 7 elections, Fox taped ads for Democratic Senate candidates including Claire McCaskill in Missouri and Benjamin Cardin in Maryland, who back stem cell research. Fox was appearing across the country with other candidates, including Democratic Senate candidate James Webb next week in Virginia.”

Fact: Benjamin Cardin voted against stem cell research.

Reuters: “After the ads began airing, nationally syndicated conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh said Fox was allowing his illness to be exploited and accused him of acting in the ad or not taking his medication in order to shake so much.

“All I’m saying is I’ve never seen him the way he appears in this commercial for Claire McCaskill,” Limbaugh said on his syndicated radio show. “I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act.”

“Limbaugh later issued a qualified apology and said Fox was raising false hopes by implying that a vote for McCaskill could lead to a cure for Parkinson’s. The progressive, incurable disease affects 1 percent of Americans over the age of 65 and is marked by the destruction of brain cells that produce dopamine, which is key to movement.”

“The talk show host’s comments sparked criticism from some listeners and lawmakers.”

“‘Ridiculing Mr. Fox’s symptoms does not bring us any closer to curing Parkinson’s disease, but supporting stem cell research would,’ said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat and co-founder of the Congressional Working Group on Parkinson’s disease.”

“President George W. Bush has limited federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells and issued his first-ever veto against legislation to expand it.”

Fact: Rush Limbaugh never ridiculed Mr. Fox’s symptoms. Second, Representative Maloney, again, does not distinguish between types of stem cell research, embryonic or adult. The Reuters article doesn’t, either.

Why on earth would liberals advocate so passionately on behalf of embryonic stem cell research when it is adult stem cell research that is showing all the promise? It has nothing to do with curing diseases. It has everything to do with abortion. Abortion is the sacrament of the Democratic Party. Liberals are obsessed with destroying unborn human beings, ranging in stage from embryos to viable “fetuses” right up to the moment of birth. This is why liberals want the American people to embrace embryonic stem cell research (while trying to slip human cloning in under the radar). It’s not about results. It’s about protecting abortion.

Word has it that President Bush would veto legislation that would force taxpayers to finance new embryonic stem cell research.

Meanwhile, the Tennessean weighs in with an uninformed piece which concludes with the warning that President Bush “would personally become the obstacle to potential medical advances that could drastically improve and prolong lives for years to come.”

Let me summarize using a couple of Wikipedia references.

Embryonic stem cells: “To date, no medical treatments have been successfully derived from embryonic stem cell research….”

Adult stem cells have been used to treat cancer, spinal cord injury, muscle damage, heart damage, low blood supply, baldness, deafness, and blindness.

The Tennessean has fallen into a trap that I described in my column on July 20, 2004, “Media blur facts of stem cell research.” Here’s the gist:

So what, then, is the driving force behind ESC research? As it turns out, the success of ASC’s has dried up the well of private funding for ESC research, and this has led those researchers to turn to the taxpayers as a source of income. ESC research proponents have engaged in a campaign of misinformation whereby the promise of ESC’s has been overly embellished, while successes of ASC research have either been falsely spun or ignored altogether.

The media have become convinced the debate is between right-wing zealots and objective scientists, and that’s where politics enters the arena. As a result, the American people are being led to believe that medical science is missing out on a bonanza by not allocating more federal funds to ESC research, when we are actually realizing great potential from ASC’s.

Adult stem cell research has a long and growing resume of success, whereas embryonic stem cell research has yet to accomplish anything. But leave it to the left to jump on the bandwagon that has been left in the dust by success.

The Tennessean made a plea yesterday for greater emphasis on embryonic stem cell research. It was a reasonable argument, but also emotional and uninformed.

Opposition to the research is rooted in abortion politics. Opponents say that the research, which involves embryos that are discarded by fertility clinics, destroys human life. But surely the lives of those who struggle with chronic diseases, both now and in the future, deserve most consideration in this debate.

Frist has said he will bring the issue to the Senate floor, although opposing bills may be offered as well. That’s fine. The case for funding embryonic stem-cell research should be strong enough to stand up in any full, thoughtful debate. The potential of the science should become abundantly clear. The sooner the Senate acts the better.

Focus on the Family actually defused this story back on May 25. Here’s the nuts-and-bolts:

Even as that legislation hangs in limbo, though, state and private research in the U.S. and internationally is going full throttle, and the only problem seems to be a lack of results.

But advocates of destroying human embryos in the name of science don’t like to talk about the lack of breakthroughs from embryonic stem-cell research; they prefer talking about the “promise” of the science — even though, despite the spending of billions of dollars, there has yet to be a single therapy tested on humans.

Here’s a snippet:

For nearly four years, the issue has been essentially at a stalemate. President Bush issued a policy restricting federal funding to existing stem-cell lines which at that time numbered 60 and now is less than half that amount. Moderate Republicans, emboldened by former First Lady Nancy Reagan’s appeal to boost stem-cell research following the death of her husband, President Reagan, are trying to overcome the White House resistance with their own legislation.

…

But the approach seems even more necessary now with a White House that has virtually ignored scientific evidence in medicine and other fields as well. Opponents of stem-cell research in and out of Congress have raised unnecessary fears of genetic mischief that the guidelines go a long way to overcome.

Problem #1: The Tennessean makes no distinction between embryonic stem cells and non-embryonic, or adult stem cells.

Problem #2: President Bush issued a policy restricting federal funding to existing embryonic stem-cell lines. The Tennessean left out the word “embryonic.”

Problem #3: Opponents of embryonic stem-cell research in and out of Congress have raised unnecessary fears of genetic mischief. Again, the Tennessean left out the word “embryonic.”

Problem #4: The Tennessean concludes its editorial with the silly statement “But it’s far better to lead than stand still, allowing ethics to warp and people to needlessly suffer because of indifference.”

What the Tennessean doesn’t know, and obviously spent no time trying to find out, is that scientists have made spectacular advances in the field of adult (or non-embryonic) stem cell research.

Focus on the Family has done some fact-gathering that the Tennessean didn’t. Here’s some information the Tennessean should have started with:

Scientists first discovered they could isolate and harvest stem cells from human embryos in 1998. The versatility of these early cells leads scientists to speculate that embryonic stem cells may hold great promise for healing the human body—from possible cures for diabetes and heart disease to treatments for burns and spinal cord injuries. So far, success with animal embryonic stem cell experiments is limited and researchers have been unable to move beyond animal studies because of the unpredictability and tumor-causing propensity of these cells. It’s important to note that embryonic stem cells (human or animal) have not “cured” or treated a single human patient. To date, there are no clinical trials being conducted using human embryonic stem cells.

If by “promising,” you mean actual therapies treating patients, adult stem cells have much to offer today. Non-embryonic stem cells are successfully used on a regular basis to treat patients and have been for more than 20 years. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) reports funding 330 human clinical trials using non-embryonic stem-cell sources. The NIH has also identified more than 70 treatable diseases using these cells in therapy, including breast cancer, leukemia and sickle cell anemia. Researchers also have successfully treated patients with Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, heart damage and spinal cord injuries using non-embryonic stem cell sources. Adult stem cells offer tangible hope to patients today.

Now, in light of all this, let’s dig into the Tennessean’s concluding statement one more time: “But it’s far better to lead than stand still, allowing ethics to warp and people to needlessly suffer because of indifference.”

Here are the facts:

States have the liberty to fund (or not fund) any form of stem-cell research. In fact, in 2003 under the Bush Administration, the NIH spent nearly $25 million on embryonic stem-cell research…plus an additional $190 million on nonembryonic stem-cell research projects.

There you go.

By the way, I published two columns on this topic in the Lebanon Democrat last year, “Media blur facts of stem cell research” (July 20) and “John Kerry, the healer” (October 18).