Proponents of embryonic stem cell research are busy minimizing the observed benefits and anticipated applications of alternatives that do not involve the destruction of human life. Their task is not easy, given the constant publication of new treatments and break-throughs that use various forms of non-ESC. Consider the following very recent reports:
- Adult Stem Cell Treatment for Spinal Cord Injuries
- Stem Cells From Baby Teeth
- Studies Support Research Showing Adult Stem Cells Can Mimic Embryonic
- At the Burnham Institute for Medical Research, scientists are making insulin-producing cells from adult stem cells that could one day help millions of people with diabetes.
- Adipose-derived stem and regenerative cells were tested to be safe and improved heart function in a chronic ischemia model, representing a severe form of coronary artery disease
- Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine have isolated a new source of adult stem cells that appear to have the potential to differentiate into several cell types
- The latest issue of the American Journal of Pathology carries a breakthrough study in which researchers have identified adult stem cells in hair follicles capable of differentiating into several cell types.
- A Japanese researcher presented the results of new studies he conducted showing the ability to turn mouse skin cells into cells that closely resemble embryonic stem cells.
- Researchers at about 16 sites across the United States are involved in a study on adult donor stem cells to repair the heart muscle after a heart attack.
Dr. David Prentice of the Family Research Council has reported that there are presently 72 treatments or cures involving adult stem cells while others list over 80 for umbilical-cord blood alone.
Michael Fumento, writing for the National Review Online, notes that three ESC advocates have directly challenged Prentice’s list, publishing a letter in Science magazine (more here). The timing was clearly related to the President’s veto of legislation that would open the federal spending “spigot” for ESC research. Fumento writes:
I’ve written repeatedly of how [Science] has made itself a propaganda sheet for ESC research, as well as other political causes. At the least, it should change its name to Pseudoscience. Sometimes it prints easily falsifiable studies, such as this, attacking the usefulness of ASCs. Other times it falsely promotes ESCs. That culminated in January when the journal was forced to retract two groundbreaking ESC studies that proved frauds.Fumento does a good job backing up his assertions with examples from the literature, which is not hard considering the numerous peer reviewed publications he has to draw from.The journal wants to flood unpromising ESC research with taxpayer dollars because private investors know just how very unpromising it is. Now yet again Science has showcased the scientific and moral bankruptcy of the entire ESC-advocacy movement.
There is great reason to be encouraged by the advancements in adult and stem cell research and to support efforts in these areas in preference to embryonic stem cell research. However, pro-life advocates agree that the fundamental disagreement we have with ESC is not the great potential of alternatives but rather the moral implications of destroying some humans for the benefit of others.
Update: LifeNews has picked up the story - click here.
Talk Back - leave a comment