Embryonic Stem Cells — More Misinformation and Deception than the Iraq War

Stem cell scientists find almost perfect human match in mice | Science | Guardian Unlimited

Someone submitted this to Digg with the above title, plus “a slap in the face for Bush.” And typical comments there claimed that this article was actually affirming Bush’s stance against human ESCs (E=embryonic) because we don’t need to “abort babies to get them.” Other comments said the usual BS, that it’s correct to ban federal funding of morally questionable research because the private sector should be doing this.

Never let reality get in the way of a good argument. In fact, for the people who are quite reasonably concerned about ESC research and the moral and ethical implications, consider:

1. The goal of ESC research has always been to find substitutes for human ESCs that work as well as ESCs for adult therapies. Work on actual embryonic tissues is basic research (understanding how these cells work) not applied research (turning these cells into products). The claims that we would ever “harvest babies” for adult medical therapy are totally false.

2. The mouse cell research in the above article was done in the U.K., which is most definitely a slap in the face for Bush, because he has set the US ESC research effort back 10 years and should be ashamed of his conduct. This research can and should have been done in the US, the former leader in this field.

3. If the goal is to honestly to address the moral and ethical implications of this research, then the ban on publicly funded research and cell lines is actually counter-productive. Applied ESC research done in the private sector (if at all) has less scrutiny than research done at universities which require government grants. Scrutiny is applied at the grant stage, at the IRB stage, and by peer reviewed journals. In private companies, IRBs are significantly more “flexible,” and no publication or public grant may be involved. The dangers of “rogue” research and moral abuses aren’t all that great, but they’re greater in the private sector.

4. ESCs come primarily from IVF tissues, not abortions. If people dislike using these tissues, they should go to the source — in vitro fertilization therapies — because the embryos will be destroyed in any event, whether this ESC research is done or not. Moreover, many of the most important cell lines have already been touched by government funding and are therefore off-limits to researchers, both public and private. Where do private ESC researchers get their tissues to work on anyway? Do they put an ad in the paper for egg and sperm donors? They have the same limitations on which tissues they can use as publicly funded researchers in the US — limits other countries are not encumbered with.

5. If the only argument is that you shouldn’t use taxpayer funding for morally questionable acts, then let’s talk about my tax dollars paying for this BS war. Do I get a choice about that?

The question should always be: is the science sound, is it in the public interest, and is it necessary to advance the field to the point where private companies can come in and commercialize the technology. The answer to all three is yes.