Stem Cells: Progress Marches On Either Way

Michael Fumento (h/t insta) presents the case: "Another source of useful stem cells has been found – and the media and the cloning crowd are trying keep it quiet." Unsurprisingly he points out the New York Times, which recently published an absurdly silly piece on patenting people's genes.

Regarding stem cells I recently highlighted an angry letter from a reader of a local news source in Louisiana that made some good and often overlooked points:

The Bush administration was the first to fund embryonic stem-cell research and has devoted well more than $100 million to it since 2001, though only in ways that do not encourage the further destruction of embryos. Bush invokes his faith in explaining his position. ...

There is no ban in place preventing private companies from investing money to fund embryonic stem-cell research. If this research holds as much promise as Mr. Gautreaux feels it does, why aren't private companies lining up around the block to fund it?

To further the point, there's a site I previously linked to that continues it's coverage of private companies engaged in Adult Stem Cell research.

Fumento makes a good argument for adult stem cells and highlights the promise of the recent breakthrough amniotic stem cell harvesting.

There are over four million births each year in the United States, yet Atala calculates that merely 100,000 amniotic stem cell specimens could supply 99 percent of the U.S. population's needs for perfect matches for transplants.

We shall see if the impressive potential of amniotic stem cells comes through in the long run. Nonetheless it's safe to say that overall stem cell progress marches on:

Stem cells

In a grass roots effort to reject the Bush Administration's recalcitrant position on what promises to be the most exciting area of stopping and reversing - and possible curing - the progression of many major diseases, many states took legislative initiatives to accelerate the finding and development of new stem cell-based research and therapies.

Again, am I missing something in saying that the consequence (perhaps unintended) of Bush's embryonic stem cell funding ban seems to have been to simultaneously start a conversation about bioethics while not managing to stifle innovation?

I don't necessarily have an objection to embryonic stem cell research, or Bush's policy. But the issue certainly deserves accurate representation.

more: A couple of afterthoughts. First, while I don't dispute the validity of adult stem cells, I'm not sure I dismiss the difference between pluripotent cells and multipotent cells as quickly.

And two, the debate around adult stem cells seems to be centered on declaring embryonic stem cells medically unnecessary as a way of settling or side stepping the ethical debate. I think the ethical debate of embryonic stem cells and the utility debate around adult stem cells are seperate issues that should be settled on their own merits.