It's a shame that Michael J. Fox has allowed himself and his condition to be used in a series of highly misleading ads regarding stem cell research in recent days. So much of the media flap has been over what Rush Limbaugh had to say about whether or not Fox was off his Parkinsons medications for the filming, that the issue of the distortion of truth in the actual ads has been overshadowed.
And I'm sure that the Democrats would love to keep the focus of the public right on Limbaugh instead of on the issue of stem cell research itself. Because it is by distorting the positions of the opponents of embryonic stem cell research that the Democrats are hoping to benefit politically, to their utter discredit.
Two terrific articles are out this week that get into the specifics of the issue, for the benefit of anyone more concerned about facts than about political sniping. But first, to define the central distortion of the Fox ads: In one of them, he says:
"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."
The ads would have the average, underinformed American citizen believe that Republicans oppose stem cell research, and not just the type that necessarily destroys human embryos. What's worse, they make the completely unfounded claim that it is this embryonic stem cell research that is "the most promising" type of research in the field. That claim could hardly be less true, as Dr. Mary Davenport's fine article today explains:
Mr. Fox and his ads' sponsors are guilty of conflating embryonic stem cell research, which the GOP candidates and many Americans oppose for destroying a human life in the name of curing other people's diseases, with stem cell research in general, which includes adult stem cell research and umbilical cord blood stem cell research.The implicit claim that research based on new embryos is "the most promising" is absurd, completely unsupported by the scientific literature, and an insult to voters, based as it is on the assumption that they are incapable of understanding the issue. Too stupid to tell the difference, is the elitist assumption underlying this campaign.
Flim-flam is a charitable description. Why would federally-funded research be more promising than state- and privately-funded research? And on what possible basis can the claim be made that embryonic stem cell research is more promising than adult stem cell research?
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.
I didn't reproduce her links to research and articles documenting her case, so please go read it all.
Ryan Anderson at TWS has an even more detailed, and technical explanation of the core issues in the debate, including the attempt by some to drown out the debate altogether. This excerpt doesn't do the whole piece justice, but it gets to the meat of the issue:
In four other states, ads are attacking congressional Republicans who voted against federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The ads, paid for by the Democratic group Majority Action, attack Representatives Chris Chocola, Thelma Drake, Don Sherwood, and James Walsh. They all follow the same format: three healthy citizens tell of impending medical doom and how only embryonic stem cell research will save them. They conclude with these startling words: "Stem cell research could save lives, maybe yours or your family's, someone you love. Only Congressman Walsh said no. How come he thinks he gets to decide who lives and who dies; who's he?" (Apparently the irony of those who favor embryo-destruction accusing others of deciding "who lives and who dies" was lost on the ad's producers.)These ads are repulsive. They play on the hopes and fears of million of Americans who are suffering from debilitating diseases, are caring for loved ones, and yearn for something, anything, to hold onto. They manipulate the public's emotions in the worst imaginable ways, promising them cures that are, in fact, quite uncertain, and pressuring them to forgo their own ethical convictions.
When emotions have subsided and right reasoning returns, one readily grasps three solid reasons to reject appeals for governmental funding of current methods of embryonic stem cell research: First, current methods are unethical as they destroy human beings in the embryonic stage of development. Second, embryonic stem cell research--contrary to all the hype claiming otherwise--doesn't show any signs of success in the near term, while adult stem cell research is curing diseases now. And third, methods of embryonic stem cell research may soon be available that will not require any human embryo destruction. That is, embryo destruction isn't only unethical: it's likely unnecessary.
Anderson relates some of the problems with embryonic stem cells, on the way to explaining why they have so far yielded nothing close to the many positive treatments already in therapeutic use on human patients using adult and umbilical stem cells:
Besides the moral objection to embryo-destructive stem cell research, there are other reasons to be appalled by these recent ads, for there is good reason to be skeptical about the prospects of technological success for embryonic stem cell research. When an embryonic stem cell is created from a cell of the early embryo, that cell--left in the embryo of which it was a part--would have produced many different tissue types as the cells descended from it progressed through stages of higher specialization. That is, cells in the early embryo are precursors to entire biological systems, and not merely particular tissue types. And scientists are having significant difficulty forcing them to behave in other ways. When scientists try to manipulate them into embryonic stem cells (ESC), they tend to cause potentially dangerous tumors......one need only look to the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM)--the multi-billion dollar institute dedicated to embryonic stem-cell research and paid for by California tax-payers--and their recent proposed strategic report. The report states: "it is unlikely that CIRM will be able to fully develop stem cell therapy for routine clinical use during the ten years of the plan. Within that time span, however, we will be able to advance therapies for several diseases to early stage clinical trials, and to have therapies for other diseases in the pipeline." For the next ten years, the best they can promise is "early stage clinical trials" and therapies "in the pipeline." The Mercury News reports that the Institute's president, Zach Hall, "predicted it might take 15 years before the institute's research results in a medical product." It is probably for these reasons that private investors have been so reluctant to invest in embryonic stem cell research, thus creating the greater need for governmental funding. If embryonic stem cell research really could deliver all that it promised, one has to wonder why there isn't a mad rush to invest now.
Meanwhile, adult stem cell therapies are healing patients now--despite the fact that they receive only a fraction of the funding.
Much more background on the scientific and political aspects of the stem cell research issue can be found in the writing of Wesley J. Smith in recent years at The Weekly Standard. Examples here, here, and here.
A citizen filmed a thoughtful response to the Michael J. Fox ads, including some suggestions on how government might take a different tack on stem cell research.