Grounding the Stem Cell Debate - Revisited

I've been pre-occupied the last week or two (more on that later).

In light of the recent congressional debate, I thought it would be good to revisit this post (updated with revisions)...


There are few issues more morally complex than the issue of stem cell research. Multi-faceted arguments exist on both sides. This moral complexity requires that the debate should be framed as clearly, factually and honestly as possible. The very question of stem cell research begs an emotional response, but restraint and objectivity will lead to better law. All too often, the arguments we hear are grounded in hope rather than reason or in misconception rather than fact. Below are some common dangers.

Hyperbolie - We hear constant claims embryonic stem cell research will lead to the cure for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, some cancers and a myriad of other diseases. Call me a skeptic, but the last thing that claimed to cure so many ailments was Uncle Zeke's Magical Snake Oil Elixer. Sure there are possiblities, but very little in the way of measureable results. There is still an issue of embryonic stem cell stability. The cells have a tendancy to break down or mutate. Many of those out front on this discussion are those who have lived with one of the potentially cureable diseases. While I feel for them, they certainly are not the most objective sources.

Sloppiness and Lack of Understanding by the Media - This article from Rueters sites another falicy without checking the facts.

"Critics of the embryonic stem cell bill center much of their efforts on alternative legislation that would fund experimental means of deriving stem cells without destroying a human embryo...
But those methods are more preliminary and speculative, and would likely take much longer to yield any therapies or cures for crippling human diseases, several scientists told a Senate hearing earlier this week."

The alternative methods included are adult stem cell and cord blood stem cell research. The truth is the exact opposite of what is stated above. While embryonic stem cells have yielded little to no concrete results, there have already been some tremendous successes using cord tblood stem cells to fight very crippling disease in humans. Some the best work is happening right here in Minnesota. The University of Minnesota is a world leader in using cord blood stem cell treatments for cancer treatments with a very impressive success rate.

Lack of Clarity - To be clear, we need to make a distinction between "stem cell research" and the more specific "embryonic stem cell research". As stated above not all stem cell research involves the destruction of embryos. Not all violates a pro-life stance.

Honesty and Consistency - I greatly respect the pro-life argument, however there are two issues that need to be addressed honestly. First, by striving to save one human life (a living embryo), it's possible (but not yet known) that another life will be shortened. Second, the Spector bill proposes using the 400,000 embryos that would be left-over from in vitro fertilization procedures. Most of these would otherwise be destroyed. To be truly consistent with the pro-life position, it is the creating of embroys (that would either be destroyed or used for research) that should be opposed, not how they are disposed of once they exist. The real fight should be against such in vitro fertilization procedures.

Not Funding Does Not Equal Not Doing or Not Allowing - A vote against Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research does not mean that any funding is prohibited or that it will not happen, just that the funding would have to come from state or private sources or state funding. And, it certainly does not mean that the research is made illegal. If there really are many benefits to the research on the horizon, that means huge profits on the horizon for pharma companies. These companies are looking to the taxpayers to absorb the risk while they later reap the profits. If the potential is there, the market will work and the investment in research will happen without funding.