Human embryonic stem cell colony. Courtesy of Wikipedia.
Recent political campaigns in the United States have presented embryonic stem cell research in frenzied terms. TV ads presented emotional appeals based on sad cases of individuals suffering incurable diseases. Anyone who opposed such research was made to look like an uncaring villain or troglodyte. Never mind the religious and moral arguments against destroying human embryos to sustain the research. Never mind the real alternatives.
The importance of stem cells lies in their ability to morph into other cells; the hope is to develop healthy strains of cells that can replace faulty in humans. Generally, the major media said little about alternatives.
Yet all along, real advances were being made in adult stem cell research, and such research did not require the destruction of an unborn child. Children have been treated for leukemia, blood and bone diseases using “adult” and placental cells. Doctors in Spain recently grew a replacement trachea for a woman using her own cells. In fact, the success rate for adult and placental cells seems to be far better than that for embryonic stem cells.
The main drawback of using adult cells was that viruses had to be used to create induced pluripotent stem cells—essentially adult cells reprogrammed to behave like other types of cells. Since such cells were not considered completely safe for use in humans, a better method was desired. Now both U.S. and Canadian researchers have succeeded in producing induced pluripotent stem cells using virus-free techniques. This is good news, and holds out the potential for adult cells to completely displace embryonic stem cells.
In contending for embryonic stem cell research, the media would do a real service by being honest about the alternatives and showing respect for the moral and ethical concerns which arise out of the destruction of embryos.
