Stem Cell Research (Again)

The House yesterday passed a bill expanding federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and opening new lines. I have written on this before, and little has changed. I have one basic problem with the debate: it's based on misleading marketing.

My understanding of how embryonic stem cells would be used is

1. Somehow the cells will be coaxed into developing into specific cell types (heart, brain, etc.),
2. somehow these new cells will be introduced into the patient's body,
3. somehow the body will be persuaded to accept the cells into the body's tissue where the new cells will grow, and
4. somehow this will cure diseases like Alzheimer's as well as paralysis from spinal injuries.

All those "somehow"s are where research has to be done. And that's just to develop the treatment technique. After that comes much more research on how to apply this technique to specific conditions. Finally, there's all the regulatory processes that would have to be completed to get a treatment out to the public.

The researchers (politicians too, remember John Edwards' campaign promise that a Kerry-Edwards administration would cure paralysis?) push the potential end result in their drive for funding. But it is all speculation at this point. Scientists can't even do the first step in that sequence, yet. Who knows if they will ever get all the way through. This will be a long process of research and study, yet somehow that never seems to get mentioned. Unless Edwards was expecting some unconstitutionally long administration, he would almost certainly fail to fulfill his promise. Playing on people's emotions with the promise of a cure that may never come or will not come for years is misleading and disgusting. They are little better than snake-oil salesmen.

I am not saying that the prospects are not as grand as the researchers and politicians claim. Maybe this line of study will eventually lead to a cure for Alzheimer's. (My father-in-law has Alzheimer's, so I certainly hope they can find a cure. I have some idea of how terrible that disease is.) It makes sense to me as a layman that this could work. But scientists should be methodical, not ones to jump to the end of the line. And they should be honest about how long it will be to get any results. Let's not jump the gun here with funding and publicity assuming that whole sequence exists when it doesn't. Funding should be appropriate to the task of addressing step #1. The debate raging now should only be held if and when we get to the point where we are actually considering a treatment approach, i.e. when all the other steps in the sequence have been addressed.

I also have to point out again that President Bush has not banned embryonic stem cell research, as Amygdala recently wrote. The president did not ban research. He was the one who initiated funding of stem cell research. What he did in 2001 was to restrict the number of sources of embryonic stem cells that could be used in research. Like the president has done in other areas, his critics are more than willing to allow people to believe an untruth as long as it helps their cause.