Innocent by Association?

April 19, 2006

The Philadelphia Business Journal contains an informative article on current stem cell research. The article largely focuses on a new study, funded by New Jersey’s $5 million stem cell research grant program, studying how umbilical cord stem cells can help heal damaged heart muscle. The article also contains a bulleted list of other heart-related stem cell research currently underway around the world. Highlights include:
— Bone marrow stem cells to treat heart ailments (Malvern, PA)
— Bone marrow stem cells injected into damaged hearts (Pittsburg)
— Blood-derived stem cells to treat severe coronary artery disease (Deerfield, IL)
— Bone marrow stem cells treating heart attach damage (Munich)

For some reason, though, the author drops in the following early in the article:

Researchers believe embryonic stem cells, which have the potential to develop into many different cell types in the body, can be coaxed into treating myriad diseases, conditions and disabilities. Opponents of the research argue the process destroys the embryo and the potential for life. Since 2001, government policy limits federal research funding to 19 existing stem cell lines.

There is so much wrong with this paragraph that it’s difficult to know where to start. Everyone agrees that the embryo is destroyed, not just “opponents of the research.” The opposition isn’t due to a destruction of “the potential for life.” Rather, opposition comes from the fact that a life at a very early stage of development is destroyed. The NIH lists 22 currently available lines, not 19, and there are other eligible derivations in storage that may be made available in the future.

But the real quibble is the juxtaposition of this information on the controversy surrounding embryonic stem cell research with information on research that has nothing whatsoever to do with embryos. There is no mention anywhere else in the article of any research that is being conducted with embryonic stem cells. In fact, neither the word “embryo” nor the word “embryonic” appears anywhere else in the article. The article simply is not clear about the distinction between the controversial embryonic stem cells and the non-controversial non-embryonic stem cells. Throwing in that bit of information without appropriate explanation—and rife with factual errors—is a disservice to readers.