Column of the Day: Michael Fumento on Disparate Treatment of Embryonic vs. Adult Stem Cell Research

Finally, in one place, Michael Fumento cuts through the clutter in his critique of CBS’s coverage of stem cell research (link to previous item added by me; bolds are mine):

CBS’s Stem Cell Shenanigans
By Michael Fumento (03/08/2006)

A year ago I wrote an article titled: “Why the Media Miss the Stem Cell Story.” It discussed the almost total disregard of adult stem cells (ASCs) and the glorification of “miraculous” human embryonic stem cells (ESCs) – notwithstanding that the adult ones treat over 80 human diseases while embryonics haven’t even made it to human testing.

For a wonderful example of this triumph of hype and politics over reality, look no further than two CBS News 60 Minutes segments that aired towards the end of February. One was “Scientist Hopes for Stem Cell Success” hosted by Ed Bradley (who also hosted the 1989 show that began the Alar “poison apple” scare). The other was a “Surplus of Embryos” hosted by Leslie Stahl. Both presented ESCs as potentially curing every disease known; both omitted any reference to ASCs.

Bradley, in his opening words, informed viewers that ESCs comprise “a field that shows enormous promise, but has been restricted by a ban on federal funding for research because it involves the destruction of human embryos.”

Sorry Mr. Ed, but there is no ban on federal funding for ESC research, as even your colleague Stahl pointed out a week before. The ban covers only cell lines developed after August 2001. Further, if ESC research were so “enormously promising,” why is progress so agonizingly slow?

Apologists say it’s because the first human line of ESCs wasn’t established until 1998. What they don’t say is that this is because, while ESCs were discovered in the 1950s at the same time as ASCs, ESCs are so terribly complicated to work with it that took almost half a century to establish that line. Further, they remain terribly hard to work with.

That’s why despite all the cures and treatments we have with ASCs and the nearly 1000 clinical trials currently using them, there have been no ESC clinical trials. Nor will there be until, ESC researchers work out “minor” difficulties with their alleged miracle workers.

For one, they tend to be rejected by the recipient. ASCs are rarely rejected and naturally are never so when culled from the recipient himself. ESCs also have a nasty tendency to form cancerous teratomas (“monster tumors”) in recipients.

Until these problems are solved, ESCs are going nowhere fast. Yet neither Bradley nor Stahl mentioned them.

….. Since 2002 it’s been known that (adult) stem cells repair damaged human brains. These stem cells can be plucked from the brain itself, but also a much more easily accessed source – bone marrow. Repaired cells include both neurons and glial cells.

As to fixing broken hearts, that’s old hat with adult stem cells. Marrow cells are now easily and painlessly extracted from the blood, cultivated, and injected back into the bloodstream where they zero in on the damage and repair it. They also grow new blood vessels, bypassing the need for heart bypass surgery.

CBS either knew or should have known about all of these developments, yet it mentioned none. Like most of the media, it remains obsessed with promoting a will o’ the wisp science while ignoring an alternative that’s been saving lives for decades and also avoids ethical concerns.

The network needs to have somebody in charge who can restore a higher level of honesty. You know, like Dan Rather.

Summary:

• Adult stem cell research (ASCR) — in scores of situtations, very close to being used for successful treatment of some of the most deadly and debilitating diseases we face.
• Embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) — The “Hail Mary pass” of science, promising the moon but at this point delivering nothing.
• Coverage by the WORMs (Worn-Out Reactionary Media, known to most as the Mainstream Media) — almost exclusively slanted towards ESCR. Why? Successful ESCR would go a long way towards “legitimizing” the devaluation of human life inherent in abortion, euthanasia, cloning, and the like. On the other hand, successful ASCR would (and I believe will) make ESCR unnecessary, and happily advances medical ethics at the same time. If you’re a WORM reporter, pushing ESCR and dissing ASCR a no-brainer. If you’re a person who wants to see progess in research that will actually bear fruit, you support ASCR.