Soccer Dad: Speculation not science

April 15, 2007

Speculation not science

What a time for Postwatch to be on hiatus!

Last week the Washington Post ran an editorial "Science not speculation" arguing for more federal embryonic stem cell funding.

ON WEDNESDAY the Senate debated and overwhelmingly passed a measure to allow federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Virtually identical to legislation that the Republican-controlled 109th Congress passed last year only to meet a presidential veto, the bill would permit federal funding for research on stem cells harvested from embryos left over at fertility clinics -- embryos that would otherwise be discarded.

The measure will almost certainly not become law, even though there is broad national support for the proposal. It failed to get the two-thirds majority in either chamber of Congress that it would need to overcome President Bush's expected veto. That alone was disappointing. But also frustrating was much of the debate in the Senate, which was colored by presumptuous readings of early scientific data and policymaking by anecdote.

While I don't necessarily have a religious objection to using embryos that would otherwise be discarded for developing stem cell therapies, there's something incredibly tedentious about this editorial.

For one thing there has yet to be a single successful therapy developed from embryonic stem cells. So any promised breakthrough is pure speculation.

The Post argues that there is broad national support for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. But what happens when a therapy is developed from non-embryonic stem cells as what was reported last week? How did the Post report it? From what I've been able to find it didn't report the breakthrough on its front page or anywhere else in its print edition. I found an article online in the Post. So if the Post won't give coverage to non-embryonic stem cell successes, how are people supposed to know about them. If they're told that this funding is needed to make this important progress but aren't given the whole story of course they'll support it.

But if the progress is being made even without this funding would there still be widespread support for the federal funding of embryonic research? The failure of the media to promote the actual successes of non-embryonic stem cell research means that the American public isn't properly informed on the subject.

With proven results, non-embryonic stem cell research (that's adult, umbilical cord and autologous) is the province of science; with all its potential, embryonic stem cell research remains the province of speculation.

Stem Cells