Mitch Kapor just posted a blog on the stem cell research funding debate in California. Comments are closed, so it looks like I’ll have to use a trackback to respond.
It seems like there’s a lot of heat and not much light in the US “stem cell research” debate. What I can’t understand (apart from the general principle that any more than two sides is too complicated for the media to handle) is why people are not making more clearly the distinction between adult and embryonic stem cell research. Wikipedia explains the difference well. Adult stem cell research is more advanced, has had actual therapeutic successes, and allows one to obtain the consent of the donor, but it doesn’t seem to get much of a mention.
Can anyone name one of these purported miracle cures for every problem under the sun (Cancer, Alzheimers, Diabetes, Heart Disease, the Premiership being too one-sided) which cannot be researched using adult stem cells?
(Over here in the UK the debate is more nuanced, but stem cell research has been permitted by the HFEA.)