The Specious Logic of Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

For over a decade, controversy has surrounded proposals to use human embryos to treat diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. Scientists have publicly spoken about the "promise" of embryonic stem cells to cure diseases. That "promise" is based on the oft-repeated statement that human embryonic stem cells (often described as "master cells" or "blank cells") possess the unique ability to form all cell types in the human body.

In California we're facing an initiative to amend the state constitution and create a constitutional "right" to perform stem cell research. Under the terms of Proposition 71 - - The California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative - - the state would issue $3 billion in general obligation bonds to fund research that destroys human embryos that are "left over" from IVF, and embryos specially created for the purpose by cloning.

Many in the research community are enthusiastic supporters. While proponents pretend that the measure actually bans the use of funds for human cloning, in fact it merely constrains "human reproductive cloning" by not funding it. So-called "therapeutic cloning" would be made a constitutional right. It would not be banned, but would actually receive priority funding because it is not eligible for federal funds.

Both techniques produce cloned human embryos. With the latter, however, there is no intention to allow the birth of a human being.

This article will focus on the faulty science behind embryonic stem cell research which denies the astonishing complexity of embryonic development.

Many scientists have succumbed to a logical fallacy, based on a naive and simple-minded theory. From the obvious fact that embryonic cells eventually develop into all of the tissues in the body, they conclude that they can remove these cells and make them rebuild damaged, diseased organs in other people's bodies. To describe this exercise in science fiction they have hijacked the term "regenerative medicine."

But their belief is utterly without what scientists call proof of concept, that is, animal studies that confirm their theory. On the contrary, animal studies have gone on for nearly 20 years and proved quite disappointing.