Sifting Fact from Fiction.(human cloning and stem cell research)

Demonstrating their agility at the serve and volley game, advocates of stem cell research that would require the destruction of human embryos told reporters that there was a silver lining in the defeat of the Greenwood bill to explicitly allow the creation by cloning of humans purely for destruction. [See "Averting a Catastrophe," this page, and the story on page one.]

Public opinion is overwhelmingly against cloning but evenly divided on proposals to extract stem cells from living "spare" embryos, they argue. Since Congress will not want to be seen as opposing research that "promises" to cure every major disease known to man, defeat on one front spells victory in another.

Too clever by half, but workable for those whose only objective is to have a lethal go at hapless human embryos. If we are to win, our job is to sift fact from fiction, truth from hype and communicate this to elected officials and to the wider public.

Our anti-propaganda campaign starts with the truism that when pollsters pose honest questions (ones that mention the destruction of human embryos, as opposed to gibberish about "fertilized eggs"), the public clearly signals its disapproval. Make a passing reference to research that would require the destruction of human embryos and people say no! When the truth is cased in euphemism, the exact opposite is the case.

While writing about this issue to pro-lifers is like hauling coals to Newcastle, when it comes to the wider public, the only way to cut through the haze is to clearly and often remind people that the "promise" of embryonic stem cells that would be lethally culled from "spare" embryos remains entirely hypothetical. By contrast, sources such as umbilical cord blood, placentas, and adult stem cells (particularly those found in bone marrow) have been improving lives for years. Sad to say, for too long reality has played second fiddle to hyperbole and hype. (See the graph on page 33.)

But there is good news. Once safely ensconced on the command heights of the debate, the dogma that embryonic stem cells are superior to other stem cell alternatives is now under siege. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal is only the best of a slew of recent analyses. Collectively, they matter-of-factly tell the story of the remarkable progress made using alternative stem cell sources while also highlighting the significant potential dangers of too-frisky embryonic stem cells.

What Richard Miniter does best in his July 23 Journal story is to show that the three "pillars" that undergird the "case for the superiority of embryo stem cells" are very shaky. This hat trick of misrepresentations include that these stem cells are "easier to harvest, there are more stem cells in embryos than in adults, and they can be more easily changed into every organ and tissue in the body."