Get politics out of the way
San Jose Mercury News: Laura Bush claims that the promise of embryonic stem-cell research is overblown. She says the president's restrictions on research are appropriate due to the "moral and ethical implications."
Nancy Reagan argues that the stringent limits imposed by President Bush should be eliminated because stem-cell research could lead to breakthroughs to help those who suffer an enormous number of diseases.
Who's right?
Here's a hint. More than 80 Nobel Prize winning scientists are on record in support of expanding stem-cell research. The line of Nobel scientists standing behind the president: none that we know of.
The stem-cell debate is becoming increasingly symbolic during this election year for the scientific community. A growing number of scientists believe the Bush administration routinely distorts and suppresses science to suit its political goals.
'Promising'
The truth about stem-cell research is that at present it clearly belongs under the heading of "promising." Years of research will be necessary before any medical treatments for diabetes, Parkinson's and spinal cord injuries become a reality. But "promising" opportunities are the lifeblood of scientific research, and many of the treatments and cures for diseases that are now routine only came to fruition after years of research and experimentation.
The reason embryonic stem-cell research excites so many scientists is the unique ability of stem cells to be programmed to repair the brain, heart, bones, muscles or virtually any part of the body.
That potential is why California stem-cell research advocates, in the absence of sufficient federal funding, are pushing Proposition 71 on the November ballot. The initiative would enable the use of state bonds to fund further research.
Regardless of the funding source, hundreds of millions of dollars will be needed to overcome the enormous challenges, including how to program stem cells and prevent their rejection.