Lame claims for embryonic stem-cell research.

ITEM: The October 12 Times-Republican (Marshalltown, Iowa) reported that Sen. John Edwards lauded Christopher Reeve's attempts to expand embryonic stem-cell research. Edwards vowed that, if elected, "We will do stem cell research. We will stop juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer' s and other debilitating diseases.... People like Christopher Reeve will get out of their wheelchairs and walk again with stem cell research."

ITEM: The October 11 Chicago Tribune reported that President Bush "prohibited use of federal money for research on embryonic stem-cell lines created after August 9, 2001.... "

BETWEEN THE LINES: On the controversial issue of stem-cell research, ethics has largely been pushed aside to make way for mass misinformation and manipulation.

The media focus has been on the supposed benefits to mankind of expanding embryonic stem-cell research and on the supposed harm President Bush's policies have inflicted on this research. Largely ignored in the media accounts is the fact that embryonic stein-cell research entails the creation of human embryos--innocent human lives--for the purpose of destroying them. Embryonic stem-cell research has been likened, and properly so, to cannibalizing humans for spare parts.

It seems odd, therefore, that liberals, proponents of embryonic stem-cell testing, apparently don't even recognize the moral dilemma they face. After all, many of the same liberals who are trying so hard to destroy developing human beings also devote their time to ending capital punishment. This is strange. One would think that the proponents of embryonic stemcell research would also be proponents of killing society's worst criminals and then giving the criminals' body parts to needy, worthy transplant recipients. But for some reason, the liberals' moral outrage ends at capital punishment, and they do support embryonic stem-cell research, saying that an embryo is just a "few cells." Well, a criminal could be deemed just a "bunch of cells." This latter argument would not hold credence with the liberals; why does the former?

Even if it were true that embryonic stem-cell research could lead to a cure for debilitating diseases, it is still wrong. Of course, Sen. John Edwards ignored this all-important ethical point when he exploited the death of Christopher Reeve. Edwards virtually promised that miracles would occur if he and John Kerry were elected. But would miracles occur? Would "people like Christopher Reeve ... get out of their wheelchairs and walk again with stem-cell research," as Edwards claimed?

Edwards and other advocates of embryonic stem-cell research grossly overstate the claimed benefits and, in general, misrepresent the facts. For instance, claims made about stem-cell research usually gloss over the fact that two types of stem cells seem to exist: those which come from embryos, called embryonic stem cells, and those which come from one of many non-embryonic sources--such as an infant's umbilical cord or from a person's bone marrow or from a person's fat--called adult stem cells.

The proponents of embryonic stem-cell research would have one believe that it is sheerest folly not to spend loads of federal money on embryonic stem-cell research, even though the research on the adult stem cells is where the most major medical advances have occurred. To date, adult stem cells have been successfully used in bone-marrow transplants and in a treatment for leukemia as well as in other diseases. They are also being used in human tests for conditions including diabetes, multiple sclerosis, lupus, and "Lou Gehrig's disease." On the other hand, research being done on embryonic stem cells has not yet resulted in any usable treatments.

Though stem-cell research does hold great promise, stem-cell research is not likely the just-around-the-corner proposition it has been made out to be. To be able to cure many of the diseases which are under scrutiny by stem-cell researchers, scientists need to be able to manipulate the stem cells and turn them into such things as new brain cells, new spinal cord cells, or new liver cells. For the most part, scientists have not found this task easy.

A final misrepresentation on this issue comes from the repeated claims that President Bush's prohibition on using federal money for embryonic stem-cell research on embryonic stem-cell lines created after August 9, 2001 is the same as a virtual ban on additional embryonic stem-cell research. Despite repeated charges, there is no federal "ban" on embryonic stem-cell research. In fact, President Bush was the first to authorize it. The president did direct that no federal money be spent on embryonic stemcell research with newly destroyed embryos; federal funding, however, is permitted on previously existing stem-cell lines. Also allowed is private research that does not use taxpayer money for stem-cell lines derived after August 9, 2001.

Within this framework, there is also no cap on future funding on embryonic stemcell research; such funding began under George W. Bush, increasing from zero in 2001 to $24.8 million currently, says the Department of Health and Human Services. Money is definitely being spent on embryonic stem-cell research. In fact, some state governments and numerous private companies support embryonic stem-cell research outside federal guidelines. About 1,000 scientists and 30 firms are spending about $208 million on adult and embryonic stemcell research, according to one study.

Granted, the federal government is focusing its expenditures mainly on adult stemcell testing, but it must be remembered that the most gains in stem-cell testing have been made with adult stem cells.