By Dave Andrusko

Part Two explains the actual status of stem cell research and how, under the radar, adult stem cells are producing real treatments. Please send your comments on either part to daveandrusko@gmail.com.  If you'd like, follow me on http://twitter.com/daveha.

By now most of you have probably heard that yesterday the National Institutes of Health (NIH) approved 13 human embryonic stem cell lines for use by federally financed researchers. But consider these two contrasting accounts of the same decision.

NIH Director Francis Collins

"Launching a dramatic expansion of government support for one of the most promising but most contentious fields of biomedical research, the National Institutes of Health on Wednesday authorized the first 13 lines of [embryonic stem] cells under the administration's policy and was poised to approve 20 more Friday. 'This is the first down payment on what is going to be a much longer list that will empower the scientific community to explore the potential of embryonic stem cell research,' said NIH Director Francis S. Collins." (December 3, Washington Post.)

"Researchers' interest in human embryonic stem cells has abated since the discovery in 2007 by the Japanese biologist Dr. Shinya Yamanaka that the mature cells of the body can be reprogrammed to the embryonic state." (December 3, New York Times.)

At first blush, these two statements might seem to be almost contradictory. Let's see why and what that tells us about the state of embryonic stem cell (ESC) research.

The NIH is gung-ho to finance experiments that require human embryos to be destroyed for their stem cells. (Making it all the easier is that the NIH received a whopping $10 billion in "economic stimulus" money.) Francis S. Collins, NIH director, promised, "Today's announcement is the first wave," according to the Post.

The Post's account positively gushed over the NIH's action and what it supposedly foretold. "Many scientists believe embryonic stem cells will yield fundamental insights into the underlying causes of a host of diseases and could be used to cure diabetes, Parkinson's disease, paralysis and other ailments."

The Times story is not so giddy. In fact it was almost restrained, pointing out that researchers have looked elsewhere.

But not mentioned in either story is that "The real hope as well as actual success is found with adult stem cells, which are already helping thousands of patients right now," said Dr. David Prentice.

"By focusing on embryonic stem cell research, the Obama administration is wasting lives as well as taxpayer dollars," he added. "This emphasizes outdated, unethical science, provides an incentive for more embryo destruction, and pushes political ideology."

Obama's executive order in March reversed a policy instituted by President George W. Bush in August 2001. Under that policy the federal government only funded research on already-existing stem cell lines and not research that would require the destruction of human life. Obama told the NIH to come up with "strict" guidelines, which it did in July (e.g. no financial inducements, all embryos to be experimented on must come from fertility clinics, etc.). But that was just rhetorical cover.

At the time of the executive order NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson said, "These so-called ethical safeguards are really merely procedural requirements, an attempt to cloak the fundamentally unethical act of sacrificing living members of our species, homo sapiens, in order to provide raw material for research."

The floodgates do seem to be about to open. In addition to the 13 human embryonic stem cells lines approved Tuesday, Collins said that 96 new cells lines have been submitted for NIH's review under those guidelines.

According to the Post, "researchers have indicated that they plan to submit at least 254 more for approval."

But none of that says anything other than this may well be throwing good money after bad. Part Two today explains that while embryonic stem cells "have been involved in some interesting experiments," embryonic stem cells "are not close to producing cures." Richard Doerflinger adds, "One fact is that treatments are emerging from stem cell research. But these use stem cells (once seen as less versatile) found in adult tissues and in umbilical cord blood from live births."

Part Two