Stem Cell Research Myths
Stem cell research is a complex topic, for sure, but its underlying nature is straightforward: it is one of our clearest and most direct paths to treating disease. However, the tremendous promise that it holds has been clouded by mistruths and inaccuracies, misunderstandings and misrepresentations, which deserve clarification. Here are the most prevalent among them…
Myth #1: stem cells come from aborted fetuses
Stem cell research is in no way related to abortion or the issue of choice. There is no type of stem cells that come from abortion procedures, and that goes for embryonic stem cells, as well. These cells come from a fertilized egg that has no prospect of developing further and would, otherwise, be discarded as medical waste. Abortion plays no role in this whatsoever.
Myth #2: embryonic stem cell research involves human cloning
Stem cell research is about finding cures to disease, and that’s all. There is no part of this research that is interested in cloning people, and there is no scientist looking to do that. Stem cell research is not reproductive cloning in any way, shape, or form. The term “therapeutic cloning” is sometimes used to describe a form of research, but that simply refers to the replication of a piece of genetic material that gets inserted into a somatic (ordinary body cell) for the purposes of study. This is in no way related to cloning people.
Myth #3: the benefits of stem cell research are decades away
The benefits and strides that stem cell research promises are much more immediate than many might think. In fact, there are treatments being explored, and some even being used already, around the world. Science takes place at an unpredictable pace, but what is going on right now – allowing researchers to understand the origins of disease and the fundamentals behind what we least have a grasp on – is lying the groundwork for advances to be made on an accelerating basis. We need funding to allow that to happen.
Myth #4: adult stem cell research has more promise than embryonic
It is often claimed by embryonic stem cell research opponents that advances in adult stem cell research are where we should be focusing our attentions because that is where advances have been made. Opposing positions on stem cell research are to be expected, as is the case for any issue in public debate – and all of these are to be respected – however, contorting fact to support these positions is not to be. Though some steps have been made in the field of adult stem cell research, it is widely accepted among a strong majority of leaders in this field that, at least for now, embryonic stem cell research provides the most benefits and the most potential. This field, and this technology, is where we should be directing our attention.
Myth #5: there are only enough stem cell lines in existence and we don’t need more
When the federal restrictions were placed on funding for embryonic stem cell research, there was provision of funding for some 100 or so stem cell lines (a derived stem cell and then all of the cells it produces thereafter) already in existence at the time. However, most of these lines were unusable at the time the decision was made, and nearly all have since become unusable or impractical for study. This is because they have been either contaminated by cells from other species, were not derived using the most advanced technologies, or were gotten from people of largely one demographic. The need is great for new cell lines to be developed.
Myth #6: embryonic stem cell research is against the law
On August 9 of 2001, President Bush announced his policy on embryonic stem cell research. What he did at that time was limit the amount of funding coming from the federal government to the research. Research has been done since that decision, and all of it completely legal, yet the vast majority of it has been paid for either from private philanthropy or from state-funded initiatives. In spite of this, though, there are essential coordination and funding mechanisms that only the federal government can provide.