Replies

Michael Fumento was correct in exposing The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS in 1993, and he is correct in exposing the myths of fetal stem cell research in the 21st Century.

President Bush got bad advice in his decision to fund research on some limited number of fetal stem cell lines. Umbilical stem cell lines are especially promising, and (unless the day arrives when abortions outpace liive births) will always be more plentiful than fetal lines. But as with AIDS research, politics and money are distorting the true picture.

If he was going to fund stem cell research at all, rather than trying to please everyone with funding for a finite number of fetal stem cell lines, President Bush should have opted for stem cells from less morally problematic sources, like umbilical cords.

Let's put the debate in terms that has the Democrats fighting for harvesting death via abortions vs. the Republicans harvesting life through discarded umbilical cords at birth.

Is there a problem with framing the issue in such a way that the GOP gets all of the benefits and credit, with the added bonus that it spills over into other issues to our advantage as well?

WIPE THE SMILE OFF OF THIS MAN'S FACE.

VOTE THE RATS OUT!!

DONATE TONIGHT. SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

The author admits that the potentiality of embryonic stem cells is unknown. The focus of the article is on government funding. Maybe most of it should be directed to adult cells. But the controversy was about whether to let private researchers have access to them more than about funding. Case closed as to whether we can be reasonably certain that denying the use of embryonic stem cells presents no potential impairment of medical research. Wew can't.

Yes, Fumento is great... he actually exposed the MYth of Heterosexual AIDS even earlier in the 1980s, but Govt policy wonks never listened ... on this matter, I am sure he is right too. He does his homework well. I would say though that what we can do today and what we can do in 10 years are dramatically different. Science has a lot to teach us yet.

Some of the media coverage may reflect sheer ignorance. But Science and Weissman know better. They're both part of a deliberate disinformation campaign by those who see embryonic stem cell research and non-embryonic stem cell research locked in mortal combat.

I must say that I'm disappointed by Fumento's attitude towards Weissman, here. According to the article, Weissman's research focuses on adult stem cells. So according to Fumento's argument, Weissman's vested interest would be to promote the usefulness of adult stem cells over embryonic stem cells, in hope of arrogating to his subfield a larger slice of the grant pie. Where Fumento sees a shill for a disinformation campaign, I see a researcher who reached an honest conclusion, and is sticking to it despite what the "conventional wisdom" maintains. Fumento seems incensed that a scientist would hold an unpopular view; apparently to dissent is to be disingenuous.

The reason that stem cell research is so contentious is that political liberals and conservatives both see its primary--or even sole--significance as being a battleground for the abortion debate. They don't understand that the researchers don't share that perspective. It seems that Fumento doesn't understand that, either.