Adult v. Embryonic Stem Cells
There should be a mercy rule in this game
Suppose the St. Louis Cardinals were playing the Chicago Cubs in a baseball game, and the score in the game was 56-0. If you were like me, you'd go home. Game over. Nothing left to see here.
Well, according to our friends at Imago Dei, that is the score in the adult v. embryonic stem cell battle to find cures for various diseases.
Speaking of the mainstream media and confusing "potential" and "actual", Newsweek makes this error in their year-end "Periscope" segment:
Stem cells Even Nancy Reagan and Christopher Reeve couldn't budge Bush from limiting life-saving research. Ah-nold to the rescue.
You may think it difficult to make a large error in a one sentence statement, but Newsweek does not let us down. "Life-saving research" implies that human lives are being saved from this research. Yet, as The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics explains, not one human being has even treated with embryonic stem cells, let alone had their life saved. Adult stem cells are treating 56 human diseases today, but embryonic stem cells have caused big trouble in animal studies.
Newsweek: can you show one person who has been "saved" from embryonic stem cells, or does your periscope also have a crystal ball attached?
Unfortunately, the Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics' website is down at the time of this writing, so I cannot confirm what Imago Dei has claimed. But assuming they are right (and they have always been right in the past when I have checked), isn't it interesting that the score is so lopsided? Looks like California has bought some swamp land with Prop. 71.