Editor of National Scientist is propagandist for research using embryos

Another example of the obscuring of the distinction between adult and embryonic stem cells appeared in a page-long article in Thursday's Daily Telegraph (20 November, On the verge of a new era in medicine, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3486000/Transplant-of-windpipe-grown-from-stem-cells-heralds-new-era-in-medicine.html) by Roger Highfield, describing the rebuilding of a human trachea as “human windpipe, constructed partly from stem cells”. He then comments: “At long last, the glint in the researcher's eye has been turned into a significant advance in the clinic. Forget all this fuss about embryos and angst about playing God: this is unadulterated good news.”

The language is indeterminate here: adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells, but the context implies they are all one and the same. Here at last, the casual reader will think, we have the evidence: embryonic stem cell research is justified, the religious luddites were wrong. This is an article by the editor of a prestigious Science magazine in a National newspaper, so it must be credible.

Not mentioned was the fact that this breakthrough is a medical application of adult stem cells.

In the detail of the article, to be fair, he says, as it were in passing, that this particular application comes from the patient's bone marrow, but you have to read closely to understand this. The suggestion has been made already that embryonic stem cells are to be given credit. For the most part, he refers to stem cells as if all types of stem cells are the same in medical terms. If we should forget the fuss about embryos, this is not for the reasons given by the editor of the New Scientist, but because it was by using adult stem cells that, as the article says, “scientists can now fashion organs using a patient's own cells, eliminating the problems with rejection that always plagued transplants”. A reasonable conclusion from the facts of the case would be that we should not rely on morally dubious research on difficult to obtain embryos and concentrate on ethical, successful research into adult stem cells; the article implies otherwise by obscuring the distinction between the two technologies. It is so obscure in fact that I don't discount the possibility that Roger Highfield is writing very poorly, failing to clarify the topic; however, by reading the entire article, I conclude that he is advocating (without justification from the facts) the benefits of embryonic stem cell research. Towards the end, after noting a number of applications for adult stem cell research (he doesn't make it explicit which type of stem cell, but you can be sure it is adult cells), the article changes direction, but seamlessly:

“And there is there is the astonishing potential [my italics] of embryonic stem cells, the means by which Mother Nature fashions our entire bodies. Our understanding of how to guide the development of stem cells is primitive [my italics] – but unlike the bone marrow cells used in the Castillo case, embryonic stem cells can [my italics] turn into any one of the 200 or more different cell types in our bodies, rendering the opportunities potentially [my italics] limitless.

Note the move from fact to aspiration. He continues:

“much work must be done to determine how to make then grow the right way, and then to mould them into organs ... the potential .. is vast ..” and “The path ahead is difficult: more funding and more testing .. false alleys and blind starts, but in the long term, a brave new world beckons”. So far the funding and testing has gone into false alleys and blind starts before ... I still wonder if he is being satirical here.

Note the words, “can turn into” “much work” “potential”, “potentially”, “path ahead is difficult”, a tacit admission by the editor of the New Scientist that embryonic stems cells are not producing medical applications. Yes, Dr Highfield, you need funding because the smart (according to empirical success) money has gone into adult stem cell research.

He concludes: “Medically and ethically, the bottom line is simple: if we follow the path blazed by Claudia Castillo and her doctors, no one need ever die waiting for a donated organ again.”

Roger, the path blazed used ethically created adult stem cells. Please make this clear instead of touting for embryonic research.