Though embryonic stem cell applications have been a failure ...

Another Telegraph article that fails to mention that not all stem cell research is embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research has given us no successful medical applications - none whatsoever; it is also deeply unethical because it involves the destruction of human individuals at the embryonic stage.

Those successful treatments you have heard about all involve adult stem cells: for example, the Bristol University work on a bio-engineered trachea. Adult or own stem cell research is completely ethical, as it involves the use of stem cells found naturally in our bodies, the harvesting of which does no harm to the person from whom they are taken. As mentioned in a November posting, adult stem cells work because they are stable (being past the embryonic stage) and do not encounter immunity problems because they are taken from the patient receiving the therapy; embryonic stem cells are involved in the development of the embryo and are therefore unstable; they have a tendency to create tumours in the patient receiving the treatment.

Throughout November I blogged on this, noting firstly that the scientists involved in embryonic research were fishing for state funding because, apart from the occasional rich philanthropist, all the private investors were going into adult stem cell research; and second that there is a certain element of gesture politics here: people want to be seen as "on the side of science", to "be enlightened": for these people, it is probably enough that the Catholic Church opposes something for them to support it. Thirdly, the use of embryonic stem cells for medical purposes is a bulwark for the abortion culture, because destroying embryos can be portrayed as having good effects: this de-sensitises people to the rights of the unborn.

The irony of all this is that the claims for embryonic stem cell resarch are bad science: embryonic stem cells haven't led to any cures; liberal types support this immoral research for ideological reasons without basis in evidence. The money spent on this research is money not spent on a viable therapy.

The use of embryo-like stem cells, which do not involve the embryo, seems to be a postive development however; so all to the good if scientists avoid destroying life for supposedly medical reasons. Note that that word, "potential" crops up again in the Telegraph article: people invest a lot of hope in this treatment for some reason without evidence. Even if this unstable type of stem cell can be harvested ethically, the barriers to therapeutic applications will be the same as for embryonic stem cells; though the immunity problem presumably will be solved, the instability problem will not.