Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Politics Are a Poison Stew

Anyone who followed the elections of 2006 heard a lot about stem cells. In fact, anyone who watched television during the months of campaigning heard about stem cells whether interested in the campaigns or not. The short version of all the rhetoric is that the US must fund and support stem cell research if people with Parkinson’s and spinal cord injuries are ever to be healed.

All the supporting rhetoric carefully avoided using the term “embryonic.” The advertisements and the speeches spoke of stem cells as if it meant only one thing. If people investigated the subject on their own, they learned that cells which are found in many parts of the body at many different life stages are classified as stem cells. They also learned that research with some forms of stem cells has already produced medically beneficial results. They learned that embryonic stem cells can only be obtained by killing embryos, the starting point of all human life. They discovered that no research with embryonic stem cells has yet produced a therapeutic result. But they did not hear any of this information in the political discussions of stem cells.

As I watched the campaign, I saw that most of the confrontation was about embryonic stem cells. Those who wanted to pass measures supporting “stem cell research” meant “embryonic” stem cells, but they never used that term. Those who opposed measures funding and legalizing “stem cell research” expressed their respect for life, but they did little to clarify anyone’s understanding of the real issues, either.

Journalists, the fourth estate, the people we have historically relied upon to report to us the unbiased truth, did little to make the issue clearer. They, too, avoided using the term “embryonic,” and they quoted statements which did not make the issue plain. Their choice of terminology in referring to anyone who opposed “stem cell research” made it clear that they thought such a person was ignorant, backward and unfeeling.