On January 8th, this newspaper (The Plain Dealer) ran a guest column in which retired biology professor Dan Agin made several mythical claims which he presented as scientific reality. While accusing others of using “junk science” as a tool to exploit the public, Professor Agin fell prey to his own accusations. He defined the following statement as a myth “…cloning research on embryonic stem cells is an immoral slippery slope that will lead to who knows where.” Under his category of reality he reminded readers that anesthesia during childbirth was once considered immoral. The implied conclusion being that cloning experimentation on human cells is no different than anesthesia and opposition on moral grounds is equally ridiculous.

Back in the 70’s the slippery slope on the ethical value of life began. Those who predicted euthanasia, fetal experimentation, convenience abortions and human cloning were mocked. Thirty years later all of those practices are now on the table. The fact that Dr. Agin defends the term “cloning research on embryonic stem cells” is proof of how far downhill political propaganda in the name of science has traveled.

The medical community has serious concerns over the scientific practicality of embryonic stem cell research. To date no significant cures have been created from such research. Even more troubling is the failure of non-medical academics to recognize the serious problems involving immune system rejection of foreign DNA inserted into the human body. Adult stem cells promise real cures and faster; the only downside being the probable need for anti-rejection therapy of some sort.

The real push for embryonic research may have much more to do with money than morals or science. University and commercial researchers are desperate to cash in on the lack of solid medical knowledge in the electorate and among legislative leaders. They are rushing to capitalize their research with tax dollars before the real science catches up with them.

We may be approaching a state of the art when neither embryonic nor amniotic stem cells will be needed to grow replacements for diseased or damaged organs. On 12-15-06 Internal Medicine News reported on the successful treatment of stress incontinence (a urinary bladder leakage problem) by harvesting stem cells from a patient’s arm muscle and then culturing them to grow 50 million myoblasts (primitive muscle cells) and fibroblasts (primitive connective tissue cells). Those cells were then injected into the same patient’s defective urinary tissues where new muscle and connective tissue grew and cured the bladder leakage. Of 63 people so treated, within 6 months 79% were cured.

Autologous (self derived) stem cells come from the patient in need and are never rejected by the immune system. Homologous (of human origin) stem cells from embryos, cord blood or amniotic fluid still face the threat of rejection and require life long anti rejection drugs. At this writing, only adult stem cells (homologous or autologous) have proven effective. No ESC has yet produced its first organ.

The breakthrough reported at Wake Forest and Harvard in harvesting highly potent stem cells from amniotic fluid provides further proof that stem cell research can be conducted without cloning or destroying human embryos. One commercial researcher, Dr. Robert Lanza, responded to this discovery telling the Associated Press that such cells, “…may not be able to do as many tricks as embryonic stem cells.” The recent breakthrough with patients’ own (autologous) stem cells proves that these adult cells may be even more “tricky” than Dr. Lanza might imagine.

Dr. Lanza’s statement illustrates just how brazen researchers have become. For some, the money available for doing medical tricks on human embryos holds more promise than creating real cures that respect the integrity of real science and the medical promise to primum non nocere, “first, do no harm.”