AJOB has a good editorial on the inflated claims that are sometimes made for the therapeutic benefits of early-stage research, particularly, lately, regarding embryonic stem cells:

Those of us who support embryonic stem cell research often cringe when the claims in favor of that research are embellished. During the Presidential election, of course, that reached its apex with arguments by a number of folks including Sen. Kerry himself to the effect that Christopher Reeve might have been cured has stem cell research been funded sooner. Today, dozens of children and others who argue – like us – for stem cell research are held up as potential recipients of embryonic stem cell-derived therapy, as though the big worry is that they will not receive their embryo pills next year and will suffer as a result. You don’t have to have a long memory to see how dangerous these views can be. Just think back to gene therapy, and the clamor of folks to enroll in early, non-therapeutic trials because of the perceived magic of anything genetic.

The latest twist comes from an unnamed “Scientist in Irvine [California]“, . . .

who writes the San Francisco Chronicle to let us know that among the victims of unenlightened stem cell research are the soldiers in Iraq, who won’t get their stem cell therapies and will die as a result.

It’s true that stem cell research has been over-hyped, which both misleads the public and hands ammunition to opponents of science. It is dishonest and unfair to promise immediate benefits from research that faces so many technical hurdles before even earliest clinical trials can begin for most of its potential applications.

Part of the problem comes from the criminal debasement of our political discourse. No issue – no matter how momentous – gets debated at any level more sophisticated than the sound bite and the grandstanding photo op. When opponents of stem cell research trot out their own children and absurdly label them “Former Embryo“, or poignantly ask a Congressional committee “which of my twin daughters should be sacrificed” for stem cell research, it is hardly surprising for proponents of that research to counter with Christopher Reeve. But those who are in the right on this issue owe it to themselves and their own commitment to ethics to behave responsibly even where the political climate is not conducive. There is no point in promoting the truth if we do not believe the truth has both value and power.