We evil Republicans want you to suffer

Some of you might be aware of the political ads featuring Michae| J. F0x and his support for stem cell research. In each instance, he endorses the Democrat candidate over the Republican because, he claims, that the Republicans oppose stem cell research. These ads have generated quite a bit of controversy, mostly because they're wildly inaccurate and misleading.

First of all, there is no Republican that I know of that opposes stem cell research on the whole. There are, however, different forms of stem cell research. I'm certainly no expert on the practice, but as I understand it there are three main forms. One involving the stem cells from adults, another involving the stem cells found in umbilical cords and another involving stem cells harvested from human embryos, i.e. fertilized human eggs.

The point of contention is in the last form of research in which human embryos are destroyed in order to obtain the stem cells. This gets into a rather questionable area of ethics, given the debate over when life begins, what constitutes life, etc. Most, if not all, opponents of embryonic stem cell research do so on the grounds of their belief that the destruction of the human embryo constitutes the destruction of a human life. To my knowledge, there are no credible opponents to the other forms of stem cell research.

Thus, characterizing opponents of embryonic stem cell research as opponents of stem cell research in general is incredibly unfair and inaccurate -- especially given the implication that opponents of embryonic stem cell research would rather have people suffer from diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer’s, etc.

Moreover, some Democrats have been grossly irresponsible in characterizing the debate over embryonic stem cell research. First of all, such research is not illegal, nor is there any talk of such. There are, however, limitations on federal funding for such research. But the research can still be pursued with private and, presumably, state funds.

During the 2004 presidential campaign, Vice presidentia| candidate John Edw@rds claimed that "If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again." That statement is/was so outrageously inaccurate that it defies description. First of all, medical science is not even close to curing spinal cord injuries, with or without stem cells, embryonic or otherwise. Secondly, to imply that the Bush administration's policy on stem cells was somehow responsible for the continued paralysis of people like Christopher Reeve borders on slanderous.

There also seems to be emerging conventional wisdom that stem cells will lead to cures for diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. At least in the case of Alzheimer's, this does not seem to be the case. This is not to say, however, that there will never be a cure -- simply that it will not likely come from stem cells. There have, in fact, been remarkable advancements in the treatment of this disease that have nothing to do with stem cells.

I haven't seen any data on embryonic stem cell use in treating Parkinson's disease, but I can't imagine the prognosis is much different.

I understand as well as anyone the desperate hope for a miracle cure for the world's most debilitating diseases. But I'm afraid that, in some cases, such desperate hope can cloud the judgment of those affected. People want so desperately to believe that stem cells will lead to a cure to whatever affliction they may have that they will ignore the ethical questions of such a cure -- and even ignore the medical evidence that such a cure is unlikely.

Many supporters of embryonic stem cell research point to Nancy Reagan's support as evidence that it is a cause that conservatives can join. Politicization aside, Nancy Reagan deeply loved her husband. I would imagine that she would have supported any measure possible to cure his disease. (For those of you living under a rock for the last 15 years, or maybe just disgustingly uniformed, Ronald Reagan suffered from Alzheimer’s.)

The same is true for Michae| J. Fox. He so desperately wants to be cured of his disease that he will grasp onto whatever hope he can find, regardless of its medical validity.

All in all, to mischaracterize such an emotional, ethical issue is the dirtiest of all the dirty politics. It really is a shame that one of the few issues that enjoys broad bi-partisan support has to be politicized in such a manner. People like Michae| J. Fox would do well to take a cue from L@nce Arms+rong, who remains diligently non-partisan in his lobbying for medical research.