Stem-cell debate clouded by half-truths

President Bush stands in the way of new treatments for diseases ranging from Parkinson's to Alzheimer's, says Sen. John Kerry as he delineates his position on what has become a hot issue in this year's presidential campaigning: stem-cell research.

The senator wants us to believe that if he is elected, the United States will be catapulted to world leadership in stem-cell research and produce an array of miracle cures.

President Bush and many of his supporters argue that the Bush administration was the first to provide funding for stem-cell research. But they also contend that the prospects for cures are grossly overstated, that federal funding is not needed and that the real potential for finding cures lies not in embryonic stem cells, but in applications of adult stem cells.

Both sides are inconsistent and somewhat disingenuous:

• Because embryonic cells are obtained via the destruction of early-stage embryos, the inflammatory language of the debate over abortion inevitably creeps into discussions, with references to "killing" and "tearing apart" human embryos, and "culling" their cells. Far better for such critics of embryonic research to say forthrightly: "I oppose this technology for religious and moral reasons" — as is their right — and skip the quasi-scientific rationalizations.

• Bush's supporters claim that by being the first American president to authorize federal spending on embryonic stem-cell research, he is really a champion of the field. Well, yes and no. On Aug. 9, 2001, Bush authorized federal spending on embryonic stem-cell research — but only on 64 cell lines then in existence, of which only about 21 are currently available for research purposes.

His supporters characterize this decision as a sound "compromise," but it is problematic. In essence, the president argued that although he is against the use of early embryos because it requires the destruction of life, federal funding is OK for research using stem-cell lines from embryos for which "the life and death decision had already been made." But if it is morally acceptable to use cell lines from embryos created before that magical date, why is it not also right to create stem-cell lines from the estimated half-million unused, unwanted fertility clinic embryos destined to be destroyed?

• The Democrats would have us believe that miracle cures for debilitating diseases are just waiting for the Bush restrictions to be repealed — "right at our fingertips," in Kerry's words. Republicans respond that potential embryonic stem-cell therapies are a mirage and that the Democrats are cruelly manipulating and deceiving desperate patients.