Because each of us began life in the womb as an embryo, common sense dictates that to end the life of a human embryo is to abort the existence of someone who could have grown to live and to love just as we have. Surely, the prudent approach is to presume life for the human embryo rather than to pursue his or her destruction. —Jonathan Imbody, Christian Medical Association

¨ Declaration of Geneva: "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."¹

¨ The Nuremberg Code: "The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision."

"No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects."

"Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death."²

¨ The Declaration of Helsinki: "In the purely scientific application of clinical research carried out on a human being, it is the duty of the doctor to remain the protector of the life and health of that person on whom clinical research is being carried out."³

¨ United States Law: "In 1996, Congress enacted an appropriations rider to prevent federal funding of human embryo research. The appropriations rider provided that: "(a) None of the funds made available by this Act may be used for (1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 C.F.R. § 46.208(a)(2) and section 489(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. §289g(b))." The congressional prohibition against the use of HHS funds for human embryo research has been included in every appropriations bill since enactment of the initial rider. Most recently, Congress renewed its prohibition on embryo research in the HHS appropriations bill for 2001, which was signed into law on December 21, 2000. See Pub. L. No. 106-554, Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, § 510."⁴

The pattern in the media reportage about stem cells is growing very wearisome. When a research advance occurs with embryonic stem cells, the media usually give the story the brass-band treatment. However, when researchers announce even greater success using adult stem cells, the media reportage is generally about as intense and excited as a stifled yawn.

As a consequence, many people in this country continue to believe that embryonic stem cells offer the greatest promise for developing new medical treatments using the body’s cells—known as regenerative medicine—while in actuality, adult and alternative sources of stem cells have demonstrated much brighter prospects. This misperception has societal consequences, distorting the political debate over human cloning and embryonic-stem-cell research (ESCR) and perhaps even affecting levels of public and private research funding of embryonic and adult stem-cell therapies.⁷

Most Americans, out of a mixed sense of sympathy and awe, looked at people in wheelchairs and think: Who would want to deny them a cure? No one better understands the desire for a cure than I do, as a quadriplegic who has lived in a wheelchair for decades. But even Christopher Reeve’s chances for a cure are more realistic using adult stem-cell therapies.⁸

Studies using non-embryonic stem cells, derived ethically and safely from umbilical cord blood, bone marrow, brain tissue and fat, have moved well beyond theory to application. These clinical studies offer solid benefits to patients suffering from heart disease, blood disorders and other afflictions. Adult stem cells have already been used successfully with patients: to treat cartilage defects in children; restore vision to patients who were legally blind; relieve systemic lupus, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis; and to serve as an aid in numerous cancer treatments. The use of a patient’s own stem cells is even preferable to using embryonic stem cells because it avoids the problem of the body rejecting cells other than its own. Other new methods such as somatic cell gene therapy are increasingly successful in tissue regeneration and otherwise treating disease.

By contrast, embryonic stem cells have yet to demonstrate a single human therapeutic benefit. The most recent studies in animals have shown ES cells to be unstable and unpredictable—"errors [that] can lead to premature death or serious abnormality." Worried ES cell researchers were caught doctoring their interpretations of ES cell problems because they reportedly feared that "any mention of that potential problem in the article might be exaggerated by political factions that oppose the research on religious and ethical grounds." As the ES cell hype smokescreen disappears, a lot of disillusioned and angry patients will question scientific integrity.⁹

Advances in adult stem cell research since Bush’s 2001 decision have been nothing short of awesome. At a recent Senate hearing on cutting-edge adult stem cell research, two young women, victims of horrific automobile accidents causing spinal cord paralysis, actually walked into the hearing room. They described their dramatic improvement after spinal cord paralysis. They were treated in Portugal by transplantation of their own stem cells, taken from olfactory tissue that has the ability to form new nerve cells.

In Germany, a cancer victim whose jaw had been removed  re-grew bone tissue utilizing adult stem-cells from his own bone marrow, and was able to eat a bratwurst sandwich for the first time in nine years. Patients with Parkinson’s disease have reported significant improvement, some even regaining their sense of taste and smell, with injections of GDNF, an adult stem cell related therapy. A recent PBS special recounted other significant human cures with adult stem cells, and a Texas surgeon liposuctioned himself to promote excess fat as a viable source of adult stem cells.  Do No Harm, the web site of a coalition of American scientists for ethical research, is replete with dozens more successful examples of cures from adult stem cell research.¹⁰

It has been known for about 30 years that stem cells are present in the tissue of the adult, but it was assumed that they could only form cells of a particular tissue. That is, reprogramming them was considered impossible. In recent years, however, pluripotent stem cells were discovered in various human tissues–in the spinal cord, in the brain, in the mesenchyme (connective tissue) of various organs, and in the blood of the umbilical cord. These pluripotent stem cells are capable of forming several cell types–principally blood, muscle, and nerve cells. It has been possible to recognize, select, and develop them to the point that they form mature cell types with the help of growth factors and regulating proteins.

Yet another reason has emerged why there is incessant pressure for embryonic stem cell research, despite mounting evidence of its inferiority to adult stem cell research, in testimony before a Senate Committee on July 14, 2004. After discussing the cases of the two paralyzed young women who were now walking after adult stem cell treatment in Portugal, Dr. Jean Peduzzi-Nelson pointed out that an embryonic stem cell product could become patentable and potentially yield enormous profits. But an adult stem cell therapy, in which the patient’s own cells were used, could not produce a patentable procedure or product according to current laws.¹⁵

It would be tragic if political considerations and greed diverted funding away from fruitful lines of research utilizing adult stem cells, which show promise in producing the cures sought by so many desperate patients.¹⁶

Researchers of adult stem cells are quietly providing hope and help for people with Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, spinal cord injuries, immunodeficiencies, sickle cell anemia, autoimmune diseases and stroke. Scientific evidence, fiscal prudence and compassion for the afflicted all point to investing our tax dollars in adult stem cell research, where proven results are yielding real treatments for real patients.¹⁷