COMMENTARY

Post Date: October 27, 2006

A Review of Stem Cell Now: A Brief Introduction to the Coming Medical Revolution

by Robert E. Cranston, MD, MA, FAAN
 

In the foreword to Stem Cell Now, Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science magazine states:

Dispelling the confusion is important to the future of this work, and Christopher Scott—a scientist with a journalist’s skill at clear explanation—has provided exactly what is needed in this book. It is clear that Scott has a position on the potential value of stem cell research and on the political division that swirls around it. Yet he gives a reliable, balanced, and thoughtful account of the biology of stem cells and the history of this remarkable new advance in our understanding of the process of development.

Would that it were so.

Unfortunately, despite being a readable account of the new developments in this fascinating arena, Scott mixes helpful factual material with his biased view of the universe. This is essentially a pro-embryonic stem cell research propaganda piece clothed in sophisticated, at times almost neutral, terms. Alas, he cannot help himself. In the midst of factual teaching on stem cell technology, for instance, he says that to restrict research (by): “Prohibiting one line of research (embryonic Human stem cell) and not another (adult stem cell) is like asking Einstein to understand relativity without gazing at the stars or asking da Vinci to understand flight without watching birds.” Other examples abound.

Chapters 2-4 on the background and history of stem cell research are reasonably neutral, but he hammers away at his theme that embryonic stem cells are much more useful and potent (as in toti>multi>pluri>uni) than adult stem cells. He plays down the known problems related to teratoma formation with embryonic stem cells, and the bigger problems of immune rejection and graft versus host disease.

He consistently uses a modified straw man argument technique where he explains a conservative position seemingly graciously, but poorly construed. Then he quickly points out its inherent fallacies (as he has portrayed the position), and follows with the strengths of embryonic stem cell work while avoiding examination of its obvious drawbacks with more than a cursory eye.

Conservatives throughout (from whatever their true worldview) are labeled as religious and political in motivation, while moderates—as he would fashion himself—are painted as seekers of truth, of noble character, only desiring the greater good of humankind. When a neutral adjective would be appropriate, he frequently chooses a mildly pejorative one.

In chapter 9, on politics, he quickly refers to numerous studies purportedly proving that American opinion rests firmly behind embryonic stem cell work, but provides no examples of the polling questions used, or how conservative think tanks interpret these polls. It reminds one of the well-known earthy political aphorism (roughly translated) “If you cannot convince them with concrete arguments, baffle them with sheer baloney.”

The glossary is good. The chapter on the South Korean Hwang Woo Suk debacle is more even-handed than his other chapters. Faint praise.

If you wish to understand the mind of a committed embryonic stem cell advocate, dressed in the robes of a thoughtful moderate, read this book. It is informative and may help you as you talk civilly with people of similar mindset. If you are looking for the reliable, balanced, and thoughtful treatise that Donald Kennedy describes (above, keep looking. This isn’t it. CBHD

Copyright 2006 by The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity

The contents of this article do not necessarily reflect the opinions of CBHD, its staff, board or supporters. Permission to reprint granted as long as The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity and the web address for this article is referenced.