Exaggeration from opponents of embryonic stem cell research

The recent debates in Europe and the USA about the morality of embryonic stem cell research have pitched those who believe that science should be funded to find cures for many devastating illnesses using embryonic stem cells against the religious right who oppose the research on moral grounds.

A common argument used by the opponents of ES research is that treatments using adult stem cells and stem cells derived from umbilical cords is very successful at treating disease.

This is disingenuous at best and deceitful at worst. As Smith, Neaves and Teitelbaum point out in their letter published in Science on 28th July here, the opponents of ES research commonly claim that adult stem cell therapy is sufficiently successful that embryonic stem cell therapy is not needed. Such claims can be found here, here and here. A common claim is that adult stem cell therapy is successful in 65 illnesses. The list of claimed adult stem cell successes appears to be based on the work of David A Prentice, an employee of the Christian Family Research Council. In fact adiult stem cell therapy shows no promise for the prime disease targets for ES, including Parkinson's disease, diabetes, and Alzheimer's. As Smith, Neaves and Teitelbaum write:

"In fact, adult stem cell treatments fully tested in all required phases of clinical trials and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are available to treat only nine of the conditions on the Prentice list, not 65 ...Contrary to what Prentice implies, however, most of his cited treatments remain unproven and await clinical validation. Other claims, such as those for Parkinson's or spinal cord injury, are simply untenable...

The references Prentice cites as the basis for his list include various case reports, a meeting abstract, a newspaper article, and anecdotal testimony before a Congressional committee. A review of those references reveals that Prentice not only misrepresents existing adult stem cell treatments, but also frequently distorts the nature and content of the references he cites (5).

For example, to support the inclusion of Parkinson's disease on his list, Prentice cites congressional testimony by a patient and a physician, a meeting abstract by the same physician, and two publications that have nothing to do with stem cell therapy for Parkinson's. In fact, there is currently no FDA-approved adult stem cell treatment--and no cure of any kind--for Parkinson's disease.

For spinal cord injury, Prentice cites personal opinions expressed in Congressional testimony by one physician and two patients. There is currently no FDA-approved adult stem cell treatment or cure for spinal cord injury.

The reference Prentice cites for testicular cancer on his list does not report patient response to adult stem cell therapy; it simply evaluates different methods of adult stem cell isolation.

The reference Prentice cites on non-Hodgkin's lymphoma does not assess the treatment value of adult stem cell transplantation; rather, it describes culture conditions for the laboratory growth of stem cells from lymphoma patients.

Prentice's listing of Sandhoff disease, a rare disease that affects the central nervous system, is based on a layperson's statement in a newspaper article. There is currently no cure of any kind for Sandhoff disease.

By promoting the falsehood that adult stem cell treatments are already in general use for 65 diseases and injuries, Prentice and those who repeat his claims mislead laypeople and cruelly deceive patients."