Sound bites and headlines routinely charge that the Bush administration opposes stem cell research. This is untrue. President Bush supports such research when it uses organs, tissues, fat, blood and the discarded miles of umbilical cord. But like many people, he draws the line at destroying human embryos to harvest their parts.

Contrary to the daily news, therapeutic research does not require human sacrifice, since adult stem cells are both plentiful and prolific. But journalists perpetuate this confusion every time they announce progress in the "controversial" field of stem cell research, not mentioning that the controversy involves embryos, whereas all the progress employs adult cells.

Sloppy reporting mingles two very different sources: one ethically compromised and untested; the other commonplace and well respected. Did you know the adult stem cells that make bone marrow transplants a lifesaver have been studied for nearly 30 years?

But setting aside ethical concerns about exploiting human lives, we can ask pragmatically: Do the raw and elusive embryo cells hold more promise than adult cells? So far, their wild profusion has produced tumors and invasive, irremovable growths choking healthy cells - unpromising indeed.

But adult stem cells are both adaptable and controllable. Present throughout the body, they can replace almost every part, from muscle and organs to nerve and heart cells. New successes keep coming.

Moreover, a patient whose own stem cells are used to rebuild damaged tissue runs no risk of autoimmune rejection of foreign (embryo) cells and avoids a lifetime regime of immune-suppressant drugs.

David Prentice, who teaches life sciences and genetics at Indiana State University, warns that embryo research delays cures since it "takes money away from the truly promising research, involving adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood stem cells (which) are already successfully treating patients."

Bioethicist Wesley Smith says, "taxpayers should not have to pay for intensely controversial research that much of the private sector rightly sees as a dry well."

The marketplace has turned its back on embryo research, yet a "clone-and-kill" bill in the U.S. Senate would use our tax dollars for this useless attack on human dignity. The Bush administration says no. Journalists can't seem to tell the difference. I sure can. How about you?

---

Ellen Curtin of Fort Thomas is a medical/technical editor and mother of four.

Want your voice here?

Send your column or proposed topic, 400 words or fewer, along with a photo of yourself, to assistant editorial editor Ray Cooklis at rcooklis@enquirer.com; (513) 768-8525.