Of the 15 biotech firms primarily developing treatments from stem cells, just two work with embryonic stem cells. "When two similar technologies exist," notes Dr. Gottlieb, "this kind of uneven investment flow is usually a proxy for scientific promise and imminent commercial potential."
"Adult stem cells are much closer to therapeutic applications. Embryonic cells still have a variety of obstacles that need to be overcome," agreed Kevin FitzGerald, S.J., Ph.D., an assistant professor of medicine at Loyola University Medical Center. Embryonic stem cells, for example, have a disconcerting tendency to rapidly change into all kinds of different cells, not necessarily on command. Embryonic stem cells injected into certain mice create particularly unattractive tumors consisting of bits of teeth, skin and gut. Adult stem cells, by contrast, are more civilized, evolving (like a particularly well-trained Pokemon) only in response to specific cues. Then there's the problem of supply: "It takes six dead fetuses to provide enough material to treat one Parkinson's patient," notes Dr. Gottlieb, "making it difficult to see how there would be enough fetal tissue" to treat the 1 million people with Parkinson's disease "anytime soon."
A lot of people in the debate over taxpayer-funded human experimentation are trying to sell you on the idea: your morals or your life. Don't believe it. If faith means anything it means this: The same human ingenuity that could exploit defenseless unborn babies (call them embryos if it makes you feel better) could also be used to find another way.
(Maggie Gallagher is a part-time consulting editor at The American Spectator.)