Medical writer Michael Fumento has a handle on some of the reasons most folks imagine that embryonic cell search deserves research funds and media attention...
From his article "Why The Media Miss The Stem-Cell Story:"
1. "Theres little doubt that opponents of embryonic stem cell (ESC) research have their work cut out for them. Polls repeatedly show large majorities (in the 60-70 percent range) want the federal government to promote and fund the research.
2. the polls often feature loaded questions that begin with tales of the medical miracles ESCs will allegedly bring us: cures for Parkinsons, Alzheimers, diabetes, you name it .they dont mention possible alternatives namely, so-called adult stem cells (ASCs), which are obtained without the ethical conflicts of harvesting human embryos.
3. But the biggest reason may simply be that the mainstream media are doing a lousy job of informing the public on the state of stem-cell science. By and large, theyre telling people all about the potential of ESCs especially the supposed ability to become any type of cell-without talking about certain little drawbacks, like a tendency for ESCs to be rejected and even to become cancerous.
4. As a science writer who has covered the topic extensively, I know something about this. I see the media coverage practically every day. On rare occasions Ill find blatant falsehoods: Last August, for example, influential New York Times science writer Gina Kolata told readers "so far, no one has succeeded" in getting adult stem cells to treat diseases. That statement either reveals startling ignorance or is an outright lie: Adult stem cells routinely treat or cure more than 80 different diseases, while no ESC research is anywhere near becoming a human clinical trial.
a. In a recent Washington Monthly piece by Chris Mooney, for example, Weissman claimed there is "no independently verified evidence today" that a non-embryonic stem cell of one type "can turn into another [type of] tissue at all." Sure, that claim is contradicted by countless published, peer-reviewed papers to the contrary, all available at the push of a few keys at the free Internet database PubMed.
5. I talked to a number of stem-cell researchers and the only journalist willing to be interviewed for this story and found a consensus that theres a strong media bias. What interested me most, though, were their thoughts on how and why that bias comes into play and the role of factors like attitudes toward religion, manipulation by the pro-ESC lobby, and just plain ignorance and laziness.
6. Many pro-lifers suspect that the medias pro-ESC bias has to do with their politics on issues like abortion and euthanasia. There may be something to that, but its hard to pinpoint. The only major example is a 2001 Newsweek column by Anna Quindlen, who spoke warmly of the prospect that fetal-tissue and ESC treatments could soften public opposition toward abortion, bringing "a certain long-overdue relativism to discussions of abortion across the board."
7. More likely whats going on involves reporters attitudes toward religion-or more precisely, religion in science and public-policy debates. In their minds, ESC backers have a purely scientific motivation while ASC backers have a religious one. Many journalists may see themselves as defending science against religion: They may have missed Galileos trial, but by golly theyre here for this one. (That attitude is sometimes seen most clearly outside the mainstream media. In the liberal magazine The American Prospect, for example, Chris Mooney wrote a recent piece sneering at "the Christian rights new science. ")
8. As these reporters picture themselves standing for the cause of reason against the forces of dogma, they also dont realize that the ESC research vocabulary-so filled with "mays" and "coulds" and "one days," promising a miraculous future somewhere down the road-reflects a dogma all its own.
9. Consider Harvards Douglas Melton, a diabetes researcher better known for attacking successful ASC efforts than making any real progress on his own with ESCs. Hes one of the most-quoted stem-cell experts in the country, and was named last years Policy Leader of the Year for 2004 by the politically correct Scientific American for having "advocated and enabled more extensive studies of embryonic stem cells." But what, precisely, has Melton accomplished toward curing diabetes with ESCs? When interviewed by The Wall Street Journal last year, the most he could say was "We are convinced we can do it. We just dont know how." Thats not science; thats faith. But its not a religious faith, and so reporters dont see it for what it is.1
0. The very fact that the science isnt on their side dictates that the ESC lobby must do something to make up for it so they work the press, to their benefit. ASC researchers feel much less pressure, often believing success is the best PR so they neglect the press, to their detriment.
11. In a November 2002 article, Munro lambasted the media for almost never informing "readers that these supposedly disinterested scientists have great financial stakes in the debate." That hasnt changed. Indeed, a Nexis search this March found over 600 mentions of Weissman and stem cells, but only 23 that included his affiliation with Stem Cells, Inc.; the rest merely associated him with Stanford. There were 344 mentions of Melton and stem cells mentioning his Harvard connection; just two mentioned Curis (and one of those was written by Munro). "Reporters dont treat scientists as entrepreneurs," says Munro, "and I suspect it has something to do with scientists advertising their affiliation with universities rather than traditional corporations," he says.
12. Which brings out yet another irony. Embryonic stem-cell backers often charge their critics with caring for abstract religious doctrine, not for suffering people. Yet that description arguably may be best suited to many if not most of the ESC advocates themselves. ASC researchers, on the other hand, are almost always practicing physicians. They watch people suffer; they watch them die. They want to help them and to do so as soon as possible.
Read the article at:
Michael Fumento: Why the Media Miss the Stem-Cell Story
From his article "Why The Media Miss The Stem-Cell Story:"
1. "Theres little doubt that opponents of embryonic stem cell (ESC) research have their work cut out for them. Polls repeatedly show large majorities (in the 60-70 percent range) want the federal government to promote and fund the research.
2. the polls often feature loaded questions that begin with tales of the medical miracles ESCs will allegedly bring us: cures for Parkinsons, Alzheimers, diabetes, you name it .they dont mention possible alternatives namely, so-called adult stem cells (ASCs), which are obtained without the ethical conflicts of harvesting human embryos.
3. But the biggest reason may simply be that the mainstream media are doing a lousy job of informing the public on the state of stem-cell science. By and large, theyre telling people all about the potential of ESCs especially the supposed ability to become any type of cell-without talking about certain little drawbacks, like a tendency for ESCs to be rejected and even to become cancerous.
4. As a science writer who has covered the topic extensively, I know something about this. I see the media coverage practically every day. On rare occasions Ill find blatant falsehoods: Last August, for example, influential New York Times science writer Gina Kolata told readers "so far, no one has succeeded" in getting adult stem cells to treat diseases. That statement either reveals startling ignorance or is an outright lie: Adult stem cells routinely treat or cure more than 80 different diseases, while no ESC research is anywhere near becoming a human clinical trial.
a. In a recent Washington Monthly piece by Chris Mooney, for example, Weissman claimed there is "no independently verified evidence today" that a non-embryonic stem cell of one type "can turn into another [type of] tissue at all." Sure, that claim is contradicted by countless published, peer-reviewed papers to the contrary, all available at the push of a few keys at the free Internet database PubMed.
5. I talked to a number of stem-cell researchers and the only journalist willing to be interviewed for this story and found a consensus that theres a strong media bias. What interested me most, though, were their thoughts on how and why that bias comes into play and the role of factors like attitudes toward religion, manipulation by the pro-ESC lobby, and just plain ignorance and laziness.
6. Many pro-lifers suspect that the medias pro-ESC bias has to do with their politics on issues like abortion and euthanasia. There may be something to that, but its hard to pinpoint. The only major example is a 2001 Newsweek column by Anna Quindlen, who spoke warmly of the prospect that fetal-tissue and ESC treatments could soften public opposition toward abortion, bringing "a certain long-overdue relativism to discussions of abortion across the board."
7. More likely whats going on involves reporters attitudes toward religion-or more precisely, religion in science and public-policy debates. In their minds, ESC backers have a purely scientific motivation while ASC backers have a religious one. Many journalists may see themselves as defending science against religion: They may have missed Galileos trial, but by golly theyre here for this one. (That attitude is sometimes seen most clearly outside the mainstream media. In the liberal magazine The American Prospect, for example, Chris Mooney wrote a recent piece sneering at "the Christian rights new science. ")
8. As these reporters picture themselves standing for the cause of reason against the forces of dogma, they also dont realize that the ESC research vocabulary-so filled with "mays" and "coulds" and "one days," promising a miraculous future somewhere down the road-reflects a dogma all its own.
9. Consider Harvards Douglas Melton, a diabetes researcher better known for attacking successful ASC efforts than making any real progress on his own with ESCs. Hes one of the most-quoted stem-cell experts in the country, and was named last years Policy Leader of the Year for 2004 by the politically correct Scientific American for having "advocated and enabled more extensive studies of embryonic stem cells." But what, precisely, has Melton accomplished toward curing diabetes with ESCs? When interviewed by The Wall Street Journal last year, the most he could say was "We are convinced we can do it. We just dont know how." Thats not science; thats faith. But its not a religious faith, and so reporters dont see it for what it is.1
0. The very fact that the science isnt on their side dictates that the ESC lobby must do something to make up for it so they work the press, to their benefit. ASC researchers feel much less pressure, often believing success is the best PR so they neglect the press, to their detriment.
11. In a November 2002 article, Munro lambasted the media for almost never informing "readers that these supposedly disinterested scientists have great financial stakes in the debate." That hasnt changed. Indeed, a Nexis search this March found over 600 mentions of Weissman and stem cells, but only 23 that included his affiliation with Stem Cells, Inc.; the rest merely associated him with Stanford. There were 344 mentions of Melton and stem cells mentioning his Harvard connection; just two mentioned Curis (and one of those was written by Munro). "Reporters dont treat scientists as entrepreneurs," says Munro, "and I suspect it has something to do with scientists advertising their affiliation with universities rather than traditional corporations," he says.
12. Which brings out yet another irony. Embryonic stem-cell backers often charge their critics with caring for abstract religious doctrine, not for suffering people. Yet that description arguably may be best suited to many if not most of the ESC advocates themselves. ASC researchers, on the other hand, are almost always practicing physicians. They watch people suffer; they watch them die. They want to help them and to do so as soon as possible.
Read the article at:
Michael Fumento: Why the Media Miss the Stem-Cell Story
