False Claims In Stem Cell Research

With the future of medical science right in our grasp, false claims could be interpreted by the general public leading to a confusion on who is truly right. With this article published on USA Today, the amount of bias and false facts that are able to slip through the cracks for the world to see is astounding. With this article, two medical professionals that are untrained in the study of stem cells makes false claims regarding alternatives to embryonic stem cells that could lead to public misrepresentation of the facts on fetal stem cells. The authors title their article in a way that could include realistic alternatives to fetal stem cells, but is soon blinded by false claims and by working towards their specific goals for this article. With

The authors here compare Nazi's in the 1955 who would experiment on disabled children to stem cell scientists who use "human embryos or fetuses as objects or means of experimentation"(Lee & Schmaida, 2015, para.5). This comparison between Nazi's who are interested in improving the Nazi party and stem cell scientists looking find cures for diseases is unwarranted and displays the author's skewed opinion of fetal stem cells. The authors reach a breakdown in logic when they say that "second-trimester miscarriages are also an excellent sources of fetal tissue for transplantation. No clear scientific proof justifies using abortion-derived or human embryonic tissues"(Lee & Schmainda, 2015, para.4). These two sentences contradict each other and unveils more depth to the authors' distaste for fetal stem cells. The article is titled and written to speak about how fetal stem cells are no longer needed, but in this statement the author talks about a good alternative way to get fetal stem cells. The next statement makes a false statement about how science doesn't justify the use of tissues from abortions or embryos. With these statements, the authors show how they are trying to fight and ethical argument with science. The greater potency alone is a scientific advantage that justifies using fetal tissues and the inclusion of embryonic tissues is a separate matter entirely.

Tara Sander Lee is a pathology professor and Kathleen M. Schmainda is a radiology professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Neither of these authors have professional experience with stem cells, which can be seen by looking at their statements. The first misleading statement in this article says, "Alternative sources are available for research and transplantation without ethical concerns or legal restrictions. They include tissue from surgery, tumor biopsies, human umbilical cords, blood and placenta."(Lee & Schmainda, 2015, para.3). This quote is misleading because it doesn't mention anything about the potency of these sources. The sources that the authors mention are all a lesser potency than fetal stem cells which would limit the number of tissues that could be created. The authors then move on to talk about "reprogrammed cells derived from adults and amniotic fluid stem cells" and that these stem cells "don't pose the risk of triggering tumor growth"(Lee & Schmainda, 2015, para.4). These induced pluripotent cells mentioned are an exciting innovation to stem cell research, but they are very expensive and time consuming to create. Also, unlike what the authors say, these induced pluripotent cells do lead to serious tumor formation known as teratomas. This last misunderstanding could send a patient looking for a cure in a study that is dangerous and