Good Article on Adult Stem Cells, But Can We Please Get the Science Right?

This is a good article on the potential of adult blood stem cells to treat heart disease. I am glad it was reported by Time. But I can’t help gnashing my teeth at the bad science reporting that is epidemic in the mainstream media about embryonic stem cells, to wit: “Unlike other stem-cell therapies, which make use of bone marrow or—more controversially in the U.S.—the blood of human embryos, Fulga believes the procedure patented by TheraVitae is simpler, safer and less invasive. The patient is effectively treating himself with his own blood, so there is very little danger of rejection,” says Fulga, an ophthalmologist. “It’s the safest kind of stem cell you can get.” (My emphasis.)

Yes, adult stem cells are not only safer, embryonic stem cells are unsafe as they often cause tumors, in addition to the rejection issue. But there is no blood in the early embryo. None. This may seem a small point, but there is so much ignorance out there about these issues—unlike this article, some of it sowed intentionally in my view—that it is important to keep the science accurate.

In any event, good for Time for reporting on this adult stem cell story.