Opposing voices in embryonic stem cell debate missing in action?
By Jason Major
TechNyou
Positive news abounds about the commencement of clinical trials using embryonic stem cells, but the voice of opposition seems to have faded, at least in the media. Why has this happened?
Two clinical trials are now underway using embryonic stems cells. A third using fetal stem cells was announced last week.
And they’re off
Last month it was the company Geron injecting ESCs into patients with spinal cord injury. Coming in a close second (not that it is a race – or is it?) is Advanced Cell Technologies using the ESCs to treat Stargardt’s macular dystrophy, a disease leading to early blindness.
ReNeuron and the University of Glasgow announced last week they were using neural stem cells, apparently from a 12 week old fetus, to treat stroke. Although not technically ESCs, such cells are as morally controversial as embryonic stem cells, especially among the pro-life groups.
What’s with the media?
The media have been thoroughly positive in their framing of these stories with only peripheral mention that there may be groups opposed to the use of embryonic stem cells. See below for links to a selection of media stories.
It seems only yesterday that where there was a story on research into ESCs there a loud voice taking up significant column inches berating the world for thinking ESCs were morally acceptable. Where has this voice gone?
The mere mention of GM food or nanoparticles generates a torrent of opposition voices, often in the headline – “Frankenfish” being the more colourful of recent news headlines.
I wonder if the media purposely avoided seeking comment from the key ESC opponents, or if the groups themselves sought not to provide it. Either way, my question is why. What has happened in the past couple of years to have this happen? Has the debate been had and society (or media editors) decided that ESCs are acceptable? I doubt the fact that both trials involving the ESCs were privately funded had any influence, but I could be wrong.
I am not suggesting that the opposition voice should be there, that is not for me to judge. But I am curious about why it has disappeared as I am sure the same people and groups who opposed it before, still do. A cursory glance of the blog-o-sphere seems to confirm this.