Dilbert Blog reader Brenda left this comment yesterday:
—- Start quote —-
“Hey idiots!!! You’ve been force fed too much stem-cell bull by the liberal media. Wake up and smell the propoganda!
ADULT stem cells are currently being used to cure dozens of diseases and conditions. Embryonic stem cells, however, haven’t cured anybody. In fact, twenty years of research on embryonic stem cells has produced nothing but tumors!!!
Bush didn’t stop any research. He only prevented tax dollars from being used to fund it. Researchers want your tax dollars! Why? Because private enterprise won’t pay for embryonic stem cell research!!! Why? Because it doesn’t work!!
Use those tax dollars to fund ADULT stem cell research. That way everyone wins. DUH!!!
Frigin’ bed wetting liberals!!!!! GAH!!!!”
—- End quote —-
Let me begin by saying I don’t debate with advocates. An advocate says that everything is right about one position and everything is wrong about the other side. You might as well debate with a doorknob.
I only debate people who say, in effect, “There’s an argument to be made on both sides, but here’s why one side seems more persuasive.” That person could theoretically be swayed by new information or a better argument. Unfortunately you never see those sorts of experts on the news. And flip-floppers don’t get elected to office. So Brenda can be excused for growing up without any good role models.
Still, Brenda raises an issue that has puzzled me too. How do the scientists know that embryonic stem cells have so much promise compared to adult stem cells? Or to put it another way, where’s my flying car they promised me?
This is another one of those context questions I keep harping on. Science is pretty good at telling us what happened in the lab today. But what is their record for predicting the future? That’s not a rhetorical question. I’d like to know the track record. Why isn’t that context always included in the news stories about stem cell research?
In physics, string theory was supposed to unravel the mysteries of the universe and become the unified theory of all theories. Lately critics have been saying “maybe not.” But is physics a fair comparison to medical research? Maybe DNA research is a better comparison. That field has been highly productive as predicted.
About once a week I read about a breakthrough in the lab that will allow us all to move objects with our minds or some damned thing “in about ten years.” Is it my imagination, or does that stuff NEVER happen in ten years? According to my unofficial tally, obesity has been cured 343 times by now.
Just to be clear, I favor embryonic stem cell research because a) To me, stem cells are like toenail clippings with a better career plan, b) Most scientists are sure it’s a fruitful path of research, and c) Someday I might get one of those diseases they hope to cure.
The thing I’d most like to know about stem cell research is science’s track record for accurately predicting what paths of research are most fruitful. If the consensus of scientists is correct about 80% of the time, that’s a hugely persuasive argument for funding embryonic stem cell research. If they are only right 5% of the time, wouldn’t you like to know?
Why does the news ignore the most important question in this debate?