As the candidates vie for an edge in the tight race for the presidency, campaign members should be especially cautious about making statements that could make them vulnerable to attack by the opposition. Last week, in an irresponsible remark perhaps meant less to inspire hope than to gain partisan advantage, Democratic Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards handed the Bush campaign such an opportunity by exaggerating the pace of stem cell research. At the same time, he did a major disservice to the scientific effort to garner support for a technology that has not been given a fair chance.
In a statement even the most die-hard embryonic stem cell (ESC) research supporter would call misleading and boastful, Edwards claimed, "If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to get up out of that wheelchair and walk again." The claim followed the death this Sunday of the former "Superman," a quadriplegic since an injury in a 1995 equestrian competition, and an outspoken stem cell research advocate.
Over the last few months, in typical pre-election mudslinging, opponents of ESC research have accused its advocates of exaggerating the therapeutic potential of these controversial cells -- and diminishing or ignoring the successes of adult stem cells (ASC) -- to gain support for the ESC cause. Similarly, those in favor of pursuing ESC-based technologies have blasted those on the right for letting political and religious ideology stand in the way of medical progress that could save millions of lives. Since the cultivation of ESCs requires the destruction of 5-6 day-old embryos, to many the technology is tantamount to murder.
Both sides of the debate have arguably made some valid criticisms of their opponents. Opponents of ESC studies frequently rely on the lack of treatments derived from such research as evidence that further study is not merited, particularly at the expense of embryos. But ESC opponents make such comments without acknowledging the limited number of ESC lines available for research or the financial toll the current regulations have had on the creation of additional cell lines. On the other hand, advocates of ESC research often insinuate -- falsely -- that cures for debilitating diseases are right around the corner and are made inaccessible only by federal regulations prohibiting public funding for such research. That simply isn't the case. Many years of study is needed before the potential of ESCs can be realized.
The need for long-term study is by no means a reason not to pursue ESC research. But given the current policy on this issue, the onus is on ESC research advocates to make a credible, scientifically accurate case for expanding research opportunities. Edwards' claim was anything but scientifically accurate and was clearly motivated more by a desire to sway the vote than to provide scientific truths about a crucial issue. Claiming that all that stands between people like Reeve and the chance to walk again is President Bush's policy on ESCs is "crass and opportunistic," as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist stated. Such hyperbole does a disservice to the case for ESC research by stripping it of credibility. If political candidates want to address such issues, they should be sure that their statements are based in scientific reality.
Or to put it more poetically:
If you add to the truth, you subtract from it. -- The Talmud
Exaggeration is a blood relation to falsehood and nearly as blamable. -- Hosea Ballou
Aubrey Stimola is a research intern at the American Council on Science and Health.
