Clarifying the promise of stem cell research
In "Experts rip Rove stem cell remark; Researchers doubt adult stem cells have far more promise than embryonic cells" (Page 1, July 19), Tribune staff reporters Jeremy Manier and Judith Graham confuse promising clinical applications of stem cell research with the potential for future research promise.
They refer to an interview I gave to the editorial board of the Denver Post, in which I pointed out that promising applications to date have come only from adult cells, and not from embryonic stem cells.
These have ranged from effective treatments for several cancers to experimental therapies that have improved the conditions of some patients with multiple sclerosis, lupus, sickle cell anemia and other terrible diseases.
Of course this adult stem cell work doesn’t mean embryonic stem cells could not also show results someday. As I also made clear in that same interview, one reason more applications have resulted from adult than embryonic stem cells is that adult cells have been studied longer.
Manier and Graham ignore this distinction between clinical results and the potential for future research uses, and by so doing confuse a number of scientists into responding to my comments about clinical uses as though I referred to research potential.
Karl Rove
White House
political adviser
Washington
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_opinion_letters/2006/08/clarifying_the_.html