Earlier this month, Obama reversed a federal ban on embryonic stem-cell research. Many scientists say the research could lead to advances in treating conditions like Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease, while some abortion opponents believe destroying embryos in the research amounts to ending a human life.
The problem with the paragraph is it's not true.
But the infrequently voiced reality, stem cell experts confess, is that, of all the diseases that may someday be cured by embryonic stem cell treatments, Alzheimer's is among the least likely to benefit...
But given the lack of any serious suggestion that stem cells themselves have practical potential to treat Alzheimer's, the Reagan-inspired tidal wave of enthusiasm stands as an example of how easily a modest line of scientific inquiry can grow in the public mind to mythological proportions.
It is a distortion that some admit is not being aggressively corrected by scientists.
"To start with, people need a fairy tale," said Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. "Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand."
The ends justify the means, I guess.
This brings up some very disturbing questions to me. First, we are constantly told by those on the Left that scientists are, essentially, the ultimate objective arbiters of truth. They don't lie. They don't distort. They simply discover truths. Yet here we have scientists admitting that they willingly lie about the usefulness of stem cell research for diseases like Alzheimer's. And this is acceptable?
The second question stems (no pun intended) from the first. If it's acceptable to lie about ESCR and Alzheimer's, why is it such a stretch to believe that scientists might lie about other hot button issues like global warming?