[pigbucket]

>The ignorance the writer displays in the last paragraph is ridiculous. "Anti-stem cell research campaigns" are against use of embryonic stem cells. But the writer's own article indicates that adult stem cells were used here.

Some opponents have argued that stem-cell research is useless as well as, in the case of embryonic stem-cell research, ethically questionable. I take it the author's point is that now we can prove the general case: stem-cell research can lead to cures, and so disprove one of the (tactical) arguments of opponents. Rush Limbaugh at one point said embryonic stem-cell research in particular is useless, so he won't be bothered by this news.

[lucasjung]

I've never heard anybody argue against adult stem-cell research, but I suppose it's possible that somebody out there is making that argument. The only time I've heard people bring up adult stem cell research is to point out that all of the actual treatments derived from stem cell research to date have come from adult stem cell research, and that it is therefore more pragmatic to focus resources on adult stem cell research rather than directing any resources into embryonic stem cell research.

Also, most of the arguments I've heard against embryonic stem-cell research acknowledge that it might in fact produce life-saving or life-changing treatments, but that it is nonetheless morally and/or ethically wrong. A literary parallel is Le Guin's "Those Who Walk Away from Omelas:" enormous good comes at the price of involuntary sacrifice on the part of a single innocent. Some conclude that the trade is morally and/or ethically acceptable because of all of the good that is obtained, which cannot be obtained by any other means; others conclude that the good obtained from the sacrifice does not justify the evil of the sacrifice.

[hammock]

This is by no means the first case of adult stem cells being used in a treatment.