David Frost’s article in Thursday’s Daily (Pro-life, scientific groups divided over controversy), provided an incomplete and distorted picture of the debate over stem cell research in this country.

I am particularly disappointed at the lack of factual information on the history of stem cell research. Kim Gordon stated that adult stem cell research is successful and that there have been strides in this area that have not been made in embryonic research.

This is not only inaccurate, but it is a gross simplification of the issues.

Did you know that the National Institute of Health has a huge report on stem cells available online at www.nih.gov/news/stemcell/scireport.htm?

It took me less than twenty minutes to find this report containing hundreds of pages discussing the nature of stem cells, the differences between adult and embryonic stem cells, and the state of stem cell research. Had your reporter done a little more background research, he too would have known that Ms. Gordon’s statements distorted the issue.

According to chapter four, page 25 of the NIH report, there are 13 adult tissues thought to contain stem cells.

The article does not mention this, nor does it address Ms. Gordon’s contentions regarding the current state of stem cell research.

I don’t expect David Frost to read the entire NIH report.

In order to rebut Ms. Gordon’s dismissal of embryonic cells as less promising than adults ones, he needed only to look at the July 12, 2001 Associated Press article Politics Complicate Stem Cell Issue.

This article illustrates the limitations on adult stem cells; that they are more committed to specific functions than are embryonic cells.

For this reason, the AP article states scientists believe the embryonic stem cells are the most useful because they have not yet developed skin or muscle or bone and can be manipulated most easily.

It is true that embryonic stem cell research in the United States has been somewhat limited, but it is irresponsible to jump to the conclusion that we will not make greater strides in this field if further study is allowed.

How are we to make strides in this field when experts like Roger Pedersen are leaving our nation’s universities to work in countries that allow embryonic stem cell research?

It may sound at this point like I am all for embryonic stem cell research.

I am obviously biased, but I do believe that we need to proceed with caution. Like any other area, this research should be regulated.

It is both unnecessary and unethical to abort fetuses solely to harvest their cells. There are plenty of unused embryos discarded by fertility clinics every year.

No one in their right mind would advocate killing humans for experiment, as Ms. Gordon fears.

All I ask is that the journalists who report on this highly controversial, and potentially life-saving research give an accurate picture.

Lillian Erdahl

Senior

Biology