Minions of the Discovery Institute don't restrict themselves to only fighting for the indoctrination of high school students with creationism—they've also got a wider goal of infusing society with their anti-science dogma. One Discovery Institute Fellow, Wesley Smith, has been all over the place ranting against stem cell research lately, typically with as little actual grasp of the facts as the DI usually brings to bear against evolution.

For instance, how is this for a lovely title: "Embryonic Stem Cell Research Likely Won't Cure Any Diseases"? Now that's doom-and-gloom for you. The gist of his argument is that 1) biotech companies are not getting rich on embryonic stem cell research now, and 2) it won't work anyway. The first point is irrelevant. Basic research often isn't going to be immediately profitable, which is why we need government sponsorship; that our current administration has actively crippled this kind of research might, perhaps, be contributing to the reluctance of the biotech industry to leap into it.

His second point is backed up with some incredibly dishonest quote mining. What he does is quote scientists as being discouraging about the prospects for the research, while omitting key conclusions that contradict his points. For example, here Smith complains that the demand for embryos would be insuperable:

But now, we are being told that ESCR alone won't lead to treatments for degenerative diseases and disabilities such as Parkinson's, spinal-cord injury, Lou Gehrig's disease, juvenile diabetes, and the like. It seems that our bodies might reject tissues developed from natural embryos. Indeed, according to Robert Lanza, medical director of Advanced Cell Technology, writing in the May 24 Scientific American, the rejection issue is so huge that biotechnologists would require "millions of discarded embryos from IVF clinics" to create stem-cell lines with sufficient genetic variations to mitigate the problem through tissue matching.

But take a look at the Scientific American article. Here are the next sentences right after that quote:

Some researchers have speculated that such an extensive bank might not be necessary, that patients can be desensitized to ES cell derivatives or that the antigenic properties of the cells themselves can be reduced. But those feats have yet to be conclusively demonstrated. At present, the only sure way to circumvent the problem of immune rejection would be to create an ES cell line using a patient's own genetic material through nuclear transfer or cloning. This technique has inspired considerable controversy and has its own practical hurdles to overcome, but it has also produced encouraging results in animal experiments for regenerating failing tissues.

You see, scientists say "Yes, there are problems. Here are some avenues of research that might be productive in overcoming them." Smith selectively edits that to turn it into "Yes, there are problems. SO WE MUST IMMEDIATELY STOP ALL RESEARCH ON THE SUBJECT!"

He's not done yet. He cites another article to back up his claim of logistical impossibility:

But it is utterly unrealistic to think that cloning will ever become that efficient. Indeed, an article published last year by the NAS (written by Peter Mombaerts of Rockefeller University) revealed that it would probably take about 100 human eggs per patient to make just one viable cloned embryonic-stem-cell line for use in "therapeutic cloning." If true, this means we would need a mind-boggling 10 billion eggs just to treat 100 million Americans — never mind the hundreds of millions of patients who would clamor for such care in the rest of the world. These staggering numbers almost certainly doom therapeutic cloning from ever entering medicine's armamentarium.

Whoa, it sure sounds like Peter Mombaerts thinks there is no hope for this therapy! But, as you might expect, if you actually trouble to read the article, you find a completely different conclusion:

Despite major efforts, the efficiency of nuclear transfer has not increased over the years in any of the mammalian species cloned. Little hope should be placed in a dramatic (say, 10-fold) increase in efficiency in the near future. It becomes imperative to develop alternative strategies for therapeutic cloning, if this approach is ever to make a significant impact on medicine.

Alternative strategies can be divided into oocyte-dependent and oocyte-independent approaches. First, oocytes could be differentiated from existing ES cell lines, so that they can be produced in essentially unlimited numbers. This would eliminate completely the need for human oocyte donors. This exciting new approach has become realistic with a recent report of oocytes derived from mouse ES cells. For therapeutic cloning purposes, the oocyte is essentially a processor for reprogramming the inserted nucleus, and its nuclear genome is not carried over in the ntES cells. Another strategy would be to use oocytes from another species, ideally a nonprimate species such as rabbit. However, the idea of generating embryos with mixed human/animal properties, even transiently, is offensive to many people.

In the long run, efforts should be concentrated toward developing oocyte-independent systems, for instance by fusing somatic cells with enucleated ES cells, or by injecting ES cell- or oocyte-derived reprogramming factors into somatic cells. A major benefit of the complete elimination of oocytes and embryos from the concept of therapeutic cloning is that the ethical debate would vaporize instantaneously. In this way, scientific progress may provide a solution to ethical concerns.

Whoops. Wesley Smith forgot to mention all this other stuff from the article, I guess.

Smith is publishing versions of this story in various places. In a National Review article, he emphasizes the promise of adult stem cell research, which he claims is "...nder-reported by the ESCR-besotted mainstream media" (a peculiar claim, that; I've never found the mainstream media to be besotted with research, period, let alone the more narrow bounds of embryonic stem cell research, and I've seen quite a bit of media hoopla over adult stem cells.) Yet if you talk to the people who are actually doing adult stem cell research, they urge much more caution and less restriction—and if you think about it, that's a case of scientists urging more support for their competitors. Here, for example, is Catherine Verfaillie, one of the world's leaders in adult stem cell research:

"It is correct that we have found adult stem cells in bone marrow of humans as well as mice and rats, with great growth potential and great versatility, much like we have seen in embryonic stem cells," Dr. Verfaillie wrote. "That said, it is far too early to say whether they will stack up when compared to embryonic stem cells in longevity and function. Further, we will not know which stem cells, adult or embryonic, are most useful in treating a particular disease without side-by-side comparison of adult and embryonic stem cells.

"While we are excited by our adult stem cell findings, it is not our intention to stop here. There are still too many unknowns for researchers or policy-makers to begin closing doors to opportunities of learning."