KEY POINTS:
Johann Hari, in his article "Believers stonewall life-saving science", claims that science and religion are based on fundamentally contrasting ways of understanding our world.
How is this so when a United States survey in 1914 found that 42 per cent of US scientists believed in a personal god. And when 80 years later the same questions were posed to US scientists, 39 per cent said they believed in a personal god.
We should not forget the many Christian scientists who have helped shape history. While you surf the net, recall that John von Neumann, a Jewish man who converted to Catholicism, is responsible for the modern computer. When you next go to the doctor take the time to think of Louis Pasteur for discovering the germ theory.
When you next gaze at the stars, remember that Father Nicolaus Copernicus is responsible for discovering the sun-centred model of the universe. These Catholics have contributed greatly.
Hari says that faith in divine revelation is based on hallucination. But how can anyone deny the personal experience of millions who have experienced an encounter with their God when prayers are answered, whether through cures or by finding strength to cope with spirit-breaking situations?
The church is not against "life-saving science". It is only when it conflicts with the dignity of the person - including the most defenceless of society, the unborn - that the church speaks against a particular aspect of science.
Hari's support of embryonic stem-cell research over that of adult stem cell research defies what he calls science's strict empirical observation of the world. But the benefits of embryonic stem-cell research, if any, are temporary. They are known for causing tumours and the immune system can reject them. But adult stem-cell research breakthroughs are spectacular and lasting, including treatment for cancer, auto-immune diseases, and brain degenerative diseases.
Their main use is in regenerative medicine. Stem cells can assist tissues, muscles and even organs to recover from diseases; and help non-healthy cells to recover or even supply desperately needed cells.
Stem cells can come from various parts of the body, including bone marrow, hair follicles, umbilical cord blood, placentas and amniotic fluid.
In fact, bone marrow transplants have been happening for 40 years.
In the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers published their findings that the stem cells in fat can be cultured into muscle for organ repair.
A disadvantage of adult stem cells is that, unlike embryonic stem cells, they were not totipotent - they lacked the ability to become any type of cell if properly prepared.
However, especially with bone marrow cells, the potential for cultivating adult stem cells is narrowing this gap and some researchers are beginning to claim the same flexibility of adult stem cells.
Hari claims that Yale University scientists have been able to use human neural stem cells to make primates with severe Parkinson's disease walk and eat unaided. But he does not tell us that these are in fact adult stem cells.
Hollywood actors have been in the forefront of the battle for embryonic stem-cell research, but it is adult stem-cell research that has produced the really impressive results.
Dr Steven Gill, of the Sussex Centre for Genome Damage and Stability, used stem cells in a trial to treat the brains of five Parkinson's patients. After one year there was a 61 per cent increase in the activities on a "daily living" score.
Hari says embryonic stem-cell research is less costly and gets faster results.
Why does money become a such a factor in the debate? Do not the results produced outweigh the cost factor rather than pouring money into what may be a morally questionable practice?
Why is there such a deafening clamour for government money to go into the funding of embryonic stem-cell research? Does the answer reside in the embryonic stem-cell breakthroughs being able to be patented, as opposed to adult stem cells?
It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that adult stem cells are helping thousands of patients suffering from about 80 different diseases. In contrast, no lasting benefit has yet been reached with embryonic stem cells.
It is a bold and wise decision to limit federal funding on embryonic stem-cell research. It is time to put the energy into harnessing the superb potential of adult stem cells.
