When I first heard about the researchers who’ve managed to grow a liver from stem cells, I found the news encouraging, and didn’t really consider it much beyond that.

Yesterday, I saw a post about it in a typically liberal-leaning forum that I occasionally visit. It started out generally positive, talking about the breakthrough that this represents for patients with liver disease, and then, in the very last sentence, the tone of the post changed. After praising the British researchers, the post concluded by attacking the United States for prohibiting this kind of research using stem cells.

I have a few problems with that.

First: I know that “Umbilical cord” and “Embryonic” are big words and all, but they mean something, and equating “stem cells from umbilical cords” (which, incidentally, describes the stem cells used in this experiment) with “stem cells from aborted embryos” (not the sort used in this experiment) is fundamentally dishonest.

No one, to my knowledge has any objection whatsoever to using umbilical cord stem cells to try to cure diseases. On the other hand, many people have objections to using stem cells from aborted embryos, and despite the arguments from those who would have you believe that embryonic stem cells are a miracle cure, those objections are not primarily religious in nature.

Second: The United States government does not prohibit stem cell research, even on embryonic stem cells. It simply doesn’t fund it, which is something else entirely.

I find this kind of funny. Many conservatives seem to believe that if something isn’t prohibited, it’s encouraged (that’s why they try to pass laws against what they see as immoral acts — they don’t want to encourage it), and they’re rightly criticized for it. Liberals, at least in the case of stem cell research, seem to be stuck on the idea that if something isn’t encouraged, then it’s prohibited.

Third: The researchers in question were working with scientists from NASA, a fact that would pretty much lay waste to the idea that the United States government is somehow preventing this sort of research, wouldn’t it?

Fourth (and finally): I don’t honestly care what the British government does, but the United States government should not be using

… I mean, tax money… to fund this sort of research at all. I know I’m in a minority in that belief, but I think it’s worth putting out there.

In conclusion, I think it’s regretable that people would take a promising breakthrough like this and use it to slander the United States government.

From Peter David’s weblog, a report about what’s crossed his desk lately:

5) Finishing proofreading “Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man #14.” As to what’s coming up in that issue, two words: Ben Reilly. I will say no more than that (okay, Deb Whitman and the Vulture). But…Ben Reilly.

Is it just me, or did the wagon just hit a really rough patch of road? I’m having trouble staying on.