Fred Thompson's Campaign Responds to Stem-Cell Challenge

Fred Thompson's campaign responded to our challenge to provide a list of locations where Americans could receive cord blood or adult stem-cell treatments for the 73 conditions he referenced last week.

In case you're just joining us, in response to the breakthrough last week in which scientists converted skin cells into stem cells, Fred Thompson praised adult stem cell research and cited what I believe is an inaccurate and politicized list of 73 adult stem cell treatments that conservative pundit David Prentice has compiled on his web site.

In his most recent response, David Ng, a spokesman for Thompson seems to be backpedaling. He said the presidential candidate had characterized the list as "research," not treatments, which is true. But I had followed up with Ng last week to clarify whether Thompson was actually referring to Prentice's list of "treatments." Ng said yes. So, it seems clear that Thompson was saying there are 73 adult stem cell treatments, and I wanted to know where people could get them. Ng continued to dodge the question. His full response is after the jump.

Sen. Thompson's statement praises another scientific breakthrough last week where adult skin cells were manipulated to take on the properties of embryonic stem cells. It referenced additional scientific breakthroughs in adult stem cell and cord blood research.
There are 73 scientific breakthroughs (we never said cures) for non-embryonic stem cell research, and none for embryo destructive research.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS: We should use our limited research dollars in a manner that is most promising.

But in reference to your challenge, nowhere does the statement address the issue of where people suffering from these diseases can be treated. The statement only references the research that is occurring.
The senator was not trying to refer patients to specific treatment centers but instead to refer reporters to the studies.

I reminded Ng that he had already confirmed that Thompson was referring to Prentice's list of "treatments," and that asking where people could get them seemed to be the logical follow-up. (Am I wrong?)

Steven Edwards: The challenge was issued because of repeated references to the 73 treatments over the years by multiple parties. The statements were a reference to Prentice's treatments for 73 conditions, as you indicated.

If the treatments exist, they will be available somewhere in some form, so I am just asking for a list of where Americans can receive these treatments. It seems to be a logical follow-up question to the statements made by Senator Thompson, and one that I know many people suffering from the 73 conditions have. (I personally have no movement below my shoulders and use a ventilator to breath for me at night due to a 1996 spinal cord injury, suffered at the age of 16.)

I understand his statement does not address where people can receive these treatments, but that's the purpose of the challenge. If the treatments exist, where can we get them? If they don't exist, perpetuating the myth that they do is unkind at best.

Darrel Ng: The statement speaks about research. You ask about treatments. I don't think it's fair to make that jump. Research always precedes treatment. (That would be akin to the campaign issuing a statement about the success a certain type of alternative vehicle fuel research and encouraging future research in that area, and you asking where can people go and purchase these new cars.)

I hope that helps clarify our point of view.

It didn't.

Our final exchange went a little something like this:

Steven Edwards: The source for Senator Thompson's "73 breakthroughs" statement was the list of 73 cord blood and adult stem cell treatments at stemcellresearch.org, but your response below says the statement was about research instead of treatments.

Does this mean Senator Thompson does not believe that the 73 treatments listed at stemcellresearch.org exist?

Darrel Ng: You're missing the whole point of this. The point is that the Senator supports the use of limited science dollars in the way that looks to bring the greatest return.

I'm not sure why you're bringing us into the debate over the list. If you have issues with the list, that's something I'm sure you can and will discuss on your blog. What we said in reference to the research.

Steven Edwards: It's about accountability.

Senator Thompson praised the iPS work and referenced the list to back his opinion that cord blood and adult stem cell research are the most promising avenue to invest in going forward. His opinion may be imposed on Americans who hold other views if he wins the election, so it's important to ensure that his opinion can be backed by facts.

If the facts support his opinion, so be it. If the facts don't, hopefully Senator Thompson will realize that and modify his position to one that is more in line with the facts.

By that, I don't mean he should start supporting research he opposes on moral grounds, but perhaps suggest policies that would enable more people to access the treatments on the list. If the treatments do not yet exist in a form that is available to Americans, acknowledge the fact and suggest policies to help speed their development so that Americans can benefit.

Using your earlier analogy on alternative vehicle fuels, if your supporting documents suggest that the fuels are already available for purchase and use, you shouldn't be surprised if someone asks where they can be obtained.

Is simple accountability too much to ask from a presidential candidate?

Editor's note: this post has been edited.

See Also:

• Wired Science Issues Stem-Cell Challenge to Fred Thompson
• Skin Cell-to-Stem Cell Alchemy 'Like Turning Lead Into Gold'