New Scientist reported a few days ago on a study showing that stem cells degrade as they replicate over time. Basically, they begin mutating wildly as they ?grow older.? This comes as bad news to the scientific community, which has been limited by law to using only a few elderly stem cell lines in federally-funded experiments. Privately-funded and state-funded research has no such restrictions, and several states have set up their own stem cell research centers for this reason. But as New Scientist points out, many stem cell therapies rely on replicating these pluripotent cells into liver cells, nerve cells, or whatever. So even if scientists have access to ?fresh? stem cells, the whole basis of the therapy might be undermined if it turns out that these cells have a tendency to mutate when they?re replicating (genetic mutation usually leads to cancers).

Even though I?ve supported stem cell research, and fought the religious hocus-pocus behind the idea that embryonic stem cells are ?unborn babies,? I?ve always been suspicious of the idea that stem cells could become the cure-all for cancer, aging, and inherited diseases. At this point, there?s religious zealotry on both sides of the stem cell debate. The stem cell true believers often claim that new therapies will grant us eternal life as we replenish our ailing organs with new cells that keep us going forever.

A lot of money is being thrown at stem cell research, despite the fact that we haven?t reached a point where we know much about how stem cell therapies will work. The therapies look promising, but mostly on paper. We?re only just now discovering how stem cell lines function over time, as this new study suggests. I wonder if stem cell ?cures,? like electrotherapies of the nineteenth century, will turn out to be more fad than fact?