After distorting an article about a recent breakthrough in stem cell research, host Scott James of Fox News Radio 600 KCOL's Ride Home with The James Gang misleadingly asserted on his June 7 broadcast that proponents of embryonic stem cell research are “pooh-poohing this particular research.” James further claimed that this alleged response proves that the argument for embryonic stem cell research “has never been about research, it's never been about the good that can come from it; it has always been about abortion.”

James was discussing new research indicating that it might be possible to derive pluripotent stem cells -- typically obtained from embryos and potentially formed into any other kind of cell -- from adult skin cells. He apparently read from a June 6 article in the magazine Nature, which reported that research “by three different groups shows that normal skin cells can be reprogrammed to an embryonic state in mice.” Reading the article almost verbatim, James continued:

Race now on to apply the surprisingly straightforward procedure to human cells. If researchers succeed, it will make it relatively easy to produce cells that seem indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells, and that are genetically matched to individual patients.

But James then skipped the article's next sentence, which reads: “There are limits to how useful and safe these would be for therapeutic use in the near term, but they should quickly prove a boon in the lab.”

In addition, James baselessly claimed that proponents of embryonic stem cell research are “pooh-poohing” the scientific breakthrough and “saying, 'Now, look, here is some good that come -- that can come from these fetuses. Here's some good. See, abortion can be OK.' ” James continued:

And now this research comes out that shows that we can get embryonic stem cells from something that is not a fetus. And they're pooh-poohing this research. Why? Because it does not show that at least that bit of a positive onto abortion. This stem cell research issue has never been about research, it's never been about the good that can come from it; it has always been about abortion.

James did not substantiate his assertion that “pooh-poohing” of the latest research has been related to the support of abortion rights, or explain how embryonic stem cell research -- which typically relies on embryos obtained from in vitro fertilization clinics that otherwise would have disposed of them -- relates to abortion. The Nature article did not report any criticism of the breakthrough research, but it did report that Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University -- one of the scientists who discovered the recent groundbreaking technique for inducing skin cells to perform like pluripotential embryonic cells in mice -- had received “a good dose of scepticism” from the scientific community during an earlier phase of his research last year. As the article reported:

Last year, Yamanaka introduced a system that uses mouse fibroblasts, a common cell type that can easily be harvested from skin, instead of eggs. Four genes, which code for four specific proteins known as transcription factors, are transferred into the cells using retroviruses. The proteins trigger the expression of other genes that lead the cells to become pluripotent, meaning that they could potentially become any of the body's cells. Yamanaka calls them induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells). “It's easy. There's no trick, no magic,” says Yamanaka.

The results were met with amazement, along with a good dose of scepticism. Four factors seemed too simple. And although the cells had some characteristics of embryonic cells -- they formed colonies, could propagate continuously and could form cancerous growths called teratomas -- they lacked others. Introduction of iPS cells into a developing embryo, for example, did not produce a 'chimaera' -- a mouse carrying a mix of DNA from both the original embryo and the iPS cells throughout its body. “I was not comfortable with the term 'pluripotent' last year,” says Hans Schöler, a stem-cell specialist at the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine in Münster who is not involved with any of the three articles.

This week, Yamanaka presents a second generation of iPS cells, which pass all these tests. In addition, a group led by Rudolf Jaenisch at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a collaborative effort between Konrad Hochedlinger of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and Kathrin Plath of the University of California, Los Angeles, used the same four factors and got strikingly similar results.

Other scientists also have stated that success in applying the cell harvesting technique to human stem cells could still be years away. As The Washington Post reported on June 7, “Some experts, noting that more than 20 years passed after the discovery of mouse embryonic stem cells before human embryonic stem cells were discovered, warned that it could take a long time to translate the new work to human cells. But others predicted that those hurdles would not prove too difficult now that the general approach has been proven in mice.” And, while the Associated Press reported, “Experts were impressed by the achievement,” it also noted experts' warnings that the findings are not likely to be applicable to human stem cells anytime soon:

“I think it's one of the most exciting things that has come out about embryonic stem cells, period,” said researcher Dr. Asa Abeliovich of Columbia University in New York, who didn't participate in the work.

But he and others cautioned that it will take further study to see whether this scientific advance can be harnessed for creating new human therapies. For one thing, the procedure used to get the mouse skin cells to mimic embryonic stem cells wouldn't be suitable. And it's simply not known whether the mouse results can be reproduced with human cells.

Long way to go': “We have a long way to go,” said John Gearhart of Johns Hopkins University, a stem cell researcher who also wasn't involved in the new work.

In any case, scientists said, the advance does not mean that research that involves getting stem cells from human embryos should now be abandoned.

“We simply don't know which approach ... will work the best,” said researcher Konrad Hochedlinger of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, who led one of the three teams.

From the June 7 broadcast of Fox News Radio 600 KCOL's Ride Home with The James Gang:

JAMES [reading]: “Research reported this week by three different groups shows that normal skin cells can be reprogrammed to an embryonic state in mice. Race now on to apply the surprisingly straightforward procedure to human cells. If researchers succeed, it will make it relatively easy to produce cells that seem indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells, and that are genetically matched to individual patients. 'It would change the way we see things go -- or, see things quite dramatically,' said Alan Trounson of Monash University in Victoria, Australia. In theory, embryonic stem cells can propagate themselves indefinitely and are able to become any type of cell in the body. So far, the only way to obtain embryonic stem cells involves destroying an embryo.”

JAMES: Thus the controversy. Now what they've found a way to do, though, a procedure is a kind of technically difficult in this embryonic way.

JAMES [reading again]: “It involves obtaining unfertilized eggs, replacing their genetic material with that from an adult cell, and then forcing that cell to divide to create an early-stage embryo, from which the stem cells can be harvested. 'Neither eggs nor embryos are necessary in this process that they found in mice. I've never worked with either,' says one of the scientists involved.”

JAMES: There are, of course, people out there that are naysaying this technology already, saying, “Oh, it can't quite possibly work -- quite, can't possibly work.” As I've done a little bit of re-, research -- and it, it's a weighty topic, difficult to understand this, this, this stem cell research. As I've done a little bit of, of research, the most promising work is being done right now in non-embryonic stem cells. Yet that doesn't want to come to light. Why? Why is it that the only productive work that, that folks can see, so to speak -- that the, the crowd who has the loudest voice can see -- comes from embryonic stem, stem cells? And now the same crowd that says, “We need embryonic stem cells,” same crowd that's demanding that, is pooh-poohing this particular research. Why? I've said all along, it's never about embryonic stem cells. It's not about stem cell research. This issue is about abortion.

JAMES: In my mind, there's little good that is derived from abortion. It's the taking of a life. Now, yes, sometimes it might benefit the health of the mother. There's some good that can be derived. But by and law, the day in-day out practice of abortion simply takes a life. And the crowd that was pro-embryonic stem cells saying, “Now, look, here is some good that come -- that can come from these fetuses. Here's some good. See, abortion can be OK.” And now this research comes out that shows that we can get embryonic stem cells from something that is not a fetus. And they're pooh-poohing this research. Why? Because it does not show that at least that bit of a positive onto abortion. This stem cell research issue has never been about research, it's never been about the good that can come from it; it has always been about abortion. And it will continue to be, and that's a shame, 'cause some people can benefit from that science.