"Adult stem cells are also problematic, as they are difficult to identify, purify and grow, and simply may not exist for certain diseased tissues that need to be replaced"
About this Quote
“Problematic” is doing heavy political work here: it sounds clinical, even cautious, but it’s also a rebuttal aimed at a very specific moral argument. In the mid-2000s stem-cell debate, “adult stem cells” were routinely held up as the clean alternative to embryonic research: no embryos destroyed, no ethical mess, problem solved. Engel punctures that neat escape hatch by dragging the conversation back to feasibility.
The line is built like a brief for funding. “Difficult to identify, purify and grow” is a triad of laboratory bottlenecks, translated into plain-language obstacles for colleagues who may not read journals but do read appropriations tables. Each verb signals a different choke point: finding the right cells, separating them reliably, scaling them for therapy. He’s not celebrating embryonic science; he’s arguing that the “adult-only” promise is, at best, scientifically immature.
The sharper subtext is in “may not exist.” That’s a quiet demolition of the idea that every tissue has a ready-made reservoir of repair. By pointing to “certain diseased tissues that need to be replaced,” he reframes the ethics from abstract purity to concrete patients: degeneration, injury, chronic disease. The moral center shifts from protecting potential life to alleviating existing suffering.
As a politician, Engel’s intent isn’t to win a seminar-room debate; it’s to justify policy latitude. If adult stem cells can’t reliably deliver, restricting embryonic research becomes not a principled stand but a self-imposed scientific embargo, paid for in delayed treatments and lost biomedical leadership.
The line is built like a brief for funding. “Difficult to identify, purify and grow” is a triad of laboratory bottlenecks, translated into plain-language obstacles for colleagues who may not read journals but do read appropriations tables. Each verb signals a different choke point: finding the right cells, separating them reliably, scaling them for therapy. He’s not celebrating embryonic science; he’s arguing that the “adult-only” promise is, at best, scientifically immature.
The sharper subtext is in “may not exist.” That’s a quiet demolition of the idea that every tissue has a ready-made reservoir of repair. By pointing to “certain diseased tissues that need to be replaced,” he reframes the ethics from abstract purity to concrete patients: degeneration, injury, chronic disease. The moral center shifts from protecting potential life to alleviating existing suffering.
As a politician, Engel’s intent isn’t to win a seminar-room debate; it’s to justify policy latitude. If adult stem cells can’t reliably deliver, restricting embryonic research becomes not a principled stand but a self-imposed scientific embargo, paid for in delayed treatments and lost biomedical leadership.
Quote Details
| Topic | Science |
|---|
More Quotes by Eliot
Add to List
