Ground Hog Day has passed, receiving its usual bit of press. Why does it receive any media coverage? Probably because we’re anxious to be rid of winter and are looking for any hopeful sign. Unfortunately Punxsutawney Phil didn’t have very good news for us this year, but maybe his prediction falls in line with other gloomy observations in the economic sector. While economic forecasts may be a lot more credible than one based on whether a groundhog sees its shadow, I worry about the public’s ability to discern the difference between established fact and feasible science.

What does all that have to do with stem cells? Well, let me share two anecdotes with you that might illustrate my point. Two weeks ago I got a late night call from a very intelligent, highly respected friend who was sure National Public Radio reported President Obama had reversed the Bush Administration’s position on limiting embryonic stem cell lines. “Wow,” I said, “that would be fantastic, but I haven’t heard anything like that.” I thanked him and decided to wait to see what the news reported the next day. He called back certain he was right and so excited by the news that human stem cell trials would start on spinal cord injuries. In his mind, the news promised great hope that I’d again be rejoining him at his country home to enjoy the outdoor activities we used to share.

Somehow he had heard the news he wanted to hear and understood the announcements in the most hopeful way. President Obama’s initial moves to change Bush administration policy did not include anything about embryonic stem cells, simply about funding for family planning through the United Nations. The announcement to do human trials for spinal cord injured patients was not a change in government policy, but the advancement of a previous application to the FDA for a phase 1 safety trial using embryonic stem cells. While all of the news was welcome, my friend had misunderstood the information and the scope of the announcements, probably erring in the name of hope.

Hope is a good thing; make no mistake about it. Medical research relies on hope—hope that science can lead us to new understanding of therapies and cures. But so far we can only hope for change in government policy. It hasn’t happened yet.

I am also afraid that people have placed excessive hope in stem cell research and that leads me to my second anecdote which, although hearsay, illustrates the point that uninformed exuberance may potentially harm patients being “treated” by unscrupulous practitioners. A cousin of my questioned me about her friend’s choice to receive stem cells as a treatment for arthritis. The well-heeled friend had rejected a knee replacement in favor of a therapy which the orthopedist acknowledged was not yet accepted by the medical community, but was certainly worth exploring. The stem cells were allegedly her own having been extracted and processed in the doctor’s own lab. What the patient was actually receiving, I have no idea. What I do know is that there are no current government approved trials to treat arthritis in this way. And I am fairly sure that the patient does not understand the risk/reward ratio of this physician’s treatment plan. What I fear is that like so many other patients, hope sometimes clouds judgment. As stem cell research advances, the hype may entice more patients to be human guinea pigs.

Luckily, suicide was not an option.  I couldn’t pick up a pill much less a gun and certainly couldn’t jump off a roof.  My only choice is to try to get better and make a new life for myself and my family.  It was less than a month after my injury. I was in Kessler Rehab Hospital where I would remain for another six months and my daughter Jessica was actively researching, looking for some miracle to give me my life back.

In the beginning of was all Jessica’s idea.  Film my recovery as we investigated the possibility of stem cell science to ameliorate injuries like mine.  While I was in rehab, I learned how to use a computer, first using voice commands and later adding a control to manipulate the cursor with my head so that I could easily read and write.  Thanks to Jessica and the rest of my I continued to progress so that at three years after my injury I was way beyond the expectations of my doctors.  I needed a transition in my life from just doing my own therapy to finding a new intellectual outlet.  I think Jessica sensed this and decided to begin the stem cell documentary is a full-time job employing me as her correspondent.

We started an amazing journey of discovery with our first stop in Toronto at the annual ISSCR meeting where I got to meet many of the scientists I have been reading about.  I also got to see my daughter in professional mode as filmmaker, writer, director and producer.  Her energy was infectious and I loved spending so much time with her, but I still couldn’t see how our film about the science of stem cell research would be able to reach the target audience of people who usually don’t watch science program.  Realizing this, we decided to show the context of this research in the American political and social scene.  I think we were lucky, to look at the right issue at just the right time.  It was the summer of 2006. Congress and the President were at odds over the stem cell bill, Proposition 71 had passed but was tied up in the courts, ballot initiatives were introduced in some states to outlaw this research yet the science was moving at an incredible speed.

It has meant so much to me to be able to help my daughter on what may end up to be the project of her lifetime as we continue on to present the various aspects of this issue. I have never been involved in politics.

Taking certain politicians to task, exposing their hypocrisy and demanding they parse the truth from their insidious doubletalk on stem cell research has energized me as a doctor and a patient. Making this film has also provided new opportunities so that now I am involved in the ISSCR copyright guidelines for translational research and hope to be valuable to politicians interested in expanding stem cell research.