It was so hyped that a California ballot initiative funded it with $3B. Professors everywhere said that it was a reason to vote for Barack Obama.
Nature mag reports:
... in 1998 when researchers first worked out how to derive human embryonic stem cells. ...Everyone in this field was publicly bragging about much more dramatic progress. They were saying that after about 2 years of research, paralyzed people would be walking again.
Starting with an attempt to repair spinal-cord injuries in 2010, there have been more than a dozen clinical trials of cells created from ES cells — to treat Parkinson’s disease and diabetes, among other conditions. Early results suggest that some approaches are working: a long-awaited report this week shows improved vision in two people with age-related macular degeneration, a disease that destroys the sharpness of vision.
“In some ways, it’s not a surprise, because 20 years ago we expected it,” says Egli, “but I’m still surprised that this promise is becoming a reality.”
In 2001, US President George W. Bush restricted government funding to research on just a few existing ES-cell lines.More precisely, he expanded funding to research on about 50 lines, after Pres. Bill Clinton had banned funding entirely. Pres. Obama later expanded it to about 60 lines.
Nature calls this progress a "revolution", but it is pitiful compared to the tens of billions in funding, and the wild promises of miracle cures. Here we are, 20 years later, and the only clinical benefit they have to show is that two people have some improved vision. It doesn't say how many patients got worse vision from the experiment. Nothing has come out of that California $3B, as far as I can see.
As I write this, I am listening to a recent interview of Sam Harris. In a rant against religion, he complains:
they want to throw gays off of rooftops, force women to live in bags, or prevent gay marriage in our context, or prevent embryonic stem cell research
Stem cells seem to be a leftist-atheist bugaboo. Obviously these ideas have some sort of symbolic significance to him that rivals that of the religious folks he attacks.
So why is there all the over-the-top hype? You could just as well ask why the leftist-atheists were so preoccupied with gay marriage. I think they see it as invading God's turf.
After the article called it a "revolution", I expected it to be called a "paradigm shift" also. Those are the terms for overhyping advances that are not really advances. For example, string theorists are always talking about revolutions, even tho they have never made any real advances.