I found it interesting the way this was portrayed. Remember, in this case, this is not about public policy, it is about a personal choice to invest money in a particular charity. People are asking questions and looking for alternatives. On the side of those looking for alternatives, I found these concerns were raised in a balanced way. They stated their support and concern for those suffering from ALS. They tried to understand the current status of the research and found some indications that adult stem cells are the most promising lines. They looked for alternatives, and found several that were not doing research using embryonic stem cells.
Then the backlash began. There was a Salon article which had a number of inaccuracies. Mary Elizabeth Williams began by describing opponents as anti-choice, even though they simply wanted a different choice for their donation. Then she stated there were calls to "immediately cease" any fundraising plans for the Ice Bucket Challenge. Wrong again. The calls were to direct funds to other ALS agencies that did not do embryonic stem cell research. Then she used the rest of the article to articulate why the efficacy of embryonic stem cells should override objections, why it should not matter because they were developed in vitro, why it should not matter because all public funds donated to the ALS Association are used for adult stem cell research. In each case, she failed to truly understand the reason these objections are there in the first place. And then she ended the article with this advice, "But ignorance helps no one, and if you’re going to take a stand on an issue, at least do your own soul searching and get the facts straight first."
It's too bad she didn't take her own advice.
In my own ignorance, here is where I made my donation, the Cell Therapy Foundation. It is an organization that started in Indiana and is committed to using only stem cells derived from adults. At the donation link, you can designate funding to ALS research.
-John M. Troyer