Guinea Pig VS Pioneer

Here is a basic analysis of word usage to manipulate the thinking of the person hearing the statement.

Today on NPR you will hear a report about stem cell research. This is the paraphrased quote from the teaser:
"When we take these stem cells and inject them into the brains of these patients we don't know what will happen. They are pioneers in stem cell research."
I was driving when I heard this (that's why it's paraphrased) and knew I had to blog it.

Accurate? Mostly. We know that these individuals are volunteering for the process which could be dangerous. That is an accurate application of the term pioneer. However we also know in the past that other individuals have volunteered to take medical experimentation with the belief that there would be positive results. We also know that those results have not always been positive.

Case in point: when we review back in the deep dark history of last year we find the tale of TGN1412 and the disastrous results. Remember the people in Britain who "swelled" and some died in a medical experiment. The doctors working with these patients have been tried and convicted in the media for using "human Guinea Pigs" for their testing.
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

It would be more accurate to say that the individuals involved in this stem cell test are in fact human guinea pigs. Yet because there is a negative connotation they choose "pioneer" to positively spin the test.

As a conservative who is concerned with the blind push for stem cell research should I view this as an "accidental" choice of words? Or should I see it as an intentional manipulation to cover up the fact that the best minds have absolutely no clue what will happen with stem cells and they are just throwing ideas against the wall until something sticks?