Related articles and links |  1 of 3

Bush drew a line in the sand saying that federally supported embryonic stem-cell studies will be restricted to stem cells harvested from over 60 existing genetically diverse stem-cell lines. Derived from already destroyed embryos, these cell colonies can regenerate themselves indefinitely.

In order to monitor stem-cell research, Bush is creating a president's council of leading scientists, doctors, ethicists, lawyers, and theologians. Dr. Leon Kass, a biomedical ethicist from the University of Chicago, will lead the council.

Kass has conservative credentials (including writing for First Things and being a Brady Fellow at The American Enterprise Institute) and a well-rounded resume (he's a medical ethicist, a surgeon, and a Ph.D. in biochemistry). Currently the Addie Clark Harding Professor in the Committee on Social Thought and the College of the University of Chicago, Kass is a graduate of the University of Chicago School of Medicine.

He has established himself lately in the fight against human cloning with a book and several articles. A recent Kass essay, Moral Meaning of Genetic Technology, sets the context for the embryonic stem-cell debate.

Bush's decision was a careful step into the fray. In his compromise, he found a way to allow scientific exploration to continue while still making an ethical stand. But people on both sides feel he gave too much ground.

Do No Harm: The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics is "greatly disappointed in President Bush's misguided decision to allow federal funding of existing stem cell lines derived from the destruction of human embryos. Science should not, and need not, depend on the deliberate destruction of human life, no matter when that destruction of life occurred."

The New York Times reported today that many groups on both sides have found something to like and hate. That seems true with conservative organizations.

Ken Connor of the Family Research Council commended Bush for "drawing a clear line against future federal funding of stem cell research that involves the killing of human embryos," but was distressed at the decision to fund research on the existing 60 lines. "It is a basic moral principle that one cannot benefit by the wrongdoing of others. In law, this doctrine is known as the fruit of the poisonous tree," Connor said.

He said the compromise is a slippery slope because now the question is not "whether such research ought to be permitted, but rather how many cell lines are enough. Having introduced the camel's nose under the tent, soon we will have the whole beast."

Christianity Today's editorial response argues that the decision "actually pulled our society a few feet back up the slippery slope the Clinton administration put us on."

The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity cheers Bush's restrictions but is disappointed he did not completely ban federal funding.

The President's compromise is disappointing but not entirely disheartening. We should not use tax dollars to fund research which is complicit with embryo destruction. Since human embryos were killed to obtain the stem cell lines, those cells are morally tainted. All the more, this research is likely unnecessary given the tremendous progress in using stem cells from morally unproblematic sources such as umbilical cords, placentas, and adult tissue.

Fortunately, the President drew a clear line in the sand stating that federal funds would not be used to destroy human embryos. It is unfortunate though that federal money will be used to promote research that, if treatments ever come from it, many conscientious citizens will refuse because it comes from destroyed human embryos. It is better to promote research that all Americans can unequivocally support.

next page... |  1 of 3

August (Web-only) 2001, Vol. 45