The Stem Cell Veto

Andrew Sullivan expresses what my views on the president's veto of the stem cell bill had been. I find the debate rather disturbing in some ways, particularly in the ways in which the president's supporters are portrayed as being anti-science or anti-cure. Contrary to what the media might write, there is no cure out there. This is not a debate over whether or not we should cure Alzheimers or any of the other myriad diseases that stem cells. The president has not banned research on embryonic stem cells. In fact, his administration has funded such research since 2001.

What is at issue is that millions of Americans, whose views must be considered in a democratic, supposedly tolerant society, are ill at ease with the idea of destroying an embryo simply for research purposes, particularly research that is still in its early stages and, despite the rhetoric, may well lead to nothing. One may not agree with or share that concern, but millions do. So, the question is, how far do we go down a path that many find morally and ethically disturbing to pursue research that may well not pan out?

As I've said before, there may come a time when the research that is funded has advanced enough that the overhyped promises of embryonic stem cell research may start to translate into a bit of reality. If that happens, the dynamics of the question change and positions will have to be re-evaluated. Until then, the moral qualms that some, including the president have, should be considered.

Now, having said that, I did say that Sullivan expresses the views I had. The obvious response to the moral question is that the embryos will be destroyed anyway and for no purpose, so raising a moral objection to destroying them for research is rather silly. I haven't really seen a good answer to that one, and Sullivan doesn't give one either. (My post is not to advocate that view, so I won't try to justify it. I just want to emphasize that the opinions of millions of Americans shouldn't be so easily brushed aside.)

But what has been a bigger challenge is reading that the stem cell lines Bush did authorize funding for research on are corrupted and not necessarily leading very far. My point is based on the idea that research is being funded and is progressing, but if those researchers aren't getting access to sufficiently clean samples, then the research isn't moving forward and by restricting access to better sources is certainly dampening that research.

So, while I started off believing much as Sullivan does, I find that I can't. I still believe there must be some sort of compromise that takes into account both the maturity status of the research and the moral considerations, but that compromise should allow the research to continue. Bush's initial foray into this debate accomplished that, but that's changed.