Stem Cells and Public Policy

On Oct. 13, the first human embryos created through cloning were produced. Though the embryos died even before having divided into eight cells, the research points to new advancements possible in the medical field. The cloning method, if further developed, could one day be used to create stem cells. These stem cells, the latest research suggests, may provide tissue to be used in a variety of transplants.

Unfortunately, if a certain president gets his way, the promise of this research will be ended abruptly.

“We should not as a society grow life to destroy it,” President Bush said on Sunday, after the first reports of the research were released. He went on to call the methods, “bad public policy—not only that, it’s morally wrong in my opinion.”

Of course, special note should be taken to the last part of his statement: “in my opinion.” Bush’s qualification is precisely the reason that outlawing this research would be a mistake. His stance on the issue is not unlike his stance on abortion—they are both based on personal moral objections. These qualms must not be imposed on the rest of the nation. The government has no place interfering with a woman’s right to choose, nor does it have a place interfering with academic freedom of research. Doing so would amount to bad public policy.

Granted, some regulations on cloning are clearly necessary. If abused by the wrong party, the science could be used to disturbing ends. Similarly, some regulations on abortions are appropriate, like restrictions on very late term abortions.

However, the research in question should hardly raise ethical concerns. Dr. Michael D. West, the chief executive of Advanced Cell Technology and the author of the company’s paper, pointed out that the egg cells used were unfertilized, which meant that they had no chance of developing into human beings. These researchers are creating and destroying life no more than antibiotic researchers are brutally slaughtering millions of bacteria cells.

These distinctions are often ignored by politicians and religious leaders. All too often religious views are used as justification for sweeping public policy reforms. But this blanket resistance to anything related to cloning is problematic. If we say that these unfertilized eggs are too close to life to be destroyed, what follows? Will sperm banks still be legal? Will masturbation be outlawed?

There is most definitely a limit to the government’s role as arbitrator of morality. President Bush, who repeatedly charged during the campaign, “I trust people; I don’t trust the federal government,” should not impose his personal religious views on the rest of the nation. The federal government must not put an end to this promising research, which may one day save countless lives. A truly great moral leader will see its possible benefits to humanity.