The Bush Administration and Stem Cell Research

Why are all stem cells lines created before this day acceptable, where all stem cells lines created afterward are not? Many critics of Bush's decision point out that the president has drawn a completely arbitrary moral line. According to Arthur Caplan, director of Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, this ban on stem cell research was merely a "pawn in election politics."¹ Bush said that research on the existing sixty-odd stem cell lines would not only be allowed, but that $25 million of federal funding would be provided for this research. Caplan points out that there are no such thing as 60 stem cell lines available for research. "There are no more than 23. And no credible scientist believes that this number is sufficient to undertake a serious clinical research program on embryonic stem cells."

In addition, Caplan sees the amount of money offered by the Bush administration as somewhat of an insult as it is on par with the amount of money granted to study alternative medicine. "The president's alleged compromise has produced funding on a par with money for studies of St. John's wort, tai chi and black cohosh root." ¹ There is good reason to question the president's logic and motives regarding this decision.

• If embryo destruction in itself is morally wrong, why allow research on existing stem cell lines?

• If all embryos are people, why isn't the president doing anything about the 400,000 frozen embryos at IVF clinics across the country?

• If embryo destruction is wrong, is an embryo in a Petri-dish "morally on par with a child suffering from juvenile diabetes or a person who cannot walk due to a spinal cord injury?"^₁ These conditions could be helped by stem cell research.

American scientists are busy conducting stem cell research overseas, publishing the results here in the states AND seeking American patents for their findings. If this is all morally wrong, then why is this allowed but not the creation of stem cell lines?

Supporters of the August 9, 2001 decision are quick to point out what they see as flaws in their adversaries' arguments. Eric Cohen, consultant to the President's Council on Bioethics, sees the current policy as the best way to deal with the vast variety of opinion surrounding this issue in the U.S. He points out that it was in 1995 that the "Dickey Amendment" was first passed, outlawing the use of federal money to fund human embryo destruction. This amendment has been renewed each year by the legislature, although during the Clinton years a loophole was discovered allowing federal funds to be used for research on embryos that had already been destroyed by private funding.

The Bush administration did not want to see federal money "encouraging" embryo destruction even if it was not directly funding it. Cohen points out that there are not any limits on embryo destruction in the private sector, only on the amount of taxpayer money going towards embryonic stem cell research. He argues that the government can not force a large portion of the country, which sees personhood as beginning at conception, to see their federal taxes go towards a practice they believe to be morally wrong. According to Cohen, embryonic stem cell research is still in the early stages and experts on diseases like Alzheimer's do not see this research playing any significant role in the near future.²

Sources

1) Caplan, Arthur L. "Stem-cell research a pawn in election politics." The American Journal of Bioethics. http://www.bioethics.net

2) Cohen, Eric. "Inflated Promise, Distorted Facts." National Review Online. 25 May 2004. http://www.nationalreviewonline.com/comment/cohen200405251335.asp