Embryonic Stem Cell Research

LaVarr pointed me to an interesting article on stem cell research. I majored in biology and particularly enjoyed genetics. (Talking last week with a current biology major, though, I got the feeling my work back in the day (1980s) might be closer to the work of Mendel (1820s) than to that of the current student, in terms in sophistication.) So, I have a bit of a scientific background to approach the issue of stem cell research -- though I don't think that such a background is a prerequisite. The issue also must be approached from moral, philosophical, religious and purely human perspectives.

I relish scientific advancement -- not only from a science perspective but also, and mostly, from a human perspective. Bluntly, as would be true for all of us, a lot of people I love would not be here, if it weren't for scientific advances made over the last century. And, other people I love still might be here or might be doing better with additional scientific advances. I am all for the march of progress and I am an enormous fan of scientific advances.

But, I am against government funding of embryonic stem cell research.

I am stunned that right-of-center officials would advocate government funding of embryonic stem cell research. To me, this one isn't even a close call. The issue being debated is not whether the research should occur but whether taxpayer money should be used to fund the research. As the article states,

Currently federal funding for work with stem cells taken from human embryos is strictly limited but researchers can use private money as they wish. Only one specific form of the research is at issue - that using stem cells from human embryos.

Many taxpayers (I include myself in this number) believe that embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong and is a first step, or leap, toward liberalization of abortion laws. I believe this for two primary reasons.

First, to liberalize abortion, the fetus must be dehumanized; and embryonic stem cell research is the gold ticket to dehumanizing the fetus, by effectively re-categorizing embryos as fungible commodities or mere farm products, rather than the sacred beginnings of human life. The baited hook is that something good might come of the harvest. In politics, remember, it's not your enemies, but your friends, that kill you, by abandoning sound principle to reach for something good. (And that "good" is always out there, whether it be stifling private enterprise for better government services, whether it be higher taxes for better schools or roads, or whether it be, as in this case, dehumanizing the unborn for the prospect of better health care).

Second, as Tom DeLay correctly observes, "You don't have to kill an embryo to make this work." The successes in stem cell research (and they are amazing) are coming from non-embryonic sources. Why, then, if our successes are coming from non-embryonic research and if many taxpayers view the harvest of embryos as morally repugnant in itself and potentially catastrophic in the larger abortion debate, would government be justified in spending tax dollars on the practice? Answer: it isn't justified.

UPDATE (later on 5/23/05): For an opposing view, here's a link to someone calling President Bush "un-American" for opposing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. To me, the guy unintentionally makes another argument why the federal government should NOT fund embryonic stem cell research. As he is not deterred by "destruction of human life" arguments, he argues that the federal government must get into this business so that the rest of the world won't leave us behind. Yet, he then predicts that California will shame the federal government and it's funding position with successes from the State's $3 billion voter-approved initiative.

Though it's hard to believe these days, the federal government is a government of limited scope and authority -- having been delegated only a portion of the states' broader authority. In the few instances where the federal government manages to restrain itself, the states will take divergent paths on complex issues. Some experiments will work, some will fail; overall, the good of the country advances by decentralized governance and competition among the states. I clearly disagree with California's choice in this instance; but that very choice seems to undercut the panicky argument forwarded by advocates of embryonic stem cell research -- that research will not occur in America, if the federal government does not fund it.

UPDATE (05/26/05): The bill to use taxpayer money to fund embryonic stem cell research passed the House. Republican Representatives Bishop and Cannon voted against it. Democrat Representative Matheson voted for it. As President Bush said, the bill "would take us across a critical ethical line by creating new incentives for the ongoing destruction of emerging human life. Crossing this line would be a great mistake."