Why Won't the Government Let Us Use Stem Cell Research?

Embryonic stem cells today are being looked to as the next step in medical science to save patients from disease. Since scientific research is generally unrestricted in the United States, within reason, the focus then on stem cell research is the debate on its funding by the government.

Currently, government sponsorship of stem cell research is mixed. At the federal level it is limited to a specific group of already harvested stem cells, which in turn restricts the scope of research that uses these given cells. At the state or local level, government has, in some states, put forth significant funds, but they are locked up in litigation, which has delayed progress.

But the real reasons for government spending or not spending are political in nature.

Why Stem Cells?

• Stem cell research is assumed to have the potential to bring forward significant medical advances at the cellular level. These particular cells are able to be developed into just about any other cell in the human body. That holds significant potential for genetic creation of cures for diseases.

Recent Status of Funding

• The first federal legislation on stem cell research funding was enacted through the Dickey-Wicker amendment during the Clinton administration. This legislation barred federal funds for research creating or destroying human embryos.

  The George W. Bush administration gained notoriety for its restrictions, but it essentially built on the previous legislation. The difference between the two administrations was that while the Dickey-Wicker amendment still allowed research on stem cells in general barring creation or destruction, the Bush administration was more restrictive. It barred cloning in general and research on cells manufactured other than through human means. In doing so, research was capped to an existing 21 stem cell set of lines from early work. The remaining material was only good for introductory work. It is widely assumed the Bush administration did this in line with political support from the conservative, Christian right.

Proponent's Argument

• The proponent for more funding argues it is a government obligation and fundamental responsibility to improve the public welfare. The government should be supporting advances in stem cell research similar to past work in preventing polio and similar diseases that threatened the general public.

Opponent's Argument

• The counterargument first asserts that supposed benefits of stem cell research are overblown and unsupported. The research is a guessing game for scientific play at the expense of human life.

  Second, embryonic stem cell research is unnecessary since adult stem cells can offer sufficient working material for scientific research purposes, particularly with recent advancement in medical science.

  Third, economic opponents argue private interests are more capable and more eager to find advances versus government-sponsored work. They point to the debacle of California's Proposition 71, which committed $3 billion to the purpose. None of the funds to date have been distributed due to litigation based on moral grounds. Private business has no such restrictions.

Current Times

• The federal government may yet weigh back into stem cell research. Recently, the Obama administration has removed the Bush administration's restrictions noted above. How this new approach to federal involvement plays out will likely be judged on results, assuming future actions are not also weighed down by litigation as well.