U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth has, in the interim, blocked the Obama administration from allocating millions of dollars in funds for human embryonic stem cell research because it involves the destruction of human embryos. Research on embryonic stem cells may now be restricted to “lines” that have already been created using private funds, with each coming from a single parent group that has existed since 2001.
Last spring, Obama dissolved the Bush administration’s limitation on taxpayer-funded embryonic stem cell research to include any lines. Lamberth found that this action violated the guidelines set out last year by the National Institutes of Health that only allows the continuation of research for embryos created through private funds.
Since a law enacted in 1996, federal dollars cannot be used for the destruction of embryos. Taking this law one step further, Lamberth ruled that the destruction of a human embryo, paid for privately, cannot be separated from the publicly-funded research that follows.
As the nation engages in another battle in the embryonic stem cell war, scientists have been put on hold. The issue of federally funded stem cell research has prevailed since they were first discovered, and the answer as to whether or not it is ethical to use taxpayer dollars to fund research has evaded the country.
Embryonic stem cells are a tabula rasa. They can differentiate into any cell in the body under the right conditions. Research into embryonic stem cells hopes to find cures for spinal cord injuries, Parkinson’s disease, and more. However, it does involve the creation of an embryo and its destruction, and this underlying issue is, well, a big deal.
While many may believe this is a political issue, it is not. During the Bush administration, 17 Republicans voted for legislation that would allow the use of federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research.
Rather, the issue is moralistic in nature and has us considering some tough existential questions—what is it to be human? When does life begin? What is the value of human life?
We at The Pioneer feel that embryonic stem cell research should be supported by federal money because its purpose is to serve and assist humanity. We also feel that by using public money, coupled with proper oversight, there may be a smaller chance for abuse in the industry. However, we do not believe that only taxpayer dollars should be used in the progress of science as most scientific innovation has been spurred by private enterprise. Instead, public funds should be provided for those conducting basic research so that private institutions are freed up to tackle specific challenges.
Funding stem cell research is analogous to funding NASA, which has brought about technological change not just for scientists but for every day people. Stem cell research can unlock cures for diseases and debilitating injuries.
Many who oppose the use of embryonic stem cells point out that we are terminating a potential human life. Yet, other forms of institutionalized termination of life exist. Our society has found it legal to end a criminal’s life. Our society has found it legal to end the lives of enemies in battle. Our society has found it legal for a woman to choose to abort a fetus, and many even support that right when the mother’s life is at risk. Why, then, can we not find it legal to terminate artificially inseminated life at the 32-cell stage when it also holds potential cures for those whose lives are at risk?
There are also other types of stem cells besides embryonic stem cells. There are cells taken from adult bone marrow. There are also induced adult stem cells—cells that have been reconverted back to their nascent stage. Opponents of stem cell research ask scientists to use these much more expensive cells instead of embryonic stem cells because they do not involve the termination of a potential human life.
The problem is, biological scientists must consider every microscopic system in a cell. Cells are highly nuanced and volatile.     A change here or there, a difference in minutia here or there, can completely alter research outcomes. Basically, we don’t know well enough how these adult stem cells can react and behave differently from embryonic stem cells.
Since the Renaissance, scientists and doctors have been ending lives to save lives. Nearly everyone turned a blind eye when human subjects were tested on in the mid-20th century to find the effects of certain diseases and treatments on the human body. Next to no one protests when animals are used in medical and psychological testing, even when these animals are highly intelligent and have complex nervous systems that allow them to feel fear and pain. Embryonic stem cells have neither a nervous system nor intelligence, yet we place them in higher regard than animals that do.
The issue boils down to human hubris. Human life is sacred. We cannot terminate potential human life. Yet, we can destroy whatever else we deem inferior. If we must destroy to create, let’s be fair to all.
We at the Pioneer recommend that you write to your Congressmen who are running for reelction in a few months and urge them to support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
We also recommend that the government stop ignoring research regarding induced adult stem cells, which could clear up this controversy. If it’s found that induced adult stem cells are just as capable in becoming any cell in the body, we should use this alternative instead. Lastly, we recommend that the public inform itself on the specifics of stem cell research because we believe a well-informed public will lead to well-informed legislation.
The decision is ours. Do we save thousands of potential human lives or potentially save billions of actual lives?

Please share your thoughts about this topic and write to The Pioneer at
[email protected].