On January 11th, the House of Representatives for the second time approved – it was first passed in 2006, and subsequently vetoed – a bill to allow federal support for research using stem cells extracted from leftover embryos that fertility clinics would otherwise discard, in an attempt to end a funding moratorium initiated in 2001 by the Bush administration.

Stem cell research involves extracting stem cells from human embryos that are a few days old. The embryos are destroyed in the process, raising important ethical questions about the sanctity of human life and whether it is appropriate to use human embryos in this way for important scientific research. Few doubt the potential of research with stem cells to eventually find cures for important diseases such as Diabetes, Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s. Scientists, also, do not doubt that much research is still needed to get to this stage. In its current terms, stem cell research poses a trade-off between furthering potentially life-changing scientific research and protecting human life –in the form of an embryo- from being subject to scientific manipulation.

The House’s vote has elicited a torrent of responses from a variety of public figures. The Bush administration quickly issued a statement saying they are prepared to veto the bill, setting the stage for an open political confrontation between Democrats and Republicans over this complex scientific and ethical issue.

The vote also prompted Charles Krauthammer to write a column in The Washington Post praising President Bush’s moratorium on stem cell research because, in his view, the ban gave “…technology enough time to catch up and rescue us from the moral dilemmas of embryonic destruction” . The author goes on to credit the moratorium for spurring further research into alternative sources of stem cells, citing the important finding that stem cells can be obtained from amniotic fluid as an example.

While Krauthammer is correct in emphasizing the importance of the ethical issues involved and in insisting that some lines must be drawn, it is worth scrutinizing with greater care whether a ban was the best way to pursue those ends.

Many controversial issues tend to be discussed in black-and-white terms, as if only two opposing options existed. However, good policy requires compromise and is a finer instrument than politicians, commentators and activists intend us to believe. In this case, society does not face a binary choice between prohibiting or supporting federal funding of all stem cell research. Rather, a policy supportive of federal funding of stem cell research should and most probably would include a whole variety of regulations that draw many lines:

First, at least two kinds of embryos can be used for research: those left over from fertility treatments and those especially created for research. Currently, most countries permitting stem cell research only allow use of leftover embryos; these are usually discarded or frozen, and are only available for research if voluntarily donated by the parents.

Second, many worry that supporting stem cell research will lead to the emergence of a market for embryos. However, mechanisms exist to either regulate or replace a market of this type. The UK, for example, has a stem cell bank controlled by the government to ensure open access to stem cell lines and to prevent the creation of a market for human embryos.

Third, Krauthammer worries that research with human embryos will inevitably lead to support for human cloning in order to produce replacement body parts. This classical ‘slippery slope’ argument is widely used to argue in favor of stricter limitations on research. However, public opinion is increasingly capable of differentiating between alternatives. A 2003 survey by the BBVA Foundation of Spain found that in 8 out of 10 countries, society supports stem cell research using leftover embryos, while all but one of these societies rejects the use of embryos specially created for research (Americans’ views are in line with the European average: 38% strongly support research with leftover embryos and 12% mildly support it, while 24% strongly support and 10% mildly support the use of created embryos). In the same survey, however, animal and human cloning are overwhelmingly rejected. In both cases, beliefs about when life begins and ‘the sanctity of life’, measured by many different semantic scales, coincide with people’s opinions towards specific scientific applications. Further evidence of public opinion’s ability to distinguish between different scenarios –and what those fluctuations of opinion may indicate- can be found at Public Agenda.

Krauthammer also points the experience in South Korea, where star researcher Dr. Hwang Woo Suk was found to have falsified the results of his research, as evidence of the pitfalls of under-regulating research. However, the reasons leading to Dr. Hwang’s demise have little to do with the nature of stem cell research itself, and more to do with the conditions in which scientists today work: as research moves from the laboratory to the market place faster than ever, researchers face increasing pressure from market forces –to produce economically profitable research–, from society –to live up to the promises– and their colleagues –to publish fast, or perish. Enforcing appropriate professional standards in an increasingly global research “market” is a real challenge, not just in stem cell research, but in every area of scientific and academic research.

Stem cells are just one example of increasing public scrutiny over scientific research and how it is funded. The ‘democratization’ of science should be welcomed, but debate needs to be more open and honest. As in most areas of human action, real risks and ethical questions exist and need to be discussed. Furthermore, increasingly fast-paced scientific progress will only amplify the importance of the ethical considerations and the need for effective channels of discussion. The stem cell debate showcases many vital issues that as a society we will face more and more frequently in the 21st century: how to regulate new areas of scientific research (the next big challenge, nanotechnology), how to collectively resolve very difficult ethical and moral issues (what legal protection, if any, to give increasingly smaller and more basic forms of life) and, perhaps most important, how do we want to produce scientific research and disseminate its results. The experience with stem cell research illustrates how a policy of imposing bans and moratoriums artificially dichotomizes a complex debate that touches on personal and professional ethics.