In a talk delivered to the Johns Hopkins Medical Center he stated, "...we don't want to let politics, philosophy, and theology intrude on science." However, he goes on to qualify, "science qua science cannot set its own ends... Scientists left to themselves may not always make the best ethics decisions (Nizza, 2004)." Here, Fukuyama alludes to another angle that is less often mentioned -- that is that scientists and doctors alike can at times put their own personal interests foremost in any ethical issue, including this one. Further, this is often financially motivated, "with a possible personal financial stake in a biotech company to worry about, for example (Nissa)." However, he also chides those who imagine that "government" or in the case of the United States, Congress can or should regulate stem cell research, saying "by and large most Congressmen know nothing about science...(Nissa)."

Instead, many on the front lines of the debate suggest that governments should "delegate authority" to agencies that specialize in the area under an umbrella of wide ethical guidelines that all must follow. Further specific agencies or focuses of interest might be required to make more specific rules (human cloning, for example).

Although the moral question in its religious since is unlikely to be resolved in a scientific setting -- especially one in which no common ground on the issue of the sanctity of the embryo can be established (a seemingly loosing battle given the current legality of abortion), there is little question that most see the benefit of some form of regulation based on ethical considerations. Again Fukuyama states, "...it should be legitimate under the right regulatory environment to do research on embryonic stem cells." Yet, he goes on, "...I think that the problem tends to arise when medicine is applied to non-therapeutic or enhancement purposes."

Clearly the issue of stem cell research is an ethically charged one, as...

However, given the typical utilitarian model of "it is good for the majority of people," and that "people" are generally regarded by modern society as those who have passed the embryonic state, stem cell research is unlikely to end any time soon. Perhaps, instead of the debate over "should stem cell research be conducted" (a debate that seems to have been largely lost in most parts of the world), the debate will move to just "how" it will be conducted as well as how it will be applied in an ethical way. Again, this type of thinking is unlikely to assuage the feelings of those who feel that the "good" being accomplished is at the cost of the sanctity of human life. For them, the issue is likely to be one that will cause much pain (and, perhaps later, should stem cell research prove successful -- much quandary should they some day be in the position to benefit from a stem cell derived therapy). One thing is for sure, and that is science continuous to advance faster than ethical systems can adapt. Stem cell research is simply one example of many entering the fray of modern debate.
Works Cited

Berger, Eleni. "Research Avenue adds fuel to stem cell controversy." CNN.com. July 18, 2001. Retrieved from Web site on November 29, 2004, from http://archives.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/07/11/stem.cell.fact/

NIH. National Institutes of Health. "Stem Cell Information." Web site. Retrieved from Web site on November 28, 2004, from http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/faqs.asp#whatare

Nizza, Suzanne. "Fukuyama discusses biotechnology." Johns Hopkins Newsletter April 16, 2004. Retrieved form Web site on November 29, 2004, from http://www.jhunewsletter.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/04/16/407f343de8285

Shannon, Thomas a. "Cell Research: How Catholic Ethics Guide Us." Web site. 2004. Retrieved from Web site on November 29, 2004, from http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0102.aspStem-Cell Research