Federal Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research Debate

Introduction

The issue of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is one of the most contentious topics in public health policy, because the arguments for and against are so divergent in terms of logical soundness and moral legitimacy. On one side are proponents of federal funding, who argue that stem cell research should be funded and encouraged because it has the potential to treat or cure many of the most debilitating diseases facing humanity, and that funding such research presents no unmanageable moral problems — the embryos themselves have no consciousness and cannot experience pain or suffering (Robertson 192). In contrast, opponents of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research rely on arguments rooted in an arbitrary, religious morality that is ultimately absurd and inhumane.

When comparing the arguments for and against the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, it becomes clear that this funding is not merely important but is actually a moral imperative, and that opposition to such research cannot be justified except by an appeal to an imaginary religious authority.

What Is Embryonic Stem Cell Research?

Before evaluating the debate, it is necessary to define embryonic stem cell research, so that there is no confusion about how embryos are actually used. Embryonic stem cell research depends on cultivating stem cells from recently fertilized embryos, which requires destroying the embryo in the process (Robertson 192). The embryos used in this way are very early in development; in fact, the emergence of stem cells in an embryo represents "the first differentiation after fertilization of cells of the embryo proper," meaning that these embryos are not even at the point where they would have implanted in a human body (Robertson 192). The embryos used for stem cell research are always grown in vitro — they are never inside a human body to begin with.

So, while embryonic stem cell research does depend on "destroying embryos," these embryos are so underdeveloped that they bear little resemblance — in either appearance or moral weight — to an actual human being. Most reasonable people would not see a meaningful connection between the rights afforded to conscious human beings and the small collection of cells that constitutes an early embryo.

Religious Roots of Opposition to Federal Funding

Unfortunately, opponents of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research are not guided by this kind of reasoned judgment. Their opposition is primarily based in religion — a system that, by definition, rejects logic and evidence in favor of faith, meaning assertion without proof. To say that opponents are primarily motivated by religion is not a straw man; they have no difficulty making those motivations explicit.

The most significant opposition to federal stem cell funding began with the Reagan administration and continued through both Bush administrations. In each case, opposition was rooted in the belief that human embryos are morally equivalent to actual human beings — a belief derived directly from conservative Christian ideology (Smith 623; Robertson 192; "Civil Law" 626–627). In 1994, the Republican-controlled Congress passed the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which banned federal funding for any research involving the destruction of human embryos ("Civil Law" 626–627). To appreciate how extreme this opposition became, one need only consider George W. Bush's press secretary's response when asked about the president's position: "The simple answer is he thinks murder is wrong" (Kollman 150).

In all of these cases, opposition to the destruction of embryos rested on the assumption that such destruction constitutes the moral equivalent of murder — because, in the eyes of Reagan, both Bush administrations, and their Congressional allies, the potential of a group of cells to eventually develop into a human being means that group of cells warrants the same rights and protections as an actual human (Kollman 150). As many readers will recognize, this is the same justification offered in opposition to abortion, and in both cases the ideology can be traced to multiple passages in the Bible referring to God's knowledge of the individual prior to birth — including Psalms 139, Jeremiah 1, and Job 31.

Conclusion

At this point it should be clear that there are no good reasons to oppose the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, and only good reasons for supporting it. Opposition can only be justified by an appeal to unreasonable and arbitrary moral standards based not on logic, reason, or concern for human well-being, but on the dictates of outdated religious beliefs. This opposition ultimately values the potential for human life over actual human life — so that, in a perverse twist, the very people claiming to defend the sanctity of life are the ones most responsible for prolonged suffering and preventable death. By pretending that an embryo has the same rights and moral standing as a conscious human being, they actually devalue the lives of real people suffering from real diseases.

In contrast, the arguments in favor of embryonic stem cell research are grounded in the demonstrated potential of this science to greatly improve human health and well-being. This research also represents a sound public investment: advancements in treating age-related diseases will reduce the societal costs of an aging population while improving the lives of countless individuals. Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is therefore not merely a good idea — it is a moral imperative, and one of the most promising avenues available for reducing human suffering and death.

Works Cited

"Civil Law — Federal Funding of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research — D.C. Circuit Vacates District Court's Preliminary Injunction of Federal Funding for Research Using Human Embryonic Stem Cells. — Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 2011)." Harvard Law Review 125.2 (2011): 626–633.

Ghavamzadeh, Ardeshir, et al. "Stem Cell Therapy in Treatment of Different Diseases." Acta Medica Iranica 50.2 (2012): 79–96.

Kollman, Maite S. "Taking the Moral High Road: Why Embryonic Stem Cell Research Should Be Strictly Regulated." Faulkner Law Review 2.1 (2010): 145–192.

Robertson, John A. "Embryo Stem Cell Research: Ten Years of Controversy." Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 38.2 (2010): 191–203.

Smith, Alexander Thomas T. "Faith, Science and the Political Imagination: Moderate Republicans and the Politics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research." Sociological Review 58.4 (2010): 623–637.