As The New York Times pointed out in its editorial "Science and Stem Cells" on March 10, 2009, limitations still remain on federal funding of stem cell research. In particular, Congressional restrictions still prevent research involving the creation and extraction of stem cells from human embryos. This work must be done with private or state financing.
The Times is right to argue for federal funding of this research, but they do so for the wrong reasons. It’s important to get the reason right.
The Times offers two problematic arguments for lifting the final limits on federal funding for stem cell research. The first is that there should be no limits on federal funding of promising stem cell research. The editorial observes: “Even with this enlightened stance, some promising stem cell research will still be denied federal dollars. For that to change, Congress must lift a separate ban that it has imposed every year since the mid-1990s.”
It is highly problematic to suggest that promising research should inevitably trump reasonable limits on science adopted by democratic governments. In fact, a wide range of limits exist – and should exist – on otherwise promising stem cell research. Some of these limits are procedural, such as regulations dealing with the protection of human and animal subjects in research, conflicts of interest among researchers, safety rules and exports of potentially dangerous technologies. Other limits constrain the outcomes of research, such as limits sought by many in Congress on the pursuit of human cloning.
These limits arose because human values – of safety, ethics and accountability – were in conflict with research practice. Past experience, from the United States and elsewhere, has taught us that limits are essential to preventing purportedly promising research from being carried out in ways that give rise to grave harm or violations of human rights.
Precisely where these societal limits on research should be drawn should be the subject of broad deliberation in society, which is unfortunately something that no administration in the last two decades has wanted to facilitate. But there should be no blanket presumption that promising research should receive federal funding.
The second wrong reason offered by The New York Times for supporting public funding of research on stem cell creation and extraction is that it will create a large infusion of money into the field. If research on stem cell creation and extraction is important, in terms of potentially valuable therapies, then we can expect businesses to put up the necessary money. Indeed, over the past decade, they have.
In my view, the right reason to support public funding for research on the creation and extraction of stem cells from embryos is that it would shine the public light of day on the research being done in this ethically treacherous domain. The ethical challenges of embryo research are precisely why Congress has continued to authorize a ban on federal sponsorship, year after year. Outlawing federal funding, however, is precisely the wrong response because it pushes the research into privately funded labs that have no obligation to share their research practices, methods or outcomes with the public.
About the Author: Clark Miller is associate director of CSPO.
