On June 20, the President vetoed a bill that would have compelled American taxpayers—for the first time in our history—to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos for research purposes. At the same time, he issued an executive order directing the secretary of the department of Health and Human Services to expedite the funding of research into ethically acceptable alternatives to embryo-destructive stem cell research.

Standing on the dais with the President that day were two pioneers in alternatives to embryo-destructive stem cell research, two men with whom I have had the honor to collaborate closely over the past two and a half years: Dr. Donald Landry of Columbia University, and Dr. William Hurlbut of Stanford University, and member of the President’s Council on Bioethics. Readers of this e-column will already be familiar with their proposed alternatives, namely Dr. Hurlbut’s proposed altered nuclear transfer and Dr. Landry’s proposed derivation of new lines of human embryonic stem cells from already expired IVF embryos. The latter proposal is explained in detail in a paper in The Journal of Clinical Investigation, and Dr. Landry’s efforts were also recently highlighted in The Wall Street Journal.

Section 1 of the President’s executive order states:

The Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) shall conduct and support research on the isolation, derivation, production, and testing of stem cells that are capable of producing all or almost all of the cell types of the developing body and may result in improved understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse health conditions, but are derived without creating a human embryo for research purposes or destroying, discarding, or subjecting to harm a human embryo or fetus (emphasis added).

In his remarks in the East Room regarding these measures, the President noted:

With these steps, we'll encourage scientists to expand the frontiers of stem cell research. We want to encourage science. We want to say, we stand on your side in an ethically responsible way. Scientists have recently shown they have the ingenuity and skill to pursue the potential benefits of pluripotent stem cell research…Technical innovation in this difficult area is opening up new possibilities for progress without conflict or ethical controversy. So I invite policymakers and scientists to come together to speed our nation toward the destination we all seek—where medical problems can be solved without compromising either the high aims of science or the sanctity of human life.

Pursuing the potential benefits of human pluripotent stem cells, making sure the science goes forward, but without compromising our respect for embryonic human life: this has been the President’s policy during his entire administration.

I have always found such a policy to be deeply principled and thoroughly reasonable. Bearing in mind that stem cell research will prove to be a central issue in 2008, I’ve yet to find a presidential candidate who affords us a similar degree of principled and painstaking conviction with regard to that research.

Stem cell research was addressed head-on at the first Republican Presidential debate, when moderator Chris Matthews asked the candidates, after noting for them that Nancy Reagan was present in the audience, “Mrs. Reagan wants to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Will that progress under your administration?” (Only Senator McCain explicitly stated that he would allow federal funding of embryonic stem cell research).

There was quite a buzz last week when press reports revealed that GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney owned stock in companies that do embryonic stem cell research. Since Romney has stated his opposition to embryonic stem cell research (though he would allow it on embryos left over from fertility treatments) he was heavily criticized for this apparent inconsistency. In his defense, the former Massachusetts governor clarified that his investments were held in a blind trust which made him unable to specifically direct his funds—a defense which many pro-life voters found deficient. While Romney has been an enthusiastic supporter of research into alternative sources, such as altered nuclear transfer, his willingness to forfeit left over IVF embryos for scientific research remains troubling.

I would note in addition that, according to LifeSiteNews, Senator Sam Brownback also had monies invested in one of the same companies as Romney (Novo Nordisk). According to one ofBrownback's aides, however, the fund is apparently listed under one of Brownback's dependant children and the broker has been instructed to sell the fund. While Brownback has been unequivocal in his opposition to embryo-destructive stem cell research, I have found him to be much less lucid with regard to the complexities of the issue; I have also found his insistence on the merits of adult stem cell research alone to be naïve and out of touch with where the science is heading, and consequently with the kind of solutions that we need to proffer. Waving the banner of adult stem cell research alone is tantamount to sticking our heads in the sand.

As for Democratic candidates, all favor loosening federal restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research. In the last presidential election, Senator John Edwards said in a stump speech shortly after Christopher Reeve passed away that people like Reeve would be able to walk if there were more federal funding of stem cell research: “If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.” Such hype was a grave disservice to thousands of persons suffering paralysis and similar maladies whose hopes of being cured one day have too often become the play-thing of politicians.

Of course, no candidate can beat Hillary Clinton on over-the-top criticism of the Bush administration. Last week the Democratic candidate criticized the President for conducting an “insidious campaign against science.” She has pledged to “lift the ban on ethical embryonic stem cell research.” We might remind the Senator that there is no “ban” on embryonic stem cell research, which is conducted throughout the country, and which has received over $40 million in federal funding. Moreover, I would argue that there is no “ethical” embryonic stem cell research, as long as it requires the harm or killing of an embryonic human being.

Like other advocates of embryonic stem cell research, Clinton frames the debate as a war between science and ideology: “It's time to unlock the potential of stem cell research and put an end to the backwards and restrictive policies of this administration…Our scientists have been set back years in the race for life-saving cures because they've been held back by a narrow ideology that rejects sound science.”

The “narrow ideology” is the ethical concern shared by millions about not wanting to destroy some human lives for the (potential) therapeutic benefit of other human lives. That “narrow ideology” was actually clearly articulated in the President’s executive order. Section 2 of that order highlights four key principles that have shaped the President’s policy on the federal funding of such research:

• It is critical to establish moral and ethical boundaries to allow the Nation to move forward vigorously with medical research, while also maintaining the highest ethical standards and respecting human life and human dignity;

• The destruction of nascent life for research violates the principle that no life should be used as a mere means for achieving the medical benefit of another;

• Human embryos and fetuses, as living members of the human species, are not raw materials to be exploited or commodities to be bought and sold; and

• The Federal Government has a duty to exercise responsible stewardship of taxpayer funds, both supporting important medical research and respecting ethical and moral boundaries.

So, according to Senator Clinton—if I may be allowed to draw the obvious conclusions—refusal to allow tax-payer money to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos for research purposes is an instance of an “insidious campaign against science.” And an executive order funding scientifically promising alternatives to embryo-destructive research—prioritizing, by the way, research “with the greatest potential for clinical benefit”—manifests “a narrow ideology that rejects sound science.”

We know all too well that those genuinely in the grip of a “narrow ideology” are those who advocate unprincipled scientific research, research free of any ethical boundary whatsoever. To be sure, that’s a piece of ideology which is a holdover from the Enlightenment—an ideology which has not had a pretty history. That’s why it’s not surprising that Senator Clinton and other candidates have come to consider human embryos as essentially raw material to be made available for scientific research. Such are the high stakes we are facing in 2008.

***