Stem cell ruling could hurt UIHC, will undermine other important research
Embryonic stem cells, the shape-shifters of the cellular world, have caused more recent firestorms than their microscopic size might suggest.
The controversial issue reared its head again on Monday, as U.S. District Judge Royce Lambert ruled that the use of federal dollars to conduct embryonic stem-cell research violates a 1996 law barring federal funding of embryo destruction. The federal government will appeal the decision.
Monday's ruling could affect the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, where researchers conduct embryonic and adult stem-cell research. Still, the full implications for UIHC remain unclear, UI spokesman Stephen Pradarelli said.
Legal questions aside, the Editorial Board objects to halting stem-cell research. These cells offer promising medical advancements and could help scientists cure previously deadly diseases. The injunction is undoubtedly disheartening for those who stand to benefit from future breakthroughs.
And even if the deleterious effect of the decision isn't felt locally, research across the country will undoubtingly suffer.
President Obama lifted the existing stem-cell ban in March 2009, allowing scientists to conduct more extensive and better funded life-changing —and potentially lifesaving — work. Monday's expansive ruling doesn't merely reverse that executive order. It even bars researchers from acting in accordance with George W. Bush-era rules, according to the Associated Press. (Lambert had previously decided the case in favor of the government, noting that none of those in the opposition — interest groups, scientists, or embryos — were directly affected by the defendant's lifting of the ban; an appeals court later overturned his ruling.)
Advancements, especially in science, rarely come without cost. And this ethically thorny issue isn't an aberration.
Indeed, Obama was wrong in saying before signing the executive order last year that "in recent years, when it comes to stem-cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values."
While it may be more politically astute to argue otherwise, the moral issues inherent to embryonic stem-cell research are undeniable.
But what this research offers in exchange for the embryos lost is of huge benefit to both the populace and future cellular biologists and researchers. In seeking to stop embryonic stem-cell research, right-wingers are putting the lives of potential humans above the quality and quantity of life of millions already in existence.
Though certain organizations and individuals may feel this is too high a price to pay — not literally, but ethically, if one believes life begins at conception — sufferers of chronic genetic diseases and those stricken with cancer have put their hope in stem-cell research.
Without thorough testing and experimentation, however, scientists cannot make noteworthy advancements. Stymieing the flow of federal research dollars in this vital area slows medical progress and is a collective slap in the face to those who suffer from potentially curable diseases.
That's why Monday's decision is so disconcerting.
Congress should pass legislation in response to the ruling, obviating the need for a successful court challenge. It may not be an easy discussion or political fight to have. But paramount, life-and-death issues almost never are.
comments powered by Disqus
