Today, Senators are expected to consider legislation that would authorize federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The House has already approved the measure, so Senate endorsement will send the bill directly to the President’s desk. Bush has stated that he will use his first veto to overturn the measure.

Now, I really must interrupt this column for just a moment to say: Finally! A veto! Better late than never, Mr. President. But we would all appreciate it if you did not wait quite so long for the next one. There are plenty of inflated budgets out there that deserve to be kicked right back to Congress. And we would love to watch you veto some of the massive expansions of the federal bureaucracy that seem to be repeatedly occurring on your watch.

But I digress.

The President is one of the few federal officials who has not been taken in by the gross exaggerations of the pro-embryonic stem cell research lobby. Most congressmen have fallen, hook, line and sinker, for an emotionally appealing, if flawed, line of argument.

Supporters of the legislation like to draw attention to the fact that research is being performed "only" on embryos that are "leftover" from fertilization treatments. These embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, proponents point out. How much better to use them for the good of the scientific community. Conveniently ignored, as The Weekly Standard recently reported, is the fact that these leftover embryos are of limited value to researchers because scientists can’t control relevant genetic variables in the cells.

Do you hear the approaching drumbeat for expanding the types of embryos that can be created and destroyed in laboratories? If you don’t, then maybe you should get your hearing checked.

Proponents also like to repeat the never-ending refrain that embryonic stem cell research provides a golden road to a cure for all sorts of diseases. No federal official in his right mind would vote against a cure for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s or paralysis.

Now, I am not a scientist, and I won’t pretend to be one. But any lay person can see at least two glaring reasons to entertain a healthy dose of skepticism about the claims of the science lobby.

First, we must remember that the arguments on Capitol Hill are purely about who will fund this research. Lobbyists want federal funding, but private funding has always been an option for anyone who believes in the medical value of embryonic stem cells. If this research is all that it is cracked up to be, then why have private investors been slow to invest significant amounts of money in it?

My guess is that the research is not quite as full of promise as lobbyists like to say. If it were less risky, some willing entrepreneur would have stepped up to the plate by now and would be seeking to monopolize the market. Alternatively, perhaps private funding has been limited because other, more easily financed routes (such as stem cells from adults or human umbilical cord-blood), hold just as much potential for cures.

Taxpayer funds should not be used for morally dubious research of questionable value, particularly when other paths to the same objective exist.

But let’s say, for argument’s sake, that embryonic stem cell research is more promising than these indicators might suggest. In fact, let’s say that it is guaranteed to bring about cures to these horrific diseases. Federal funding should still be denied.

A regrettable mindset has gripped our society in recent decades. This worldview allows us to devalue one type of human life in order to promote the comfort of other, more powerful human lives. Abortion at the whim of a mother is the most obvious example of this philosophy.

We should be seeking to reverse course—or at least to hold the line—on this type of attitude. We should not be seeking all-new ways in which we can discriminate, at will, against a form of human life that we have deemed "less important" than our own. To do so is merely to fall a little further down a dangerous and slippery slope.

If we can destroy a 5-day old embryo to obtain stem cells, then why can we not perform research on an embryo that is 10-days old? Or 20-days old? Heck, if we can legally abort babies until they are 12-weeks old, then what is to stop us from making lab rats out of those little beings, even though they already have heartbeats, brain function, and little fingers and toes? Once early human life has been devalued to this degree, what is to stop society from turning on life in its other frail or disabled forms?

If we start down this slope, there is no logical stopping point. It merely becomes a battle of the strong against the weak.

President Bush’s veto of embryonic stem cell funding likely won’t be popular with those who have fallen for the emotional appeal made by science lobbyists. But this columnist, for one, will be proud of him for ignoring opinion polls and protecting the weakest among us.

Comments (0)

Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment