Standing Up for Stem Cell Research

NYT Editorial

The Senate is poised to vote today on a bill that would greatly expand the number of embryonic stem cell lines that can be used in federally financed medical research. This is actually an extremely modest proposal that would allow the new stem cell lines to be derived only from surplus embryos otherwise slated for destruction at fertility clinics. Passage of this bill, which has already been approved by the House, is the very least the Senate should do to spur advancement of one of the most promising fields of biomedical research. A two-thirds majority of each house will be needed to overcome a likely veto from President Bush.

Under current administration policy, scientists can use federal money for research only on some 22 stem cell lines that already existed when President Bush announced his policy in August 2001. Those lines were extracted from microscopic embryos, no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence, that were inevitably destroyed in the process. Mr. Bush was willing to accept that fait accompli in the interest of advancing science but said he did not want to encourage any further destruction of embryos by financing research on additional lines.

That stance has increasingly hobbled embryonic stem cell research because many of the existing lines are deteriorating, contaminated or suffer from technical problems that limit their usefulness. The new proposal would make thousands of surplus embryos from fertility clinics available for federally funded research, a change that would be welcomed by most Americans but is opposed by a minority of religious conservatives.

Our concern with the bill is how limited its reach would be. It would not allow federal financing of the most promising field of research, known as therapeutic or research cloning. Therapeutic cloning involves the creation of embryos genetically matched to patients with specific diseases so that scientists can extract their stem cells and then study how the diseases develop and how best to treat them. The microscopic entities used in these studies may be called embryos but they have none of the attributes of humanity and, sitting outside the womb, no chance of developing into babies. It is no more immoral to create and destroy embryos for therapeutic purposes than to create and destroy surplus embryos for fertility purposes.

But for now the best hope lies with passage of the bill merely allowing use of surplus fertility clinic embryos. If it passes in the Senate, it seems almost certain to draw a veto from Mr. Bush, his first in six years in office. Then it will be up to the House and the Senate to summon the will to override the veto. If they fail to push through this very limited change in federal policy, voters will need to hold all recalcitrant legislators accountable for slowing research that holds great medical potential.