Embryonic stem cell research has long invited criticism and controversy. There are questions that surround the ethics as well as the effectiveness of the procedures. These uncertainties led to President Bush’s August 9th, 2001 embryonic stem cell research guidelines. These criteria include:

• The derivation process (which begins with the destruction of the embryo) was initiated prior to 9:00 p.m. EDT on August 9, 2001.

• The stem cells must have been derived from an embryo that was created for reproductive purposes and was no longer needed.

• Informed consent must have been obtained for the donation of the embryo, and that donation must not have involved financial inducements.

Bush’s plan is effective because it limits the destruction of embryos without ruling stem cell research illegal. Scientific purposes are still served without further infringing on the sanctity of human life.

There are three different types of stem cells that can be used for scientific research. These are adult stem cells obtained from bone marrow in the hip, child stem cells obtained from the pulp behind baby teeth and umbilical cord blood stem cells. It has not been proven that adult stem cells are any less effective than embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are thought to be pluripotent, meaning that they can replicate any type of cell in the body instead of just replicating the cells which they came from. This has not been proven, however; it is merely assumed due to the pluripotency of rat embryonic stem cells. At this point, research has not proved that embryonic stem cells lead to more significant results than adult stem cells in the study, prevention or treatment of disease.

One of the primary concerns regarding embryonic stem cell research is that of funding. Bush’s plan also allows for privately funded embryonic stem cell research. He only stipulated that government funding cannot be used for embryonic stem cell research, and it should not be. Why should the taxes of embryonic stem cell research opponents be used to fund it? Unlike abortions, which are paid by medical insurance, and not the taxes of the American public, embryonic stem cell research would be funded by government money that comes from taxes. You would think that the allowance of privately funded research would be acceptable, yet it does not appear to be enough. Some argue that private companies will not conduct the research because it is not immediately profitable. Perhaps privately funded companies don’t conduct significant embryonic stem cell research because they know it will not yield significant results.

Despite Bush’s concession to not regulate private companies, some argue that private companies do not have the same motivations of public health and medical breakthroughs that federal scientists have, and so would not devote the time, money and energy needed to make the research profitable. If this is the case, maybe they’re on to something. Why is it necessary to use embryonic stem cells when there are other, more available and less controversial forms that can be used?

Regardless of funding issues, types of stem cells or how they’re obtained and grown, the bottom line is that embryonic stem cell research kills a human life. For those who are pro-life and believe that life begins at conception, embryonic stem cell research is equivalent to murder. The embryo will become a baby, who should not be destroyed purely for scientific research or for any other reason. Embryonic stem cell research leads to the devaluation of human life. Where do we draw the line? If we allow stem cell research on left over zygotes that are a byproduct of in vitro fertilization, what is to prevent scientists to begin growing their own stem cells, or starting to harvest eggs merely for the purpose of creating research zygotes? How many little lives will be created and destroyed in the name of science?

The number of conservatives who believe that embryonic stem cell research is equivalent to abortion is higher than others would have you believe. Most hold that embryonic research, and the harvesting of zygotes for scientific research is morally reprehensible. However, there is a small minority who oppose embryonic stem cell research on any terms. Many conservatives are on board with President Bush’s plan that allows for regulated, limited government funded, embryonic stem cell research. As far as privately funded and conducted embryonic stem cell research, the majority that Ben mentions does not oppose this, since their own money is not being used to fund it. Yet it is important to remember that a concession is not the same as support.

In summary, embryonic stem cell research is not only unnecessary, unproven and unacceptable, it is also morally depraved. While many scientists believe that embryonic stem cell research could lead to new breakthroughs in disease prevention and control, this is unproven. If privately funded companies would like to explore these possibilities, go ahead. But the government has no right to use federal tax dollars to support a morally questionable practice. Instead, the government should focus on other types of stem cells which can be obtained from consenting adults, without risking anyone’s life. Perhaps if they focused more on these areas, adult stem cells would lead to the same life-saving results as those found in embryonic rat stem cells. Despite Bush’s sometimes questionable administration, the veto on embryonic stem cell research is not only necessary, but also generous. Bush has not outlawed embryonic research, only federally funded research. Despite the possible — yet unproven — benefits of embryonic stem cell research, the destruction of a human life is deplorable. Allowing the destruction of fertilized embryos, embryos which could have been children, even for scientific purposes, is morally and ethically unacceptable.

Hannah Stearns is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at hes32@cornell.edu. Paint the Town Red appears alternate Mondays.