Op Ed from The New York Times
August 12, 2001
Stem Cell Science and the Preservation of Life
By GEORGE W. BUSH
[George W. Bush is the 43rd president.]
CRAWFORD, Tex. -- Some of the hardest ethical decisions pit good against
good. In the case of stem cells, the promise of miracle cures is set against the
protection of developing life. The conflict has left Americans divided, even in
their own minds.
Stem cell research is still at an early, uncertain stage, but the hope it
offers is amazing: infinitely adaptable human cells to replace damaged or
defective tissue and treat a wide variety of diseases.
Yet the ethics of medicine are not infinitely adaptable. There is at least
one bright line: We do not end some lives for the medical benefit of others. For
me, this is a matter of conviction: a belief that life, including early life, is
biologically human, genetically distinct and valuable. But one need not be
pro-life to be disturbed by the prospect of fetal farming or cloning to provide
spare human parts. Most Americans share a belief that human life should not be
reduced to a tool or a means.
There are, however, two ways for the federal government to aggressively
promote stem cell research without inviting ethical abuses.
First, we can encourage research on stem cells removed from sources other
than embryos: adult cells, umbilical cords and human placentas. Many researchers
see great potential in these cells -- and they have already been used to develop
several new therapies.
Second, we can encourage research on embryonic stem cell lines that already
exist. These cells can reproduce themselves in the laboratory, perhaps
indefinitely. Stem cell lines at the University of Wisconsin have been producing
cells for over two years. More than 60 of these cell lines now exist around the
world. According to the National Institutes of Health, these lines are
genetically diverse and sufficient in number for the research ahead.
Therefore my administration has adopted the following policy: Federal funding
for research on existing stem cell lines will move forward; federal funding that
sanctions or encourages the destruction of additional embryos will not. While it
is unethical to end life in medical research, it is ethical to benefit from
research where life and death decisions have already been made.
There is a precedent. The only licensed live chickenpox vaccine used in the
United States was developed, in part, from cells derived from research involving
human embryos. Researchers first grew the virus in embryonic lung cells, which
were later cloned and grown in two previously existing cell lines. Many ethical
and religious leaders agree that even if the history of this vaccine raises
ethical questions, its current use does not.
Stem cell research takes place on a slippery slope of moral concern where
much biomedical research is and will be conducted. We must keep our ethical
footing. Government has a clear duty to promote scientific discovery -- and a
duty to define certain boundaries:
Under my policy, existing stem cell lines, to be used in publicly supported
research, must be derived (1) with the informed consent of donors, (2) from
excess embryos created solely for reproductive purposes and (3) without any
financial inducements to the donors.
I have directed the National Institutes of Health to establish a national
human embryonic stem cell registry. This will ensure that ethical research
standards are observed by all recipients of federal funding.
Soon I will appoint a Presidential Council on Bioethics, chaired by Dr. Leon
Kass, to advise my administration on moral and scientific questions raised by
biomedical research. My administration supports legislative efforts to prohibit
the cloning of human beings for any purpose, and also to prohibit the production
of human embryos solely to be destroyed in medical research.
As we enter the new territory of modern science, the choices will only grow
more difficult. The new technologies we create with their potential to cure
disease and relieve suffering -- may well define our age. But we will also be
defined by the care and sense of self-restraint and responsibility with which we
took up these new powers.
Power -- even technological power -- is always judged by its ends and its
means. Seeking noble ends by any means is unacceptable when life itself is in
Biomedical progress should be welcomed, promoted and funded -- yet it can and
must be humanized. Caution is demanded, because second thoughts will come too
late. As we work to extend our lives, we must do so in ways that preserve our
Text of President Bush’s Stem Cell Speech