Washington Week: Student Voices (O)

Column: A moral argument for stem cell research
By Carolyn Pippen
Vanderbilt Hustler, Vanderbilt
March 15, 2009

Last week, President Obama signed an executive order overturning a Bush-era restriction on the federal funding of stem cell research. As the easiest way to gain public favor these days is to sign anything that includes the terms “Bush-era” and “overturn,” the decision was quickly and eagerly applauded by our nation’s liberal base, as well as by the Hustler. While I agree that the decision shows a promising amount of proactivity on the part of our new leader and opens doors to significant scientific advancement, it is important that we take the time to completely dissect this issue before jumping to dramatic conclusions.

First of all, scientists have not been living in a “dark period” over the last eight years. Bush’s 2001 policy did not stop research using adult stem cells, and it did not stop the use of the 60 pre-existing lines of embryonic stem cells; it simply denied federal funding to the development of new lines. In other words, it temporarily removed the governmental stamp of approval from the expansion of that particular subset of research to which a large portion of our country has strong moral objections.

Oh, crap. I wasn’t supposed to use that word. Moral. According to Aimee Sobhani’s editorial, the government should not hold the right to ban things on the grounds that they are inherently “immoral.” You know, things like theft and murder. The fact is that the vast majority of our nation’s legal policies have grounds in human morality, which is why anytime I see the word “immoral” in quotes like that, I get nervous. The ability of our nation’s citizens to determine right from wrong makes up the very foundation of our democracy, and that power cannot and should not be invalidated.

For the record, the destruction of human embryos, and thereby the destruction of human life, is not an “extreme” form of the pro-life movement, it’s pretty much right smack in the center of it. As Sobhani pointed out, however, even some of us stubborn, ignorant “anti-abortion people” understand the complexities of such a debate. Personally, I agree that the cost of an embryo that will most likely go unused in exchange for invaluable scientific discovery is an admissible one, but it wasn’t an easy decision to make, and quite frankly I’m tired of people acting like I just showed up late to the party where everyone else was smart enough to get to first.

The expansion of stem cell research is not a black and white issue, and the reason I know this is because Obama promised his decision would not lead to human cloning, a process Sobhani deemed “obviously immoral.” Laying aside the sheer hypocrisy of that statement, this consensus tells me that all of us have a sort of moral breaking point at which we decide the costs have outweighed the benefits, and the inherent respect for human life wins out. This point comes at different times for everyone, and we will most likely never all agree, which is why I thank God for the two-party system in moments like this.

Disagreement is good, it means we’re asking the hard questions, and changing policies is even better; it means we will never move too far too fast in one direction. Was I excited when I saw that Obama had finally reopened the gates to new and unprecedented medical advancements? Of course. But my excitement was cautious, and yours should be too.

[ Back to Student Voices ]