Religion & Law

Last week I speculated that the desire to permit cloning was behind the push to lift the ban on embryonic stem cell research.  This morning the New York Times endorsed cloning without ever using the word:

President Obama seems open to the possibility of moving beyond the surplus embryos. His announcement placed few boundaries on stem cell research beyond requiring it to be scientifically worthy, responsibly conducted and compliant with the law.

He gave the National Institutes of Health free rein to devise guidelines governing what kinds of research can be supported and what ethical strictures will be placed on it.

Let us hope that the N.I.H. broadens the range of stem cells that can be studied.

Scientists believe that one way to obtain the matched cells needed to study diseases is to use a cell from an adult afflicted with that disease to create a genetically matched embryo and extract its stem cells. This approach ? known as somatic cell nuclear transfer ? is difficult, and no one has yet done it.

Another approach ? known as induced pluripotent stem cells ? has shown that adult skin cells can be converted back to a state resembling embryonic stem cells without ever creating or destroying an embryo. Some experts think that approach may be the most promising, for moral and practical reasons.

Even so, work on genetically matched embryonic stem cells would still be important. They may be the best way to study the earliest stages of a disease, or prove superior for other purposes. They will almost certainly be needed as a standard to judge the value of the induced pluripotent cells.

When the N.I.H. sets the rules for federally financed research, the main criterion should be whether a proposal has high scientific merit.

Ryan Anderson comments here.