Federal Government Policies

SINCE THE ISOLATION of human embryonic stem cells by Dr. James Thomson in 1998, the federal government of the United States has struggled to create a standard human stem cell research policy. Much of the stem cell research debate is influenced by the competing moral and ethical arguments that continue to shape U.S. governmental policy in this scientific arena. Federal stem cell policy has wide implications and is not just limited to the stem cell research field. Much of the debate regarding stem cell research addresses the status of human embryos that are used in research.

With the advent of in vitro fertilization techniques and their growing use during the 1980s, the federal government became concerned with developing regulations for biotechnologies that use human embryos or embryonic tissue. Significant ethical and moral concerns arose over the potential for abuse of newly developed biotechnologies, and rising concern among many religious groups over the potential for fertilized embryos, viewed by many as sacred human lives, to be discarded and other ethical concerns led the federal government to consider and ultimately adopt comprehensive legislation. This legislation effectively banned federal funding of research conducted on human embryos. The Dickey Amendment, passed by Congress in 1995 and signed by President William Clinton in 1996, expressly forbade all federal funding for the creation of human embryos for the purpose of research or for any research that would result in the destruction of a human embryo. Since its passage, the amendment has been included in all of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Labor and the Department of Education appropriations, ensuring that the Dickey policy remains law.

The isolation of human embryonic stem cells in 1998 by Thomson represented an enormous new concern in the bioethics debate that was already raging. Politicians and government agencies struggled to create a uniform policy that adequately addressed issues raised by a concerned public. Because of the relative youth of the stem cell field, uniformity in scientific information was often not readily available or presented to the public.

Many of the original concerns discussed in regulating novel technologies such as in vitro fertilization surfaced again in the federal stem cell policy debate. Many conservative religious groups [Page 202]strongly argued that federal support of embryonic stem cell research would result in the destruction of many more human embryos and decrease the value of human life. Other groups also renewed concerns over the possible abuse of embryo manipulating technologies. It is important to note that many of these groups did not object to research conducted on adult human stem cells.

In contrast, many scientific groups argued that broad federal support for this relatively young field was necessary. Scientific groups touted the potential of stem cell research to yield potential cures to intractable illnesses, which warranted thorough consideration by the public. Many scientific and some business groups also argued that stringent regulation of stem cell research could stifle the field and damage the ability of the United States to maintain a leading role in a promising new scientific area.

...