Controversial stem cell research is legal, court rules
The federal government may continue to pay for controversial human embryonic stem cell research, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
The three-judge panel says the government has correctly interpreted a law that bans the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos for research. The ruling is unlikely to put the issue to rest and one of the judges pleaded for Congress to make clear what the government should and should not be able to do.
The hard-to-understand case pits science against mostly religious arguments against using embryos in medical research. It's even more confusing because there are so many different types of cells called stem cells.
Supporters of the research said they were thrilled. “This ensures that America’s best scientists can continue to move this work forward despite ideologically driven attempts to derail it,” said Amy Rick, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research.
As one of his first acts after he entered office, President Barack Obama issued an executive order reversing this and encouraging the National Institutes of Health to pay for embryonic stem-cell research, so long as federal money wasn’t used to directly make the stem cells. To get the cells, someone in a private lab using private money has to take apart the embryos – usually left over from fertility clinics and destined for the trash can. Federal funds may be used to work with the cells that private labs make available.
The judges are likely correct as to the letter of the law, but there is not a single doubt that such practices violate the spirit of the law. That's OK - we can thank those who exposed the "loophole" that exists in the law so that it may be closed by the next Congress.
Who hates science? Many simply believe that advancing it shouldn't involve the destruction of human life. So many, in fact, that Congress passed a law which prohibited that from being done. A law which some enterprising person found a manner in which to circumvent the intention of the law. Like I said, it's OK that the loophole has been found - that simply points out what language needs to be altered in the law so that the intent of the law is followed.
